Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06022020 -CALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR, 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, VICE CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT DIANE BURGIS, 3RD DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF , 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, 5TH DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES June 2, 2020            9:30 A.M. Convene, call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "Nothing is permanent in this world, not even our troubles." ~Charlie Chaplin Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator Sharon Anderson, County Counsel CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.37 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no items removed for discussion.   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    Denise Pursche, Contra Costa resident.   D.3 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2020-12, to regulate the short-term rental of residential dwelling units in the unincorporated area for periods of 30 consecutive days or less, as recommended by the County Planning Commission. (John Kopchik, Conservation and Development Director)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.4 CONSIDER update on COVID 19; and PROVIDE direction to staff. Health Department - Anna Roth, Director and Dr. Farnitano, Health Officer1.       Speakers: Pete Connell, Marie, Stacy, Denise Persha. Anna Roth, Health Services Director, informed the Board that today would be the launch of the dashboard for long-term care facilities on the cchealth.org website. Information included will the be the number of hospitalization and deaths. Work is ongoing with the Public Information Officer to increase outreach in regard to testing. Health Services would like to convey that testing capacity is available and the department wants all people to get tested. All the county testing sites are open June 3 rd and 4th. County site will be closing at 12:30 p.m. because of the extreme heat advisory – sites are outdoors and testing staff is wearing full PPE. Alternative sites indoors are available and the public is urged to call so they can be redirected to them. The hospitals have submitted their attestations in regard to PPE availability to the state. Work in regard to testing and tracing continues to ramp up. The county is moving to the less invasive test for a better experience for people, and hopes to move to self-testing soon. Staff is preparing a comprehensive guide for testing strategy around who should get tested when. The guidelines will cover those working in a high risk environment, essential workers, congregate living situations, and the general public. There will be specific guidelines for an outbreak scenario. Dr. Farnitano reported that the county is see approximately 20 new cases a day and about 13 patients in the hospital per day. He noted that many of the west county residents received care in Alameda County hospitals and would be included in that county’s numbers. A spot survey revealed about a dozen Contra Costa residents in an Alameda hospital. The County is doing about 63 tests per 100,000 people at this time, with a goal of 220 per 100,000, with emphasis on testing those people who are exposed the most. It is believed the highest risk for transmission of the virus is 24 hours before symptoms develop. Dr. Farnitano recommended that people with high exposure be tested frequently. To that end a health order was issued last week requiring testing on a monthly basis of all the personnel that work in skilled nursing facilities and our 60 largest assisted living facilities for the elderly. He noted that the efforts taken by the community have slowed the spread and saved many lives. The number of deaths in the county stands at 38, below the national average. Contra Costa County has an older population on average and is densely populated. Following a letter sent to our largest lab we now have compliance with the electronic reporting of negative tests. We are attempting to receive demographic data also, such as race and ethnicity. This is a challenge because we are working with 100 or more laboratories. Many of the labs are receiving samples from hundreds of locations and are relying on the source to provide the demographic data. Case identification and contact tracing is scaling up. Contra Costa is on the statewide system and receiving improved data on where cases are occurring. As expected there are higher numbers in groups of essential workers and some clusters occurring among families. PPE metrics are improving. Six of our eight hospitals have now attested they have or can get a 30 day supply. There are still many requests for PPE from nursing homes, elder care facilities, medical offices and so on. The international supply chain for PPE has not yet been fully restored but progress is good. Today’s new health order will be effective tomorrow, June 3, 2020. Child care and camps will be open to all. All indoor retail will be opening up, including malls, shopping centers and swap meets. Indoor shopping centers will be required to have a mitigation plan to prevent the congregating of people. Also opening will be things that don’t generally require close customer contact including but not limited to car washes, pet groomers, dog walking and housekeeping. Office spaces are opening though people are still encouraged to work from home if possible. Adiitionally, outdoor museums and exhibit spaces, libraries, drive-in theaters. Using the concept of a social bubble, we are opening up social activities outside the household. Similar to child care situations where it is limited to stable groups of 12, small social gatherings of family and friends. Examples could be a cub scout den, or a sports team that practices together but doesn’t interact with other teams at this time – limited to being outdoors. Research is showing a much lower risk of transmission during outdoor activities. A stable group of 12 is recommended: family and friends or a social group. Persons over 12 years of age are encouraged to continue to wear facial coverings and social distance, though it will not be mandated. Starting June 15 places of worship will be allowed to hold religious ceremonies and services in person, outdoors. The County is asking them to wait a few more weeks for indoor gatherings, with a detailed and thorough plan in place to prevent spread, in light of the many tragic outbreaks in religious gatherings across the state. Small ceremonies of up to 12 people practicing social distancing are permissible indoors. Outdoor gatherings should be limited to a maximum of 100 people. The County is seeking clarification from the state on allowing such things as opening swimming pools without a variance. Residents should remember the four key principles of facial coverings, social distancing, hand washing and staying home if they are ill. This will allow for the reopening of our society without seeing large surges in cases. He expressed concern that other California counties are seeing an increase in the illness and noted that while this county is doing well, we are not an island and are still at risk. The department is working on a comprehensive guideline for reopenings that will soon be available on the cchealth.org website.   D. 5 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    All of the Supervisors expressed their sadness at the loss of the life of George Floyd and David Patrick Underwood and extend condolences to their families. They wholeheartedly support greater racial justice and will continue to support the Contra Costa Racial Justice Task Force. They were dismayed by the looting and property damage and did recognize that much of those activities were perpetrated by groups not a part of the Black Lives Matter movement.   Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) 1. Agency Negotiators: David Twa and Richard Bolanos. Employee Organizations: Public Employees Union, Local 1; AFSCME Locals 512 and 2700; California Nurses Assn.; SEIU Locals 1021 and 2015; District Attorney Investigators’ Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters I.A.F.F., Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; Prof. & Tech. Engineers IFPTE, Local 21; and Teamsters Local 856. 2. Agency Negotiators: David Twa. Unrepresented Employees: All unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) Christopher Caldwell v. Contra Costa County, WCAB No. ADJ112072141. C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: 2101 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Agency Negotiator: Jessica Dillingham, Principal Real Property Agent, and Timothy Ewell, Chief Assistant County Administrator Negotiating parties: County of Contra Costa and OKC of Pittsburg LLC Under negotiation: Price and Payment Terms D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: County Administrator    There were no closed session announcements.   ADJOURN    Adjourned in memory of George Floyd of Minnesota Adjourned in memory of Dave Patrick Underwood, Federal Protection Services officer Adjourned today's meeting at 12:50 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/147 approving the submission of a claim to the Metropolitan Transportation    C. 1 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/147 approving the submission of a claim to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to seek Fiscal Year 2020/2021 Transportation Development Act funding in the amount of $557,700 for bicycle and pedestrian projects sponsored by the County and the cities of Danville, Hercules, Lafayette, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, and San Ramon, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (100% Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract with American Pavement Systems, Inc. in the amount of $3,264,235 for the 2020 Surface Treatment Project, Alamo, El Sobrante, and North Richmond areas. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 3 ADOPT the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and the 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan on behalf of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Countywide. (100% Flood Control District Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 4 ADOPT the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and the 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan on behalf of Contra Costa County, Countywide. (100% Flood Control District Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 5 DENY claims filed by Kathleen Killips, Melvin Lim, Tiyani Demetri Bryant McAlveen, Ivan Nino, Phynist Pearl, Rebecca Wagner, Gena Wilson, Lynette Wilson, Caleb Owens, AO a minor, and GO a minor.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 6 APPROVE the medical staff appointments and reappointments, additional privileges, advancements, and voluntary resignations as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, at their May 18, 2020 meeting, and by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 7 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25591 to reassign one Clerk-Experienced Level (represented) position and the incumbent from Workforce Services to the Administrative Services Bureau's Personnel Unit in the Employment and Human Services Department. (44% Federal, 51% State, 5% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 8 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25607 to increase the hours of one Licensed Vocational Nurse (represented) and one Registered Nurse (Represented) positions in the Health Services Department. (100% Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 9 ACKNOWLEDGE Resolution No. 2008/299, authorizing the Human Resources Department to implement the Tactical Employment Team Program, and AUTHORIZE the Human Resources Department to activate the program to mitigate possible layoff impacts due to financial impacts of COVID-19, as authorized by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 10 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Food and Agriculture effective July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 to increase the payment limit by $25,151 to a new payment limit of $813,569, to pay County to provide pest detection trapping services and Peach Fruit Fly delimitation trapping. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 12 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the City of Martinez to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, including a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021. (No County Match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 13 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Cooperative Implementation Agreement, including County indemnification, with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Caltrans to reimburse the County in an amount not to exceed $3,945,000 for the County's design and construction of three large full trash capture devices in unincorporated San Pablo for the period of June 2, 2020 to May 1, 2023. (100% Caltrans)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to submit an application to the    C. 14 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to submit an application to the California Board of State and Community Corrections – Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for implementation and expansion of substance use disorders treatment for youth to address the impact of marijuana legalization for the period October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 15 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the City of Concord, to increase the amount payable to the County by $25,000 to a new amount not to exceed $51,000 to provide additional homeless outreach services to residents in Concord for the Coordinated Outreach, Referral and Engagement Program with no change in the term July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the State's California Arts Council, to provide sub-grants to arts organizations serving vulnerable populations during COVID-19 for the period June 30, 2020 through December 31, 2020. (100% State, No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 17 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with C & J Painting, effective April 30, 2020, to extend the term from April 30, 2020 to April 30, 2021, with no change to the payment limit of $3,000,000, to provide on-call painting services for Facilities Services, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 18 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aspiranet, to extend the term from June 30, 2020 to December 31, 2020 with no change to the payment limit, to continue to provide emergency shelter receiving center services for children taken into protective custody or transitioning through foster placement. (70% State, 30% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with The Ratcliff Architects, effective June 2, 2020, to increase the payment limit by $750,000 to a new payment limit of $1,500,000 and to extend the term from July 10, 2021 to July 10, 2022, to provide as-needed architectural services for various facilities countywide. (100% Various Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with A Step Forward Child Abuse Treatment and Training Programs, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 to provide mental health services to non Medi-Cal eligible clients for the period August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2022. (30% County, 70% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Doctors, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000 to provide Medi-Cal specialty mental health services for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022. (50% Federal Medi-Cal; 50% State Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aspiranet to increase the payment limit by $90,900 to a new payment limit of $1,397,020, to add fifteen Early Head Start Partnership slots and additional health and safety reporting requirements pertaining for the term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. (65% Federal, 35% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 23 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Gupta Etwaru, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $1,445,000 to provide ophthalmology services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 24 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Thomas McDonald, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $1,445,000 to provide ophthalmology services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Place For Youth in an amount not to exceed $634,392 to provide transitional housing assistance for emancipated youth for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Phamatech, Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $316,260 for child welfare mandated drug testing services, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (70% State, 30% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mental Health Management I, Inc. (dba Canyon Manor), in an amount not to exceed $247,069 to provide mental health subacute care and treatment services for adults for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Mental Health Realignment funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 AUTHORIZE and RATIFY the execution of contracts by the County Administrator, or designee, in an aggregate amount of $700,000 plus certain variable costs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency declaration. (100% General Fund)         AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Language Line Services, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $50,000 to a new limit of $1,050,000 for interpretation and translation services for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. (10% County, 48% State, 42% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 30 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contracts with the following agencies for County's placement of participants in the Sheriff's Custody Work Release Program for the term July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022: City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Clayton, City of Concord, Town of Danville, East Bay Regional Park District, City of Hercules, Town of Moraga, City of Pittsburg, City of San Pablo and Contra Costa County Public Works Department. (Non-financial agreements)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to enter into agreements with employers participating in the Contra Costa Works Subsidized Employment Program not to exceed a cumulative payment limit $857,533 to reimburse employees up to $20 per hour for targeted CalWORKs clients placed with employers during the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (92% Federal, 8% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to enter into agreements with employers participating in the Expanded Contra Costa Works Subsidized Employment Program not to exceed a cumulative payment limit of $960,666 to reimburse employees upt to $20 per hour for targeted CalWORKs clients placed with employers during the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (92% Federal, 8% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 APPROVE an amendment to the FY 2019/20 CDBG/ESG Action Plan to add and allocate Community Development Block Grant-Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) and Emergency Solutions Grant-Coronavirus (ESG-CV) funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Federal funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the Certification Statement for the California Children’s Services Program and the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program as required by the State of California, as recommended by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on April 23, 2020, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 36 ACCEPT Annual Report on Council on Homelessness Advisory Board itemizing the advisory body’s activities and accomplishments for 2019. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/149 calling and noticing election of Retirement Board Member 7 Alternate seat (safety members of the Association ), as recommended by the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association Board.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, First Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, Room 106. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Applications for personal subscriptions to the weekly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The weekly agenda may also be viewed on the County’s Internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets quarterly on the second Wednesday of the month at 11:00 a.m. at the Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Candace Andersen) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the first Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the first Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Sustainability Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Airports Committee August 12, 2020 11:00 a.m.See above Family & Human Services Committee June 22, 2020 9:00 a.m.See above Finance Committee July 6, 2020 9:00 a.m.See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee September 14, 2020 10:30 a.m.See above Internal Operations Committee June 8, 2020 Canceled July 13, 2020 10:30 a.m.See above Legislation Committee June 8, 2020 1:00 p.m.See above Public Protection Committee June 22, 2020 10:30 a.m.See above Sustainability Committee July 27, 2020 1:00 p.m.See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee June 8, 2020 9:00 a.m.See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. RECEIVE testimony; CLOSE the public hearing. 2. DETERMINE that adoption of Ordinance No. 2020-12 to regulate short-term rentals is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3) (common sense exemption). 3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2020-12. 4. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of preparing an ordinance to regulate and permit short-term rental activities was paid for by the Department of Conservation and Development (Land Development Fund). The collection of permits fees is expected to offset most costs of implementing the ordinance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-674-7801 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2020-12, to regulate short-term rental uses in the unincorporated area. BACKGROUND: On March 10, 2020, the Board of Supervisors opened the hearing to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2020-12, to regulate short-term rentals of residential dwelling units in the unincorporated area for periods of 30 consecutive days or less. After a presentation by staff and public comment, the Board directed staff to revise the proposed ordinance to allow a hosted short-term rental to be rented for up to 180 days in a calendar year. The attached proposed Ordinance No. 2020-12 includes the following revisions: Definitions for "host", "primary residence", "hosted" and "non-hosted" short-term rentals.1. Requirements for documentation related to hosts.2. A revised rental regulation regarding the number of days a short-term rental may be rented in a calendar year under a short term rental permit that is approved ministerially, is 90 days for Non-Hosted and 180 days for Hosted. The maximum number of days a short-term rental may be rented in a calendar year under a short term rental permit that is approved ministerially is 180 days. 3. A revision clarifying that an accessory dwelling unit may not be operated as a short-term rental. This is consistent with the County’s ADU Ordinance adopted January 21, 2020. 4. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE With the revisions listed above, proposed Ordinance No. 2020-12 includes the following: Permit Requirement A short-term rental (STR) may only be operated after issuance of a STR permit. Upon issuance of a STR permit, all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property will be noticed and provided contact information for the responsible party associated with the permit and the County’s Code Enforcement Division. Short-Term Rental Regulations A short-term rental that will comply with the following regulations will be approved ministerially. A non-hosted short-term rental may not be rented for more than 90 days in any calendar year. A hosted short-term rental may not be rented for more than 180 days in a calendar year. The maximum number of days a short-term rental may be rented in a calendar year is 180 days. 1. No more than one short-term rental may be operated on any lot.2. A residential dwelling unit located within a building that contains five or more dwelling units may not be operated as a short-term rental. 3. Overnight guest occupancy may not exceed two persons per bedroom, plus two additional persons. Children under the age of 12 are not counted towards the total number of guests. 4. Short-term rentals with three or fewer bedrooms must include at least one off-street parking space available for use by guests. Short-term rentals with four or more bedrooms must include at least two off-street parking spaces available for guests. 5. Operational Standards All short-term rentals must also comply with the following operational standards. Excessive traffic inconsistent with residential use is prohibited.1. Excessive noise inconsistent with residential use is prohibited.2. Obstruction of any road is prohibited.3. No more than 20 total persons shall gather at a short-term rental.4. An accessory dwelling unit may not be operated as a short-term rental.5. No special events are allowed (conference, weddings, or any commercial event).6. No signage is allowed.7. Discretionary Short-Term Rental Permit An applicant may apply for a discretionary STR permit to deviate from the short-term rental regulations, e.g., to exceed the maximum number of rental days per year, to provide a reduced amount of off-street parking, or to allow a greater number of guests per rental stay. A discretionary STR permit will be processed in the same manner as a land use permit, including a noticed public hearing if requested. No deviations to the Operational Standards will be allowed with either a ministerial or discretionary STR permit. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The short-term rental of residential dwelling units in the unincorporated County will remain illegal. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2020-12 Short-Term Rental MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2020-12 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 SHORT-TERM RENTALS The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 88-32 to the County Ordinance Code to regulate the renting of residences for periods of 30 consecutive days or less. SECTION II. Chapter 88-32 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Chapter 88-32 SHORT-TERM RENTALS Article 88-32.2 General 88-32.202 Title. This chapter is known as the Short-term Rental Ordinance of Contra Costa County. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.204 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to regulate the renting of residential dwelling units for periods of 30 consecutive days or less; to establish a procedure for reviewing and approving short-term rental permit applications; and to establish location, parking, occupancy, and other standards for short-term rentals to limit the impact on neighbors. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.206 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (a)“Accessory dwelling unit” has the same meaning as in Section 82-24.004. (b)“Host” means a person who occupies as his or her primary residence a residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a short-term rental. (c)“Hosted” means that a host has a physical presence at his or her primary residence located on the same lot as a short-term rental during the entire period that the short-term rental is rented. (d)“Non-hosted” means that a host is absent from his or her primary residence located on the same lot as a short-term rental during some or all of the period that the short-term renal is rented. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 1 (e)“Primary residence” means a residential dwelling unit that a person physically occupies and lives in on a day-to-day basis. A person can only have one primary residence. (f)“Residential dwelling unit” means a building, or a portion thereof, designed for residential occupation by one persons or a group of two or more persons living together as a domestic unit. (g)“Responsible party” means a person that is designated by the applicant as a point of contact for the short-term rental. (h)“Short-term rental” means a residential dwelling unit, or a portion of a residential dwelling unit, that is rented, or offered for rent, for compensation or consideration, for a period of 30 consecutive days or less. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). Article 88-32.4 Permits 88-32.402 Permit–required. No person shall establish or operate a short-term rental in the unincorporated area of the County without first obtaining a permit as provided in this chapter. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.404 Location. (a)A short-term rental may be operated on any lot in a single-family residential district (R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100), planned unit district (P-1) for residential uses, water recreational district (F-1), or a multiple-family residential district (M-6, M-9, M-12, M-17, and M-29). (b)A short-term rental may be operated on any lot in an agricultural district (A-2, A-3, A-4, A-20, A-40, and A-80), except that a short-term rental may not be operated on a lot under a Williamson Act contract. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.406 Application. (a)An owner, lessee, or holder of a similar interest in a residential dwelling unit may apply for a short-term rental permit by filing an application with the department. The application must be on a form approved by the director and contain all of the following information. (1)The name(s), address(es), and contact information of the applicant(s) and property owner(s). ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 2 (2)The name(s), address(es), contact information, and primary residence documentation of the host(s) if the short-term rental will be hosted for any period. The host’s primary residence must be documented by at least two of the following: motor vehicle registration, driver’s license, California state identification card, voter registration, income tax return, property tax bill, or a utility bill. (3)The address and assessor’s parcel number for the lot. (4)A legible site plan of the lot, showing: (A)All structures located on the lot and indicating the residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental; and (B)The location of the parking spaces required by this chapter. (5)A legible floor plan of the residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental. (6)The property owner’s consent to the short-term rental of the residential dwelling unit. (7)A statement that the short-term rental of the residential dwelling unit is not prohibited by a restrictive covenant. (8)The name and contact information of the responsible party associated with the short-term rental. The responsible party must be 18 years of age or older, reside within a 30-mile radius of the short-term rental, and be available by telephone for the duration of any rental period to respond to complaints regarding activity at the short-term rental. (9)The applicant’s agreement to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, its boards, commissions, officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, costs, losses, actions, fees, liabilities, expenses, and damages arising from or related to the applicant's application for a short-term rental permit, the County's approval of the permit, and the operation of the short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.408 Permitting procedure. (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, an application for a permit to establish and operate a short-term rental that meets the short-term rental regulations specified in Section 88-32.602 will be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing unless any of the following grounds for denial exist. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 3 (1)The application is incomplete. (2)The applicant has made a false statement or omitted a material fact from the application. (3)The applicant has not paid all required fees in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the board of supervisors. (4)The applicant is delinquent in payment of County taxes. (5)Another short-term rental permit associated with the residential dwelling unit, the applicant, or the owner had been revoked within 24 months of the date of application. (6)The short-term rental does not meet the location requirements specified in Section 88-32.404. (7)The residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental is a deed-restricted below-market-rate residential unit. (8)The residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental violates any provision of this code, including but not limited to the building standards in Title 7. (b)An application for a permit to establish and operate a short-term rental that does not meet one or more of the short-term rental regulations specified in Section 88-32.602 will be considered under the administrative decision procedure specified in Article 26-2.21. A discretionary short-term rental permit will be approved if: (1)None of the grounds for denial under Section 88-32.408(a) exist; and (2)The zoning administrator makes the findings specified in 26-2.2008. (Ord. 2020- 12 § 2). 88-32.410 Term and renewal. (a)Ministerial short-term rental permit. (1)A ministerial short-term rental permit will expire one year from the date the permit was approved, unless it is revoked sooner. (2)An application for renewal must be filed with the department at least 30 calendar days before the permit expires. If any of the documentation or information ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 4 supplied by the applicant pursuant to Section 88-32.406 has changed since the permit was approved, the applicant must submit updated information and documentation with the application for renewal. (3)An application to renew a ministerial short-term rental permit will be approved ministerially unless any of the following grounds for denial exist. (A)Any of the grounds for denial under Section 88-32.408(a) exist. (B)The application is filed less than 30 days before the permit expires. (C)The applicant is delinquent in payment of County taxes. (D)The permit is revoked or is the subject of a revocation proceeding at the time of application. (b)Discretionary short-term rental permit. (1)A discretionary short-term rental permit will expire on the date specified in the permit, unless it is revoked sooner. No short-term rental permit will be issued for a term longer than five years. (2)An application to renew a discretionary short-term rental permit will be considered in the same manner as a new application under Section 88-32.408(b). (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.412 Notice to neighbors. After a short-term rental permit is issued, the department will notify all owners of property within 300 feet of the short-term rental that a permit was issued. The notice will be in writing and contain the location of the short-term rental, contact information for the responsible party associated with the permit, contact information for County code enforcement, and a website address where the short-term rental ordinance is listed. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.414 Permits not transferable. A short-term rental permit may not be transferred. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.416 Fees. Fees for short-term rental permits will be in amounts established by the board of supervisors in the department’s fee schedule. A short-term rental permit will not be approved until the applicant has paid the applicable permit fee. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). Article 88-32.6 Requirements ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 5 88-32.602 Short-term rental regulations. A permittee shall comply with all of the following regulations while operating a short-term rental, unless a discretionary short-term rental permit specifies otherwise. (a)No more than one short-term rental may be operated on any lot. (b)A residential dwelling unit located within a building that contains five or more dwelling units may not be operated as a short-term rental. (c)A non-hosted short-term rental may not be rented for more than 90 days in a calendar year. A hosted short-term rental may not be rented for more than 180 days in a calendar year. The maximum number of days a short-term rental may be rented in a calendar year is 180 days. (d)The overnight guest occupancy of a short-term rental may not exceed two persons per bedroom, plus two additional persons. Children under the age of 12 are not counted towards the total number of guests. (e)A short-term rental with three or fewer bedrooms for rent must include at least one off- street parking space available for use by guests. A short-term rental with four or more bedrooms for rent must include at least two off-street parking spaces available for use by guests. The required off-street parking spaces must be located on the same lot as the short-term rental, but may be located within the lot’s setback area. The maximum number of guest vehicles permitted at a short-term rental is equal to the number of off- street parking spaces available for use by guests. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.604 Operational Standards. The following standards apply to the use of short-term rentals. (a)Excessive traffic to and from the short-term rental that significantly impairs the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties is prohibited. (b)Excessive noise that significantly impairs the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties is prohibited. The amplification of sound by any device outside the short-term rental is prohibited. Quiet hours during which noise must be restricted to the interior of the short- term rental shall be between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning. (c)The obstruction of any public right-of-way, road, street, highway, or private road is prohibited. (d)The overnight guest occupancy of a short-term rental may not exceed that approved by the permit. No more than 20 persons, including children, may gather at a short-term rental at any time. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 6 88-32.606 Accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit may not be operated as a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.608 No events. No event, including a conference, wedding, fundraiser, or similar gathering, or any commercial event, may be held at a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.610 No signs. No sign or writing visible from the exterior of the short-term rental indicating that the dwelling unit is available for rent may be posted anywhere on the lot where the short-term rental is located. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.612 Posting of permit and permit number. (a)A permittee shall post copies of the short-term rental permit, business license, and all applicable regulations and standards in a conspicuous place in each room in which a guest is expected to sleep. (b)In any advertisement for a short-term rental, the permittee shall specify the short-term rental permit number, business license number, maximum occupancy, maximum number of vehicles allowed, and the applicable quiet hours at the short-term rental. For the purposes of this subsection, “advertisement” means any method used to solicit interest in the short-term rental, including but not limited to internet-based listing or hosting services. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.614 Business license. A permittee shall obtain a valid business license issued pursuant to Chapter 64-14 of this code before renting or offering to rent a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.616 Transient occupancy registration certificate. A permittee shall obtain a valid transient occupancy registration certificate issued pursuant to Chapter 64-4 of this code before renting or offering to rent a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.618 Rental records. (a)A permittee shall keep written rental records that document the following information: (1)All dates on which the permittee rented the short-term rental to one or more guests; (2)The overnight guest occupancy on each date; and (3)The rent paid to permittee for each night of lodging. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 7 (b)A permittee shall maintain the required rental records for at least three years. (c)A permittee shall provide a copy of the required rental records to the department with any application to renew the short-term rental permit. (d)A permittee operating a short-term rental under a discretionary short-term rental permit shall provide a copy of the required rental records to the department annually. The records must be provided to the department on each anniversary of the discretionary short-term rental permit approval date. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). Article 88-32.8 Enforcement 88-32.802 All remedies. The County may seek compliance with this chapter by any remedy allowed under this code, including, but not limited to, revocation, administrative fines, infraction citations, and any other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). SECTION III. Section 26-2.2102 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 26-2.2102 Decisions without public hearing. Unless otherwise required by this article, the zoning administrator may, without public hearing, decide applications for any of the following: (a)Variance permits pursuant to subsection 26-2.1204(1). (b)Minor subdivisions pursuant to subsection 26-2.1204(3) including applications for improvement exceptions. (c)After zoning administrator determination on it, any involved small lot application pursuant to subsection 82-10.002(c). (d)Wireless facility access permits pursuant to Chapter 88-24. (e)A short-term rental permit that does not meet one or more of the short-term rental regulations specified in section 88-32.602. (Ords. 2020-12 § 3, 2020-01 § 3, 2017-11 § 3, 2016-11 § 3, 2011-05 § 5, 95-51 § 3, 80-87 § 2: See Gov. C. § 65901.) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 8 SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the East Bay Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________[SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2020\DCD\Ordinance No. 2020-12 Short-Term Rentals.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 9 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 SHORT-TERM RENTALS The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 88-32 to the County Ordinance Code to regulate the renting of residences for periods of 30 consecutive days or less. SECTION II. Chapter 88-32 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to read: Chapter 88-32 SHORT-TERM RENTALS Article 88-32.2 General 88-32.202 Title. This chapter is known as the Short-term Rental Ordinance of Contra Costa County. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.204 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are to regulate the renting of residential dwelling units for periods of 30 consecutive days or less; to establish a procedure for reviewing and approving short-term rental permit applications; and to establish location, parking, occupancy, and other standards for short-term rentals to limit the impact on neighbors. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.206 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (a)“Accessory dwelling unit” has the same meaning as in Section 82-24.004. (b)“Host” means a person who occupies as his or her primary residence a residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a short-term rental. (c)“Hosted” means that a host has a physical presence at his or her primary residence located on the same lot as a short-term rental during the entire period that the short-term rental is rented. (d)“Non-hosted” means that a host is absent from his or her primary residence located on the same lot as a short-term rental during some or all of the period that the short-term renal is rented. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 1 (e)“Primary residence” means a residential dwelling unit that a person physically occupies and lives in on a day-to-day basis. A person can only have one primary residence. (f)“Residential dwelling unit” means a building, or a portion thereof, designed for residential occupation by one persons or a group of two or more persons living together as a domestic unit. (g)“Responsible party” means a person that is designated by the applicant as a point of contact for the short-term rental. (h)“Short-term rental” means a residential dwelling unit, or a portion of a residential dwelling unit, that is rented, or offered for rent, for compensation or consideration, for a period of 30 consecutive days or less. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). Article 88-32.4 Permits 88-32.402 Permit–required. No person shall establish or operate a short-term rental in the unincorporated area of the County without first obtaining a permit as provided in this chapter. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.404 Location. (a)A short-term rental may be operated on any lot in a single-family residential district (R-6, R-7, R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R-40, R-65, and R-100), planned unit district (P-1) for residential uses, water recreational district (F-1), or a multiple-family residential district (M-6, M-9, M-12, M-17, and M-29). (b)A short-term rental may be operated on any lot in an agricultural district (A-2, A-3, A-4, A-20, A-40, and A-80), except that a short-term rental may not be operated on a lot under a Williamson Act contract. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.406 Application. (a)An owner, lessee, or holder of a similar interest in a residential dwelling unit may apply for a short-term rental permit by filing an application with the department. The application must be on a form approved by the director and contain all of the following information. (1)The name(s), address(es), and contact information of the applicant(s) and property owner(s). ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 2 (2)The name(s), address(es), contact information, and primary residence documentation of the host(s) if the short-term rental will be hosted for any period. The host’s primary residence must be documented by at least two of the following: motor vehicle registration, driver’s license, California state identification card, voter registration, income tax return, property tax bill, or a utility bill. (3)The address and assessor’s parcel number for the lot. (4)A legible site plan of the lot, showing: (A)All structures located on the lot and indicating the residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental; and (B)The location of the parking spaces required by this chapter. (5)A legible floor plan of the residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental. (6)The property owner’s consent to the short-term rental of the residential dwelling unit. (7)A statement that the short-term rental of the residential dwelling unit is not prohibited by a restrictive covenant. (8)The name and contact information of the responsible party associated with the short-term rental. The responsible party must be 18 years of age or older, reside within a 30-mile radius of the short-term rental, and be available by telephone for the duration of any rental period to respond to complaints regarding activity at the short-term rental. (9)The applicant’s agreement to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, its boards, commissions, officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, costs, losses, actions, fees, liabilities, expenses, and damages arising from or related to the applicant's application for a short-term rental permit, the County's approval of the permit, and the operation of the short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.408 Permitting procedure. (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, an application for a permit to establish and operate a short-term rental that meets the short-term rental regulations specified in Section 88-32.602 will be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing unless any of the following grounds for denial exist. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 3 (1)The application is incomplete. (2)The applicant has made a false statement or omitted a material fact from the application. (3)The applicant has not paid all required fees in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the board of supervisors. (4)The applicant is delinquent in payment of County taxes. (5)Another short-term rental permit associated with the residential dwelling unit, the applicant, or the owner had been revoked within 24 months of the date of application. (6)The short-term rental does not meet the location requirements specified in Section 88-32.404. (7)The residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental is a deed-restricted below-market-rate residential unit. (8)The residential dwelling unit proposed for short-term rental violates any provision of this code, including but not limited to the building standards in Title 7. (b)An application for a permit to establish and operate a short-term rental that does not meet one or more of the short-term rental regulations specified in Section 88-32.602 will be considered under the administrative decision procedure specified in Article 26-2.21. A discretionary short-term rental permit will be approved if: (1)None of the grounds for denial under Section 88-32.408(a) exist; and (2)The zoning administrator makes the findings specified in 26-2.2008. (Ord. 2020- 12 § 2). 88-32.410 Term and renewal. (a)Ministerial short-term rental permit. (1)A ministerial short-term rental permit will expire one year from the date the permit was approved, unless it is revoked sooner. (2)An application for renewal must be filed with the department at least 30 calendar days before the permit expires. If any of the documentation or information ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 4 supplied by the applicant pursuant to Section 88-32.406 has changed since the permit was approved, the applicant must submit updated information and documentation with the application for renewal. (3)An application to renew a ministerial short-term rental permit will be approved ministerially unless any of the following grounds for denial exist. (A)Any of the grounds for denial under Section 88-32.408(a) exist. (B)The application is filed less than 30 days before the permit expires. (C)The applicant is delinquent in payment of County taxes. (D)The permit is revoked or is the subject of a revocation proceeding at the time of application. (b)Discretionary short-term rental permit. (1)A discretionary short-term rental permit will expire on the date specified in the permit, unless it is revoked sooner. No short-term rental permit will be issued for a term longer than five years. (2)An application to renew a discretionary short-term rental permit will be considered in the same manner as a new application under Section 88-32.408(b). (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.412 Notice to neighbors. After a short-term rental permit is issued, the department will notify all owners of property within 300 feet of the short-term rental that a permit was issued. The notice will be in writing and contain the location of the short-term rental, contact information for the responsible party associated with the permit, contact information for County code enforcement, and a website address where the short-term rental ordinance is listed. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.414 Permits not transferable. A short-term rental permit may not be transferred. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.416 Fees. Fees for short-term rental permits will be in amounts established by the board of supervisors in the department’s fee schedule. A short-term rental permit will not be approved until the applicant has paid the applicable permit fee. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). Article 88-32.6 Requirements ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 5 88-32.602 Short-term rental regulations. A permittee shall comply with all of the following regulations while operating a short-term rental, unless a discretionary short-term rental permit specifies otherwise. (a)No more than one short-term rental may be operated on any lot. (b)A residential dwelling unit located within a building that contains five or more dwelling units may not be operated as a short-term rental. (c)A non-hosted short-term rental may not be rented for more than 90 days in a calendar year. A hosted short-term rental may not be rented for more than 180 days in a calendar year. The maximum number of days a short-term rental may be rented in a calendar year is 180 days. (d)The overnight guest occupancy of a short-term rental may not exceed two persons per bedroom, plus two additional persons. Children under the age of 12 are not counted towards the total number of guests. (e)A short-term rental with three or fewer bedrooms for rent must include at least one off- street parking space available for use by guests. A short-term rental with four or more bedrooms for rent must include at least two off-street parking spaces available for use by guests. The required off-street parking spaces must be located on the same lot as the short-term rental, but may be located within the lot’s setback area. The maximum number of guest vehicles permitted at a short-term rental is equal to the number of off- street parking spaces available for use by guests. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.604 Operational Standards. The following standards apply to the use of short-term rentals. (a)Excessive traffic to and from the short-term rental that significantly impairs the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties is prohibited. (b)Excessive noise that significantly impairs the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties is prohibited. The amplification of sound by any device outside the short-term rental is prohibited. Quiet hours during which noise must be restricted to the interior of the short- term rental shall be between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the following morning. (c)The obstruction of any public right-of-way, road, street, highway, or private road is prohibited. (d)The overnight guest occupancy of a short-term rental may not exceed that approved by the permit. No more than 20 persons, including children, may gather at a short-term rental at any time. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 6 88-32.606 Accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit may not be operated as a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.608 No events. No event, including a conference, wedding, fundraiser, or similar gathering, or any commercial event, may be held at a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.610 No signs. No sign or writing visible from the exterior of the short-term rental indicating that the dwelling unit is available for rent may be posted anywhere on the lot where the short-term rental is located. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.612 Posting of permit and permit number. (a)A permittee shall post copies of the short-term rental permit, business license, and all applicable regulations and standards in a conspicuous place in each room in which a guest is expected to sleep. (b)In any advertisement for a short-term rental, the permittee shall specify the short-term rental permit number, business license number, maximum occupancy, maximum number of vehicles allowed, and the applicable quiet hours at the short-term rental. For the purposes of this subsection, “advertisement” means any method used to solicit interest in the short-term rental, including but not limited to internet-based listing or hosting services. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.614 Business license. A permittee shall obtain a valid business license issued pursuant to Chapter 64-14 of this code before renting or offering to rent a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.616 Transient occupancy registration certificate. A permittee shall obtain a valid transient occupancy registration certificate issued pursuant to Chapter 64-4 of this code before renting or offering to rent a short-term rental. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). 88-32.618 Rental records. (a)A permittee shall keep written rental records that document the following information: (1)All dates on which the permittee rented the short-term rental to one or more guests; (2)The overnight guest occupancy on each date; and (3)The rent paid to permittee for each night of lodging. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 7 (b)A permittee shall maintain the required rental records for at least three years. (c)A permittee shall provide a copy of the required rental records to the department with any application to renew the short-term rental permit. (d)A permittee operating a short-term rental under a discretionary short-term rental permit shall provide a copy of the required rental records to the department annually. The records must be provided to the department on each anniversary of the discretionary short-term rental permit approval date. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). Article 88-32.8 Enforcement 88-32.802 All remedies. The County may seek compliance with this chapter by any remedy allowed under this code, including, but not limited to, revocation, administrative fines, infraction citations, and any other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. 2020-12 § 2). SECTION III. Section 26-2.2102 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read: 26-2.2102 Decisions without public hearing. Unless otherwise required by this article, the zoning administrator may, without public hearing, decide applications for any of the following: (a)Variance permits pursuant to subsection 26-2.1204(1). (b)Minor subdivisions pursuant to subsection 26-2.1204(3) including applications for improvement exceptions. (c)After zoning administrator determination on it, any involved small lot application pursuant to subsection 82-10.002(c). (d)Wireless facility access permits pursuant to Chapter 88-24. (e)A short-term rental permit that does not meet one or more of the short-term rental regulations specified in section 88-32.602. (Ords. 2020-12 § 3, 2020-01 § 3, 2017-11 § 3, 2016-11 § 3, 2011-05 § 5, 95-51 § 3, 80-87 § 2: See Gov. C. § 65901.) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ORDINANCE NO. 2020-12 8 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER update on COVID 19; and PROVIDE direction to staff. Health Department - Anna Roth, Director and Dr. Farnitano, Health Officer1. FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative reports with no specific fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has established a website dedicated to COVID-19, including daily updates. The site is located at: https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/ APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: David Twa I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From: Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on COVID-19 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Pete Connell, Marie, Stacy, Denise Persha. Anna Roth, Health Services Director, informed the Board that today would be the launch of the dashboard for long-term care facilities on the cchealth.org website. Information included will the be the number of hospitalization and deaths. Work is ongoing with the Public Information Officer to increase outreach in regard to testing. Health Services would like to convey that testing capacity is available and the department wants all people to get tested. All the county testing sites are open June 3rd and 4th. County site will be closing at 12:30 p.m. because of the extreme heat advisory – sites are outdoors and testing staff is wearing full PPE. Alternative sites indoors are available and the public is urged to call so they can be redirected to them. The hospitals have submitted their attestations in regard to PPE availability to the state. Work in regard to testing and tracing continues to ramp up. The county is moving to the less invasive test for a better experience for people, and hopes to move to self-testing soon. Staff is preparing a comprehensive guide for testing strategy around who should get tested when. The guidelines will cover those working in a high risk environment, essential workers, congregate living situations, and the general public. There will be specific guidelines for an outbreak scenario. Dr. Farnitano reported that the county is see approximately 20 new cases a day and about 13 patients in the hospital per day. He noted that many of the west county residents received care in Alameda County hospitals and would be included in that county’s numbers. A spot survey revealed about a dozen Contra Costa residents in an Alameda hospital. The County is doing about 63 tests per 100,000 people at this time, with a goal of 220 per 100,000, with emphasis on testing those people who are exposed the most. It is believed the highest risk for transmission of the virus is 24 hours before symptoms develop. Dr. Farnitano recommended that people with high exposure be tested frequently. To that end a health order was issued last week requiring testing on a monthly basis of all the personnel that work in skilled nursing facilities and our 60 largest assisted living facilities for the elderly. He noted that the efforts taken by the community have slowed the spread and saved many lives. The number of deaths in the county stands at 38, below the national average. Contra Costa County has an older population on average and is densely populated. Following a letter sent to our largest lab we now have compliance with the electronic reporting of negative tests. We are attempting to receive demographic data also, such as race and ethnicity. This is a challenge because we are working with 100 or more laboratories. Many of the labs are receiving samples from hundreds of locations and are relying on the source to provide the demographic data. Case identification and contact tracing is scaling up. Contra Costa is on the statewide system and receiving improved data on where cases are occurring. As expected there are higher numbers in groups of essential workers and some clusters occurring among families. PPE metrics are improving. Six of our eight hospitals have now attested they have or can get a 30 day supply. There are still many requests for PPE from nursing homes, elder care facilities, medical offices and so on. The international supply chain for PPE has not yet been fully restored but progress is good. Today’s new health order will be effective tomorrow, June 3, 2020. Child care and camps will be open to all. All indoor retail will be opening up, including malls, shopping centers and swap meets. Indoor shopping centers will be required to have a mitigation plan to prevent the congregating of people. Also opening will be things that don’t generally require close customer contact including but people. Also opening will be things that don’t generally require close customer contact including but not limited to car washes, pet groomers, dog walking and housekeeping. Office spaces are opening though people are still encouraged to work from home if possible. Adiitionally, outdoor museums and exhibit spaces, libraries, drive-in theaters. Using the concept of a social bubble, we are opening up social activities outside the household. Similar to child care situations where it is limited to stable groups of 12, small social gatherings of family and friends. Examples could be a cub scout den, or a sports team that practices together but doesn’t interact with other teams at this time – limited to being outdoors. Research is showing a much lower risk of transmission during outdoor activities. A stable group of 12 is recommended: family and friends or a social group. Persons over 12 years of age are encouraged to continue to wear facial coverings and social distance, though it will not be mandated. Starting June 15 places of worship will be allowed to hold religious ceremonies and services in person, outdoors. The County is asking them to wait a few more weeks for indoor gatherings, with a detailed and thorough plan in place to prevent spread, in light of the many tragic outbreaks in religious gatherings across the state. Small ceremonies of up to 12 people practicing social distancing are permissible indoors. Outdoor gatherings should be limited to a maximum of 100 people. The County is seeking clarification from the state on allowing such things as opening swimming pools without a variance. Residents should remember the four key principles of facial coverings, social distancing, hand washing and staying home if they are ill. This will allow for the reopening of our society without seeing large surges in cases. He expressed concern that other California counties are seeing an increase in the illness and noted that while this county is doing well, we are not an island and are still at risk. The department is working on a comprehensive guideline for reopenings that will soon be available on the cchealth.org website. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/147 approving the submission of a claim to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to seek Fiscal Year 2020/2021 Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding in the amount of $557,700 for bicycle and pedestrian projects sponsored by the County and the cities of Danville, Hercules, Lafayette, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, and San Ramon; and DIRECT the Public Works Director, or designee, to forward the claim to MTC for final approval and final allocation of funding, effective July 1, 2020, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funds APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jerry Fahy, 925.313.2276 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Allocation of Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funds for Fiscal Year 2020/2021 BACKGROUND: Article 3 of the TDA, Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists. The MTC, as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108 delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation TDA Article 3 funds. Each claimant whose project or projects have been prioritized for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2020/2021, TDA Article 3 Countywide coordinated claim is required to submit a resolution from its governing body to MTC requesting an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds. On February 25, 2020, four members of the City-County Engineering Advisory Committee (CCEAC), and three members of the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee (CBAC) performed a field review of the project applications. At that time, the allocation from Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) was estimated at $845,000. The funding recommendations for those projects were approved by the CCEAC at their April 16, 2020 meeting, and subsequently approved at the Contra Costa Mayor’s Conference at their May 7, 2020 meeting. The County was recently notified by MTC that due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the allocation is estimated at $557,700, a reduction of almost 33%. For this reason, the recommended funding listed in Attachment A are approximately 33% less than the funding recommendations approved by CCEAC and the Contra Costa Mayor’s Conference. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the recommendation and forward the list will eliminate a potential funding source. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020/147 Attachment A MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2020/147 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 06/02/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/147 IN THE MATTER OF approving and authorizing the recommendation of the Public Works Director, or designee, for allocating the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects for Fiscal Year 2020/2021 and directing the Public Works Director, or designee, to forward the list to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for final approval and allocation of funding effective July 1, 2020, Countywide. WHEREAS, Article 3 of the TDA, Public Utilities Codes (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and, WHEREAS, the MTC, as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds; and, WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests from eligible claimants for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim, composed of certain required documents; and, WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has undertaken a process in compliance with MTC Resolution No. 4108 for consideration of project proposals submitted by eligible claimants of TDA Article 3 funds in Contra Costa County, and a prioritized list of projects, included as Attachment A of this Resolution, was developed as a result of this process; and, WHEREAS, each claimant in Contra Costa County whose project or projects have been prioritized for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2020/2021 TDA Article 3 countywide coordinated claim has been forwarded to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors a certified copy of its governing body resolution for submittal to MTC requesting an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approves the prioritized list of projects included as Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approves the submittal to MTC, of the Contra Costa County Fiscal Year 2020/2021 TDA Article 3 countywide, coordinated claim, composed of the following required documents: (A) transmittal letter; (B) a certified copy of this resolution, including Attachment A; (C) one copy of the governing body resolution and required attachments, for each claimant whose project or projects are the subject of the coordinated claim; and (D) a description of the process for public and staff review of all proposed projects submitted by eligible claimants for prioritization and inclusion in the countywide, coordinated claim. Contact: Jerry Fahy, 925.313.2276 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE plans, specifications, and design for the 2020 Surface Treatment Project, Alamo, El Sobrante, and North Richmond areas. (County Project No. 0672-6U2185) (District I, II, IV) (2) DETERMINE that American Pavement Systems, Inc. (APS) the lowest monetary bidder, has complied with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program and has exceeded the Mandatory Subcontracting Minimum for this project, as provided in the project specifications; and FURTHER DETERMINE that APS has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the project. (3) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to APS in the listed amount ($3,264,235.16) and the unit prices submitted in the bid, and DIRECT that APS shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds, as indicated below, and that the Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contract. (4) ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted below and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh, 925.313.2233 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for the 2020 Surface Treatment Project, Alamo, El Sobrante, and North Richmond areas. RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) (5) ORDER that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned. (6) ORDER that, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300. (7) DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, to the Public Works Director, or designee, the Board’s functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110. (8) DELEGATE, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705, to the Public Works Director, or to any registered civil or structural engineer employed by the County, the authority to accept detailed plans showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection during trench excavation covered by that section. (9) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to APS be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The Project will be funded by 100% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, plans and specifications were filed with the Board, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On May 5, 2020 the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL AMOUNT, BOND AMOUNTS American Pavement Systems, Inc.: $3,264,235.16; Payment: $3,264,235.16; Performance: $3,264,235.16 Pavement Coatings Co.: $3,284,315.00 The Public Works Director has reported that APS documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program and exceeded the Mandatory Subcontracting Minimum, and the Public Works Director recommends that the construction contract be awarded to APS. The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by APS is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $20,079.84 less than the next lowest bid, and this Board concurs and so finds. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, and copies will be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Construction of the project would be delayed, and the project might not be built. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWM Plan) dated October 28, 2019, and the 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan dated March 2019 (ECCCIRWM Plan); AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District), or designee, to execute documents signifying the FC District’s adoption and continued participation in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the BAIRWM Plan and ECCCIRWM Plan, as needed, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Some FC District staff time will be required on an ongoing basis. The FC District will benefit from coordination of its projects with those of other water, wastewater, flood management, stormwater quality, and environmental organizations in the Bay Area. (100% FC District Funds) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mark Boucher, (925) 313-2274 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Mark Boucher, Flood Control, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 3 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Flood Control District Adoption of updated Bay Area and East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plans. Project No. 7505-6F-8239 BACKGROUND: Integrated Regional Water Management Planning — Water Bond History In 2002, Senate Bill 1672 created the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Act to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability. Since it’s passing, the following California propositions, which included bond funds specifically for IRWM planning and project implantation, have been passed by California voters: Proposition 50 (Prop 50) — November 2002, “The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,” $500,000,000 — funded competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan. Proposition 84 (Prop 84) — November 2006, “Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act,” — $100,000,000 — funded IRWM Planning and Implementation. Proposition 1E (Prop 1E) — November 2006, “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act” — $300,000,000 — funded IRWM Stormwater Flood Management. Proposition 1 (Prop 1) — November 2014 — “Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014” — $510,000,000 — this proposition funded three IRWM programs: Disadvantaged Community Involvement Grant Program, Planning Grant Program, and Implementation Grant Program. The following is a history and background of the FC District’s involvement in the IRWM: Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan FC District staff participated early on in 2003 in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) ABAG-CALFED Water Management Subcommittee. In a subcommittee meeting, it was noted that the State was preparing to begin the grant program for Prop 50 water bond funds. In response to this, Bay Area water agencies began outreach in order to develop an IRWM plan that identifies, coordinates, and prioritizes projects within the Bay Area. Prop 50 required for a project to be funded, it had to be in an IRWM plan. The IRWM planning outreach resulted in the several regional water resource organizations working together towards a plan. Those agencies without formal regional organizations began to collaborate in the Bay Area region like never before. Overall, four “functional areas” were identified. These four functional areas are listed below along with the organizations that coordinate their representation in the collaborative efforts related to the Bay Area IRWM planning process. 1. Water Supply and Water Quality Functional Area (FA): this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Water Management Agencies Coalition. 2. Wastewater and Recycled Water: this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Clean Water Agencies. 3. Flood Protection and Stormwater Management: this FA is coordinated by the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA), formed in response to the need to coordinate in the IRWM planning process. BAFPAA agencies later executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to enable the pooling of funds for mutually beneficial activities. The FC District is a founding member of BAFPAA and still fully engaged in IRWM and other activities. 4. Watershed Management, Habitat Protection, and Restoration: this FA coordinated by the Bay Area Watershed Network, which is coordinated by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership and under the umbrella of ABAG. A BAIRWM Plan Coordinating Committee (Coordinating Committee) was established and later defined formally in the first Bay Area IRWM Plan. The Coordinating Committee continues to meet or conference call on a monthly basis and is the forum in which the BAIRWM Plan consensus decisions are made. In this forum, and through subcommittees that work on specific issues and funding rounds, the plan was developed, projects have been vetted, grant applications prepared, and the plan updated. A website at http://bayareairwmp.org/ is used to enhance awareness, openness, and communication of the actions and decisions that the Coordinating Committee was making for the region. On November 13, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted the first BAIRWM Plan dated November 6, 2006, and AUTHORIZED the Chief Engineer, or designee, to continue participating in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the IRWM plan and directing the Chief Engineer to participate in an effort with other Bay Area flood control agencies to form an association for coordinating input to the IRWM plan. On April 19, 2010, FC District staff requested authorization through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to increase its participation level in the Bay Area IRWM planning activities. The BAIRWM Plan was updated in 2013 and the Board of Supervisors adopted the updated plan on April 22, 2014. East Contra Costa County Integrated Water Management Plan The ECCCIRWM Group was convened under the structure of the East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) which had existing collaborative relationships related to water resources. ECWMA was formed under an MOU that provided organizational structure for IRWM planning and implementation. The ECWMA Board convened in response to the 2002 requirement for IRWM plans. ECWMA members worked together to produce a “functionally equivalent” IRWM plan that was accepted by the State by combining several existing plans. These were done in a natural, collaborative process in their respective water resources area. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan was included in the ECCIRWMP. Before the IRWM planning effort, the Contra Costa Water Agency (CCWA) was a member of ECWMA. An amendment changed the membership from the CCWA to the County and added the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy to the agreement. The FC District became recognized as a participant in the IRWM planning effort under the County’s membership due to the fact that the FC District is managed by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. On April 11, 2005, the FC District requested Board of Supervisors approval to participate in the ECCCIRWM planning effort to participate in the cost for professional services to prepare the Prop 50 grant application. This was the first of several requests for authorization to be involved in the ECCCIRWM planning effort. On April 19, 2010, FC District staff requested authorization through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to increase its participation level in the Bay Area IRWM planning activities. The ECCCIRWM Plan was updated in 2013 and the Board of Supervisors adopted the updated plan on April 22, 2014. Current Actions The State continues to make funding available, most recently through Proposition 1 implementation funding, for projects that are included in an adopted IRWM plan. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) adopted the 2016 IRWM Guidelines, and requires IRWM Planning Regions to update their IRWM Plans to be consistent with the 2016 IRWM Plan Standards. The State has adjusted the focus of the IRWM grant programs rounds to ensure outreach and funding is provided to disadvantaged communities. The BAIRWM Plan ECCCIRWMP Groups have worked to update their Plan to conform to the 2016 IRWM Plan Standards. The update required clarifications on regional water quality conditions, climate change and sea level rise impacts and adaptation and mitigation measures, resource management strategies, plan performance monitoring, and other planning strategies. To be eligible to receive funds allocated for Round 1 of Proposition 1 Implementation funding, agencies involved in the IRWM Plans must adopt the plans. Once all necessary agencies in each Planning Region have adopted the IRWM Plans and the IRWM Plans are approved by the State, the IRWM Regions will have access to Proposition 1 funding. A draft of the 2019 BAIRWM Plan Update was circulated to the Coordinating Committee’s broad e-mail distribution list in advance of the September 23, 2019 Coordinating Committee meeting. The Plan update was finalized and unanimously approved at the October 28, 2019, Coordinating Committee meeting. On April 14, 2020, DWR made the final determination that the Plan is consistent with the 2016 IRWM Guidelines. The full BAIRWM Plan (including the 2019 Plan Update) can be found at http://bayareairwmp.org/. The plan along with the appendix are provided as attachments. A draft of the 2019 ECCCIRWM Plan Update was posted on DWR’s website for a 30-day public review period, and on July 10, 2019, announced at the ECCCIRM Group regular meeting that DWR accepted the plan as final. On June 14, 2020, DWR made the final determination that the ECCCIRWM Plan is consistent with the 2016 IRWM Guidelines. The full ECCCIRWM Plan (including the 2019 Plan Update) can be found via https://www.eccc-irwm.org/documents. The 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan is provided as attachments. County staff are also taking the 2019 Plans to the Board of Supervisors for Contra Costa County for formal adoption. This will ensure that any County projects will also be eligible for funds through Prop 1. This would include green infrastructure projects that may be eligible for Prop 1 funding. Commitment and California Environmental Quality Act The Guidelines and the procedures developed by the DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board mandate that the IRWM plans be formally adopted, as evidenced by a resolution or other written documentation. The adoption must be done by the governing bodies of the agencies and organizations that participated in the development of the IRWM plans and have responsibility for its implementation. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors, as the Governing Board of the FC District, must approve the IRWM plan in order for the FC District’s projects in the IRWM plans to be eligible for grant funding. The IRWM plans are nonbinding documents. Adoption of the IRWM plans does not entail a direct commitment of resources. Implementation of each project identified in the IRWM plans will be the responsibility of the project proponent and any applicable project partners. There is no joint commitment or responsibility by the IRWM plan participants or adopting agencies to implement any or all of the projects. Furthermore, the project proponents and applicable project partners have discretionary authority over project design and implementation and may elect not to implement a project based on changing regional conditions or needs. Upon implementing a project, project proponents will be responsible for ensuring that all regulatory requirements for the project are met. The IRWM plans consist of planning studies and basic proposed project information collection that will not result in the disturbance of any environmental resource. Therefore, the IRWM plans are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15262. As such, programmatic environmental analysis under CEQA is not required. Each project ultimately implemented, as a result of this plan, will require independent CEQA analysis. Referral History The adoption of the previous versions of the BAIRWM Plan and ECCCIRWM Plan were presented to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on April 3, 2014, for referral to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the adoption of the IRWM plans. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not adopt the IRWM plans, projects that the FC District proposes for funding through IRWM grant programs will be ineligible for funding through various State water bond grant programs. ATTACHMENTS IRWM Plan 2020 2019 BA IRWM Plan Update Final PDF 2019 BA IRWM Plan Appendices Update 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan March 2019 Contra Costa County November 17, 2001 Creek and Watershed Symposium East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) will soon begin to update its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), originally developed in June 2006. The Update is being funded by the ECWMA agencies and a planning grant from the California Department of Water Resources. An IRWMP is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWMPs cross jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involve multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempt to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The East Contra Costa County IRWMP Update will consist of: Updating the document to the lastest guidelines and standards, including the development of new integrated projects Developing a plan for groundwater and salt/nutrient management in the Pittsburg Plain Basin Continuing public outreach, including to disadvantaged communities More information about IRWMPs may be found at http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/. If you would like more information about the IRWMP Update or would like to participate in upcoming public meetings, please contact Marie Valmores at mvalmores@ccwater.com. East County Water Management Association Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update i March 2019 East Contra Costa County Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1  1.1. Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1-1  1.1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 1-1  1.2. IRWM Process .............................................................................................................. 1-2  1.3. Document Organization ................................................................................................ 1-4  1.4. IRWM Plan Standards ................................................................................................... 1-4  Chapter 2. Region Description ............................................................................................... 2-1  2.1. The East Contra Costa County Region ......................................................................... 2-1  2.2. History of Regional Planning ........................................................................................ 2-2  2.2.1. The DWR IRWM Regional Process ........................................................................ 2-4  2.3. Governance .................................................................................................................... 2-7  2.3.1. Regional Water Management Group ....................................................................... 2-7  2.3.2. Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2-9   2.4. Description of Internal Boundaries ............................................................................. 2-11  2.4.1. Region .................................................................................................................... 2-11  2.4.2. Member Agencies .................................................................................................. 2-14  2.4.3. Other Water-Related Agencies within the Region ................................................. 2-29  2.4.4. State Agencies Collaborating with the Region ...................................................... 2-32  2.5. Description of Social and Cultural Makeup ................................................................ 2-33  2.5.1. Demographics ........................................................................................................ 2-33  2.5.2. Demographic Analysis of Contra Costa County in 2009 and 2019 ....................... 2-34  2.5.3. Age ......................................................................................................................... 2-34  2.5.4. Ethnicity ................................................................................................................. 2-35  2.5.5. Gender .................................................................................................................... 2-35  2.5.6. Economic Industry ................................................................................................. 2-35  2.5.7. Disadvantaged Communities ................................................................................. 2-36  2.6. Description of Watersheds and Water Systems .......................................................... 2-44  2.6.1. Watersheds ............................................................................................................. 2-44  2.6.2. Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 2-49  2.7. Water Supplies and Demands ..................................................................................... 2-56  Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update ii March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.7.1. Current and Projected Water Demands .................................................................. 2-56  2.7.2. Current and Projected Water Supplies ................................................................... 2-59  2.7.3. Comparison of Water Supplies and Demands ....................................................... 2-64  2.8. Emergency Drought Response .................................................................................... 2-66  2.8.1. East Contra Costa Planned Efforts to Address Drought Conditions ...................... 2-67  2.9. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................. 2-68  2.9.1. Handbook Approach .............................................................................................. 2-69  2.9.2. Water Supply ......................................................................................................... 2-71  2.9.3. Water Demand ....................................................................................................... 2-72  2.9.4. Flooding ................................................................................................................. 2-72  2.9.5. Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 2-73  2.9.6. Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerability .................................................................... 2-74  2.9.7. Energy .................................................................................................................... 2-75  2.9.8. Additional Local Data ............................................................................................ 2-75  2.9.9. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies.......................................... 2-76  2.10. Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 2-76  2.10.1. Delta Water Quality ............................................................................................... 2-76  2.10.2. Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................. 2-78  2.10.3. Recycled Water Quality ......................................................................................... 2-79  Chapter 3. Plan Development ................................................................................................... 3-1 Planning Framework .................................................................................................... 3-1 Background .............................................................................................................. 3-1 ECCC IRWM Plan 2013 Update Process ................................................................ 3-2 ECCC IRWM Plan 2015 Update Process ................................................................ 3-3 ECCC IRWM Plan 2019 Update Process ................................................................ 3-3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3-4 Water Management Challenges ............................................................................... 3-4 Creating Measurable Objectives .............................................................................. 3-9 Living Document ................................................................................................... 3-16 Resource Management Strategies .............................................................................. 3-16 Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation .................................... 3-17 Project Review Process .............................................................................................. 3-19 Project Submission ................................................................................................. 3-19 Project Review Factors .......................................................................................... 3-20 Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update iii March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Scoring Criteria .......................................................................................... 3-21 Project Review Steps ............................................................................................. 3-26 Documenting the Projects ...................................................................................... 3-27 Implementation and Updates to Project List .......................................................... 3-30 Technical Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3-31 Incorporation of Planning Documents ................................................................... 3-32 Urban Water Management Plans and Studies ........................................................ 3-32 Groundwater Management Plans and Studies ....................................................... 3-33 CASGEM Compliance ........................................................................................... 3-34 Recycled Water Plans and Studies ......................................................................... 3-34 Stormwater and Flood Management Plans and Studies ......................................... 3-34 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan .................................................................................................. 3-35 Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Studies ............................................. 3-35 3.6 Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................................................... 3-36 3.6.1. ECCC IRWM Region Website .............................................................................. 3-37 3.6.2. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2013 IRWM Plan Update ................................ 3-39 3.6.3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2015 IRWM Plan Update ................................ 3-40 3.6.4. Stakeholder Outreach During Implementation ...................................................... 3-41 3.6.5. Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities.............................................................. 3-41 3.6.6. Native American Tribal Communities ................................................................... 3-42 3.6.7. Process to Ensure Authentic Engagement ............................................................. 3-42 Integration and Coordination ..................................................................................... 3-43 Opportunities for Integration and Coordination..................................................... 3-43 Existing Agency Relationships .............................................................................. 3-43 Water Supply Agreements ..................................................................................... 3-44 Recycled Water ...................................................................................................... 3-44 Organization Memberships .................................................................................... 3-45 Regional Planning Efforts ...................................................................................... 3-46 Neighboring IRWM efforts .................................................................................... 3-49 State Agency Assistance ........................................................................................ 3-50 Relation to Local Water Planning .......................................................................... 3-51 Relation to Local Land-Use Planning .................................................................... 3-51 Future IRWM Plan Updates ...................................................................................... 3-53 Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update iv March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 4. IRWM Plan Implementation ................................................................................. 4-1  4.1. Governance .................................................................................................................... 4-1  4.1.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-2  4.1.2. Regional Water Management Group Governance Structure ................................... 4-2  4.2. Projects for Plan Implementation .................................................................................. 4-3  4.3. Potential Benefits of IRWM Plan Implementation ....................................................... 4-9  4.3.1. Improving Water Supply Reliability and Water Quality Objective ......................... 4-9  4.3.2. Restoring and Enhancing the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Objective ................................................................................................................ 4-11  4.3.3. Positioning Water-Related Planning and Implementation for Funding Objective 4-12  4.3.4. Implementing Robust Stormwater and Flood Management Objective .................. 4-13  4.3.5. Providing Public Outreach and Building IRWM Support Objective ..................... 4-13  4.4. Potential Impacts of IRWM Plan Implementation ...................................................... 4-14  4.5. IRWM Plan and Project Financing ............................................................................. 4-15  4.5.1. Potential Funding Sources ..................................................................................... 4-16  4.5.2. Funding Certainty .................................................................................................. 4-18  4.6. Plan Performance Monitoring ..................................................................................... 4-20  4.7. Data Management ....................................................................................................... 4-21  4.8. Adaptability to Future Situations ................................................................................ 4-22  Chapter 5. References ............................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendices Appendix A. List of Grant Standards & Guidelines Appendix B. Roster of the Governing Board Appendix C. Handbook Summary Information Appendix D. ECCC Handbook Checklist Appendix E. List and Descriptions of On-Going and Planned Regional Actions Appendix F. ECCC Water Management Issues Appendix G. ECCC Resource Management Strategies Appendix H. IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes Appendix I. Regional Capacity Study Appendix J. Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin Appendix K. Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update v March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figures Figure 2-1. ECWMA Organization Chart .................................................................................... 2-8  Figure 2-2. ECCC IRWM Region and Surrounding Areas ....................................................... 2-12  Figure 2-3. ECCC IRWM Region and the Statutory Delta ....................................................... 2-13  Figure 2-4. Participating Water Supply Agencies ..................................................................... 2-16  Figure 2-5. Participating Wastewater Agencies ......................................................................... 2-17  Figure 2-6. Participating Flood Management and Environmental Agencies ............................. 2-18  Figure 2-7. Disadvantaged Communities in the Region ............................................................ 2-38  Figure 2-8. Impact of Foreclosures on Contra Costa County .................................................... 2-40  Figure 2-9. Location of ECCC Overlap in Relation to Regional Boundaries and DACs.............................................................................................................................. 2-43  Figure 2-10. Watersheds in the Region...................................................................................... 2-45  Figure 2-11. Groundwater Basins in the Region ....................................................................... 2-48  Figure 2-12. Major Water and Wastewater Infrastructure ......................................................... 2-51  Figure 2-13. Major Flood Management Infrastructure .............................................................. 2-53  Figure 2-14. Current and Projected 2035 Population for Urban Areas in the Region ............... 2-56  Figure 2-15. Current and Projected 2035 Water Demands ........................................................ 2-59  Figure 2-16. Normal Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region ................................. 2-64  Figure 2-17. Dry Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region ....................................... 2-65  Figure 3-1. IRWM Planning Process ........................................................................................... 3-3  Figure 3-2. Ecosystem Restoration can Attenuate Flooding Like that Experienced in Knightsen in 1997 ............................................................................................................ 3-7   Figure 3-3. Planning Hierarchy .................................................................................................. 3-10  Figure 3-4. Planning Hierarchy for Water Quality and Supply ................................................. 3-11  Figure 3-5. Relative Weighting Factors for Project Scoring Criteria ........................................ 3-23  Figure 3-6. ECCC IRWM Region Website ............................................................................... 3-37  Figure 3-7. ECCC IRWM Region Stakeholder Outreach Meeting in June 2012 ...................... 3-39  Figure 4-1. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Projects by Objective Category ............... 4-8  Figure 4-2. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Projects ......................................... 4-8  Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update vi March 2019 East Contra Costa County Tables Table 1-1. Location of IRWM Plan Standard .............................................................................. 1-5  Table 2-1. IRWM Regional Grant Awards .................................................................................. 2-6  Table 2-2. Regional Water Management Group Members and Primary Functions .................. 2-14  Table 2-3. ECCC Small Systems ............................................................................................... 2-31  Table 2-4. Demographics Data for the ECCC Region ............................................................... 2-34  Table 2-5. 2010 Census DAC Demographic Data for the ECCC Region ................................. 2-37  Table 2-6. Current/Projected Urban, Industriald, and Agricultural Water Demands................. 2-58  Table 2-7. Current Water Supply Availability by Source (AFY) .............................................. 2-61  Table 2-8. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Normal Year ................................................................................................................................ 2-62  Table 2-9. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Dry Year ................................................................................................................................ 2-63  Table 2-10. Water Treatment Plant Capacity vs. Projected Demands ....................................... 2-66  Table 2-11. Current Minimum Supply Projections under Existing Drought Conditions (2015) .......................................................................................................... 2-67  Table 2-12. Constituents of Concern for ECCC Source Waters ................................................ 2-77 Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics ..................................................................... 3-12  Table 3-2. ECCC Applicable RMS List .................................................................................... 3-16  Table 3-3. ECCC IRWM Plan Projects – Resources Management Strategies vs. Objective Categories ...................................................................................................... 3-17  Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria ............................................................................................ 3-20  Table 3-5. Implementation Considerations ................................................................................ 3-24  Table 3-6. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines .......................................................... 3-24  Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects ................................................................................... 3-26  Table 3-8: List of Projects Identified by IRWM Planning Studies ............................................ 3-28  Table 3-9. Data Used in the IRWM Plan ................................................................................... 3-30  Table 4-1. ECCC Region - Progress on Planning Efforts since 2005 IRWM ............................. 4-1  Table 4-2a. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Project List .............................................. 4-5  Table 4-2b. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Project List ................................... 4-6  Table 4-2c. Proposition 84 2015 Implementation Grant Round Project List .............................. 4-7  Table 4-3. Potential Impacts of a Small Set of Projects ............................................................ 4-14  Table 4-4. Potential Funding Sources ........................................................................................ 4-17  Table 4-5. IRWM Plan Financing – IRWM Grants ................................................................... 4-19  Table 4-6. Types of Monitoring ................................................................................................. 4-20 Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update vii March 2019 East Contra Costa County Abbreviations and Acronyms °F degrees Fahrenheit 1996 Study East County Water Supply Management Study in 1996 ACS American Community Survey Act Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 (Act ADWF average dry weather flow AF acre-foot AFY acre-foot per year BAB2E Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition Banks Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant BBID Bryon Bethany Irrigation District BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BIMID Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District BMO basin management objective BMP Best Management Practice BWWTP Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant CALFED California Bay-Delta Program Canal Contra Costa Canal CASGEM DWR’s California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program CCCCD Contra Costa Community College District CCCFCWCD Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCCWA Contra Costa County Water Agency CCCWP Contra Costa Clean Water Program CCFCWCD Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCRCD Contra Costa Resource Conservation District CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDPH California Department of Public Health Central Valley Water Board Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CIHC California Indian Heritage Center Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update viii March 2019 East Contra Costa County COBWTP City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council CVP Central Valley Project CWC California Water Code CWP California Water Plan DAC Disadvantaged Community DDSD Delta Diablo Sanitation District (now Delta Diablo) DEC Delta Energy Center Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta DGA Data Gap Analysis District Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District DO dissolved oxygen DRDWQMP Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan DWD Diablo Water District DWR California Department of Water Resources ECCC East Contra Costa County ECCCHC East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy ECCID East Contra Costa Irrigation District ECWMA East County Water Management Association EJ environmental justice EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEIRWM Plan 2005 Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan FOG Fats, Oils and Grease FOMCW Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed FWSS Future Water Supply Study GBR Governing Board Representatives GHG greenhouse gas GMP Groundwater Management Plan GSWC Golden State Water Company Handbook Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning HCP East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update ix March 2019 East Contra Costa County HCPA ECCC Habitat Conservation Plan Association HPWTF High Purity Water Treatment Facility I Interstate IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWM integrated regional water management ISD Ironhouse Sanitary District JMC Joint Managers Committee KCSD Knightsen Town Community Services District LMEC Los Medanos Energy Center MGD million gallons per day MHI median household income NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service PRC California Public Resources Code RAP Regional Acceptance Process RBWTP Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant RCS Regional Capacity Study RD Reclamation District Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation region East Contra Costa County region Region Regional Water Management Group and its members RMS Resource Management Strategy RWF Recycled Water Facility RWMG Regional Water Management Group RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Water Board San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SAR sodium adsorption ratio SB Senate Bill SR State Route State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board SWP State Water Project Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update x March 2019 East Contra Costa County TAF thousand acre-feet TDS total dissolved solids TOC total organic carbon ULL Urban Limit Line USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture UWMP Urban Water Management Plan Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board (formerly the RWQCB) WRWC Western Recycled Water Coalition WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant IRWM Plan Update 1-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 1 Introduction The East Contra Costa County (ECCC) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning effort is a formal collaborative process convened to support all aspects of regional water management. This includes integrated planning for water supply, water quality, watershed and habitat protection, and flood and stormwater management. The ECCC IRWM members have a long history of cooperation across political and jurisdictional boundaries that spans almost two decades. In this 2015 IRWM Plan Update, further updating the November 2013 IRWM Plan, the ECCC region creates a framework to implement integrated water management projects with multiple benefits to serve the population of the region and protect water and environmental resources for the State. This IRWM Plan articulates the challenges the ECCC region faces and defines the water resource management objectives it hopes to accomplish. The framework defined in the IRWM Plan is a living process the region can rely on to meet its current and future water management challenges. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the IRWM Plan is to provide a roadmap for the region to meet its overall water management objectives, including:  Ensuring reliable water supply under normal conditions as well as during droughts and other emergencies, achieving water quality goals and meeting related regulations.  Restoring and enhancing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) ecosystem and upstream habitat and wetland resources.  Positioning water-related planning and implementation projects for funding.  Implementing robust stormwater and flood management strategies and practices.  Providing public outreach and establishing broad support for integrated water management. This IRWM Plan addresses specific requirements, created and documented in accordance with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) IRWM Grant Guidelines.1 A summary of the requirements is listed in Section 1.4 and the full list is contained in Appendix A. 1.1.1 Background California faces multiple challenges related to water management, including water supply reliability under normal conditions as well as during droughts and other emergencies, threats to water quality, increasing flood risk, declining ecosystems, aging infrastructure, climate change, and economic challenges. To meet these challenges, DWR has established (1) State policy 1 http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/Archives/Prop84/Guidelines_PSPs/GL_2012_FINAL.pdf Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County encouraging IRWM, and (2) financial planning programs for local and regional water resources managers and their stakeholders to implement IRWM. In contrast with traditional water management sector-based approaches, IRWM deals with all water functions on equal terms within the framework of an integrated water system. This plan’s approach considers:  Scientific and technical aspects of managing water supply, treatment, and wastewater systems  Watershed resource protection  Sustainable use and planning for the future  Socioeconomic, institutional, policy, and political aspects of water decisions  Governance  Legal and institutional framework  Regional economic conditions  Public awareness and input  Cultural and social customs  Educational characteristics  Fundamental aspects of how humans behave and interact with their water resources The ECCC region capitalizes on the long history of integrated water planning and, with This IRWM Plan, defines key water management issues and objectives for ongoing water security in the region. This IRWM Plan also established the process by which the region will identify and integrate innovative projects and programs that, when implemented, will help the region to meet those objectives. 1.2 IRWM Process DWR outlines specific standards, steps, and requirements for IRWM plans created with grant funds. In 2009, DWR instituted a Regional Acceptance Process (RAP) to evaluate and accept an IRWM region into its IRWM grant program. At a minimum, a region is defined as a contiguous geographic area encompassing the service areas of multiple local agencies. It is delineated to maximize the opportunities to integrate water management activities, and effectively integrate water management programs and projects within a hydrologic region as defined in the California Water Plan (CWP), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board, formerly the RWQCB) region, or subdivision. The ECCC region was formally accepted into the RAP process in 2009. Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County DWR also encourages regions to pay attention to three concepts when incorporating planning grant standards into their IRWM plans. These concepts are: 1. Ahwahnee Water Principles – IRWM planning is not focused on a single use of a resource, but seeks to manage that resource based on all the ways that the resource can be used. As exhibited by the IRWM Plan Standards, many aspects of IRWM planning reflect the Ahwahnee Water Principles.2 Commonalities between IRWM planning and the Ahwahnee Water Principles include multi-agency collaboration, stakeholder involvement and collaboration, regional approaches to water management, water management involvement in land-use decisions, and project monitoring to evaluate results of current practices. Although IRWM Plan Standards can be seen as very separate and distinct items, regions should be aware of the broader overarching shift to resource planning as presented in the Ahwahnee Water Principles and the practice of IRWM planning, as opposed to a single planning purpose (i.e., water supply, wastewater, or watershed function). 2. Flood Management – Flood management should be integrated into IRWM plans as with other types of water management. Integrating flood management into a regional plan, as appropriate, may increase the ways a region can achieve its IRWM Plan objectives. 3. IRWM Plan Outline – The IRWM Plan Standards are intended to ensure IRWM plans include specific content. Although the IRWM Plan Standards name specific topics, explanations, and descriptions, these do not necessarily constitute an outline of an IRWM Plan. An IRWM Plan can be written in a format that is logical for the IRWM region. The IRWM Plan can use different titles for sections than those offered in these standards; hat is important is that IRWM plans contain the proper contents to ensure effective, implementable planning. The ECCC planning and project list development process was conducted to facilitate inclusion of IRWM Plan Standards. To do this, the IRWM members created a website to collect and disseminate information. They met with stakeholders and developed a process to identify, evaluate, and prioritize implementation projects. The result of the planning and project development process is an active list of IRWM Plan project priorities. With an interactive list and the planning framework established, projects may be added, removed, or updated at any time. The IRWM Plan is a living document that can adapt to the challenges of water management in the region. The updated website (http://www.eccc-irwm.org/) allows project proponents and stakeholders to view each other’s projects, helping them to identify opportunities for collaboration and integration for their projects. From time to time, the region may also initiate another formal “Call-for-Projects” to refresh their list or to prepare for a new funding opportunity. Studies and planning efforts supported by the Round 2 Planning Grant have resulted in the addition of projects to the list. Integrated planning will continue to be ongoing, open, transparent, and collaborative. 2 http://www.lgc.org/wordpress/docs/resources/water/lgc_water_guide.pdf Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 1.3 Document Organization This IRWM Plan is organized to address the Guidance for IRWM Plan Standards (Appendix C of the Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E IRWM Guidelines issued by DWR in August 2010 and in November 2012). The main chapters of this IRWM Plan are as follows:  Chapter 1, Introduction – This chapter describes the purpose of the IRWM Plan to document the region’s integrated water management planning process.  Chapter 2, Region Description – This chapter summarizes the region’s history, governance, and member agencies involved in the development of this document. It also provides a detailed description of the region’s water resources.  Chapter 3, Plan Development – This chapter presents the results of each step of the planning process, including the objectives, resource management strategies, technical analyses, stakeholder involvement, project review process, and integration and coordination. The chapter also details the planning process, including the living process that will continue after completion of the IRWM Plan Update, and relationships to local water and land-use planning, and stakeholders.  Chapter 4, IRWM Plan Implementation – This chapter discusses all the considerations for implementing this IRWM Plan, including possible benefits and impacts.  Chapter 5, References – This chapter lists the references used in the development of this document. 1.4 IRWM Plan Standards This IRWM Plan successfully meets the requirements of a DWR IRWM plan as established by the program’s planning grant. Each of the IRWM Plan Standards, including related components, has been addressed. Table 1-1 lists the various standards of a compliant IRWM Plan and indicates the chapter/section in which each component is addressed. Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 1-1. Location of IRWM Plan Standard IRWM Plan Standard Section Governance Section 2.3, Section 4.1 Region Description Chapter 2 Objectives Section 2.9, Section 3.2 Resource Management Strategies Section 3.3, Appendix G Project Review Process Section 2.9, Section 3.4 Impacts and Benefits Section 4.3, Section 4.4 Plan Performance and Monitoring Section 3.4, Section 3.8, Section 4.6 Data Management Section 4.7 Finance Section 4.5 Technical Analysis Section 3.5 Relation to Local Water Planning Section 3.5, Section 3.7.9 Relation to Local Land-Use Planning Section 3.7.10 Stakeholder Involvement Section 3.6 Integration and Coordination Section 3.7 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Section 2.8, Section 2.9, Chapter 3 Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. IRWM Plan Update 2-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2. Region Description 2.1. The East Contra Costa County Region ECCC contains the largest plain area in Contra Costa County, and includes much of the hilly terrain of the Diablo Range, as well as the agricultural areas adjacent and within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region. Home to more than 330,000 people and still growing, its four cities are Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg. Unincorporated communities include Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. ECCC is bounded by the ridge lines of Mount Diablo to the south and west, and nestled along the meandering banks of the complex historic Delta water system to the north and east. The landscape frames a geographically distinct region. Its unique footprint both isolates and incorporates complex urban and Delta water management issues, and brings with it a unique set of challenges and opportunities for water management. In addition to its highly diverse population, the 350 square miles of ECCC host a wide range of water-related uses, including major industrial activities, agriculture, and recreation, as well as fragile habitats and sensitive species. All are dependent on water. The Delta serves as the primary water source for the region. Originating from rivers within the Sierra Nevada, the water flows into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, eventually finding its way into the Delta. The ECCC members all share a location within and/or a hydrological connection to the statutory Delta – a legally defined, environmentally sensitive ecosystem that supports over 750 plant and animal species, provides drinking water to over two-thirds of Californians, and irrigation supplies for more than 7 million acres of the most productive agricultural land in the world. This water is supplemented to varying degrees by groundwater and recycled water. A series of special studies was conducted as part of this IRWM Plan to further explore expansion of the region’s recycled water supplies. Water use efficiency programs including conservation as well as water reuse are increasingly important as the region responds to ongoing drought conditions and plans for future drought and emergency scenarios. Residents also benefit from and rely on critical flood and stormwater infrastructure, water treatment facilities, wastewater collection systems and treatment plants, and recycled water systems. The integrated water management needs of the region are likely to grow. Although urban development has slowed since 2008 due to the housing foreclosure crisis and downturns in the economy, as of 2015 the ECCC region is beginning to see an increase in new development and anticipates increases in population and urban development over the long term as the demand for affordable housing continues to push Bay Area residents toward the eastern edges of Contra Costa Water flowing from the headwaters of the Sacramento River then stored at Lake Shasta are part of an overall water system that serves ECCC. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County and Alameda counties. The future water supplies required to reliably meet the needs of the region will come from a diverse portfolio of water management options that considers lessons learned from the ongoing severe drought, statewide programs to balance water supply and environmental needs of the Delta, and the expected longer term hydrology changes resulting from climate change. 2.2. History of Regional Planning The ECCC signatories recognize the value of coordinated regional planning and have a long history of cooperation across geographies, political boundaries, and project types. An early example of this cooperation occurred with the completion of the East County Water Supply Management Study in 1996 (1996 Study). The 1996 Study was commissioned by the East County Water Management Association (ECWMA). The Governing Board of Representatives included:  City of Antioch  City of Brentwood  Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID)  Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)  Contra Costa County (formerly Contra Costa County Water Agency [CCCWA])  Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District [DDSD])  Diablo Water District (DWD)  East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID)  Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD)  City of Pittsburg The purpose of the effort was to assess future water supply management within the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. Through this effort, the partnering agencies developed a comprehensive regional assessment of water demands and supplies through 2040, treatment and delivery options, water supply alternatives, and recommendations and implementation strategies for regional water management. This cooperative approach to resource management has served the region well and is reflected in the ECWMA, the regional water management group that has stepped forward to lead the ECCC IRWM Region. Other collaborative activities of the group members prior to the formation of the IRWM Region included multi-agency coordination for completion of multiple planning efforts, such as:  Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Future Water Supply Study (FWSS) Final Report, 1996 – A detailed analysis of the future supply and water needs for the CCWD service area, informed by a 29-member stakeholder feedback group, including members from ECCC, and an Inter-Agency Work Group consisting of planning and water management agencies within the CCWD service area.  Contra Costa County Stormwater Management Plan, 1999 – The basis for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit application to the Central Valley Water Board and San Francisco Bay Water Board. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  CCWD FWSS Final Report Update, 2002 – A review of projections and success of the 1996 FWSS, including updated 50-year water demand projections and a review of available supplies based on 2000 Census data and CCWD obligations contained in the Biological Opinion for the Multi-Purpose Pipeline and the FWSS Implementation Program. It also reflected renegotiation of CCWD’s Central Valley Project (CVP) contract, an expanded conservation program, and water transfers to provide drought reliability and to accommodate future growth.  Delta Regional Drinking Water Quality Management Plan, 2005 – Provided an understanding of water quality conditions at the urban intakes within the Delta; identified challenges and issues confronting agencies diverting water from the Delta; and developed projects and programs at the local, regional, and statewide level to address these issues and ensure that in-Delta agencies can meet their water quality goals in the future.  Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan (FEIRWM Plan), 2005 – Leveraged the planning efforts cited above and brought together water management agencies of the ECWMA, identified water management objectives and strategies, and helped prioritize a list of implementation projects.  East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), 2006 – Provided a plan to preserve and enhance native habitats that support endangered and sensitive species while providing a regional incidental take permit under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The HCP was finalized in 2007 and implementation started in 2008.  Brentwood/CCWD Joint Water Treatment Plant (WTP), 2008 – The City of Brentwood and CCWD partnered to design, finance, build, and operate a WTP to serve Brentwood. The new plant shares facilities and infrastructure with its neighbor, CCWD’s Randall Bold WTP (RBWTP). These measures reduce operational and construction costs and environmental impacts, while providing an efficient and reliable water treatment system. Other notable joint efforts, both prior to formation of the IRWM Region, and in parallel with, but separate from, IRWM efforts included:  East County Groundwater Study (1999)  ECCID-Brentwood Transfers (1999)  ECCID-CCWD Transfer (2000)  DWD-Antioch Intertie (2003)  DWD Tracy Subbasin Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) (2007)  DDSD/Pittsburg Recycled Water Project (2008)  Pittsburg Plain GMP (2012)  Pittsburg Plain Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary Report (2012)  DWD Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis Report (2012)  DDSD Recycled Water Master Plan (2013)  Regional Capacity Study for the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Martinez, and Pittsburg, CCWD, and DWD (2014) Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ECCC agencies also share and/or use interdependent facilities, such as interties between member agencies and the RBWTP, which is co-owned by CCWD and DWD. Some capacity at the RBWTP is allocated to the cities of Antioch and Brentwood, as well as the community of Bay Point (Golden State Water Company). Since CCWD is the primary surface water supply wholesaler to the ECCC region, several agencies access CCWD’s Delta infrastructure, including the Delta intakes at Rock Slough, Middle and Old River, the Contra Costa Canal (Canal) and Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and related conveyance. The same is true on the wastewater side where Delta Diablos regional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and conveyance system serves the collection system of Antioch and Pittsburg. While the ECWMA was founded in 1995 to undertake the development of the 1996 Study, it was terminated upon acceptance of the recommended actions in the study (November 1996). Realizing how important coordination was, the regional partners reestablished ECWMA in August 1997 to facilitate continued communication, cooperation, and education among the member agencies as water supply reliability projects were implemented. Part of what makes the ECWMA such a successful regional water management group is that member agencies all share common water management challenges and a desire to pool resources to leverage results. The spirit of partnership continues to this day and member agencies coordinate on a regular basis. As described later in this section, the level of regional cooperation and coordination facilitated by the ECWMA has helped to avoid/resolve potential conflicts in the region and has resulted in several successful regional planning and implementation projects within the ECCC region over the past decade. The success of these multi-benefit regional initiatives has established a foundation of trust between ECWMA member agencies and other regional stakeholders that will enable successful implementation of future water management activities as well. 2.2.1. The DWR IRWM Regional Process In 2009, the DWR instituted a Regional Acceptance Process (RAP) to evaluate and accept an IRWM region into its IRWM grant program. At a minimum, a region is defined as a contiguous geographic area encompassing the service areas of multiple local agencies. It is intended to encompass an area in which opportunities to integrate water management activities can be optimized and to effectively integrate water management programs and projects within a hydrologic region as defined in the California Water Plan (CWP), the Water Board region or subdivision, or other region specifically identified by DWR. Per these requirements, the ECCC region successfully submitted a RAP application and was fully recognized by DWR as an IRWM region. Interestingly, the IRWM regional definition creates some complexity. As a contiguous geographic area encompassing multiple ECCC service areas, the The Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant is one example of a shared facility within the East Contra Costa County Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County region also overlaps sections of the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM region. This Bay Area region includes all or part of nine counties (including Contra Costa) and 110 cities, and is coterminous with the boundary of the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2). While the ECCC region rests primarily in the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5), it overlaps with Region 2 (the San Francisco Bay Water Board) jurisdiction in Pittsburg, Bay Point, and a small portion of Antioch within Contra Costa County. Further, under the definitions of funding areas as described in DWR grant guidelines, the overlap area is eligible for funds from both the San Francisco and San Joaquin River funding areas. The potential for leveraging multiple funding sources with the San Francisco Bay IRWM region is especially important as the overlap area includes, as defined by income, a disproportionate number of Disadvantaged Advantaged Community (DAC) members. At the same time, the requirements for coordination are increased. As part of its RAP application, the ECWMA member agencies formed a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG), responsible for navigating these jurisdictional complexities, coordinating with other planning efforts, and updating and implementing the region’s IRWM Plan. Added to the original list of 1996 partners and in recognition of the importance of integrated management, were:  Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD)  Discovery Bay Community Services District  East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) With the first ECCC IRWM Plan (a Functionally-Equivalent IRWM Plan finalized in 2005) and the 2009 RAP, the region was able to secure various planning and implementation grants from DWR to implement and update their IRWM Plan. Table 2-1 shows each of the successful grants for the region. In 2010, the ECWMA was amended to change the name “Contra Costa County Water Agency” to “Contra Costa County.” Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-1. IRWM Regional Grant Awards Funding Opportunity Date Amount Received Projects Proposition 50 IRWM Implementation Grant, Round 2005—2006 $12,500,000  Antioch Recycled Water Implementation  DWD Well Utilization Project  Pittsburg Recycled Water Project  Alternative Intake Project  Antioch Water Treatment Plant Project  CCWD Canal Improvement Project  Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration – Phase 1  HCP Habitat and Watershed Protection/Restoration Project Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management Grant, Round 1 December 2011 $2,000,000 Awarded to CCCFCWCD  Upper Sand Creek Basin Improvements Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management Grant, Round 1 December 2011 $10,000,000 Awarded to CCWD  Contra Costa Canal Improvements Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management Grant, Round 1 December 2011 $2,997,300 Awarded to the City of Antioch  West Antioch Creek Stormwater Improvements Proposition 84 Implementation Grant, Round 1 August 2011 $1,775,000  Pittsburg Recycled Water Pipeline Rehabilitation Project  Watershed Protection and Restoration Proposition 84 Planning Grant, Round 1 February 2011 $449,843  IRWM Plan Update  Pittsburg Plain GMP  Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis Report  Pittsburg Plain Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary Report Proposition 84 Planning Grant, Round 2 November 2012 $451,818  Enhanced Website and Outreach  Regional Recycled Water Planning  Regional Capacity Study Proposition 84 Implementation Grant, Round 2 March 2013 $430,000  Rossmoor Well Replacement/ Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Key: CCCFCWCD = Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DWD = Diablo Water District GMP = Groundwater Management Plan HCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.3. Governance As noted above, the ECWMA, which operates via a cooperative agreement known as the ECWMA Agreement, is the foundation of the IRWM. Representatives from the members of the ECWMA serve as the official RWMG for the ECCC region. The ECWMA remains a consortium of 13 member agencies with a broad range of water management-related responsibilities within the region. The organizational structure is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.3.1. Regional Water Management Group The ECWMA is governed and operated by the Governing Board Representatives (GBR), composed of one elected official representative from each of the member agencies. Further, the ECWMA has a Joint Managers Committee (JMC) that is composed of managers from each of the member agencies. The term “manager” means City Manager, County Administrator, or General Manager of each of the member agencies and their respective alternates designated by the member agency, or their designees. The JMC can appoint subcommittees related to specific water management activities with which the members of the ECWMA are involved. Each member of the ECWMA appoints staff to serve as representatives on the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). Because the RWMG is comprised of members of the ECWMA, the group meets the required definition of a RWMG per DWR’s IRWM Guidelines. The staff representatives of the ECWMA that constitute the RWMG are responsible for representing their agencies and providing input on IRWM matters on behalf of their agencies. The RWMG members meet as needed to discuss IRWM and other regional matters, and are responsible for taking issues to their representatives on the JMC to resolve disputes or settle issues. Approximately two times per year the RWMG members meet with the larger ECWMA to inform the group of recent IRWM-related activities and other pertinent matters that are of interest to the ECWMA. These bi-annual meetings of the ECWMA are open to the public, noticed, and conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. As such, the ECWMA meetings provide a forum through which non-ECWMA member agencies, participants, stakeholders, and members of the public can provide input on the ECCC IRWM Program. In addition to the two regular meetings held each year, the chair or any three members of the GBR may call a special meeting as needed to discuss IRWM-related matters. A full roster of the Governing Board is contained in Appendix B. CCWD has served as the lead agency responsible for submitting any IRWM grant materials on behalf of the ECCC region. CCWD has been serving as the lead agency for the ECCC region in accordance with a February 25, 2005, letter agreement signed by all of the ECWMA member agencies. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-1. ECWMA Organization Chart Subcommittees The RWMG often forms subcommittees related to specific water management activities in which members of the ECWMA are involved. For example, there is a subcommittee of the member agencies and stakeholders that took the lead in developing the FEIRWM Plan, related grants applications, and the 2012 IRWM Plan and the 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Native American Tribal Participation During the 2015 IRWM Plan update, a review of DWR and other tribal maps, as well as a summary scan of ECCC historic literature, was conducted (described in Section 3.6.6). After this review, it was determined there are no tribal communities currently residing in the ECCC region. However, there is a rich history of Native American occupation in ECCC, including the Kellogg Creek National Historic District located on the Los Vaqueros watershed. Future IRWM projects may be proposed that benefit tribal communities. To ensure that tribal interests are represented in the East County IRWM, stakeholder groups will be invited to IRWM meetings and will be consulted. For example, the California Indian Environmental Alliance will be included on the meeting invitations and on other mailings from the IRWM group. If specific project opportunities are identified or proposed that benefit tribes, additional outreach is anticipated to organizations such as California Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County State Parks, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the California Indian Heritage Center (CIHC), the CIHC Foundation, and the Native American Heritage Commission. 2.3.2. Scope Decision Making The ECWMA is a collaborative association with member agencies each having representatives that serve on the RWMG and report regularly to the ECWMA. All actions undertaken by the ECWMA require majority vote. If one or more members do not wish to participate in an activity undertaken by the ECWMA, the member can opt out and would not have any financial responsibility for that activity. Implementation of the IRWM Plan Implementation of the IRWM Plan is conducted by the project sponsors, which typically consist of partnerships of member agencies and interested stakeholders. The project sponsors undertake specific activities related to project implementation and funding. Project development and funding is described under Implementation Grant Applications, below. Progress reports on the status of project implementation are provided at the ECWMA meetings and other regional forums. Updating the IRWM Plan This IRWM Plan will be updated when prompted by significant regional changes or by new requirements of the State. The RWMG or designated subcommittee, will monitor conditions within the East County and be apprised of statewide IRWM requirements, and will notify the RWMG if an update is needed to the IRWM Plan. Stakeholder input received at any of the stakeholder forums will also be considered when determining if an update to the Plan is required. Updates to the IRWM Plan will be performed by participating RWMG agency staff, or through use of a consulting firm, depending on the scope and scale of the needed Plan update. If a major update is anticipated, CCWD, serving as the lead agency responsible for submitting IRWM materials on behalf of the RWMG, will work with participating east county IRWM agencies to solicit support from a consulting firm to help prepare the update. In this case, funding should be available to support the cost of the Plan update from the East County IRWM, state grants, or though outside agencies. If a minor update is anticipated, the RWMG will discuss whether internal agency staff to any participating RWMG agencies have the capacity to perform the update themselves. If so, agencies may opt to provide staff services as in-kind donations to the RWMG.CCWD will provide a summary of the updated plan at an ECWMA meeting. The ECWMA meets at least twice a year and additionally, as needed. All of the ECWMA meetings are open to the public, noticed, and conducted in accordance with the Brown Act. The updated plan information will then be incorporated onto the East County IRWM website. Adopting the IRWM Plan Once an IRWM Plan update is completed, CCWD (on behalf of the RWMG) will submit the updated Plan to DWR for review. Upon DWR review and approval of the Plan, each participating agency that is a member of the ECWMA will adopt the updated IRWM Plan. Pursuant to the 2016 Guidelines, all Local Project Sponsors funded under an IRWM grant agreement must also adopt the IRWM plan. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This IRWM Plan was last updated in 2019 in anticipation of the Proposition 1 IRWM Implementation Round 1 grant. The IRWM Plan was submitted to DWR for review. Upon approval by DWR, the IRWM Plan update will be formally adopted via governing Board action by the following ECWMA agencies:  City of Antioch  City of Brentwood  Byron-Bethany Irrigation District  Contra Costa County Flood Control and Conservation District  Contra Costa County  Contra Costa Resource Conservation District  Contra Costa Water District  Delta Diablo  Diablo Water District  Discovery Bay Community Services District  East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy  East Contra Costa Irrigation District  Ironhouse Sanitary District  Any Local Project Sponsors anticipated to receive funding by an IRWM grant program. Progress Monitoring There are two levels of progress monitoring, (1) project level, undertaken by the project sponsor; and (2) IRWM Plan level, undertaken by all the plan participants under the auspices of the RWMG. Each of the projects included within the plan has specific project metrics and appropriate monitoring approaches identified to assess performance on an ongoing basis. The project proponent takes the lead on monitoring the project implementation performance, and is responsible for providing updates to the RWMG. The RWMG uses the project monitoring information, together with input from member agencies and stakeholders, to assist with periodic reviews of the progress of the region in meeting the objectives of the IRWM Plan. Review of progress and reevaluation of conditions and needs in the region feeds into the IRWM Plan updates discussed above. Implementation Grant Applications In the case of applying for a grant, the designated lead agency, with participating agency input, informs the ECWMA that the region will pursue grant funds for one or more high-priority projects that meet specific grant criteria. Each participating agency in any implementation grant request is required to pay a fair share of the consultant cost services and provide the technical information to support the grant application. CCWD has generally served as the lead agency for requesting implementation grant funding, contracted for consulting services with each agency paying their fair share and assuming grant award has administered the awarded grant assuming a fee of up to 5% of the requested grant funding. Adjustments to this structure can be made based on the level of interest by other participating agencies who may have more available resources. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.4. Description of Internal Boundaries 2.4.1. Region The region, as approved by DWR during the 2009 RAP, covers 350 square miles. The ECCC IRWM region has distinct water management circumstances that unify it as a region. The region boundary is shown in Figure 2-2. Region Quick Facts The ECCC IRWM region is a cohesive geographic area. Isolated from the remainder of Contra Costa County and the greater Bay Area by ridgelines of Mount Diablo on the southern and western boundaries, it is bounded on the north and east by the San Joaquin River and Old River, and the associated maze of waterways within an agricultural zone effectively separating the ECCC region from the Central Valley region. The entire region drains to the Delta. This occurs primarily through the Marsh Creek, Kirker Creek, and Kellogg Creek watersheds. These watersheds encompass the jurisdictional boundaries of the ECCC IRWM region participating agencies, except for Contra Costa County and the CCWD, which serve an area broader than ECCC. All or a portion of the cities and unincorporated communities within the ECCC IRWM region are located within the statutory Delta. Located within the Delta boundaries, and with Delta water as a primary source of drinking water for the ECCC IRWM region, the agencies in ECCC share a common commitment to protect and restore the Delta water quality and environment. Figure 2-3 shows the region in relation to the statutory boundaries of the Delta. The water agencies in the ECCC IRWM region all fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5). There are some agencies (CCWD, Delta Diablo , and the City of Pittsburg) that fall in both the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2) and the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5) jurisdictional areas. The remaining regional entities lie entirely within the Central Valley Water Board. These water board boundaries are shown in Figure 2-2. The water management entities in ECCC have long recognized the value of regional cooperation in integrating water management activities related to natural and constructed water systems. Ongoing regional planning initiatives, such as the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the IRWM Plan and others, are in place for the ECCC communities, urban water suppliers, agricultural water suppliers, habitat preservation and enhancement entities, watershed managers, and wastewater agencies to work on common issues. Successful resolution to past water resource conflicts has given these entities proven practices and tools to manage potential conflicts in the future. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-2. ECCC IRWM Region and Surrounding Areas Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-3. ECCC IRWM Region and the Statutory Delta Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.4.2. Member Agencies This IRWM Plan was developed under the direction and support of the RWMG and its members, as identified in the region’s RAP application. The ECCC region covers all aspects of water management within the region: drinking water supply and quality, wastewater, recycled water, flood control and stormwater, and watershed and habitat management. Table 2-2 illustrates the range of services provided by member agencies. Table 2-2. Regional Water Management Group Members and Primary Functions Member Agency Water Supply and Quality* Wastewater* Recycled* Stormwater/ Flood Management Watershed and Habitat City of Antioch √ * √ √ √ √ City of Brentwood √ * √ * √ * √ √ Byron-Bethany Irrigation District √ √ * Contra Costa County Flood Control √ √ Contra Costa County √* √ √ Contra Costa Resource Conservation District √ √ Contra Costa Water District √ * √ Delta Diablo √ * √ * Diablo Water District √ * Discovery Bay Community Services District √ * √ * East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy √ √ East Contra Costa Irrigation District √ Ironhouse Sanitary District √ * √ * City of Pittsburg √ * √ √ √ √ Note: * Agency role includes treatment; otherwise role is collection/distribution The RWMG and its members are diverse, ranging from municipalities to special districts, with large agencies employing hundreds of staff members to very small agencies with fewer than five staff members. Many of the agencies work within the same geographies, and over the years, the jurisdictions have forged cooperative efforts well in advance of being formally accepted by DWR as an IRWM region. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-15 September 2015 East Contra Costa County Figures 2-4 through 2-6 illustrate the boundaries of the region’s agencies by their service type. Figure 2-4 displays participating and supporting water agencies, Figure 2-5 displays participating wastewater agencies, and Figure 2-6 shows the participating flood management and environmental agencies. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-4. Participating Water Supply Agencies Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-5. Participating Wastewater Agencies Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-6. Participating Flood Management and Environmental Agencies Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Following are brief descriptions of the agencies and the services each provides. City of Antioch  Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater  Stormwater/Flood Management  Watershed and Habitat The City of Antioch, one of California’s oldest cities, is home to 103,833 residents. The City delivers treated water to residential, commercial, and irrigation customers. Personnel maintain approximately 387 miles of water main, 31,349 service connections and meters, and 2,329 backflow prevention devices; they maintain, repair, and flush approximately 3,449 fire hydrants, and exercise system valves. They also administer a water conservation program focused on providing residential, commercial, and irrigation customers with education, assistance, and financial incentives to conserve the City’s treated water supply. Antioch pumps water from the San Joaquin River when Delta water quality is sufficient. Antioch also purchases untreated Delta water from CCWD and has the capacity to treat 36 million gallons per day (MGD) at the Antioch WTP. In addition, Antioch has purchased a permanent capacity right (currently 5 MGD with a reservation of up to 10 MGD) in the RBWTP, a regional WTP co- owned with CCWD and DWD from CCWD’s share of the plant capacity. The City also maintains an estimated 305 miles of sanitary sewer system for wastewater collection that serves 29,943 residential and commercial sewer lateral connections. Waste flows to Delta Diablo’s Regional Treatment Plant. The City’s stormwater operations maintain, in a safe and serviceable condition, natural and constructed facilities that handle stormwater runoff in the City of Antioch’s jurisdiction. Personnel assigned to this activity remove debris and illegally dumped trash, and perform weed abatement activities. City of Brentwood Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater  Recycled Water  Watershed and Habitat  Stormwater/Flood Management The City of Brentwood delivers water to more than 52,000 residents through 18,000 connections and approximately 172 miles of water mains. The City uses groundwater and surface water for its domestic water system using entitlements from ECCID. The City's eight groundwater wells supply over 1.9 billion gallons of water each year. Surface water purchased from ECCID is treated at the City of Brentwood (COB) WTP or at RBWTP through capacity obtained from CCWD. Surface water supplies approximately 2.5 billion gallons of water annually. The City has multiple storage reservoirs located throughout the City to store water during low demand periods for use during peak consumption by the City's water customers. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The COBWTP was part of a joint venture between the City and CCWD in which CCWD designed and constructed the COBWTP on behalf of the City. The City is responsible for operational and capital costs, and CCWD operates and maintains the facility. The first phase of the COBWTP, which has been constructed and is in operation, can treat up to 16.5 MGD of surface water. However, the plant is designed so that it can be expanded to an ultimate capacity of 30 MGD to serve the City’s projected water demands through 2040. In addition, Brentwood has purchased a permanent capacity right of 6 MGD in the RBWTP. In addition, the City owns and operates a 5.0 MGD capacity tertiary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which includes reclamation facilities for irrigation. An estimated 3 MGD treated at the WWTP is discharged to Marsh Creek, while the remaining tertiary recycled water is used for irrigation. Brentwood has been collecting and treating wastewater since 1948 and currently delivers recycled water to customers throughout the City. The City of Brentwood recently completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study that examined maximizing recycled water deliveries to existing recycled water customers, existing potential recycled water customers, and future potential recycled water customers. In sum, this report found that an additional 1,406 AFY of recycled water could be delivered to 86 new recycled water users through implementation of the recommended project. Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater The BBID operates and maintains a wastewater collection system and treatment facility for the residents of Byron and provides agricultural water to southeastern Contra Costa County. Organized in 1914, BBID originally furnished water to landowners in Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin counties, covering 24,000 acres northwest of Tracy. While BBID was owned, built, and managed by the landowners, it was not consolidated into an irrigation district until 2004. In 2004, BBID formally consolidated with the former Plain View Water District, an adjacent district of 6,000 acres located in San Joaquin County along the Delta-Mendota Canal south and west of Tracy. BBID currently supplies water to a total of just over 30,000 acres of farms, towns, and businesses, and in 2012, BBID served 5,663 acres within Contra Costa County that used 18,484 acre-feet (AF) of water. In 2014 CCWD began to coordinate with BBID to install an intertie from the CCWD Old River pipeline. By July 2015 a portion of the project had commenced implementation. BBID also maintains its own pre-1914 water right and diverts water under a settlement agreement with DWR from an intake in the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant (Banks) intake channel, located between DWR’s Clifton Court Forebay and Banks Pumping Plant. Also, as a federal CVP contractor, BBID receives water from the Trinity and Sacramento Rivers that has been stored in In an effort to conserve water, the City of Brentwood uses recycled water to irrigate a majority of parks and golf courses, saving an estimated 2 MGD of water. Recycled water is generated at the wastewater treatment plant located on Elkins Way, above. Photo by Samie Hartley, March 12, 2009 - Source www.press.net. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Shasta Reservoir and sent toward the Delta as part of the CVP. Once in the Delta, the water is distributed by the Delta-Mendota Canal to the rest of the State. In the process, it makes a stop at the C. W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant in nearby Tracy, which then sends it on to BBID. This CVP water is delivered by BBID to Mountain House, City of Tracy, and the Tracy Hills development. Wastewater treated at the BBID Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is disposed either by percolation and evaporation in the ponds or by land application. This WWTF is permitted for 96,000 gallons per day. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD) Agency role:  Stormwater/Flood Management Created in 1951 by the CCCFCWCD Act, the CCCFCWCD is a special district that manages flood and stormwater, develops flood control plans, and establishes and collects development fees through drainage areas (DA) to fund subregional drainage improvements that support approved General Plan land uses. Plans and fee ordinances, adopted by the Board of Supervisors under the Act, are not subject to the Subdivision Map Act. The CCCFCWCD’s mission is to provide flood protection facilities while protecting environmental resources. Its jurisdiction extends throughout Contra Costa County, including incorporated areas, and it owns most of the major storm drainage facilities in the County. The CCCFCWCD works directly with cities and the County to carry out its mission including, as appropriate:  Implementing DA and zone plans  Constructing flood control projects  Maintaining facilities  Managing rights of way  Reviewing and issuing Flood Control Encroachment Permits for work within CCCFCWCD right of way Understanding Appropriative Water Rights California appropriative water rights (the right to take water) are typically referred to as either pre-1914 or post-1914. On December 19, 1914, the California Legislature adopted new Water Code that fundamentally changed the procedures for obtaining an appropriative water right. Rights obtained after the passage of this code are called post-1914 rights. Obtaining a post-1914 right begins with an Application to Appropriate Water with the State Water Resources Control Board, followed by a series of subsequent steps. Pre-1914 rights are based on laws enacted in 1872. Generally, people wanting to take water from a water body posted a notice and/or began to use it in a beneficial way. It was essentially a first come, first serve approach and the people first in line can pre-empt those following. Once acquired, a pre-1914 appropriative right can only be maintained by continuous beneficial use of the water. The right is not fixed by the amount claimed in the original notice of appropriation; the notice of appropriation only fixes the date of priority. The amount of the right is fixed by the amount that can be shown to be actually beneficially used as to both amount and season of diversion. The rights acquired under a pre-1914 water right can be lost by either abandonment or failure to use the water beneficially for five (5) years. This distinction in water rights is important to understand as it explains what is required to maintain the right and the order of priority to water the water right holder has. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The CCCFCWCD is an active partner in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, with a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and is regulated under Central Valley Water Board Order. No. R5-2010-0102. This is a joint permit for the City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, and CCCFCWCD. The CCCFCWCD is involved with several watershed groups, watershed councils, and watershed- focused agencies such as the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) and the Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed (FOMCW). In the ECCC region, the CCCFCWCD has worked cooperatively on a fish passage projects, creek and habitat restoration projects, and recreational facilities (trails and dual use parks/play fields) as part of its ongoing membership in the Region’s community. Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Agency Role:  Water Supply and Quality  Watershed and Habitat The mission of the CCRCD is to facilitate conservation and stewardship of the county’s natural resources. Under that mission, the CCRCD has worked in cooperation with landowners and agencies in the ECCC region for many years. The CCRCD is a non-regulatory agency – working with individuals, growers, ranchers, public agencies, nonprofit organizations and corporations to accomplish goals. Their federal partner, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), provides technical support for programs. The CCRCD was formed in 1941. Their service area is consistent with the political boundaries of Contra Costa County. CCRCD is one of California’s 103 Resource Conservation Districts and is governed by a voluntary Board of Directors appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and regulated under Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code. The CCRCD Board of Directors holds monthly meetings. The CCRCD has active programs in many parts of the county related to promoting watershed awareness and health and habitat. As an example the CCRCD worked with land owners and developed watershed plans. It has promoted an Adopt a Creek Program, and supports Friends of Marsh Creek and the Contra Costa Watershed Forum Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Watershed and Habitat The CCWD, covering 137,127 acres, was formed in 1936 to provide water for irrigation and industry. Since then, CCWD has expanded to serve about 500,000 people in central and eastern Contra Costa County, making it one of California’s largest urban water districts. A leader in drinking water treatment technology and source water protection, CCWD acts as both a retail and wholesale water distributor, delivering treated drinking water directly to customers and both treated and untreated water to retail water agencies and major industries. About 200,000 Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County people receive treated water directly from CCWD, and the other 300,000 receive water CCWD delivers to six local agencies. CCWD draws its water from the Delta primarily under a contract with the federal CVP. As such, it is particularly concerned about Delta water quality and the Delta environment. CCWD is the CVP's largest urban contractor. Other local sources of water used in CCWD’s service area include a Delta surplus water right, Mallard Slough water rights, recycled water, a minor amount of local groundwater, and water transfers. In 1998, CCWD completed construction of the locally-financed $450 million Los Vaqueros Project, including a 100 thousand acre-feet (TAF) reservoir designed to provide improved water quality and emergency supply reliability for CCWD customers, as well as net environmental benefits. In 2012, the reservoir was enlarged. The dam was raised 34 feet and the reservoir’s capacity was increased to 160 TAF. CCWD also manages approximately 19,000 acres Los Vaqueros Watershed, and about 5,000 acres of additional conservation lands. The backbone of the CCWD conveyance system is the Contra Costa Canal (owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation], and operated and maintained by CCWD). The Contra Costa Canal travels a total of 48 miles through the ECCC IRWM Region. A series of four pump stations (Pumping Plants 1 through 4) lift the water from Rock Slough to a height of 126 feet above sea level, after which gravity propels the water to its terminus in Martinez. The canal passes through many of the cities and communities in the northeastern and central county areas before ending at the Martinez Reservoir. Water is also supplied to the canal from Old and Middle Rivers via the Los Vaqueros and Middle River pipelines and from Mallard Slough. The Middle River Intake Station began operation in July 2010. CCWD owns two water treatment plants, the 40 MGD capacity Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant in Oakley (jointly with DWD) and the 75 MGD capacity Bollman Water Treatment Plant in Concord. Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District [DDSD]) Agency role:  Wastewater  Recycled Water Delta Diablo provides wastewater collection services for the unincorporated community of Bay Point, and conveyance, treatment, and disposal services for certain unincorporated areas of eastern Contra Costa County, including the community of Bay Point and the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. Delta Diablo was originally formed in 1955 and began providing subregional wastewater conveyance and treatment services in 1982. Delta Diablo now serves an estimated population of over 188,500 residents in a service area of approximately 52 square miles. Delta Diablo wastewater infrastructure includes pumping stations, conveyance systems, and equalization basins in each community, a wastewater treatment plant, and a recycled water facility (RWF) located on the Pittsburg-Antioch border. Treated wastewater is discharged in New York Slough, a section of the San Joaquin River. The WWTP has a permitted capacity of 16.5 MGD. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County In 2000, Delta Diablo began a landmark recycled water program to produce and deliver tertiary recycled water for power generation and for landscape irrigation of municipal golf courses and parks in Pittsburg and Antioch. Delta Diablo has produced and delivered over 26 billion gallons of recycled water from 2001 to 2012. Delta Diablo has been involved with household hazardous waste collection since 1995, leading a multi-jurisdictional effort involving Contra Costa County; ISD; and the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg. Delta Diablo has constructed and manages the Delta Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility, which has diverted over 4,500 tons of waste from landfills and waterways through 2012. In 2012, Delta Diablo was named Plant of the Year by the San Francisco Bay Section of the Clean Water Environment Association (5 MGD to 20 MGD facilities), and also received Platinum Peak Performance Award 9 by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies for 9 consecutive years of 100 percent compliance with its discharge permit. Delta Diablo is currently exploring opportunities in water resource recovery and is partnering with Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories on innovative pilot projects. Delta Diablo is also continuing its lead role in both the Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition (BAB2E) and the Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC). In 2013, Delta Diablo completed a Recycled Water Master Plan to examine maximizing the utilization of existing facilities and to identify both near-term and long-term projects that could be implemented to improve performance of Delta Diablo’s existing recycled water system and expand recycled water deliveries. The Recycled Water Master Plan results were incorporated into a Title XVI-compliant Feasibility Study, making Delta Diablo eligible to receive Title XVI grant funding for recycled water implementation projects. The Title XVI program that was identified and recommended in the Recycled Water Master Plan consists of a recycled water distribution system expansion project and a High Purity Water Treatment Facility (HPWTF) that would consist of a microfiltration/reverse osmosis treatment plant and related pipelines and pump stations. The HPWTF project would involve construction of an advanced treatment facility capable of removing chlorides from water that is currently available in the Delta but is too high in TDS to be usable. As such, both projects proposed under the Title XVI program would allow Delta Diablo to make use of available water supplies and increase overall water supply reliability in the region. Diablo Water District (DWD) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality The DWD was formed in 1953 as a self-governing local public agency to provide water to customers in downtown Oakley. Today, DWD obtains, treats, and supplies water for about 35,000 people and the parks, schools, and businesses throughout a 21-square-mile area consisting of Oakley, Cypress Corridor, and Hotchkis Tract, as well as Summer Lakes, and portions of Bethel Island and Knightsen. It provides approximately 9.5 MGD of water, on a maximum day, to residents. Most of the water delivered by DWD is surface water supplied by CCWD. DWD purchases untreated Delta water from CCWD and treats it at the RBWTP, which DWD owns jointly with CCWD. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County DWD’s surface water source has been supplemented by groundwater from the Glen Park municipal well since 2006 and the Stonecreek well since 2011. DWD uses up to 4 MGD of local groundwater, which is blended with the Delta water to maintain consistent water quality for its customers. The water is then distributed through the main municipal system serving the City of Oakley. Expanded use of groundwater is an objective of DWD under its Well Utilization Project in which it seeks to develop 6 MGD to 7 MGD of well capacity to supplement surface water and improve reliability, drought supply, and operating flexibility of its system. Outside of its main distribution system, in unincorporated areas, DWD owns and/or operates a number of small community wells. DWD is in the beginning stages of converting its water meter reading system to a remote FlexNet radio read system, through which DWD staff are able to read water meters from the central office and automatically check customer accounts for leaks. It is expected that DWD will have fully converted its 11,000 meters to the FlexNet system within 10 years. If grant funding is available, the conversion could be completed sooner, depending on the amount of funding awarded. Discovery Bay Community Services District Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater The Town of Discovery Bay is located adjacent to the Delta, approximately six miles southeast of the City of Brentwood along the Highway 4 corridor, just east of Byron Highway (J-4). A significant portion of Discovery Bay is situated within a network of constructed lakes and channels that are connected to the Delta. The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (District) was formed in 1998 to provide Discovery Bay’s over 15,000 residents with water treatment, distribution, and storage. The community is largely residential with some commercial and irrigation uses. The District owns water supply wells, treatment plants, storage tanks, and distribution system pipelines that serve water through 6,116 service connections for residential, commercial, and irrigation uses in an approximate 9-square-mile area. Many of the residential properties have docks with backyard access to the constructed channels and Delta waters. The levees and waterways of Discovery Bay are managed and maintained by Reclamation District (RD) 800 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The system is defined by relatively flat topographies with mean sea level elevations ranging from 5 feet to 15 feet across the entire system. The District derives all of its water supply from six active groundwater supply wells. Raw water from the wells is delivered and treated at two WTPs, known as the Newport WTP and the Willow Lake WTP, with a water storage capacity of 2.5 million gallons of treated water. Two storage tanks are located at each plant to provide operational equalization and reserves for fire safety. Booster facilities pump water from storage to provide the flow and pressure required in the distribution system. On a summer day, the District will pump approximately 4 MGD to 5 MGD of which a large portion of that is being used for irrigation. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County In addition, the District owns two WWTFs that treat an average of 1.4 million gallons of wastewater per day using advanced tertiary treatment. The system also includes 15 wastewater lift stations that transport/move the raw wastewater to the main WWTF and 60 miles of water and wastewater mains. The water and wastewater facilities are operated and maintained by Veolia North America under a multi-year contract. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Watershed and Habitat Originally formed in 2007, the ECCCHC is a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County to implement the ECCC HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP provides a framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species. Within the 174,018-acre inventory area, the NCCP will provide permits for between 8,670 and 11,853 acres of development and will permit impacts on an additional 1,126 acres from rural infrastructure projects. The Preserve System to be acquired under the NCCP will encompass about 24,000 to 30,000 acres of land that will be managed for the benefit of 28 species, as well as the natural communities that they, and hundreds of other species, depend upon. The NCCP will allow Contra Costa County, the CCCFCWCD, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (collectively, the Permittees) to control endangered species permitting for activities and projects in the region that they perform or approve. The NCCP also provides for comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation and contributes to the recovery of endangered species in Northern California. The NCCP was approved in 2007. The permit program will be in effect until 2037. The lands acquired will be preserved and managed for species in perpetuity. East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality The ECCID is an independent special district established in 1926 under the Irrigation District Law. The primary purpose of ECCID is to provide agricultural irrigation water to properties within ECCID. ECCID’s boundaries encompass approximately 40 square miles and include the City of Brentwood, the unincorporated community of Knightsen, portions of the cities of Oakley and Antioch, and a large area of unincorporated territory south and east of Brentwood. ECCID supplies irrigation water for agricultural and landscape use as well as raw water for treatment and delivery to urban areas. ECCID has a 1912 appropriative right to divert water from Indian Slough on Old River, and therefore has infrastructure and delivery costs but no water supply costs. ECCID also operates nine groundwater wells. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County From the Indian Slough intake water is conveyed through the Main Canal that extends from the Indian Slough intake area northwest of Discovery Bay to approximately 8,000 feet west of Walnut Boulevard in Brentwood. Seven pump stations are located along the canal. A grid of open canals and pipelines runs throughout ECCID. Deliveries to approximately 50 percent of the agricultural accounts are measured. ECCID has an ongoing program to add measuring devices for all customers. ECCID’s drainage system includes ditches for surface drainage, a subsurface drainage system, and pumps. The original irrigation and drainage system was built in 1911. In 2012, ECCID diverted approximately 37 TAF of which 15 TAF were provided to CCWD and the City of Brentwood, and 22 TAF were used for agriculture. Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) Agency role:  Wastewater  Recycled Water Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) provides sewage collection and treatment and disposal services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated area of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated areas including the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan Area. In existence in some form since 1945, ISD utilizes a staff of 33 field and office personnel to maintain sanitary services for over 38,000 customers. The ISD provides sewage collection, treatment, and disposal services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated area of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Bounded by the San Joaquin River to the north, Delta Diablo to the west, the City of Brentwood to the south and unincorporated area in the Holland Tract to the east; its service area is approximately 37 square miles. ISD’s infrastructure includes gravity and pressure pipelines, pumping stations, and the Ironhouse Water Recycling Facility (WRF). Effluent from the WRF is applied to agricultural lands on Jersey Island and discharged into the San Joaquin River. The District treats approximately 2.5 million gallons of wastewater every day at their treatment facility located north of Highway 4 in Oakley. In October 2011, ISD began operation of a new 4.3 MGD membrane bioreactor Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). Effluent from the WRF is used to irrigate 334 acres of agricultural land on Jersey Island for the production of hay, or is discharged into the San Joaquin River. The WRF has a design capacity of 4.3 MGD and an ultimate capacity of 6.8 MGD. ISD participated in a regional water recycling study looking at providing recycled water to industry outside of the ISD service area. In addition, ISD completed a Recycled Water Master Plan and a Recycled Water Feasibility Study looking at potential users of recycled water within the ISD service area and the economic feasibility of developing a separate non-potable water system that could supply recycled water to offsite users. The preliminary results of ISD’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study demonstrate that in the immediate-term (less than 2 years), recycled water use could increase by 20 AFY with implementation of a fill station that is currently operable. Further, in the near-term (less than 10 years), ISD could increase recycled water use by 2,350 AFY by providing recycled water for industrial reuse along the Wilbur corridor and the Northern Waterfront Area, and by including Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County recycled water uses for sustainable farming practices. In the long-term (more than 20 years), recycled water in ISD’s service area could be increased by between 2,200 and 6,500 AFY through implementation of indirect or direct potable reuse. Upon completion of its new membrane bioreactor WRF, ISD began additional efforts to determine ways in which the high-quality recycled water produced at the WRF could be used within its service area. In 2012, ISD completed a Recycled Water Master Plan that evaluated the feasibility of various alternatives that could be implemented to serve irrigation needs at parks, schools, medians, vineyards, and future industrial facilities. To refine the alternatives developed in the Recycled Water Master Plan, ISD began preparing a Recycled Water Feasibility Study to evaluate additional (ten) alternatives and address cost and feasibility issues identified in the Recycled Water Master Plan. The Feasibility Study identifies immediate-term, near-term, and long-term projects that could be implemented to increase water reuse in ISD’s service area, including:  Immediate term projects: recycled water fill station, higher-value crop farming  Near-term projects: industrial reuse, sustainable farming practices,  Long-term projects: direct potable reuse The Feasibility Study complies with Title XVI requirements and was submitted to the United States Bureau of Reclamation in January 2015; upon final completion of the Title XVI-compliant Feasibility Study, ISD will be eligible to receive Title XVI grant funding for recycled water implementation projects. City of Pittsburg Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater  Stormwater/Flood Management  Watershed and Habitat The City of Pittsburg was incorporated in 1903 as a General Law City and has an estimated current population of around 66,000. Pittsburg is bounded by Suisun Bay to the north, the unincorporated community of Bay Point to the west, the City of Antioch to the east, and the Mount Diablo Recreation Area to the south. The Pittsburg Water Service Area comprises all of the area within the city limits, around 10,000 gross acres (15.6 square miles), and a very small number of individual residents outside. The Bay Point area outside the service area is served by Golden State Water Company (GSWC). Originally a coal shipping port in the 1940s and early 1950s, the City was a major commercial and industrial center for the County and the eastern ports of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Pittsburg experienced rapid population growth during the 1970s and 1980s, evolving into a bedroom community for employment centers in west and central Contra Costa County. Today, the City is part of the second largest industrial center in the County. Located within the CCWD service area, the City obtains roughly 85 percent of its water supply wholesale from CCWD. CCWD provides untreated surface water pumped from the Delta and delivered through the Canal. The remainder of the City’s water supply is obtained from groundwater wells located within the City. In 2015 the City of Pittsburg began drilling a new water Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County well using Proposition 84 IRWM funding from Round 2. Surface water from CCWD and groundwater from the City’s wells are blended at the City’s WTP and delivered to customers within the City. The City’s water system includes a 32 MGD WTP, two municipal wells, seven pump stations, and eight drinking water storage reservoirs. Delta Diablo treats wastewater from Pittsburg, and also provides recycled water for industrial and irrigation use within the City service area. The City and its residents are increasingly focused on quality-of-life issues. Pittsburg has been designated both a Healthy City by California Healthy Cities and Communities Project, and a Tree City U.S.A. 2.4.3. Other Water-Related Agencies within the Region A variety of other related local and regional groups are stakeholders of the IRWM effort even if they do not maintain a formal role in its governance. The following are agencies in this category. Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Stormwater/Flood Management Created in 1960, BIMID maintains the levee that protects Bethel Island and provides stormwater, seepage, and drainage control services. Its charter includes not only maintaining the levee that surrounds and protects the island, but allows for many other activities, including the distribution of water for public and private purposes, parks and playgrounds, airports, and works to provide for drainage. BIMID owns 100 acres of land in the center of the island between Bethel Island Road and Piper Road. This property is used to remove sand, which is placed on the levee, and also as a mitigation site. The state requires that for every tree BIMID removes from the island levee areas, three trees must be replanted, and they must survive for at least 2 years. New trees are planted on the mitigation site as trees are removed from the levee and drainage ditches. Golden State Water Company Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality GSWC provides retail water service for the unincorporated Bay Point community. GSWC is a wholly owned subsidiary of American States Water Company, an investor-owned utility publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol AWR. GSWC provides water service to approximately 1 out of every 36 Californians located within 75 communities throughout 10 counties in Northern, coastal, and Southern California (approximately 256,000 customers). As of December 2011, the Bay Point Customer Service Area is a single, interconnected system with 4,918 service connections. Water delivered to customers in the Bay Point system is a blend of groundwater pumped from wells and treated surface water purchased from CCWD. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The company operates under the oversight of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Customers living in the community of Bay Point receive service from the local employees of the Bay Point Customer Service Area. Knightsen (Town of) Community Services District Agency role:  Stormwater/Flood Management The Knightsen Town Community Services District (KCSD) was created in 2005, and encompasses approximately 5,100 acres serving 1,500 people. It was formed to provide flood control and water quality (drainage services) for the community of Knightsen, which is a low area that receives runoff flow from nearby areas. KCSD is authorized to provide only flood control and water quality (drainage services). KCSD is not actively providing these types of services at this time, but is in the planning stages to do so. Other types of services, if desired, can be provided by KCSD only with the Local Agency Formation Commission’s approval. Mutual Water Companies and Small Water Systems Agency role:  Water supply and quality There are a number of mutual water companies and privately owned water systems providing service within the County. Mutual water companies (also called water companies, cooperative company, water system, water association, and water works) are a legal entity with no specific requirement for the size of the system or number of connections. It essentially means that there are shared interests in the water system and service by customers of the system. Water systems may also be investor owned, meaning that the owners, whether it be an individual or group, are not customers of the water system. Investor-owned systems are regulated by the CPUC. In ECCC, the small mutual companies supply drinking water to communities between 2 and 199 service connections; or serve 25 or more people at least 60 days out of the year. Small water systems are required to meet water quality standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Contra Costa Environmental Health permits and regulates all Small Water Systems in Contra Costa County, which include small Public Water Systems (Community, Non-Transient Non-Community, and Transient Non-Community Systems) and Non-Public Water Systems (State Small and County Small Systems). The CDPH also oversees systems of greater than 15 connections. Table 2-3 lists the ECCC small systems. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-31 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-3. ECCC Small Systems Water System Service Connections Population Bethel Island Willow Mobile Home Park 173 350 Beacon West Water System 17 45 Farrar Park Water System 56 140 Flamingo Mobile Manor Water System 80 200 Angler’s Subdivision #4 70 168 Frank’s Marina 120 290 Pleasantimes Mutual Water Company 190 380 Angler’s Ranch #3 Water System 45 100 Bethel Island Mutual Water Company 23 56 Riverview Water Association 86 230 Sandmound Mutual 65 160 Marina Mobile Manor Water System 24 75 Russo’s Mobile Park 35 110 Oakley Willow Park Marina Water System 125 380 Oakley Mutual Water Company 65 170 Delta Mutual Water Company 75 180 Sandy Point Mobile Home Park 24 94 Dutch Slough Water Works 18 49 In the ECCC region, all of the Mutual Water Companies rely on groundwater as a major water supply source. Reclamation Districts Agency role:  Stormwater/Flood Management There are several reclamation districts (RDs) within ECCC that provide flood protection services, including: RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract); RD 800 (Byron Tract), RD 830 (Jersey Island), RD 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts), RD 2025 (Holland Tract), RD 2026 (Webb Tract), RD 2059 (Bradford Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-32 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Island), RD 2065 (Veale Tract), RD 2090 (Quimby Island), RD 2117 (Coney Island), RD 2121, RD 2122 (Winter Island), and RD 2137. 2.4.4. State Agencies Collaborating with the Region State agencies, the DWR and the California State and regional water boards, have provided grants and technical assistance to the region. The water boards also maintain oversight over water quality and water allocation. Following is additional information on these key partners. California Department of Water Resources In 1956, the Legislature passed a bill creating the DWR to plan, design, construct, and oversee the building of the nation's largest State-built water development and conveyance system. Today, DWR protects, conserves, develops, and manages much of California's water supply, including the State Water Project (SWP), which provides water for 25 million residents, farms, and businesses. The mission of DWR is to manage the water resources of California in cooperation with other agencies, to benefit the State's people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments. Working with other agencies and the public, DWR fosters public safety, environmental stewardship, and economic stability statewide by developing strategic goals, and near-term and long-term actions to conserve, manage, develop, and sustain California's watersheds, water resources, and management systems. DWR also works to prevent and respond to floods, droughts, and catastrophic events that would threaten public safety, water resources and management systems, the environment, and property. DWR has a number of IRWM grant program funding opportunities. The 2013 IRWM grant programs include planning, implementation, and stormwater flood management. Additional IRWM grant funding will be available through Proposition 1, which was passed by voters in November 2014. It is anticipated that Proposition 1 will include IRWM grant programs for planning and implementation. Balancing the State's water needs with environmental protection remains a long-term challenge. The Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program is a key initiative currently underway to promote the recovery of endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish and wildlife and their habitats in the critically important Delta in a manner that will also ensure water supply reliability for the State. Water Boards The State Water Resources Control Board (the State Water Board) was created by the Legislature in 1967. The mission of the State Water Board is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the State while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables the State Water Board to provide comprehensive protection for California's waters. There are nine regional water boards under the State Water Board. The mission of the each regional water board is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans for their designated hydrologic region that will best protect the beneficial uses of the State’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-33 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The water agencies in the ECCC IRWM region all fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5). There are some agencies (CCWD, Delta Diablo, and the City of Pittsburg) that fall in both the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2) and the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5). The remaining regional entities lie entirely within the Central Valley Water Board. 2.5. Description of Social and Cultural Makeup Based on 2010 Census and California Department of Finance data, UWMPs1 , industry data projections, and other related sources, such as topical research studies, ECCC is a complex mix of races, ages, education, and prosperity. Composed of approximately 330,000 people, the residents of Antioch, Bay Point, Brentwood, Byron, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, Oakley, and Pittsburg do not fully mirror the rest of California. The community is highly diverse and has a large population of children. This trend is so pronounced, regional post-secondary schools have commissioned studies to monitor a future influx of students, who at the time of this report, are all under the age 10.2 There are minor variations in the population studies and reported numbers due to the time of collection, boundaries of the study areas, and limitations with the collection processes; however, there is general consistency. As such, it is possible to identify trends and discern the implications that can be drawn. 2.5.1. Demographics Table 2-4 below provides key demographic facts and illustrates how ECCC compares to the State and nation. 1 UWMPs are in the process of being updated, with 2015 UWMPs finalized by July 2016. Data collected from 2010 UWMPs is therefore anticipated to be updated in the near future, but not prior to finalization of the 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Therefore, the best available UWMP information was used in this document. 2 Projected Population Changes in Contra Costa County and Their Implications for Contra Costa Community College District, Prepared for Contra Costa Community College District Office by Hanover Research Council, January 2010. Contra Costa. Includes full district boundaries, including eastern Contra Costa County. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-34 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-4. Demographics Data for the ECCC Region People Quick Facts1 ECCC California USA Population, 2010 330,000 37,253,956 308,745,538 Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011 29% 24.6% 23.7% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2011 9% 11.7% 13.3% Females 51% 50.3% 50.8% Whites 53%% 74.0% 78.1% Blacks 13% 6.6% 13.1% American Indian and Alaska Native persons 0.1% 1.7% 1.2% Asians, percent 10% 13.6% 5.0% Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% Hispanics or Latinos (of any race) 35% 38.1% 16.7% Persons reporting two or more races 7% 3.6% 2.3% Other 15% n/a n/a Bachelor's degree or higher, 19.1%% 29.4% 28.2% High school graduate or higher 80.7% 80.8% 85.4% Note: 1 Where appropriate, figures are rounded to whole numbers and for that reason may not total 100%. Some ECCC numbers are based on 2009 and 2010 data sets, rather than the 2011 projection used for national and statewide numbers. Additional calculations will be needed if this chart is used for more than illustrative purposes. Key: ECCC = East Contra Costa County n/a = data not available USA = United States of America 2.5.2. Demographic Analysis of Contra Costa County in 2009 and 2019 In 2010, the Contra Costa Community College District (CCCCD) retained the Hanover Research Council to analyze demographic trends in Contra Costa County. They specifically focused on age, race/ethnicity, nationality, and gender. While the analysis considered potential implications of the changes for CCCCD, some aspects of the information have direct utility for ECCC. 2.5.3. Age Contra Costa County is expected to experience significant population growth over the 10 years between 2009 and 2019, with much of the County growth occurring in ECCC. The proportion of residents in some age groups will diminish or increase only slightly, while the relative proportion of other age groups will increase substantially. Both the decreases and increases are concentrated among a few adjacent age groups. According to the Hanover report, “overall Contra Costa will experience a significant decrease in the number of residents aged 40 to 54 years. Indeed, from 2009 to 2019, the total population in this age group was anticipated to decrease by over 23,000, or 9 percent. Furthermore, the proportion of residents in this age group, relative to the total population, was also expected to decline markedly, from 22.7 percent to 18.2 percent. This demographic shift represents a significant loss of working-age residents.” At the same time, models predict larger numbers of children under the age of 10 living in the County. While age per se is not a water management issue, the profile of a community has many implications for competing interests for service, Also to be considered is the degree of flexibility Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-35 March 2019 East Contra Costa County of those on fixed incomes and the ability to adjust to rate changes or support investments in infrastructure. A large number of children may change service demands and at the same reduce discretionary income. 2.5.4. Ethnicity Also projected for significant change is the racial-ethnic composition with those originating from Hispanic and Asian heritage becoming a larger percentage of the population. This trend indicates a need for service models able to accommodate more than one language. Some additional research may be also needed on the best ways to communicate with multiple cultures on water use efficiency or other water policy initiatives. Additional thinking will be needed on all forms of public outreach and engagement. 2.5.5. Gender No significant trends were seen in County data for gender. 2.5.6. Economic Industry Industry and agriculture are important to the ECCC economy. Approximately 30 percent of water use is attributable to major industry within the region, including USS-Posco (steel finishing plant), Delta Energy Center (electric generation), LMEC (electric and steam generation), and Gaylord Container and Inland Paperboard & Packaging (corrugated boxes, shipping materials) as major contributors. The Milken Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, with the support of Chevron, the Contra Costa Economic Partnership, and the Contra Costa Council, completed an assessment of the Contra Costa economic climate in October 2012. The Milken report outlined key economic challenges the County faces. Of particular interest is contraction in its industrial base and unbalanced economic growth across the County. In the early 1990s, manufacturing was the key driver of the economy. Over 12 percent of private-sector jobs were concentrated in manufacturing in 1990, compared to less than 7 percent in 2010. Petrochemical, steel, and confectionery products still maintain a good jobs outlook but the local manufacturing base has shed more than 10,000 jobs since 1990. As heavy manufacturing diminished, former workers faced challenges in acquiring new skills and adapting to new industries, contributing to rising unemployment. In the early 1990s, the jobless rate was much lower in Contra Costa than in the wider Bay Area. However, over the past 2 decades, that trend has reversed. Antioch and Pittsburgh are among 2 of the 19 cities in the county responsible for 95 percent of employment. Both continued to add jobs to the service sector, however slowly, during the 2008 to 2014 recession. The availability of land and relatively low business costs, combined with proximity to San Francisco and Oakland, makes them ideal choices for land-intensive businesses. Pittsburg is a prominent manufacturing center and assets include an enterprise zone where business incentives are available. Pittsburgh’s recent economic development plan has the city promoting strategies that capitalize on this. However, Antioch, along with Pittsburg, faces a severe shortage of high-skilled labor, which helps explain its weak performance in knowledge-based industries, compared to the Bay Area and to Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-36 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Contra Costa overall. This shortcoming will likely continue to impede the development of a more diverse economy. Southern portions of ECCC are predominantly unincorporated and agricultural lands. More than 80,000 acres in ECCC are designated for agricultural use, and 99 percent of this land is located in unincorporated areas. Agricultural lands are generally used for crops, vineyards, and rangelands. Crops grown in ECCC include nursery crops, vegetables, fruits, and nuts, with nuts being the most profitable. Because of the region’s dependence upon Delta water supplies, events that threaten the quality or quantity of this supply, such as the ongoing droughts, water quality events, and levee failures, could have significant ramifications on the economic viability of the entire region. 2.5.7. Disadvantaged Communities Like the State of California, the ECCC region is committed to promoting equitable distribution of IRWM Plan project benefits, and especially to addressing the critical water supply needs of disadvantaged areas. A DAC is a term defined by the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 75005(g): “Disadvantaged community" means a community with a median household income (MHI) less than 80% of the statewide average. "Severely disadvantaged community" means a community with an annual MHI less than 60% of the statewide average. Related but somewhat different are environmental justice (EJ) concerns. As defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The ECCC region faces special challenges as many residents reside in DACs. A lack of community resources can impact the ability of ECCC members to obtain additional resources for water-related needs. Yet, even with the recent economic downturn and the attendant issues of disproportionate DAC numbers, growth is still occurring. All indications point to an increased need for water-based infrastructure and services, now and into the future. The current DWR guidelines for IRWM funding, allocated through voter-approved Propositions 84 and 1E, identify statewide priorities among which is a goal to “ensure equitable distribution of benefits.” For implementation grants, DWR has prioritized proposals that:  Increase the participation of small communities and DACs in the IRWM process  Develop multi-benefit projects with consideration of affected DACs and vulnerable populations  Address safe drinking water and wastewater treatment needs of DACs Delineating DACs Delineating the DACs is often done by census tract, as data and boundaries are available. Even so, the California Public Resources Code (PRC) is not specific as to how DACs are delineated, so different methods of determining the boundaries of a DAC can be considered valid by DWR. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-37 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) includes MHI data compiled for the 5-year period from 2009 to 2013. A community with an MHI of $48,875 or less is considered a DAC. The U.S. Census collects and compiles data for multiple census geographies including Place, Block Group, and Tract. A census tract is a region defined for the purpose of taking a census and usually coincides with city boundaries, towns, or other administrative areas. The United States defines census tracts as “relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions, census tracts average about 4,000 inhabitants.” Figure 2- 7 shows the census tracts within the ECCC region that are considered DACs. These include the census tracts containing the Beacon West community on Bethel Island, as well as portions of Bay Point, and the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. Census tract groups that qualify as DACs cover an area of 10,588 acres, or approximately 5 percent of the geographic area of the region and approximately 18 percent of the total population. The MHIs of the DACs identified in Figure 2-7 range from $28,672 to $48,269, with an average MHI of $40,896. Census data also demonstrates that each of the municipalities within the ECCC region contain a proportion of persons living below the poverty level (which varies by household size), and that in addition, some of the municipalities include populations that are classified as DACs per DWR’s definition. Note that DACs are not necessarily below poverty levels. Data for each municipality are summarized below in Table 2-5. Additional information on DACs within specific communities is provided under Overlap Area, below. Data is also included for the entire State of California; as demonstrated in Table 2-5, the percentage of persons living below the poverty level in the ECCC region ranges from 5.7% to 16.8% of the total population. Table 2-5. 2010 Census DAC Demographic Data for the ECCC Region Municipality 2010 Total Population Median Household Income 2009-2013 Persons Below Poverty Level 2009-2013* Population Living in a DAC % Population Living in a DAC City of Antioch 102,372 $65,254 14.9% 17,803 17.4% City of Brentwood 51,481 $91,475 5.7% N/A N/A City of Oakley 35,432 $77,043 9.4% N/A N/A City of Pittsburg 63,264 $58,866 16.8% 23,488 37.1% Contra Costa County 1,049,025 $78,756 10.5% 167,087† 15.9% State of California 37,253,956 $61,094 15.9% 12,274,010 32.9% Notes: *Poverty level varies by household size, and is not equivalent to DACs, which here are defined by DWR as communities with MHIs 80% or less of statewide MHI †This is the total number of DAC residents in Contra Costa County, including those in municipalities. 19,588 people live in DACs located in the unincorporated areas of the ECCC Region. Source: State and County QuickFacts. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06013.html; American Community Survey, Contra Costa County. Available (Search criteria: 2013 ACS 5-year estimates, All Census Tracts within Contra Costa County, California): http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t# IRWM PlanUpdate 2-38 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description Figure 2-7. Disadvantaged Communities in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-39 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Other Vulnerability Factors As described in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, the region already experiences potential vulnerabilities related to the age and education of citizens and the future employment picture, which exacerbates the situation for DACs. In addition to those already mentioned, ECCC was disproportionately affected by the foreclosure crisis during the economic downturn and housing market crash in 2007- 2009. While access to adequate housing is a continual crisis in California, homes lost to foreclosure increased over 200 percent in 2007, compared to 2006. Contra Costa County had an even more alarming foreclosure rate of 290 percent with 3,500 County homeowners receiving Notices of Default in the fourth quarter of 2007.3 For a variety of reasons related to the housing boom and widespread predatory lending, ECCC was especially impacted. Foreclosures in one ZIP Code in Antioch affected one of every 18 homes. For comparison, ZIP Codes in Richmond’s Iron Triangle had a comparative rate of one of every 25 homes. Despite this setback, the region appears to have begun recovering as of 2013. The plight of the DACs cannot be untangled from those of the water utilities. Issues related to foreclosure and neighborhood blight are particularly hard hitting for utilities as rate structures and bond repayment schedules depend on infrastructure being used, maintained, and paid for. Figure 2-8 illustrates the relative impact of foreclosures on the County for foreclosures occurring between 2005 and 2012. 3 The Geography of Foreclosure in Contra Costa County California, Kristin Perkins, UC Berkeley, July 2008. Master’s Thesis. IRWM PlanUpdate 2-40 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description Figure 2-8. Impact of Foreclosures on Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-41 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Water Supply and Water Quality Needs Many of the critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs in eastern Contra Costa County are typical of communities throughout the state. The primary water supply and water quality issues facing DACs relate to a strong reliance on Delta supplies, a need to maintain compliance with applicable drinking water standards, and the threat of damage from flooding. Critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs in the ECCC region include:  Improved water supply reliability/reduced reliance on Delta supplies  Water quality of groundwater supplies used to supplement Delta supplies (including meeting new drinking water regulations)  Infrastructure renovations necessary to assure continued reliability of the minimum quality and quantity of water  Affordability programs to offset the rising costs of water service All of the water suppliers within the ECCC region rely on Delta supplies. The three water suppliers in eastern Contra Costa County that purchase untreated/treated Delta supplies from CCWD provide supplies to the bulk of the DACs in the region. Because of the region’s heavy dependence upon Delta water supplies, events that threaten the quality or quantity of this supply could have significant ramifications on the economic viability of the entire region. This may be of particular concern for DACs, where economic conditions are below the statewide average. Further, the rising cost of water in the region is a critical water supply-related issue for DACs. Agencies must continually balance the need to improve supply reliability through implementation of aggressive conservation, water recycling, potentially expensive groundwater treatment, and even desalination with a need to maintain water affordability for DACs. With the rising cost of service, access to drinking water threatens to become a luxury for DACs in eastern Contra Costa County. Some of the more remotes areas of the ECCC region, including the DAC of Bethel Island (which the Beacon West community is located on), are entirely reliant on groundwater for potable water supplies. Beacon West is supplied with drinking water from a well operated and maintained by DWD. The Beacon West well has arsenic levels exceeding standards issued by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Work is progressing towards addressing the Beacon West well issue, and DWD is pursuing State Revolving Fund (SRF) and other funding to help move this project forward. Similarly, the Rossmoor Well Replacement, Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion (funded under a Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant) is necessary to correct severe capacity deficiencies due to biofouling of a groundwater well serving a DAC. The area benefiting from this project includes DAC census tracts within the City of Pittsburg. Flood Still another concern is the exposure of regional DACs to flood events and a need for flood and stormwater management projects designed to protect DACs from flooding impacts. In general, DACs often have more overall risks (lack of flood insurance and flood proofing, and historic land- use patterns placing communities in floodplains) and fewer resources available to recover from inundation. Recovery from a flood event can have catastrophic economic consequences for a DAC even if immediate life/safety issues are managed. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-42 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Overlap Area As described in Section 2.4, Pittsburg and portions of Antioch and the County are located in an area that partially overlaps the ECCC IRWM region and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM region. Figure 2-9 shows the location of the overlap with respect to the San Joaquin and San Francisco Bay funding areas. The map also shows the DAC locations in the vicinity. As shown in Figure 2-9 approximately 2 percent of the City of Pittsburg is located wholly within the San Joaquin Funding Area, with the remaining 98 percent located in the overlap area. Conversely, approximately 99 percent of the City of Antioch is located wholly within the San Joaquin River Funding Area, with only 1 percent located in the overlap area. The Bay Point Area, which sits west of Pittsburg, is fully in the overlap with the San Francisco Bay Funding Area. According to 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data (which provides demographic and economic estimates for non-census years, using data compiled over 5-year periods), approximately 27 percent of the City of Pittsburg (by geographical area) is a DAC, and 45 percent of the City of Pittsburg is a DAC based on population (27,849 people out of 61,723). Of the portion of the City of Pittsburg classified as a DAC, approximately 98 percent (by population) is located in the overlap area and 2 percent is located in the San Joaquin River Funding Area. Similarly, 16 percent of the City of Antioch is a DAC based on geographic area, or 19 percent by population. Of the DACs located in the City of Antioch, 4 percent (by population) are located in the overlap area and 96 percent are located in the San Joaquin River Funding Area. Approximately 71 percent of the geographical area of Bay Point is DACs (or 73 percent of its total population). Because Bay Point is fully contained within the overlap area, coordination with the San Francisco Bay IRWM will be essential to ensure the needs of this community are met. These estimates were used to determine DAC-project status for the Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant and Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Grant. Note that estimates differ from Census data presented in Table 2-5, above. As the economy has begun to recover from the recent recession, DACs have decreased in the region as a whole from approximately 23 percent of the population to approximately 18 percent of the population, according to updated 2009-2013 ACS data. Engagement The ECCC region has maintained a transparent and open process in which DAC representatives are always welcome, and an easily navigated project website allows 24-hour access to information. Further, in 2015, the website was updated to include an additional DAC page that provides information about the location and water resources-related needs of DACs in the region. Cities such as Pittsburg and Antioch maintain close connections with the DACs through elected local leadership and consolidated planning processes. Further, outreach to DACs included the Municipal Advisory Councils. Contra Costa County has various Municipal Advisory Councils whose purpose is to advise the County Board of Supervisors on land use and planning matters affecting their communities of interest. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-43 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-9. Location of ECCC Overlap in Relation to Regional Boundaries and DACs Description Chapter 2: Region IRWM Plan Update 2-44 March 2019 East Contra Costa County All four of the Municipal Advisory Councils in the region–Bay Point, Bethel Island, Knightsen, and Byron–contain DACs within their boundaries or in their adjacent Special Notification Areas, and are therefore a natural conduit for the IRWM process to reach DACs outside incorporated areas such as the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch. Targeted outreach to Municipal Advisory Councils allows for direct and structured engagement with the greater parts of the unincorporated areas of the region. 2.6. Description of Watersheds and Water Systems Watersheds and water systems within the ECCC region are defined by hydrological features, geological conditions (in the case of groundwater basins), and meandering Delta waterways. This section describes the region’s major watersheds and water systems. 2.6.1. Watersheds Watershed Management Areas The ECCC region is defined by natural watershed boundaries. The western boundary is the ridgelines of Mount Diablo and the northern boundary is the Delta. The eastern boundary is Old River/San Joaquin River. The southern boundary is the county line with Alameda County. The ECCC region spans two State-defined hydrologic regions–the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region (regulated by the San Francisco Bay Water Board) and the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (regulated by the Central Valley Water Board). The majority of the region lies within the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.4 Figure 2-2 displays the boundaries between the two hydrologic regions and regional water board jurisdictional areas. Watersheds The agencies participating in and supporting this effort span nine watersheds,5 all entirely within the ECCC region. These watersheds are the Willow Creek, Kirker Creek, East Antioch Creek, West Antioch Creek, Upper Marsh Creek, Lower Marsh Creek, East County Delta Drainages, Kellogg Creek, and Brushy Creek watersheds. Drainage from several watersheds intersects Delta waterways to the north and east. Major creeks in these watersheds generally flow from south to north, discharging into Suisun Bay and the Delta. The boundaries of these watersheds, and their proximity to the Bay and Delta, are presented in Figure 2-10, and additional information on each watershed is provided below. Willow Creek Watershed The Willow Creek Watershed is found in the northwestern ECCC region, bounded by the Sacramento River to the north. Bay Point and the City of Pittsburg are within the Willow Creek Watershed. This watershed drains into the Delta and is approximately 23.6 square miles in size (11,370 acres). All drainages in this watershed are ephemeral. Its landscape is diverse and includes grasslands, wetlands, and municipal and industrial uses. 4 For water planning and conservation purposes, DWR and the State Water Board divided the State into 10 hydrologic regions. These 10 hydrologic regions are geographic areas that contain the DA of a major river or series of rivers. Source: CWP, Update 2009, Hydrologic Regions Map, DWR. 5 A watershed is an area of land that drains precipitated waters to a given reference point, typically a confluence with another major creek or large water body. Source: Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas (2003). Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-45 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-10. Watersheds in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-46 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Kirker Creek Watershed The Kirker Creek Watershed lies east of the Willow Creek Watershed. The City of Pittsburg falls within the Kirker Creek Watershed. Kirker Creek originates in Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and drains to the Delta and is approximately 15.8 square miles in size (9,500 acres). The drainages in this area are mostly ephemeral, though in some lower reaches of the watershed the creeks are perennial due to artificial inputs. This watershed includes regional parkland, ranchland, urban, and municipal and industrial uses. Its landscape is diverse and includes grasslands, wetlands, and urban areas. The lower portion of this watershed includes channelized conditions connected with an extensive stormwater drainage system to accommodate areas of suburban development. A community watershed group, Partners for the Watershed, is active in the area and organizes creek cleanups and creek monitoring. Two projects funded through the IRWM Plan grant process have been funded in this watershed, and have contributed to approximately 460 acres of conservation open space and restoration of wetlands and creeks in the upper watershed. West and East Antioch Creek Watersheds The West and East Antioch Creek watersheds lie east of the Kirker Creek Watershed and are bounded by the San Joaquin River to the north. The City of Antioch falls within these watersheds. These watersheds drain the north side of the Mount Diablo foothills into the Delta. The East Antioch Creek Watershed is approximately 11.4 square miles in size (7,261 acres). This area is heavily urbanized and numerous detention basins have been installed to manage and control flood flows. The Dow Wetland Preserve is at the mouth of the creek along the San Joaquin River and is an area that has been restored and is maintained by volunteers. The area is used for environmental education and outreach in the area. The West Antioch Creek Watershed is approximately 12.8 square miles in size (8,180 acres). West Antioch Creek originates in Contra Loma and Black Diamond Mine Regional Preserve. The Contra Loma Reservoir and the Antioch Reservoir capture most of the water that leaves the foothills. Most of the drainages in these watersheds are ephemeral with lower parts flowing perennially due to artificial inputs The lower portion of this watershed includes channelized conditions connected with an extensive stormwater drainage system to accommodate areas of suburban development. Upper and Lower Marsh Creek Watersheds South of the Antioch Creek Watershed is the Marsh Creek Watershed, which contains portions of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, as well as unincorporated areas south and west of Brentwood in the ECCC region. This is the second largest watershed in the County, and the largest in eastern Contra Costa County. The watershed drains into the Delta through the Dutch Slough area and is approximately 94 square miles in size (60,066 acres). The Upper Marsh Creek Watershed drains parts of Mount Diablo and includes steep, rocky conditions. Though this area is predominantly undeveloped, historical land uses have impacted this area, including an abandoned mercury mine. The upper watershed drains to the Marsh Creek Reservoir. The Lower Marsh Creek Watershed includes agricultural and urban centers. The creek channel in the lower watershed has been altered to protect the surrounding land uses. The lower watershed also includes grasslands, wetlands, and municipal and industrial uses. The Friends of Marsh Creek is an active community group that meets regularly, organizes creek cleanups, monitors the creek and are stewards of the watershed. A fish ladder was constructed in lower Marsh Creek to support anadromous fish that use Marsh Creek. This project was funded in part by IRWM Plan grant funds. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-47 March 2019 East Contra Costa County East County Delta Drainages East of the Marsh Creek Watershed is the East County Delta DA. This area includes eastern Oakley, Bethel Island, and Knightsen, as well as the District. This watershed flows into Old River and the San Joaquin River. It is approximately 88 square miles in size (56,223 acres). This watershed includes the County’s agricultural core. Numerous irrigation canals and channels crisscross the area, dramatically altering the natural hydrology. The region supports more alkali habitats than the western watersheds. The comparatively flat topography, seasonal flooding, and agricultural (active and passive) support a different collection of flora and fauna. For many species, eastern Contra Costa County is the northwestern reach of their range. The landscape is a mix of grasslands, wetlands, agriculture, and municipal and industrial. Kellogg Creek Watershed South of the East County Delta Drainages is the Kellogg Creek Watershed, which includes Byron. The 160,000 TAF Los Vaqueros Reservoir is located within the Kellogg Creek Watershed. CCWD owns and operates the reservoir, along with approximately 20,000 acres of protected watershed lands managed for water quality, conservation, and recreation. This watershed flows into Old River (and eventually into the San Joaquin River). It is approximately 20,863 acres in size. Kellogg Creek has been heavily altered due to its historical use for agriculture. Mallory Creek and several small unnamed creeks are tributaries to Kellogg Creek. Kellogg Creek inflows of up to 5 cubic feet per second are required to be passed through the reservoir as outflow to meet downstream water rights that were in place before construction of the reservoir in 1998. Reservoir releases are also made to support constructed wetlands that were created by CCWD as mitigation for the original Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project. Brushy Creek Watershed The Brushy Creek Watershed is found east of the Kellogg Creek Watershed in the southeastern corner of the ECCC region. There is no urban development in this area; the watershed is currently used for agriculture. This watershed flows into Old River and the Clifton Court Forebay (and eventually into the San Joaquin River). It is approximately 24,422 acres in size. Brushy Creek is the principal creek and has numerous unnamed tributaries connected to it. Groundwater Basins The groundwater basins underlying ECCC can be seen in Figure 2-11. The ECCC region partially overlies the Pittsburg Plain and Clayton Valley groundwater basins, and partially overlies the Tracy Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater is an important source of supply for agricultural and domestic uses, and to a lesser extent, municipal and industrial uses. Groundwater use throughout the ECCC region, relative to surface water use, is small and on the order of about 10 percent of total water demands, or approximately 10 TAF. More information about groundwater use in the region is discussed in Section 2.7 and is available in Groundwater Management Plans (GMPs), the Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis, and Salt and Nutrient Management Plans. Groundwater will continue to be an important resource for the region as a principal supply for agricultural and rural areas, and as a supplemental supply for the developed areas. IRWM Plan Update 2-48 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description Figure 2-11. Groundwater Basins in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-49 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin The Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin Number 2-4) is located along the southern shore of Suisun Bay. It is bounded by Suisun Bay to the north, the Tracy Subbasin (DWR Subbasin 5-22.15) to the east, and the Clayton Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2-5) to the west, and includes the overlying City of Pittsburg and the community of Bay Point. Aquifer units beneath the city consist of north-dipping sand and gravel material under confined to semi-confined conditions. To the south, a deeper zone, where most of the basin groundwater production occurs, is close to the ground surface and appears to interbed with the sandy clay surface layer. Similar hydrogeological conditions are expected in the western portion of the basin near Bay Point, though the ability to characterize the hydrogeology of this portion of the basin is limited by a lack of data. Groundwater flow appears to be generally to the north-northeast toward Suisun Bay, which defines the northern border of the basin. The City of Pittsburg prepared the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin GMP in 2012 (Section 3.5.1). The City of Pittsburg also prepared a Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary in 2012 (Section 3.5.2) that reported groundwater quality conditions of the basin. DWR classifies the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin as low priority. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin: Tracy Subbasin The Tracy Subbasin (DWR Basin Number 5-22.15) makes up the northwestern most portion of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin around the Delta and extends south into the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Subbasin boundaries are defined by the Mokelumne and San Joaquin Rivers on the north, the San Joaquin River on the east and the San Joaquin-Stanislaus County line on the south. The western subbasin boundary is defined by the contact between the unconsolidated sedimentary deposits and the rocks of the Diablo Range. DWD prepared a GMP for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin underlying their service area in 2007. In 2012, DWD completed a Data Gap Analysis (Section 3.5.3) to determine the data needed to calculate the basin’s safe groundwater yield. DWR classifies the Tracy Subbasin as medium priority. In 2014 CCWD worked with DWD, City of Antioch, Discovery Bay and Byron Bethany Irrigation District to ensure that the Tracy Subbasin is in compliance with DWR’s CASGEM requirements. In 2014 DWR confirm that the East County IRWM is in compliance with CASGEM. Clayton Valley Groundwater Basin The Clayton Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin Number 2-5) underlies a small portion of the region, in its northwestern corner along the south shore of Suisun Bay. It is bounded by Suisun Bay on the north, Mount Diablo Creek on the east, the Concord Fault on the west, which divides and separates this basin from the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin, and the foothills of Mount Diablo on the south. Marsh Creek flows through the basin before emptying into Suisun Bay. The basin is underlain by thick alluvial deposits that cover a faulted and folded complex of consolidated Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks. The water-bearing units in the basin can be found in the Recent Alluvium and the Older Alluvium valley fill deposits. DWR classifies the Clayton Valley Groundwater basin as low priority. 2.6.2. Infrastructure Major Water Supply Infrastructure A variety of water infrastructure is located within the ECCC region, including water bodies, reservoirs, conveyance facilities, pumping plants, and WTPs and WWTPs. Major water supply and wastewater infrastructure within the ECCC region is shown on Figure 2-12. Among the major Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-50 March 2019 East Contra Costa County water infrastructure are the Clifton Court Forebay (DWR), the Contra Costa Canal (Reclamation and CCWD), and Los Vaqueros Reservoir (CCWD). Clifton Court Forebay Located in ECCC, the Clifton Court Forebay is a regulated reservoir located at the head of the SWP’s California Aqueduct, with intake facilities located on Old River. The SWP, managed by the California Department of Water Resources, is the nation's largest State-built water and power development and conveyance system, conveying Delta supplies from the ECCC region to 23 million Californians and 755,000 acres of irrigated farmland throughout California. Contra Costa Canal The Contra Costa Canal (Canal) is the oldest unit of Reclamation’s CVP. It was originally constructed to serve agricultural needs, and now comprises the backbone of CCWD’s untreated water conveyance system. The Canal conveys water from the Delta to CCWD’s treatment facilities and untreated water customers. The Canal spans 48 miles, starting at Rock Slough in the ECCC region, passing through several communities including the Cities of Oakley, Antioch, Pittsburg, and Bay Point, and ending at the Terminal Reservoir in Martinez. Water is drawn from Rock Slough near Knightsen (8 miles east of Antioch). Water travels from Rock Slough through a 4- mile stretch of unlined channel before entering the concrete-lined section of the Canal in Oakley. CCWD is implementing a plan to convert the unlined portion of the Canal (Canal Project) into a pipeline as a means of improving water quality, public safety, and reducing flood risks. Approximately 2 miles of the unlined Canal is adjacent to the proposed DWR Dutch Slough Tidal Restoration Project (Restoration Project). CCWD is working with DWR to coordinate the construction of the Restoration Project and the Canal Project. The Canal can also receive untreated water from Old and Middle rivers or the Los Vaqueros Reservoir around Milepost 7 in Antioch via the Los Vaqueros Pipeline. Los Vaqueros Reservoir CCWD owns and operates the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which stores up to 160 TAF of high- quality water. The reservoir is supplied from the Delta at Old River and on Victoria Island off of Victoria Canal (Middle River). The reservoir is surrounded by nearly 20,000 acres of protected watershed, providing more than 55 miles of recreational trails. CCWD expanded the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from 100 TAF to 160 TAF in 2012. Current Los Vaqueros Expansion Studies are examining the feasibility of expanding the reservoir to provide water quality and water supply reliability benefits to regional partners while providing ecosystem benefits to the Delta. Los Vaqueros Reservoir is not operated to provide flood protection, but has reduced the watershed area that drains to Kellogg Creek, which has a significant floodplain, since is it operated not to spill during large storm events. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-51 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-12. Major Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Description Chapter 2: Region IRWM Plan Update 2-52 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Antioch Municipal Reservoir The 735 AF (240 million-gallon) Antioch Municipal Reservoir provides supply reliability and volume for equalization storage for water pumped from the Canal. The reservoir also serves the secondary purposes of flood control and impoundment of local runoff. Water production from the small (1,300-acre) tributary watershed, however, is of negligible importance, particularly since most stormwater runoff from residential areas (about 600 acres) is now diverted around the reservoir. Preserve System for ECCC HCP/NCCP More than 12,000 acres have been acquired since 2008 for the Preserve System to fulfill conservation requirements of the HCP/NCCP. These lands were acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District in partnership with the ECCC Habitat Conservancy. Natural resources on these properties will be restored, enhanced, and managed in perpetuity. When acquisition is complete, the Preserve System is anticipated to consist of 24,000 to 30,000 acres. It will build on approximately 45,000 acres of existing public watershed and park land. The Preserve System will protect water bodies and hydrological processes in nearly every major watershed in ECCC. Within the approximately 12,000 acres acquired to date, approximately 277,000 linear feet (52 miles) of streams and 71 acres of wetlands and ponds are managed to protect and enhance natural functions and values. Water Treatment Infrastructure Water treatment plants and facilities that are owned, operated, or supply water to agencies and communities in the region are described under the activities described for individual RMWG member agencies in Section 2.4.2 Member Agencies, above. Major Flood Management Infrastructure The CCCFCWCD manages most of the major flood management infrastructure in ECCC to provide regional flood protection. The facilities it plans and manages are described below. Major flood management infrastructure within the ECCC region is shown on Figure 2-13. Marsh Creek Reservoir, Dry Creek Reservoir, and Deer Creek Reservoirs The Marsh Creek Reservoir is located approximately 4 miles southwest of Brentwood. It and the smaller Dry and Deer Reservoirs were built in early 1960s with funding from the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) to protect the then predominantly agricultural land uses in ECCC from a 5- year storm. The CCCFCWCD manages these facilities and has planned and built a number of other large, regional detention basins in the watershed to increase system capacity and protect rapidly urbanizing area from a 100-year storm. Sediments in the Marsh Creek Reservoir contain elemental mercury washed down from an old mine in the upper watershed. Marsh Creek Flood Control Channel, Dry Creek Flood Control Channel, Sand Creek Flood Control, and Deer Creek Flood Control Channel Approximately 12 miles of Marsh Creek, Deer Creek, Dry Creek, and Sand Creek were widened and channelized as part of the 1960s Soil Conservation District flood control project. Other channel capacity work has been planned and constructed by the CCCFCWCD to improve the level of flood protection in the Marsh Creek Watershed. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-53 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-13. Major Flood Management Infrastructure Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-54 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Drainage Area Infrastructure The CCCFCWCD established DAs to plan subregional drainage infrastructure and collect development fees to fund subregional drainage infrastructure. The DAs infrastructure is either built by the CCCFCWCD or by developers who then receive credit for their fees or enter a reimbursement agreement to be reimbursed for costs of constructing the infrastructure that are in excess of their fees. Once constructed, most of these facilities are turned over to the local jurisdiction for ownership and maintenance. Some of the major DAs facilities are owned and maintained by the CCCFCWCD using property tax revenues it receives in the Marsh Creek Watershed, also known as Flood Control Zone 1. East Antioch Creek East Antioch Creek improvements and their associated basins, (Lindsey Basin and Oakley Basin), are major flood management infrastructure that serve the City of Antioch. Currently, the system is partially owned and managed by the City of Antioch, and the remainder of the improvements will be handed over to the City for ownership and maintenance in the near future. West Antioch Creek West Antioch Creek is also a DA funded facility with improvements in various stages of completion, design, and planning. Facilities in this watershed are owned and managed by the City of Antioch. Major Wastewater Infrastructure The major wastewater agencies in the region (servings greater than 5,000 customers) include Delta Diablo, ISD, and Brentwood. Their respective WWTP locations are shown in Figure 2-13. Below are summary descriptions of their systems. Delta Diablo Delta Diablo provides wastewater collection services for the unincorporated community of Bay Point, and conveyance, treatment, and disposal services for Bay Point and the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. Since 2001, Delta Diablo has provided recycled water to the Delta Energy Center and the Los Medanos Energy Center (LMEC), and has expanded recycled water conveyance to Pittsburg and Antioch for irrigation of local public parks and median landscapes. Delta Diablo has been producing and delivering recycled water for cooling tower use at two Calpine power plants since 2001. The Delta Energy Center (DEC) and the Los Medanos Energy Center (LMEC) together use an average of 6.5 MGD (7 TAF per year) of recycled water, resulting in one of the largest industrial uses of recycled water in California. In 2012 these two centers used a combined 8,132 AF of recycled water and have an average annual demand of 7,010 AFY. In total, Delta Diablo has produced and delivered approximately 17,500 million gallons, or 53,700 acre-feet, of recycled water to 15 different use sites since the system was established in 2001. The existing Delta Diablo wastewater infrastructure includes conveyance systems, pumping stations, equalization basins, and a WWTP and RWF located on the Pittsburg-Antioch border. Treated wastewater is discharged in New York Slough through a deep water outfall. The WWTP has a rated average dry weather flow capacity of 16.5 MGD and a peak wet weather flow treatment capacity of 26.0 MGD; the average dry weather flow (ADWF) for 2012 was 12.7 MGD. It is anticipated that the build-out ADWF for Delta Diablo’s service area will be 25.3 MGD in 2057. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-55 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Delta Diablo’s 2013 Recycled Water Master Plan identified a Title XVI program that will be implemented through two projects: a recycled water distribution system expansion project that will deliver an additional 4,461 AFY of recycled water, and a HPWTF implementation project that will reduce TDS concentrations from Delta water entering the Antioch intake to below 30 mg/L, which will create up to 5,600 AFY of high-purity water that is suitable for industrial demands. Ironhouse Sanitary District The ISD provides sewage collection, treatment, and disposal services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated area of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. ISD’s infrastructure includes gravity and pressure pipelines, pumping stations, and the Ironhouse Water Recycling Facility (WRF). Effluent from the WRF is applied to agricultural lands on Jersey Island and into the San Joaquin River. The WRF has a design capacity of 4.3 MGD and an ultimate capacity of 6.8 MGD. ISD participated in a regional water recycling study looking at providing recycled water to industry outside of the ISD service area. In addition, ISD completed a Recycled Water Master Plan and a Recycled Water Feasibility Study looking at potential users of recycled water within the ISD service area and the economic feasibility of developing a separate non- potable water system that could supply recycled water to offsite users. The preliminary results of ISD’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study demonstrate that in the immediate-term (less than 2 years), recycled water use could increase by 20 AFY with implementation of a fill station that is currently operable. Further, in the near-term (less than 10 years), ISD could increase recycled water use by 2,350 AFY by providing recycled water for industrial reuse along the Wilbur corridor and the Northern Waterfront Area, and by including recycled water uses for sustainable farming practices. In the long-term (more than 20 years), recycled water in ISD’s service area could be increased by between 2,200 and 6,500 AFY through implementation of indirect or direct potable reuse projects. Brentwood The City of Brentwood owns and operates its wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system. The collection system, with approximately 138 miles of sewer main, conveys wastewater to the Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (BWWTP) located on approximately 70 acres on the northeast side of the city adjacent to Marsh Creek. The BWWTP provides tertiary treatment and has an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.0 MGD and discharges over 3 MGD recycled water into Marsh Creek. The plant is to be expanded to 7.5 MGD by 2019. Effluent is pumped through the BWWTP as process water and discharged into Marsh Creek. The City of Brentwood completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study in 2013. The Feasibility Study examined ways to maximize recycled water deliveries to current recycled water customers, existing potential recycled water customers, and future potential recycled water customers. In summary, this report recommended implementation of a proposed project that would expand the recycled water system to supply 1,406 AFY of recycled water to 86 new recycled water users. The proposed project would involve upgrades to the BWWTP pump station, additional storage, and approximately 17,000 lineal feet of additional pipelines to deliver recycled water to new users. Ultimately, the City of Brentwood is looking to pump this effluent off site as recycled water to be used for irrigation for landscaped areas in accordance with the City’s Master Reclamation Permit issued by the Central Valley Water Board/NPDES Permit. The City is aggressively expediting Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-56 March 2019 East Contra Costa County implementation of recycled water citywide; however, the peak daily recycled water supply (morning and evenings) do not align with the peak recycled water demand (night). The City needs an adequate storage facility to maximize utilization of this valuable resource and must demonstrate active efforts to effectuate this vision for NPDES compliances. As part of this effort, the City currently has a 3.0 MGD storage reservoir design underway with construction anticipated by the end of 2015. Any remaining treated wastewater is discharged into Marsh Creek per the terms of the City’s Waste Discharge Requirements Permit. Brentwood is also exploring the possible transfer of a portion of its recycled water to ECCID for agricultural irrigation. 2.7. Water Supplies and Demands Water management in the region is driven by a highly diverse population base with a wide range of water needs, including urban and agricultural uses; major industrial activities; recreation; and environmental systems. Water demand for these uses is met primarily by water supplies from the Delta. Detailed descriptions of water demands and supplies are provided below. 2.7.1. Current and Projected Water Demands According to the Interim Population Projections for California and its Counties 2010–2050 (California Department of Finance, 2012), the Contra Costa County 2010 population is projected to increase by 20 percent by 2030 and by 42 percent by 2050. With that growth, water demands are also expected to increase. Figure 2-14 presents population projections for the region’s urban areas from 2010 through 2035, as contained in recently completed UWMPs. The ECCC region urban population is projected to increase 38 percent by 2035 from 294,000 people in 2010 to 406,000 people in 2035. Figure 2-14. Current and Projected 2035 Population for Urban Areas in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-57 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Agriculture in Bay Area counties has declined in recent years. Some changes are a result of changing market conditions, and some are a result of suburban growth like that described above. Cropland acreage in Contra Costa County alone has declined approximately 19 percent between 1990 and 2008 according to a 2011 report led by the American Farmland Trust.6 Present cropland acreage for the county is approximately 23,000 acres (irrigated and non-irrigated). The American Farmland Trust reports that there are over 275 irrigated farms in Contra Costa County and most are in eastern Contra Costa County.5 A majority of this acreage is located within BBID and ECCID. BBID and ECCID reported 5,663 and 7,071 irrigated cropland acreage respectively for 2012. This is a total 12,734 irrigated acres in 2012. Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15 show current and projected water demands for urban, industrial, and agricultural water uses in the region. Urban demands within the region are met by public and private water utilities. The normal year urban demand in these areas is expected to increase from 50 TAF per year in 2010 to 79 TAF per year in 2035, which represents a 66% increase. The use of recycled water and air-cooled condensers for power facilities in the region is significant since the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Pittsburg and Antioch power plants along the San Joaquin River had been using once-through cooling water from the Delta.. Using recycled water for cooling towers lessens environmental impacts from entraining and impinging sensitive aquatic species associated with once through cooling systems as well as lowers the heat input into the Delta from the discharge of power plant cooling water. An additional benefit is reducing potable water demands during drought, while allowing normal operations at the power plants, which could potentially be limited by potential water use restrictions during prolonged drought. Most of the agricultural demands in the region are met by irrigation district supplies (BBID and ECCCID). A small percentage of agricultural demand is for small-scale farm operations that rely upon privately owned wells or individual surface water rights. While other special districts may have powers that allow for distribution of water, such as BIMID, they are not exercised. Agricultural water use reported by BBID and ECCID was about 38 TAF in 2012. (This does not account for agricultural water use by small private farms located outside these districts. Data for these uses is not available on a regional scale.) Estimates of projected agricultural water use for the region are not available. Recent trends suggest future agricultural water use would be similar. The ECCC region includes a richly diverse environmental landscape, including grassland, oak woodland, chaparral, streams, and wetlands. Each of these environmental systems has specific water requirements for the maintenance of the ecosystem and its dependent species. A majority of the environmental water requirement is associated with river- and wetland-dependent aquatic ecosystems, and is often referred to as environmental flow requirements or habitat conservation requirements. These flow requirements can be defined by magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, or some combination of those factors. CCWD provides up to 5 cubic feet per second to Kellogg Creek downstream from the Los Vaqueros Reservoir dam. The City of Brentwood currently discharges treated effluent to Marsh Creek estimated to be approximately 5,000 TAF per year. Brentwood is seeking to reduce this discharge by using this treated effluent within the City of Brentwood. 6 Sustaining Our Agricultural Bounty–A White Paper, American Farmland Trust, Greenbelt Alliance, and Sustainable Agriculture Education, March 2011. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-58 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-6. Current/Projected Urban, Industriald, and Agricultural Water Demands (AFY) Major Water Retailer 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Change (2010 to 2035) Increase by Year 2035 City of Antiocha 17,843 22,677 21,301 22,400 23,049 23,717 33% 5,874 City of Brentwooda 10,802 11,564 11,521 12,659 13,334 13,982 29% 3,197 City of Pittsburga 7,784 9,461 10,192 10,980 11,828 12,743 64 4,959 Diablo Water District (Oakley)a,b 5,389 7,893 10,076 12,417 14,759 17,100 217% 11,711 Golden State WC - Bay Pointa 2,190 2,955 3,139 3,298 3,376 3,474 59% 1,284 Town of Discovery Baya,c 4,097 4,569 5,041 5,041 5,041 5,041 23% 944 Subtotal 48,105 59,119 61,269 66,795 71,387 76,057 58% 27,951 Calpine Power Plantsd,e 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 0% 0 Subtotal 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 0% 0 Byron Bethany IDf,e 18,484 18,484 18,484 18,484 18,484 18,484 0% 0 East Contra Costa IDg,e 20,038 20,038 20,038 20,038 20,038 20,038 0% 0 Subtotal 38,522 38,522 38,522 38,522 38,522 38,522 0% 0 Total 93,637 104,651 106,801 112,327 116,919 121,589 30% 27,951 Notes: a 2010 demand from Urban Water Management Plans. b Includes the City of Oakley, and areas served outside the City of Oakley which includes portions of Knightsen and Bethel Island. c Water Master Plan (from 2012) projects build-out conditions will be reached in 10 years (about 2020). d Calpine Power Plant average annual demand is 7,010 AFY. Results from Delta Diablo’s Recycled Water Master Plan show that in the future, Calpine demands for recycled water are anticipated to drop due to water quality improvements of the Delta Diablo’s recycled water and water management system; in the Recycled Water Master Plan, a 10% demand reduction is assumed for modeling purposes. e Demand is assumed to be constant. f 2012 demand based on District Crop Production Report of 2012 irrigation, Byron Bethany Irrigation District. g 2012 demand based on District Crop Production Report of 2012 irrigation, East Contra Costa Irrigation District. Key: AFY = acre-foot per year ID = Irrigation District WC = Water Company n/a = data not available Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-59 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Source: 2010 Urban Water Management Plans, 2012 District Crop Reports, and 2012 DDSD recycled water use records. Figure 2-15. Current and Projected 2035 Water Demands 2.7.2. Current and Projected Water Supplies Water supplies for urban and industrial uses originate from surface water purchased from CCWD and, to a lesser extent, recycled water, groundwater, and local surface water supplies. This pattern is expected to continue. Agricultural water needs are met mostly by surface water supplied by BBID, ECCID, and individual water rights for small farm operations. Some small farm operations use groundwater from privately owned wells. ECCID also uses groundwater when demand exceeds their surface water supply. Detailed descriptions of both existing and projected water supplies are provided below. Existing water supplies are summarized based on 2010 UWMPs, irrigation district irrigated crop reports, recycled water planning documents, and other agency records. Table 2-7 summarizes water supply by specific source for municipal agencies, irrigation district, and large industry in the region. On average, surface water provides approximately 78.2 percent of existing water supplies in the region. Groundwater and recycled water supply approximately 9.4 percent and 12.4 percent of total water supplies, respectively. Tables 2-8 and 2-9 present the current and projected water supplies for urban, industry, and agriculture in the region. Water supplies are categorized by source to distinguish surface water from groundwater from recycled water. Table 2-8 represents normal (average hydrology) conditions as reported in individual agency planning documents. The region’s supplies originating from the Delta are subject to variable hydrologic conditions, which can significantly reduce the availability of this supply. Table 2-9 represents what water supplies would be under dry hydrologic 33% 29% 64%217% 59% 23% 30% 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Demand (AFY)Demand (AFY)Year 2010 (2012 for IDs and Calpine) Increase by Year 2035 (and % change) Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-60 March 2019 East Contra Costa County conditions. Specifically, information in Table 2-9 represents supplies in the third year of a multiple dry-year scenario. Comparing water supplies under normal and dry hydrologic conditions helps identify potential water supply shortfalls. Under dry year hydrologic conditions, reductions in total surface water supplies to the region are projected to be less than 2,000 TAF per year. However, this is subject to change, depending upon future decisions that may affect how the Delta is managed that in turn may impact, positively or negatively, the availability and quality of water provided to the region from the Delta, and management of the groundwater basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. As shown in Table 2-8 and Table 2-9, any potential supply shortfalls, by agency, will be accounted for with conservation. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-61 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-7. Current Water Supply Availability by Source (AFY) City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District (Oakley) Golden State WC-Bay Point Town of Discovery Bay Delta Diablo Sanitation District (for industry) Ironhouse Sanitary District Byron Bethany ID East Contra Costa ID TOTAL Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers, Delta – Purchase from CCWD 17,770 0 7,815 8,402 1,954 0 0 0 0 0 35,941 Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers, Delta – Purchased from ECCID 0 8,175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,175 Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers, Delta – Water Right 7,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,500 20,000 46,050 Local Municipal Reservoir 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 Groundwater 0 3,535 1,500 2,062 235 4,097 0 0 0 0 11,429 Recycled Water 0 0 459 0 0 0 12,000 2,700 0 0 15,159 Total 25,700 11,710 9,774 10,464 2,189 4,097 12,000 2,700 18,500 20,000 117,134 Note: This information was summarized based on 2010 UWMPs, irrigation district irrigated crop reports, and other agency records. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-62 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-8. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Normal Year Source Projected Available Supplies (Thousand AFY) 2010 (1) 2015 2020 2025 2030 Surface Water 90.6 98.7 104.4 107.9 113.4 City of Antioch (CCWD/River) 25.7 31.1 30.2 31.8 32.5 City of Brentwood (CCWD/ECCID) 8.2 8.8 8.7 9.6 10.6 Diablo Water District – Oakley (CCWD) 8.4 8.4 14.0 14.0 16.8 City of Pittsburg (CCWD) 7.8 9.2 10.1 11.0 11.9 Golden State Water Co Bay Point (CCWD) 2.0 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 Byron Bethany ID (River water right) 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID (River water right) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Small Private Farms (River water right) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Recycled Water (2) 15.2 17.4 17.7 20.3 22.6 City of Antioch (Delta Diablo) 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 City of Brentwood 0.0 0.053 0.25 0.5 1.4 City of Pittsburg (Delta Diablo) 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 Delta Diablo (industrial) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Groundwater 9.8 12.3 13.4 13.7 14.8 City of Brentwood 3.5 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.4 Diablo Water District – Oakley 1.0 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.6 City of Pittsburg 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Town of Discovery Bay 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 East Contra Costa ID (district wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Small Private Farms (private wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Conservation 4.4 5 5.1 5.6 5.7 Voluntary and Mandatory Conservation 4.4 5 5.1 5.6 5.7 Total Supplies (2) 120.0 133.4 140.6 147.5 156.5 City of Antioch (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 25.7 33.3 32.4 34 34.7 City of Brentwood 11.7 12.7 12.75 14.2 16.4 Diablo Water District – Oakley 9.4 10.5 16.8 16.8 20.4 City of Pittsburg (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 9.4 11.2 12.1 13 13.9 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 2.2 3 3.2 3.3 3.4 Town of Discovery Bay 4 4.6 5 5 5 Delta Diablo (industrial) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Byron Bethany ID 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Small Private Farms unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Source: Urban supplies from 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Irrigation district supplies from 2012 Crop Reports; Recycled water supplies verified against and updated with recycled water planning documents where applicable. Notes: (1) 2010 values reflect actual supply numbers derived from applicable planning documents. (2) Delta Diablo supplies recycled water to the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch as well as the power generating facilities within Pittsburg. Ironhouse Sanitary District uses recycled water for irrigating row crops. Presently, Brentwood discharges its tertiary treated water into Marsh Creek. Over time, Brentwood expects to reduce the discharge of treated water into Marsh Creek and instead use these supplies to water parks, golf courses, schools playfields, landscape areas etc. Key: AFY = acre-feet per year CCWD = Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo = Industrial Supplies ECCID = East Contra Costa Irrigation District ID = Irrigation District Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-63 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-9. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Dry Year (1) Source Projected Supplies (Thousand AFY) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Surface Water 79.1 88.2 93.9 95.0 99.5 City of Antioch (CCWD/River) 15.2 19.3 18.1 19 19.6 City of Brentwood (CCWD/ECCID) 8.3 11.9 12.8 12.9 14.4 Diablo Water District – Oakley (CCWD) 2.5 2.5 4.2 4 4.7 City of Pittsburg (CCWD) 7.8 8.5 9.3 9.7 10.1 Golden State Water Co Bay Point (CCWD) 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 Byron Bethany ID (River water right) 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID (River water right) 20 20 20 20 20 Small Private Farms (River water right) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Recycled Water (2) 15.2 17.4 17.7 20.3 22.6 City of Antioch (Delta Diablo) 0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 City of Brentwood 0 0.053 0.25 0.5 1.4 City of Pittsburg (Delta Diablo) 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 Delta Diablo (industrial) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Groundwater 7.3 9.7 10.9 11 11.9 City of Brentwood 1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Diablo Water District – Oakley 1 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.6 City of Pittsburg 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Town of Discovery Bay 4 4.6 5 5 5 East Contra Costa ID (district wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Small Private Farms (private wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Conservation 4.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.7 Voluntary and Mandatory Conservation 4.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.7 Total Supplies 101.6 115.3 122.5 126.3 134.0 City of Antioch (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 15.2 21.5 20.3 21.2 21.8 City of Brentwood 9.3 13.2 14.4 14.8 17.3 Diablo Water District – Oakley 8.6 9.8 15.6 15.1 17.9 City of Pittsburg (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 9.4 10.5 11.3 11.7 12.1 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 1.9 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 Town of Discovery Bay 4 4.6 5 5 5 Delta Diablo (DD) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Byron Bethany ID 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID 20 20 20 20 20 Small Private Farms unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Source: Urban supplies from 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Irrigation district supplies from 2012 Crop Reports; Recycled water supplies verified against and updated with recycled water planning documents where applicable. Notes: (1) Numbers represent supplies available in the third year of a multiple dry year scenario. (2) Delta Diablo supplies recycled water to the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch as well as the power generating facilities within Pittsburg. Ironhouse Sanitary District uses recycled water for irrigating row crops. Presently, Brentwood discharges its tertiary treated water into Marsh Creek. Over time, Brentwood expects to reduce the discharge of treated water into Marsh Creek and instead use these supplies to water parks, golf courses, schools playfields, landscape areas etc. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-64 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.7.3. Comparison of Water Supplies and Demands Figures 2-16 and 2-17 compare the projected demands and supplies out to year 2030 for normal and dry year conditions, respectively. Projected industrial and agricultural demands are not available and for purposes of this analysis, projections were assumed equal to 2012 demands. As shown in these figures, water supplies appear to be sufficient to meet urban, industrial, and agricultural needs on an annual basis under both normal and dry year conditions. The current drought emergency has presented water management challenges beyond those evaluated in the dry year analyses shown here. How the region is addressing these challenges, and the lessons learned going forward, are discussed in Section 2.8 below. Figure 2-16. Normal Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Supplies (Thousand AFY)Year   Surface Water Supplies   Groundwater   Recycled Water   Projected Demands Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-65 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-17. Dry Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region In late 2012, the retail urban water suppliers of the region, along with the City of Martinez and water wholesaler CCWD, began developing a Regional Capacity Study (RCS) to look at strategies and projects to optimize the region’s water supplies, facilities, and operations. The RCS was completed in August 2014 and is included as Appendix I to this IRWM Plan. The RCS along with other efforts, including recycled water planning and feasibility studies for Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood, further demonstrate the region’s commitment to long-term water supply and demand planning to secure the reliability of supplies into the future. The RCS looked at supply and demand under normal and dry conditions as well as under two different regional emergency scenarios. It also looked at regional treatment plant capacity versus demand under various conditions and found that, even after supplementing supplies with groundwater, the City of Brentwood and DWD may not have sufficient treatment capacity to fulfill all future maximum daily demands (MDDs) through 2035. However, the RCS also found that several treatment plants have excess capacity compared to MDDs, and therefore recommended that additional interties and system connections be made to link treatment plants with excess capacity to those systems with potential capacity shortfalls. Table 2-10 below provides an overview of excess capacity and potential capacity shortfalls identified in the RCS, indicating potential intertie opportunities. Specific early action projects and other projects that are recommended in the RCS to maximize supply reliability and potentially reduce supply shortfalls in the future are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this IRWM Plan. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Supplies (Thousand AFY)Year   Surface Water Supplies   Groundwater   Recycled Water   Projected Demands Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-66 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-10. Water Treatment Plant Capacity vs. Projected Demands Treatment Capacity (MGD) Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2010 2035 % Increase 2010 2035 % Increase Antioch 36 15.9 21.4 35% 27.0 32.3 20% Brentwood 16 9.6 12.5 30% 16.1 26.2 63% Martinez 14.7 3.7 4.5 22% 7.5 8.9 19% Pittsburg 32 7.9 13.4 70% 15.1 25.4 68% CCWD 110 42.1 54.6 30% 84.3 103.5 23% DWD 15 5.0 10.7 114% 9.9 21.4 116% TOTAL 223.7 84.4 117.0 39% 159.9 217.9 36% Source: 2014 Regional Capacity Study Indicates potential capacity shortfall (2035 MDD>Treatment Capacity) Indicates excess capacity (2035 MDD<Treatment Capacity 2.8. Emergency Drought Response Water supply projections included in the previous sections are derived from water supply planning efforts completed in the ECCC region, including projections from applicable Urban Water Management Plans. Per information from CCWD’s 2010 UWMP, CCWD’s primary supply is CVP water obtained under contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The M&I Water Shortage Policy defines the reliability of CCWD’s CVP supply and provides for a minimum shortage allocation of 75% of adjusted historical use until irrigation allocations fall below 25%. CCWD's minimum public health and safety allocation from the CVP as reported in CCWD’s 2010 UWMP is 65% of normal demand, which includes a 10% reduction to key industries, minimum interior residential water allocations (55 gallons per capita per day), necessary institutional and commercial uses, fire protection, and average system losses. Currently, California is in the fourth year of a major drought. As a result of the drought, agencies in the ECCC region are experiencing substantial water supply cutbacks that are more extreme than the worst-case-scenarios assumed in previous planning efforts. Table 2-11 shows actual 2015 minimum supply projections under current drought conditions. As shown in Table 2-11, the region’s CVP allocations have been substantially reduced, below the previously-assumed public health and safety minimum, with increased supplies from Los Vaqueros Reservoir offseting this drastic reduction. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project expanded the capacity of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from a 100,000 acre-feet to 160,000 acre-feet, which allows the reservoir (when full) to provide enough storage for approximately 14 to 28 months of normal use. As a result of this expanded capacity, the United States Bureau of Reclamation has further reduced CVP supplies provided to CCWD to 50,500 AFY. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-67 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-11. Current Minimum Supply Projections under Existing Drought Conditions (2015) Source Normal (AFY) Previous Year 3 Health and Safety Assumption 2015 Dry Year Supply (AFY) CVP 170,000 112,700 50,500 ECCID 6,000 10,000 10,000 Industrial Diversions 10,000 0 0 Mallard Slough 3,100 0 0 Antioch Diversions 6,700 0 0 Groundwater 3,000 3,000 3,000 LV Supply 10,000 10,000 30,000 Recycled Water 8,500 8,500 8,500 Total 217,300 144,200 102,000 2.8.1. East Contra Costa Planned Efforts to Address Drought Conditions The region is responding to potential supply shortfalls resulting from the drought by increasing voluntary and mandatory conservation efforts. In addition, several agencies are increasing water recycling efforts to further offset potable water demands with recycled water. These projects and regional efforts require substantial planning and financial investments, and therefore often require additional funding to implement. Additional funding is especially important within disadvantaged communities in the ECCC region, given that water rate increases and other potential methods used to finance projects may not be feasible in those areas. Specific efforts that are being considered in the ECCC region to address the current drought are listed below: 1. City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District Intertie Projects: Two potential intertie projects were identified in the RCS. One would add a booster pump that would allow Antioch to provide water into the Multi-Purpose Pipeline (MPP) through an existing intertie. The second would include a second connection between Antioch and the MPP that would more efficiently distribute water to the west side of Antioch’s system. Although not specifically designed as drought projects, both of these projects could increase water delivery and system efficiencies that could help address drought-related impacts. 2. Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant: The Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant provides service to the City of Brentwood. The majority of treated effluent is discharged to Marsh Creek, and recycled water is currently supplied to a small number of customers. Upgrades to the Plant that would increase storage and pumping capacity would allow for the expansion of recycled water delivery in the City of Brentwood. Expanding recycled water would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 3. Delta Diablo Distribution System Expansion Project: This project would include implementation of pipeline, pump station, and storage improvements to the Recycled Water Facility in order to provide recycled water to additional users. Expanding recycled Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-68 March 2019 East Contra Costa County water would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 4. Delta Diablo High Purity Water Treatment Facility Implementation Project: This project would construct an advanced water treatment plant and related pipelines and pump stations to expand water reuse and provide additional supplies to supplement cutbacks resulting from the drought. 5. Ironhouse Sanitary District Short-Term Implementation Projects: Two short-term projects are being considered by ISD; one would include the construction of a fill station that would allow for the provision of additional recycled water. The second would include planting and growing alternative crops to allow for additional reuse of water. Both projects would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 6. Ironhouse Sanitary District Near-Term Implementation Projects: In the near-term, ISD plans to provide recycled water for industrial reuse along the Wilbur corridor, expand industrial reuse to the Northern Waterfront area, and use recycled water for sustainable farming practices. All three of these projects would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 2.9. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Over the coming decades, California’s Bay-Delta system will feel impacts of global climate change with shifts in biological communities, a rising sea level, and modified water supplies. Together, the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Watershed, and the Delta form an interconnected and valuable resource system. Evidence confirms the San Francisco Bay is already rising, this is impacting the Delta, and this is projected to continue. In fact, today's flood is expected to be the future's high tide. Areas that currently flood every 10 to 20 years during extreme weather and tides will begin to flood regularly. The consequences may be severe. ECCC is composed of substantial low-elevation acreage, is within the drainage of Mount Diablo, and sits adjacent to the Delta; both localized floods from stormwater runoff and regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure are real and present threats. Of the past 11 president-declared natural disasters in the region, all but one involved storms and flooding. Climate change is only likely to increase these risks. The Bay-Delta system is also the primary ECCC water supply. Sea-level rise and extreme weather can impact water quality through introduction of salinity into freshwater supplies, increased runoff and pollutants entering the system, increased turbidity and sediments, and the potential for low- elevation critical infrastructure to be inundated. Beyond the immediate concerns of managing altered and increased flows, the timing and volume of flows are likely to change due to changing temperature patterns in upper elevations. The entire interconnected State and federal water projects and other systems are designed and operated on basic assumptions about snow pack and predictable weather patterns. This means it is likely that ECCC water supply and water quality will be impacted by both floods and drought and changes Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-69 March 2019 East Contra Costa County in the timing of the hydrological cycle, and that traditional systems for water delivery will be less reliable. Deciding how best to meet the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) interests of those who value the resources of the Bay-Delta system already poses challenges to area resource managers. As the climate changes, the intensity of the challenges they face is likely to increase. Therefore, as resource managers develop strategies to protect the Bay-Delta system–and the critical services it provides–they need to understand how global climate change will affect the system. The ECCC region must also implement adaptation actions that will reduce the vulnerability of the built and natural environment to the effects of climate change. State and local agencies are already engaged in a number of efforts designed to improve California’s ability to cope with a changing climate. IRWM planning efforts are collaborative and include many entities dealing with water management. These aspects make IRWM a good platform for addressing issues like climate change where multiple facets of water management are affected. To this end, DWR developed a standard to ensure that IRWM plans describe, consider, and address the effects of climate change on their regions and disclose, consider, and reduce when possible greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when developing and implementing projects (DWR, 2010). To provide guidance for implementing the IRWM Climate Change Standard and incorporating climate change analyses into the IRWM planning processes, DWR and its partners USACE, EPA, and Resources Legacy Fund developed the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning (Handbook) (DWR, 2011). 2.9.1. Handbook Approach In accordance with the Handbook, vulnerabilities of the region to future climate change impacts were assessed and member agencies efforts taken to adapt to climate change and to reduce GHG emissions in the region are described. The approach for assessing climate change in the region involved the following steps:  Characterize the region  Review literature on regional climate change impacts  Assess and prioritize climate change vulnerabilities using the Handbook checklist  Compile ongoing member agency efforts to address climate vulnerabilities The full summary of information required for Handbook compliance is contained in Appendix C. Highlights of that summary include the following: Characterize Region Sections 2.5 through 2.7 of this IRWM Plan, characterize the social/cultural makeup and water resources, supplies, and demands of the region. Review Climate Change Impacts Multiple studies of climate change impacts on water resources specific to the western United States and California are available. A literature review was conducted to survey existing information and to determine the potential regional impacts of climate change. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-70 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Despite predictions for somewhat less overall precipitation over the long term, the region is also predicted to have more extreme storms. The region is also projected to have more frequent, longer, and more extreme heat waves and longer periods of drought. Additionally, river runoff patterns are anticipated to change as a result of earlier springtime runoff of the Sierra snowpack, which will have implications for changes to Delta flows and water quality. Mean sea level is expected to rise by approximately 12.3 to 60.8 centimeters by the year 2050 at the Golden Gate Bridge (NRC, 2012). The Delta in the northern portion of the ECCC region is tidally influenced, and would be affected by rising sea levels, both in terms of Delta flows and water quality. These predicted climatic shifts would have an impact on the region’s water supply, water demand, flooding, water quality, ecosystems and habitats, and hydropower. Identify and Prioritize Key Regional Areas of Potential Vulnerability The next step was to identify and prioritize areas of potential vulnerability to climate change impacts. This allows the region to better plan adaptation actions to target specific high-priority climate vulnerabilities in the region. Defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation (the climate hazard) to which a system is exposed, as well as of non-climatic characteristics of the system, including its sensitivity, and its coping and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2001). The Handbook provides a useful checklist for qualitatively determining areas of potential vulnerability within the region. Indicators of potential vulnerability include currently observable climate impacts, presence of climate sensitive features, and adaptive capacity of regional resources. The complete set of checklist responses can be found in Appendix D. The checklist responses also include indications of the level of priority for each vulnerability. Prioritization was accomplished qualitatively, with issues assigned a low, medium, or high priority based on the potential impacts to the region’s water resources, assessed likelihood, and regional values. The highest priority vulnerabilities in the region are related to the Delta. The region is reliant on the Delta for most of its water supply, and the Delta serves as an important habitat for endangered and threatened species. Therefore, changes to seasonal water supplies, water quality, and sea levels represent some of the most critical impacts. All of the vulnerabilities related to the health of the Delta have the highest priority. Ongoing Member Agency Efforts to Address Climate Vulnerabilities As part of the IRWM Plan monitoring process, member agencies will report on ongoing efforts to address climate change vulnerabilities. Sections 2.9.2 through 2.9.9 provide a description of the ongoing member agency efforts to address climate change vulnerabilities and provide insight on the feasibility for the region to address identified priority vulnerabilities. The following sections also provide an additional assessment of the primary climate change impacts to which the IRWM Plan must consider and respond. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-71 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.9.2. Water Supply Surface Water Most of the water suppliers in the ECCC region are dependent on surface water supplies from the Delta to meet the majority of regional demand. CCWD, ECCID, and the City of Antioch maintain surface water intakes in the Delta. Delta Diablo and City of Brentwood supply recycled water to residential, industrial municipal customers in their respective regions. As discussed in Section 2.7, water supply in the Delta is already unreliable and changes in seasonal runoff patterns from climate change are likely to lead to reduced water supply reliability. Changes in precipitation and temperature in the Sierra Nevada region affect the timing and quantity of tributary flows. This affects the availability of fresh surface water for the region. Contributing factors include a reduced Sierra snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and extended drought periods punctuated by intense precipitation events. Climate change could result in less storage in upstream CVP/SWP reservoirs, which in turn could reduce flows into the Delta during the summer and fall. Although some agencies in the ECCC region are not CVP/SWP contractors and divert from the Delta under their own water right, the availability of high-quality freshwater in the Delta is heavily dependent on the operation of CVP/SWP reservoirs; therefore, surface water supply for the region could be affected by changes in snowpack and upstream reservoir operations. There is concern from the region’s water supply agencies that two of their six water supply intakes could become threatened by climate change-related sea-level rise. The two intakes of concern are CCWD’s Mallard Slough intake and the City of Antioch’s intake. Sea-level rise has the potential to inundate infrastructure (making it unusable) and causing increasingly brackish or saline water to reach the Delta intakes (reducing water quality) more frequently and for longer periods of time throughout the year. The region has implemented adaptation measures that address the impacts of climate change to its surface water supplies. CCWD operates the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, described further in Section 2.6.2 Infrastructure, as a blending water source to offset saline water conditions that may get more frequent with climate change impacts. CCWD also operates its multiple Delta intakes strategically to maximize water quality and pumping costs, including consideration of seasonal pumping limitations. Other Delta users are pursuing diversifying their supplies or creating more robust supply options. For example, the City of Antioch intends to construct a desalination plant to be able to use its water right and Delta supply year-round, thereby adapting to the effects of climate change on its Delta surface water supply. Delta Diablo and City of Brentwood are additionally expanding their abilities to supply recycling water to appropriate users. Proposition 84 IRWM funding has been used to benefit and build these projects, further supporting the region’s adaptation measures against impacts of climate change. As additional impacts of climate change to the region are identified, agencies may implement additional adaptations to water management systems as necessary. Groundwater Many of the agencies in ECCC rely on groundwater to blend with surface water to augment local water supply. The City of Brentwood, ECCID, DWD, and the City of Pittsburg use groundwater Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-72 March 2019 East Contra Costa County wells to supplement surface supplies and increase reliability. Changes in local hydrology could affect natural recharge to the local groundwater aquifers and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped sustainably over the long term. Decreased inflow from runoff, increased evaporative losses, and warmer and shorter winter seasons can alter natural recharge of groundwater. Potential reductions in surface water availability in the Delta as described above could lead to more reliance on local groundwater. Furthermore, sea-level rise may impact groundwater quality due to impacts from saline groundwater intrusion from the Delta. Recharge projects and active participation in Sustainable Groundwater Management Planning Act requirements will assist the region in determine actions to mitigate for and adapt to climate change impacts to groundwater supplies. 2.9.3. Water Demand It is likely that water demand (agricultural, municipal, industrial, recreational, and environmental) in the region will increase as a result of more frequent, longer, and more extreme heat waves; increased air temperatures; increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels; changes in precipitation, winds, humidity, atmospheric aerosol and ozone levels; and population growth. Increased water demand would put even greater strain on the region’s limited water supply. Regional water shortages could occur if the region’s supply is not able to keep up with demand, a problem exasperated from both the supply and demand sides by a changing climate. Much of the region’s seasonal pattern of demand is due to higher agricultural and landscaping irrigation demands during the summer months. Warming temperatures and heat waves will likely intensify the need for summer irrigation and exacerbate the seasonal demand differential. Agricultural water demands include those associated with crop irrigation and livestock consumption, both of which represent important business interests in the region. Changes in temperature along with changes in the atmosphere’s composition have the potential to either increase or decrease irrigation water needs. Elevated carbon dioxide levels may increase crop growth as photosynthesis responds positively to extra carbon dioxide. However, this positive response is not sustained because photosynthesis is eventually reduced. Additionally, elevated carbon dioxide levels also generally cause stomata to close (Baldocci and Wong, 2006); this effect leads to water savings by reducing transpiration at the leaf scale. At the field scale, however, these savings become much less significant and larger crops growing in a warmer climate are expected to use more water (Reclamation, 2011). 2.9.4. Flooding ECCC is especially vulnerable to flooding due to levee overtopping or failure. Much of the infrastructure in the region is at or below mean sea level, while land protected by independently maintained levees are at risk for increased levee failure and flood damage. Failures could lead to disruption or changes in water supply reliability, water treatment, and wastewater treatment and disposal. CCWD, ECCID, and the City of Antioch have water intake facilities that could be at risk if sea level increases significantly. Similarly, some wastewater treatment plant (Delta Diablo and ISD’s) facilities are located in regions that could be at risk of flooding given sea-level rise. In recent decades, the mean sea level trend has been an increase of 2.08 millimeters/year at the nearest tidal gauge to the region (Port Chicago, located in the San Francisco Bay) (NOAA, 2012). Mean sea level is expected to rise by approximately 12.3 to 60.8 centimeters by the Year 2050 at the Golden Gate Bridge (NRC, 2012). Because the Delta is tidally influenced, it would be affected by rising sea levels. A rise in sea level would increase hydrostatic pressure on levees currently Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-73 March 2019 East Contra Costa County protecting low-lying land in the Delta, much of which is already at or below sea level7. These effects threaten to cause potentially catastrophic levee failures that could inundate communities, damage infrastructure, and interrupt water supplies throughout the region and statewide (Hanak and Lund, 2008). Where levee and flood protection projects are identified, the region may prioritize funding for these projects to assist the region in adapting to these climate change impacts. Additionally, it is common for flood channels and drains to sit adjacent to disadvantaged communities, further magnifying the need to identify proactive projects to prevent catastrophic flooding impacts. 2.9.5. Water Quality A changing climate will likely create challenges for the management of water quality in the region. The majority of water supply in the region is from the Delta, which has several water quality concerns, as described in Section 2.9.1. These water quality challenges could be exacerbated by climate change. There may be potential water quality problems associated with sea-level rise, such as increased salinity in receiving waters and areas serving drinking water intakes. There may also be issues associated with higher river and stream flows caused by increased storm events, such as an increase in turbidity and in the pollutants transported by mobilized sediment. Disinfectant byproduct precursors tend to spike during storm events (DWR 2001) and this problem could be more common if storm frequency increases. A decrease in annual precipitation would result in higher concentrations of contaminants during droughts and lower dissolved oxygen (DO). As noted in Section 2.9.1, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir is used as a blending facility to improve the quality of water delivered to customers in the late summer and fall, when Delta water quality is lowest. If the amount of water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir during summer and fall decreases, this could limit the blending capabilities of the reservoir. As noted as well in Section 2.9.1, failure of the Delta levee system could dramatically increase levels of chloride, bromide, and total organic carbon in Delta water and potentially render that water supply unusable for municipal or agricultural purposes. As noted earlier in this section, the risk of Delta levee system failure increases under climate change conditions. Potential changes in Delta water quality associated with climate change could increase the disinfection byproducts such as bromate. Bromide in the source water is transformed into bromate during ozonation. The level of bromate formation is largely dependent on the amount of total organic carbon and bromide concentration in the source water. Bromate is suspected of contributing to kidney and thyroid cancer in humans. Sea-level rise could increase the intrusion of sea water and the bromide concentration of the Delta. Additionally, decreased freshwater flows into the Delta could increase organic matter. Combined, these two potential outcomes of climate change could increase bromate formation during the treatment of Delta waters; minimization or avoidance may necessitate changes to treatment technologies in ECCC. Warmer temperatures associated with climate change could also lead to increased taste and odor events triggered by algal blooms; which are characterized by water quality changes during the spring and summer, such as increases in DO and DO saturation, pH, and total organic nitrogen. 7 Many Delta islands have subsided 15 to 25 feet below sea level (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2011). Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-74 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Many of the surface water treatment plants in the region are designed to address taste and odor events through preozonation. Although use of higher ozone dosages to control taste and odor events must also consider the need to control bromate formation. 2.9.6. Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerability The Delta is listed as one of the top 10 habitats to save for endangered species in a warming world in a report prepared by the Endangered Species Coalition (Endangered Species Coalition, 2011). The Delta provides habitat for hundreds of species of fish, birds, and other wildlife and enables the migration of Pacific salmon from spawning grounds in the upper reaches of cold-water rivers to the saline oceans and back again (Endangered Species Coalition, 2011). Regional climate- sensitive populations include salmonid species, migratory bird species, and wetland species (CEC, 2008). Projected climate changes are likely to result in a number of interrelated and cascading ecosystem impacts. At present, most projected impacts are primarily associated with increases in air and water temperatures and include increased stress on fisheries that are sensitive to a warming aquatic habitat. Warmer temperatures can compromise the health and resilience of aquatic and terrestrial species and make it more challenging for them to compete with nonnative species for survival. Competition for habitat and food will intensify with climate change. Further, climate change effects could compound with non-climate stressors, such as land-use changes, wildfire, and agriculture to cause habitat fragmentation at increasing rates, thus contributing to species extinction (USFWS, 2009). Changes in seasonal runoff patterns may place additional stress on native species by affecting, for example, adult and juvenile migrations. Increasing temperatures are likely to increase challenges for providing suitable habitat conditions for salmonid populations. Of specific concern within the region are Chinook salmon and steelhead, which prefer temperatures of less than 64.4 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in mountain streams, although these anadromous fish may tolerate higher temperatures for short periods (Bennett, 2005). Increased water temperatures could reduce the habitat suitability of California rivers for these species (Reclamation, 2011). Additionally, warmer air and water temperatures potentially could improve habitat for invasive species that outcompete natives. Invasive species, including various nonnative fish and plant species, are an ongoing issue within the region. Some invasive species, such as quagga mussels, may additionally impact maintenance of hydraulic structures. Further, climate changes could decrease the effectiveness of measures currently used to control invasive species (Hellman et al., 2008). Warmer water temperatures also could spur the growth of algae, which could result in eutrophic conditions in lakes and reservoirs, declines in water quality (Lettenmaier et al., 2008), and changes in species composition. Other warming-related impacts include northward shifts in the geographic range of various species, impacts on the arrival and departure of migratory species, amphibian population declines, and effects on pests and pathogens in ecosystems (Reclamation, 2011). Impacts on terrestrial ecosystems have also been observed, including changes in the timing and Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-75 March 2019 East Contra Costa County length of growing seasons, timing of species life cycles, primary production, and species distributions and diversity (CEC, 2009c). Additionally, the region’s significant recreational economy (boating, fishing, biking, and hiking) could be affected by changes to the ecosystem and wildlife habitat. 2.9.7. Energy In general, electricity production from hydroelectric power generation and other sources tend to be effected by weather patterns and temperature changes. Increases in peak energy demands throughout California and decreases in supply may decrease power supply reliability which in turn could alter or disrupt water diversions, water treatment, and wastewater disposal. The western U.S. energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, although not caused by climate change, demonstrated the gravity of unreliable supply. The portion of the region’s power supplies that come from systems with hydropower generation and hydroelectric generation as part of the utility portfolio is sensitive to potential climatic changes affecting the timing and magnitude of precipitation, runoff, and reservoir water levels. Direct impacts for ECCC may be energy reliability (brown outs) and cost. Water demands and production from conventional power plants located in the ECCC area can be expected to increase if out of area hydroelectric production decreases. Energy reliability is especially important for treatment and pumping operations. In addition to sensitivity to water based generation concerns, reduced reliability could occur with a variety of other climate change and climate change mitigation variables such as:  Availability of power supply sources (coal, other fuels) due to market availability or impediments to use (such as emissions concerns).  Extreme temperatures driving intense competition among power users.  Diminished local supplies (wind).  Damages to the delivery system and grid caused by fires and flood. 2.9.8. Additional Local Data The Regional Capacity Study, which was completed in 2014 by several agencies in the ECCC region, evaluated ways to optimize regional water treatment plant operations and untreated water supply, improve water supply reliability, and reduce treatment costs. The RCS included a water supply reliability evaluation that considered probable drought scenarios, including those that could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. Of the scenarios that were evaluated, the RCS determined that failures within the western delta levee system and a regional power outage would be most likely to create critical impacts to water quality and treated water supplies. Although prolonged droughts are a potential impact resulting from climate change, the RCS determined that a scenario that looked at drought conditions (loss of untreated water supply) was not necessary to carry forward in the analysis, because CCWD’s long-term water planning scenarios already outline alternative untreated water sources that would be required in the event of a three-year prolonged drought. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-76 March 2019 East Contra Costa County As a result of the water supply reliability evaluation, the RCS recommended that operational changes and additional studies be pursued to potentially address regional issues, including those that could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. The results and recommendations of the RCS have been incorporated into this IRWM Plan. 2.9.9. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies ECCC IRWM Plan participants recognize the importance of managing for climate change in the region. Management strategies include both mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation involves actions to reduce GHG emissions, while adaptation involves responding to the effects of climate change. Mitigation strategies attempting to reduce production of GHG emissions already in place in the region include:  Consumer education  Conservation  Water and wastewater management  Green buildings  GHG reductions  Expansion of recycled water systems  Community involvement A potential adaptation strategy to increase water supply reliability is to develop infrastructure to tie into the water supply systems of nearby water agencies, such as East Bay Municipal Utility District, to reduce reliance on the Delta. Additionally, increasing recycled water usage will improve water supply reliability, since recycled water is not affected by hydrologic conditions. This will provide additional dry-year reliability for irrigation customers and other industrial users. Appendix E includes a detailed list and descriptions of ongoing and planned mitigation and adaptation actions in the region. Climate change mitigation and adaptation actions are also an important part of the IRWM planning process. GHG emissions were an important consideration in the project selection process, which is described in greater detail in Section 3.4.3. 2.10. Water Quality This section provides an overview of water quality concerns for the region’s Delta water supplies and groundwater supplies. A summary of the constituents of concern for these supplies is included in Table 2-12 and discussed in more detail in the paragraphs following. 2.10.1. Delta Water Quality Delta water quality is highly variable depending upon the season, the water year, and the intake location. During dry years and seasons, Delta supplies contain high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, and bromide. Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations in Delta supplies are also highly variable, with increases generally corresponding to periods of increased runoff. These concerns are discussed in detail in the Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DRDWQMP). The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is owned and operated by CCWD, and is used to improve the water quality delivered to its customers. Water is pumped into Los Vaqueros Reservoir during spring and early summer months when Delta water quality is good. During the late summer and fall, when Delta water quality is poor, Delta supplies are blended with the high-quality water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir to improve the water quality delivered to Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-77 March 2019 East Contra Costa County CCWD’s untreated and treated water customers. CCWD expanded the Los Vaqueros Reservoir capacity in 2012 from 100 TAF to 160 TAF. Table 2-12. Constituents of Concern for ECCC Source Waters Constituent of Concern Reason Regulatory Standard1 (Goal) Location Total Dissolved Solids Taste and odor Agricultural and industrial impacts Secondary Standard: 500 mg/L Delta Supplies, Groundwater, Recycled Water Total Organic Carbon Disinfection byproducts- THM, HAA precursor (public health concern) MCLs – THM: 80 µg/L HAA5: 60 µg/L Delta supplies Bromide Bromate precursor (public health concern) (CALFED Goal: 50 µg/L) Delta supplies Chloride Taste, corrosion Secondary Standard: 250 mg/L Delta supplies Iron and Manganese Filter deposits Rusty color Taste and odor Secondary Standards: Iron: 0.3 mg/L Manganese: 0.05 mg/L Groundwater Arsenic Bladder cancer Lung cancer MCL: 10 µg/L Groundwater Boron Reproductive toxicity Action level: 1 mg/L Groundwater Nitrate (as NO3) Public health concerns MCL: 45 mg/L Groundwater Note: 1 MCLs and Secondary Standards are found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations Key: µg/L = micro grams per liter CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ECCC = East Contra Costa County HAA = Haloacetic acid MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level mg/L = milligrams per liter NO3 = Nitrate THM = Trihalomethane The quality of Delta water is dependent on maintaining the Delta levee system as well as land and water management activities throughout the Delta and its larger watershed. Failure of the Delta levee system could dramatically increase levels of chloride, bromide, and TOC in the water and potentially render the water supply unusable for municipal or agricultural purposes. Similarly, changes in Delta land-use and water management practices, including many identified by CALFED and the BDCP (discussed below), could increase levels of undesirable constituents at ECCC intake locations. ECCC is particularly vulnerable to these changes since Delta water makes up the majority of the region’s water supply. The RCS analyzed potential operational impacts that could take place in the region as a result of Delta levee failure, including water quality impacts. The RCS recommended that additional studies be conducted to analyze potential impacts of TOC and bromide on treatment capabilities as these water quality constituents could potentially impact the region’s ability to treat and deliver water in the event of a Delta levee failure. Delta Operations The majority of the ECCC region’s water supply comes from the Delta. Changes in Delta operations by the State or federal government may impact water supply and water quality within the ECCC area. Therefore, the RWMG is tracking the progress of efforts in the Delta, including the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP is a planning document that addresses Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-78 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ecosystem and water management challenges in the Delta. The BDCP included an analysis of potential Delta levee failure scenarios (four-island and fourteen-island failure analysis), which could impact or interrupt supplies in the region. DWR is considering requiring that 2015 UWMPs analyze the impacts of a potential 36-month supply interruption resulting from a 14-island failure. While the 14-island failure is an extreme condition, it is possible that 2015 UWMPs will include such an analysis if required by DWR. 2.10.2. Groundwater Quality Several agencies, including the City of Pittsburg, DWD, and the City of Brentwood, use groundwater supplies to supplement Delta surface water supplies. Additionally, the Town of Discovery Bay and Bethel Island both utilize groundwater wells as their primary source of drinking water. Groundwater quality generally meets drinking water quality standards with some exceptions. For example, high concentrations of manganese and TDS have been observed in wells in the City of Pittsburg and DWD. Also, the City of Brentwood has experienced significant degradation of groundwater quality due to nitrate contamination. Small water systems on Bethel Island also report that arsenic is present at varying – and sometimes high – levels throughout the island. Key Constituents of Concern Nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, and hexavalent chromium are contaminants of primary concern for the State of California. As indicated in Table 2-12, nitrate and arsenic are present in some locations within the region’s groundwater supply and are considered to be contaminants of concern for the region. Hexavalent chromium is also present within the region but at levels low enough that the contaminant is not listed as a major constituent of concern. Nitrate and arsenic are both present in the region, though generally at very low levels relative to the regulatory Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) allowable for drinking water. Throughout the IRWM region, arsenic (with an MCL of 10 micrograms per liter) concentrations range from non- detectable levels to 5 micrograms per liter in Discovery Bay. On Bethel Island, the Beacon West small water system has reported arsenic levels of 26 micrograms per liter, which greatly exceeds the MCL. As a result, the Beacon West community abandoned its water supply well and in 2017 was connected to the DWD distribution system. Nitrate concentrations in the IRWM region are below the 45 mg/L MCL, with concentrations ranging from non-detectable to 23 mg/L in the City of Brentwood. Hexavalent chromium levels in the IRWM region are below the 10 microgram per liter, with maximum reported concentrations of 0.49 micrograms per liter from DWD and 8.2 micrograms per liter for the City of Brentwood. Perchlorate is not detected in the region. Impacts Caused by Contamination Currently, there are no water sources in the IRWM region that exceed the MCL of nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, and hexavalent chromium. As a result, there are no measureable or recorded impacts resulting from the constituents where they are present. Efforts to Address Contamination and Impacts The groundwater suppliers in the region continue to manage the groundwater basins and their supplies. Methods used to improve groundwater quality include blending with surface water, Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-79 March 2019 East Contra Costa County targeting deeper aquifers, and designing future wells with deep seals extending to confining zones to ensure source water protection. As with the example of the Beacon West community (described above), local water purveyors and IRWM participants collaborate with each other to resolve major water quality issues. To address potential groundwater quality degradation that could take place as a result of salt and nutrient loading from use of recycled water, agencies in the region have completed salinity analyses (Salt and Nutrient Management Plans) and others have participated in regional salinity management efforts such as the Central Valley Salinity Coalition. Information from the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary suggest that TDS and chloride levels are elevated in shallow groundwater wells closer to the shoreline, likely as a result of seawater intrusion. Quality of deep zone groundwater is similar to that of shallow groundwater, with higher TDS concentrations closer to Suisun Bay. However, because the deep groundwater wells are located further inland than the shallow aquifers, TDS concentrations appear somewhat lower in the deep aquifers than in the shallow aquifers. Given limited available groundwater quality data for the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin, the SNMP Summary recommends additional monitoring to determine the basin’s assimilative capacity, identify potential loading sources, manage recycled water and fertilizer use, and prepare a full SNMP for the basin. 2.10.3. Recycled Water Quality Recycled water is engineered for safety and reliability so that the quality of the water is more predictable than many existing surface water and groundwater sources. In general, recycled water contains higher salinity content (reported as TDS) than potable water and is treated to suit its end use. For irrigation purposes, the rate at which salts accumulate in soils is an important factor in determining acceptable TDS levels. In addition, the salinity, sodium hazard (as determined by sodium adsorption ratio [SAR]), and potential toxicity to plant foliage and roots from other specific constituents are potential concerns. Sampling data for Delta Diablo recycled water supplies shows that these supplies are within acceptable ranges for landscape irrigation. For industrial users, specifically those that use cooling towers, improved recycled water quality, through advanced treatment, would lower water demand resulting in chemical and water purchase cost savings. In 2014 ISD completed a Salinity Pollution and Prevention Plan (SPPP) for its WRF, which analyzed potential sources of salinity (TDS and electrical conductivity [EC]), feasibility of source control methods, and ways of reducing salinity in WRF source water. The analysis found that self- regenerating water softeners (SRWS) are significant contributors to EC in ISD’s service area. As a result of this analysis, the SPPP recommended development of an ordinance to ban installation of new SRWS and outreach to help local residents understand salinity issues. With regards to water supply, the analysis found that high salinity in local groundwater wells (for Oakley and Bethel Island) are a large source of EC to ISD’s WRF; as such, the SPPP recommends working with water purveyors in the area to develop a better potable water supply for Bethel Island that will reduce salinity loads to the WRF. IRWM Plan Update 3-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 3. Plan Development This chapter presents the steps of the planning process and the outcomes for each. These outcomes include: objectives, resource management strategies, technical analyses, stakeholder involvement, project review process, and integration and coordination. The chapter describes the intention for the plan to be part of an ongoing process. It is considered by the ECWMA and regional stakeholders as a living document that will continue to be updated after the 2015 version. Planning Framework Background With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 1672, the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 (Act), the State of California affirmed the importance of IRWM. In this Act,1 the Legislature found and declared: “(a) Water is a valuable natural resource in California, and should be managed to ensure the availability of sufficient supplies to meet the state's agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage their available local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability of those supplies. (b) Improved coordination among local agencies with responsibilities for managing water supplies and additional study of groundwater resources are necessary to maximize the quality and quantity of water available to meet the state's agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs. (c) The implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 will facilitate the development of integrated regional water management plans, thereby maximizing the quality and quantity of water available to meet the state's water needs by providing a framework for local agencies to integrate programs and projects that protect and enhance regional water supplies.” The Act authorized regional water management groups to prepare and adopt a regional plan that addresses programs, projects, reports, or studies relating to water supply, water quality, flood protection, or related matters, over which any local public agency, that is a participant in that group, has authority to undertake. It also required the DWR, the State Water Board, the State Department of Health Services, or CALFED,2 as appropriate, to include in any set of criteria used to select the projects and programs they administer under specified provisions of law or under a specified Delta program a criterion that provides a benefit for qualified projects or programs. 1 Division 6 of the Water Code, Section 1. Part 2.2 (commencing with Section 10530) 2 CALFED responsibilities have transitioned to the Delta Stewardship Council, Resources Agency, and others Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The voters similarly affirmed the importance of these efforts via passage of four significant bond measures:  November 2002 – California voters pass Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, which provides $500 million (California Water Code [CWC] Section 79560-79565) to fund competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan.  November 2006 – California voters pass Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act, which provides $1 billion (PRC Section 75001-75130) for IRWM planning and implementation.  November 2006 – California voters pass Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act, which provides $300 million (PRC Section 5096.800- 5096.967) for IRWM stormwater flood management.  November 2014 – California votes pass Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which provides $7.5 billion statewide and $510 million to fund competitive grants for IRWM projects. California Water Plan Update 2005 featured IRWM as its Number 1 Initiative, describes its implementation as essential to the State’s future, and listed the following IRWM principles:  Use a broad, long-term perspective  Identify broad benefits, costs, and trade-offs  Promote sustainable resource management  Increase regional self-sufficiency  Increase regional drought preparedness  Use open forums that include all communities  Promote coordination and collaboration among local agencies and governments  Use sound science, best data, and local knowledge ECCC IRWM Plan 2013 Update Process As described in Section 2.2, ECWMA and its members understood, well before the passage of the 2002 Act, the importance of regional integrated planning. The preparation of the 2013 IRWM Plan Update evolved from this strong foundation and incorporated the process and required components of DWR’s IRWM Guidelines. Figure 3-1 illustrates the IRWMP update activities. During the update process, the ECWMA focused on setting regional objectives and establishing a transparent project review process. California Water Plan Update 2005 featured Integrated Regional Water Management Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This chapter describes in more detail how each component of the planning process was developed and how the components can be used into the future, to ensure a vital plan. Figure 3-1. IRWM Planning Process ECCC IRWM Plan 2015 Update Process After completion of a comprehensive update to the IRWM Plan in 2013, several of the ECWMA members finalized planning studies and technical documents of regional importance. The ECCC IRWM has received DWR funding for these technical studies as part of the Round 2 Planning Grant process and CCWD executed an agreement with DWR in early 2014. As such, in 2015 the IRWM Plan was once again updated, to include information about the results of regional planning studies and comprehensively include the results of these studies into the IRWM Plan. To honor the region’s commitment to stakeholder involvement and transparency, the 2015 IRWM Plan Update process also involved stakeholder outreach and refinement of the IRWM website to ensure that information about the 2015 Update is made publicly available for stakeholders and for DACs. ECCC IRWM Plan 2019 Update Process After passage of Proposition 1 in 2014, DWR updated the IRWM Guidelines in 2016. The 2016 IRWM Guidelines contain the general process, procedures, standards, and criteria that DWR will use to implement the Proposition 1 grant programs and review IRWM Plans. The 2016 IRWM Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Guidelines contain additional requirements for content of the IRWM Plan. As such, the East Contra Costa County IRWM Plan was updated in 2019 to satisfy the revised Guidelines. Because the region’s 2015 IRWM Plan update was so comprehensive, the 2019 update was minor, and focused on meeting the revised requirements of the 2016 IRWM Guidelines. The update was circulated to the IRWM region representatives and stakeholders for review and comment. The DWR approved, updated IRWM Plan will be available on the ECCC IRWM website. Objectives The ECCC IRWM region is almost entirely dependent on Delta water supply and all or a portion of the cities and unincorporated communities are located within the statutory Delta. This distinction is important as the Delta is a physical place with legally defined boundaries and requirements, which add to ECCC water management complexity. The Delta is a highly regulated and managed system providing both significant water supply and environmental benefits that are often in conflict. The Delta is also vulnerable to water quality impacts from a variety of natural and man-made causes such as drought, chemical spills, levee failure, and salt water intrusion. In 2015, the fourth consecutive dry year and a declared State-wide drought emergency, the ECCC IRWM participants all experienced severely reduced Delta supplies both from contractual reductions as well as poor water quality that limits use of intakes in the western Delta. ECCC IRWM goals and objectives reflect water management needs under normal, dry, and emergency conditions. Water Management Challenges The ECWMA explored water management issues that the region’s water resources managers and stakeholders face. ECWMA reached out to members of the public, local agencies and other stakeholders with an invitation to participate in the discussion and learn more about the update process. During a workshop in February 2012, participants identified regional and local problems, challenges, resource conflicts, and opportunities to collaborate. During the session, five broad categories of issues were identified. The 2015 IRWM Plan Update has been discussed with participating agencies at East County coordinating meetings. Within each broad category, participants identified both issues and regional needs. The information gathered during the session was then compiled for review and refinement by the ECWMA. Objectives Categories Ultimately, five overarching issues and needs, listed below, were refined into objectives categories for use by the ECWMA in preparing detailed planning objectives and metrics, and establishing project selection criteria. 1. Ensuring reliable water supply during normal, dry, and emergency conditions including droughts, achieving water quality goals and meeting water quality regulations. 2. Protection, restoration, and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources including upstream wetland and habitat restoration. 3. Funding for water-related planning and project implementation. 4. Stormwater and flood management. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 5. Water-related outreach and equitable distribution of resources in the region. In presenting the objectives in a list, the group expressly states the order does not imply that one issue or need is more important than another. The IRWM planning group views all objectives as important and to some extent inseparable. However, in 2015 a key priority has been the ongoing drought and the availability of water supply. The five objectives are discussed in more detail below. Water Quality and Reliable Supply The ECCC IRWM region is almost entirely dependent on Delta water supply. The CCWD has made substantial investments in water storage and water quality by expanding the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, constructing the Old and Middle rivers water intakes, and improving the Rock Slough Intake. Unreliable surface water supply, especially in dry years and during drought, continues to be a concern. Delta water supplies are subject to future Delta-wide influences (not controlled by the ECCC region) and can dramatically impact the quality and availability of surface water supplies for the region. As the most downstream user of Delta water supplies, the region is even more vulnerable to changes in water quality than other regions with Delta dependencies. In 2015 Antioch has not been able to take any surface water supply from its Delta intake due to poor water quality as a result of drought-impacted Delta flows. Similarly, water quality at CCWD’s Mallard Slough intake has rendered it unusable. Uncertainty in future water quality and supply for the region is associated with proposed future projects (such as the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan or BDCP), a fragile and somewhat unpredictable Delta ecosystem, climate change, and potential levee failure. An associated concern is the ability of the region to meet future water quality treatment and discharge regulations. A secure and reliable supply of water is a priority for the ECCC region. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan established strategies for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) targets and identified priority actions to help the State achieve those goals. Among these strategies was a goal to invest in communities to reduce emissions. There are several water supply challenges in the ECCC region where targeted objectives and financial investments – such as from the IRWM grant programs – would facilitate the region in meeting its water supply reliability and GHG emissions goals. Current regional challenges include:  Availability and utilization of water conservation programs for residential, commercial, and industrial water users,  Aging infrastructure,  Implementation of agricultural efficiency measures, and  Operational energy use and use of renewable energy. A small group enjoys a hike on the levee at the Dutch Slough Wetlands Restoration Project. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The IRWM Plan objectives will consider these challenges and identify metrics to support CARB’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases. IRWM projects may also be developed to target these challenges, and the project scoring criteria and review factors developed in this IRWMP will consider how projects address these objectives. Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Protection, restoration, and enhancement of the watersheds that drain to the Delta, the Delta ecosystem, and other environmental resources are important objectives for the region. The conservation of the region’s watersheds protects the local hydrology. Protected, restored, and enhanced ecosystems provide important services to the built and natural communities in the region. The watersheds naturally attenuate flooding, reduce stormwater and polluted runoff, and limit creek erosion and sediment loading into downstream water bodies (the Delta). Additionally, these protected habitats support State- and federally protected plant and animal species. Tree and plant growth in these protected environments also promotes biological carbon sequestration. Water-infrastructure-related projects within the Delta often require wetland mitigation and these credits can be difficult and costly to obtain. Delta infrastructure projects are not covered by the ECCC HCP. That said, the region has several integrated ecosystem efforts already underway and CCWD has been able to self-mitigate for a number of its projects or use third-party mitigation companies. ECWMA agencies participated in the ECCC HCP/NCCP. This Regional Conservation Plan was the basis for the biological/environmental components of the Functionally Equivalent IRWMP the ECCC region previously adopted. This HCP/NCCP provides regional conservation and development guidelines to protect and restore natural resources while improving and streamlining the permit process for endangered species and wetland regulations. By proactively addressing the long-term conservation needs, the HCP/NCCP strengthens local control over land use and provides greater flexibility in meeting other needs such as housing, transportation, and economic growth in the area. Some environmental protection and restoration projects are isolated, but they have the ability to have regional benefits on water quality, special status species, and recreation, as well as targeted locations where carbon sequestration is an opportunity for reducing greenhouse gases. The ECCC IRWMP identifies a number of multi-objective projects are closely tied to other IRWMP objectives. These projects protect the region’s ecosystem while providing other benefits. Two examples of these multi-objective projects are: 1. The Dutch Slough Wetlands Restoration3 project, a collaborative effort of DWR and others, offers an opportunity for large-scale tidal marsh restoration, habitat enhancement, and open space preservation in the rapidly urbanizing area of eastern Contra Costa County and adjacent to the unlined portion of the Canal. 3 Photos: http://www.dutchslough.org/events_meetings.html Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2. The Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Control project is an effort of CCCFCWCD, ECCCHC, and Knightsen to acquire property and restore wetlands that will function to attenuate flood waters. Flood waters regularly inundate the community of Knightsen, such as in 1997 shown in Figure 3-2. The project will protect and restore habitat, address flooding, and provide recreational opportunities. Figure 3-2. Ecosystem Restoration can Attenuate Flooding Like that Experienced in Knightsen in 1997 Funding for Water‐Related Planning and Project Implementation Funding for water resources planning and implementation is a challenge for the region. In the mid- 2000s the ECWMA began to more actively work together understanding significant State bond funds may become available via grants to support projects in integrated regional water management plans. In 2007, the region received a significant $12.5 million Proposition 50-based grant that supported numerous projects within the region. The region has also obtained close to $15 million in Proposition 1E-based grant funding. The region has not been as successful seeking Proposition 84-based implementation grants. The bond language for this proposition allocated funds by the macro DWR regions described in the CWP. The ECCC IRWMP is within the allocation for the San Joaquin Region and there are 12 other IRWMPs within the region (including four IRWM regions that overlap into the San Joaquin funding region). Funds from Proposition 84have been limited, with two ECCC IRWMP entities receiving approximately $1.7 million from Round 1 grant funding and one of the ECCC entities receiving approximately $0.43 million from Round 2 grant funding. The region submitted a drought grant request (2014) and a final round IRWM Proposition 84 Implementation grant request (2015). The group will also work to consider applying for Proposition 1 funding made available for IRWM programs. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County For water service providers, the drought has resulted in lower retail water demands. The reduced water usage has impacted revenues for these agencies, creating variable or insufficient revenue streams. While the voters have approved Proposition 1, constituents have been largely unwilling to support new tax or bond measures for water infrastructure-related funding. Additional funding issues are a result of the competitive nature of receiving State and federal funding, limited available funds, and potential schedule delays associated with grant funding. Stormwater and Flood Management The ECCC IRWM region is located between the western Delta and Mount Diablo. It includes substantial low-elevation acreage. The 2013 California Future Report a joint report of DWR and the USACE identified eastern Contra Costa as having a significant acreage of floodplains subject to 100-year flood events. A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4 percent chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100- year period. Both localized floods from stormwater runoff and regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure are real threats to communities and the region as a whole. Of the past 11 president-declared natural disasters in the region, all but one (an earthquake) involved storms and flooding. Increasing urbanization has also increased the consequences of flood and a changing hydrograph resulting from more intense storm events has put pressure on the flood control infrastructure. The flood control facilities protect communities, businesses, and agriculture and are integral to the built environment in ECCC. Flood infrastructure is reaching or exceeding its expected life and is likely to need significant repair or rebuilding over the next 40 years. Climate change is projected to even future increase these risks, particularly related to more extreme weather events potentially swamping existing flood control systems. Earthquakes, which are already a known regional risk, pose an additional risk to the ECCC levees that are essential for both water supply and flood protection. Water‐Related Outreach and Equitable Distribution of Resources in the Region A final set of concerns relates to water-related outreach within the area. Outreach is essential for building voluntary citizen action that is necessary for the successful implementation of many of the IRWM programs. For example, community action is integral to water conservation programs, reducing pollutants entering storm drains, and volunteer creek restoration activities. Selected Major ECCC Flood Events 1861–1862 Winter, The Great Flood 1955–1956 December–January, Christmas Flood 1962–1963 December–February 1968–1969 December–February, Winter '69 Storms 1970 April 1980 January–February, Delta Levee Break, Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta 1982–1983 November–March, Winter Storms 1990 May 1995 January–April, 1995 Christmas Flood 1998 January–March, El Niño Floods 2006 February 3–April 1, Spring Storms Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County For example, the FOMCW conducts an annual Marsh Creek Cleanup Day at seven locations along Marsh Creek and its tributaries. Volunteers clean trash and debris from nearly 15 miles of the creek in partnership with the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the California Coastal Commission. In 2012, more than 600 volunteers turned out to remove approximately 8,500 pounds of debris from the creek, and recycled more than 1,000 pounds of debris. Beyond building an environmental stewardship ethic, outreach is necessary for residents to fully understand the regional water context, and particularly the regional dependence on the Delta. Ongoing efforts for communication and engagement will allow residents to better evaluate the need for investments in water infrastructure improvements and participate in water governance. It is also important to recognize the substantial (18 percent, recently down from 23 percent) regional DAC population of the East Contra Costa County Region. One example is feedback related to ways to overcome limited access to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation or infrastructure needs. Special steps are needed to ensure disadvantaged communities have access to the regional water decision-making process. Appendix F includes additional details about the issues and regional needs. Creating Measurable Objectives With an understanding of the regional water management issues, the ECWMA had the necessary information to set objectives for the IRWM Plan (see related planning hierarchy in Figure 3-3). Objectives establish the desired outcomes of the IRWM Plan. Clearly defined and measurable objectives inform development of appropriate, innovative actions and project selection criteria. A measureable objective describes an outcome that can be either quantitatively or qualitatively evaluated. Measureable objectives allow the region to determine if progress is being made and/or an objective has been reached. A preliminary list of potential objectives and metrics was generated from the outreach meeting held in January, discussions with member agencies, the 2005 Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan (FEIRWM Plan), other regional, and local plans. A volunteer adds trash to a growing stack of debris collected during the 2011 Marsh Creek Cleanup Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 3-3. Planning Hierarchy In March 2012, ECWMA conducted a second workshop to refine the regional objectives. No single objective was determined to be higher priority than the others. However, there are multiple sets of related objectives. Related objectives were grouped into topics to represent one priority for implementation. A single objective could fall into several topics, for example, maintaining Delta levees could assist with multiple topics, including flood control and Delta ecosystem protection. The ECWMA and its members felt that this list of objectives was comprehensive enough that, when implemented, the objectives would help them address their water management issues. The objectives and metrics for the Water-Quality-Related Regulations and Water Supply Reliability Category are illustrated in Figure 3-4. A full list of the categories, objectives, and metrics is shown by topic in Table 3-1 on the following pages. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 3-4. Planning Hierarchy for Water Quality and Supply Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics Topic Objective Metric (Quantitative or Qualitative) Water Quality and Related Regulations  Protect/improve source water quality  Meet SMCLs for salts in (blended) raw water at all times  Action level for Giardia in source water to treatment plants is 1 cyst/liter  Understand how Los Vaqueros Reservoir affects hardness and other water quality parameters of water stored in the reservoir  Extend treated water service to areas using poor quality groundwater, especially DAC areas  Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality  Meet all drinking water quality requirements (e.g., MCLs, distribution system monitoring)  Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality  Meet all recycled water quality requirements in accordance with the intended use (Title 22 or advanced treatment)  Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality  Comply with CASGEM  Complete GMP  Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Comply with:  NPDES permits for individual dischargers  East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit (Order R5-2010-0102)  San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order R2-2009-0074)  Likely future nutrient limits in discharge permits for the Delta  Likely future salinity limits in discharge permits for Central Valley Water Board (Region 5)  Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta  Reduce stormwater discharges to the Delta Stormwater and Flood Management  Manage local stormwater  Compliance with ECCC Municipal NPDES Permit (Order R5-2010-0102)  Compliance with Contra Costa Clean Water Program  Consistency with Contra Costa County’s 50-Year Plan  Inspect or conduct condition assessment of 5-10% of existing stormwater infrastructure per year  Improve regional flood risk management  Achieve a 200-year level of protection for urban areas  Achieve a 100-year level of protection for small communities  Improve level of protection for Ag/rural  Coordinate with county Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics (contd.) Topic Objective Metric (Quantitative or Qualitative) Water Supply Reliability  Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination  Increase recycled water deliveries  Investigate desalination  Increase water conservation and water use efficiency  Increase residential, commercial and industrial water conservation programs  Comply with SB X7-7 20 x 2020 conservation goal  Repair and/or replace 2% of aging infrastructure per year  Determine whether Ag efficiency measures are relevant, and if so, increase Ag water efficiency  Increase water transfers  Contribute to CCWD’s water supply reliability goal to meet 100% of demands in normal years and a minimum of 85% of demands during extended droughts  Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure  Enhance understanding (location, availability, blending, etc.) of existing interties (such as was done in the 2014 Regional Capacity Study)  Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use)  Develop additional groundwater capacity within basin safe yields, once they are determined  Estimate Ag groundwater pumping  Comply with CASGEM  Complete GMP Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources  Protect, restore and enhance habitat in the Delta and connected waterways4  Protect, restore and enhance the watersheds that feed and contribute to the Delta Ecosystem  Achieve wetland restoration and preservation goals of ECCC HCP/NCCP  Consider climate change adaptation in all enhancement/restoration strategies  Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources  Work collaboratively with ECCC HCP/NCCP on development of all future IRWM Plan projects  Comply with CEQA/NEPA for all applicable projects  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions  Reduce operational energy use by 5%  Consider climate change adaptation in all mitigation strategies  Protect Delta ecosystem against habitat disruption due to emergencies, such as levee failure  [See flood management]  Increase shoreline access for subsistence fishing and recreation”  Reduce illegal activities (trespassing) related to subsistence fishing and recreation 4 This includes all waterways, not just those in the statutory Delta, as all the waterways drain to the Delta. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics (contd.) Topic Objective Metric (Quantitative or Qualitative) Funding for Water-Related Planning and Project Implementation  Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water  Maintain or reduce unit cost of treating and conveying water  Maximize use of existing infrastructure  Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding  Collaborate on projects, inter- or intra-regionally  Update prioritization process regularly to keep it relevant (regional, integrated, project readiness, fundability, available cost share)  Encourage cooperation from smaller entities and stakeholders, including assistance with matching funds  Use financial resources strategically to maximize return on investment on grant applications for project development/implementation  Implement decision-making process in pursuing grant opportunities (regional, integrated, project readiness, fundability, available cost share, and stated DWR priorities)  Develop a funding pool to self-fund regional efforts such as grant applications, outreach, website development, and other planning activities  Reinitiate program to collect annual regional fees using ECWMA funding mechanism  Implement decision-making structure for using the funds  Increase public awareness of project importance to pass ballot measures or obtain matching funds through other means that require public support  Ensure projects with existing matching funds are prioritized to maximize regional funding opportunities.  [see Other Aspects topic] Outreach  Identify and engage DACs  Regularly refine DAC maps and outreach strategies based on new available data.  Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process  Increase number of projects in the IRWM Plan that benefit DACs  Promote equitable distribution of proposed projects across the region  Increase geographic distribution of IRWM Plan projects  Increase awareness of water resource management issues and projects with the general public  Develop educational/outreach material for the website and other venues Key: Ag = agriculture CASGEM = California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CCWD = Contra Costa Water District CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act DAC = Disadvantaged Community Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ECCC = East Contra Costa County ECCC HCP/NCCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan ECWMA = East County Water Management Association GMP = Groundwater Management Plan IRWM = integrated regional water management MCL = maximum contaminant level NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SB X7-7 = Senate Bill X7-7 SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Living Document Using the established, published objectives, the region’s stakeholders can work to find synergies and efficiencies in water resources planning and project development. The 2015 IRWM Plan Update is designed to produce a living document intended to add/delete projects from funding lists, adjust goals and objectives, and add member agencies as the region changes and the plan is implemented. Over time the ECWMA will need to reexamine regional objectives in light of changed conditions in the economy, environment, or changes in the region’s priorities. The need for this in the ECCC region is perhaps more pronounced than might be found in other regions due to the evolving context of Delta management and the extent to which the future of the region is tied to its water source. Objectives may need to be revised as a result of:  Shifts in environmental conditions or water quality  To address new regulations or shifts in State policy (such as state mandates for water conservation requirements during periods of drought)  It becomes evident, during implementation, that the region is unable to realistically or reasonably achieve the established objectives. It is anticipated that the 2015 ECCC IRWM Plan will be further updated to capture implementation grant work once funded projects have been completed. Beyond that, until the next formal update or amendment to the IRWM Plan, the objectives and the intent of the region are established and available to help guide project development. Resource Management Strategies The ECWMA considered the strategies and approaches required to address the region’s objectives. DWR guidelines require the IRWM Plan to document the range of Resource Management Strategy(ies) (RMS) considered to meet the IRWM objectives and identify which RMSs were incorporated into the IRWM Plan. The effects of climate change on the IRWM region must factor into the consideration of RMSs. To be considered, RMSs must include those found in Volume 2 of the CWP Update 2009. Additionally, in October 2014 DWR released initial volumes of the CWP Update 2013, which includes three new RMSs, all of which are incorporated into this ECCC IRWM Plan Update. RMSs are defined as “a project, program, or policy that helps local agencies and governments manage their water, and related resources.” These are referred to as the tool kit of the CWP. The goal of the toolkit is to encourage a region to consider and, if possible, build a diversified portfolio of water management strategies to address needs and objectives. DWR understands these RMSs are already being used, but wants to encourage a methodical assessment of how regional options for diversification have been considered. The list of RMSs was shared with the ECWMA and stakeholders to consider when developing projects. Of the 335 individual tools described in the CWP 2009 RMS section, the ECWMA identified 24 with potential for use in meeting the IRWM Plan objectives, plus the three new CWP 2013 RMSs. Appendix G includes the full list of resource management strategies, the assessment 5 There are 28 Resource Management Strategies in CWP 2009; however, several of the strategies contain multiple tools. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County of applicability to the region, and the analysis of why or why not the tools could be applied. The RMSs moved forward for consideration in the ECCC IRWM Plan are listed in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. ECCC Applicable RMS List 1. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 2. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 3. Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage 4. Conveyance – Delta 5. Conveyance – Regional/local 6. Desalination 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution 8. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing) 9. Ecosystem Restoration 10. Flood Risk Management 11. Irrigated Land Retirement 12. Land Use 13. Matching Quality to Use 14. Pollution Prevention 15. Recharge Area Protection 16. Recycled Municipal Water 17. Salt and Salinity Management 18. Surface Storage – CALFED 19. Surface Storage – Regional/Local 20. System Reoperation 21. Urban Runoff Management 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency 23. Water Transfers 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 25. Watershed Management 26. Sediment Management 27. Water and Culture 28. Outreach and Education Key: CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program ECCC = East Contra Costa County RMS = Resource Management Strategy Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation As described in the Handbook, the CWP RMS can be used to help the region adapt to climate change impacts and implement mitigation strategies to reduce and minimize GHG emissions. The results of the climate change vulnerability assessment performed for the region are described in Section 2-9 of this IRWM Plan; vulnerabilities and potential impacts to the region due to climate change are described in that section. The applicable RMS were evaluated for their potential to help the region prepare and respond to climate change through adaptation and mitigation actions. The RMS evaluation provided in Appendix G provides an analysis of how each applicable RMS addresses region-specific climate change impacts, including adaptation strategies and GHG reduction and mitigation efforts. Through implementation of the IRWM projects, the applicable RMS will assist the region and participating agencies with accomplishing the objectives of the IRWM plan and addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. A review of the IRWM Projects was performed, which were then compared to the applicable RMS identified by the region and grouped by IRWM objective. Table 3-3 illustrates the relationship between the RMSs and proposed ECCC projects. This type of analysis can illustrate the concentration of RMSs that projects support, and alternatively can be used to identify where gaps exist in IRWM objective coverage. As indicated by Table 3-3, the IRWM-identified projects adequately represent the IRWM objectives, and are supported by the RMSs applicable to the region. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-3. ECCC IRWM Plan Projects – Resources Management Strategies vs. Objective Categories6 6 Table 3-3 represents the Objectives vs Resource Management Strategies analysis of the ECCC IRWM projects that were adopted into the 2015 IRWM Plan update. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Review Process The DWR IRWM Plan Guidelines require a process or processes to select projects for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. The selection process(es) must include the following components:  Procedures for submitting a project to the RWMG (ECWMA)  Procedures for reviewing projects considered for inclusion into the IRWM Plan  How the project contributes to the IRWM Plan objectives  How the project is related to resource management strategies selected for use in the IRWM Plan  Technical feasibility of the project  Specific benefits to DAC water issues  Environmental justice considerations  Project costs and financing This section describes the ECWMA process to collect, review, and maintain the region’s list of projects to address all the requirements set forth in the IRWM Guidelines. The process was presented and accepted at a workshop attended by the ECWMA and stakeholders on July 11, 2012. Project Submission To be considered in the IRWM Plan, project proponents initially submitted candidate projects using the region’s website (described in Section 3.6, Stakeholder Involvement) in 2012. The website contains information about why submitting a project could be beneficial, how projects will be evaluated, and instructions for how to submit. Submitting a new project requires providing a valid e-mail address and completing an online form with information about the project; the form may be saved, revisited, and edited until the user clicks “Submit.” Once submitted, an IRWM administrator acknowledges the project and the information is moved into the project database. Select information about the projects in the database can be viewed by website visitors in map or list format. The online project submission form was developed in accordance with DWR’s IRWM Guidelines, with the purpose of collecting information needed to comply with the specified project review process. The requested information included:  Project sponsor/proponent information  Location  Description  Partners  Stakeholder involvement  Regional objectives met  Program preferences met Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Statewide priorities met  RMSs used  Status  Costs and funding  Addressing needs of DACs, EJ, climate change  Data management To get an initial list of projects, the ECWMA held a formal “Call for Projects” from May 31 through September 20, 2012. The ECWMA met to discuss the projects on September 25, 2012, and agreed that projects may continue to be submitted through the region’s website. For the IRWM Plan Update, an October 2012, date was used for evaluation and analysis of the 54 projects. With the list of projects gathered during this period, 54 projects, from 14 different proponents, were included for this plan analysis. Additional calls for projects will occur as needed and additional plans were added for consideration as part of the Round 2 Implementation Grant process. This flexibility is encouraged as packages of projects are more likely to result in integrated and multi- objective approaches. Note: During 2014-2015 the East County IRWM website has not allowed participants to submit projects through the website. Instead, interested parties are asked to review the project at an East County coordinating meeting or to prepare a project form that can be submitted to all East County participants. Assuming no objections or issues with a proposed project, it can then be included as part of the East County IRWM Plan. The website is being upgraded and will again include a feature allowing interested parties to submit projects via an electronic database. Project Review Factors Many project review factors are considered for evaluating projects for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. As noted above, the IRWM Guidelines prescribe certain review factors, and the ECWMA and its members include additional factors that reflect its regional planning priorities. Review factors are grouped into three categories: 1. Project Score – Projects are given points by how well they met the region’s objectives, the State’s program preferences and statewide priorities, and a set of additional review factors, including improvements for DACs, EJ, and GHG reductions. 2. RMS Diversification Score – Projects are given points by their ability to diversify the number of RMSs considered. 3. Implementation Considerations – Information about the projects’ readiness and economic feasibility is also collected. Each of the review factors are described below and shown in Figure 3-5. Each category of review factors (score, RMS diversification, and implementation considerations) needs to be considered in tandem when evaluating projects to get a complete picture of the merit of a particular project. As grant or other funding opportunities arise, the ECWMA and its members will use all three factors to determine its highest priority projects. For instance, if there is an IRWM implementation grant Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County funding opportunity, it is not as simple as taking the projects with the highest scores because they may not be geographically diverse, they all may be a similar type of project, they all may be from one proponent, or they may not all be ready to proceed. Therefore, a project’s score is only one- third of the story and a “high” score does not guarantee a project will advance, just as a “low” score does not eliminate a project from future considerations. Project Scoring Criteria Each project will be evaluated based on its contributions to meet the following regional objectives and statewide priorities and preferences with regional significance:  Regional Objectives – Section 3.2.2 describes the region’s objectives. Some objectives will be implemented through the IRWM Program as a whole and are not relevant to individual projects, but most of the objectives were used to evaluate candidate projects.  IRWM Program Preferences – The IRWM Program Preferences are published in the IRWM Guidelines. These are preferences for selecting proposals for grant funding, and therefore represent what the State ultimately prefers to implement through its IRWM Program. Certain preferences are relevant to individual projects, while others are relevant to the IRWM planning process. Projects that address more preferences are more likely to align with the State’s IRWM goals and rank favorably in grant funding opportunities.  Statewide Priorities – A subset of the IRWM Program Preferences, Statewide Priorities were included in the review criteria for the same reasons.  Other IRWM Guideline Review Factors – Several review factors suggested in the IRWM Guidelines are not explicitly covered in the above considerations, but are appropriate to consider when scoring project merits. These project scoring criteria are shown in Table 3-4, followed by a discussion of the numeric approach used to score each project. Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria Topic Project Scoring Criteria Regional Objectives Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Increase water transfers Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria (contd.) Topic Project Scoring Criteria Protection, restoration and Enhancement of Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Protect, enhance, and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Protect, restore, and enhance habitat in the watersheds that contribute to the delta ecosystem Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Protect Delta ecosystem against habitat disruption due to emergencies, such as levee failure Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water. Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding Increase public awareness of project importance to pass ballot measures or obtain matching funds through other means that require public support Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Improve regional flood risk management Regional Objectives Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public IRWM Program Preferences and Statewide Priorities IRWM Program Preferences Effectively resolve significant water-related conflicts within or between regions Contribute to attainment of one or more CALFED objectives:  Improve the State's water quality from source to tap  Reduce the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion  Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources  Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Effectively integrate water management with land-use planning Statewide Priorities Drought preparedness Use and reuse water more efficiently Climate change response actions Expand environmental stewardship Protect surface water and groundwater quality Improve tribal water and natural resources Ensure equitable distribution of benefits Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria (contd.) Topic Project Scoring Criteria Other Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines Other Guideline Review Factors Environmental justice considerations Contribution of the project in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as compared to project alternatives Key: CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program DAC = Disadvantaged Community Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management Using the above list of scoring criteria, each project was scored based on its merit and its ability to help the region meet its planning priorities. A project received a numeric score for each of the four categories of scoring criteria as follows: 1. Regional Objectives – One point was given for each objective that was met by the project. In determining how to score projects against the region’s objectives, several numeric methods were evaluated, including assigning equal significance to each objective (one point per objective), assigning equal significance to each topic (a fraction of a point per objective, where the fraction relates to the number of objectives in a topic), and rewarding projects that address multiple topics. A sensitivity analysis was run with a suite of diverse projects from the 2005 FEIRWM Plan to compare the outcome of the three different scoring approaches, and the outcomes were all similar with respect to ranking and relative score. The region decided to use the approach of awarding each project one point per objective that the project meets. A project’s ability to meet regional objectives was self- reported in the project submission form. 2. IRWM Program Preferences – One point was given for each IRWM Program Preference that was met. One program preference is the project’s contribution to the following CALFED objectives:  Water Quality  Levees  Water Supply  Ecosystem Restoration One point was given to each CALFED objective addressed by the project. A project’s ability to meet IRWM Program Preferences was self-reported in the project submission form. 3. Statewide Priorities – One point was given for each statewide priority that was met. A project’s ability to meet statewide priorities was self-reported in the project submission form. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4. Other factors from IRWM Guidelines – Three factors in the IRWM Guidelines were not explicitly addressed in the above categories, so they were evaluated separately: DAC and EJ considerations and contribution of the project in reducing GHG emissions as compared to project alternatives. Assessment of EJ impacts and avoidance or mitigation of any adverse effects is completed through the National Environmental Policy Act/ California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) process. It was therefore assumed that all projects would meet this criterion adequately before implementation. However, a project was given a point if it went above and beyond the requirements, or consisted of a study that included EJ considerations. A project’s ability to address these factors was self-reported in the project submission form. Each of the four categories of scoring criteria was assigned a weighting factor (shown in Figure 3-5), representing the relative importance to the region in the scoring process. Figure 3-5. Relative Weighting Factors for Project Scoring Criteria As shown above, regional objectives have the highest weighting factor of 50 percent, indicating the relative importance of addressing local water management issues. IRWM Program Preferences and statewide priorities together make up 45 percent, and the remaining 5 percent is allocated to other factors from the IRWM Guidelines. Using this distribution, an overall score was generated for each project. Resource Management Strategies Section 3.3, Resource Management Strategies, and Appendix G describe in more detail the evaluation of the RMS portfolio. All the RMSs were considered when project information was collected to understand the greatest potential range of strategies a project could address. A project’s ability to meet an RMS was self-reported in the project submission form. Projects were evaluated to determine which RMS it would satisfy and then given a total RMS score based on the number of RMS diversification criteria satisfied. Projects that included a greater number of strategies were considered to contribute more to a diversified water management portfolio for the ECCC region. RMS diversification did not contribute to the project score, but was 50% 30% 15% 5%Regional Objectives IRWM Program Preferences Statewide Priorities Other Factors from IRWM Guidelines Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County given as a separate consideration for the region in identifying implementation priorities or proposals for grant funding. Implementation Considerations In addition to the project score and RMS diversification criterion, implementation considerations are also collected for each project. These considerations are shown in Table 3-5. The implementation consideration information are self-reported in the project submission form. Table 3-5. Implementation Considerations Implementation Consideration Information Collected Readiness to Proceed The status and competition date of planning, design, and construction/implementation. Project Financing Total project cost and total project amount funded, which allowed a percent of project funded to be calculated, as well as the current availability of a project economic feasibility analysis. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines As noted above, the IRWM Guidelines specify certain review factors to be considered in the project review process and for use in selecting for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. These are listed in Table 3-6, and for each criterion, a description is provided of how it will be considered in the project evaluation process. Table 3-6. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines Topic Approach in Project Evaluation Process Technical Feasibility Technical feasibility is a review factor in project screening. All projects were evaluated for technical feasibility in early project screening, and projects were eliminated if they were not technically feasible. Therefore, technically unfeasible projects needed no additional review. No projects lacking technical feasibility were submitted in this Call for Projects during the first submission round. Benefits Critical DAC Issues Benefit to DACs is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address additional IRWM guideline review factors. There are many opportunities for projects to benefit DACs. Native American Tribal Communities Benefit to Native American tribal communities is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address statewide priorities. However, there are no tribal communities in the ECCC region. A future proposal may include something benefiting tribal communities; for example, enhancement of habitat suitable for plants that may be used for cultural purposes. Environmental Justice Considerations Environmental justice considerations are included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address additional IRWM Guidelines review factors. Project Costs and Financing Project costs and financing are included as implementation considerations. Economic Feasibility Economic feasibility is included as an implementation consideration. Project Status Project status is included as an implementation consideration. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-6. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines (contd.) Topic Approach in Project Evaluation Process Strategic Considerations for IRWM Plan Implementation Strategic considerations were considered as part of the project screening. Strategic considerations for combining or modifying local projects into collaborative regional projects were considered after the projects were submitted; The region identified opportunities for such modifications and initiated discussions directly with the project proposer(s). If project modifications were agreeable, the project was resubmitted. This occurred before this phase of the evaluation. Project Adaptations for Climate Change Climate change adaptation is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address regional objectives and statewide priorities. Climate change is also its own standard in the IRWM Plan. Greenhouse Gases Reduction of greenhouse gases is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address additional IRWM Guideline review factors. Key: DAC = Disadvantaged Community ECCC = East Contra Costa County IRWM = integrated regional water management Project Review Steps After projects are received, the process for prioritizing projects and programs within the ECCC region involves the following sequential steps: 1. Perform initial screening of projects for inclusion – Projects are screened for their relevance to water management and technical feasibility before being included in the IRWM Plan. No projects are eliminated at this step. 2. Review benefits claimed by each project – Text entries are required in the project submission form to justify why certain benefits are claimed, for those related to the regional objectives and the IRWM Program Preferences. The region can meet to review these explanations to verify that the project proposers understand the intent and that their benefit claims are reasonable before the benefits are accounted for in the evaluation of projects. After reviewing rationale for claimed benefits, project proposers are permitted to modify their submissions to have consistent evaluations. For example, if a project claims meeting an ecosystem objective based on compliance with CEQA/NEPA, this will be eliminated as a project differentiator because all projects would follow that same process. 3. Project integration and coordination – Opportunities are sought to combine, evaluate, expand, and/or modify projects to achieve multiple benefits, expand local benefits to a regional scale, and/or enhance projects to address more regional objectives. For example, two similar projects that are geographically adjacent could be combined into a single effort to maximize implementation efficiency, or a project could be modified to include more comprehensive DAC benefits and outreach. 4. Evaluate and score projects – Each project will be evaluated, based on the process described above, to arrive at a project score, RMS diversification, and a set of implementation considerations. The resulting data allowed the region to create multiple lists prioritizing or sorting the projects based on a number of factors, including project type, primary ECCC IRWM Plan objective category, project score, RMS diversification, project Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County status (determined by design date), total cost, and percent funded. Creating a variety of lists sorted or prioritized by multiple criteria gave the region a better understanding of where different projects excelled and laid a framework for a more comprehensive view of the suite of projects, in particular which projects might be strongest under the diverse possible grant alternatives. 5. Iterate – After the first round of project scores, further opportunities can be considered for project integration and coordination. Upon improving projects, projects can be reevaluated and rescored. 6. Develop implementation plan – The implementation plan is a suite of priority projects that, when implemented, will help the region to meet its objectives. Documenting the Projects For the purposes of this IRWM Plan, an initial list of projects was submitted and reviewed in October 2012. The reviewed projects are listed by sponsoring agency/organization summarized in Table 3-7 and are shown on the IRWM website. Full details about these projects may be found in Appendix E. Note that the numbering of the projects in the table below bears no relationship to rank or priority, instead the numbers are related to the order in the database. Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title Antioch Youth Sports Complex 1. Recycled Water for American Youth Soccer Organization Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 2. BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project City of Antioch 3. Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements 4. Viera Water and Sewer Service, Northeastern Antioch City of Pittsburg 5. City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project 6. Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion Contra Costa Clean Water Program 7. Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa County 8. East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network 9. Knightsen Biofilter – Flood Control Project Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 10. Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) 11. Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) 12. East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) 13. Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) 14. Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) 15. Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) 16. Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) 17. Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects (contd.) Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title 18. West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) 19. Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) 20. Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) 21. Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 22. Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 23. Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Water District 24. BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie 25. Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project 26. Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation 27. Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon 28. Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Delta Diablo 29. Advanced Wastewater Treatment 30. DDSD Advanced Water Treatment 31. DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion 32. DDSD Salinity Reduction -- Softener Rebate Program 33. Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System 34. Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management 35. Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Diablo Water District 36. Allowable Maximum Level of Demand Project 37. Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well 38. Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline 39. High-Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation 40. Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 41. Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis 42. Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 43. Leak Detection and Repair East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 44. Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District 45. Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B 46. Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C 47. Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A 48. Oakley Sewers Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects (contd.) Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title 49. Salinity Reduction 50. Septage Receiving Station Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 51. Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Reclamation District 830 52. Jersey Island Cutoff Levees 53. Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 54. Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Key: BBID = Bryon Bethany Irrigation District BIMID = Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DDSD = Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District) IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management In 2014, Discovery Bay, Diablo Water District, and Ironhouse Sanitary District presented projects that were included as part of the IRWM Plan project list. These projects included the Discovery Bay Reclamation Project, Diablo Water District Leak Detection and the ISD Well (Jersey Island) and Fill Station. Since electronic submissions could not be submitted through the IRWM website, participants completed the project submission forms. CCWD then circulated the forms to all ECCC IRWM participants. There were no objections to any of these projects, which were then added to the list of IRWM Plan projects. A number of additional projects were identified in the planning studies completed as part of the 2015 IRWM Plan Update, which are presented in Table 3-8. These projects will be submitted to the IRWM project database, and the projects listed in the table may or may not reflect all of the projects that will eventually be submitted to the IRWM project database. Table 3-8: List of Projects Identified by IRWM Planning Studies Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP City of Brentwood Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Contra Costa Water District Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Emergency Backup Power City of Pittsburg  Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Basinwide Groundwater Condition and Quality Analysis and SNMP Refinement Pursue funding for full SNMP Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title Full SNMP Antioch/Pittsburg Intertie Analysis City of Pittsburg/Diablo Water District  Monitor Existing Wells Delta View Golf Course Water and Fertilizer Application Assessment Diablo Water District Groundwater monitoring network expansion Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Land Use Map Updates Water Budget Ironhouse Sanitary District Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Regional1 Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing Program and Documentation Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks 1 Projects are regional in nature and a potential project sponsor has not yet been identified Implementation and Updates to Project List As stated previously, Table 3-7 presents only an initial list of projects, and the projects presented in Table 3-8 have not yet completed the IRWM project evaluation process. With the IRWM website and Planning Framework established, projects may be added, removed, or updated at any time. With a living process, project proponents and stakeholders now have a venue to collaborate and integrate their projects. Getting a project on the list is important, even if there isn’t an imminent funding opportunity. From time to time, the ECWMA and its members may feel it is necessary to have another formal “Call-for-Projects” to refresh their list or to prepare for a new funding opportunity. Although funding is important, it should merely be a reward for good planning. Proper integrated planning should be ongoing, open, transparent, and collaborative. The IRWM region intends to perform regular reviews of the project list in the IRWM Plan. The review process will involve dissemination of the current project list to agencies and stakeholders for review, comment, and editing. The review process will provide an opportunity for project proponents to update the project information, including its status for compliance with applicable rules, laws, and permit requirements. Because many of the projects on the list are still in the conceptual planning phase, much of the compliance status may not be known. However, the opportunity for regular review will result in a project list that is frequently monitored for compliance updates. This way, when funding opportunities do arise, projects will be better Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County prepared to meet program requirements if compliance requirements are already met or can be met quickly. Technical Analysis The projects included in this IRWM Plan are intended to provide multiple benefits to both the individual project proponents and the RWMG as a whole. With an understanding of the region’s water management issues and objectives, the RWMG was able to identify and develop an initial list of several implementation projects. Project and IRWM Plan development is rooted in the data and information, reports, studies, and plans describing water management issues, objectives, and projects of participating agencies and overall region. Table 3-9 provides a summary of the data sources and planning documents that were used in development of this IRWM Plan and to develop the identified projects. Table 3-9. Data Used in the IRWM Plan Data Source Population and demographic data 2010 Census; 2014 Regional Capacity Study. Hydrologic data 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Groundwater management plans/Studies. Water demand information 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Groundwater management plans/studies; 2014 Regional Capacity Study. Water supply data 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Groundwater management plans/studies; 2014 Regional Capacity Study. Dry year supply reliability 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (ongoing) Water quality data Agency data; Groundwater management plans/studies. Cost information for potential water management alternatives Capital Improvement Plans1 Recycled water supplies and demands Recycled water master plans Groundwater data Groundwater management plans/studies Stormwater data Stormwater master plans, Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan Ecosystem and habitat data East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community Conservation Plan Land-use data City and County General Plans Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies 2014 Regional Capacity Study Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-31 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Note: 1 Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg, CCWD, CCFCWCD, DDSD, DWD, and ISD Key: CCFCWCD = Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DDSD = Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District) DWD = Diablo Water District IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management ISD = Ironhouse Sanitary District Incorporation of Planning Documents Since completion of the region’s first IRWM in 2005, the region has continued to invest in regional integrated and coordinated water management planning to the benefit of urban, agricultural, and environmental needs. The updated IRWM Plan increases the opportunity to coordinate and integrate regional planning efforts and should allow the region to more efficiently and effectively accomplish its IRWM goals. As new studies and plans are developed, the RWMG will evaluate whether the content of the documents impacts the conclusions and recommendations in the IRWM Plan. If new or contradictory information is presented, the RWMG will determine whether an IRWM Plan update is necessary to include more up-to-date information. The most relevant application for incorporation of studies and planning documents is in relation to project development and selection. As new regional information is discovered, participating agencies will incorporate relevant conclusions and recommendations into project selection criteria and into IRWM Plan objectives. If existing IRWM Plan objectives and analysis are insufficient to reflect the information and recommendations of emerging studies and plans, the RWMG should evaluate how IRWM Plan objectives may be adjusted to more appropriately reflect regional needs. The following sections describe recent and ongoing water management planning efforts, including planning and technical studies conducted in coordination with the IRWM Plan update. Urban Water Management Plans and Studies Documents that provide information about the Region’s water supply outlook and related management strategies include 2010 UWMPs and the 2014 Regional Capacity Study (RCS). These are described below. The 2010 UWMPs were prepared by each of the region’s urban water suppliers with greater than 3,000 connections or that serve 3 TAF annually. In ECCC, these suppliers included CCWD, Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, and DWD. UWMPs are updated every 5 years and include historical water use information and 20-year projections of water demands, water supplies, recycled water use, and a water shortage contingency plan. Additionally, the 2010 UWMPs contained each supplier’s water conservation targets to meet the requirements of SB X7-7 requirements of 20 percent water conservation by 2020. Completion of UWMPs is also required by the various DWR grant funding opportunities. The RCS was initiated in the fall of 2012, completed in September 2014, and complements IRWM planning efforts. It is a collaborative effort among Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Martinez, and Pittsburg, CCWD, and DWD. Its purpose is to evaluate and optimize regional untreated water supply, water treatment plant operations, and delivery processes to improve water supply reliability and reduce the cost of water for urban areas within the region. The RCS is an important Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-32 March 2019 East Contra Costa County element of various ongoing water management planning activities in the region. One of the results of the RCS was a summary of potential improvement projects that could be implemented to address key observations regarding water supply risks and shortfalls; information about those projects has been incorporated into this IRWM Plan in Section 3.4, Project Review Process. The findings of the RCS increase the understanding of water management and operations in the region and will advance the region’s efforts toward achieving the IRWM objectives. Groundwater Management Plans and Studies The region is actively managing its groundwater resources through planning and monitoring efforts. Recent groundwater plans and studies providing technical data and improving the understanding of groundwater resources in the region are described below. Two GMPs were completed within the region: the Pittsburg Plain GMP completed by the City of Pittsburg in 2012 and the Tracy Subbasin GMP completed by the DWD in 2007 (these basins can be seen in Chapter 2, Figure 2-11). The Tracy Subbasin GMP was completed in conjunction with the original IRWM. The Pittsburg Plain GMP was completed in parallel with the 2015 IRWM Plan update. These plans define critical basin management objectives (BMO) necessary to maintain the quality, reliability, and sustainability of groundwater resources on local and regional scales. These BMOs complement the IRWM Plan objectives. These plans further identify actions and associated implementation plans to achieve the BMOs. Actions that take the form of groundwater studies and monitoring programs will provide additional technical data to support local planning needs and regional planning efforts (i.e., future IRWM updates). The City of Pittsburg and DWD each have implemented groundwater monitoring programs7 for their respective basins. The City of Pittsburg recently completed a Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary (developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update) to provide a preliminary evaluation of groundwater quality and salt and nutrient loading potential to assist in future groundwater planning and development efforts. DWD recently completed the Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis Report (developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update) to identify data needs to determine safe yield of the portion of the Tracy Subbasin underlying the region. These efforts are all considered essential to increase the success of management and protection of groundwater resources in the region. On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three-bill legislative package, composed of AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley), collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA, effective January 1, 2015, establishes a framework of priorities and requirements to facilitate sustainable groundwater management throughout the State. The intent of SGMA is for groundwater to be managed by local public agencies and newly-formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to ensure that a groundwater basin is operated within its sustainable yield through the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP). Through this planning process, basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. 7 The City of Pittsburg and DWD participate in DWR’s California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program as designated monitoring entities for the Pittsburg Basin and Tracy Subbasin areas, respectively. The Town of Discovery Bay, ECCID, and the City of Brentwood provide support to DWD. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-33 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The Tracy Subbasin, referred to as DWR Basin 5-22.15 San Joaquin Valley, is a Medium priority groundwater basin according to the Groundwater Basin Prioritization by DWR and is located in eastern Contra Costa County as well as in San Joaquin and Alameda Counties. Eight local agencies that overlay a portion of the Basin in Contra Costa County, referred to at East Contra Costa Basin, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on May 9, 2017 to collaborate and develop a single GSP for the East Contra Costa Basin. With the exception of Contra Costa Water District, each member agency has become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to be the local agency to manage the Basin within their respective management areas. The member agencies to the East Contra Costa Basin MOU include City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District, Town of Discovery Bay, and East Contra Costa Irrigation District. In 2018, East Contra Costa Basin MOU members submitted a basin boundary modification request to DWR to modify the boundaries of existing Tracy Subbasin to split the subbasin into two independent basins. DWR approved the request in November 2018, which effectively separates the subbasin at the county line. This basin boundary modification will be a useful delineation for the East Contra Costa Basin MOU members in implementing the requirements of SGMA in the region. Additional information regarding development of the Tracy Subbasin GSP can be found at the program’s website: https://www.eccc-irwm.org/sgma/sgma-news-meetings/. CASGEM Compliance In July 2014, the region worked collaboratively to ensure California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Compliance including Diablo Water District (DWD), City of Brentwood, City of Antioch, Town of Discovery Bay, ECCID, and BBID as required by SB X7- 6. DWR approved the program in 2014 and DWD was designated as the monitoring agency for the Contra Costa County portion of the Tracy sub-basin that is considered medium priority. Recycled Water Plans and Studies To achieve the IRWM objective of improving the reliability of water supplies, the region is diversifying its water supply portfolio through the use of recycled water. Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood, supply recycled water that offsets potable water use or provides other beneficial uses. These agencies completed studies and projects over the past decade. Past and more recent planning and study efforts contributed technical data used in the IRWM Plan Update. These efforts include the Pittsburg/DDSD Recycled Water Project Facilities Plan (2005), the Antioch/DDSD Recycled Water Project Facilities Plan (2007), the East County Industrial Recycled Water Facilities Plan (2009), the ISD Recycled Water Feasibility Report (2015, which was developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update), DDSD Recycled Water Master Plan (2013, which was developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update), the City of Brentwood Recycled Water Feasibility Study (2013), Stormwater and Flood Management Plans and Studies The 50-Year Plan “From Channels to Creeks” (2009) was completed by the CCFCWCD. This strategic planning document identifies opportunities and benefits for enhancing storm and flood management systems. Planned enhancements would be to modify these systems to behave more like natural creek systems. The document establishes a framework for long-range planning efforts toward achieving these actions, actions that complement IRWM objectives. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-34 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) provided $200 million for a Storm Water Grant Program, which provides matching grants to public agencies, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, state and federally recognized Native American tribes, and mutual water companies for multi-benefit stormwater management projects. Grant funds are for multi-benefit storm water management projects which may include, but shall not be limited to: green infrastructure, rainwater and storm water capture projects and storm water treatment facilities. Prior to the passage of Proposition 1, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 985, the Storm Water Resource Planning Act. SB 985 amended the Water Code to require the development of a Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP), or functionally equivalent plan(s), to receive grants from a bond act approved after January 1, 2014 for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects. In 2016, the SWRCB awarded planning grant funds to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program to develop the Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan: Greening the Community for Healthy Watersheds on behalf of Contra Costa municipalities and stakeholders. The SWRP used a watershed-based planning approach to compile stormwater management project opportunities and develop potential project concepts designed to improve Contra Costa watersheds and communities. The potential project opportunities identified in the SWRP will help clean water in creeks and bays while providing additional community and environmental benefits. Due to the requirements of SB 985, any stormwater or runoff capture projects seeking bond funding through the IRWM program must also be included in the SWRP. Because goals of the Contra Costa Watersheds SWRP are consistent with those of the East County IRWM Plan, the IRWM Plan incorporates by reference the findings, analysis, and projects included in the SWRP. Appendix K provides the currently available version of the Contra Costa Watersheds SWRP for reference. Future and updated versions of the Contra Costa Watersheds SWRP, along with the latest list of project opportunities, can be found at the program website: https://www.cccleanwater.org/resources/stormwater-resource-plan. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The ECCC HCP /NCCP is an integral critical source of environmental and habitat technical data that informs the Region’s IRWM planning efforts. The HCP/NCCP describes the mission, goals, and objectives for environmental and habitat management in the region, and includes extensive technical data in its appendices, including an aquatic resources inventory, species profile, priority acquisition areas, and urban-wildlife interface design guidelines. The HCP/NCCP establishes regional conservation and development guidelines to protect natural resources while improving and streamlining the permit process for endangered species and wetland regulations. By proactively addressing the region’s long-term conservation needs, the HCP/NCCP strengthen local control over land use and provides greater flexibility in meeting water management and other needs in the region. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Studies The Regional Capacity Study (RCS), which was completed in 2014 by several agencies in the ECCC region, evaluated ways to optimize regional water treatment plant operations and untreated water supply, improve water supply reliability, and reduce treatment costs. The RCS included a water supply reliability evaluation that considered probable drought scenarios, including those that Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-35 March 2019 East Contra Costa County could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. Of the scenarios that were evaluated, the RCS determined that failures within the western delta levee system and a regional power outage would be most likely to create critical impacts to water quality and treated water supplies. Although prolonged droughts are a potential impact resulting from climate change, the RCS determined that a scenario that looked at drought conditions (loss of untreated water supply) was not necessary to carry forward in the analysis, because CCWD’s long-term water planning scenarios already outline alternative untreated water sources that would be required in the event of a three-year prolonged drought. The RCS is further described in Section 3.7.6. As a result of the water supply reliability evaluation, the RCS recommended that operational changes and additional studies be pursued to potentially address regional issues, including those that could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. The results and recommendations of the RCS have been incorporated into this IRWM Plan. 3.6 Stakeholder Involvement As noted in previous sections, ECCC’s long-standing commitment to collaboration was leveraged in the plan preparation and will be an integral part of any further updates to the plan. The region views identifying and involving stakeholders as an important aspect of the local and regional planning processes. Beyond building a broader water ethic and advocacy for good water stewardship, now and into the future, engagement provides opportunities to gain better insight into potential planning approaches. For example, stakeholders can identify new issues, objectives, or projects others had not previously been aware of, describe the need for projects, discuss the benefits anticipated, solicit feedback from interested and/or affected individuals and agencies, and assist with making decisions. The region seeks to involve others from the early planning stages so that a project, potential concerns and/or opposition can be addressed early, and projects can be planned in a way to minimize negative impacts and maximize benefits. The composition of participating stakeholders has included the members of ECWMA and other interested parties, including:  Wholesale and retail water purveyors*  Wastewater agencies*  Flood management agencies* Many people have a stake in the ECCC IRWMP, which promotes multi-benefit projects and partnerships. One example of a multi-benefit project is the Dow Wetlands in Pittsburg, set aside as an industrial buffer zone and now dedicated to preservation and student learning. Students from throughout the region have a chance to explore estuaries, freshwater ponds, and grasslands. They can also hike the newly constructed path that links the Antioch Marina to the 471-acre wetland area. This photo is from a California State University summer program. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-36 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Municipal and county governments and special districts*  Environmental stewardship organizations*  State agencies*  General public  Community organizations  DACs  Small Community Systems * Active ECWMA members/planning participants Outreach can also be conducted with industrial and utility stakeholders via interaction of ECWMA members during regularly scheduled meetings of those groups and through the website. Historically, The ECWMA and its members have regularly conducted stakeholder outreach for their various water resources planning and implementation projects. For the 2015 IRWM Plan Update, the ECWMA and its members used various methods to identify and reach out to stakeholders. These methods have included the development of a website, e-mails, mailings, and public meetings. 3.6.1. ECCC IRWM Region Website Starting in 2010-2012, in order to support the update and outreach of the IRWM Plan, the ECWMA and its members developed a website (screen shot shown in Figure 3-6). The website serves as a portal to disseminate information about the IRWM Plan, the region, the ECWMA, and meeting notices. It also serves as the main tool for collecting project information from member agencies and stakeholders. The website, however, requires ongoing maintenance. By 2014, the website could no longer update projects electronically. The website is being renewed for the 2015 Plan Update, and with support from the ECWMA, will be maintained and updated as required in the future. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-37 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 3-6. ECCC IRWM Region Website The website can be viewed at http://www.eccc-irwm.org/, and has the following structure:  Home. Describes IRWM Plan, the region, and lists upcoming opportunities for participation.  ECWMA Member Agencies. Provides a brief description of each member agency, their role in water management, and a link to their websites.  About IRWM. Summarizes the IRWM planning process, provides an overview of the region, and highlights successes of the IRWM program.  Timeline. Presents the IRWM region’s timeline of major milestones.  Projects: o About Projects. States the importance of projects, explains how to submit projects, and clarifies how submitted project information will be used. o Projects Map. Displays the projects submitted and reviewed by an IRWM administrator to-date in an interactive map. Clicking on a project displays additional information. o Project List. Displays the projects submitted and reviewed by an IRWM administrator to date in a list. Clicking on a project displays additional information. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-38 March 2019 East Contra Costa County o Submit New Project. Upon entering a valid e-mail address, the user will be e- mailed a link to a project submission form. This form can be filled in with project information, saved, revisited, and edited until the user submits the project. After submission, an IRWM administrator will approve the project, after which it will enter the project database and show up in the View Map and View List functions above.  Disadvantaged Communities. Provides additional information about the location and water quality and water supply needs specific to disadvantaged communities in the region.  Related Documents. Provides downloads of the region’s previous collaborative studies, materials from public meetings, and links to other neighboring IRWM websites.  Frequently Asked Questions. Answers common questions about the IRWM program, IRWM projects, and the website. 3.6.2. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2013 IRWM Plan Update In 2012/2013, three public meetings were held that focused on scoping and crafting the IRWM Plan, were conducted at different stages of the update process and held at various locations to support accessibility to the region’s stakeholders and the public. All meetings were advertised on the IRWM website, announcements were made in local newsletters, through the Contra Costa County Watershed Forum, and in emails or mailings from agencies to their involved stakeholders. After the meetings, all materials were posted on the IRWM website. The Public Workshops held were:  June 14, 2012, at Delta Diablo – IRWM Plan Kickoff and Call for Projects (see Figure 3- 7) o The kickoff meeting included an introduction of the IRWM Planning process and a demonstration of the website and all its features were demonstrated, including how to submit a project.  September 6, 2012, at the City of Antioch – Progress Update and Final Call for Projects o The second public meeting included an orientation for those that missed the first meeting, and an overview of water management issues, regional objectives, RMSs, and the process that will be used for prioritizing projects.  May 8, 2013, District III East County Joint MAC/AC – Update on IRWM Plan  May 14, 2013, at the City of Pittsburg – Presentation of the Public Draft IRWM Plan Update 2013 o This third public meeting presented the Public Draft IRWM Plan Update 2013 and allowed stakeholders the opportunity to provide their comments. In addition to Public Workshops, six additional semi-regular phone-web working meetings were conducted with key stakeholders to review and provide input to specific sections of plan text. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-39 March 2019 East Contra Costa County These meetings were open to attendance by any interested party, and email invitations were sent to the entire interested party list. These 2013 sessions occurred: January 8; January17; January 25; March 15; April 8; and April 26. Altogether 20 different stakeholders were engaged in the early public meetings with 12 new participants joining as the planning progressed. All interested parties were routinely advised by email of work sessions and other opportunities for participation. All interested groups have been welcome to participate in discussions, project submissions and for providing comment in both the drafting and public comment stages of plan development. Since the May 14, 2013 Public Workshop, member agencies of ECWMA have shared the document with their own stakeholders and each will conclude the process with a public meeting adoption of the plan. Figure 3-7. ECCC IRWM Region Stakeholder Outreach Meeting in June 2012 3.6.3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2015 IRWM Plan Update Upon completion of several planning studies that were conducted under the Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant process, the ECWMA began updating the IRWM Plan in early 2015. In accordance with the region’s commitment to transparency and stakeholder involvement, additional stakeholder outreach meetings were conducted for this additional update effort. After the meetings, all materials were posted on the IRWM website. Outreach meetings were held with the following communities in September 2015:  Bay Point: September 1, 2015  Bethel Island: September 8  Byron: September 16  Knightsen: September 22 Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-40 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 3.6.4. Stakeholder Outreach During Implementation As the IRWM Plan is implemented, stakeholders throughout the region will be involved in decision making and encouraged to provide feedback. The precise mechanism for stakeholder involvement will be determined based on the needs of an individual project or program being implemented. However, mechanisms for involving stakeholders and encouraging feedback are anticipated to include the following, as appropriate:  Updates on the IRWM website to provide information on the status and progress of projects being implemented and other upcoming events or grant funding opportunities.  Public forums, workshops, and meetings in which stakeholders are kept apprised of project progress and status, and are encouraged to provide feedback.  Speakers Bureau composed of ECWMA representatives available to present at the meetings and convenings of related groups. 3.6.5. Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities As outlined throughout this document, the region, like the State of California, is committed to promoting equitable distribution of project benefits, and especially to addressing the critical water supply needs of underprivileged areas. Section 2.43 addresses the significance of this community to the regional and outreach efforts undertaken to ensure representation. For the 2015 IRWM Plan Update, additional outreach was conducted to target DACs and ensure that DACs were informed about the Plan and the update process. Communities targeted for DAC Outreach were either those that had been identified as DAC using Census and/or ACS data, or those communities that could provide support to neighboring DACs. The stakeholder outreach meetings listed above were selected specifically due to those communities’ abilities to convey IRWM Program and Plan information to DACs within those communities or nearby. As such, the stakeholder outreach meetings conducted under Section 3.6.3 were also DAC-specific meetings conducted for the 2015 IRWM Plan Update. The Big Break Regional Trail, operated by East Bay Regional Parks runs through the Ironhouse Sanitary District. It is operated using integrated resource management. Not long ago, this culvert was thick with blackberries. To bring it back to a wetland state, the channel was graded, letting water in from the delta. Shorebirds found the wetland the very next day. Visitors on the trail can see tule and cattails and even small fish. The trail connects to the northern end of the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, providing access to Brentwood and Oakley. The Marsh Creek Regional Trail connects to the Delta de Anza Regional Trail. Often, simple, low-budget restorations can achieve multiple benefits. For example, this new habitat is also more resilient in floods and storms. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-41 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 3.6.6. Native American Tribal Communities Because benefit to Native American tribal communities is included as a DWR IRWMP project scoring criterion, the team closely assessed the best way to achieve compliance. The team reviewed DWR and other tribal maps and conducted a summary scan of ECCC historic literature. After this review, it was determined there are no tribal communities currently residing in the ECCC region. However, there is a rich history of Native American occupation in ECCC, including the Kellogg Creek National Historic District located on the Los Vaqueros watershed. A future IRWMP proposal may include something benefiting tribal communities; for example, enhancement of habitat suitable for plants that may be used for cultural purposes. If project opportunities are identified, outreach is anticipated to organizations such as California State Parks, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the California Indian Heritage Center (CIHC) and the CIHC Foundation and the Native American Heritage Commission. Additional outreach may also be conducted with the basket weaving community, through the California Indian Basketweavers Association. 3.6.7. Process to Ensure Authentic Engagement Chapter 2, Section 2.3 more fully describes decision making within the ECCC IRWM Plan process and Chapter 4, Section 4.1, also addresses governance. The ECWMA, as the RWMG, is a formal body directed by a wide range of agencies. That said, and while provisions for voting are provided, the body is largely consensus driven with participants seeking to find wide agreement on plan approaches, priorities and projects. The opinions, suggestions and requests of all stakeholders are given the highest consideration and managed in an open and transparent way. All parties with an interest have been included in deliberations. With the development of the IRWM website, the establishment of the planning framework, and the various outreach activities, stakeholders may continue to be identified and added to the IRWM planning and implementation process. By being open with information and providing various venues, the ECWMA and its members are hoping to provide greater benefits to the region, while also keeping up with all of the region’s water management issues, priorities, needs, and objectives. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-42 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Integration and Coordination Opportunities for Integration and Coordination DWR, by promoting integrated regional water management, encourages local water resources managers to cooperate, coordinate, and, where possible, integrate the strategies, projects, and programs they implement. This approach has encouraged water resources managers to think outside their immediate political boundaries, watershed, or primary water management responsibility. With an understanding that water should be managed as ONE resource, water suppliers, wastewater, flood and stormwater, watershed and environmental resources managers, community organizations, and other interests have a real stake in IRWM planning. There are several ways in which the IRWM is providing the venue for integration to occur. The ways include:  Regular meetings during the development of the update of the IRWM Plan and ongoing implementation activities.  The IRWM website, which provides the opportunities for project proponents to upload, update, and review project information. Users are also kept apprised of other happenings, including upcoming and past meetings. The project information is important in that it may introduce an issue or solution that others had not thought of and it also shows the many capabilities and interest of those in the region.  Existing relationships among ECWMA members. There may already be existing agreements, authorities, organizations, or programs, in which the ECWMA are partnering together. These relationships would support and fit under the umbrella of the IRWM Program. There are many ways in which project proponents may collaborate and integrate their projects, including project funding, in-kind labor, sharing of other resources, statements of support, or joint outreach. Existing Agency Relationships The members of the ECWMA have strong working relationships and often work together to solve regional water management issues. The original ECWMA was formed in 1995 and expired in 1996, then was re-constituted in March 1997, and amended in 2010 to update some agency names, add East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as a new member, include language about the IRWM Plan in the purpose statement and make a few other conforming changes. A copy of these documents is contained in (Appendix H). The Delta Diablo Sanitation District is a leader in working with others on water recycling. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-43 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The agencies work together in a number of ways, including through water supply agreements, recycled water collaborations, shared treatment facilities, participation in regional organizations, and collective efforts to strengthen regional water resources. Water Supply Agreements CCWD provides wholesale treated water to the City of Antioch, the GSWC in Bay Point, DWD in Oakley, and the City of Brentwood. CCWD sells untreated water to the ECCC Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg, as well as to industrial and irrigation customers. According to CCWD’s 2010 UWMP, CCWD wholesaled 58,020 AF (adjusted to account for drought and economy) in 2010 and is projected to wholesale 82,200 AF by 2035. CCWD also has an agreement with ECCID to purchase surplus irrigation water to be used for M&I purposes in ECCID’s service area. Recycled Water Recycled water is becoming more of a resource in the Region. The region recognizes the value of recycled water as a reliable, drought-proof supply. Agencies within the region plan to continue development of recycled water projects to help meet water needs, and will also evaluate expanding recycled water use more regionally. In 2000, Delta Diablo and CCWD entered into an agreement for Delta Diablo to provide up to 8,600 AF/year of tertiary treated recycled water to the DEC and the LMEC. Treated wastewater from Delta Diablo is used for turbine cooling at the energy facilities. This project is one of the largest industrial recycled water projects in California. In 2004, Delta Diablo and CCWD reached a General Agreement for Delta Diablo to supply up to 1,654 AF/year of recycled water for urban landscape and golf course irrigation in Pittsburg and Antioch. In 2004, Delta Diablo and CCWD executed general recycled water agreements whereby both districts can develop a joint project or each district can develop its own individual project(s) by cooperating with the other agency in planning, design, and construction activities. The agreements are intended to address and resolve legal issues, namely duplication of service, arising from the purveying of recycled water by a sanitation district in CCWD's service area. CCWD, Delta Diablo, ISD, Pittsburg, Antioch, PG&E, Mirant Corporation, and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District prepared the ECCC Regional Industrial Recycled Water Facilities Plan in 2009. The purpose of this plan was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing regional industrial recycled water projects in the Pittsburg/Antioch industrial corridor. City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-44 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Most recently in November 2012, the region was award a Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant, which included funding for expanded regional recycled water planning. This work continues to develop recycled water planning to better define the regional recycled water setting, better develop potential projects for implementation through the IRWM process, and help the ECWMA meet it objectives. The work would involve coordination of Delta Diablo Recycled Water Master Plan, ISD’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study, and City of Brentwood’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study. The wastewater agencies would participate in monthly conference calls to:  Identify and develop recycled water projects  Discuss opportunities for regional efficiency  Discuss stakeholder and DAC outreach strategies and lessons learned  Discuss regulatory aspects  Discuss implementation challenges Shared Facilities In addition to providing descriptions of individual agencies, Chapter 2, provides a history of joint planning efforts and a discussion of shared facilities such as the RBWTP. DWD and CCWD jointly own the RBWTP, which is operated and maintained by CCWD. In 2004, CCWD and the City of Brentwood entered into an agreement for the design, construction and operation of the City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant (COBWTP), adjacent to the RBWTP. The COBWTP and the RBWTP share facilities improving efficiency and reducing costs for customers served from the two plants. Organization Memberships Beyond the ECWMA, many of the members of the ECWMA also belong to and participate in other water and environmental organizations, including the ECCC Habitat Conservancy, California Urban Water Conservation Council, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, and water resource conservation districts. The ECCC Habitat Conservancy was formed to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), and comprises the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, along with Contra Costa County, operating as a joint exercise of powers authority. The HCP/NCCP allows for development while remaining protective of native, threatened, and endangered species and habitat through creation of a Preserve System. Both the ECCC Habitat Conservancy and Contra Costa County are active participants in local water resource conservation groups. The ECWMA agencies use a range of tools and best practices to address water concerns. Simple tools, like rain barrels, are promoted on the CCWD website. Rain barrels can help conserve outdoor irrigation water and reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-45 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The Cities of Brentwood and Pittsburg, and CCWD, are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The CUWCC strives to integrate urban water conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) into the planning and management of California’s water resources through development of statewide partnerships among urban water agencies, public interest organizations, and private entities. Contra Costa Flood Control District, Contra Costa County, and the Cities of Brentwood, Antioch, and Pittsburg are all participating members of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP). The CCCWP facilitates the NPDES stormwater permit for Contra Costa County and organizes activities on a program level to implement best management practices to protect waterways from pollution. The CCCWP assists all municipalities within Contra Costa to come into compliance with their mandated stormwater permit issued by the regional water boards (under the California Environmental Protection Act). Regional Planning Efforts The ECWMA and its members also participate in several regional planning efforts. Regional Capacity Study CCWD, Antioch, Pittsburg, DWD, Brentwood, and the City of Martinez completed a RCS in September 2014. The RCS is partially funded through a Reclamation System Optimization Review grant and the Proposition 84 Round 2 Planning Grant. Acknowledging that the study area is primarily dependent on water supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the study determined how best to optimize water supplies and facilities for the region to improve water supply reliability. The RCS evaluated ways in which to optimize regional water treatment plant operations and untreated water supply and delivery processes to improve water supply reliability and reduce the cost of water treatment for the project participants in the ECCC region. Recycled water and groundwater focus groups helped gather information, such as potential opportunities for recycled water use and additional opportunities for groundwater use. The RCS involved several analyses, including: treatment plant capacity vs. projected demands, an analysis of water system interties, and regional water supply reliability evaluations. The water supply reliability evaluations focused on water supply impacts that could result from a failure of the Western Delta Levee and from a regional power outage. The analysis of treatment plant capacity and demands demonstrated that there is excess treatment capacity in several treatment plants, and linked the excess treatment capacity to potential users that could benefit from this available supply. The analysis of system interties determined that while all agencies can meet emergency supply needs from existing interties and alternate supplies, there are potential opportunities to implement new interties that would improve reliability. The analysis of water supply reliability associated with a potential Western Delta Levee failure found that in most scenarios there would be sufficient supply for entities within the region; however, the City of Brentwood has a higher probability of supply shortages in the event of a failure due to anticipated spikes in chloride levels. Lastly, the analysis of water supply reliability associated with a regional power outage demonstrated that there could be shortages to some entities in the event of an outage, but that such shortages could be improved with interties and other water supply reliability projects. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-46 March 2019 East Contra Costa County As an early implementation action, the Participating Agencies in the RCS worked together on a Regional Emergency Preparedness Plan to improve emergency and routine assistance and response among the agencies. The Plan is a separately bound appendix to the RCS. The RCS resulted in a list of potential improvement projects that could be implemented to meet regional goals pertaining to supply reliability and affordability of supplies. The high-priority projects determined in the RCS have been integrated into this IRWM Plan and are listed in Table 3-8. Regional Conservation Program A regional alliance was created to meet SB X7-7, the Water Conservation Act of 2009, which set a goal for water agency’s to have 20 percent water conservation by 2020 requirements. The regional alliance is led by CCWD and includes CCWD’s retail service area and its wholesale municipal customers–the Cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and Martinez, the GSWC, and DWD. Each agency will meet the requirements of SBx7-7 if it achieves the reductions on its own, or if the region meets the requirement as a whole. Related to the regional alliance is CCWD’s Water Conservation Program designed to achieve reductions in long-term water demand in an environmentally responsible and cost-effective manner. As a wholesaler, CCWD develops and implements this regional conservation program on behalf of its retail water agencies and their customers. This regional approach enables economies of scale, ensures a consistent message to the public, and assists in the acquisition of grant funding for program implementation. Western Recycled Water Coalition Since 2006, Delta Diablo has served as the lead agency for the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, a regional partnership of agencies seeking Federal funding to develop recycled water projects. Coalition members prepare Feasibility Studies under the Title XVI Program (the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act). In 2013, membership was opened to interested agencies across the State, and the name was changed to the Western Recycled Water Coalition. There are currently 22 member agencies, which include ECCC members Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood. Recently, ECC members of the Coalition (Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood) moved forward with recycled water planning, and have completed Feasibility Studies under the Title XVI Program. Water Forum To foster collaboration among agencies and share information across watersheds, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District worked with partner agencies and organizations to establish the Contra Costa Watershed Forum, which brings together a variety of groups and individuals monthly to address watershed issues in Contra Costa County. The forum provides a vehicle to advance integrated watershed planning initiatives and projects that achieve multiple objectives from water supply and water quality protection to flood management and ecosystem restoration. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-47 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Potential Regional Efforts In addition to the existing regional efforts of the ECWMA and its members, several regional planning studies have identified potential regional efforts that could be implemented. The RCS specifically notes that there are efficiency and funding benefits to implementing projects at a regional level, especially considering that entities may be more competitive for grant funding for integrated regional efforts than for individual agency-by-agency efforts. Potential regional efforts listed in the RCS include:  2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan  Regional Compliance with SB X7-7 Goals  Regional Grant Funding of Water Treatment Plant Improvements  Regional Portable Emergency Booster Pump Stations  Regional Recycled Water Coordination The Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin (Appendix J), which was completed by the ECWMA, identifies multiple action items that should be taken to fill data gaps in order to determine the safe yield of the portion of the Tracy Sub-basin that is used in the region as a water supply. Given that groundwater is a regional resource for the ECWMA and its members, the action items listed below could be implemented regionally for maximum benefit:  Temporarily expand existing groundwater monitoring network to include additional sites outside of the primary pumping centers  Obtain surface water data for Marsh Creek  Conduct an isotopic analysis of groundwater in the region  Update the most recent detailed regional land use map  Develop a preliminary water budget for the Tracy Sub-basin Efforts of the Western Recycled Water Coalition in the region have resulted in Title XVI Feasibility Studies for Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood. These Feasibility Studies can be used to leverage additional funding under both federal and state programs to fund design and construction of recycled water systems, and will therefore help to expand recycled water throughout the region. While the Feasibility Studies themselves were completed by individual agencies, it is anticipated that in coordination with the efforts of the Western Recycled Water Coalition, regional agencies will work together to implement regional recycled water projects to the extent feasible. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-48 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Neighboring IRWM efforts Overlapping Regions As discussed in previous document sections, the northwestern portion of the ECCC IRWM region overlaps with the Bay Area IRWM region. The overlapping area includes the community of Bay Point and most of the City of Pittsburg. This overlap arises from the location of the San Francisco Funding Area boundary (contiguous with the Bay Area IRWM region boundary), which has been aligned with the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2) boundary in this area. The ECCC IRWM region boundary in this area is based on the hydrologic divide created by the Mount Diablo ridgeline. Two watersheds that drain to the east of the Mount Diablo hydrologic divide (Willow Creek and Kirker Creek) are included the San Francisco Bay Water Board Region 2 boundary and thus were also included within the Bay Area IRWM region. To confirm that there is no duplicative planning for regional water resource management issues in these watersheds, the ECCC IRWM region and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM region collaborate to identify and prioritize any project that would be located in the overlap area. As mutually agreed to by the parties in March 2009, specific projects identified through this collaboration will only be included in funding proposals for a single funding region. Additionally, several members of the ECCC region participate as needed in the Bay Area IRWMP meetings. Despite this overlap, the ECCC region has distinct water management differences from the Bay Area that justify preserving a separate IRWM region. The shared geographic, environmental, and water resource conditions combined with an established successful history of coordinating planning and implementation of water resources projects distinguishes the ECCC area as a logical unit for continued, contiguous regional planning efforts (refer to Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2 for a map of the overlap area and associated DACs). Adjacent IRWM Regions The ECCC IRWM region is geographically adjacent to only two other IRWM regions, the Eastern San Joaquin IRWM region to the east and the Westside (Sacramento Valley) IRWM region to the north. The Westside IRWM region is in the Sacramento River Funding Area and is located on the north of the Delta. The East San Joaquin IRWM region is located in the San Joaquin Valley and its current primary water management focus is the underlying groundwater basin, specifically the Eastern San Joaquin and Consumes groundwater subbasins, which are separate and distinct from ECCC’s groundwater basins. There does not seem to be any obvious connections between the ECCC IRWM region and these neighboring regions. The ECWMA will monitor the progress of these IRWM regions and coordinate if the opportunity presents itself. There are also links to these IRWM regions’ websites on the ECCC website (http://www.eccc-irwm.com/related.html). Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-49 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Interregional Relationships The dominant interregional water management issues for the ECCC IRWM region are related to protecting the multiple beneficial uses of the Delta. ECCC IRWM region stakeholders have a long history of working collaboratively in a comprehensive manner on Delta issues. ECWMA member agencies have been actively involved in broad Delta planning processes including CALFED, the Delta Risk Management Study, development of a Central Valley Drinking Water Policy, Delta Vision process, and the Delta Region Water Quality Management Plan, as well as project-related stakeholder processes for projects such as San Luis Drain, Sacramento Regional WWTP, BDCP and Frank’s Tract Two Gate project. Through these processes, participants and stakeholders have exchanged information, built understanding, developed relationships, and worked to find mutually beneficial solutions to water management issues and avoid conflict (with varying degrees of success). Having these relationships and participating in Delta interregional planning processes ensures that while the ECCC IRWM region remains distinct, it is not isolated. Beginning in 2016 with DWR’s solicitation for proposals for the Proposition 1 Disadvantaged Community Involvement Grant Program, the ECCC IRWM region has been engaging with the other IRWM regions within the San Joaquin River Funding Area (SJRFA). Of the ten IRWM regions in the SJRFA, seven are active. The three inactive regions are situated primarily in the Mountain Counties Funding Area, and have only small overlapping sections into the SJRFA with little to no population. The SJRFA regions have been meeting regularly to coordinate efforts on the DAC Involvement Grant Program, and more recently on the Proposition 1 Implementation Grant Program. With the Proposition 1 IRWM grant programs, DWR has taken a more funding area-wide coordination approach that has resulted in beneficial relationships formed between the participating regions. Each region presents its own priorities, strengths, and needs, resulting in a collaborative process and integrated projects that span across the funding area, particularly related to DACs. State Agency Assistance The ECWMA and its members coordinate with State and Federal agencies to gain assistance and support in implementation. DWR and the Water Boards have always been invited to IRWM meetings for their input and guidance. The Region has a long-standing working relationship with the State in implementing various projects, most recently through grants from Propositions 1E, 50, Many ECCC families enjoy visiting local orchards to pick their own fruit. Agriculture remains an important part of the region. With rich Delta soils, ideal growing weather and a good water supply, areas like Brentwood have grown fresh food for the Bay Area since the Gold Rush days. Local farms provide more than food. In addition to food sales, agricultural tourism supports the local economy. The agricultural community also provides green jobs, open space and a connection to the history of the region. In recent years farm land has been lost to urban development; however ECCC still has significant acreage of prime, irrigated farmland. This important land use must be considered in planning the region’s water future. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-50 March 2019 East Contra Costa County and 84. Also, all projects will need to go through the proper CEQA/NEPA documentation process before construction or completion, which requires a certain amount of coordination and consultation with State and Federal agencies. As different types of projects are implemented, the ECCC IRWM agencies will work and coordinate with State and Federal agencies, where appropriate. The region anticipates working with DWR and the Water Boards on IRWM funding efforts associated with Proposition 1. Relation to Local Water Planning The IRWM Plan serves as a unifying document of regional objectives and projects, but it is not meant to supersede the autonomy or authority of a local agency. The IRWM Plan incorporates and is consistent with all local water planning documents including UWMPs, water master plans, GMPs, recycled water master plans, habitat conservation plans, stormwater management plans, and other water resources plans and studies. As local water planning is updated, the ECWMA may also update the IRWM Plan, in recognition that the plan is a living document and information and circumstances evolve. Conversely, local planning should also be consistent with the findings and results of the IRWM Plan. With a wide ranging membership on the ECWMA, achieving this consistency will be less onerous than in situations where the parties are less accustomed to working together. As described previously, the ECWMA and its members have conducted and plan on continuing to conduct regional efforts, especially with regards to recycled water and groundwater management. The RCS identified opportunities for interties and identifying ways in which existing treatment capacity and supplies could be served to meet demands, thereby maximizing the use of local supplies. Similarly, the Data Gap Analysis for the Tracy Subbasin identified additional action items that should take place to fill data gaps and ensure the sustainable use of local groundwater resources. Given the Region’s commitment to reducing demands on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Region’s focus on exploring and increasing water reuse and maximizing the use of groundwater, it is anticipated that local water planning agencies will continue to work together to maximize reuse and implement projects that reduce potential water supply reliability vulnerabilities. Relation to Local Land-Use Planning Land-use planning can often be improved by a careful review of the linkages between land use and development decisions and water supply availability and reliability. The availability of water supplies; protection of water resource features such as streams, wetlands and recharge areas; potential climate change impacts to infrastructure; and policies and regulations about water quality, drainage, and flooding all play a role in future development. Significant assessment of land use was conducted during the 2005-6 preparation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. A review of this assessment may be found in Chapter 2, Land Use and Covered Activities, of the HCP/NCCP. Some significant considerations of the plan that relate to the IRWM plan include findings regarding general land-use patterns and designations, and potential conflicts. According to the HCP/NCCP, until the mid-1980s, much of the growth in Contra Costa County was concentrated in the western and central communities along the shoreline and along the I-680 corridor. When those communities began to reach their boundaries, development pressure increased on the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. As a result, the Eastern County Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-51 March 2019 East Contra Costa County experienced rapid residential growth during the mid-1980s, particularly in Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley along the corridor of State Route (SR) 4. The Eastern County continued to develop rapidly throughout the 1990s and is expected to be the fastest growing area of the County for the foreseeable future. The City of Brentwood experienced the most significant increase (152 percent) making it, for a time, the fastest growing city in the United States. Much the early urban development in ECCC involved converting crop, grazing, or irrigated pasture lands into residential and other urban uses (Contra Costa County, 2005). These lands are highly desirable for housing development as they are typically flat, which makes building easier, and often have some infrastructure already in place. Agricultural land conversion can have a major impact on water planning. This extends beyond water supply to flood and stormwater management, to water quality and groundwater considerations. Many became concerned about the rapid changes to the landscape. Contra Costa County votes adopted Measure C in 1990 to put the brakes on. The measure established a Land Preservation Standard, which limited urban development while preserving land for open space, agriculture, parks, wetlands, and other nonurban uses. Measure C also created an Urban Limit Line (ULL), which prohibits the County from approving urban land uses beyond the ULL (Contra Costa County, 2005).” Over time the ULL standard has been amended by the County and different ECCC local governments moved forward with varying approaches to growth Today, general patterns of land-use designations in ECCC begin with northern focus. That area is primarily designated for development. The remainder of land is primarily designated as agricultural land, open space, and parks. Housing is the major form of development projected to occur in the growth areas. Development trends for the inventory area include the buildout of southern Pittsburg, southern Antioch, and southern and eastern Clayton; the urbanization of Brentwood and Oakley; development of the Cypress Road Corridor east of Oakley, development of Discovery Bay West adjacent to the existing Discovery Bay; and development between the already urbanized cores of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley. The unincorporated areas of ECCC are primarily rural agricultural and public lands used principally for grazing, natural parks, and watershed protection. With the economy beginning to recover, new housing is starting to be constructed in ECCC. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-52 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Water resource planning efforts in the region must take into consideration land-use plans identified in the HCP/NCCP and general plans for each city and the county. Land-use planning projections provide the basis for establishing water supply projections and identifying habitat areas that will need to be protected against impacts associated with urban development and climate change. Land-use plans will continue to play an important role in developing effective projects to meet the objectives of the region. The region will continue to collaborate with land use planning and decision-making efforts to help manage water supplies and resources, protect water infrastructure, and guide water use. As needed or as available, new information regarding land use planning or analysis may be incorporated in the Plan during future informal or formal updates. Responsible land use planning can help build community resilience to climate change and prepare and protect water infrastructure from climate change impacts. Regional water suppliers continuously work together to adapt to regional water supply and quality conditions, as well as to adapt to State-wide water restrictions and mandates on water use that occur due to climate change. The nature of water supply management and land use management in East Contra Costa County is integrated, and agencies are often dependent on each other to mitigate for and respond to climate change impacts. In doing so, water management agencies work together to offset climate change impacts to water supplies locally and State-wide. Future IRWM Plan Updates In preparing this plan, the ECCC region seeks to establish a strong foundation for future planning and implementation activities. The intent of the ECWMA is that the current IRWM Plan will meet the requirements prescribed in the latest IRWM Guidelines. IRWM plans do not have regular update schedules as do UWMPs, which must be updated every 5 years. Instead, the ECWMA has adopted a “living document” policy that makes the process of updating the IRWM Plan a more routine practice. In an effort to maintain the currency and applicability of the IRWM Plan, the IRWM region intends to perform a regular review of the projects in the Plan. At the time of the project review, agencies and stakeholders will have an opportunity to review existing projects and make updates as needed. New projects may also be added at this time. The ECWMA’s “living document” policy also serves to maximize the adaptive management capacity of this IRWM Plan. As new information becomes available, sections of the Plan may be updated to reflect significant changes to water management in the region, including changes to the regional characteristics described in Chapter 2. Some significant changes may trigger a need for a more formal, comprehensive update to the Plan to take into account major new information or a changing situation, at which point the ECWMA will determine the appropriate the scope and timing of the update. Circumstances triggering an informal or formal update – depending on the significance of the information – to the IRWM Plan may include:  New IRWM Guidelines or requirements and more certainly of long term IRWM funding;  New stakeholders or participants; Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-53 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  A need to change to the region’s boundary, such as contraction, expansion, or consolidation with another region;  Significant environmental changes, the ongoing drought continuing, or other catastrophic events;  Development of new tools to assist or analyze regional water management; and  Climate change impacts manifesting in the region. The 2015 update to the IRWM Plan was a significant one that included performance and incorporation of the climate change vulnerability assessment, and recommended analysis in the Handbook. Barring significant changed circumstances, the region anticipates using the IRWMP well at least through 2025. However, the ECWMA’s “living document” policy and plan to regularly update the project list will help regional water managers’ efforts to adaptively manage water resources under changing circumstances and climate change impacts. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 4. IRWM Plan Implementation The ECCC IRWM participating agencies work together across geographies, political boundaries, and project types. Each agency also continues to invest in its own planning efforts. These various efforts are highlighted in Table 4-1. Consistent with past regional planning efforts, this update does not aim to duplicate efforts of local agencies and regional partnerships. This regional plan complements those efforts. It provides a venue for regional coordination, collaboration, outreach, and identification of projects and actions that will create mutually beneficial water management outcomes and produce projects with multiple benefits to the region. This section discusses implementation elements important to advancing these projects and actions. Implementation elements discussed include plan and project financing, performance monitoring, data management, impacts and benefits of plan projects and actions, and plans and general processes for updating the IRWM Plan in the future. Table 4-1. ECCC Region - Progress on Planning Efforts since 2005 IRWM Regional integrated and coordinated water management planning since completing the ECCC IRWM Plan in 2005:  Regional Acceptance Process was completed in 2009. Approved by DWR  2010 UWMP Updates (Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, CCWD, DWD, GSWC – Bay Point) and various related water conservation plans, programs, and projects  Regional-scale water supply optimization planning (municipal water purveyors)  Regional water recycling and desalination planning (Delta Diablo, ISD)  Groundwater management plans, CASGEM plans, and salinity/nutrient management planning (DWD, Pittsburg)  Regional habitat conservation planning and implementation (ECCCHC)  Long-range regional flood management planning (CCCFCWCD)  Active participant in integrated regional water management grant programs (all ECWMA member agencies)  Improved outreach, collaboration, and communication (all ECWMA member agencies) Key: CCCFCWCD = Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DWD = Diablo Water District ECCCHC = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy ECWMA = East County Water Management Association GSWC = Golden State Water Company ISD = Ironhouse Sanitary District 4.1. Governance The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) is governed and operated by the Governing Board Representatives (GBR), composed of one elected official representative from each of the member agencies. Further, the ECWMA has a Joint Managers Committee (JMC) that is composed of managers from each of the member agencies. The term “manager” means City Manager, County Administrator, or General Manager of each of the member agencies and their respective alternates designated by the member agency, or their designees. The JMC can appoint subcommittees related to specific water management activities with which the members of the ECWMA are involved. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Each member of the ECWMA appoints staff to serve as representatives on the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). The staff representatives of the ECWMA that constitute the RWMG are responsible for representing their agencies and providing input on IRWM matters on behalf of their agencies. The RWMG members meet as needed to discuss IRWM and other regional matters, and are responsible for taking issues to their representatives on the JMC to resolve disputes or settle issues. Approximately two times per year the RWMG members meet with the larger ECWMA to inform the group of recent IRWM-related activities and other pertinent matters that are of interest to the ECWMA. These bi-annual meetings of the ECWMA are open to the public, noticed, and conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. As such, the ECWMA meetings provide a forum through which non-ECWMA member agencies, participants, stakeholders, and members of the public can provide input on the ECCC IRWM Program. In addition to the two regular meetings held each year, the chair or any three members of the GBR may call a special meeting as needed to discuss IRWM-related matters. The CCWD has served as the lead agency responsible for submitting any IRWM grant materials on behalf of the ECCC region. CCWD has been serving as the lead agency for the ECCC region in accordance with a February 25, 2005, letter agreement signed by all of the ECWMA member agencies. 4.1.1. Introduction The ECWMA governance structure was originally established by a 1997 agreement between member agencies, and later amended in 2010 to update agency membership and language based on new 2010 DWR IRWM Plan Guidelines. The ECWMA facilitates communication and cooperation between member agencies on matters affecting the existing and potential water supplies of the ECCC region. The ECWMA also guides the preparation of plans such as the IRWM Plan Update. The RWMG has a proven history of working together to resolve water management- related issues within the ECCC region. The RWMG successfully implemented a State Water Board Proposition 50 IRWM Implementation Grant that was completed in 2012. In addition, the RWMG received DWR approval for the Regional Acceptance Process in 2009. The RWMG is familiar with the DWR IRWM planning and implementation grants process and has been working together on a variety of projects since 1997. 4.1.2. Regional Water Management Group Governance Structure Management and Operations Over the past several years staff of the ECWMA member agencies has served as the RWMG working on ECCC reports, plans, and IRWM implementation and planning grants. CCWD has served as the authorized agency submitting grant applications, entering into grant agreements, and administering IRWM grants for the RWMG. However, each agency has been responsible for implementing its own projects that have received state funding as part of an IRWM grant request. Staffing Each participating entity designates staff to attend meetings and work together as a RWMG on implementation and planning grants. CCWD holds a primary role to organize meetings among the RWMG as needs arise. For example, in 2011 through 2013 RWMG members met frequently to discuss the 2013 IRWM Plan update as well as to seek approval for projects to be included in Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Proposition 84 planning and implementation grant applications. Consulting staff have been used by the group to prepare grant materials.. Committees Generally the RWMG staff members work collectively on IRWM grant requests of interest. CCWD serves as the grant administrator and generally has contracted for consultant services to support grant applications. Members of the RWMG have formed subcommittees to manage groundwater studies, salt and nutrient management studies, and recycled water studies. CCWD and Contra Costa County Flood Control District staff are involved with the Bay Area IRWM and attend Bay Area Coordinating Committee meetings. CCWD and Contra Costa County Flood Control District staff have also worked closely with the Bay Area IRWM region to vet projects and address overlap concerns. Communications Staff from the RWMG encourages open and new participation in the ECCC IRWM Program. Meeting minutes generally are circulated after the RWMG meetings. Staff from the RWMG routinely works together on a variety of planning and implementation projects that require frequent and regular communication. Meeting and communicating on a frequent basis affords the opportunity to create synergies across agencies and across potential projects. In 2012, a new website was created to facilitate improved communication among the agencies, stakeholders in the community, and interested parties, such as adjacent IRWM regions (http://www.eccc- irwm.org/index.html). 4.2. Projects for Plan Implementation The ECCC IRWM region is almost entirely dependent on the Delta for water supply and all or a portion of the cities and unincorporated communities are located within the statutory Delta. This distinction is important as the Delta is a physical place with legally defined boundaries and requirements, which add to ECCC water management complexity. Substantial investments have been made in the region in water storage and water quality by constructing the expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir, improving and expanding intakes, developing recycled water systems, and planning for coordinating conjunctive management of surface water and groundwater supplies. Even so, regional dependence on Delta water supplies is a continuing concern for the following reasons:  Issues associated with proposed future projects such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a fragile Delta ecosystem, climate change, and/or potential levee failure are expected to impact water quality and water supply reliability within the ECCC IRWM region. An associated concern is the ability of the region to meet future water quality treatment and discharge regulations.  Closely linked to Delta water quality and water supply reliability is protection, restoration, and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources. Water- infrastructure-related projects within the Delta often require wetland mitigation and these credits can be difficult and costly to obtain.  Given that the ECCC IRWM region includes substantial low-elevation acreage, is within the drainage of Mount Diablo, and sits adjacent to the Delta, both localized flood from Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County stormwater runoff and regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure are real and present threats. Of the past 11 president-declared natural disasters in the region, all but one involved storms and flooding. Climate change is only likely to increase these risks.  Outreach to discuss these water-related issues, and how they may be addressed, is a challenge for all communities. ECCC has additional challenges; the DACs (18 percent of the population) are not concentrated in one area. The DACS are spread across urban centers and rural areas. There isn’t a strong existing information distribution network that targets these stakeholders, and thus extra effort needs to be made to communicate with representatives from these areas. With an understanding of these water management challenges, the RWMG and its members had the necessary information to set its objectives (presented in Chapter 3) for the IRWM Plan. This set of objectives, when combined, addresses the region’s priority water management issues of water supply and quality, environmental concerns, storm and flood management, and outreach and equitable distribution of resources. To determine what projects and actions are required to meet these objectives, the RWMG collected and disseminated information, met with stakeholders, and developed and implemented an evaluation and prioritization process. The final result of this process is a suite of priority projects that, when implemented, will help the region to meet its objectives. This plan identifies 54 projects for consideration (see Appendix E). Each project has an identified lead agency, and has been demonstrated to be economically and technically feasible. An additional 29 projects have been identified by the 2015 IRWM Plan Update’s associated planning studies to be implemented in the short-term or near future. As noted in Chapter 3, these additional projects are currently being developed and have not completed the project evaluation process described in that chapter. Table 4-2a, Table 4-2b, and Table 4-2c list the projects identified for near-term implementation that were submitted in the Region’s application package for Proposition 84 Round 2, Proposition 84 Drought Round, and Proposition 84 2015 Implementation Grant requests. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the location of projects that were included in the Round 2 and Drought Round funding applications. Projects identified for inclusion in funding proposals address IRWM Plan objectives, provide multiple regional benefits, have broad stakeholder support, and are implementation ready. Should IRWM grant proposals not receive full funding, the projects included within the proposals will remain within the IRWM Plan, and likely will remain relevant to address priorities for the region. However, decisions regarding whether or not to move forward with project implementation will be up to the discretion of individual project proponents. Given that projects included in IRWM grant proposals are priority projects in the region, many project proponents seek out alternative or supplemental funding sources, including State Revolving Fund (SRF) grants and loans, local funds, federal funds, or other financial options to move the projects forward. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-2a. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Project List (Adapted from Table 8 – Summary Budget from PSP) Proposal Title: East Contra Costa County Region Proposition 84 Round 2 Grant Proposal (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Individual Project Title Requested Grant Amount Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source Cost Share: Other State Fund Source Total Cost % Funding Match Grant Award (a) Beacon West Arsenic Well & Tank Replacement Project1 $136,262 $0 $0 $136,262 0% $0 (b) Rossmoor Well Replacement/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Project $430,000 $917,200 $0 $1,347,200 68% $430,000 (c) Integrated Regional Flood Protection and Water Quality Improvement Borrow Area Project $675,000 $803,587 $0 $1,478,587 54% $0 (d) Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project $500,000 $4,958,750 $0 $5,458,750 91% $0 (e) Recycled Water Salinity Reduction and Distribution System Expansion Project $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $3,000,000 50% $0 (f) East Contra Costa County Prop 84 Round 2 Grant Administration $149,984 $0 $0 $149,984 0% $0 (i) Proposal Total (Sum rows (a) through (h) for each column) $3,391,246 $8,179,537 $0 $11,570,783 71% $430,000 (j) DAC Funding Match Waiver Total $136,262 0% $0 (k) Grand Total $3,391,246 $8,179,537 $0 $11,434,521 72% $430,000 1Project located in the Overlap Area with San Francisco Bay Funding Area. Grant award from the San Francisco Bay Area Funding Area. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-2b. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Project List (Adapted from Table 8 – Summary Budget from PSP) Proposal Title: East Contra Costa County 2014 IRWM Drought Grant Proposal (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Individual Project Title Requested Grant Amount Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source Cost Share: Other State Fund Source Total Cost % Funding Match Grant Award (a) CCWD-BBID Regional Intertie $569,000 $501,000 $0 $1,070,000 47% $0 (b) DWD Leak Detection and Repair $150,000 $50,000 $0 $200,000 25% $0 (c) ISD Irrigation and Recycled Water Fill Station $75,000 $25,000 $0 $100,000 25% $0 (d) Proposal Total (Sum rows (a) through (c) for each column) $794,000 $576,000 $0 $1,370,000 42% $0 (e) DAC Funding Match Waiver Total - - - - - - Grant Administration $30,000 $0 $0 $30,000 0% $0 (f) Grand Total $824,000 $576,000 $0 $1,400,000 41% $0 Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-2c: Proposition 84 2015 Implementation Grant Round Project List (Adapted from Table 8 – Summary Budget from PSP) Proposal Title: ECCC Sustainable Delta Water Management Individual Project Title (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Requested Grant Amount Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source (Funding Match) Cost Share: Other State Funding Sources Total Cost % Funding Match (Col b/Col d) Grant Award (a) East Contra Costa County Lawn to Garden Rebate Program $100,000 $35,059 $0 $135,059 26% TBD (b) Brentwood Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III $1,125,000 $393,691 $0 $1,518,691 26% TBD (c) Delta Diablo Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project $1,162,234 $451,215 $0 $1,613,449 28% TBD (d) Grant Administration $119,000 $0 $0 $119,000 0% TBD (e) Proposal Total $2,506,234 $879,965 $0 $3,386,199 - TBD (f) DAC Funding Match Waiver Total - - - - - TBD (g) Grand Total $2,506,234 $879,965 $0 $3,386,199 26% TBD Note: Funding awards anticipated to be announced December 2015, after adoption of this 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 4-1. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Projects by Objective Category Figure 4-2. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Projects Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.3. Potential Benefits of IRWM Plan Implementation By their nature, IRWM plans are implemented through projects. These projects are designed to produce benefits but may also have impacts to the region. Impacts are evaluated in light of benefits for each project prior to implementation to meet the requirements of CEQA and NEPA, and other local, State, or Federal permits. A summary of potential impacts is presented in section 4.4. The focus of this discussion is the potential benefits to the region from implementing the IRWM Plan to achieve the Plan objectives. The region identified multiple benefits from achieving its five objectives. 4.3.1. Improving Water Supply Reliability and Water Quality Objective Projects that provide reliable water supply are essential to future viability of all aspects of the region’s environment, economy, and culture. Additionally, because the regional supply is tied to the Delta, projects to reduce Delta influences and anticipate climate change impacts, such as drought and extreme weather, will greatly increase the region’s resilience and ability to adapt to changing conditions. Water supply and quality are linked as improving and maintaining water quality contributes to supply (for humans and the environment) and is a critical factor in cost. Benefits associated with water supply projects or water quality projects (or both) determine what water may be available for appropriate uses. Specific projects proposed to achieve reliable supply and quality aim to provide the following benefits: Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination: These projects will seek to increase the utilization of recycled water, create access to desalination water as well as other alternative water supplies, such as groundwater sources, which would not be subject to the water quality variability or environmentally based water supply constraints that characterize Delta waters. Additionally, these supplies would not be impacted by levee breaches or other emergency conditions in the Delta, adding reliability to the ECCC region.. Increasing supply diversification improves water supply and quality resiliency, and reduces reliance on the Delta, an important statewide goal. . Also, by increasing the water quality of currently recycled water, the industrial and irrigation uses of this water supply can be expanded further, contributing to the aforementioned benefits. Providing a drought-tolerant supply that is less subject to Delta influences is a critical goal for the region. Reduce per capita consumption through increases in water recycling, water conservation and water use efficiency The benefits from projects that reduce per capita water consumption include reducing demand for treated drinking water through increased recycled water use, increased water conservation across all customer classes, improved treatment plant water-use efficiency, and by minimizing leaks and water loss due to root damage from trees and vegetation, damaged concrete liners, and repairable system and customer leakages. Increase water transfers and regional interties The projects that increase water transfers and regional interties will benefit the region by increasing regional water sharing, while also decreasing leaks and water losses, which will increase the efficiency of water distributed within the system. Intertie projects help create system redundancies and back-ups, better preparing the region for potential emergencies, leverages existing water storage, distribution, and treatment assets, and may reduce operational costs or benefit DACs. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure The main benefits provided by the projects fulfilling this objective are to minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply, particularly in the event of a levee failure within the Delta and to provide interconnection redundancy for existing pipelines. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Projects studying regional groundwater will benefit the region by improving how groundwater is managed, reducing Delta water use and threats to groundwater quality. In addition, these projects will identify subbasin yield, and areas with contamination (i.e., high arsenic levels). Improved groundwater management could increase supply reliability, and potentially lower costs to users, which in turn benefits DACs using groundwater. Protect/improve source water quality The projects that fulfill this objective will provide many benefits to the region, such as improved stormwater and flood management and enhanced Delta water quality through reduced pollution, including reduced discharges of noncompliant wastewater, trash, road runoff, salinity, silt, and sediment levels. Many regional and downstream municipalities use the Delta as a drinking water source, so protecting this resource is an important regional and statewide goal. Providing public water and sewer service to new customers that are currently using private wells and septic systems will help to protect and improve regional surface and groundwater sources. Also, by reducing the region’s reliance on Delta supplies and improving levees, saltwater intrusion and salinity levels would be reduced and higher quality water would be available for environmental use and for other water users statewide. Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality Many of the projects that are improving source water quality will also have the added benefit of improving treated drinking water quality as well. In addition to those benefits, some of the projects propose to add advanced treatment processes, such as through reverse osmosis, to their systems to enhance drinking water quality and meet regulatory requirements. Also, by repairing leaks in drinking water mains, customers’ water quality at the tap will be higher. Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality Similar to those projects that are improving treated drinking water quality, improving source water quality will also benefit the region by helping to improve the quality of its recycled water. A number of projects will improve and increase the region’s recycled water supply by implementing advanced water and wastewater treatment processes and improve the quality of drinking water effluent and wastewater influent from the collection system. Additionally, by expanding the recycled water distribution system, these projects would increase the region’s use of recycled water for irrigation and industrial purposes. Diversified supplies provides benefits such as improved supply reliability, resiliency, and can reduce costs to customers, including agricultural customers and DACs. Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta By achieving this objective, these projects will benefit the Region by reducing pollutant loads to the Delta. Projects that improve wastewater quality for effluent that will be discharged to the Delta, through advanced wastewater treatment process, higher quality source water and drinking Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County water treatment, and increased recycled water production and usage are prime opportunities. Additional projects, such as increasing trash capture, green streets projects, salinity reduction, reservoir sediment mitigation, and reduced noncompliant wastewater discharges can further improve Delta water quality. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta The benefits to the region from projects fulfilling this objective include increasing detention of peak storm flows, controlling downstream discharge, and decreasing reservoir sediment buildup in order to increase capacity, water retention, and infiltration. Additional projects will improve the water quality of regional stormwater discharges by reducing mercury and turbidity levels through the removal of silt, sediment, trash, and road runoff, by minimizing mixing with septic overflows and noncompliant wastewater discharges, and by using natural treatment aspects of constructed wetlands. 4.3.2. Restoring and Enhancing the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Objective Projects focused on the Delta ecosystem and environmental resources recognize the importance of investments in watershed health and sustainability. Specific proposed projects will: Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Projects that meet this objective will provide both local and statewide benefits by enhancing and restoring habitat in the Delta and connected waterways, as well as providing valuable ecological habitat for local flora and fauna and protecting the area’s valuable watersheds. The restoration and enhancement of wetland habitats immediately adjacent to the Delta and connected waterways will protect groundwater and surface water, and provide habitat for special-status species. Additionally, restoring and improving historical and constructed wetland and marsh areas will provide valuable breeding and foraging habitat for State- and federally listed species. Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources The benefits from projects satisfying this objective include maintaining Delta water quality and the health of the surrounding ecosystem by reducing regional flooding and road runoff impacts, lowering salinity in effluent discharges, minimizing Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG)-related sewer overflows, curtailing disruptive earth movements, decreasing the amount of water removed from the Delta, protecting watersheds, and restoring sensitive aquatic habitats. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions The projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to the State’s goals for addressing climate change, as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Additionally, these projects will benefit the region by reducing carbon-intensive cleanup efforts due to flooding damage, offsetting energy needs by using recycled water or local groundwater sources on site rather than pumping and treating additional Delta water supplies, increasing operating efficiencies, reducing fossil fuel-based energy use, and decreasing trucking miles by providing a local FOG receiving facility for the region’s use. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation The projects that fulfill this objective will provide many fishing-related benefits to the region, such as reducing mercury levels in fish that will, over time, increase the amount of fish that can be Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County safely consumed and allow the reopening of a reservoir for recreation, which had been closed due to concerns about consumption of fish caught in the reservoir. Additionally, non-fishing-related recreational uses will be increased through the building of bird watching platforms and other passive public access facilities. 4.3.3. Positioning Water-Related Planning and Implementation for Funding Objective Projects that strive to improve funding for planning and implementation fall into several categories. The ultimate benefit of this focus is to make sure funds are available to implement projects delivering the benefits already described above and to ensure the public is receiving the best possible value from its investments. Projects meeting this objective: Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water The projects that meet this funding objective would provide many benefits to the region, including increasing recycled water use and local groundwater supplies, both of which would decrease water supply and treatment costs and reduce reliance on Delta water, a critical issue for the region. Additionally, these projects would decrease sediment loads currently in regional source waters and decrease TDS, salinity, and FOG levels in wastewaters, which would lead to a decrease in required water/wastewater treatment and associated system and maintenance costs. Increasing water conservation and reducing leaks improves delivery efficiency and conserves water, which reduces costs associated with treatment and delivery. Reduced costs for treating water can help reduce costs to consumers, including DACs. Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding The benefits from the projects meeting this objective include improving stormwater and flood management, reducing pollution to the Delta, reducing reliance on Delta water supplies, protecting aquatic habitat in the Delta, and increasing the efficient use of regional resources. Furthermore, some projects will produce excess material that can be reused in other projects in the region. A number of projects would capture runoff, or ensure that it continues to be captured, which reduces flow rates and provides flood protection to the project site and downstream regional areas. Improved potable and recycled water quality will provide region-wide health benefits as well as expand the water supply and the uses of recycled water. Also, increasing conservation efforts and alternative water supplies will decrease current water demands and take pressure off the region’s water supplies, particularly the Delta water supplies. Additional benefits include increasing renewable energy use, which would reduce demand on regional energy generation from conventional sources and reduce GHG emissions, and habitat restoration, which will provide region-wide environmental benefits and recreation opportunities. Integrate and increase opportunities for partnering with others to get more outcomes for the same dollar The benefits from projects meeting this objective involve coordinating efforts to implement projects more cost effectively, optimize use of materials, and increase benefits to more parties; for instance, projects that will produce excess material that can be reused in other projects in the region. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Improve stability of operations Projects that meet this objective will ultimately result in reduced cost; for example, regularly scheduled maintenance is less costly than system failures caused by a lack of maintenance. These projects will plan and design systems that are more efficient, easier to operate, and cost less to maintain. Reduced costs benefits consumers by protecting water rates from large or unexpected increases, and benefit DACs, which are more vulnerable to raising water and sewer rates. Leveraging Existing Awarded Funds Agencies in the ECCC region support water infrastructure and habitat planning and implementation projects that are integral to local, State, and federal goals related to water and special-status species/habitat protection. Because local projects address federal goals and priorities, funding may be secured from non-IRWMP sources. Federal grant funds often need to provide a match of non-federal funds. Without the non-federal match, such funds are at risk of being lost. IRWMP State funding can provide the critical match that will enable agencies in the east county region to leverage federal funding, increasing the opportunity for more funds for the region for completing important planning and implementation projects that address local, State and federal priorities. 4.3.4. Implementing Robust Stormwater and Flood Management Objective The benefits of proposed stormwater and flood management projects are multiple. Proposed projects will provide benefits such as: Improve regional flood risk management By achieving this objective, these projects will benefit the region by protecting areas, including DACs, that currently experience flooding and its related issues through maintenance of existing and construction of new levees and through the expansion of existing and the construction of new storage reservoirs and stormwater detention basins. In addition, these projects will improve resiliency and speed up recovery from storm and flood events. Reduced risk and damages from excess water flows from storms and flood will result in better economic, social, and environmental outcomes. Manage local stormwater within the region As described previously in the water quality section, benefits from the projects meeting this objective include measures that will reduce trash, sediment, mercury, and other pollutant discharges to the Delta, reducing impacts to water quality. Furthermore, these projects will also decrease current flooding overflows and road runoff, as well as their associated problems. 4.3.5. Providing Public Outreach and Building IRWM Support Objective The ECCC believes engagement with the community is essential to ongoing support for IRWM projects. Outreach also educates and promotes actions that residents and businesses can take in support of IRWM goals. For example, individuals and businesses can reduce pollutants entering waterways and practice water use efficiency. Finally, the community at large is benefited when DACs have access to decision making and the work of the ECCC is transparent. Some other benefits of this approach include: Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process The projects satisfying this objective would specifically benefit DACs by improving project identification and selection through enhanced collaboration. As a result of improved projects, these projects would reduce annual flood damages, provide public water and sewer services to communities that are currently underserved, remediate a hazardous waste site, and reduce water supply arsenic levels, which will provide direct community health benefits. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public The projects fulfilling this objective will seek to increase public awareness of water resources management issues, such as the importance of salinity reduction and climate change impacts, and will expand public knowledge of water resource issues by involving communities and small water systems in the projects, and increase appreciation for the environment through access to areas made available. Expanded outreach programs to the public Expansion and creation of renewable energy sources, FOG programs, and recycled water will be accompanied by outreach programs so that citizens will understand how to properly dispose of FOG and the associated environmental and community benefits of these projects and regional water resource management. Specific outreach methods will include project signage, stakeholder meetings, water system newsletters, and city council presentations. 4.4. Potential Impacts of IRWM Plan Implementation Based on the initial project evaluation, anticipated impacts are primarily local, temporary, and associated with construction. A smaller set of projects may also result in impacts as described in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Potential Impacts of a Small Set of Projects Project Type Potential Impacts Water supply projects Projects that increase water supply takes from the Delta have the potential to: • Negatively impact statewide water supplies • Harm endangered and protected species, including the Delta smelt • Projects that increase recycled water use could detrimentally decrease the amount of wastewater returning to the environment and impact species that rely on this water. • Recycled water projects could increase salt and nutrient loading to groundwater basins. Water quality projects • Advanced water quality treatment may lead to an increase in chemical use and additional treatment costs for the Region’s WTPs and consumers. • Projects that alter the quality or quantity of water discharged into the Delta might have unintended consequences that could harm sensitive aquatic species. Restoration and related projects Tidal marsh restoration projects have a potential to: • Increase mercury methylation. This happens when projects increase dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in Delta water. Several studies indicate that methylmercury can damage developing embryos and exposure in adults has been linked to increased risk Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Type Potential Impacts of cardiovascular disease, tremors, gingivitis, damages to the immune system and other ailments. Humans are primarily exposed by eating mercury-contaminated fish. • Increase DOC loads in drainage water • Create temporal impacts from excavation and restoration of marsh area Desalinization projects Create issues associated with brine discharge/disposal issues, and potential fisheries impacts Groundwater projects If improperly implemented can: • Damage the aquifer • Introduce contaminates or allow salinity intrusion • Increase greenhouse emissions (through energy use for pumping) Flood and stormwater management projects • May reallocate risk from the project location to another area in the watershed by changing flow patterns and/or increasing contaminants • May minimize understanding of actual risks from flood by the public 4.5. IRWM Plan and Project Financing Financing planning and implementation of projects has historically been a major obstacle for ECCC IRWM member agencies. A lack of funding for planning and implementation because of slower economic development and reduced water usage has impacted agency revenues, creating insufficient or variable revenue streams. Additional funding issues are a result of the increasing competitive nature of receiving State and federal grant funding, the limited availability of these funds, and the common schedule delays associated with these funds. In the case of projects that benefit the environment but do not provide a measureable improvement to water supply reliability and/or water quality, this challenge becomes further intensified, as funding options become more limited. Without ratepayer willingness to fund a project, project survival depends wholly upon grants or subventions for implementation. This region faces additional special challenges as many residents (18 percent, formerly 23 percent) reside in economically DACs. Smaller agencies, such as those in the ECCC region, have smaller reserves and fewer staff resources, making it more difficult to meet cost share and in-kind service grant funding requirements. These special challenges are compounded by increasing construction costs, aging infrastructure, and increased regulations. Grant funds are often contingent upon certain conditions being met. These factors can affect the flow and timing of funding, and make project implementation less effective, sometimes preventing projects from proceeding to implementation. Allocation of project payments for regional (or multi-agency) projects are often proportioned based upon the benefits expected. Under this principle, recipients of water from project implementation would bear the financial burden, rather than taxpayers overall, shifting the financial burden to the local level. Certain ECCC region members, like water districts or cities, have the ability to raise project funds through development fees or user rates. Others, like nongovernmental organizations, must rely on grants or volunteer contributions. The IRWM Plan identifies objectives tied to funding intended to make project planning and implementation more successful in the future. These objectives are: Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water  Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding  Increase public awareness of project importance to pass ballot measures or obtain matching funds through other means that require public support All types of appropriate funding mechanisms would be considered for project funding. The sections below discuss potential funding sources and funding certainty. 4.5.1. Potential Funding Sources The region has historically relied upon a range of funding mechanisms to help support planning and implementation projects. While the primary source of funds is generally from the more traditional sources, other sources of funds have also helped successfully move projects into the implementation phases. Provided in Table 4-4 is a summary of the types of funding sources the region will consider as it implements projects and actions identified in this IRWM Plan. Further detailed information about these funding sources can be found in the CFCC Handbook available at: http://cfcc.ca.gov/res/docs/2012%20Handbook%20.pdf. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-4. Potential Funding Sources Source Type Relevance to ECCC IRWM Plan Update State Funding Proposition 50 and 84 Integrated projects for water supply/quality/flood. CDPH Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Finance long-term loans for construction projects and short-term planning grants. Special consideration and rates for DACs apply. California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Drinking water and wastewater treatment and distribution/collection systems are eligible under this program. Department of Housing and Community Development Community Development Block Grant provides funding to cities/counties for public water programs and improvements, project feasibility studies, environmental reviews. Department of Water Resources Grants and funding opportunities from Propositions 84, 1E, 50, and 204 for water supply/quality/ efficiency, ecosystem restoration, flood. State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, which provides loans to wastewater, water recycling, and expanded use projects. Water Recycling Funding Program loans and research grants for use of treated wastewater to offset water supplies. Small Community Wastewater Program aids DACs with wastewater project financing. Proposition 1 Water quality, supply, and infrastructure projects under a variety of programs. Proposition 1 was passed in 2014, and funding details are still being developed at the time of this 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Funds will be administered by various agencies depending on the program. Federal Funding Department of Rural Development For water-related programs, towns under 10,000 population. Grants used for construction, land acquisition, sewer collection system improvements. Environmental Protection Agency Grants to support research, standards, and policies for air pollution, climate change, toxic waste, and drinking water. Bureau of Reclamation B-D Restoration Water Use Efficiency Grants, WaterSMART Grants (Water and Energy Efficiency Program and Title XVI Program), Title XVI for conservation or water management, Water management Improvement Grant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 6 ESA funding for habitat preservation Mitigation/Settlement Funds Project Mitigation or Settlement of Lawsuit For water supply, flood management, habitat restoration. Special Assessment Districts Non-County local government districts Method of collecting projects funds related to a specific service (like flood management). Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-4. Potential Funding Sources Source Type Relevance to ECCC IRWM Plan Update New Development Fees Water Agencies Used to pay for new water pipeline, large water facilities, or other projects to support additional service area needs. User Fees Water Agencies Used to pay for new water pipeline, large water facilities, or other projects to support services benefiting existing users. User Rates Water Agencies User rates pay for the operations and maintenance of a water agency or public utility’s system. Municipal Bonds Water Agencies Includes revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, certification of participation. Bonds could be used to supplement other funding sources. Large facility is needed to support current and future growth. Volunteer Contributions nonprofit/nongovernme ntal organizations Used for preservation of native land and implementation of public outreach programs. General Funds County and local governments Used to pay for projects included in agency budgets where costs not covered by other means. 4.5.2. Funding Certainty Historically, the ECCC region has had good success seeking funding through DWR’s IRWM grant programs. Table 4-5 summarizes project planning and project implementation activity dating back to the completion of the first IRWM in 2005, along with IRWM grants received by the region. Since that regional planning effort the region has been accepted as an official IRWM region through DWR’s RAP, and been awarded two planning grants through the Proposition 84 planning grant program. As a result of the regions successful collaboration in regional planning, a Proposition 50 implementation grant application prepared by the region in 2007 was successfully awarded for grant funding totaling $12.5M. These projects focused on water supply, water quality, and ecosystem restoration. In 2011, three agencies in the region submitted Proposition 1E stormwater grant applications and were awarded a total of approximately $15M. In 2013, the region, with CCWD as the lead agency, submitted a Proposition 84 Implementation Round 2 grant application, and was awarded $430,000 to help fund one of the projects included in the application. Projects included in this application were identified through the IRWM Plan Update (discussed previously in Section 4.1). Agencies in the region, including members of the ECWMA, have applied for, and received, funding for water projects that, although they are outside of the IRWM program, help address some of the region’s IRWM objectives. These include recycled water projects and plans funded through USBR (primarily Title XVI dollars). Other potential funding mechanisms that may be pursued for projects related to the IRWM program or that help achieve objectives of the IRWM program include State Revolving Funds, agency connection fees, and other funds described in Table 4-4, above. Projects that are regional in nature may be more attractive for competitive funding applications, and funds from one funding program may be able to be used to leverage funds from another program, depending on the individual program requirements and guidelines. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-5. IRWM Plan Financing – IRWM Grants Activity Description Approximate Total Cost Grant Amount Requested (%) Local Match/Other Funds Committed (%) Funding Certainty (Match; Grant) O&M Finance Certainty1 (Match; Grant) IRWM Plan Development 2005 Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan $100,000 $0 (0%) $100,000 (100%) Secure N/A 2009 Region Acceptance Process $50,000 $0 (0%) $50,000 (100%) Secure N/A 2011 IRWM Plan Update – Proposition 84 Planning Round 1 $600,000 $450,000 (75%) $150,000 (25%) Secure Awarded N/A N/A 2012 IRWM Plan Update – Proposition 84 Planning Round 2 $1,493,045 $447,914 (30%) $1,045,131 (70%) Secure Awarded N/A N/A IRWM Plan Project Implementation 2006 Proposition 50, Chapter 8 – IRWM Implementation Grant $12,500,000 $2,125,000 (17%) $10,375,000 (83%) Secure Awarded Secure N/A 2011 Proposition 1E – Stormwater Flood Management Grant Round 1 (CCFC&FCD) $2,000,000 $280,000 (14%) $1,720,000 (86%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2011 Proposition 1E – Stormwater Flood Management Grant Round 1 (CCWD) $10,000,000 $5,000,000 (50%) $5,000,000 (50%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2011 Proposition 1E – Stormwater Flood Management Grant Round 1 (Antioch) $2,997,300 $1,498,650 (50%) $1,498,650 (50%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2011 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Round 1 $1,775,000 $1,331,250 (75%) $443,750 (25%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2013 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Round 2 $18,726,330 $4,681,583 (25%) $14,044,747 (75%) $430,000 Awarded to fund one of the included projects Rates and other grants N/A 2014 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Drought Round $824,000 $486,160 (59%) $337,840 (41%) Not awarded by DWR Rates and other grants 2015 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Round $2,506,234 $1,854,613 (74%) $651,621 (26%) Under review by DWR Rates and other grants 1 O&M Costs are the responsibility of the project sponsors and are covered through rates, fees, charge and other operating cost funding sources. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.6. Plan Performance Monitoring The ECWMA will be responsible for periodically reviewing the progress of the plan in achieving the regional objectives, and reassessing project priorities as needed. Additional project oversight committees will be established as necessary. As noted earlier, the region’s objectives included qualitative or quantitative metrics. These metrics give the RWMG and its members a way to determine if the region is meeting its intent and to assess the IRWM Plan’s performance. There may be two levels of monitoring: at the project level and at the IRWM Plan level. Levels of monitoring will be reported and shared with the RWMG so it can determine how well the IRWM Plan implementation is proceeding. The reporting is also valuable because it will provide needed signals of implementation progress that will allow the region to reconsider what objectives and approaches may need to be changed, updated, refined, eliminated, or supplemented. The types of monitoring that may be undertaken are shown in Table 4-6 and categorized by objective topic. Table 4-6. Types of Monitoring Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation  Utility rates  Unit water costs  O&M costs  Grant successes Water Supply  Stream flow monitoring  Surface water deliveries  Recycled water deliveries  Groundwater elevation and pumping monitoring Water Quality and Related Regulations  Water quality monitoring (surface water, groundwater, recycled water)  Discharge monitoring Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and other Environmental Resources  HCP monitoring  GHG monitoring  CEQA/NEPA compliance Stormwater and Flood Management  Discharge monitoring  Improving level of flood protection Outreach  Increase participation  DAC projects  Geographic distribution Key: CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act DAC = Disadvantaged Community GHG = greenhouse gas HCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act O&M = operations and maintenance ECCC IRWM member agencies developed a website to collect and disseminate information. This website will be used to manage up-to-date information about planning and implementation activities. The website is being updated in 2015. Agencies and stakeholders will have continuous access to this site for monitoring and review purposes. Occasionally, the ECWMA may discuss current project information on the website and determine if specific actions are required to update the information, summarize the information, or modify the way information is maintained on the website. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.7. Data Management The data and information needs of the region are regularly changing depending on the grant cycle and regional activities occurring at any point in time. Technical information on project planning, design, construction, operation, and monitoring is typically collected through the grant administration task of specific grant programs. When the region is preparing grant applications, data and information is collected through the project solicitation process, which is typically facilitated by CCWD or a consultant. When grant opportunities arise, data needs are often driven by the requirements of any particular proposal solicitation package. For example, in addition to project scope, budget, and schedule, information about project benefits, climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, greenhouse gas reduction, DAC and tribal impacts and benefits are often requested. For the 2019 update to this IRWMP, there are no outstanding data needs at this time. Data and information about the IRWM Plan and its implementation will be managed using the region’s IRWM website (http://www.eccc-irwm.com). The CCWD has served as the lead agency responsible for maintaining the data and website on behalf of the ECCC region. The website provides accessibility to the IRWM process for stakeholders and the general public, including DACs, and is updated periodically to reflect up-to-date information. Information on the website includes project information, interactive maps, and enhanced context and background information on the IRWM Program, all in a user-friendly interface. The website is the way in which the region can collect, disseminate, and store data and information about the IRWM process. Information and data on the website is being updated to be consistent with this 2015 IRWM Plan Update, as well as on-going funding opportunities and successes, applicable planning studies, and updated Guidelines from DWR. With these improvements, the website will facilitate better information dissemination to the RWMG, stakeholders, DWR, and the general public. The website’s best data management feature is with its management of project information. Project proponents can enter projects at any time using a detailed project form with information about project type, status, objectives met, and funding. The project form has been updated consistent with the 2015 IRWM Plan Update and the most recent IRWM Program Guidelines from DWR. Submitted project information is stored in a database, and a limited amount of information is available to the public to encourage collaboration, integration, and transparency. Project information can be updated by the project proponents at any time, by simply making a request to the website administrator. The interface will also prove to be cost efficient over time because the online project form is easily updated to reflect the latest IRWM Guidelines or region’s priorities. Finally, the interface will ensure that regional planning is a living process by allowing for continued adding, evaluating, and prioritizing of projects. The ECCC IRWM region administrator is responsible for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) practices related to the information on the website. Other QA/QC of regional data becomes relevant particularly when proposals are being developed for IRWM funding opportunities. Agencies participating in proposal development are typically responsible for QA/QC of their own data. Similarly, during grant agreement implementation, local project sponsors are responsible for QA/QC of supplied deliverables to support project benefits and completed work. The grant administrator also takes on some QA/QC responsibilities when reviewing progress reports and submitted documentation. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.8. Adaptability to Future Situations As part of the region’s 2009 Region Acceptance Process application, the ECCC IRWM member agencies formed a RWMG, responsible for navigating jurisdictional complexities, coordinating with other planning efforts, and updating and implementing the ECCC Region’s IRWM Plan. This IRWM Plan establishes a strong foundation for future planning and implementation activities. The latest IRWM Program guidelines were followed and all requirements met. While IRWM plans do not have regular update schedules, the RWMG and its members will use monitoring and be responsive to regional and statewide needs to determine the best time to update the IRWM Plan. An IRWM Plan update could be triggered by:  New IRWM Program guidelines or requirements  New stakeholders or participants  A need to change the region’s boundary, such as contraction, expansion, or consolidation with another region  Significant environmental changes or other catastrophic events  Significant updates to local water planning or local land-use planning, such as the completion of planning efforts soon to be underway associated with the Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant awarded to the region in late 2012  IRWM Plan monitoring results indicating needed changes The region plans to follow the established IRWM Plan until there is a significant change in circumstance. The planning framework allows for results and outcomes of future planning efforts to be incorporated into an update of the IRWM Plan. The planning framework will support future requests for implementation grant funding in the final Proposition 84 Round (August 2015) if awarded and other DWR implementation grant programs, as appropriate (e.g., Proposition 1). Furthermore, the RWMG and it members will reexamine the planning process and its components, as needed, to determine if the IRWM Plan or any of its components (e.g., objectives) need updating or revising, and to determine if recent plan enhancements warrant formal adoption of a revised plan. Moving forward, the framework created through this IRWM Plan will continue as a living process the region can rely on it to meet its current and future water management challenge. IRWM Plan Update 5-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 5. References 1974. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Understanding the CDBG Program Fact Sheet Contra Costa Consortium. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/CDBG%20101%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 1974. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Race & Ethnicity. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Race%20and%20 Ethnicity.pdf 1974. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Severely Disabled Adult. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Severely%20Disa bled%20Adults.pdf 1991. Ahwahnee Water Principles – http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/h2o_principles.html 1996. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Future Water Supply Study (FWSS) Final Report. http://www.ccwater.com/files/FWSSExecutiveSummary.pdf 1996. East County Water Supply Management Study 1999. Contra Costa County Stormwater Management Plan 2000. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2001. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Volume I, Third Assessment Report: The Scientific Basis, eds. Houghton, J.T. et al. 2001. Sanitary Survey Update Report. California Department of Water Resources. (December). Division of Planning and Local Assistance, and Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program. Sacramento, California. 2002. California Water Code - CWC §79560-79565, Competitive Grants Funding 2002. Future Water Supply Study 2002 Update, Contra Costa Water District, 2002. Proposition 50 Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 2002. Senate Bill 1672 Integrated Regional Water Management Act, Division 6 of the Water Code 2005. ECCC Functionally Equivalent Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2005. Critical Assessment of the Delta Smelt Population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. Bennett, W.A., San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, Art. 1. 2005. Delta Regional Drinking Water Quality Management Plan 2005. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Draft), (Contra Costa) 2005. Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan (FEIRWM Plan) 2006. An Assessment of the Impacts of Future CO2 and Climate on Californian Agriculture (Baldocci and Wong), http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005- 187/CEC-500-2005-187-SF.PDF 2006. California Public Resources Code - PRC §5096.800-5096.967 IRWM Stormwater Flood Management funding 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) 2006. Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act 2006. Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act 2008. California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 75005(g): Disadvantaged community 2008. Adapting California’s Water Management to Climate Change. Hanak, E., and J. Lund San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. 2008. Brentwood/CCWD Joint Water Treatment Plant (WTP) 2008. Multiple papers on snow pack and climate, Lettenmaier, D.P, University of Washington, et al., (see CV for full listing, http://www.ce.washington.edu/people/faculty/cv/Lettenmaier_Dennis.pdf) 2008. The Geography of Foreclosure in Contra Costa County California, Kristin Perkins, UC Berkeley. Master’s Thesis. 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3): 534- 543, Hellman, J. J., Byers, J. E., Bierwagen, B. G. and Dukes, J. S 2008. The Future is Now, An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response 2009. Proposition 84 Regional Acceptance Process Documents - http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/archive.cfm#RAP Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2009. A Framework for Categorizing the Relative Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change (USFWS) http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/USEPA_2009.p df 2009. California Water Plan Update (DWR). http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2009/index.cfm, Vol 1., Strategic Plan, Vol. 2, Resource Management Strategies 2009. ECCC Region Acceptance Process. IRWM Grant Program Application. 2009. The Impact of Climate Change on California’s Ecosystem Services. Draft Paper. California Climate Change Center. California Energy Commission CEC-500-2009-025- D. 2010. California Department of Water Resources, Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM), Climate Change Document Clearinghouse) http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/IRWM-ClimateChangeClearinghouse.pdf 2010. California Public Resources Code - PRC §75001-75130, IRWM Planning and Implementation funding 2010. Projected Population Changes in Contra Costa County and Their Implications for Contra Costa Community College District, Prepared for Contra Costa Community College District Office by Hanover Research Council. January. 2010. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2010. California Urban Water Management Plans http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/ 2010-2013. US Census. American Community Survey. http://www.census.gov/acs/www 2011. Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning (Handbook), CA. Department of Water Resources 2011. It’s Getting Hot Out There: Top 10 Places to Save for Endangered Species in a Warming World, (Endangered Species Coalition, 2011; http://www.itsgettinghotoutthere.org/). 2011. Managing Water in the West, Secure Water Act, Section 9503(c) -Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2011. Sustaining Our Agricultural Bounty. A White Paper, American Farmland Trust, Greenbelt Alliance, and Sustainable Agriculture Education. 2011. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2011. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6024 2012. Contra Costa County Crop Reports. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2207 2012. Data Gap Analysis – Tracy Subbasin, San Joaquin Groundwater Basin (DWD) 2012. Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios Report for the United States National Climate Assessment (NOAA) 2012. Infrastructure Financing for the 21st Century. 2012 Funding Fairs. California Financing Coordinating Committee, http://cfcc.ca.gov/res/docs/2012%20Handbook%20.pdf 2012. IRWM Grant Program Guidelines, CA. Department of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/Guidelines/GL_2012_FINAL.pdf 2012. Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Program (DWD) 2012. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2013. CALEPA. CA State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights FAQ. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/faqs.shtml#toc1787610792012. Sea- Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (National Research Council) 2013. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Understanding The CDBG Program Fact Sheet Contra Costa Consortium. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/CDBG%20101%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 2013. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Race & Ethnicity. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Race%20and%20 Ethnicity.pdf 2013. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Severely Disabled Adult. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Severely%20Disa bled%20Adults.pdf 2013. Contra Costa County Community Development, 2013 Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative 2013. Recycled Water Feasibility Study for the City of Brentwood (Brentwood) Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2013. Recycled Water Master Plan – A Title XVI Feasiblitiy Study Report , Final Draft (DDSD) 2013. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2013. US EPA Environmental Justice Information: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej 2014. Final Regional Capacity Study (Antioch, Brentwood, Martinez, Pittsburg, CCWD, and DWD) 2014. Salinity Pollution Prevention Plan for the Ironhouse Sanitary District Water Recycling Facility (ISD) 2015. Recycled Water Draft Feasibility Study (ISD) Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Page intentionally left blank. IRWM Plan Update i March 2019 East Contra Costa County List of Appendices Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board Appendix C - Handbook Summary Information Appendix D - ECCC Handbook Checklist Appendix E - List and Descriptions of On-Going and Planned Regional Actions Appendix F - ECCC Water Management Issues Appendix G - ECCC Resource Management Strategies Appendix H - IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes  Appendix I - Regional Capacity Study   Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin Appendix K - Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan List of Appendices IRWM Plan Update ii March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) Standards are used to describe what must be in an IRWMP and can be used as criteria in Implementation Grant applications. The IRWMP must include the following:  Governance  Region Description  Objectives  Resource Management Strategies (RMS)  Integration  Project Review Process  Impact and Benefit  Plan Performance and Monitoring  Data Management  Finance  Technical Analysis  Relation to Local Water Planning  Relation to Local Land Use Planning  Stakeholder Involvement  Coordination  Climate Change Guidance, including the intent of each standard and additional reference, can be found in Appendix C of the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Grant Program Guidelines (2012 Guidelines). Following is the list of Grant Standards & Guidelines and what section in the ECCC IRWMP fulfills the DWR requirements. Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) A. Governance 1. Description of RWMG responsible for development and implementation of the plan. Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Chapter 4, Section 4.1 2. The RWMG and individual project proponents who adopted the plan. Section 2.3 3. Description of IRWM governance structure including discussion of how Native American tribes will participate in the RWMG. Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Chapter 4, Section 4.1 4. Description of how chosen governance addresses and ensures the following: a. Public outreach and involvement processes. Section 3.6 b. Effective decision making. Section 2.3, 3.6 c. Balanced access and opportunity for participation in the IRWM process. Section 2.2, 3.6 d. Effective communication both internal and external to the IRWM region. Section 3.6 e. Long-term implementation of the IRWM Plan. Section 3.4 f. Coordination with neighboring RWMG efforts and State and federal agencies. Section 3.7 g. Collaborative process used to establish Plan objectives. Section 3.2 h. How interim changes and formal changes to the IRWM Plan will be performed. Section 3.2 i. Process for updating or amending the IRWM Plan. Section 3.2 B. Region Description 1. Description of watersheds/water system Section 2.6 2. Description of internal boundaries within the region. Section 2.4 3. Water supply and demand projections for a minimum 20-year planning horizon. Section 2.7 4. Description of the social and cultural makeup of the regional community and the identification of important cultural or social values. Section 2.5 5. Description of economic conditions and important trends within the region. Section 2.5 6. Description of major water-related objectives and conflicts Section 3.2 7. Explanation of how the IRWM regional boundary was determined. Section 2, 2.1, 2.2 8. Identification of neighboring or overlapping IRWM regions Section 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.7 9. Explanation of how plan will help reduce dependence on the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta for water supply Section 1.1, 4.3 10. Current and future water quality conditions, including a description of location, extent, and impacts of the contamination; actions undertaken to address the contamination, and a description of any additional actions needed to address the contamination from nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium. Section 2.10 11. Description of likely Climate Change impacts on their region as determined from the vulnerability assessment. Section 2.9 C. Objectives 1. Description of measureable regional planning objectives. Section 3.2 2. Description of objective development process. Section 3.1, 3.2 Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 3. Identify quantitative or qualitative metrics and measureable objectives. Table 3-1, Section 3.2 4. Objective prioritization process. Section 3.2 5. Reference specific overall goals for the region. Section 3.2 6. Address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of runoff and recharge. Section 2.9 7. Consider the effects of sea level rise (SLR) on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures. Section 2.9 8. Reducing energy consumption, especially the energy embedded in water use, and ultimately reducing GHG emissions. Section 3.2 9. Consider the strategies adopted by CARB in its AB 32 Scoping Plan. Section 3.2 10. Consider options for carbon sequestration and using renewable energy where such options are integrally tied to supporting IRWM Plan objectives. Section 3.2 D. Resource Management Strategies 1. Description of RMS consideration process. Section 3.3 2. Range of RMS considered to meet the IRWM objectives. Section 3.3, Appendix G 3. Description of RMSs incorporated into IRWM Plan. Section 3.3, Appendix G 4. Consideration of the effects of climate change in the RMS. Section 2.8, 3.3, Appendix G D. Integration 1. Description of stakeholder/institutional integration Section 3.6, 3.7 2. Description of resource integration Section 3.7 3. Project implementation integration. Section 3.7 E. Project Review Process 1. Procedures for submitting a project to the RMWG. Section 3.4 2. Procedures for review of projects considered for inclusion into the Plan. Section 3.4 3. Procedures for displaying the list of selected projects. Section 3.6 4. Contribution to climate change adaptation. Section 2.9, 3.3 5. Contribution of project in reducing GHGs compared to project alternatives. Section 3.3 6. Specific benefits to critical water issues for Native American tribal communities. Section 2.3, 3.6 F. Impacts and Benefits 1. Discussion of potential impacts and benefits within the region from ECCC IRWMP implementation. Section 4.3, 4.4 2. Discussion of benefits and impacts between regions. Section 4.3, 4.4 3. Impacts and benefits directly affecting disadvantaged communities. Section 4.3, 4.4, 2.5 4. Impacts and benefits directly affecting environmental justice concerns. Section 4.3, 4.4, 2.5 5. Impacts and benefits directly affecting Native American tribal communities. Section 4.3, 4.4, 3.6 G. Plan Performance and Monitoring 1. Group(s) responsible for IRWM implementation evaluation. Section 4.1 2. Frequency of evaluating project implementation performance. Section 4.6 Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 3. Tracking via Data Management System. Section 4.7 4. Description of process for using "lessons learned." Section 4.8 5. Responsibility for development of project-specific monitoring plans and activities, Section 4.2, 4.3, 4.6 6. Stage of project development that a project specific monitoring plan will be prepared. Chapter 4 7. Typically required contents of a project-specific monitoring plan. Section 4.6 8. Project applicability to all rules, laws, and permit requirements Section 3.4 9. Policies and procedures that promote adaptive management and updates as effects of Climate Change manifest and new tools are developed. Section 3.8 H. Data Management 1. Overview of data needs. Section 4.7 2. Description of typical data collection techniques. Section 4.7 3. Description of stakeholder data contributions to a DMS. Section 4.7 4. Entity responsible for maintaining data in the DMS. Section 4.7 5. Description of the validation or QA/QC measures. Section 4.7 6. Explanation of how data collected for project implementation will be transferred or shared between members of the RMWG and other interested parties. Section 4.7 7. Explanation of how the DMS supports the RWMG’s efforts to share collected data. Section 4.7 8. An outline of how the data saved in the DMS will be distributed and remain compatible with State databases. Section 4.7 I. Finance 1. List of known, as well as, possible funding sources, programs, and grant opportunities for the development and ongoing funding of the IRWM Plan. Section 4.5 2. List of funding mechanisms for projects that implement the IRWM Plan. Section 4.3, 4.5 3. Explanation of the certainty and longevity of known or potential funding for the IRWM Plan and projects. Section 4.5 4. Explanation of how O&M costs for projects that implement the IRWM Plan would be covered and the certainty of O&M funding. Section 4.5 J. Technical Analysis 1. Description of the technical information sources and data sets used to develop the water management needs in the IRWM Plan. Section 3.5 2. Description of studies, models, or other technical methodologies used to analyze the technical information and data sets. Section 3.5 K. Relation to Local Water Planning 1. List of local water plans used in the IRWM Plan. Section 3.7, 3.5 2. Discussion of how the IRWM Plan relates to planning documents and programs established by local agencies. Section 3.7, 3.5, 2.2 3. Description of the dynamics between the IRWM Plan and local planning documents. Section 3.7 Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 4. Describe how the RWMG will coordinate its water management planning activities. Section 3.7 5. Consider and incorporate water management issues and climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies from local plans into the IRWM Plan. Section 3.5, Table 3-9 L. Relation to Local Land Use Planning 1. Description of current relationship between local land use planning, regional water issues, and water management objectives. Section 3.7 2. Description of future efforts to establish a proactive relationship between land use planning and water management. Section 3.7, 3.6 3. Demonstrate information sharing and collaboration with regional land use planning in order to manage multiple water demands throughout the state, adapt water management systems to climate change, and potentially offset climate change impacts to water supply in California. Section 3.7 M. Stakeholder Involvement 1. Description of the public process that provides outreach and an opportunity to participate in IRWM Plan development and implementation to the appropriate local agencies and stakeholders. Section 3.6 2. The process used to identify, inform, invite, and involve stakeholder groups in the IRWM process during development and implementation of the IRWM Plan. Section 3.6 3. A discussion on how the RWMG will identify and involve DACs and Native American tribal communities in the IRWM planning effort Section 3.6 4. Description of the decision making process, including IRWM committees, roles, or positions that stakeholders can occupy and how a stakeholder goes about participating in those committees, roles or positions, regardless of their ability to contribute financially to the Plan. Section 3.6, 3.7 5. Discussion regarding how stakeholders are necessary to address the objectives and resource management strategies of the IRWM Plan Section 3.6, 3.7 6. Discussion of how collaborative processes will engage a balance of interest groups in the IRWM process regardless of their ability to contribute financially to the IRWM Plan's development or implementation Section 2, 3.6, 3.7 N. Coordination 1. Process for coordination of projects and activities with local participants and stakeholders. Section 2, 3.6, 3.7 2. Identification of neighboring IRWM efforts and description of coordination between efforts. Section 3.7.7 3. Discussion of any ongoing water management conflicts with adjacent IRWM efforts. Section 3.7.7 4. Discussion of State, federal, and local agencies important to the development of the IRWM plan and implementation of projects. Sections 2.4.2-2.4.4, 3.7 O. Climate Change 1. Description of plan for further data gathering and analysis. Section 2.8 2. Include climate change as part of the project review process. Table 3-6 3. Discussion of the IRWM region's vulnerabilities to the effects of climate change. Section 2.8, Appendix D & E Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 4. Process that considers GHG emissions when choosing between project alternatives Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Section 2.9, 5. List of prioritized vulnerabilities based on the vulnerability assessment and the IRWM's decision making process. Section 2.9, Appendix D 6. Address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality, and variability of runoff and recharge. Section 2.9 7. Consider the effects of sea level rise (SLR) on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures. Section 2.9 Key: DAC = disadvantaged community DMS = Data Management System GHG = greenhouse gas IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management O&M = Operations and Maintenance QA/QC = Quality Assurance/Quality Control RMS = Resource Management Strategy RWMG = Regional Water Management Group State = state of California Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board IRWM Plan Update B-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board East County Water Management Association - Governing Board AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE City of Antioch Lamar Thorpe, Mayor Pro Tem 925-779-6952 P.O. Box 5007 925-779-6897 F Antioch, CA 94531-5007 lthorpe@ci.antioch.ca.us City of Brentwood Bob Taylor 925-516-5440 150 City Park Way 925-516-5441 F Brentwood, CA 94523-1164 btaylor@brentwoodca.gov Diane R. Williams, Executive Assistant (contact) dwilliams@brentwoodca.gov Byron-Bethany Russell Kagehiro 209-835-0375 Irrigation District Timothy Maggiore 209-835-2869 F 7995 Bruns Road Byron, CA 94514 admin@bbid.org Contra Costa County Supervisor Diane Burgis 925-252-4500 3361 Walnut Boulevard, Ste. 140 925-240-7261 F Brentwood, CA 94513 Dist3@BOS.CCCounty.us Supervisor Federal D. Glover (Alternate) 925-427-8138 315 E. Leland Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 FGlov@bos.cccounty.us Contra Costa Bette Boatmun 925-689-9255 H Water District 4004 Salem Street 925-676-0346 F Concord, CA 94521 bboatmun@yahoo.com Constance Holdaway (Alternate) 925-726-7781 102 Cherry Way Oakley, CA 94561 choldawaywaterdistrict@gmail.com Town of Discovery Bay Robert Leete, Board Director 925-634-1131 Community Services 1800 Willow Lake Road District Discovery Bay, CA 94505 rleete@todb.ca.gov Bill Pease, Board Director (Alternate) bpease@todb.ca.gov Sue Heinl (staff) sheinl@todb.ca.gov Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board IRWM Plan Update B-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Delta Diablo Sean Wright, Antioch Mayor/Board Member 925-756-1927 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway 925-756-1965 F Antioch, CA 94509 drseankwright@gmail.com Diablo Water Ken Crockett 925-625-3798 District 4370 Live Oak Avenue 925-625-0814 F Oakley, CA 94561 Howard Hobbs (Alternate) 4370 Neroly Road Oakley, CA 94561 Christine Belleci (staff) cbelleci@diablowater.org East Contra Costa County Randy Pope, Vice Mayor 925-625-7007 Habitat Conservancy City of Oakley 925-625-9859 F 3231 Main Street Oakley, CA 94561 randypope@ci.oakley.ca.us Joel Bryant, Council Member (Alternate) City of Brentwood 150 City Park Way Brentwood, CA 94513 jbryant@brentwoodca.gov East Contra Costa Kenneth W. Smith 925-634-5951 Irrigation District P. O. Box 140 Knightsen, CA 94548 Ironhouse Sanitary Dawn Morrow 925-625-2279 District 450 Walnut Meadows Drive Oakley, CA 94561 dmorrow@isd.us.com Doug Scheer (Alternate) dscheer@isd.us.com City of Pittsburg D. Pete Longmire, Council Member 925-252-4850 65 Civic Avenue 925-252-4851 F Pittsburg, CA 94565 plongmire@ci.pittsburg.ca.us Governing Board Chair: Bob Taylor, City of Brentwood Governing Board Vice-Chair: Lamar Thorpe, City of Antioch Governing Board Secretary: Robert Leete, Town of Discovery Bay Joint Manager’s Committee Chair: Chad Davisson, Ironhouse Sanitary District Joint Manager’s Committee Vice-Chair: Ron Bernal, City of Antioch Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix C - Handbook Summary Information C.1 Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning Developed cooperatively by DWR, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resources Legacy Fund, and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning provides a framework for considering climate change in water management planning. Key decision considerations, resources, tools, and decision options are presented that will guide resource managers and planners as they develop means of adapting their programs to a changing climate. The handbook uses DWR's IRWM planning framework as a model into which analysis of climate change impacts and planning for adaptation and mitigation can be integrated. The Handbook includes:  The science of climate change, tools and links;  Evaluating the energy-water connection and greenhouse gas emissions;  Assessing regional vulnerability to climate change;  Measuring regional impacts;  Evaluating projects, resource management strategies, and Integrated Regional Water Management Plans with respect to climate change;  Implementing and quantifying uncertainty; and  Case studies illustrating a range of climate change adaptation and mitigation issues within and outside of California. Individual Report Sections  Front Matter  Section 1: Overview of IRWM Planning and Climate Change  Section 2: The Science of Climate Change  Section 3: Evaluating the EnergyWater Connection and Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Section 4: Assessing Regional Vulnerability to Climate Change  Section 5: Measuring Regional Impacts  Section 6: Evaluating Projects, Resource Management Strategies, and IRWM Plan Benefits with Climate Change  Section 7: Implementing Under Uncertainty  Section 8: References  Appendix A: Climate Change Literature Review  Appendix A: Climate Change Literature Review  Appendix B: Vulnerability Assessment Checklist  Appendix C: Quantifying Uncertainty in Climate Change Analysis  Appendix D: Climate Change Analysis Tool Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County C.2 Vulnerability Assessment Checklist (DWR Appendix B) I. Water Demand   Are there major industries that require cooling/process water in your planning region?   As average temperatures increase, cooling water needs may also increase.   Identify major industrial water users in your region and assess their current and  projected needs for cooling and process water.       Does water use vary by more than 50% seasonally in parts of your region?   Seasonal water use, which is primarily outdoor water use, is expected to increase as  average temperatures increase and droughts become more frequent.   Where water use records are available, look at total monthly water uses averaged over  the last five years (if available).  If maximum and minimum monthly water uses vary by  more than 25%, then the answer to this question is "yes."   Where no water use records exist, is crop irrigation responsible for a significant (say  >50%) percentage of water demand in parts of your region?       Are crops grown in your region climate sensitive?  Would shifts in daily heat patterns,  such as how long heat lingers before nighttime cooling, be prohibitive for some crops?   Fruit and nut crops are climate sensitive and may require additional water as the  climate warms.       Do groundwater supplies in your region lack resiliency after drought events?   Droughts are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future.  Areas  with a more hardened demand may be particularly vulnerable to droughts and may  become more dependent on groundwater pumping.       Are water use curtailment measures effective in your region?   Droughts are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future.  Areas  with a more hardened demand may be particularly vulnerable to droughts.       Are some instream flow requirements in your region either currently insufficient to  support aquatic life, or occasionally unmet?   Changes in snowmelt patterns in the future may make it difficult to balance water  demands.  Vulnerabilities for ecosystems and municipal/agricultural water needs may  be exacerbated by instream flow requirements that are:  1. not quantified,  2. not accurate for ecosystem needs under multiple environmental conditions  including droughts, and  3. not met by regional water managers.     Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County II. Water Supply    Does a portion of the water supply in your region come from snowmelt?   Snowmelt is expected to decrease as the climate warms.  Water systems supplied by  snowmelt are therefore potentially vulnerable to climate change.   Where watershed planning documents are available, refer to these in identifying parts  of your region that rely on surface water for supplies; if your region contains surface  water supplies originating in watersheds where snowpack accumulates, the answer to  this question is "Yes."   Where planning documents are not available, identify major rivers in your region with  large users.  Identify whether the river's headwaters are fed by snowpack.    Does part of your region rely on water diverted from the Delta, imported from the  Colorado River, or imported from other climatesensitive systems outside your region?   Some imported or transferred water supplies are sources from climatesensitive  watersheds, such as water imported from the Delta and the Colorado River.      Does part of your region rely on coastal aquifers?  Has salt intrusion been a problem in  the past?   Coastal aquifers are susceptible to salt intrusion as sea levels rise, and many have  already observed salt intrusion due to overextraction, such as the West Coast Basin in  southern California.      Would your region have difficulty in storing carryover supply surpluses from year to  year?   Droughts are expected to become more severe in the future.  Systems that can store more  water may be more resilient to droughts.    Has your region faced a drought in the past during which it failed to meet local water  demands?   Droughts are expected to become more severe in the future.  Systems that have already  come close to their supply thresholds may be especially vulnerable to droughts in the  future.      Does your region have invasive species management issues at your facilities, along  conveyance structures, or in habitat areas?   As invasive species are expected to become more prevalent with climate change, existing  invasive species issues may indicate an ecological vulnerability to climate change.    III. Water Quality Are increased wildfires a threat in your region?  If so, does your region include  reservoirs with firesusceptible vegetation nearby which could pose a water quality  concern from increased erosion?   Some areas are expected to become more vulnerable to wildfires over time.  To identify  whether this is the case for parts of your region, the California Public Interest Energy  Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Research (PIER) Program has posted wildfire susceptibility projections as a Google Earth  application at: http://caladapt.org/fire/.  These projections are only the results of a single  study and are not intended for analysis, but can aid in qualitatively answering this question.   Read the application's disclaimers carefully to be aware of its limitations.      Does part of your region rely on surface water bodies with current or recurrent water  quality issues related to eutrophication, such as low dissolved oxygen or algal blooms?   Are there other water quality constituents potentially exacerbated by climate change?   Warming temperatures will result in lower dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies, which  are exacerbated by algal blooms and in turn enhance eutrophication. Changes in  streamflows may alter pollutant concentrations in water bodies.    Are seasonal low flows decreasing for some waterbodies in your region?  If so, are the  reduced low flows limiting the waterbodies’ assimilative capacity?   In the future, low flow conditions are expected to be more extreme and last longer.  This  may result in higher pollutant concentrations where loadings increase or remain constant.      Are there beneficial uses designated for some water bodies in your region that cannot  always be met due to water quality issues?   In the future, low flows are expected decrease, and to last longer.  This may result in higher  pollutant concentrations where loadings increase or remain constant.      Does part of your region currently observe water quality shifts during rain events that  impact treatment facility operation?   While it is unclear how average precipitation will change with temperature, it is generally  agreed that storm severity will probably increase.  More intense, severe storms may lead to  increased erosion, which will increase turbidity in surface waters.  Areas that already  observe water quality responses to rainstorm intensity may be especially vulnerable.     IV. Sea Level Rise  Has coastal erosion already been observed in your region?   Coastal erosion is expected to occur over the next century as sea levels rise.    Are there coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, in your region?   Coastal structures designed for a specific mean sea level may be impacted by sea level rise.    Is there significant coastal infrastructure, such as residences, recreation, water and  wastewater treatment, tourism, and transportation) at less than six feet above mean  sea level in your region?   Coastal flooding will become more common, and will impact a greater extent of property,  as sea levels rise.  Critical infrastructure in the coastal floodplain may be at risk.   Digital elevation maps should be compared with locations of coastal infrastructure.       Are there climate sensitive low‐lying coastal habitats in your region?  Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Low‐lying coastal habitats that are particularly vulnerable to climate change include  estuaries and coastal wetlands that rely on a delicate balance of freshwater and salt water.       Are there areas in your region that currently flood during extreme high tides or storm  surges?   Areas that are already experiencing flooding during storm surges and very high tides, are  more likely to experience increased flooding as sea levels rise.       Is there land subsidence in the coastal areas of your region?   Land subsidence may compound the impacts of sea level rise.       Do tidal gauges along the coastal parts of your region show an increase over the past  several decades?   Local sea level rise may be higher or lower than state, national, or continental projections.   Planners can find information on local tidal gauges at  http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=ca.  Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix D - ECCC Handbook Checklist Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization Question Response Priority Justification I. Water Demand  Are there major industries that require cooling/process water in your planning region? Yes High Major water-intensive industries include power production.  Does water use vary by more than 50% seasonally in parts of your region? Yes High Summer months are as much as 50% higher than the average month and winter months are as much as 50% lower than the average month. Warming temperatures and increased extreme events will likely exacerbate summer demand.  Are there climate-sensitive crops grown in your region? Would shifts in daily heat patterns, such as how long heat lingers before nighttime cooling, be prohibitive for some crops? Yes High A variety of crop types are grown in the region, including row crops, tree crops, and irrigated grains. Agricultural production in Contra Costa County has a value of approximately $92 million dollars (2011 Annual Crop and Livestock Report for Contra Costa County). Many of these crops are sensitive to climate.  Do groundwater supplies in your region lack resiliency after drought events? No – Groundwater supplies in the region have proved resilient after drought events.  Are water use curtailment measures effective in your region? Yes Low Water conservation BMPs are used effectively throughout the region, as detailed in various UWMPs.  Are some instream flow requirements in your region either currently insufficient to support aquatic life, or occasionally unmet? No – Climate change is expected to place additional stress on low summer flows. II. Water Supply  Does a portion of the water supply in your region come from snowmelt? Yes Medium Runoff from April through July is dominated by snowmelt.  Does part of your region rely on water diverted from the Delta, imported from the Colorado River, or imported from other climate-sensitive systems outside your region? Yes High The majority of water supplies in the region are from the Delta.  Does part of your region rely on coastal aquifers? Has salt intrusion been a problem in the past? No – There are coastal aquifers within the region, but these have not shown to have significant problems with salt intrusion in the past. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Would your region have difficulty in storing carryover supply surpluses from year to year? Yes Medium Current operating conditions limit storage opportunities during winter runoff season; increased winter runoff would not necessarily translate into increased storage of water leading into the spring season. Conversely, storage capture of snowmelt runoff has traditionally occurred during the late spring and early summer seasons. Reductions in runoff during this season likely would translate into reductions in storage capture and, likewise, reductions in water supply for warm season delivery (Reclamation 2011)  Has your region faced a drought in the past during which it failed to meet local water demands? No – The region has not failed to meet local water demands during drought years. However, the potential effects of climate change make this a possibility.  Does your region have invasive species management issues at your facilities, along conveyance structures, or in habitat areas? Yes Medium Invasive species, including various nonnative fish and plant species, are an ongoing issue within the region. III. Water Quality  Are increased wildfires a threat in your region? If so, does your region include reservoirs with fire-susceptible vegetation nearby that could pose a water quality concern from increased erosion? No – Wildfires are only a moderate hazard in eastern Contra Costa County (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2011).  Does part of your region rely on surface water bodies with current or recurrent water quality issues related to eutrophication, such as low dissolved oxygen or algal blooms? Are there other water quality constituents that are potentially exacerbated by climate change? Yes High The majority of water supply in the region is from the Delta, which has several water quality concerns, which would be exacerbated by climate change.  Are seasonal low flows decreasing for some water bodies in your region? If so, are the reduced low flows limiting the water bodies’ assimilative capacity? No – Seasonally low flows are not currently decreasing, but this is a potential impact from climate change. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Are there beneficial uses designated for some water bodies in your region that cannot always be met due to water quality issues? Yes Low Beneficial uses on surface water bodies throughout the region are listed as impaired on the Clean Water Act 303 (d) list for water quality constituents, such as mercury and pesticides.  Does part of your region currently observe water quality shifts during rain events that impact treatment facility operation? Yes Medium Disinfectant byproduct precursors tend to spike during storm events (DWR 2001). IV. Sea-Level Rise  Has coastal erosion already been observed in your region? Yes Medium A portion of the region is in the Delta, which has experienced erosion.  Are there coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, in your region? Yes High There are tidally influenced levees on the Sacramento River on the western boundary of the region.  Is there significant coastal infrastructure (residences, recreation, water and wastewater treatment, tourism, and transportation) at less than 6 feet above mean sea level in your region? Yes High There is infrastructure adjacent to the Delta that is at or near 6 feet above mean sea level.  Are there climate-sensitive low-lying coastal habitats in your region? Yes Medium The northern boundary of the region is adjacent to the Delta.  Are there areas in your region that currently flood during extreme high tides or storm surges? No – There are areas in and adjacent to the Delta that flood during extreme weather events.  Is there land subsidence in the coastal areas of your region? Yes High Many Delta islands have subsided 15 feet to 25 feet below sea level (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update [2011]).  Do tidal gauges along the coastal parts of your region show an increase over the past several decades? Yes Low In recent decades, the mean sea level trend has been an increase of 2.08mm/year (at the nearest tidal gauge to the region (Port Chicago, located in the San Francisco Bay [NOAA 2012]). V. Flooding  Does critical infrastructure in your region lie within the 200-year floodplain? DWR’s best floodplain maps are available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/best_available_maps/. Yes High Major Infrastructure in floodplains includes major interstate highways and water/wastewater infrastructure (DWR 2012).  Does part of your region lie within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District? Yes High The eastern portion of the region lies within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Does aging critical flood protection infrastructure exist in your region? Yes High Major metropolitan areas, small communities, and rural areas are protected by aging levees, weirs, bypasses, and other flood management infrastructure. These are detailed in the Flood Control System Status Report (DWR 2012).  Have flood control facilities (such as impoundment structures) been insufficient in the past? Yes Medium Contra Costa County is vulnerable to five flood types: localized flooding, riverine flooding, flash flooding, levee overtopping/failure, and dam failure.  Are wildfires a concern in parts of your region? No – Only a small area on the western boundary of the region has moderate fire danger (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2011). VI. Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerability  Does your region include inland or coastal aquatic habitats vulnerable to erosion and sedimentation issues? Yes Medium Wetland and riverine habitats are vulnerable to erosion and sedimentation issues.  Does your region include estuarine habitats that rely on seasonal freshwater flow patterns? Yes Low The Delta portion of the region relies on seasonal freshwater flow patterns.  Do climate-sensitive fauna or flora populations live in your region? Yes High Climate-sensitive populations include salmonid species, migratory bird species, and wetland species (CEC 2008).  Do endangered or threatened species exist in your region? Are changes in species distribution already being observed in parts of your region? Yes High A number of State-listed and federally listed threatened and endangered species exist in the region.  Does the region rely on aquatic or water-dependent habitats for recreation or other economic activities? Yes Low Boating, hunting, fishing, and bird watching are important recreational and economic activities that rely on aquatic or water-dependent habitats in the region.  Are there rivers in your region with quantified environmental flow requirements or known water quality/quantity stressors to aquatic life? Yes Low Rivers and creeks in the region do not have flow requirements. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Do estuaries, coastal dunes, wetlands, marshes, or exposed beaches exist in your region? If so, are coastal storms possible/frequent in your region? Yes Low The Bay-Delta estuary, marshes, and seasonal and emergent wetland habitats exist in the region, particularly in the southwestern portion; however, coastal storms are not frequent in the region.  Does your region include one or more of the habitats described in the Endangered Species Coalition’s Top 10 habitats vulnerable to climate change (http://www.itsgettinghotoutthere.org/)? Yes High The region contains portions of the Bay-Delta, which is on the Endangered Species Coalition’s Top 10 vulnerable habitats.  Are there areas of fragmented estuarine, aquatic, or wetland wildlife habitat within your region? Are there movement corridors for species to naturally migrate? Are there infrastructure projects planned that might preclude species movement? Yes, sometime, Yes Medium The combined effect of various stressors has fragmented and/or eliminated extensive areas of wetland and riparian habitat and impeded movement corridors (DWR 2012). VII. Hydropower  Is hydropower a source of electricity in your region? Yes Low Yes, a portion of PG&E’s power supply is from hydropower.  Are energy needs in your region expected to increase in the future? If so, are there future plans for hydropower generation facilities or conditions for hydropower generation in your region? Yes, No Low The population is expected to grow in the future. Future power supply projects would need to be considered, including hydropower sources. Key: BMP = best management practice Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta DWR = California Department of Water Resources PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix E - List and Descriptions of On-Going and Planned Regional Actions A list and description of on-going and planned regional actions can be found on the ECCC IRWM Plan web site here: http://www.eccc-irwm.org/ A table of ECCC IRWM Plan regional projects sorted by different project attributes can be found on the following pages. This table was generated from the project database maintained by the ECCC IRWM Plan web site. The table is titled ‘ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Sorted by Different Project Attributes’ and includes the following sorted lists:  Projects Sorted by Project Type  Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category  Projects Sorted by Project Score  Projects Sorted by Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification  Projects Sorted by Project Status: Design Date  Projects Sorted by Total Cost  Projects Sorted by Percent Funded A table of detailed project data for each of the ECCC IRWM Plan regional projects can be found on the following pages. This table was generated from the project database maintained by the ECCC IRWM Plan web site. This table is titled ‘ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Detailed Data’ and includes the following information for each regional project:  Project Name  Sponsoring Agency/Organization  Project ID #  Project Description  ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) (how the project relates)  Program Preferences (how the project relates)  Statewide Priorities (how the project relates)  Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations (how the project relates)  Project Status – Implementation  Project Costs – Implementation  Project Funding – Implementation  Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) (how the project relates)  Environmental Justice (how the project relates)  Climate Change /Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (how the project relates) Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Sorted by Different Project Attributes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Type            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Type 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Environmental (e.g., habitat) 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Environmental (e.g., habitat) 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District Environmental (e.g., habitat) 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Environmental (e.g., habitat) 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 Environmental (e.g., habitat) 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Type            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Type 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District Monitoring 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Monitoring 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District Monitoring 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District Other 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District Other 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District Other 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program Research Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category              Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category              Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County Water Quality and Related Regulations Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category              Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Score            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Score 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 26.00 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 25.00 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 24.00 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 24.00 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 22.00 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 21.00 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 19.00 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 19.00 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 17.00 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 17.00 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 16.00 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 16.00 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 15.00 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 14.00 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District 14.00 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 14.00 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 14.00 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 13.00 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 11.00 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 11.00 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 11.00 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 10.00 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch 10.00 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 10.00 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 10.00 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 10.00 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 10.00 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 9.00 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9.00 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 9.00 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Score            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Score 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 9.00 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 9.00 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 7.00 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 7.00 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7.00 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7.00 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 7.00 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 6.00 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 6.00 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5.00 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5.00 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5.00 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 5.00 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 5.00 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 5.00 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex 4.00 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4.00 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 4.00 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 4.00 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.00 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 10 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 9 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 7 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 7 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 6 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 6 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 5 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 5 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 5 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 5 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 5 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 5 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 4 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 4 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 4 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 4 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 4 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 4 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 4 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District 4 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 4 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 4 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 3 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch 3 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 3 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 3 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 3 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 3 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 3 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 3 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 3 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 2 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex 2 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 2 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 2 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 2 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 2 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 2 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 2 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 2 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 1 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 1 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 1 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 1 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 1 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Status:   Design Date            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Status: Design Date 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 7/1/2012 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 8/1/2012 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 9/1/2012 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 9/1/2012 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 9/1/2012 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 9/1/2012 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 9/1/2012 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 4/1/2013 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 4/1/2013 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 5/1/2013 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 6/1/2013 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 6/1/2013 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 6/1/2013 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 9/1/2013 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 10/1/2013 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 12/1/2013 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 1/1/2014 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 4/1/2014 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 7/1/2014 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 7/1/2014 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 7/1/2014 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 7/1/2014 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 9/1/2014 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 9/1/2014 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Status:   Design Date            29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 10/1/2014 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 10/1/2014 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 12/1/2014 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 1/1/2015 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 6/1/2015 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 9/1/2015 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 9/1/2015 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 9/1/2015 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 6/1/2016 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9/1/2017 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 9/1/2017 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 8/1/2020 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 8/1/2020 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 8/1/2020 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9/1/2020 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9/1/2020 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex - 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District - 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch - 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District - 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District - 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District - 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District - 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Total Cost            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Total Cost 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 80,000,000 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District $ 58,500,000 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 50,000,000 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District $ 30,000,000 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 $ 27,300,000 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 25,000,000 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District $ 20,000,000 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 11,813,000 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg $ 10,580,000 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 10,243,800 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 10,243,800 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 10,051,000 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 $ 9,751,000 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch $ 9,263,600 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 9,220,000 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District $ 8,100,000 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County $ 7,525,000 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District $ 7,080,000 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 $ 7,000,000 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District $ 6,720,000 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch $ 6,625,000 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 6,215,000 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 6,200,000 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 5,356,000 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 4,906,000 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 4,043,000 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 3,800,000 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 3,664,000 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 3,000,000 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 2,500,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Total Cost            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Total Cost 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 2,500,000 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District $ 2,469,000 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association $ 2,200,000 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 2,094,000 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District $ 2,010,000 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy $ 1,670,000 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District $ 1,460,000 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg $ 1,300,000 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 1,200,000 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District $ 1,150,000 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program $ 1,000,000 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict $ 638,000 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County $ 500,000 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 500,000 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 500,000 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 471,000 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District $ 420,000 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 363,004 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District $ 337,000 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 253,002 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District $ 209,800 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District $ 200,000 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District $ 110,000 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex $ 100,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Percent Funded            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Percent Funded 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 66% 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 50% 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 50% 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 50% 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 50% 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 48% 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 47% 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 45% 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 43% 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 37% 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 37% 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 34% 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 32% 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 30% 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 25% 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 25% 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 20% 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 20% 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 15% 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 13% 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 10% 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 10% 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 9% 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 7% 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 6% 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 5% 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 5% 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 3% 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 2% 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 2% Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Percent Funded            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Percent Funded 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 2% 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 1% 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 1% 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex 0% 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch 0% 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 0% 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 0% 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 0% 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 0% 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 0% 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 0% 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 0% Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Detailed Data Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Project ID # 1 2 3 53 4 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure - Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project Use recycled water to irrigate the 20 acres of youth sports fields. This will reduce the cost of water for AYSC and allow AYSC to keep the fields green during drought years. To ensure the continued safety of the island residents and maintain property values, the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) developed a Bethel Island Levee and Drainage Revitalization Plan with the following goals: raising the Bethel Island levee to meet current height standards, place riprap on the entire 11.5 miles of Bethel Island levee, and clean and re-grade 19.1 miles of Bethel Island drainage ditches to improve proper water flow. To meet these goals, the following capital projects are needed: 1) placement of riprap on 11.5 miles of levees, 2) installation of an all-weather surface for the entire levee crown, 3) completing levee raising to Public Law 84-99 Standards, 4) culvert replacement, and 5) elevation of two (2) pump stations with trash capture components (screens). These projects, when combined with special maintenance projects, will upgrade the flood protection for Bethel Island to current standards. The City of Antioch is partnering with the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD) to replace an undersized concrete trapezoidal channel & arch culverts, & desilt 3,000 feet of West Antioch Creek to eliminate flooding to properties adjacent to the channel and within a DAC. In 1993 CCCFCD constructed channel improvements for West Antioch Creek and improved flood capacity to a 25-year level of protection. The project extended from the San Joaquin River to 8th St. in Antioch; as a result, a 650 foot gap exists between the 1993 improvements and the earthen canal on the Antioch Fairgrounds property. The project will install 4 14’x7’ Caltrans Standard Box Culverts, 620’ long to address the chronic flooding at the gap. The project will prevent the chronic problem of flood waters leaving West Antioch Creek, flooding local residential, commercial and industrial areas, and then returning to San Joaquin River basin and ultimately the Delta, as a contaminated source. City of Antioch project to install sewer and water infrastructure for the Viera area, a residential area of 120 homes included in proposed Antioch NE Annexation. Area is a DAC. The City owns & operates a 32 mgd Water Treatment Plant (WTP) that was last expanded/upgraded in 1990 & is in need of improvements to mitigate current operating problems, prepare to reliably treat the flow rates for which it was originally designed, & meet current and future drinking water regulations. CDPH sent a letter to the City in 12/2010 requesting the City seek solutions to mitigate the filter backwash recycled water turbidity problem as it often exceeds 2 NTU, the turbidity limit recommended by the Cryptosporidium Action Plan. The City prepared a WTP Improvements Study (July 2011) identifying 3 phases of high priority improvements to the City’s WTP to be implemented as part of the proposed Project. Phase 1: influent blending & chlorine dioxide contact, chlorine dioxide generation and chemical storage and chlorinator modification, ammonia feed relocation, & spent filter backwash treatment. Phase 2: sludge management improvements. Phase 3: add a 0.5 MG backwash basin. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - Contra Costa County Contra Costa Flood Control & Water Conservation District - - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Additional: The Project would allow the City to comply with the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, increasing the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, more effectively pretreat the well water supply, and reducing reliance on Delta supplies. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - Additional: The project will provide significant benefits to the region including improving stormwater/flood management, reducing pollution to the Delta, and protecting aquatic habitat in the Delta. - Additional: The Project would provide significant benefits to the region, including improving stormwater management, reducing pollution to the Bay-Delta, reducing reliance on Delta supplies, and protecting aquatic habitat in the Delta. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Additional: Allow AYSC to keep the fields green during drought years - - - Additional: The Project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, reducing reliance on Delta supplies. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Primary: Reduce the amount of drinking water that the complex uses - - - Additional: The Project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, improving water use efficiency. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Additional: Trash screens that can capture trash down to the size of cigarette butts are proposed for the two pump stations to reduce the trash. The Delta waters are used by some downstream municipalities as a drinking water source. Additional: The project will improve stormwater/flood management and reduce pollution to the Delta, improving source water quality for Delta users statewide. Primary: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system in this area will protect/improve surface and groundwater sources in this area. Additional: The Project would improve stormwater management and reduce pollution to the Bay-Delta, improving source water quality for Delta users statewide. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Primary: Upgrading the WTP is necessary in order to improve drinking water quality, improve system reliability and meet regulatory requirements. Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Additional: The project would improve source water quality. Improved source water quality will, in turn, result in improved wastewater and recycled water quality for the region. Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - Additional: The trash capture component of this project will contribute to Contra Costa County’s compliance with the trash load reduction requirements in its MS4 NPDES Permits. Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading to the Delta. - Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: The intent is to include measures that will reduce the trash and other pollutants discharging via the pumps to Delta waters. Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading resulting from the elimination of flooding. - Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading resulting from the elimination of stormwater overflows of the lagoon. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Additional: Reduction in the trash loads improves habitat quality. Additional: By eliminating flooding, the project will reduce pollutant loading to the Delta, improving Delta water quality and associated aquatic habitat. - Additional: The Project would reduce pollution to the Bay-Delta, improving Delta water quality and associated aquatic habitat. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - Additional: Reduction in trash loads will reduce impacts to the Delta ecosystem and environmental resources. Additional: The project will eliminate flooding in an urbanized area and subsequent introduction of polluted flood waters into the Delta, resulting in benefits to the Delta ecosystem. Additional: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system will protect Delta ecosystem and environmental resources. Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading resulting from the elimination of stormwater overflows to Willow Creek, resulting in benefits to the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - Additional: By reducing flooding impacts, this project will also reduce the major cleanup efforts necessary to repair damages caused by flooding. It will prevent greenhouse gas emissions associated with cleaning up flood damage. - Additional: The Project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process. Energy needs and GHGs generated by water recycled onsite are less than those of pumping and treating additional Delta supply. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Additional: The intent is to include measures that will reduce the trash and other pollutants discharging via the pumps to Delta waters. Primary: This project will improve the flooding problems along the 620’ gap by replacing an inadequate trapezoidal concrete ditch and will be able to pass ~10 times more stormwater than the existing system. - Additional: The project will improve stormwater management by constructing a new 0.5 mgd backwash basin designed to eliminate stormwater overflows of the lagoon. Improve regional flood risk management - Primary: The levee improvements and pump station upgrades will reduce the flood risks on Bethel Island. Additional: The project will eliminate flooding in the area and provide flood protection up to the 25-year storm - Additional: The project will reduce flood risks by eliminating stormwater overflows of the lagoon which could exacerbate flooding issues during wet weather. Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: Bethel Island is a DAC per the 2010 Census. BIMID serves the entire island and will provide opportunities for involvement by all members of the community. Additional: The DAC will see benefits through project implementation & be involved through public outreach efforts during project development/ implementation. Without the project, DAC customers would continue to face damages caused by floods on an annual basis. Additional: This project would provide public water and sewer to a DAC. Additional: DACs within the City's service area will see benefits through project implementation and be involved with the public outreach efforts during project development. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: The project will involve outreach to stakeholders and DACs, assisting in educating the public about regional water resources management issues and projects. - Additional: The project will involve outreach through the IRWMP, City Water System newsletters, City e-mails and Council presentations, and other vehicles. This will assist in educating the public about regional water management issues. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - The primary purpose of the project is to upgrade the City’s WTP to mitigate current operating and regulatory compliance problems, and also prepare the Plant to handle higher flow rates (for which it was originally designed) reliably while meeting current and anticipated future drinking water regulations, and protecting downstream habitat. Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 CALFED Objectives Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - Yes: By increasing the quantity of water recycled within the plant, the project will reduce dependence on Delta supplies. Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Yes: This will be accomplished by reducing overland flooding that washes pollutants into the drainage system and then is pumped to the Delta. Trash screens will also reduce pollution of the state’s water. Yes: The project will reduce pollutant loading to the Delta, improving the source water quality for Delta users statewide. Yes: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system in this area will protect/improve surface and groundwater sources in this area. Yes: The WTP Improvements Project will improve water quality and allow the City of Pittsburg to meet necessary regulatory requirements. In addition, it will reduce pollutant loading to the Delta, improving water quality for Delta users statewide. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Yes: The levee improvements will guard against levee failure. - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - - Yes: The Project would allow the City to comply with the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, increasing the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, improving process efficiency, and reducing reliance on Delta supplies. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - Yes: Overland flooding washes pollutants to the pump station, if the pumps upgrade will reduce the frequency of overland flooding. Removal of trash will reduce the degree of trash impairment of receiving waters. Yes: Reducing pollutant loading to the Delta will improve its ecological health. Yes: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system will protect Delta ecosystem and environmental resources. Yes: The Project would reduce pollution to the Bay-Delta, improving Delta water quality and protecting aquatic habitat. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - Yes: Currently, development within the project area is subject to frequent, severe flooding. This project integrates water management and land use planning by eliminating the annual damages caused by development within an area of flooding. Yes: Provides City water and sewer infrastructure to residents in urban area. Yes: Improvements to the WTP will help improve water supply reliability and provide necessary treatment capacity to meet the needs of the community as projected based on land use planning. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - Yes - Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - Yes Yes - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - Yes Yes - Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - - - Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Yes - System Reoperation - - - - Yes Water Transfers - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water Yes - - - Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - Yes Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Yes Pollution Prevention - Yes Yes Yes Yes Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management - Yes Yes - Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Yes Yes - Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - Yes - Ecosystem Restoration - - Yes - Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - Yes - Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Planning Project Status Not Started Completed Completed Not Applicable Completed Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Est. Completion Date 7/1/2013 9/1/2012 1/1/2012 - 1/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Completed Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 7/1/2013 - 1/1/2012 - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Completed Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 9/23/14 - 3/1/2014 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable In Progress Not Applicable Not Started 7/1/2014 Est. Completion Date - - 12/31/15 - 6/1/2015 8/15/2015 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable In Progress Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 11/1/15 - 3/1/2014 10/5/210 5 Phase 2 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - 12/31/15 - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started 7/1/2014 Phase 1 October 2015 Phase 2 Est. Completion Date - - 10/6/17 - 12/1/2016 7/1/2017 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - 10/6/20 - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Environmental Permits Describe any required - Permits related to working in local drainage ditches will likely be required. Research into the permitting requirements has not been started. Nationwide Permit 31-Clean Water Act, Section 404 from ACOE; Section 7 Consultation with USFWS and NOAA NMFS; NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities from Central Valley RWQCB; Streambed Alteration Agreement and Section 7 Consultation with CDFG. - A permit from the California Department of Public Health will be required. Status? - It is unknown if permits have been applied for yet. Permitting acquisition has begun for the ACOE 404 permit. The process for obtaining the other permits has not been initiated. An EIR was completed in 1985 for the West Antioch Creek Improvement Project & several were constructed in 1993, the CEQA documentation for this project has been completed for the 620’ gap or desilting portion of the project. Streambed alteration agreement w/CDFW has been obtained. - The permit has not yet been obtained. Applying for and receiving the necessary permit is expected to be straightforward. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - Grading, encroachment, and building permits will likely be different phases of this project. Encroachment permit from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad; Tree removal permit from City of Antioch Planning Dept. - N/A Status? - It is unlikely that any of these permits have been applied for yet. The process for obtaining these permits has been initiated. - N/A Project Schedule Available? - - Yes - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties Whether or not the City of Antioch decides to continue paying for water for AYSC. Whether or not the recycled water line is extended past AYSC so that AYSC can tie into it at minimal cost. Whether or not AYSC decides to use groundwater to irrigate its fields. Unknown - - There are no significant data gaps that could affect project feasibility; the City prepared a Water Treatment Plant Improvements Study detailing the phases of the project and its feasibility which was finalized in July 2011. Project Costs - Implementation LandPurchase/EUnknown Unknown $2,300,000 Unknown NA PlanningUnknown Unknown $400,00 Unknown NA DesignUnknown Unknown $1,000,000 Unknown $1,000,000 EnvironmentalRUnknown Unknown $400,000 Unknown $2,000 PermitsUnknown Unknown $200,000 Unknown $1,000 Construction/IUnknown Unknown $6,050,000 Unknown $9,577,000 EnvironmentalMiUnknown Unknown $800,000 Unknown NA OtherUnknown $6,720,000 $1,400,000 $6,625,000 NA TotalProjectCo$100,000 $6,720,000 $12,550,000 $6,625,000 $10,580,000 CostEstimateAv- Yes Yes - - Project Funding - ImplemeAgency; funds or in kind contributAmount - $40,000 $4,100,000 - $5,290,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - Yes User Fees - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - Yes Yes - - Existing grants Amount - $2,250,000 $2,997,300 - - State Grants - - Yes - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - Yes - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currentlyunfund$100,000 $4,430,000 $4,500,000 $6,625,000 $5,290,000 EconomicFeasibi- - Yes - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: The project will reduce the occurrence of overland flooding and pollution of the storm water. Yes: Implementing the project will eliminate severe flooding in the DAC which occurs on an annual basis and poses public health implications associated with degraded water quality of flood water in urbanized areas. Yes: This project would provide public water and sewer to a DAC currently on septic systems and private wells. Yes: DACs within the City’s service area will have improved water supply reliability & increased water quality protection as the WTP will comply with State/federal requirements. What Community(ies)? - Bethel Island City of Antioch NE Antioch, Viera area Communities within the City boundaries. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - The project outreach has been to the entire population of Bethel Island. Outreach to DACs will be performed through the East Contra Costa County IRWM planning process and through individual outreach efforts. Part of annexation planning Outreach to DACs will be performed through the East County IRWM planning process, the City Water System newsletters, and/or City email distribution lists. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - Yes: By eliminating flooding and improving water quality in the DAC, the project corrects the environmental justice issue for the DAC. - Yes: By allowing the WTP to comply with water quality regulations, the project corrects any environmental justice issue for disadvantaged communities in the City of Pittsburg. Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - -- - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - Yes: Climate change may increase the frequency of severe storms; this project will improve stormwater capacity and help be better prepared for uncertain storm patterns frequency, and severity. It will also eliminate GHG impacts from flood cleanup. - Yes: By improving operational efficiency at the WTP, improving water supply reliability and reducing dependence on the Delta, there will be more flexibility in the future for water supply planning. Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: The project will also eliminate GHG impacts from flood cleanup. - Yes: The project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process. Energy needs and GHGs generated by water recycled onsite are less than those of pumping and treating additional Delta supply. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-31 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Project ID # 5 6 7 8 9 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Water/ Water Quality Research Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Describe the project In order to meet future water demands, the City of Pittsburg will replace the existing Rossmoor Groundwater Well with a larger capacity well (~1,200 gallons per minute [gpm]), and about 1,500 feet of the 8-inch pipeline will be replaced with 10- or 12-inch pipeline to allow for increased use of the Pittsburg Groundwater Basin. The City currently relies mostly on purchased raw surface water from the Delta from Contra Costa Water District, and supplements the remaining water demands with groundwater (GW). These two supplies are treated at the City’s water treatment plant prior to delivery to its residents. The City produces GW from two wells, one of which, the Rossmoor well, has experienced biofouling which has caused a noticeable decline in the GW production. By replacing the existing well, and expanding the GW monitoring system, the City will obtain a more reliable GW supply and will be able to meet customer demands now and in the future, while reducing dependence on the Delta. The goal of this project is to evaluate the treatment benefits of LID for reducing mercury and methylmercury discharges from stormwater to the Bay. Contra Costa County has established a policy making low-impact development (LID) the preferred method of treatment to meet requirements for stormwater treatment established under NPDES Permits for Urban Stormwater. Although LID-type treatment devices are known to be highly effective at removing sediment from urban stormwater, to date very little information is available on the effectiveness of LID for reducing mercury and methylmercury. Monitoring information would be developed to evaluate the concentrations and forms of mercury in urban stormwater before and after treatment by LID. This project will implement Low Impact Development (LID) “Green Street” retrofits to treat stormwater runoff from roads in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Streets will be retrofitted with bioretention facilities and/or infiltration measures to remove pollutants from runoff. Monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate the treatment and flow control effectiveness of the projects. Educational signage will be posted to provide a public education component. Green Streets projects will demonstrate several approaches to managing street runoff, such as within medians, “bump-outs” and sidewalk raingardens. This project will be especially informative since some retrofits will be conducted in areas that lack a piped storm drain infrastructure. Disadvantaged Communities (including Bay Point and Bethel Island) will be prioritized for Green Streets projects. Where appropriate, pedestrian and bicycle improvements (where appropriate) will also be incorporated into Green Street retrofits. This is a much-needed restoration project with substantial water quality benefits to the town of Knightsen. It would capitalize on the opportunity to integrate: a) long-standing interest in treatment wetlands near Knightsen, b) new information on historical ecological conditions in the area, c) renewed interest in restoring tidal wetlands in the Delta, and d) the opportunity to purchase a 645-acre property ideally situated to achieve all these goals on a large scale. This project will construct a tidal wetland to treat stormwater before being discharged to the Delta. This will reduce flooding in Knightsen, improve local water quality, and improve drinking water quality to residents in Contra Costa County. This project seeks to reuse surplus material from the Upper Sand Creek Basin construction. Upper Sand Creek Basin is currently in an interim condition and is set to be expanded to contain about 1,000 acre-feet of storage under a separate project in summer 2013. The construction of the basin is expected to result in approximately 500,000 cy of surplus material stockpiled onsite for future reuse. This Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material project will find a permanent home for some or all of this surplus material. Likely end users of this material include contractors, developers and other agencies needing high quality fill material. If integrated into another project, this project can be the borrow source for some or all of this material. If this remains a standalone project, the project consists of loading, hauling, placing and compacting the surplus material at an appropriate, permanent disposal site. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, United States Environmental Protection Agency - Knightsen Town Advisory Committee, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Game - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: The project will decrease water supply costs by enhancing the City’s ability to utilize local groundwater supplies, a lower-cost alternative to Delta supplies. Increased groundwater capacity will also provide improved operational flexibility. - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: The project will reduce the City’s dependence on Delta supplies. As such, it provides benefits to the Delta; the East County Region which is located in the Delta and relies heavily on Delta supplies; and statewide Delta water user. - - - Additional: Excess material from this project can be reused in another project in the region. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Primary: This project will reduce the City’s dependence on Delta supplies, providing a reliable groundwater supply that is not subject to Delta influences and minimally affected by drought. - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-32 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: By increasing the City’s ability to use groundwater supplies, the project will provide operational flexibility, enabling more efficient conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies. - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Additional: Data collected from the well, additional groundwater monitoring wells and pressure transducers will help better understand potential for conjunctive use projects in the future. - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would, in turn, provide water quality benefits for Delta supplies. - Additional: This project will remove pollutants from road runoff prior to its discharge to receiving waters, will replenish groundwater (where appropriate), and will reduce erosion/sediment impacts related to road runoff within project watersheds. - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality Additional: Replacing the existing Rossmoor well will improve the quality of drinking water provided to City of Pittsburg residents. Leaving more water in the Delta will improve Delta water quality for users statewide. - - Additional: Contaminated stormwater from this area drains to Rock Slough and adjacent Delta waterways. Rock Slough is the location for the intake to the Contra Costa Canal, a primary source of drinking water for central and eastern Contra Costa County. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality Additional: This project will increase water supply reliability while maintaining quality. - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Additional: Data collected from the well, additional monitoring wells, and pressure transducers will increase knowledge regarding Pittsburg Plain groundwater quality. - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: This project will increase water supply reliability while maintaining quality, thus maintaining the quality of wastewater conveyed to DDSD and discharged to the Delta. - Additional: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES permits regulating Contra Costa County require implementation of “Green Street Pilot Projects”. This project is expected to reduce loads of some pollutants of concern, and will capture trash. - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - Primary: This project will remove pollutants from road runoff prior to its discharge; replenish groundwater (where appropriate); reduce runoff volumes, flow rates and durations; Additional: Constructed wetlands will improve the quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta from the Knightsen area. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-33 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District and reduce erosion/sediment impacts related to road runoff. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Additional: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would, in turn, provide water quality benefits for Delta supplies, resulting in higher quality aquatic habitat in the Delta. - Additional: The project will remove pollutants; reduce road runoff volumes, rates, and durations; and reduce erosion/sedimentation impacts. This will improve habitat value in receiving waters and surrounding environs. Primary: This project will take advantage of new scholarship about historical ecological conditions in the Delta to restore wetlands which will provide valuable habitat. - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project minimizes impacts to the Delta ecosystem and environmental resources that could be generated by an increased dependence on Delta supplies. - Additional: This project will reduce impacts (related to road runoff) to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources. This will be accomplished by removing pollutants from runoff and providing hydrograph modification management to the extent feasible. - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: This energy use and associated GHG emissions needed to pump and treat local groundwater supplies are estimated to be less than the energy use and GHG emissions associated with expanded use of Delta supplies. - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - Additional: Reducing mercury loads through LID is part of an overall regional strategy to reduce mercury levels in fish. - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Primary: This project will develop information needed to guide future design and implementation of LID, and to evaluate the benefits of LID to attain TMDL goals. Additional: This project will provide treatment and flow control for street runoff in watersheds where retrofits are implemented. Additional: This project will create drainage system for stormwater from Knightsen to a constructed wetland. Additional: The basin detains high storm flow events and meters out the water downstream. This reduces the likelihood of flooding downstream of the basin. Use the excess material from the basin for someone else’s project? Improve regional flood risk management - - Additional: Although it is not a primary driver of this project, since the project will reduce the volume of flows from impervious surfaces (streets) it will serve to slightly reduce flood risks downstream of projects. Additional: Knightsen has had historical problems with flooding. This drainage system/constructed wetland will prevent future flooding in the area. Primary: The basin detains high storm flow events and meters out the water downstream. Removing the surplus material expands the storage capacity of the basin and thus reduces the likelihood of flooding downstream for the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley. Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: DACs will be involved in public outreach efforts for the Rossmoor Well Replacement/ Groundwater Monitoring Well Project and will see benefits from implementation of the project. - Additional: This project will prioritize projects located within DACs, including Bay Point and Bethel Island. Other DACs may subsequently be identified (other than by census block) and prioritized. - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: The project will involve public outreach through the IRWQMP, City Water System newsletters, and/or City e-mails and Council presentations. This will assist in educating the public about water management issues in the Delta and the City of Pittsburg. - Additional: This project will include signage to educate members of the public about issues related to stormwater runoff, methods of providing treatment and flow control, and other ways the public can help protect water quality. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - This project will introduce landscape features where they currently do not exist, which will improve the - This project seeks to find a partner that needs up to 500,000 cy of high quality fill material. Can be used for levee Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-34 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District communities in which retrofits are conducted (including DACs). Related pedestrian/bicycle improvements will enhance alternative transportation opportunities. Monitoring of runoff from project areas before and after the retrofit projects are implemented will help build the base of knowledge of how effectively LID retrofit projects remove pollutants and (if possible) provide flow control. construction/raising, building pads (the pad for the Kaiser hospital campus came from this site), or for other purposes. Want to avoid hauling to landfill for use as cover material and instead find a reuse opportunity for this material Dirt has been tested and is clean. Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: If the Rossmoor well is not replaced with a new well, capacity will continue to decline, reducing water supply available to the City. The City would otherwise need to increase the Delta supplies purchased from Contra Costa Water District. - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would improve the quality of Delta supplies, resulting in improved water quality for Delta users statewide. - Yes: This project will remove pollutants from stormwater runoff from roads prior to that runoff entering receiving waters (the Delta). Delta waters serve as a drinking water source. Yes: Contaminated storm water drains to Rock Slough and adjacent Delta waterways. Rock Slough is the location for the intake to the Contra Costa Canal, a primary source of drinking water for central and eastern Contra Costa County. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Yes: 500,000 cy of material available for use to strengthen or augment levees. Located in Antioch and can be transported to delta levees starting in late 2013 and beyond. A past project brought material to Jersey Island and was used in levee project. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: By increasing the City’s ability to use groundwater supplies, the project will provide operational flexibility, enabling more efficient conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies. - - - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would, in turn, provide water quality benefits for Delta supplies, resulting in higher quality aquatic habitat in the Delta. Yes: Reducing mercury loads and understanding how management actions affect methylmercury in receiving waters is an identified goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration Program. Yes: This project will remove pollutants from stormwater runoff from roads prior to that runoff entering receiving waters. This will avoid deleterious impacts of the pollutants to which the pollutants may have contributed. Yes: The constructed wetlands will improve the quality of water being discharged directly into the Delta. - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Yes: Replacing the well will help improve water supply reliability and provide necessary treatment capacity to meet the needs of the community as projected based on land use planning. Yes: Guiding LID implementation with sound science related to pollutant loads and impacts is essential to effective land use planning that accounts for long-term water quality goals. Yes: This project will implement stormwater treatment and flow control in already-developed areas, thereby reducing runoff volumes and flow durations, and improving the quality of runoff, while improving streetscapes in existing urbanized areas. - Yes: The basin yielding this excess material is part of a master planned drainage system. The surrounding area was planned to accommodate this basin, and the basin was planned to accommodate surrounding land uses. Statewide Priorities – Drought Preparedness - - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-35 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Climate Change Response Actions Yes - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - Yes Yes Yes Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - Yes - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - Yes Yes - - Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation Yes - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Yes - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - Yes - - Pollution Prevention - - Yes - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management - Yes Yes Yes Yes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-36 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - Yes Yes Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration Yes Yes - Yes Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - Yes - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - Yes Yes Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status Not Started In Progress Not Started In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date 4/1/2014 6/1/2013 9/1/2014 7/1/2013 6/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2014 7/1/2013 1/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 3/1/2014 - 9/1/2014 7/1/2014 1/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date - 9/1/20-13 5/1/2015 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-37 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Design Project Status Not Started In Progress Not Started Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 7/1/201 9/1/2015 1/1/2014 9/1/215 7/1/2014 8/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Complete Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 3/1/2014 6/1/2014 9/1/2015 7/1/2014 2/1/2013 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 6/1/2014 - 7/1/2014 - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started 9/2/2104 Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2015 5/1/2106 9/1/2014 9/1/2016 7/1/2016 4/1/2014 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 2/1/2015 5/1/2020 7/1/2016 - Environmental Permits Describe any required A permit from the California Department of Public Health will be required as well as a Well Construction Permit from the County. Depending on project scope for new LID facilities, some CEQA analysis may be needed. Neg Dec or Mitigated Neg Dec anticipated for projects contemplated. None anticipated. CEQA and NEPA documents will need to be submitted for this project. The 2013 basin construction project will place the surplus material in a designated temporary stockpile site, for later off haul and reuse. Full permits will be secured to build the basin and create this stockpile. Status? These permits have not yet been obtained. Applying for and receiving the necessary permits is expected to be straightforward. Not started yet. N/A Work on these permits has not yet begun. Full permits expected in spring of 2013 before basin construction. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required An IS/MND will be prepared for the Project. In parallel, planning & design will be completed. Currently, there is no specific design for the well beyond the size & materials. Well design (intervals & lengths of well screen/casing) will be completed following drilling & will be based on site-specific hydrogeology as observed in the field. File NOI under Construction General Permit. None anticipated. N/A Project is covered under East CC HCP. Status? - Not started yet. N/A N/A PSR (project study report) completed, project approved by HCP board for 2013 construction. Partial fees paid. Balance to be paid prior to construction. Stockpile covered by HCP PSR. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-38 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Project Schedule Available? - - - - Yes Describe any data gaps or uncertainties There are no data gaps or uncertainties that could impact the technical feasibility. The existing Rossmoor Well will be replaced with proven technologies. - This project has not yet selected specific locations where Green Street retrofits will be implemented. Although this constitutes an uncertainty, it does also impart the project with a degree of flexibility that increases the probability that a number of retrofit projects will be successfully implemented. - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA $6,000,000 NA Planning NA $50,000 Unknown $150,000 $20,000 Design $98,800 $150,000 Unknown $150,000 NA Environmental Review Unknown $25,000 Unknown $100,000 $25,000 Permits $1,000 $25,000 NA $75,000 $10,000 Construction/Implementation $1,200,000 $750,000 Unknown $1,000,000 $7,000,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA NA $50,000 $10,000 Other NA NA $500,000 NA NA Total Project Cost $1,300,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $7,525,000 $7,080,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $ 900,000 $200,000 - - $80,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - Yes User Rates - - - - - User Fees - Yes - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - Yes Contributions - - - - - Other Yes - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants -$430,000 - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $800,000 $500,000 $7,525,000 $7,000,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Yes Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: The project addresses a critical water supply need for DACs within the City of Pittsburg service area by ensuring a consistently high quality, reliable water supply at a relatively low cost. - Yes: This project will beautify streetscapes and will improve water quality, habitat value, and recreational value in and around DACs. - - What Community(ies)? Communities within City boundaries - Bethel Island, Bay Point, possibly other communities (not designated as DACs by census block). - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Outreach to DACs will be conducted during completion off the Pittsburg Plain GWPM, through East County - The DACs have not yet been engaged in the process; this would be premature until specific locations - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-39 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District IRWM planning outreach, through City Water system newsletters, and City email distribution lists. for Green Street retrofit projects have been selected. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? Yes: By improving drinking water quality delivered to disadvantaged communities within the City’s boundaries, the project will assist in correcting an environmental justice issue. Yes: Mercury in fish for subsistence fishers has been identified as an environmental justice issue. Yes: This project will improve surface water quality within DACs. - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: The project will improve the City’s operational flexibility and will allow the City to expand use of climate-resilient groundwater supplies in lieu of vulnerable Delta supplies. - Yes: This project will consider the effects of climate change. It is not anticipated to exacerbate climate change in any way, and the (secondary) flood control benefits associated with the project may be magnified by climate change. - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: The energy use and associated GHG emissions needed to pump and treat local groundwater supplies are estimated to be less than the energy use and GHG emissions associated with expanded use of Delta supplies. - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-40 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Project ID # 10 11 12 13 14 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Environmental (e.g., habitat) Environmental (e.g., habitat) Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Describe the project This project assesses the seismic performance of an existing dam embankment and recommends retrofit improvements, if needed. It includes a two-phase approach: starting with a hazard assessment, and then proceeding to more detailed geotechnical analysis if warranted. The dam was constructed in the 1960s and is unlikely to withstand an earthquake under today’s more stringent standards. The actual seismic retrofit of the dam, if warranted, is scoped as a separate project. Design and construct marsh and floodplain improvements on East Antioch Creek downstream of Cavallo Road. Includes marina outlet channel (or equivalent), hazardous material clean-up of affected portion of Hickmont cannery site, and three new box culverts under Wilbur Avenue. Marsh Creek Reservoir was constructed in the early 1960s as a dry reservoir, namely that it only fills and stores water during large storm events. 99%+ of the time, the reservoir stands empty except for a few acre feet of water stored below the elevation of the primary spillway. After construction, willows grew up around the main stem of Marsh Creek and around the wet pool. With 50+ years of intensive grazing, the only habitat is provided by the 50-year old willows that are nearing the end of their lifespan. Because of the grazing, there have been no new trees to replace those that are aging. The restoration plan maintains or improves level of flood protection, improves surrounding habitat, is compatible with surrounding state park uses, deals appropriately with accumulated mercury and accommodates mercury that will arrive at the basin in the next 50 years. The project assesses seismic performance of an existing earthfill dam and recommends retrofit improvements, if needed. It includes a two-phase approach: start with hazard assessment, and proceed to more detailed geotechnical analysis if warranted. The dam was constructed to “modern” seismic standards in 1964 and is unlikely to withstand an earthquake by today’s more stringent standards. The actual seismic retrofit of the dam, if warranted, is scoped as a separate project. A 2010 Flood Control District study identified portions of Marsh Creek that will not have sufficient capacity upon general plan buildout of the watershed. The regional drainage master plan calls for construction of a number of upstream reservoirs and detention basins to store and hold back storm flows. But even when all of these basins are constructed, Marsh Creek will still have portions of its channels that do not have sufficient capacity. This project will selectively raise channel banks and levees, and constructed floodwalls at various locations to contain 100-year flood flows and contain 50-year flood flows with freeboard along Marsh Creek. Optional project upgrades (not included in current budget) would increase the level of protection to containment of a 200-year flood event. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the flow rates downstream to include the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley and Unincorporated Contra Costa County. - - Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the flow rates downstream in the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley and unincorporated Contra Costa County. - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-41 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the turbidity in the creek by acting as a trap for sediment. Additional: This will improve the quality of stormwater discharge to the Delta by improving the function of a degraded and polluted marsh. Additional: This project will improve the quality of stormwater discharged to the Delta. Marsh Creek has a mercury TMDL, and significant quantities of mercury are impounded in sediment behind the reservoir. Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the turbidity in the creek by acting as a trap for sediment and mercury from the upstream mine. Marsh Creek has a TMDL for mercury. Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Primary: Restore the marsh habitat at the mouth of East Antioch Creek. Primary: This project will prepare and implement a plan to restore various habitats located in the Marsh Creek Reservoir. - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - Additional: Cleans up a hazardous waste site that has not been remediated to date. Additional: Restores upland and wetland habitat and examines methods of minimizing mercury methylation and downstream transport. - Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - Additional: Local stakeholders have proposed adding a recreation component to the project that includes bird watching platforms and other passive public access. Additional: Long-term goal is to reopen the reservoir for recreation. Has been closed to the public since mid-1970s due to elevated mercury levels in fish and concern about fishing and eating these fish. - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Additional: Basin capture and meters stormwater flows to prevent downstream flooding. Additional: Increase the conveyance of flows to the delta. Additional: Project may also improve basin capacity and stormwater detention. - Additional: This project will increase creek capacity to handle storm runoff and reduce the potential of flooding of neighboring communities along the creek. Improve regional flood risk management Primary: Ensure the structural stability of the dam embankment of a vital flood control facility. Additional: Increase the conveyance of flows to the delta. Additional: Project may also improve basin capacity and stormwater detention. Primary: Ensure the structural stability of the dam embankment of a vital flood control facility. Primary: This project to reduce the potential of flooding of neighboring communities along the creek. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-42 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: This project is located within the large DAC in Antioch and that DAC is the primary beneficiary of the reduced flood risk and remediation of a hazardous waste site. - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: Public will be involved in the planning process. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives The seismic safety of this dam is especially critical because a very large (2,100 student) high school is located immediately downstream of the dam. The emergency spillway actually passes through the sports fields of the high school. - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - Yes: Cleans up un-remediated hazardous waste site located adjacent to the Delta. Yes: Restoration of this important portion of the watershed will improve the area’s ecological health and will limit the amount of mercury available for bioutilization. - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Yes: Creek hydrology model assumes an infiltration rate based on GIS and the land use. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - Yes Yes - - Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes - Yes Yes Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-43 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention - Yes Yes Yes Yes Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - Yes - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes Yes - - Forest Management - - Yes - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-44 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 7/1/2014 8/1/2020 9/1/2014 6/1/2015 9/1/2016 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2014 - 1/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 7/1/2014 8/1/2020 9/1/2016 - 9/1/2020 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2017 - 9/1/2020 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2017 - 9/1/2020 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 - - 9/1/2020 Construction/ ImplementaProject Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-45 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Est. Completion Date 7/1/2014 8/1/2020 9/1/2017 6/1/2015 9/1/2020 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2020 - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600 ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600 ECC HCP (PSR needed) - USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECCHCP coverage (PSR needed) Status? - Permitting has not begun. Permitting has not begun, but will occur closer to construction. - They have not been started yet. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required DSOD will need to be involved in any assessment and will ultimately need to issue a permit for any dam reconstruction or modification. N/A None DSOD will need to be involved in any assessment and will ultimately need to issue a permit for any dam reconstruction or modification. N/A Status? DSOD is familiar with the dam and inspects it annually. Specific permit application will follow seismic assessment. - N/A DSOD is familiar with the dam and inspects it annually. Specific permit application will follow seismic assessment. - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Funding is an issue. Funding may be an issue. - Funding is an issue. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA $815,000 NA NA $230,000 Planning $215,000 $200,000 $515,000 $425,000 $160,000 Design $1 $576,000 $70,000 NA $130,000 Environmental Review $15,000 $576,000 $80,000 $15,000 $100,000 Permits Unknown Unknown NA Unknown $65,000 Construction/Implementation $1 $4,728,000 $3,580,000 NA $2,645,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance Unknown Unknown $560,000 NA $283,000 Other $23,000 $1,700,000 $491,000 $31,000 $51,000 Total Project Cost $253,000 $9,220,000 $5,356,000 $471,000 $3,664,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $127,000 $200,000 $2,000,000 $175,000 $250,000 Regional Assessments - - - Yes - Developmental Fees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax Yes - Yes Yes Yes Contributions - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-46 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $126,000 $9,020,000 $3,356,000 $296,000 $3,414,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Cit i #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-47 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Project ID # 15 16 17 18 19 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Describe the project The master plan for Marsh Creek included a series of detention basins as well as selective widening of the channel. This project is one of the selective widening projects. It extends from the Dainty Road crossing of the creek downstream to the creek’s confluence with Sand Creek. The project is needed to contain 100-year flood flows and 50-year flood flows with freeboard in the creek and prevent damaging, polluted overflows into adjacent areas. Oakley and Trembath Basins are important components of the master planned drainage infrastructure for the East Antioch Creek watershed in Antioch. The main stern of East Antioch Creek features three main detention basins which temporarily store stormwater and release it slowly once the storm has passed. One of these basins (Lindsey) is functionally complete. Of the other two, Oakley Basin is partially constructed and Trembath Basin, located just downstream of Oakley Basin, has yet to be constructed. This project will complete Oakley Basin and construct Trembath Basin. Trembath Basin will consist of a 20-foot high earthen dam and appurtenant structures, and wetland enhancement and mitigation. Oakley Basin work would consist of excavating material to expand the impound volume. The projects are needed to reduce flood risk to communities in Antioch within the East Antioch Creek watershed. Design and construct channel improvements from the downstream end of “L” Street Crossing to the upstream end of the 10th Street culverts in conjunction with the City of Antioch. Project includes selective channel widening and floodwalls, and additional culverts under the Union Pacific Railroad. The project assesses seismic performance of existing earthfill dam embankments and recommends retrofit improvements, if needed. It includes a two-phase approach: start with hazard assessment, and proceed to more detailed geotechnical analysis if warranted. The dam was constructed in the 1960s and is unlikely to withstand an earthquake by today’s more stringent standards. The actual seismic retrofit of the dam, if warranted, is scoped as a separate project. This project proposes to construct an approximately 4-acre biofilter to treat flows and removed sediment from Kellogg Creek before entering Discovery Bay. Dredging Discovery Bay near Newport Drive is very expensive and also it has been difficult to secure the needed regulatory permits. This project will remove a minimum of 50 percent of the sediment load and associated pollutants from Kellogg Creek. A majority of the sediment load in Kellogg Creek comes from agricultural tailwater return in the summer irrigation season. As such, the basin will capture more summertime flows and pass most winter storm flows. Sediment will settle out and pollutants will be treated in the biofilter using natural processes. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - City of Antioch City of Antioch - Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - Additional: This project has flood risk reduction benefits not only at the project site, but all the way down to the confluence with the San Joaquin River. - Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the flow rates downstream to include the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley and Unincorporated Contra Costa County. Additional: The sedimentation basin will operate to serve 10,900 acres of agricultural farmland and open space downstream of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Erosion from the upper watershed would be contained in the basin versus Discovery Bay and the Delta Sloughs. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-48 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District using existing infrastructure Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Additional: Improves the Delta water quality by passively removing the silt from the creek flow. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. Additional: The detention basins in this project will trap significant amounts of sediment as well as trash, resulting in cleaner stormwater reaching the Delta. - Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the turbidity in the creek by acting as a trap for sediment. Additional: Improves the Delta water quality by passively removing the silt from the creek storm flows. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Additional: This project will increase creek capacity to handle storm runoff and reduce the potential of flooding for the neighboring communities along the creek. Additional: The detention basins will retain storm flows and meter storm flows out of the basin at a lower rate. Additional: Improvement of the existing channel to handle and prevent storm water flows from overbanking the creek and flooding the adjacent properties/DAC. Additional: Basin capture and meters stormwater flows to prevent downstream flooding. Primary: Manages stormwater within the region by passively removing the silt from the Kellogg Creek storm flows. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-49 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Improve regional flood risk management Primary: This project will reduce the potential of flooding for the neighboring communities along the creek. Primary: The detention basin will retain storm flows and meter storm flows out of the basin at a lower rate. Primary: Improvement of the existing channel to handle and prevent stormwater flows from overbanking the creek and flooding the adjacent properties/DAC. Primary: Ensure the structural stability of the dam embankments of a vital flood control facility. - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: This project is located directly upstream of the large DAC in Antioch and that DAC is the primary beneficiary of the reduced flood risk. Additional: This project will significantly reduce the flooding potential for the adjacent DAC area. - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - Yes: This project includes regional detention basin facilities that provide floodwater storage as well as traps for sediment and trash. Wetland restoration is also a project component; all of this improves the quality of stormwater in the watershed. - - Yes: Construction of the basin will reduce the sediment and associated pollutant load to Kellogg Creek before it enters Discovery Bay and the Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes Yes Yes Yes - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - Yes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-50 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - Yes - - - Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local Yes - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention Yes Yes Yes - Yes Salt and Salinity Management Urban Runoff Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Yes Yes Yes Yes - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Yes Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes - - - Forest Management - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-51 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management Yes - - Yes Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Est. Completion Date 9/1/2016 8/1/2014 8/1/2017 7/1/2014 8/1/2013 Feasibility Project Status Completed Completed Completed Not Applicable In Progress Est. Completion Date 1/1/2012 8/1/2012 1/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 Environ- mental Assess. Project Status Not Started In Progress Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 8/1/2014 8/1/2020 7/1/2014 8/1/2013 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 9/1/2014 8/1/2020 - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 12/1/2014 8/1/2020 - 8/1/2020 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 4/1/2015 8/1/2020 - 8/1/2020 Building/Other Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-52 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 - 8/1/2020 - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 4/1/2015 8/1/2020 7/1/2015 8/1/2020 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2016 - - 8/1/2020 Environmental Permits Describe any required USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) USACE 404, DFG 1600, RWQCB Water Quality Cert. - USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) Status? They have not been started yet. Many baseline studies have been completed in support of the HCP Project Study Report (PSR). Other applications will be submitted closer to project advertise. Permits have not been started. Will commence process when closer to construction and funding has been secured. - Preliminary studies have been started. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required N/A Approval of Division of Safety of Dams for dam construction. - DSOD will need to be involved in any assessment and will ultimately need to issue a permit for any dam reconstruction or modification. N/A Status? - Initial meeting with DSOD completed. Design guidance received from DSOD. - DSOD is familiar with the dam and inspects it annually. Specific permit application will follow seismic assessment. N/A Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties Funding is an issue. Funding is an issue. Fiscal ability of maintenance entity (City of Antioch) to assume ownership may become an issue. Local match is a challenge in this area. Another project located just downstream on West Antioch Creek is under design and will be implemented soon. - Funding is an issue. Mitigation requirements by environmental agencies have increased project costs. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement $420,000 $1,280,000 $155,000 NA NA Planning $295,000 $842,000 $345,000 $315,000 $134,000 Design $90,000 $1,560,000 $180,000 $1 $237,000 Environmental Review $545,000 $250,000 $80,000 $15,000 $168,000 Permits $65,000 Unknown $90,000 $1 $30,000 Construction/Implementation $2,325,000 $5,009,000 $3,240,000 $1 $325,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $283,000 Unknown $370,000 $1 $1,200,000 Other $20,000 Unknown $446,000 $33,000 NA Total Project Cost $4,043,000 $10,051,000 $4,906,000 $363,004 $2,094,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-53 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $250,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $175,000 $894,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees Yes Yes Yes Yes - User Rates - - - - Yes User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax Yes - - Yes - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $3,793,000 $7,051,000 $4,806,000 $188,004 $1,200,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: This project will reduce flood risk to the Antioch DAC. If the project was not implemented and the area was to flood, the residents of the DAC would be exposed to toxic stormwater. Yes: This project will reduce the amount of flooding and the damages associated with the flooding. It further prevents public health risks associated with exposure to bacterial or chemical pollutants that are present in floodwaters. - - What Community(ies)? - City of Antioch DACs within the City of Antioch - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - The project EIR included public notification of project alternatives. City of Antioch has performed community outreach. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-54 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Project ID # 20 21 22 23 24 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Monitoring Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project This project will construct a 300 ac-ft regional detention basin on Sand Creek. The existing 40 ac-ft basin will be expanded into a 300 ac-ft offline basin with the addition of a new intake structure, primary and emergency spillways, a low flow channel, and a riparian mitigation area. This will reduce the flood potential downstream of this facility. This project will excavate and expand the storage area of the existing Deer Creek Reservoir to increase stormwater holding capacity and reduce flood flows downstream. The Deer Creek Reservoir dam was built in 1960 for a 50-year capacity. The expansion of the facility is needed to provide 100-year capacity to the developing areas of Brentwood downstream, including Heritage High School, which is immediately downstream from the facility. This project will also acquire additional land rights over an area currently encumbered by only a flowage easement, which is insufficient. The project will upgrade the flowage easement to a drainage easement. Marsh Creek Reservoir is located downstream of the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. Remedial actions for the mine are being investigated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); however, the scope of the USACE assessment is limited to the mine site, Marsh Creek above the reservoir, and the reservoir. This project will investigate whether low dissolved oxygen conditions exist seasonally within the reservoir and whether the presence of legacy mercury contamination in reservoir sediments and/or low dissolved oxygen conditions in the reservoir promote the production of methylmercury within the reservoir or downstream in Marsh Creek. Low dissolved oxygen in reservoirs has been shown to cause elevated mercury concentrations in other reservoirs. This project would monitor mercury and methylmercury in water and sediments of the reservoir and downstream, as well as DO profiles in the reservoir. The project would also monitor mercury in sentinel species (e.g., crayfish) and small fish. BBID and CCWD are working together to connect their water systems with an intertie that will improve the ability to sustain adequate water supply for drought preparedness and after catastrophic events such as earthquakes, while also increasing the ability for these agencies to develop and share water resources more efficiently. Water can be shared between these two ECWMA members as well as delivered from CCWD through BBID and to agencies that have access to water supplies from the South Bay Aqueduct. The immediate project consists of approximately 200 feet of 48” pipeline to interconnect the two agencies and will be designed to allow for the installation of temporary pumps. A pump station may be added in a future phase to increase capacity. The full, five-phased Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project (Project) will replace 21,000 feet of the unlined Contra Costa Canal (the Canal) with a pipeline to improve source water quality by preventing intrusion of poor quality groundwater; eliminate up to 8 miles of 1930’s Canal embankments not designed for flood protection; and improve security and public safety by preventing access to the open water Canal. Phase 1 included 1,900 feet of pipeline, and was completed in 2009. Phase 2 will commence as early as 2013 and will install 7,000 feet of pipeline and a Canal flood isolation structure. The ultimate project includes improvements to the Canal Pumping Plant No. 1 to maintain existing flows to CCWD and its regional partners. The project will also require approximately 225,000 cubic yards of fill material. At this time, the expectation is that this borrow material can be obtained from the Sand Creek Detention Basin that is an IRWM Project. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Brentwood - BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition, Contra Costa Clean Water Program Byron Bethany Irrigation District Department of Water Resources, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Public Health ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - Primary: The project increases water supply reliability while also increasing the opportunities for water agencies in both the East Contra Costa & Bay Area regions to develop and share water resources more efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way. Additional: Encasing the unlined Canal improves water quality since this eliminates high TDS shallow groundwater from entering the Contra Costa Canal. All downstream water users benefit from improvements in source water quality including recycled water. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: This basin will help to provide flood protection downstream for the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley. This basin is planned to be part of Brentwood’s recreational park systems by having soccer fields in the bottom of the basin, next to a public park. Additional: This project will reduce flood risk in Deer Creek and Marsh Creek, the largest stream in the area. Additional: This study may lead to control measures addressing TMDLs for mercury established by both the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 9 Marsh Creek discharges to the Delta just upstream of the Region 2 boundary. Additional: The project increases water supply reliability while also increasing the opportunities for water agencies in both the East Contra Costa & Bay Area regions to develop and share water resources. Additional: Benefits all water users within Central and Eastern Contra Costa County, DWD, City of Brentwood, Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, Concord, Martinez and portions of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - Additional: The intertie could facilitate the transfer of water between agencies participating in the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-55 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - Additional: Placing the unlined Canal within a pipeline serves water by minimizing evaporation and loss of canal water to the ground. Increase water transfers - - - Additional: The intertie could facilitate the transfer of water between CCWD and BBID, agencies participating in the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project, and between CCWD and agencies connected to the South Bay Aqueduct. - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - Additional: The intertie is a short interconnection between two existing pipelines in close proximity to each other. - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Primary: The full, 5-phased CCWD Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project will replace 4 miles of the unlined Contra Costa Canal with a pipeline to improve source water quality available to CCWD by preventing intrusion of poor quality groundwater. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - Primary: This study may lead to control measures addressing TMDLs for mercury established by both the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boards. - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Additional: Basin will have an in-line treatment wetlands for low flows and stormwater. Most of the urban watershed does not have modern stormwater BMPs because it was developed in the 1980s and 1990s. The Basin can serve this role to improve SW quality. - Additional: This is part of an overall mercury control strategy implemented as a requirement of stormwater dischargers in Eastern Contra Costa County. - - Restoration and Enhancement of Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Additional: Can enhance habitat within the basin by having a mitigation/low flow area designated for planning and habitat. - Additional: Reducing mercury sources and addressing processes that contribute to mercury methylation is a stated goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration - Additional: The Project is identified as Early Action by the Delta Stewardship Council in the Interim Delta Plan. If the Project doesn’t move forward, DWR’s Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-56 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Program. Mercury accumulation in fish is a known threat to wildlife habitat. Project (mandated, SBX7-1 Section 85085) will be delayed. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - Additional: Reducing mercury sources and addressing processes that contribute to mercury methylation is a stated goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration Program. Additional: The intertie would support the transfer of water via existing facilities that have state-of-the-art fish screens. This will minimize and avoid impacts on sensitive aquatic species and improve the Delta ecosystem. - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - Additional: Reducing mercury levels in fish will, over time, increase the amount of fish that can be safely consumed by subsistence fishers. - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Additional: This off-line detention facility is to reduce the flow rate in Sand Creek by detaining flow within the basin and metering the outflows. This action will provide flood protection downstream of the basin. Additional: This project will increase the available capacity in Deer Creek Reservoir behind the existing dam by selectively excavating the storage area. The expanded reservoir will store runoff and meter flows out of the basin, preventing flooding downstream. Additional: This is part of an overall mercury control strategy implemented as a requirement of stormwater dischargers in Eastern Contra Costa County. - - Improve regional flood risk management Primary: This basin will help to provide flood protection downstream for the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley. The basin is an important component of the regional flood master plan for the Marsh Creek watershed. Primary: This project will increase the available capacity in Deer Creek Reservoir by selectively excavating the storage area. It will reduce the flood risk on Deer Creek and downstream communities along Marsh Creek, including Heritage High School. - - Additional: The project will also eliminate up to 8 miles of aging canal embankments that were not intended to provide flood protection, yet are currently relied upon for that purpose. Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - Additional: DACs surround the fishable receiving waters that would benefit from any methylmercury reduction measures applied to Marsh Creek. - Additional: The project improves source water quality to all of CCWD customers, many of which are located in DAC areas. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: Conducting this project with regional stakeholders will increase awareness of the impacts due to legacy mercury mines and potential control measures available to downstream reservoir owners. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - Investigating the potential linkages between low dissolved oxygen in a reservoir and methylmercury production could provide valuable lessons learned applicable to lakes and reservoirs throughout the state. This would be important to the Mercury in Lakes Policy currently being scoped by the State Water Resources Control Board. - The project further improves source water quality by eliminating direct access and stormwater intrusion into a water supply. It will improve security and public safety by preventing access to the open water canal. Program Preferences – Ranking Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - Yes: The intertie would facilitate the transfer of water between the ECCC and Bay Area IRWM regions with minimal environmental effects. Yes: Replacement of the Contra Costa Canal with a pipeline allow DWR Dutch Slough Tidal Restoration Project to proceed, and provides available upstream supplies to support CVP and SWP. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-57 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - Yes: The Project improves source water quality by preventing intrusion of saline groundwater and by eliminating access and stormwater intrusion into the open water canal. Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Yes: Without the Project, the risk of flood-related damages under catastrophic failure of the earthen embankments, Delta levee failure, or a significant seismic event will persist, inundating adjacent areas, damaging property, and endangering the public. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - Yes: The project increases water supply reliability for two IRWM regions, facilitates water transfers, and pre-empts the need for duplicative conveyance facilities. Yes: The Canal is a compliance point for water quality in the Delta; improved water quality reduces required upstream releases and increases available water supplies. Encasing the Canal eliminates groundwater infiltration and water quality degradation. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Yes: Contribute to mercury methylation is a stated goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration Program. Mercury accumulation in fish is a known threat to wildlife habitat. Yes: Using a state-of-the-art fish screen to export water from the Delta minimizes impacts to sensitive habitat. Yes: The completion of DWR’s Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project is legislatively mandated (SBX7-1) and is dependent on the construction of 11,000 ft of the pipeline adjacent to the Dutch Slough project site. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: Uses existing pipelines to convey water minimizes the need for new pipeline right-of-ways. Yes: The project strives to create a more compatible land use with adjacent housing projects. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - Yes - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes Yes Yes - Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes - Yes - Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - Yes - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - Yes - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - Yes - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - Yes - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Yes - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - Yes - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-58 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - Yes - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Yes Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - Yes - - Pollution Prevention Yes Yes Yes - Yes Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Yes Urban Runoff Management Yes Yes - - Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Yes Yes - - Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - Yes - Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management Yes Yes Yes - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Planning Project Status In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Completed Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-59 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 12/1/2013 6/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Completed Completed Not Applicable In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date 1/1/2012 1/1/2012 - 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Completed Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 1/1/2012 9/1/2014 - 1/1/2014 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - - 12/1/2016 - 9/1/2012 Design Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2017 1/1/2015 - 9/1/2014 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2017 3/1/2015 - 9/1/2014 9/1/2012 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - - - - 9/1/2012 Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2017 7/1/2015 - 9/1/2014 - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 - - 9/1/2015 - Environmental Permits Describe any required USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP Coverage (PSR in progress) USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) CDFG permits may be required for collection of biological samples and working in streams. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Exemption (NOE) CEQA was satisfied through filing a Notice of Determination in November 2006. NEPA was satisfied through an EA/FONSI in July 2007. All applicable federal, state, and local permit applications were obtained in 2007. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-60 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Status? Baseline studies for the basin are underway. These permits have not been initiated yet. Not yet applied for but can be obtained in relatively short timeframes. CEQA NOE pending receipt of conceptual design and approval to proceed. For future phases, permits will be updated or amended to reflect changed field conditions. For example, implementation of the Rock Slough Fish Screen should allow for more flexible work windows since sensitive aquatic species are no longer able to enter the Canal. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - Encroachment permits may be needed from Contra Costa Flood Control and Water District. Sampling on private lands would require owner permission. TBD. Expect that no additional permits are required. MP 620, Bureau of Reclamation. Obtained in Spring 2007, update for each segment. WAPA Power Line Relocation Agreement, update for each segment. Status? - - Not yet applied for but can be obtained in relatively short timeframes. - DFG 1600 permit 25 years. File amendments as new segment commence. DFG 2081 GGS Take Permit, needed for each segment. Army Corps 404 Permit, renew for an additional 10 years on August 1, 2017. CVRWQCB 401 Permit, good for the life of the project. Provide notification. Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties Funding is an issue. Funding is an issue. - Unknown - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement $130,000 $214,000 NA NA $430,000 Planning $340,000 $180,000 $50,000 NA $200,000 Design $530,000 $100,000 NA NA $750,000 Environmental Review $50,000 $240,000 NA NA $100,000 Permits $25,000 $145,000 NA NA $20,000 Construction/Implementation $3,140,000 $1,340,000 $450,000 NA $55,000,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $1,750,000 $250,000 NA NA NA Other $250,000 NA NA $200,000 $2,000,000 Total Project Cost $6,215,000 $2,469,000 $500,000 $200,000 $58,500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $2,000,000 $500,000 $75,000 $50,000 - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees Yes - - - Yes User Rates - - - - Yes User Fees - - Yes Yes - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Yes Property Tax Yes - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - Yes Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-61 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $4,215,000 $1,969,000 $425,000 $150,000 $58,500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - Yes: DACs surround the fishable receiving waters that would benefit from any methylmercury reduction measures applied to Marsh Creek. - Yes: Supports higher quality water service to DAC areas within Contra Costa County, Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, and Concord. What Community(ies)? - - Solano County, Sacramento County, Antioch, Pittsburg, Bethel Island/Franks Tracts - Portions of Contra Costa County, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - This project is still in the planning/development phase. - The CCWD service area includes Antioch, Pittsburg, and Bay Point which are largely composed of DACs. CCWD regularly communicates with these communities through the ECWMA and targeted outreach activities via the environmental review process. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - Yes: Reducing mercury concentrations in fish will increase available food supplies and reduce potential health risks for subsistence fishers. - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: Should DO management of Marsh Creek Reservoir be identified as a potential control measure, that action may also reduce methane emissions from the reservoir. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. - Yes: Lowers the amount of pumping from CCWD’s alternative supply sources. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-62 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project ID # 25 26 27 28 29 Project Description Project Type Environmental (e.g., habitat) Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project Los Vaqueros (LV) Pond E-7 is man-made and is used to promote red legged frog and California tiger salamander habitat in the Los Vaqueros Watershed. The Pond’s earthen embankment is 150 feet long by 12 feet high. The embankment has failed on CCWD property, which was caused by one or more storm events that could not be passed by the existing undersized and clogged spillway culvert. The failed embankment does not support objectives of the pond and the embankment could further erode during future storms causing damage and further limiting use of the pond. The Contra Costa Canal meadows siphon is located below a low-lying area north of Buchanan Road in the City of Pittsburg. The low-lying area functions as an accidental detention basin which accepts stormwater from the Highlands Ranch development fed from multiple storm drain pipes as well as runoff from nearby drainage areas. Water collected in this low area flows out through a 48-inch pipe that feeds an existing detention basin downstream. The terrain of the low lying area does not provide for positive drainage resulting in year-round ponding. The growth of trees and vegetation in the year-round wet environment of the low area directly over the canal siphon is a major concern. Tree roots can damage the siphon and wetlands prevent routine maintenance. This project may include the corrective option to install a junction box to connect all storm drains. The junction box would allow overflow to utilize the low area for water storage during peak flows. The 48 mile long Contra Costa Canal transports water from the Delta at Rock Slough to industrial, municipal, commercial, residential customers, and water treatment plants in Contra Costa County. The uphill embankment of the Contra Costa Canal near Milepost 23.03 in Bay Point experienced visible movement last winter causing a significant bulge in the liner. Temporary sheet pipes were installed for winter slope protection. This project will provide permanent repairs to stabilize the slope and prevent further movement of the Canal liner and replacement of the bulging liner. Bypass pumping or piping will be implemented to facilitate the repair work. The State has indicated that excess nutrients may be impacting Delta species, and is currently evaluating the role of ammonia in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. DDSD discharges wastewater into the New York Slough, and has an exemplary record of eight consecutive years of 100% compliance with permit requirements. As regulations get more stringent or constituents of emerging concern (CECs) are identified, planning and engineering are needed to design advanced treatment facilities that may be needed to improve effluent quality and ensure that receiving water quality and beneficial uses are maintained. This project involves the planning, design and construction of advanced wastewater treatment facilities in order to address future treatment needs for reduction of nutrients and emerging constituents of concern in wastewater effluent. DDSD is currently studying advanced treatment alternatives to determine suitability for consideration during the project planning phase. This project involves the planning, design, and construction of an advanced water treatment facility at DDSD designed to take wastewater secondary effluent or brackish water and treat it to high-purity water standards. New facilities will include microfiltration and reverse osmosis treatment units, as well as pumps, storage, and piping. This treatment facility will have capability to expand using modular units; the current project is sized for a 5 MGD facility. Advanced treatment of secondary effluent will significantly reduce TDS, ammonia, and other constituents. When this high-purity water is used for cooling water, it will reduce chemical usage and increase the number of cycles at the power plant, thus freeing up recycled water capacity for other users. A drought-tolerant, available high-purity supply can provide water for clean industrial manufacturing and other uses. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name East Contra Costa Agricultural Trust (ECCAT), East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) City of Pittsburg - - City of Antioch ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Additional: Damage to the siphon from tree roots would allow for infiltration and increase sediment load in the canal which carries source water to treatment plants. Increased sediment requires greater treatment. Additional: Prevent debris resulting from earth movement from increasing sediments in the canal which carries source water to the treatment plants. Increased sediment in source water requires greater treatment at the plants. - Additional: The project has the potential to increase regional cost efficiencies. A high-quality supply can result in decreased chemical use and cost when used in cooling towers. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Three agencies (Contra Costa Water District, East Contra Costa Agricultural Trust, and East Bay Regional Park District) are beneficiaries to this project. - - Additional: DDSD treatment plant serves Antioch, Pittsburg, and Bay Point, providing regional wastewater treatment. Improved water quality will provide region-wide benefits. Improved recycled water quality will expand supply and uses. Additional: This project will increase water supply for the region, providing a high purity supply for many potential uses. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - Additional: Advanced treated effluent that is sent to the recycled water facility will result in improved recycled water quality, expanding supply and use. Primary: This region relies heavily on water from the Delta. Advanced treatment of secondary effluent and brackish water will provide an increased, drought-tolerant supply for the region that is less subject to Delta influences. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - Primary: Eliminating the year-round storage of surface run-off at the low lying area at the canal siphon would Primary: Stabilizing the slope will minimize future ground movement in the vicinity of the canal. Repair of the - Additional: Increasing recycled water supply and availability can offset urban water use and help water suppliers to Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-63 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo eliminate trees and other vegetative growth that can cause root damage to the siphon resulting in leaks and water loss. damaged concrete liner will prevent further leaks and water loss. meet 20% by 2020 potable water conservation targets. Increase water transfers - - Additional: Repair of the damaged concrete liner will prevent leaks and water loss allowing more to be distributed within the canal system. - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Additional: Damage to the siphon from tree roots would allow for infiltration and increase sediment load in the canal which carries source water to treatment plants. Additional: Among many industries, the canal delivers raw water to municipal water treatment plants. Slope stabilization will minimize earth and debris to slough into the canal causing higher source water sediment. Additional: While DDSD meets all discharge standards, advanced wastewater treatment will further reduce nutrients, TDS, and constituents of emerging concern. The discharge to NY Slough is mixed with receiving waters that serve as source water. Additional: Treating secondary effluent with advanced treatment will reduce mass loadings in discharge water, helping to protect source water quality. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - Additional: Damage to the siphon from tree roots would allow for infiltration and increase sediment load in the canal which carries source water to treatment plants. Increase sediment requires greater treatment. - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - Additional: Advanced treatment of wastewater effluent will improve the recycled water quality that is produced at DDSD’s recycled water facility. Additional: This project will implement advanced treatment to improve regional recycled water quality. Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - Primary: The purpose of this project is to plan, design and construct advanced wastewater treatment facilities to meet future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta. Additional: Increased use of advanced treated secondary effluent will decrease wastewater discharges and associated mass loading to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: The project would provide for detention of peak storm flows and settlement of debris and controlled downstream discharge. - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Primary: Lessen impact to egg mass and larvae stage of red legged frog and California tiger salamander. - Additional: The project will provide protection against further earth movement that would disrupt habitats along the hillside. Additional: Improved wastewater discharge quality to the Bay/Delta would minimize impacts to the Additional: Expanded recycled water use may offset delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-64 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo ecosystem and other environmental resources. instream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Additional: By allowing the peak storm runoff to overflow and detained locally, the impact to the downstream detention basin at Los Medanos College downstream is minimized. - - - Improve regional flood risk management - Additional: By allowing the peak storm runoff to overflow and detained locally, the impact to the downstream detention basin at Los Medanos College downstream is minimized. Additional: The project will reduce further damage to the concrete canal liner that may blow out if a landslide occurs and causes flooding to properties downhill. - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - Additional: Census tracts with DACs as defined by the State are located across the DDSD service area in Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. The community will have opportunities for involvement in this project and the IRWM process. Additional: There are DACs within DDSD’s service area in Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch, and water supply and treatment planning will involve these DACs. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - Additional: The public will be informed and have opportunities to be involved in this project as it proceeds towards planning. Information will also be provided to increase awareness of water resource management issues. Additional: Development and distribution of public information through DDSD’s website, print materials, or through the CEQA process will increase awareness of water resource management issues and projects with the general public. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: This project if grant funded will resolve a conflict within the ECCC Region. The East Contra Costa Agricultural Trust (ECCAT) indicated they have no funding for the LV Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation. - - Yes: Water supply, water quality and habitat are issues of concern across the Bay-Delta. This project seeks to further improve effluent quality, reducing loadings to the Delta and expanding recycled water supply and use opportunities across the region. Yes: This project can improve water supply, quality, and reliability for the region, helping to address potential water-related conflicts resulting from climate change or increasing Delta constraints. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Yes: Reduce sediment from entering the canal system from cracks caused by trees and heavy vegetation. Yes: Earth movement causes earth and debris to fall into the canal resulting in high sedimentation of this source water that is delivered to the local water treatment plants. - Yes: An advanced treatment facility that takes in brackish water from existing intakes can improve water quality from source to tap. Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-65 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - Yes: Minimizes damage to the canal system from tree roots that can cause leaks and water loss. Yes: Replacement of the bulging concrete liner will reduce or eliminate leaks in this section of the canal, thus increasing supplies for downstream users. Yes: Expanded recycled water use increases the region’s water supplies. Combined with improved quality, this source also allows more efficient and flexible use of water resources. Yes: This facility will increase water supplies, and will provide more efficient and flexible use of water resources as it will be capable of treating water of varying quality and producing high purity water for expanded uses. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - Yes: Improved effluent quality, recycled water quality and quantity can contribute to improvement in ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed. Yes: Improved water quality may improve ecological health. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: This project will identify water resource availability and quality, fostering communication with land use planners and informing land use plans. Yes: The planning process will foster increased communication and collaboration of planners and water managers. Information on increased water supply and quality will inform land use plans and provide increased opportunities for use of this water. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - Yes Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - Yes Yes Yes Yes Climate Change Response Actions - - - Yes Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes - - Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes Yes Yes Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - Yes Yes - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - Yes Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - Yes - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - Yes Yes - Yes System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - Yes Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - Yes Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-66 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Yes Yes - Yes Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - Yes Yes Pollution Prevention - - Yes Yes - Salt and Salinity Management - - - Yes Yes Urban Runoff Management - Yes Yes - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Yes Yes - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Yes Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - Yes Yes Ecosystem Restoration Yes - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - Yes - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status Not Applicable In Progress In Progress Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date - 7/1/2013 9/1/2012 6/1/2016 12/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environ-mental Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-67 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Est. Completion Date 2/1/2013 7/1/2014 4/1/2013 6/1/2016 10/1/2013 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 4/1/2013 7/1/2014 5/1/2013 6/1/2016 10/1/2014 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 2/1/2013 7/1/2014 5/1/2013 - - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 2/1/2019 - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 8/1/2013 7/1/2015 12/1/2013 9/1/2020 3/1/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Permits include a DFG streambed alteration permit, USACE Nationwide 404 permit, and RWQCB 401 water quality certification. 1. United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CEC). 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Exemption (NOE). 1. United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CEC). 2) Notice of Exemption (NOE) under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). - - Status? Permits not yet submitted. NEPA and CEQA will be finalized in the first half of 2013. NEPA and CEQA will be completed in the first half of 2013. - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required Contra Costa County Grading Permit. MP 620 approval by USBR for modification and improvements to the Contra Costa Canal. 1. MP 620 Permit. Issued by USBR for modifications/repairs to the Contra Costa Canal. - - Status? Permit not yet submitted. MP 620 will be submitted once engineering design and NEPA are prepared. MP 620 can be issued once NEPA is completed and engineering design is approved. - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-68 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA Unknown Unknown Planning $2,800 $27,000 NA Unknown Unknown Design $29,000 $60,000 $70,000 Unknown Unknown Environmental Review $3,000 Unknown $8,000 Unknown Unknown Permits $5,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Construction/Implementation $145,000 $250,000 $550,000 Unknown Unknown Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $25,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other NA NA $10,000 $80,000,000 $50,000,000 Total Project Cost $209,800 $337,000 $638,000 $80,000,000 $50,000,000 Cost Estimate Available? Yes - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $52,000 $160,000 $319,000 - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates Yes Yes Yes - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $157,800 $177,000 $319,000 $80,000,000 $50,000,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - Yes: Water supply benefits to DACs include improved water reliability through recycled water expansion, which can reduce dependence on Delta supplies. Water quality improvements will also benefit the region and may provide economic improvements. Yes: Census tracts show significant areas in Pittsburg, Bay Point, and Antioch meeting the DAC definition. Adequate water supply and quality is a critical issue for this region. This project seeks to expand water supply and improve water quality. What Community(ies)? - - - DAC census tracts in Bay Point, Pittsburg and Antioch. Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - TBD – planning has not yet started. DACs will be involved as the project moves into planning. Environmental JusticDoes (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - Yes: This project improves water quality and expands water supply, which provides greater access to clean water and recreation. Yes: Will provide greater availability and access to clean water. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-69 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - Yes: Climate change is expected to result in drought and decreased water supply. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Yes: Climate change is expected to result in droughts and declining water supplies. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant, reliable supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-70 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project ID # 30 54 31 32 33 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Other Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project This project helps to meet water demands and reduce dependence on the Delta by expanding the recycled water system to serve industrial and irrigation users within the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. The expansion project involves the installation of pipelines, storage, pumps and retrofits that can be implemented in phases to serve demands as opportunities arise. Facilities in this expansion include the construction of a storage tank (0.9 MG), approximately 47,000 LF of new recycled water pipeline, rehabilitation of 48,200 LF of existing pipeline, a pump station, control and isolation valves, and site retrofits to serve 22 irrigation and industrial customers. This project will be capable of meeting recycled water average annual demands of 4,200 AFY. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration and salinity management are potential water quality concerns in the region. Water softeners from residences in the service area can contribute to higher salinity and TDS concentrations in the wastewater influent. This project involves implementation of a water softener rebate program for residents in order to reduce salinity and TDS loading to the wastewater treatment plant. Reducing TDS in the influent will improve recycled water quality and help reduce salinity. In California, water-related energy use consumes a significant percent of the State’s electricity and natural gas. In addition, there is a substantial water requirement for non-renewable forms of electricity generation. This is the basis of the water-energy nexus. This project will install a 1.1 MW PV solar energy system to offset 50-60% of the energy use and associated costs at the recycled water facility. This project is part of a Regional Renewable Energy Procurement Project, which provides additional cost savings through volume pricing. This project will improve recycled water facility sustainability, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing energy cost savings through cost control/stability of on-site renewable energy generation. Total dissolved solids concentrations and salinity management are potential water quality concerns in the region. DDSD operates a recycled water facility, and closely monitors the TDS concentration. Water with higher TDS concentrations has limits to its usefulness, and conventional treatment facilities have limited ability to significantly reduce TDS. Therefore, TDS management at treatment facilities is an important factor for producing high-quality recycled water. This project involves the installation of 10,500 LF of HDPE pipe to carry high TDS-containing water from Dow in Pittsburg to the optimal location at the treatment plant in order to reduce TDS concentration in the water produced at the recycled water facility. By improving water quality, this project can also increase water supply by increasing reuse and freeing up capacity for other users. Fats, oils and greases (FOG) that are improperly disposed into the sanitary sewer system are a major contributor to pipe blockages and sewer overflows. FOG that makes its way to the headworks of the treatment plant can negatively impact equipment and treatment. FOG discharges can come from both residences and commercial facilities within DDSD’s 42 sq. mile service area of Antioch, Bay Point, and Pittsburg. This project will design and construct a facility to accept up to 20,000 gallons of FOG per day from waste haulers, which will then be fed into digesters for treatment and biogas production. Construction involves modifying concrete pad, removing and replacing tank, and installing piping. This project will help keep greasy wastes out of the sanitary sewer collection system and the environment, reducing overflows, while enhancing biogas production at the treatment plant. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Pittsburg, City of Antioch, U.S. DOI, Bureau of Reclamation - - Dow - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: This project will incorporate efficiencies to reduce system operating cost. Also, DDSD recycled water rates are lower than raw/treated water rates, and provide landscape irrigation users with a source of nutrients, saving money for City parks. Additional: By reducing the amount of TDS/salinity in wastewater influent, DDSD can improve wastewater and recycled water treatment cost efficiencies. Improved recycled quality can reduce chemical usage and cost for cooling tower use. Primary: On-site generation of electricity will provide cost savings for recycled water production and distribution. Additional: By controlling the introduction of high TDS wastewater into the treatment plant, DDSD can improve wastewater and recycled water treatment cost efficiencies. Improved quality can reduce chemical usage and cost for cooling towers. Primary: Keeping FOG discharges out of the sewer system decreases system and equipment maintenance costs. A regional FOG receiving facility provides increased efficiency for waste haulers. Biogas enhancement decreases cost to purchase additional natural gas. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: This project expands recycled water use in Pittsburg and Antioch, helping to meet the region’s water supply needs. Recycled water system expansion across the region is also being coordinated with Ironhouse Sanitary District and City of Brentwood. Additional: Decreasing salinity of recycled water used for irrigation can benefit salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. Additional: This project can reduce demand on regional energy generation and transmission infrastructure. Region-wide benefits include addressing impacts of climate change. The regional energy procurement program is available to public agencies in Contra Costa. Additional: Decreasing TDS concentrations of recycled water used for irrigation can benefit salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. Additional: This project will expand a regional FOG collection facility, of benefit to DDSD’s 42 square mile service area and the surrounding communities. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Primary: Delta water is the major supply for Pittsburg and Antioch. This project will expand recycled water service to irrigation and industrial users in Antioch and Pittsburg, providing a drought-tolerant supply that is less subject to Delta influences. Additional: Improving recycled water quality can potentially expand its use for industrial and irrigation purposes. - Additional: This project seeks to improve recycled water quality, thus potentially expanding its use for industrial and irrigation purposes. - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: Switching irrigation and industrial uses from potable supplies to recycled water can offset urban water use and help water suppliers to - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-71 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo meet 20% by 2020 potable water conservation targets. Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Expanded recycled water use can replace Delta supplies, which can offset demands and reduce diversions; this may help reduce salinity/saltwater intrusion and protect source water quality. - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality Additional: This project expands recycled water distribution in the region for irrigation and industrial uses, and maintains recycled water quality. Primary: This project will improve recycled water quality by decreasing salinity/TDS concentration of the water entering the treatment facility. Additional: Providing on-site renewable energy for the recycled water facility will improve sustainability and help to maintain the recycled water facility. Primary: This project will improve recycled water quality by decreasing TDS concentration of the water entering the treatment facility. - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: While DDSD expects to remain in compliance with water quality and discharge regulations, increasing recycled water production and use reduces wastewater discharges and mass loading to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Additional: Increased recycled water production and use will decrease effluent discharges to the Delta. - Additional: Increased recycled water production and use will decrease effluent discharges to the Delta. - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Expanded recycled water use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Additional: Improved recycled water quality and expanded use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Additional: Solar power is clean energy. Switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources generated on-site may help minimize impacts to environmental resources. Additional: Improved recycled water quality and expanded use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Additional: Sewer overflows are detrimental to the environment. Providing a local FOG receiving facility may reduce improper discharges of FOG into the sewer system, thus reducing blockages and overflows. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-72 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Greater use of local, recycled water can be less energy intensive than conveying and treating imported water. This project will increase operating efficiency resulting in lower energy use and the associated GHG emissions from fossil fuel sources. - Additional: Switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources will reduce GHG emissions. This project will reduce GHG emissions by up to 642 annual metric tons of CO2. - Additional: Providing a local/regional FOG receiving facility can minimize trucking miles for waste haulers, thus reducing associated vehicle/greenhouse gas emissions. The nearest FOG collection facility is over 35 miles away. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: There are DACs within DDSD’s service area, and recycled water project planning will include involvement of these DACs in Pittsburg and Antioch. - Additional: Census tracts with DACs as defined by the State are located across the DDSD service area. The community will have opportunities for involvement in this project and the IRWM process. - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: DDSD website and project flyers will include information on the benefits of recycled water and its role in water management. - Additional: DDSD will provide project information to the general public and seek to increase awareness on water resource management issues, including the water energy nexus. - Additional: This project will be widely publicized to promote use and understanding of proper FOG disposal, and associated benefits to the environment. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Regional recycled water planning can improve water supply reliability through more effective use of resources, and cooperative planning to address future water supply related conflicts related to climate change and increasing Delta constraints. - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Expanded recycled water use increases the region’s water supplies, allowing more efficient and flexible use of water resources. Yes: Improved recycled water quality can expand the uses for industrial purposes, providing more efficient and flexible use of this recycled water supply. Improved quality can increase cycles/reuse in cooling towers, freeing up capacity for other users. Yes: There may be indirect water increase through the offsetting of water loss from fossil fuel energy production. Yes: Improved recycled water quality can expand the uses for industrial purposes, providing more efficient and flexible use of this recycled water supply. Improved quality can increase - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-73 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo cycles/reuse in cooling towers, freeing up capacity for other users. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Increased use of recycled water can positively impact Bay-Delta water supply and water quality, by potentially reducing Delta diversions, and decreasing wastewater discharges. These contribute to Bay-Delta ecological health. Yes: Better control and reduction of TDS concentration in the recycled water that is used for irrigation purpose can help salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. - Yes: Better control and reduction of TDS concentration in the recycled water that is used for irrigation purposes can help salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. Yes: Prevention of sewer overflows helps to protect human health, wildlife and water quality in the watershed. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Yes: Recycled water distribution expansion planning will identify water resource availability and quality, fostering communication with county and city land use planners and informing their land use plans. - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes - Yes - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes Yes - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Yes - Yes Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits Yes - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes Yes - Yes - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local Yes - Yes - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water Yes Yes - Yes - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-74 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use Yes Yes - Yes - Pollution Prevention - - - - Yes Salt and Salinity Management - Yes - Yes - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) Yes - Yes - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status In Progress Not Started In Progress Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 12/1/2012 5/1/2013 9/1/2012 4/1/2013 - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Completed Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - 6/1/2013 9/1/2012 - - Environ-mental AssProject Status In Progress Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Completed Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-75 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Est. Completion Date 10/1/2013 - 6/1/2013 - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 10/1/2014 - 6/1/2013 10/1/2013 4/1/2016 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 3/1/2016 7/1/2015 6/1/2014 4/1/2014 10/1/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - - Status? Not started. - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-76 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties The list of potential water users and water demands was developed through the DDSD Recycled Water Master Plan. There are no expected impacts related to technical feasibility; the only uncertainties are related to the timing of recycled water connection for some users. Therefore, it is expected that users will be added in phases based on readiness and water demand. - - Changing the entry point of the high-TDS, low-volume waste stream into the treatment process requires review and approval by the SWRCB. This review is underway to confirm the feasibility of the proposal and identify any regulatory issues and requirements. - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Planning Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Design Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Environmental Review Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Permits Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Construction/Implementation Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Environmental Mitigation/Compliance Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other $25,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Total Project Cost $25,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount $270,000 - - - - State Grants Yes - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants Yes - - - - Currently unfunded $24,730,000 $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: The water supply benefits to DACs in this project include improved water reliability through recycled water expansion. This project will reduce dependence on Delta supplies, is drought tolerant, and has the potential to improve economic development. - - - - What Community(ies)? Census tract areas in Pittsburg and Antioch, esp. north of Hwy. 4. - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-77 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Outreach and involvement are underway, as this project is in the early planning stages. - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? Yes: DDSD’s recycled water is a reliable, affordable resource, resulting in water and fertilizer cost savings compared to current irrigation. This can be a benefit to cities when used on parks which provide recreation access to the community. - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: Climate change is expected to result in drought and decreased water supplies. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Yes: Will allow more efficient use/reuse of water, expanding a drought-tolerant supply for the region. Yes: Potential impact of climate change include decreased water supplies and increased energy demand. Switching from distributed energy/fossil fuel to on-site renewable energy can reduce/offset water and energy demand over current power generation. Yes: Will allow more efficient use/reuse of water, expanding a drought-tolerant supply for the region. - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: This expansion project evaluates system operation, identifying efficiencies and optimization to reduce power use. Reduction of power use will decrease the associated greenhouse gas emissions generated from conventional power production. - Yes: The renewable energy project (solar) will reduce GHG emissions over current energy sources for the recycled water facility. The project is expected to reduce GHG emissions by up to 642 annual metric eTons of CO2. Yes: Improved operational efficiency/reduced treatment will reduce energy consumption at the wastewater treatment plant and recycled water facility, resulting in subsequent GHG emission reduction for energy sources derived from fossil fuels. Yes: A FOG collection facility in this region will reduce trucking miles for waste haulers, thus reducing associated greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-78 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Project ID # 34 35 36 37 38 Project Description Project Type Monitoring Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Other Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project The Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project will assist the Diablo Water District improve its water management practices by converting 10,000 outdated meters to “smart” meters. The project will help the District conserve water and better manage its water issues by providing the technology necessary to mitigate customer leaks through real-time meter reading capabilities. Existing meters are more than a decade old and have diminished capabilities to accurately meter or report water usage. This has led to undetected leaks and unaccounted-for water and loss for the District’s customers. Some of the meters have even stopped turning. The new meters are magnetic read with no moving parts and are capable of alerting the District when a customer has water flowing 24 hrs/day which is an indication of a leak. Beacon West Well serves a Disadvantaged Community of approximately 22 homes and has arsenic levels of more than double the current Primary Drinking Water Standards. This project would be for the construction of a new well into an aquifer with water having arsenic levels that are below the Primary Drinking Water Standards. In September 2009, Diablo Water District received a Non-Compliance Order from the Contra Costa County Department of Environmental Health, for exceeding the arsenic MCL in the Disadvantaged Community’s supply well. Since that time, Diablo Water District has been working to find funding to help this community come into compliance with the drinking water standards. Extend treated water service onto Bethel Island to replace poor quality groundwater supply for approximately 1,000 island residents. Provide rebates for the installation of high efficiency toilets (HET) including cost of installation in addition to landscape conservation incentives. Third phase of groundwater utilization project for the Oakley area. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Primary: AMR will help customers better control their water usage. - - Additional: Reducing water conservation improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. Primary: Reduces cost of delivering drinking water as opposed to pumping and treating surface water. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - - Additional: Using less water will help other agencies in the region with more available supply. Additional: Reduces demand on Delta water supplies which leaves more supply for others in the region and the State. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: AMR system detects customer leaks that can be repaired, reducing water consumption and increase efficiency. - - Primary: Reducing water consumption improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - Additional: Project looks to utilize additional groundwater supply in the District’s conjunctive use program. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-79 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Primary: Provides source water to the DAC with arsenic levels below Primary Drinking Water Standards. Primary: Replace poor groundwater that does not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards with high quality treated surface water. - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Additional: Replace poor groundwater that does not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards with high quality treated surface water. - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - Additional: Project will identify areas of high and low arsenic levels in drinking water supplies. - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - Additional: Improved source water quality will improve wastewater quality by lowering salt content of waste discharges from Ironhouse Sanitary District. - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Customer leaks waste power needed to pump water into distribution mains. Less power utilized by the District will reduce greenhouse gasses. - - Additional: Excessive toilet water use wastes power needed to pump water. Less power utilized by the District will reduce greenhouse gasses. - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: Letters have been sent to the members of this Disadvantaged Community advising them of the high arsenic levels and the District’s efforts to find funding to resolve the problem. Additional: Letters have been sent to the members of this Disadvantaged Community advising them of the high arsenic levels and the District’s efforts to find funding to resolve the problem. Meetings have been held with Island residents explaining the project. - - Increase awareness of water resources - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-80 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District management issues and projects with the general public Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Yes: Improved water quality to residents of Bethel Island. - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies and a more efficient use of resources. - - Yes: Reducing water consumption will reduce the quantity of water that Diablo Water District will need to use from the Delta which benefits the region and the State. Yes: Provides use of groundwater during times of drought and augments the District’s surface water supply. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Yes: Reduces salt loading on wastewater system and discharges to the Delta. Yes: More water left in the Delta improves the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed. Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies that will improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Yes: Impacts on growth and land use planning were a part of the project EIR. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - Yes Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes - - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions Yes - - Yes - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes Yes - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - Yes - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - - Yes Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-81 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - Yes Yes Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Yes Yes - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - Yes Yes - - Pollution Prevention - - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - Yes - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Completed Not Started Completed Completed Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-82 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2013 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Completed Completed Not Started Completed Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2014 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 7/1/2012 9/1/2014 - 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status In Progress Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2014 9/1/2013 9/1/2014 Design Project Status Completed In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2015 12/1/2013 9/1/2015 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - 7/1/2012 9/1/2015 - 9/1/2015 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 7/1/2012 9/1/2015 - 9/1/2015 Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2015 7/1/2012 12/1/2016 6/1/2015 12/1/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 12/1/2015 7/1/2012 9/1/2017 9/1/2015 9/1/2017 Environmental Permits Describe any required Project will fall under CEQA Categorical Exemption. Preparation of a Negative Declaration. Mitigated Neg. Dec. or EIR will most likely be required. Project is exempt. EIR for the project was completed in December 2018. NOD filed 12/18/2008. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-83 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Status? Yet to be adopted and NOD filed. Not started. Not started. - NOD filed 12/18/2008. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - County Encroachment Permit and County Environmental Health Permit. County Encroachment Permit. Homeowners may need to secure individual building permits. City of Oakley Encroachment Permit will be required for pipeline construction. Status? - County Environmental Health has indicated that they are ready to issue a permit. Not started. - Will be secured just prior to start of construction. Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Uncertain about the exact water quality we will encounter at the depths we are targeting. - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA $1,000,000 NA $150,000 Planning NA $3,000 $400,000 NA NA Design $8,000 $10,000 $1,000,000 $20,000 $400,000 Environmental Review $2,000 $15,000 $200,000 Unknown NA Permits NA $2,000 $500,000 Unknown $50,000 Construction/Implementation $2,000,000 $80,000 $26,400,000 $400,000 $7,000,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA $500,000 NA $500,000 Other NA NA NA NA NA Total Project Cost $2,010,000 $110,000 $30,000,000 $420,000 $8,100,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $210,000 $10,000 $1,000,000 $20,000 $810,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - Yes User Rates Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes User Fees - - Yes - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $1,800,000 $100,000 $29,000,000 $400,000 $7,290,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: Project will allow the DAC served by this groundwater to receive water meeting the current drinking water standards for arsenic. Yes: Provides improved water quality to DACs on Bethel Island. - - What Community(ies)? - North area of Bethel Island Beacon West and Bethel Island - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-84 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - Letters have been sent to the DAC informing them of the options the District is pursuing to resolve the high arsenic issue in their water supply. Public meetings informing them of the proposal. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - Yes: Project will allow the DAC served by this groundwater to receive water meeting the current drinking water standards for arsenic. - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: Less water consumption reduces the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: Less water consumption reduces the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. - - Yes: Lower pumping due to water conservation will reduce power consumption which reduces greenhouse gasses. Yes: Groundwater pumping utilizes 666 kWh/Mg less power as compared to utilizing treated surface water which is a reduction of 237,187 lbs of CO2 emissions/Mg. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-85 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Project ID # 39 40 41 42 43 Project Description Project Type Monitoring Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Environmental (e.g., habitat) Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project Determine the safe yield of the Tracy Subbasin for the District’s municipal water system and to preserve the safety and reliability of sources, of supply for other small water systems within its sphere of influence. Construct reverse osmosis system for treatment of brackish groundwater. Project will identify and prioritize leaks in drinking water distribution system water mains (DWD) and untreated water laterals (CCWD) and provide funding to make repairs including water mains and laterals in DAC areas. Project costs are $425,000 for DWD and $1 million for CCWD. This project will be implemented by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as part of the implementation to the HCP/NCCP. The proposed project will have 3 primary tasks: Land acquisition, Habitat Restoration Design, and Construction. Land acquisition will occur in pre-identified priority areas in eastern Contra Costa County. The project will include primarily creek, pond or wetland habitats. The specific project/acquisition that the funding will be used for depends on the timing of the award. The location of this project could be exclusively in the ECCC IRWMP area, or in the area of overlap with the SF Bay Area IRWMP. The project involved installation of 24,600 feet of 12-inch and 6-inch recycled water piping along city streets and ROW’s to provide 809 acre-feet per year of recycled water to a proposed power plant, parks, medians, and vineyards. The project also involves construction of a new recycled water pump station. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - East Bay Regional Park District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA Department of Fish and Game - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: Use of groundwater is less costly than treated surface water, and uses less chemicals and power. - Additional: Reducing leaks in water mains and laterals improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Primary: Reduces the amount of water that needs treatment and delivery for potable uses. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Understanding the groundwater basin yield will benefit the communities of Oakley, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Brentwood, and Discovery Bay. Additional: Reduced use of Delta water has regional benefits. Additional: Project is proposed to cover the areas of Brentwood, Oakley, Antioch, Discovery Bay and Pittsburg. Additional: The HCP/NCCP is a regional project that when implemented will create a preserve system that will provide regional environmental benefits as well as recreation opportunities for people in the region. Additional: Benefits all of California by reducing demand for Delta water supplies. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Additional: Groundwater is not impacted by levee breaches that severely affect Delta water quality. Primary: Reduced use of Delta water has regional benefits. - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - Primary: Reducing leaks in water mains and laterals improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Additional: Allows potable supplies to be available for other potable uses. Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a Additional: Determining subbasin yield is critical to identifying the maximum amount of groundwater that can be relied upon for the District’s conjunctive use program. Additional: Reduced use of Delta water has regional benefits. - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-86 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Overdrafting a groundwater basin would damage groundwater quality. Additional: RO water has higher quality. - Additional: Headwaters of creeks in the ECCC IRWMP area are within the high priority acquisition zones identified in the plane. Protecting these areas helps preserve water quality in the Delta. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality Additional: Overdrafting a groundwater basin would damage groundwater quality. Additional: RO water has higher quality. Additional: Reduces possibility of ground contaminants from entering into drinking water mains. - Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta for 23 million Californians. Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - Additional: Higher drinking water. Quality improves wastewater available to improve recycled water quality. - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Primary: Subbasin yield is directly linked to groundwater quality. - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: Groundwater quality impacts customer treated water quality which in turn impacts the quality of the water being discharged by the Ironhouse Sanitary District into the Delta. - - - Additional: Would decrease the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - Primary: This project will protect watersheds and restore aquatic habitats within the IRWMP area. - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - Additional: This project will protect watersheds and restore aquatic habitats within the IRWMP area. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Energy required to pump groundwater uses 666 kWh/Mg less than treated surface water resulting in 237,793 CO2 lb/Mg less of equivalent carbon dioxide. - Additional: Distribution and untreated water system losses waste power needed to pump water into distribution mains and keep pressure up. Less power utilized by the Districts will reduce greenhouse gasses. - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: DACs rely on groundwater in the basin area and will be involved with the basin yield analysis. - Additional: Part of the program will monitor and repair water mains in the Beacon West DAC community. - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-87 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: Several mutual water companies and other small water systems rely on the basin as their only source of water and will be included in the public outreach portion of the project. - - - Additional: The project would provide recycled water for uses that currently use potable water which would address water resource management issues. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - Yes: Please see explanations in previous IRWMP documents that explain the relationship of the HCP/NCCP to CCWD’s water allotment from the Delta. Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Yes: Leaks in watermains can be sources of contamination. - Yes: Reduce the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. Yes: Overpumping could lead to seawater intrusion. - - - Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Understanding limits on groundwater basin yields will solidify actual groundwater pumping limits. Yes: Treatment of brackish supplies provides greater flexibility of water resources. Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies and a more efficient use of resources. Yes: Please see explanations in previous IRWMP documents that explain the relationship of the HCP/NCCP to CCWD’s water allotment from the Delta. Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies that will improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta. Yes: Preservation, restoration and management of lands within the Bay-Delta watershed will improve the quality of water that runs off into the Bay-Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: The HCP/NCCP is a regional plan for permitting development, mitigating that development and above those basic mitigation requirements, contributing to the recovery of special status species in the region. - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes Yes - Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - Yes Yes - Yes Climate Change Response Actions - - Yes - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes - Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes - - - Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-88 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - Yes - Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - Yes - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Yes Yes - - - Desalination - Yes - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Yes Yes - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - Yes - - Pollution Prevention - - - - - Salt and Salinity Management Yes Yes - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - Yes - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - Yes - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - Yes - OtheCrop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-89 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status In Progress Not Started Completed In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 1/1/2014 5/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 6/1/2013 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 1/1/2014 1/1/2014 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2014 3/1/2013 1/1/2014 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2013 - 6/1/2014 9/1/2012 Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2014 6/1/2013 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2015 - 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2015 - 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Construction/ ImpleProject Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-90 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2015 9/1/2016 6/1/2014 11/1/2014 9/1/2012 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 12/1/2016 9/1/2017 7/1/2014 12/1/2015 9/1/2012 Environmental Permits Describe any required Unknown at this time. Unknown at this time. Project will fall under CEQA Categorical Exemptions. U.S. Army Corps., DFG streambed alteration agreement, USFWS, 401 Certification. - Status? - - Yet to be adopted and NOD filed. Not started. - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - Unknown at this time. Standard City of Oakley Encroachment Permits. Contra Costa Grading Permit. - Status? - - Will be secured just prior to construction. Not started. - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Unknown at this time. None. Standard leak detection and repair methods will be used. - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement $200,000 $500,000 NA $1,000,000 Unknown Planning $150,000 $500,000 $15,000 NA Unknown Design $150,000 $1,000,000 $35,000 $120,000 $2,240,800 Environmental Review $50,000 $500,000 $5,000 NA Unknown Permits $50,000 $100,000 $2,000 $50,000 Unknown Construction/Implementation $500,000 $15,400,000 $403,000 $500,000 $8,003,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $50,000 $2,000,000 NA NA Unknown Other Unknown Unknown $1,000,000 NA Unknown Total Project Cost $1,150,000 $20,000,000 $1,460,000 $1,670,000 $10,243,800 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $150,000 $1,000,000 $35,000 - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - Yes Yes - - User Fees - Yes - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-91 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - $750,000 - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - Yes - Federal Grants - - - Yes - Currently unfunded $1,000,000 $19,000,000 $1,425,000 $920,000 $10,243,800 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: DACs utilize the same groundwater basin as the project area. - Yes: Repairing watermain and lateral leaks in DAC areas will improve supply and water quality for that community. - - What Community(ies)? Beacon West Bethel Island - Beacon West at the north end of Bethel Island. - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Not yet. - DWD owns and operates the DAC water system. The DAC residents will be informed of the water main leak detection and repairs prior to commencing the project. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - Yes: Climate change will be addressed during environmental review. Yes: Fewer watermain and lateral leaks reduce the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. Yes: The HCP/NCCP considered climate change in the Plan and associated environmental documents. - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: Fewer watermain and lateral leaks reduce the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-92 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Project ID # 44 45 46 47 48 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Other Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project The project involves installation of 33,000 feet of 12-inch, 8-inch and 6-inch recycled water piping along city streets to provide 377 acre-feet per year of recycled water to parks and medians. The project also involves construction of a new recycled water pump station. The project involves installation of 65,800 feet of 16-inch, 10-inch and 6-inch recycled water piping along city streets to provide 695 acre-feet per year of recycled water to parks, medians, and vineyards. The project also involves construction of a new recycled water pump station. The project involves sewering areas in the City of Oakley currently on septic systems. Salinity management is of utmost importance in the Central Valley and our region. To assist Ironhouse Sanitary District meet salinity requirements imposed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, a rebate program to remove discharging water softeners from homes and businesses will be established. The project involves construction of a septage receiving facility at Ironhouse Sanitary District’s Water Recycling Facility. The purpose is to provide a place for septage haulers to dispose of their wastes at a local facility. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - Diablo Water District, Oakley Generating Station - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Primary: Reduces the amount of water that needs treatment and delivery for potable uses. Primary: Reduces the amount of water that needs treatment and delivery for potable uses. - Additional: Reducing salinity in the wastewater influent improves the effluent quality providing the following benefits: Better quality effluent for recycled water, improved Delta water quality. Primary: A septic receiving station at the ISD Water Recycling facility will provide a more local means for discharge of septic waste, which means less travel time for the septic hauler. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Benefits all of California by reducing demand for Delta water supplies. Additional: Benefits all of California by reducing demand for Delta water supplies. - Additional: The Delta is a region-wide resource. Reducing salinity will improve the water quality in the Delta and provide a better wastewater effluent for recycled water users. Additional: A septic receiving station at the ISD Water Recycling Facility will provide a more local means for discharge of septic waste, which means less travel time for the septic hauler. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: Allows potable supplies to be available for other potable uses. Additional: Allows potable supplies to be available for other potable uses. - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta. Primary: Groundwater quality will be improved. Primary: Less salinity in the wastewater effluent means better source water quality in the Delta. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality for 23 million Californians. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Additional: Less salinity in the wastewater effluent means better source water quality in the Delta. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-93 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - Additional: Lower salinity levels will improve recycled water quality opening up more uses for the recycled water. - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: Would decrease the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Additional: Would decrease the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Additional: Ironhouse Sanitary District has very stringent salinity requirements for discharge into the San Joaquin River. Lower the salinity of the influent will assist ISD in meeting the discharge requirements. - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - Additional: Lower salinity in the effluent discharged to the Delta will enhance and restoring habitat present in the Delta. - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. - Additional: Lower salinity in the effluent discharged to the Delta will enhance and restoring habitat present in the Delta. - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: The project would provide recycled water for uses that currently use potable water which would address water resource management issues. Additional: The project would provide recycled water for uses that currently use potable water which would address water resource management issues. - Additional: Through ISD’s newsletters the general public has been informed on why salinity reduction is important. By implementing the rebate program the public will become aware of how important it is to reduce salinity in wastewater influent. - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Pref Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. - Yes: The project will provide better quality wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-94 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces that amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Yes: Project will improve groundwater quality. Yes: The project will provide better quality wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Frees up potable water for other uses. Yes: Frees up potable water for other uses. Yes: Improving groundwater quality will enhance the groundwater used for potable water use. Yes: A decrease in salinity in source water will allow for more uses. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces that amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Yes: A lower salinity effluent will improve the ecological health of the Delta. - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes Yes Yes - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes Yes - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes - Yes - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes Yes - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - Yes System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water Yes Yes - Yes - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-95 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention - - Yes - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - Yes - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Completed Not Started In Progress In Progress Est. Completion Date 5/1/2012 5/1/2012 9/1/2012 1/1/2012 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status In Progress In Progress Not Started In Progress In Progress Est. Completion Date 1/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2012 6/1/2013 9/1/2012 Environ-meProject Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-96 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - None. Status? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-97 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Planning Unknown Unknown Unknown NA Unknown Design $2,559,000 $2,240,800 $1,240,000 NA Unknown Environmental Review Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Permits Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Construction/Implementation $9,254,000 $8,003,000 $4,960,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Other Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Total Project Cost $11,813,000 $10,243,800 $6,200,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - Yes - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $11,813,000 $10,243,800 $6,200,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-98 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Cit i #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-99 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Project ID # 55 49 50 51 52 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Environmental (e.g., habitat) Describe the project Create an earthen berm within a 17-acre wastewater storage pond to create a smaller area for wastewater storage. This will minimize cleanup and odors when the pond is used during small events. For large flow events the entire storage pond will still be available for usage. Lake Alhambra is a residential lake completed in the late 1950’s as part of a housing subdivision that includes 240 single family homes in north central Antioch. The lake is at the end of E Antioch Creek that drains an area of 7,000 acres from the foothills of Mt. Diablo to the Delta. A study done around 1981 indicated that approximately 50,000 cubic yards of sediment had been deposited in the lake and the depth of the lake had gone from 10.5 to 7 or 8 feet as a result. According to the Lake Alhambra POA an equal amount has been deposited since for a total of 100,000 cubic yards of sediment deposited in the lake since its completion. The lake depth is now at 3 or 4 feet. This drainage area has experienced growth of light industrial and residential land use resulting in reduced permeable area, increased stormwater flow, and sediment from poor erosion controls. The project involves dredging to remove sediment to increase lake capacity (flood/sediment control) and restore beneficial uses. The project is constructed of two cut-off levees, one approximately 8,000 feet and the other approximately 3,000 feet on Jersey Island to divide the island into three parts. Jersey Island is one of the 8 western islands critical to protection of water quality for 23 million Californians. Construction of these levees would limit the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply. The project entrails raising and widening a levee section on Jersey Island from Station 333+00 to 470+00 for levee stability to prevent flooding of the island. The Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project would create up to 100 acres of marsh, riparian, and upland habitats on lands adjacent to the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Antioch, Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Dirt from the Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin project will be used for the Wastewater Storage Pond Management Project. - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. Additional: Creation of up to 100 acres of marsh, riparian, and upland habitats will improve the Delta which benefit the region. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - Additional: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-100 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Eliminates discharge of non-compliance wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. - Primary: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. Primary: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Additional: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. The salinity in the Delta has a direct correlation to quality of recycled water provided to end users. - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Primary: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Additional: The capacity of the lake has been reduced by 50% decreasing the sediment removal capability of the lake by 50% and increasing the sediment load to the Delta. Other projects upstream and downstream should also be considered to reduce sediment to the lake. - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: Removing sediment will increase the lake capacity by 50% decreasing the sediment load to the Delta and increasing water retention and infiltration. Other projects upstream and downstream should also be considered. - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Additional: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Additional: The capacity of the lake has been reduced >50% and increasing sediment load to the Delta. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last infiltration mechanism before the Delta. Additional: Construction of the levees would allow intentional flooding of a portion of Jersey Island. This flooded portion could be used for habitat restoration. Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain habitat in the Delta. Primary: Restore mosaic habitats. Restore tidal marsh. Provide habitat for a broad range of sensitive species. Provide up to 600,000 cubic yards of material for the Dutch Slough Property. Restore a complex Delta system at the mouth of Marsh Creek. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain the Delta ecosystem. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-101 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - Additional: Construction of the levees would allow intentional flooding of a portion of Jersey Island. This flooded portion would reduce greenhouse gasses by sequestering carbon production from peat oxidation. - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Primary: Lake Alhambra has lost >50% of its capacity due to siltation with similar decrease in flood control. With development, stormwater flows will increase. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last filtration mechanism before the Delta. - - - Improve regional flood risk management - Additional: Removing sediment increases capacity of the lake. Storm flows are held in the lake, then slowly released to the marsh area downstream of the lake and then to the Delta. Lake Alhambra protects residences in the flat downstream area of the watershed. Additional: Construction of the levees would prevent complete flooding of a critical western Delta island. Additional: Maintaining the levees on Jersey Island will help prevent the flooding of Jersey Island. - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: The Lake Alhambra subdivision is a DAC. - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. - Additional: The project once completed will be open to the public for viewing of the created habitat. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - The aesthetics of the lake have been deteriorated by the presence of shallow sediment that is at the surface in many areas. The beneficial uses have been severely impacted. The shallower water is also heated to higher temperatures resulting in increased algal growth rates (and likely mosquitoes and other potential vectors) requiring increased maintenance by the POA. The presence of sediment and shallower lake bottom has also reduced the recreational benefits of the lake. - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - Yes: The POA has been discussing this issue with the City and the Flood Control Agency (incl. litigation). The POC believes the City and Flood Control Agency have allowed or caused the deposition of sediment and - Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-102 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 impairment to the lake and should be responsible. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Yes: Reduce the sediment load to the Delta which is a surface water drinking supply. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last filtration mechanism before the Delta. Sediment and contaminants are settled out and retained in the lake. Yes: Provides water supply protection and reliability from a levee failure in the western Delta. Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - Yes: Provides water supply protection and reliability from a levee failure in the western Delta. Also, a portion of the island could intentionally flood. Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain the Delta ecosystem. - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - Yes: In the event a levee fails on Jersey Island, the water supply amount available for use would be impacted. If the cut-off levees were constructed, a less amount of water supply would be impacted. - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Yes: Reduce the sediment load to the Delta. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last filtration mechanism before the Delta. Sediment and contaminants are settled out and retained in the lake. Yes: If the cut-off levees were installed and a portion of Jersey Island was intentionally flooded, the flooded area could provide habitat restoration, help with subsidence reversal and provide the ability to sequester carbon production from peat oxidation. Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain the Delta ecosystem. Yes: Restore mosaic habitats. Restore tidal marsh. Provide habitat for a broad range of sensitive species. Provide up to 600,000 cubic yards of material for the Dutch Slough property. Restore a complex Delta system at the mouth of Marsh Creek. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - Yes: Land use has exceeded the capacity of the stormwater system. The sediment load is too high and the current system is unsustainable. Upstream and downstream measures need to be considered to stop sediment depositing in the lake (not POA controlled). - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - Yes - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - Yes - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - Yes Yes - Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - Yes Yes - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Yes Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - Yes - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-103 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention Yes - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - Yes Yes - Urban Runoff Management - Yes - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Yes Yes Yes - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes - - Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - Yes Yes - Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-104 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Not Started Not Started Completed In Progress Est. Completion Date 11/1/2012 12/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Completed Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date 11/1/2012 12/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date - 3/1/2013 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date - 6/1/2013 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started In Progress Not Started Est. Completion Date - 3/1/2013 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Construction/ Implementation Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 11/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Post Project MoProject Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-105 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Environmental Permits Describe any required - Potential permits include USACE 404, CDF&G 1602, and RWQCB water quality certification 401. Army Corps of Engineers DF&G Streambed Alteration - Status? - Not started, funding is needed to begin. Not started. - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Evaluating re-use or disposal options for the dredged and dewatered sediment is a major component of the project planning. - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA Unknown Planning NA $20,000 Unknown NA Unknown Design NA $40,000 Unknown NA Unknown Environmental Review NA $100,000 Unknown NA Unknown Permits NA $40,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Construction/Implementation $144,000 $2,000,000 $27,300,000 $7,000,000 $9,751,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other NA NA Unknown NA Unknown Total Project Cost $144,000 $2,200,000 $27,300,000 $7,000,000 $9,751,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $8,000 - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $136,000 $2,200,000 $27,300,000 $7,000,000 $9,751,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-106 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: Reduce/eliminate impairment of quality. Manage flood flows that threaten the habitability of dwellings. Yes: Provides water supply protection and reliability for 23 million Californians, some of which are from disadvantaged communities. - - What Community(ies)? - Lake Alhambra Whatever communities that currently receive their potable water supply from the Delta. - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - The Lake Alhambra POA is submitting this project. The City of Antioch and Contra Costa Flood Control District are listed as partners, but have not yet agreed to any form of collaboration. No planning or development started. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - Yes: Sediments and contaminants from urban runoff within the 11.4 square mile East Antioch Creek drainage area are deposited in Lake Alhambra burdening the residents of this disadvantaged community (DAC). Sediment is from development and ongoing land use. - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - Yes: The project improves flood control. Additional measures downstream should be considered to address sea level rise. - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: Sequestering carbon production from peat oxidation reduces greenhouse gas emissions. - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-107 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Project ID # 56 57 58 59 60 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Planning – Emergency Preparedness Describe the project This project would analyze the feasibility of, and develop preliminary pipeline size and alignment alternatives for, a brine disposal pipeline from central Brentwood, through Diablo Water District, across Antioch to reach the Delta Diablo Sanitation District effluent outfall to New York Slough. This would assist in evaluating the potential development of potential groundwater desalination facilities. The purpose of this project is to determine the appropriate size and location of an Antioch to MPP intertie booster pump station. With one WTP offline, CCWD can meet a majority of its demands through interties with Antioch and Pittsburg; however, these intertie supplies required boosting to meet CCWD minimum system pressure. The Pittsburg/CCWD intertie on the MPP was constructed with flanges that could be adapted for pumping to CCWD when necessary. The Antioch to MPP intertie was not constructed with a booster pump or with flanges that could be adapted for pumping to CCWD when necessary. The Antioch to MPP intertie would need to be retrofitted with a booster pump station that could be used in emergencies and potentially during other operational conditions that may occur more often than during an emergency. Project description and purpose: The purpose of this project is to analyze improvements to Brentwood’s supply portfolio to address the need for reliable supplies when Delta water quality is negatively impacted and during short-term emergencies. Based on the regional emergency scenario conducted in the Regional Capacity Study for a western Delta levee failure having increased chloride levels over a six month period with a 14-island failure, almost all supply for the region would be from Los Vaqueros, and Brentwood’s supply shortfall ranges from 40 percent to 55 percent due to the high chloride levels in its supply which is from Rock Slough. Brentwood could improve emergency supply reliability with additional reliable supply sources such as additional supply capacity from Los Vaqueros or an additional supply source that would not be impacted by Delta levee failure as well as increasing supply reliability through an intertie with the City of Antioch. In addition, there is no backup pumping power supplies for the segment of the Canal that conveys the ECCID supply from Rock Slough to Brentwood in the event of a regional power outage. The need for backup power to improve supply reliability will also be evaluated. The project includes upgrades to the Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the recycled water distribution system to increase deliveries of recycled water. Improvements include the addition of five 50-hp pumps to the existing Brentwood WWTP pump station, construction of two 1.5 MG storage tanks (for a total storage increase of 3 MG) at the Brentwood WWTP and the Roddy Ranch Pump Station, and a total of 17,143 linear feet of new recycled water pipelines. It would retrofit 36 users and add 86 new recycled water users for a total increase in recycled water deliveries of 1,406 AFY. The purpose of this project is to improve the region’s ability to provide aid and assistance and respond adequately and in a timely manner during an emergency that impacts water supply. While some PAs have existing emergency aid agreements with one another, there is still a need for mutual aid agreements between other PAs. Current and accurate mutual aid and assistance agreements are important so that agencies can quickly respond during an emergency. This preparation is also important so that agencies can be appropriately reimbursed by one another, as well as by other potential reimbursement agencies such as FEMA, following an emergency. The ultimate goal of this project is to increase physical and administrative preparedness for an emergency so that impacts from water supply emergencies are limited. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Diablo Water District City of Martinez, Contra Costa Water District - - City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Diablo Water District - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Additional: Improves efficiency of water conveyance through interties between Antioch to MPP. - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: A brineline would allow both DWD and Brentwood to utilize high-salinity groundwater as a water supply source. - - - Establishes regional emergency preparedness plans and cooperative agreements between agencies and organizations to allow them to efficiently assist one another during water-related emergencies. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-108 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Additional: A feasible brineline would help assess the feasibility of groundwater desalination, which may be less subject to Delta influences and drought. - Additional: Project would evaluate water supply and supply diversification options for Brentwood, which could include supplies less subject to Delta influences and drought. Primary: Project would increase recycled water deliveries. Recycled water is les subject to Delta influences and is a drought-proof supply. - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - Additional: Project would increase the use of recycled water, conserving potable water for potable uses. - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - Additional: Construction of booster pump station improves interties between CCWD and Antioch and Pittsburgh - - Enables efficient water transfers during emergencies. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Additional: A feasible brineline would allow for use of high-salinity groundwater through groundwater desalination. - Additional: Supply options evaluated by this project could include groundwater supplies. - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: The analysis included in the feasibility study would include an assessment of potential water quality impacts of brine disposal and ensure any potential brineline would be designed and operated to meet water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta. - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - -. - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Evaluates potential impacts to Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources from a potential brineline and its alternatives to allow for consideration of minimization of impacts. - - Additional: Increase recycled water use could reduce pumping from the Delta due to reduced potable demands, thereby providing benefit to Delta ecosystems. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-109 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Project would allow for development of potential groundwater desalination facilities, reducing pumping from the Delta, thereby reducing Delta-related conflicts. - Yes: Project would analyze improvements that would increase water supply reliability, reducing potential conflicts resulting from emergency scenarios. Yes: Reducing potable water demand through increased recycled water use could reduce conflicts related to potable water supplies. Yes: Helps to reduce water-related conflicts in the event of an emergency CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: Project supports development of future groundwater desalination facilities, which would provide high quality potable water to customers. - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - Yes: Analyzes options for water supply reliability in the face of potential levee failures and other emergencies. - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Supports development of future groundwater desalination facilities, increasing available supplies, and diversifying the water supply portfolio in the region. Yes: Improves intertie between systems in the region, allowing for increased flexibility in supplies and for infrastructure to be taken offline (e.g., for upgrades or in the event of an unplanned outage) while continuing to meet customer demands. Yes: Analyzes water supply options and improvements to increase water supply reliability. Yes: Project would increase recycled water use, thereby increasing water supplies and providing for bother more efficient and more flexible use of water resources Yes: Enables efficient water transfers during emergencies and create flexibility in providing assistance during water related emergencies Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Would support future groundwater desalination, potentially reducing pumping from the Delta, while evaluating brineline alternatives that could meet - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-110 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District discharge requirements to the Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes: By supporting future groundwater desalination, this project would allow use of groundwater, providing an alternative to surface water supplies that experience greater fluctuations during drought than groundwater. - Yes: Analyzes water supply options and improvements to increase water supply reliability. - Yes: Allows for transfers between agencies during water emergencies, including drought. Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes: Project supports the use of future groundwater desalination to more efficiently use existing groundwater supplies that currently experience high salinity. - - Yes: Increasing recycled water use conserves potable water for potable uses. - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - Yes: Project would provide recycled water to urban users. - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - Yes: Pump station allows for improved use of intertie between local conveyance systems. Yes: Water supply options may include regional and local conveyance projects. Yes: Project constructs recycled water conveyance pipelines. - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - Yes: Pump station allows for improved water transfers between local agencies. - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - Yes: water supply options may include consideration of groundwater and conjunctive use. - - Desalination Yes: Supports future groundwater desalination. - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - Yes: Project increases recycled water use. - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-111 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - Yes: water supply options may include increased storage. Yes: Project constructs an additional 3 MG recycled water storage. - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Yes: Supports future groundwater desalination for new potable supplies. Yes: Improves intertie between local potable water distribution systems. - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - Yes: Project increases recycled water use for non-potable purposes, such as irrigation. - Pollution Prevention Yes - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - - Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Not Applicable Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-112 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Est. Completion Date - - - 10/2013 - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Describe any required - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-113 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Status? - - - - - Project Schedule Available? Yes Yes Yes - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA NA Planning $200,000 NA $75,000 Unknown $225,000 Design NA $697,300 NA Unknown NA Environmental Review NA $140,900 NA Unknown NA Permits NA $140,900 NA Unknown NA Construction/Implementation NA $3,800,000 $50,000 $843,629 NA Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA Unknown NA Unknown Other NA NA NA $253,089 NA Total Project Cost $200,000 $4,200,000 $125,000 $1,096,717 $225,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - Project would provide benefits to all residents in the region, including DACs. What Community(ies)? - - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-114 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Project ID # 61 62 63 64 Project Description Project Type Planning – Emergency Preparedness Water Quality Planning – Groundwater/Water Quality Water Quality Describe the project The Regional Capacity Study (RCS) presents a comparison of the supply versus demand impacts as a result of a regional power outage. That comparison indicated the need for increased backup power at the Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant (RBWTP) or Bollman Water Treatment Plant (BWTP) to meet 2010 maximum day demands (MDDs). Because RBWTP has a diversified power supply it is recommended to analyze the need for increased backup power supply at BWTP. In the event of a regional power outage, the region has a treated water supply shortfall of MDD using emergency power for treated water supplies. Fuel supply for the Participating Agencies’ (PAs’) backup power generators could be the limiting factor in a regional power outage. Most of the PAs have a limited amount of backup power fuel supply on-site. In a regional emergency where regional power loss is experienced, access to generator fuel supplies could ultimately impact the PAs ability to meet water demands. The purpose of this project is to assess the backup fuel supply needs and potential regional supply agreements with vendors. This project would also analyze the need for increased backup power supply at BWTP. This project would develop a complete Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin. This proejct would expand the exisitng groundwater monitoring through increasing the frequency of groundwater quality samply/testing in the existing monitoring network, identification of existing wells in data limited areas that could be used to expand the existing network, and installation of monitoring wells as needed (potentially at the City's Ball Park Well site and/or a site along the Bay Front). Where possible, existing wells should be used to manage costs. This City would review water and fertilizer application rates in areas of recycled water use to ensure maximum efficiency and minimal salt/nutrient loadings. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits SNMPs protect groundwater quality, benefitting all groundwater users. - Project would protect groundwater quality in the groundwater basin. Project would analyzes backup power systems to determine needs that must be met in order to maintain service during power outages. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Project improves groundwater quality protection, which may be less subject to Delta influences and drought. - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - Would improve reycled water use efficiency. - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) SNMPs improve understanding of groundwater resources and how to protect groundwater quality. Groundwater quality data could be used to improve understanding of groundwater as a possible supply. - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality SNMPs provide a plan to protect groundwater quality. Improved groundwate rmonitoring would provide additional data to use in the protection of groundwater supplies. Project would protect groundwater quality in the groundwater basin. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality An SNMP would identify potential threats to groundwater quality and plan for how to address such threats. Project would increase groundwater monitoring and data collection, thereby increasing the City's understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality. Reduces threats to groudnwater quality - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood ManagemManage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - Coordinating the use of existing wells with well owners could help increase awareness of water resource management issues and projects in the general public. Evaluation of water and fertilzer application rates in areas of recycled water use would increase awarenss of water resources management issues with recycled water customers, which includes members of the general public. - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts An SNMP would help to protect gorundwater quality, reducing potential conflicts related to sources of groundwater contamination and groundwater quality. Improved groundwater monitoring could reduce water-related conflicts associated with incomplete understanding of groundwater conditions. Improves recycled water use efficiency and protects groundwater quality, helping to resolve potential conflicts over water use and groundwater. Yes: would help determine backup power supply options to meet water demands during power outages, thereby avoiding water-rleated conflicts associated with power outages. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap The project would protect groundwater quality helping to preserve the quality for potential customer use. Project would inform efforts to protect groundwater quality. Protects groundwater quality, thereby protecting a potential source of water for the region. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Monitoring wells from this project could be used as an early warning for seawater intrusion. - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Groundwater protection enables future groundwater use, helping to diversity supply options. Further, SNMPs can help ease the regulatory burden for recycled water, expanding the City's ability to use recycled water. - Increased recycled water use efficiency allows for more customers to use recycled water, reducing overall potable demands. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Reducing nutrient and salinity loading to the watershed. - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - Improves recycled water use efficiency. - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality SNMPs help protect groundwater quality. Project would increase data available to inform efforts to protect groundwater quality. Improved recycled water use and fertilizer application will protect surface and groundwater from nutrient and salt loading. - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - Recycled water use efficiency would benefit all recycled water customers, including agricultural customers. - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - Recycled water use efficiency would benefit all recycled water customers, including urban customers. - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - Project improves efficiency of recycled water use. - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention An SNMP would help prevent groundwater degredation. - Project prevents groundwater degredation from over application of fertilizer in concert with recycled water. - Salt and Salinity Management SNMPs are designed to manage salt and salinity for groundwater basins. Monitoring wells from this project could be used as an early warning for seawater intrusion. Project protects againt salt and nutrient loading in the region through efficient recycled water use and appropriate fertilizer application for recycled water users. - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 11/2012 - - - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - The extent of the need for new wells, and the potential to use existing wells in the monitoring network is uncertain. - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA - NA - Planning $100,000 - - - Design NA NA NA - Environmental Review NA NA NA - Permits NA NA NA - Construction/Implementation NA - - - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA - Other NA NA NA - Total Project Cost $100,000 - - - Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Project ID # 65 66 67 68 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Water Supply Water Quality Water Supply/Water Quality Groundwater Quality Describe the project Pittsburg has sufficient emergency supply from its existing MPP interties. However, enhancing the connections (existing and future) with Antioch will also improve the overall reliability of Pittsburg’s supply. This project would study the benefits of these interties. In addition, Antioch may achieve more efficient distribution of the water into Antioch’s system through a second MPP connection in the western portion of its system. This project is further analysis of the Antioch and Pittsburg emergency interties to improve emergency supply reliability as well as efficient distribution of supplies received through the interties from one another and from the MPP. Project would assist in estimating the safe yield of the basin, by creating a preliminary water budget and conducting additional monitoring within an dsurrounding the primary groundwater production centers. To optimize the efficiency and efficacy of future data collection related to the estimation of safe yield, a preliminary water budget should be calculated using existing data. Where data gaps exist, a range of possible values should be estimated and incorporated into the water budget. Evaluating the sensitivity of the final safe yield determination to the range of estimated values for each component will provide valuable information on which components have the greatest impact on the final determination. Results from the sensitivity analysis can then be used to focus future data reducing uncertainty in the most influential components of the water budget. A distributed network of groundwater levels and quality monitoring points is necessary to more fully understand the source and movement of groundwater through the aquifer system. Expansion of existing monitoring should be accomplished using a combination of existing and newly constructed facilities. Existing facilities within the study area include private wells which are dispersed throughout the area and some public wells/monitoring wells which are not fully utilized for monitoring purposes. Delta Diablo Sanitation Districat and the City would coordinate with Delta View Golf Course to ensure efficient water and fertilizer application at the golf course. Marsh Creek appears to be an important source of groundwater recharge within the study area. As such, changes to water quality in Marsh Creek could impact the reliability of portions of the aquifer system, affecting the overall safe yield of the study area. Limited water quality monitoring is currently performed for Marsh Creek by CCWD near Dutch Slough. Other water quality sampling may also be performed by other entities in the study area. All possible surface water quality data for Marsh Creek should be requested from CCWD and any others who may be monitoring. Additional water quality samples should also be collected upstream of the City of Brentwood’s wastewater outfall and at the boundary between the city of Brentwood and DWD service areas. Three samples should be collected in the summer and/or fall when natural flows are at their lowest and the influence of anthropogenic sources (e.g., irrigation runoff/drainage and wastewater discharge) is the greatest. New and historical data should be used to investigate potential changes to water quality in Marsh Creek related to changes in water resource development and use within the study area. Any changes should also be compared to groundwater quality trends to investigate the interaction of these two systems. Following this analysis, the need for/frequency of this surface water monitoring should be revisited. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - City of Antioch - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - - Project would analysis improvements to interties between two cities within the region. Benefits would be realized by both Pittsburg and Antioch. Water SuppPursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta Project would improve safe yield estimates for the Tracy Subbasin of the - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, helping to protect the basin from overdraft, and allowing its sustainable use. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - Would improvereyccled water efficiency at the golf course. - - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - Project would study improvements to emergency entities for Antioch and Pittsburg. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Project would improve safe yield estimates for the Tracy Subbasin of the San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, helping to protect the basin from overdraft, and allowing its sustainable use. - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Improved recycled water use efficiency and fertilizer application will reduce TDS and nutrient levels in groundwater. - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Increased groundwater monitoring would increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to quality. Reducing TDS and nutrient loading to groundwater protects groundwater against potential threats of recycled water and fertlizer application at the golf course. Marsh Creek is an important groundwater recharge site but poor water quality in the creek could impact groundwater quality. This proejct would increase the understanding of the potential threat to groundwater quality represented by water quality issues in the creek. - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related OutrCollaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - Project would improve water resource management at the golf course. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Improved groundwater monitoring could reduce water-related conflicts associated with incomplete understanding of groundwater conditions. The project would improve safe yield calculations, also helping to reduce potential conflicts over groundwater use. Reduces water quality conflicts related to improper recycled water and fertilizer application at the golf course. - Yes: Helps to reduce water-related conflicts in the event of an emergency CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Protects groundwater quality. - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Accurate safe yield calculations will allow for sustainable groundwater use by Diablo Water District. Improveds efficint use of recycled water at the golf course. - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - Improves recycled water use efficiency. - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Improved recycled water and fertilizer application at the golf course will help to protect groundwater quality. Improved understanding of the role of water quality in Marsh Creek on water quality in the groundwater basin could improve efforts to protect surface water quality in creek, thereby also protecting groundwater quality. - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - Will improve recycled water use efficiency at a golf course. - - Improve OConveyance – Delta - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Yes: Project analyzes improvements to local conveyance and interties between local conveyance systems. System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - Marsh Creek is an important groundwater recharge site. - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - Project includes recycled water use efficiency. - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - Yes: Improved interties between agencies would improve potable water distributions, especially during emergencies. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - Project would reduce groundwater contamination from improper application of recycled water in conjunction with fertilizer use. Improved understanding of the role of water quality in Marsh Creek on water quality in the groundwater basin could improve efforts to protect surface water quality in creek, thereby also protecting groundwater quality. - Salt and Salinity Management - Project would reduce TDS in groundwater that results from improper application of fertilizer when using recycled water. - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - Improved understanding of the role of water quality in Marsh Creek on water quality in the groundwater basin could improve efforts to protect surface water quality in the creek, which is an important recharge site. - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Not Applicable Completed Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 10/2012 - 10/2012 - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA - NA - Planning 66000 - NA - Design NA NA NA NA Environmental Review NA NA NA NA Permits NA NA NA NA Construction/Implementation NA - - - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Total Project Cost 66000 - - - Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - ExistAmount - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Project improves ability to meet water demands even in the face of emergencies, and would benefit all Antioch and Pittsburg residents, including DACs. - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Project ID # 69 70 71 72 Project Description Project Type Other Infrastructure - Recycled Water Infrastructure – Recycled Water Infrastructure – Water Supply Describe the project Detailed land-use information is needed in the water budget calculation to estimate agricultural demand (to estimate agricultural pumping), groundwater recharge from agricultural irrigation, and ET losses. DWR produced its most recent detailed land-use map in 1995 for the study area. Since this publication, the populations of the cities and towns within the study area have increased, resulting in the conversion of irrigated agricultural lands to urban land-uses. Also, in the 17 years since the last published map, crop types and irrigation practices may have shifted. ISD proposes to construct a recycled water fill station for internal use by ISD for sewer cleaning, dust control for on-site construction projects, and for irrigation of landscaping around the administration office. In the future ISD hopes the fill station can be used to provide recycled water for off-site dust control for contractors and landscape irrigation for ISD rate payers. This project would involve installation of approximately 2,000 feet of pipeline, a hydrant, an aboveground storage tank, and piping changes at the WRF. It would offset 20 AFY potable water use. It would also implement higher value crop farming. This project would involve ISD providing 3.5 mgd of recycled water to the Antioch Power Plant site. This project involves four components: (1) approximately 21,200 LF of 14” PVC recycled water pipeline from the ISD RWF to the Antioch power plant. The general alignment of the pipe is from the ISD RWF along Walnut Meadows Drive to Main Street to Bridgehead Road to Wilbur Avenue at the power plant site. Major crossings along this alignment include two railroads (BNSF twice) and one across Main Street. (2) a new 150-hp pump station, which is assumed to be located at ISD’s WRF, (3) a blowdown system consisting of 27,100 LF of 10” PVC pipe from the power plant to DD WWTP and aligned parallel to the recycled water pipeline, as well as a new 40-hp booster station, which is assumed to be located at the power plant site, and (4) a backup water supply: the Canal water will be conveyed from CCWD Lateral 7.3 to the power plant via gravity through 4,000 LF of 12” PVC pipeline along Vineyard Drive. No pump station is needed but one major railroad crossing (BNSF) is necessary. This project would determine the feasiblity of full advanced treatment (FAT) for ISD's tertiary effluent to provide supplemental water supply to the canal. Facilites required for this proejct include equipment for a FAT system including some combination of reverse osmosis (RO), granular activated carbon (GAC), hydrogen peroxide injectsion, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, as well as conveyance pipeline and discharge outfall to the canal. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - - - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Project would increase recycled water use. Project would expand recycled water use in the District. Potable reuse is a drought-proof supply that is not subject to Delta influences. - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Recycled water would offset potable water demands. Recycled water would offset potable water. The project would increase water conservation by increasing the amount of water that can be recycled and the potential uses for water reuse. - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District using existing infrastructure Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Advanced treated water would allow for potable reuse, and would meet all applicable drinking water quality standards. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - The project would decrease wastewater effluent discharges to the creek, which ultimately discharges to the Delta. - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - The project would decrease wastewater effluent discharges to the creek, which ultimately discharges to the Delta. - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives Project would assist in completing the water budget calculation for agricultural depamdn, as well as groundwater recharge from agricultural irrigation and evapo-transpiration losses. Project would increase the value of the water used for farming by converting to high value farming. This represents an economically efficient use of the water. - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Increased recycled water use reduces conflicts related to potable water demands by reducing potable demands. Increased recycled water use reduces conflicts related to potable water demands by reducing potable demands. The project would create a new potable water supply through potable reuse, helping to reduce conflicts related to water diversions, pumping, or imported water supplies. Would help improve water budget calculations, thereby helping to reduce water-related conflicts that may arise from an inaccurate water budget. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Increased recycled water use helps to diversify the water supply portfolio. Increased recycled water use helps to diversify the water supply portfolio. Project would create a new potable water supply and diversify the water portfolio in the region. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Project would reduce discharges from the wastewater treatment plant by increasing the volume of recycled water delivered to customers. Project would reduce discharges from the wastewater treatment plant by increasing the volume of recycled water delivered to customers. - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Changing agricultural land uses to high value farming represents an economically efficient use of water supplies, and integrated land use with water management. - - Proejct would allow for improved water budget calculations, and better integrate water managemnet with land uses. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Recycled water offsets potable supplies, which can be stored for droughts. A diverse water portfolio helps to buffer the impacts of drought. Recycled water offsets potable supplies and diversifies the water portfolio, which helps to buffer the impacts of drought. Potable reuse is a drought-proof supply that can help meet potable and health demands during times of drought. - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Converting to high value crops is a more economically efficient use of water. - Project would implement potable reuse. - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Converting to high value crops is a more economically efficient use of water. - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - Improve OConveyance – Delta - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Conveyance – Regional/Local The recycled water fill station helps to make recycled water more accessible to appropriate users. Project would construct recycled water conveyance system to serve the Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfron areas. Project would install cenvyance piping. - System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water The fill station would increase recycled water use within the district. The project would deliver recycled water to customers. Potable reuse is a form of recycled water. - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local Project would increase surface storage for recycled water. - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - Project would produce drinking water in the form of potable reuse. - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use Recycled water would be more available for non-potable uses through the fill station, helping to match quality to use. The project would allow for recycled water to be delivered for non-potable uses. - - Pollution Prevention - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - Project would update land use mapping, with an emphasis on agricultural lands. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) High value farming is an economically efficient use of water, and could present economic incentives for farmers. - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - Project improves water budget calculations, helping to better inform watershed management decisions. Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Completed Completed Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 1/2015 1/2015 1/2015 - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date July, 2015 - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status - Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Notice of Exemption (CEQA). Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) - Status? - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required Recycled Water Agreement with Diablo Water District; Water recycling permit (RWQCB) Recycled Water Agreement with DD; (Recycled Water Permit; Construction permits Recycled Water Agreement with CCWD or other potable water supply agencies; Permits consistent with as-yet known potable reuse regulations - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties There is uncertainty whether DWD would be able to use the water from the fill station. - Permitting for potable reuse are uncertain because regulations have not yet been finalized. - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA - - - Planning NA - - - Design NA - - - Environmental Review NA - - - Permits NA - - - Construction/Implementation - - - - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA - - - Other NA - - - Total Project Cost - $814,000 $29,310,000 - Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Project ID # 73 74 75 76 Project Description Project Type Water Quality – Wastewater Infrastructure – Water Supply Other Infrastructure – Water Supply Describe the project The project would reduce the use of self-regenerating water softeners (SRWS), which are a source of salts discharged to the sewer system. The purpose of this project is to improve the reliability of the Martinez water system during an emergency by adding an intertie with the adjacent EBMUD system. The purpose of this project is to leverage the benefit of economy of scale through a regional approach to procuring and purchasing specific and rare equipment. This project is for the regional coordination for centralized inventory tracking for critical items, regional sludge handling contracting coordination, and identifying spare parts for purchasing. The dewatering and transport of sludge from the Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) is a costly operational expense that could potentially be reduced if coordinated in a regional manner. This project would summarize the solids handling features of each WTP and define the current sludge handling approach by each Participating Agency (PA). Cost-saving opportunities would then be identified. This project would also include identifying common equipment, e.g., 12-inch butterfly valves, to obtain better pricing for larger orders. Costly and spare equipment will also be identified, such as PLCs that can be shared between PAs in an emergency. The recommendations would use an approach similar to the one used for bulk chemical purchasing currently implemented as a region by the PAs. The purpose of this project is to develop standard operating procedures to document intertie valve information including location, layout, activation approach, and capacity. The activation approach includes documenting who is responsible for operating the intertie, as well as who should be contact in the event the intertie is required to be activated. As a result of the initial testing any required improvements or repairs will be documented. The testing will also confirm the assumed capacities and available head determined from the hydraulic modeling. This project will arrange a time for initial testing of the interties and develop a routine testing plan schedule for the interties so that they will operate reliably when necessary. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Project would find cost-savings for operation and maintenance of WTPs and water/wastewater infrastructure through a regional approach to procuring and sharing equipment. - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - This is a regional project, and benefits would be realized by all participating agencies. Improved documentation of region-wide interties, responsibilities, and testing, will provide region-wide benefits - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure Project would add an intertie between Martinez's system and East Bay Municipal Water District's system to provide supplies during emergencies. - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - Reducing sources of salinty discharges to the sewer system reduces the level of salts in wastewater effluent. This reduces the amount of salts that must be removed, helping to avoid discharges of excessively salty brine to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - Reducing salinity sources in wastewater helps to reduce the amount of salts added to the Delta and connected waterways through WWTP effluent, helping to protect Delta habitat. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - Reducing salinity sources in wastewater helps to reduce the amount of salts added to the Delta and connected waterways through WWTP effluent, minimizing impacts to the Delta ecosystem. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - Removal of SRWS would reduce the number of vehcle trips to dispose of SRWS, reducing GHG emissions. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - Reduces need for capital improvements; reduces operational costs; avoids stranded assets; leverages assets - Reduces the need for capital improvements, reduces operational costs, leverages assets. Program Preferences – Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Helps to reduce potential water-related conflicts during emergencies by improving ability to meet demands during emergencies. Provides for coordinated use and purchase of equipment to maintain and operate water and wastewater systems in the region, reducing potential Project prepares for emergencies, reducing potential water-related conflicts during emergencies and outages. - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional conflicts regarding costs and imrpoving maintenance to reduce potential system failures and associated water rela CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Interties allow for greater flexibility in water distribution systems. Regional equipment purchases and a coordinated approach to use allows for flexible use of water-relate equipment, and more efficient use of budgets allocated for water agencies. Improved management of interties will help maintain connections between agencies, allowing for more efficient and flexible use of water resources during emergencies. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - Reduced salinity discharges to the Delta helps to protect the ecological health of the watershed. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Interties could be used to deliver water during drought when Martinez supplies may be insufficient. - Interties allow for exchanges between agencies in emergencies, including drought. - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - Reduce discharge of salts to the sewer system will reduce the salinity of treated WWTP effluent, protecting water quality in receiving waters. Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local The intertie would improve local and regional conveyance systems. - Improves regional emergency conveyance system. - System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers Intertie would allow for water transfers from EBMUD. - Interties allow for water transfers between agencies. - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Intertie would allow for water deliveries from EBMUD. - Interties will allow for potable water distribution across and between agencies, especially during emergencies. - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - - - Salinity source control prevents high levels of salts. Salt and Salinity Management - - - Salinity source control prevents high levels of salts. Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - Coordinated purchases and joint inventories provide cost efficiencies for participating agencies. Project will improve operation and maintenance efficiencies for the interties, providing cost savings to participating agencies. - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - - - 9/2014 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental AssesProject Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Categorical Exemption (CEQA), categorical exclusion (NEPA), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA - Planning - NA $110,000 $48,000 Design - $75,000 NA NA Environmental Review - $15,000 NA NA Permits - $15,000 NA NA Construction/Implementation Variable $595,000 NA $16,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance - - NA NA Other - - NA $6,000 Total Project Cost Variable $700,000 $110,000 $70,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - Project benefits DACs in the region through its regional benefits. What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Project could reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle trips for disposal of SRWS. - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Project ID # 77 78 79 80 Project Description Project Type Planning – Infrastructure Optimization Planning – Water Supply Planning – Emergency Preparedness Water Quality Describe the project Several of the treatment plants in the region have excess capacity compared with the MDDs. This excess capacity can be viewed as a stranded asset and may present an opportunity to find additional uses for the plants. Three potential end users that could benefit from using the Participating Agencies’ (PAs’) excess treatment plant capacity are:  EBMUD/Sacramento River Pre-treatment. EBMUD has a new emergency supply from the  Sacramento River that will likely require pretreatment prior to treatment in EMBUD’s Walnut Creek or Orinda direct filtration plants. A combination of the PAs’ treatment plants may be able to provide side-stream treatment of EBMUD’s emergency drought supply to reduce the turbidity to a point that allows effective use of direct filtration.  Bay Area Regional Desalination (BARD) Project Pretreatment. The BARD Project will require removing turbidity and other constituents prior to the desalination process, which can be accomplished with a conventional treatment plant. The BARD project may also present the possibility of co-locating the desalination facility at one of the existing PA’s treatment plants, which has the following potential benefits: o Reduced capital costs by sharing infrastructure, e.g., electrical facilities, chemical facilities, roads, etc. o Reduced labor costs by sharing operations staff. o Proximity to existing transmission piping infrastructure.  Antioch San Joaquin River intake. Another potential for the project may be to augment the BARD project from the proposed Mallard Slough intake with Antioch San Joaquin River intake. Antioch’s rights allow them to take as much water as Antioch can use within its limits. Antioch’s ability to use the water is often limited not by quantity but by quality. Antioch could use more water if the water could be treated to remove TDS during part of the year. This treatment would be less frequent This purpose of this project is to continue the ongoing work by the current users to confirm the availability of groundwater and to expand the understanding of the groundwater supply. Groundwater in the region may require additional treatment to reduce dissolved salts to meet drinking water standards and to maximum recycled water opportunities. The project includes an analysis of the ability of supplemental treatment of groundwater to provide an emergency resource for the region. If emergency groundwater treatment is determined feasible as a backup supply, an assessment of the regional groundwater capacity and quality will be performed. The project will also determine how the groundwater capacity would be conveyed back into the system if needed to be relied upon in an emergency and will determine the type of treatment required, if needed, for it to be used. The purpose of this project is for the PAs is to track and understand the regional impacts regarding the Delta modeling results that are being presented by other agencies such as DWR as part of the BDCP. Increased analysis of Delta levee failure impacts in recent years as a result of the BDCP has resulted in the availability of modeling data projecting water quality impacts of potential Delta levee failure scenarios. The water quality data used for the RCS analysis is based on a three-month modeling duration. The analysis for the RCS assumed a six-month service interruption based on interpolating the extension of the chloride water quality of the three-month modeled period. It is assumed for the RCS analysis that chloride levels would return to normal after six months. Due to the currently limited chloride modeling data available, it is recommended that this analysis be updated when additional Delta levee failure modeling results are available with a modeled duration beyond the original three-month modeling scenarios duration or as other modeling assumptions are made and modeling analysis updated. Supply impacts due to changes in water quality may occur more frequently in the future due to factors such as increased demand and climate change. These potential water quality risks should be identified as well as the resulting impact on supply and the Participating Agencies’ (PAs’) ability to treat the supply. One example of an issue is high TOC levels that may occur during a Delta levee failure. An increase in TOC can become a treatment problem in a short amount of time. If TOC elevates above 10 mg/L for a period of time in the untreated water supply, treatment capacity may be limited. If TOC levels elevate, the untreated water TOC may become more of a decision-making driver than other water quality concerns. Elevated TOC levels may require future use of Los Vaqueros storage or activation of emergency interties with EBMUD. Supplies diverted from Rock Slough are likely to be most susceptible to TOC concerns. This project would evaluate the potential water quality impacts, including TOC, to water treatment plant treatment capabilities to determine which treatment plants are better equipped to treat changed water quality constituent levels, what those constituent, including TOC, level limitations would be, and what WTP improvements are needed to meet minimum demand requirements during an emergency. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional and less extensive than the anticipated BARD treatment on Mallard Slough. The projects to use the PAs’ excess treatment plant capacity described above appear to have a great potential for collaborative improvements that would enhance the reliability of the PAs’ supplies in emergency conditions as well as improve efficiencies by making more use of existing infrastructure. Treatment, pumping, and transmission system improvements would be needed to implement these projects. The purpose of this plan is to identify costs and benefits and potential features of an excess treatment plant capacity optimization project. There are projects that should be implemented by the PAs in order to ultimately enable the PAs to optimize the use of existing infrastructure such as excess treatment plant capacity to provide water to others outside the PAs’ service areas. This plan will identify costs and benefits and potential features of excess treatment capacity optimization projects. This plan would also include an analysis of the treatment improvements required for reliability as well as pumping and transmission system improvements to allow water to be delivered to the potential end user outside the region Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Project will evaluatae the potential for groundwater as an emergency supply for the region, as well as expand understanding of groundwater in the region. Imrpvoes understanding of Delta levee failure modeling, allowing for regional planning. Water quality issues that would be identified by this proejct affect the entire region, so benefits of the project will be realized by the entire region. Benefits would be realized by participating agencies and beyond the region. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Groundwater is less subject to Delta influences and could be less subject to drought. - - Allow excess capacity to be utilized for more efficient water supply and treatment purposes, potentially utilizing sources less subject to Delta influences and drought more efficiently. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - Reduces stranded assets, allowing for improved water use efficiency. Increase water transfers - - - Could create additional water transfers to agencies whose capacities are insufficient to meet demands. Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - Excess capacity could be used to help meet demands during emergencies experienced by other regions and agencies. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Project increases understanding of groundwater and its possible use as a water resource for the region. - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - Project would evaluate potentail threats to water quality, including water quality impairment of source water that could prevent its treatment and use. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Project will help protect against water quality impacts to drinking water. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Project analyzes groundwater and groundwater quality. - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Project reduces the need for pumping outside sources across long distance, reducing GHG emissions associated with long-distance conveyance. - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives Utilizes stranded assets; leverages assets Leverages assets; benefits DACs by lowering costs and improving reliability. - - Program Preferences – Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Project increases local supplies and reducing potentail water-related conflicts over imported or surface water. - Project would plan forpotential water quality risks that could result in water-related conflicts. Improved water supply reliability and efficient use of water supplies and capacities helps to reduce water-related conflicts. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Project evaluates water quality risks at the source that could affect agencies' ability to treat water. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Improves understanding of Delta levee failure modeling, improving understanding of levee failure impacts and improving emergency planning to address such impacts. Water quality is threatened by potential levee failure. This project would evaluate these risks to identify which treatment facilities are most appropriate to protect water quality in the event of an emergency, including levee failure. - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Project evaluates the potential for groundwater use, increasing water supplies and diversifying the supply portfolio. - - Project allows for utilization of excess capacity and provides for more efficient and flexible use of water resources for connected agencies. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Water supply diversification helps protect against the impacts of drought. - Project plans for treatment needs during emergencies, including drought, which may impair source water quality. Improved water supply reliablity and use of assets helps protect against the effects of drought on an agency's ability to meet demands. Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - Provides for more efficient use of water infrastructure. Climate Change Response Actions - - Project plans for treatment needs during emergencies, including climate change, which may affect source water quality. - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Would allow for improved conveyance systems in a regional context. System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - Would allow for water transfers to support Bay Area needs. Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve WDrinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - Project would plan for appropriate treatment options for water quality Would allow for export of drinking water to support Bay Area needs. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional degredation in the event of emergencies or in the face of altered conditions. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA Planning $149,500 $110,000 $50,000 $53,400 Design - NA NA NA Environmental Review - NA NA NA Permits - NA NA NA Construction/Implementation - $150,000 NA NA Environmental Mitigation/Compliance - NA NA NA Other - $30,000 NA NA Total Project Cost $149,500 $300,000 $50,000 $53,400 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Project would benefit DACs in the region by increasing supply options; local groundwater supplies are cheaper than pumping water from long distances, providing cost savings to residents, including DACs - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Project ID # 81 82 83 84 Project Description Project Type Other Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project Provide rebates for landscape water conservation incentives. This project will enable rangeland restoration and watershed health improvements in Contra Costa County. Federal matching funds have created a rare opportunity to restore up to 67 degraded livestock ponds on public and private lands in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and evaluate benefits of rural upland ponds for species recovery and stormwater management. The project is scalable; requested funds could restore 12 ponds, monitor species response, and evaluate range and watershed hydrology impacts. This program offers incentives to ranchers to restore livestock ponds and manage surrounding rangelands in a manner that benefits wildlife. Incentives include streamlined permitting assistance, project planning and design, cost share assistance, and engineering/biological assistance during project implementation. Project components include pond de-sedimentation, spillway repair, invasive species control and implementation of rangeland best management practices. Enhancements such as plant establishment, riparian fencing, and erosion control are implemented when necessary. Where riparian areas or springs show excessive livestock impacts, or livestock diminish the hydro-period of a pond, we work with willing ranchers to develop off-stream water troughs and/or riparian fencing. We design and implement all projects in accordance with NRCS standards and specifications for wildlife habitat improvement and stream restoration. Alameda County RCD (ACRCD) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) pioneered the technical and permitting innovations necessary to complete these projects, and have implemented more than 20 pond restoration projects since 2006. ACRCD and Contra Costa RCD (CCRCD) have partnered over the past two years to extend the program from Alameda to Contra Costa County. We anticipate adding projects each year through 2019. This project involves the planning, design, and construction of an emergency back-up generator for Delta Diablo’s Recycled Water Facility and installation of recycled water fill stations for residential irrigation uses. Delta Diablo’s existing Recycled Water Facility consists of several treatment processes and a 2 million gallon storage tank. The treatment facility does not have backup power, so when main utility power is interrupted, the treatment facility is unable to produce recycled water. To ensure recycled water is available for its customers, Delta Diablo keeps its storage tank full at all times in order to temporarily gravity-feed water stored in its tank until main power is restored. By providing backup power, the treatment facility will remain operational during power outages to reliably meet customer water demands. In addition, the recycled water that was stored in the tank is no longer needed during power outages and can now be used to serve additional customers. While the tank volume is 2 million gallons, the District conservatively estimates 1.5 million gallons per day of recycled water will be available for industrial and irrigation demands. This project will implement a new service, adding fill stations at Delta Diablo’s treatment facility for trucked residential irrigation uses. This project will extend the existing non-potable water line on Grant Street from O’Hara Avenue west to Fairview Avenue. Extension of the non-potable water line will allow the City to convert existing park and landscape irrigation from potable to non-potable water. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - Contra Costa RCD; Alameda County RCD; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS); Contra Costa County Flood Control District - - ECCC IRWM Plan ObjectivFunding for Water-Related PlanninIncrease regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: Increasing water conservation improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Additional: Optimization of flows and new supplies created - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Using less water will help other agencies in the region with more available supply. - - - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - Primary: This project makes additional recycled water available, which is the most drought-tolerant supply available for the region. Primary: This project will allow the City to use non-potable water for landscape irrigation Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Primary: Reducing water consumption improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. Additional: The proposed project will restore deteriorating stock ponds, providing supplemental water to improve livestock distribution. This enables ranchers to optimize for utilization and manage grassland resources for multiple goals, including habitat, soil health, and water retention. Additional: Expanded use of recycled water increases efficiency (appropriate water quality for the use) and reduces reliance on Delta and groundwater supplies Additional: This project will reduce the amount of potable water that is used by the City of Brentwood Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: Stockponds provide stormwater management benefits by decreasing peak runoff and increasing infiltration. Numerous distributed stockponds can have a significant cumulative benefit. Rangeland management practices such as prescribed grazing and cranial vegetation establishment can substantially increase the stormwater retention capacity of rangeland soils and the hydroperiod of local waterways. - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Primary: This project meets an urgent need for species recovery for CA tiger salamander (CTS) and CA red-legged frog (CRLF). CTS is state-listed and CRLF is federally-listed as threatened in Alameda and Contra Costa. Much of their habitat - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood has been altered or lost to development and cropland. Private ranches and grazed public lands hold the majority of remaining habitat for these species in the East Bay region. Their survival and recovery increasingly depends on existing livestock ponds and the efforts of local cattle ranchers. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - Additional: Ponds that are failing due to spillway and/or dam erosion may contribute to increased levels of sedimentation within the watershed. Restoring these ponds through de-sedimentation improves the storage capacity for sediment capture. Associated practices such as fencing and installation of off stream water troughs enables ranchers to control livestock access to sensitive pond and riparian areas and manage for multiple benefits. - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Excessive water use wastes power needed to pump water. Less power utilized by CCWD will reduce greenhouse gasses. - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - This project is part of a larger project that will expand the City’s non-potable water system to the north eastern part of the City which has plans for future development. This improvement will not only allow future landscaping to be irrigated with non-potable water, it will also allow the developer to use non-potable water for construction. Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Yes: Increase recycled water supplies can result in less reliance on Delta water and potentially more water left in upstream storage. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, - Yes: The proposed project will restore deteriorating stock ponds, providing supplemental water to improve livestock - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. distribution. This enables ranchers to optimize for utilization and manage grassland resources for multiple goals, including habitat, soil health, and water retention. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Reducing water consumption will reduce the quantity of water that CCWD will need to use from the Delta which benefits the region and the State. - Yes: This project will make available about 1.5 MGD of recycled water for use in the system. Yes: This project will help reduce the amount of potable water that is being used for landscaping which will increase the supply of potable water that is available to serve other needs. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: More water left in the Delta improves the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed. Yes: Although well-managed rural watersheds and uplands may be taken for granted, they remain essential to the health of our creeks. The benefits of managed grazing on private and public lands within Bay Area watersheds can be multiplied by expansion of practices that demonstrably improve watershed functions: reduce peak flows, increase surface and ground water supply, and extend the hydroperiod of seasonal creeks. - Yes: This project will help reduce the amount of potable water that is being used for landscaping which will reduce the amount of water that needs to be supplied from the Bay-Delta watershed. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: This project is part of a larger project that will expand the City’s non-potable water system to the north eastern part of the City which has plans for future development. This improvement will not only allow future landscaping to be irrigated with non-potable water, it will also allow the developer to use non-potable water for construction. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes Yes Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes - Yes Yes Climate Change Response Actions Yes - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - Yes Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - Yes Yes System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Yes - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - Yes Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - Yes - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - Yes - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Started Not Started Complete Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 2015 - Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Complete Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Complete Not Started Complete Est. Completion Date - 3/31/2015 2016 - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Complete Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Complete Est. Completion Date 12/1/2013 2016 - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Underway Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 8/90/2020 2016 - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Underway Not Started Pending Funding Est. Completion Date - 8/30/2020 2016 2/26/2016 Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Pending Funding Est. Completion Date 12/31/2017 12/31/2020 2016 6/24/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 12/31/2018 6/30/2021 - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Project is exempt. CEQA/NEPA, and Programmatic CESA and FESA take permits. RWQCB and 1600 permits are required for each pond restoration. TBD as project may be exempt or ND. Fish and Wildlife fees have already been paid to Contra Costa County. HCP fees have already been paid to Contra Costa County Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Status? - CEQA/NEPA and Programmatic CESA take permits are complete. FESA take permits are in review by USFWS. RWQCB and 1600 permits are applications are submitted for each individual pond restoration project. Not started, but permitting is anticipated to be minimal and therefore move quickly. All payments have been made. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required Homeowners may need to secure individual building permits. - TBD, though none anticipated The City executed an agreement with Union Pacific Railroad to construct the non-potable water line through their right-of-way. The City will obtain a construction permit before construction begins. City will need to obtain a permit from EBMUD. EBMUD has approved the project plans. Status? - - Not started, but permitting is anticipated to be minimal and therefore move quickly. The City will obtain a permit from UPRR and EBMUD before construction begins. Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - None. None. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA Planning NA NA $65,000 NA Design $20,000 $224,900 $135,000 $150,000 Environmental Review Unknown NA $10,000 NA Permits Unknown NA $15,000 $30,000 Construction/Implementation $140,000 $607,000 $1,090,000 $1,320,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA $67,200 NA NA Other NA $71,900 $235,000 NA Total Project Cost $140,000 $971,000 $1,550,000 $1,500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - Yes Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $40,000 $60,000 - $375,000 Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - Yes User Rates Yes - - - User Fees - - Yes Yes Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - Yes - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - $445,000 - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - Yes - - Federal Grants - Yes - - Currently unfunded $100,000 $466,000 TBD $1,125,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - No Yes: Use of recycled water for residential landscaping and park irrigation can have benefits to DACs in the area by replacing/offsetting potable supplies. - What Community(ies)? - - Pittsburg and Antioch - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - No Yes: Making this recycled water available for residential and park landscaping will increase water supply and improve access to Parks, as the City will not have to use freshwater supplies for irrigation, or discontinue irrigation during drought and impact use of park turf areas. - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - No No - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - Yes: Restored stockponds will capture peak stormwater runoff from extreme events and augment livestock water supplies during drought. We will monitor and assess water resource benefits from site evaluations and post-project monitoring. Yes: Increasing the recycled water supply improves the ability of the communities to plan for climate change, which in this region is marked by increasing and extended drought. - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: Lower pumping due to water conservation will reduce power consumption which reduces greenhouse gasses. - Not known at this time - Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Project ID # 85 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project The Pittsburg Recycled Water System Expansion Project will meet water demands and reduce dependence on the Delta by expanding service to new users in the City of Pittsburg, CA. The project consists of installing approximately 5,000 LF of 6-inch to 8-inch PVC pipe and adding recycled water service connections to five new user sites. The user sites to be added include Buckley Square, Law Enforcement Training Center, Bay Harbor HOA, median at 3rd Street & Railroad Avenue, and landscape along Railroad Avenue at Highway 4. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Pittsburg ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: This project expands recycled water use in Pittsburg, helping to meet the region’s water supply needs. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Primary: Delta water is a major supply source for Pittsburg. This project will expand recycled water service to irrigation users in Pittsburg, providing drought-tolerant supply that is less subject to Delta influence. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: Switching irrigation use from potable to recycled water can offset urban water use and help water suppliers to meet 20% by 20020 potable water conservation targets. Increase water transfers - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Expanded recycled water use can replace Delta supplies, which can offset demands and reduce diversions; this may help reduce salinity/saltwater intrusion and protect source water quality. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality Additional: This project expands recycled water distribution in the region for irrigation use, and maintains recycled water quality. Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: While DDSD expects to remain in compliance with water quality and discharge regulations, increasing recycled water production and use reduces wastewater discharges and mass loading to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Expanded recycled water use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Greater use of local, recycled water can be less energy intensive than conveying and treating imported water. This project will increase operating efficiency resulting in lower energy use and the associated GHG emissions from fossil fuel sources. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Improve regional flood risk management - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: There are DACs within Delta Diablo’s service area, and recycled water project planning will include involvement of these DACs in Pittsburg. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: Delta Diablo’s website and project flyers will include information on the benefits of recycled water and its role in water management. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - Program Preferences – Ranking Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Regional recycled water planning can improve water supply reliability through more effective use of resources, and cooperative planning to address future water supply related conflicts related to Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo climate change and increasing Delta constraints. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Expanded recycled water use increases the region’s water supplies, allowing more efficient and flexible use of water resources. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Increased use of recycled water can positively impact Bay-Delta water supply and water quality, by potentially reducing Delta diversions, and decreasing wastewater discharges. These contribute to Bay-Delta ecological health. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Yes: Recycled water distribution expansion planning will identify water resource availability and quality, fostering communication with county and city land use planners and informing their land use plans. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes Climate Change Response Actions Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits Yes - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - Conveyance – Regional/Local Yes System Reoperation - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Water Transfers - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - Desalination - Precipitation Enhancement - Recycled Municipal Water Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - Matching Quality to Use Yes Pollution Prevention - Salt and Salinity Management - Urban Runoff Management - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) Yes Ecosystem Restoration - Forest Management - Recharge Area Protection - Water-Dependent Recreation - Watershed Management - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - Fog Collection - Irrigated Land Retirement - Rainfed Agriculture - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - Planning Project Status In Progress Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Est. Completion Date December 2015 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status In Progress Est. Completion Date December 2015 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Design Project Status Not Started Est. Completion Date March 2016 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Est. Completion Date June 2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Environmental Describe any required - Status? - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - Status? - Project Schedule Available? - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties The list of potential water users and water demands was developed after the District’s Recycled Water Master Plan. There are no expected impacts related to technical feasibility; the only uncertainties are related to the timing of recycled water connection for some users. Therefore, it is expected that users will be added in phases based on readiness, water demand and environmental documentation. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement - Planning - Design - Environmental Review - Permits - Construction/Implementation - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance - Other $1,500,000 Total Project Cost $1,500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - Regional Assessments - Developmental Fees - User Rates - User Fees - Bonded Debt Financing - Property Tax - Contributions - Other - Existing grants Amount - State Grants - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - Local Grants - Federal Grants - Currently unfunded $1,500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - Disadvantaged Communities Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: The water supply benefits to DACs in this project include improved water reliability through recycled water expansion. This project will reduce dependence on Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta supplies, is drought tolerant, and has the potential to improve economic development. What Community(ies)? Census tract area in Pittsburg. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Outreach and involvement are underway, as this project is in the early planning stages. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? Yes: Delta Diablo’s recycled water is a reliable, affordable resource, resulting in water and fertilizer cost savings compared to current irrigation. This can be a benefit to Pittsburg when used on parks which provide recreation access to the community. Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: Climate change is expected to result in drought and decreased water supplies. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: This expansion project evaluates system operation, identifying efficiencies and optimization to reduce power use. Reduction of power use will decrease the associated greenhouse gas emissions generated from conventional power production. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix F– ECCC Water Management Issues IRWM Plan Update F-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix F - ECCC Water Management Issues The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) explored water management issues and regional needs during deliberations in February 2012. Concerns were organized into six broad topics.  Topic: Water Quality and Related Regulations  Topic: Water Supply  Topic: Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources  Topic: Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation  Topic: Stormwater and Flood Management  Topic: Access to Resources Following is a recap of the broad issues and needs. Table F-1. Topic: Water Quality and Related Regulations Water Management Issues Regional Need  Delta water quality impairment, especially due to future Delta-wide actions, such as Delta Plan/BDCP  Treated water quality impairment  Groundwater quality impairment  Stormwater runoff entering receiving water  Uncertainty in future regulations  Protection of Delta water quality (to the greatest extent possible), and options for managing raw water quality through storage/blending  Protection of public health  Protection of groundwater supply  Control of water quality of discharges entering the Delta  Anticipation of future regulations, with measures in place before enforcement of new regulations Table F-2. Topic: Water Supply Water Management Issues Regional Need  Unreliable surface water supply, especially in dry years and when considering future growth  Regional dependence on Delta water supplies, which are subject to future Delta-wide influences, such as the BDCP/Delta Plan, climate change, and/or potential levee failure  Reliable water supply in the future, even in dry years by expanding water portfolio  Regional self-sufficiency in water supply and reduced dependence on the Delta Appendix F– ECCC Water Management Issues IRWM Plan Update F-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table F-3. Topic: Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Water Management Issues Regional Need  Fragile Delta ecosystem  Environmental impacts  Historical decline of wetland habitats  Lack of access to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation  Balanced water management that enhances and restores Delta ecosystem habitat, minimizes negative impacts to the ecosystem, and mitigates unavoidable impacts  Reduced environmental impacts and a planning process that minimizes environmental impacts  Restoration of wetland habitats  Accessible waterways for subsistence fishing Table F-4. Topic: Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Water Management Issues Regional Need  Lack of funding for planning and implementation because of slower development and reduced water usage (insufficient or variable revenue stream)  Competitive nature, limited available funds, and potential schedule delays associated with grant funding  Money for direct funding and grant match funding.  Grant funding, when appropriate, to support planning and project implementation. Table F-5. Topic: Stormwater and Flood Management Water Management Issues Regional Need  Localized flooding  Regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure  Limit occurrences of and damages from localized flooding  Delta levee integrity and an understanding of other factors that could induce regional flooding, such as climate change Table F-6. Topic: Access to Resources Water Management Issues Regional Need  Inequitable distribution of resources in the region  Equitable distribution of resources in the region Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix G - ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Standards describe what must be in an IRWM Plan and can be used as criteria in Implementation Grant applications. One of the requirements is that the plan must document the range of Resource Management Strategies (RMS) considered to meet the IRWM objectives and identify which RMS were incorporated into the IRWM Plan. The RMS to be considered must include the RMS found in Volume 2 of the State of California’s Water Plan (CWP) Update 2009. At the time of issuance of the 2012 Guidelines, DWR was in the process of developing CWP Update 2013. Update 2013 will include additional or different RMS. Consideration of such alternate RMS is encouraged, but not mandated. A key objective of the State’s CWP Update is to present a comprehensive and diverse set of RMSs that can help meet the water-related resource management needs of each region and statewide. The RMS narratives are developed by subject matter experts from the CWP State Agency Steering Committee members with considerable input from other experts and stakeholders. The list of RMSs was shared with the ECWMA and stakeholders to consider when developing projects. Of the 33 individual tools described in the CWP 2009 RMS section, the ECWMA identified 24 with potential for use in meeting the IRWM Plan objectives, plus the three new CWP 2013 RMS. Following is the list of resource management strategies, the assessment of applicability to the region, and the analysis of why or why not the tools could be applied. Also included is an assessment of how each RMS addresses region-specific climate change adaptation strategies and GHG reduction and mitigation efforts. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table G-1. Resource Management Strategies and Applicability to ECCC Region Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Applicable Agriculture is prominent in the ECCC region. The region is evaluating agricultural water use and current practices to determine whether or not agricultural water use efficiency measures are appropriate. Improving water efficiency through agricultural operations and increasing urban water conservation efforts reduces GHG emissions through reduction of energy use with pumping, operating equipment, and water treatment. Permanent changes that reduce water demand similarly reduce impacts and use of infrastructure, thereby prolonging the useful life of infrastructure and stretching financial investments. Urban Water Use Efficiency Applicable Water conservation is an important component of the ECCC region’s approach to water management. The current conservation programs being implemented are in accordance with Best Management Practices established by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. The agencies are committed to ongoing demand management as a cornerstone to meeting future supply needs and to implement conservation measures to account for a decrease of 20% in per capita water use of 20% of demand by 2020. Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers Conveyance – Delta Applicable How and whether Delta conveyance moves forward is crucial to water management for the ECCC region. Delta conveyance could impact the ECCC region’s water supply availability, timing, and quality. Although the member agencies would not implement a project for Delta conveyance, it remains an important activity for the region to track. Optimal use and operation of the region’s conveyance infrastructure and transfer capabilities helps increase regional resiliency to climate change impacts. With adequate planning and smart operational decisions, the region is able to respond to a variety of water scenarios to will provide water supply during drought, emergency, or limited use conditions. Improving operational flexibility provides resources and solutions to regional agencies, and will help prevent climate-change impacts to public health and safety. Conveyance – Regional/Local Applicable Conveyance of water resources is essential to diversify the region’s water portfolio, use storage options for water quality and timing of deliveries, and promote the use of recycled water. The region wishes to maximize use of existing conveyance infrastructure and construct new conveyance infrastructure where needed. System Reoperation Applicable System operational efficiency is a high priority for the region’s water agencies. CCWD and its retail customers are undertaking an optimization study to determine how best to operate their water treatment, storage, and conveyance facilities. Water Transfers Applicable The ECCC region’s water supply is subject to hydrology, constraints on Delta resources, and complex statewide water operations. Water transfers are part of the portfolio of supplies that will be needed to meet CCWD’s water supply reliability goal to meet 100% of demands in normal years and a minimum of 85% of demands during extended droughts. Within the ECCC region, water transfers are strategic for water agencies to cope with emergency situations. The region is undertaking an inventory and evaluation of agency interties. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Applicable The member agencies recognize conjunctive use as a potential future water supply alternative. As the local groundwater basins become more fully described and safe yields are established, conjunctive use may become an increasingly viable water supply alternative. Regional supply evaluations that are planned or ongoing will yield information that will be critical to identifying sustainable, viable options to diversify the region’s supply portfolio. The region’s commitment to evaluating supply alternatives and implementing projects to increase supply volumes will increase the region’s resiliency to climate change impacts. Opportunities like recycled water and use of surface storage facilities for blending water can result in reduced operating costs and energy use, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Improving access to surface water storage and water transfer abilities also provide resiliency in the event that sea level rise impacts coastal infrastructure. Desalination Applicable Desalination is regarded as a potential water supply alternative for the participating agencies. Feasibility-level projects are underway to evaluate the feasibility of brackish water desalination as a viable water supply alternative within the region and to provide interregional benefits with the Bay Area region. Precipitation Enhancement Not Applicable The majority of the ECCC region’s water comes from the Delta, which is subject to statewide hydrology. Precipitation enhancement within the region would not have a significant influence over Delta conditions, and therefore would not have a significant impact on the region’s water supplies. Recycled Municipal Water Applicable ECCC is a leader in recycled water production. Continued commitment to water reuse is a major component of the future water supply programs of these agencies. Many projects and programs within the study area focus on water reuse. Surface Storage – CALFED Applicable Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion was named as one of the CALFED storage projects. CCWD currently owns and operates Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and the expansion study is ongoing. An expansion could benefit the region by providing more local storage to improve water supply reliability and, potentially, water quality. Surface Storage – Regional/Local Applicable Some of the participating agencies currently own and operate surface water storage facilities. Region-wide optimization of these storage facilities is planned for evaluation. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Applicable Water treatment and distribution are important elements of protecting public health. Ongoing projects and programs within ECCC aim to improve and optimize water treatment and distribution to enhance public health protection. The region’s actions to protect water quality testing and treatment facilities and protect conveyance and storage infrastructure from pollution are critical steps in improving the region’s resiliency to climate change impacts. Key vulnerabilities for the region are related to introduction of new and increased levels of existing contaminants from outside sources, and weather-related changes that can impact organic content and algae activity in source waters. Each of these water quality improvement RMSs target a key source of pollution that would otherwise cause public health issues for the region if not pre-emptively managed. Groundwater Remediation/ Aquifer Remediation Not Applicable Groundwater contamination requiring remediation is not a known problem in the ECCC region. Matching Quality to Use Applicable Source water quality varies within the region. Water agencies are working together to determine the most suitable and efficient end use of different source waters. One example is an investigation to determine whether groundwater can be better managed through understanding its current application to agriculture. Pollution Prevention Applicable Non-point source pollution control is a key element of the County’s stormwater management plan, which identifies a variety of strategies including public education and industrial outreach, new development, and construction controls, and watershed management activities, including wetland restoration. Contra Costa County, 19 of its incorporated cities and the Contra Costa Flood Control & Water Conservation District have joined together to form the CCCWP. The CCCWP strives to eliminate stormwater pollution and has partnered with the ECWMA to help implement these strategies in the ECCC region. Salt and Salinity Management Applicable Salt and salinity management is important for water management agencies across the ECCC region. Ongoing salinity management efforts within the region include source water salinity management (Delta salinity varies with season, location, and statewide water operations), salt and nutrient management plan for Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin, and salinity management for treated wastewater disposal. Urban Runoff Management Applicable The Contra Costa County Stormwater Management Plan contains detailed county-wide objectives for management of stormwater. A variety of projects and programs being conducted within the study area include stormwater capture and management elements. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Applicable The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has a mandate to protect infrastructure, property, and public safety from flooding. In an effort to improve habitat, water quality, and stormwater management, the district has worked with a number of participating agencies to identify strategies and projects that improve or maintain flood protection while advancing other regional objectives. Flood management efforts directly improve resiliency to sea level rise for coastal areas and infrastructure, and temper impacts to facilities and health and safety from future extreme weather events. Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship Applicable With projected regional growth, land-use planning is critical for protecting water quality, sensitive habitats, and open space as well as maintaining water supply reliability. The County General Plan and urban limit line establish guidelines for land-use planning. Implementation of these RMSs to protect the environment and habitat resources throughout the region and in the Delta will help protect the region’s water supply, water quality, natural management and sequestration of greenhouse gases, and improve resiliency against impacts like sea level rise. With warmer temperatures resulting from climate change, competition with non-native and invasive species may become prevalent, reducing the ability of natural environments to protect sensitive species and manage runoff. Watershed management, ecosystem restoration, and utilization of economic incentives will be particularly important manage these climate change impacts. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing) Applicable Economic incentives that influence water management are critical to the ECCC region. With the economic slowdown and the disparity between revenue projections and actual revenue, the region has relied heavily on State-funded economic incentives to accomplish certain water management activities. In turn, water agencies have established economic incentives for their customers to address critical water supply needs of disadvantaged communities and promote water conservation. Ecosystem Restoration Applicable Participating agencies have identified and advanced a variety of ecosystem restoration and habitat protection alternatives. These projects will help protect a variety of threatened and endangered species identified in the HCP. The ECCCHC implements integrated habitat recovery above and beyond mitigation requirements in a manner that protects water quality and ecosystem function. Forest Management Not Applicable Forested watersheds are not prevalent in the ECCC region. Land Use Planning Applicable Water managers work closely with their land use counterparts on floodplain issues and evaluating lands for use in meeting ecosystem goals. Recharge Area Protection Applicable Groundwater in the ECCC region is overlaid by urban development, rural lands, and open space. Groundwater is fed by natural recharge. Recent regional groundwater activities, such as a basin management plan and a salt/nutrient management program, have aided in the region’s understanding of groundwater quality and quantity, identification of potential threats, and plans for managing groundwater and protecting recharge areas. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Water-Dependent Recreation Applicable Integrating recreation and public access into project and facilities management allows the public to access and enjoy open space lands on the Delta shoreline and throughout the Diablo range. It also provides agencies with an effective vehicle for educating the public about the region’s water supply and ecosystem. Multiple projects and programs for the ECCC region explicitly include recreation and public access elements. Watershed Management Applicable The IRWM planning process promotes integrated watershed management that crosses jurisdictional and political boundaries. Collaborative, regional water management remains a top priority for the ECCC region. Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers Not Applicable The region does not currently recognize a need for crop idling for water supply. If implemented within the region, irrigated land retirement may support the goals of similar RMSs such as improving agricultural water use efficiency practices by reducing water use and potentially reducing greenhouse gas emission production, depending on the existing practices of the irrigation operation. Dew-vaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination Not Applicable The technologies are still under development and are not yet cost effective. Under the current portfolio of regional projects and programs, desalination is considered a more feasible technology to implement at the current time. Fog Collection Not Applicable The technologies are high cost and low production, and most relevant to areas where little or no other water sources are available. Irrigated Land Retirement Applicable Irrigated land retirement occurs naturally when economic growth drives the market for development. It does not occur in times of economic downturn. Forced retirement of irrigated land for water management purposes is not being considered by water agencies at this time because irrigated land leads to agricultural productivity and local revenue. Rain-fed Agriculture Not Applicable Crops that get their full water supply from rainfall are generally impractical in the ECCC region due to the lack of significant rainfall in the summer and fall months. Waterbag Transport/Storage Technology Not Applicable This strategy is not currently used in California, and would require new coastal infrastructure to divert and offload the water. Freshwater supplies statewide are largely allocated; unallocated freshwater supplies would be far away, reducing the cost effectiveness of transporting water. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts CA Water Plan 2013 Sediment Management Applicable Sediment management is a particular concern for stormwater and flood management, and a potential concern for regional surface storage. The Contra Costa Clean Water program a collaboration of many agencies and led by Contra Costa County has issued a stormwater guide that specifically offers direction on sediment. Sediment management practices will reduce the region’s vulnerabilities related to surface water storage and ecosystem restoration, and will protect against impacts to these operations from climate change. Climate change has the potential to affect culturally-sensitive areas. Awareness of these areas and identifying methods to protect them from sea level rise, temperature impacts, flooding, and water quality concerns will reduce the region’s vulnerability in these areas. Outreach and education are priority methods for regional water managers to provide critical information and gain feedback from customers, residents, and business owners on topics that relate to almost all the RMSs listed here. With this RMS, there is an opportunity to increase the implementation of resiliency actions throughout the region by increasing participation in management activities. Water and Culture Applicable The ECWMA is aware of cultural practices related to fishing, Delta as place, and potentially some water-related historic infrastructure (in some cases pre-dating statehood) that should be considered in planning. Additionally, while it is not a current use or historically recorded use, some restored habitat locations maybe suitable for cultural practices, such as gathering materials for basket weaving. Current day examples include one in Antioch that is on the National Register of Historic Places, and was a building occupied by the Bureau of Reclamation during the design and construction of the Central Valley Project. Outreach and Education Applicable The ECWMA has identified outreach and education as a major concern of the region. Key: CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program CCCWP = Contra Costa Clean Water Program CCWD = Contra Costa Water District CWP = California Water Plan Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ECCC = East Contra Costa County ECCCHC = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy ECWMA = East County Water Management Association HCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan IRWM = integrated regional water management RMS = Resource Management Strategies Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H - IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix I – Regional Capacity Study IRWM Plan Update I-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix I - Regional Capacity Study Appendix I – Regional Capacity Study IRWM Plan Update I-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin IRWM Plan Update J-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin IRWM Plan Update J-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix K – Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan IRWM Plan Update K-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix K – Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan Integrated Regional Water Management Plan San Francisco Bay Area October 2019 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Governance Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7 East Bay Municipal Utility District ......................... 1-9 1.2.3.8 Marin Municipal Water District .............................. 1-9 1.2.3.9 City of Napa ......................................................... 1-9 1.2.3.10 North Bay Watershed Association ...................... 1-10 1.2.3.11 City of Palo Alto .................................................. 1-10 1.2.3.12 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ......... 1-10 1.2.3.13 City of San Jose ................................................. 1-11 1.2.3.14 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative .............................................................. 1-11 1.2.3.15 Santa Clara Valley Water District ....................... 1-12 1.2.3.16 Solano County Water Agency ............................ 1-13 1.2.3.17 Sonoma County Water Agency .......................... 1-13 1.2.3.18 State Coastal Conservancy ................................ 1-13 1.2.3.19 Zone 7 Water Agency ......................................... 1-14 1.2.4 Functional Areas .................................................................. 1-14 1.2.5 Subregions ........................................................................... 1-15 1.2.5.1 North Subregion ................................................. 1-18 1.2.5.2 East Subregion ................................................... 1-18 1.2.5.3 South Subregion ................................................ 1-18 1.2.5.4 West Subregion .................................................. 1-19 1.2.6 Other Stakeholders .............................................................. 1-19 1.2.7 Subcommittees .................................................................... 1-20 1.3 Procedures for IRWMP Development .............................................. 1-21 1.3.1 Public Outreach and Involvement Process ........................... 1-21 1.3.2 Decision-Making Process ..................................................... 1-24 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Governance 1.3.3 Document Review Process .................................................. 1-24 1.4 Balanced Access and Opportunities ................................................ 1-26 1.4.1 Effective Communication with Stakeholders and the Public .................................................................................. 1-26 1.4.2 Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities and Native American Tribes .................................................................. 1-28 1.4.3 Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Efforts and State and Federal Agencies .......................................................... 1-28 1.5 Collaboration Process Used to Establish Plan Objectives ............... 1-29 1.6 Long-term implementation of the Plan ............................................. 1-30 1.7 Interim and Formal Changes to the Plan and Plan Updates ............ 1-31 1.8 Plan Adoption .................................................................................. 1-32 List of Tables Table 1-1: Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) Members ........................................... 1-7 Table 1-2: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Members .............. 1-8 Table 1-3: North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) Agencies .......................................... 1-10 Table 1-4: Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) Signatories ..... 1-12 List of Figures Figure 1-1: IRWMP Governance Structure ............................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2: IRWM Subregions .............................................................................................. 1-17 Figure 1-3: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures ............. 1-30 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-1 Governance Chapter 1: Governance This chapter of the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or Plan) Update describes the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG), stakeholders, and the IRWMP governance structure. This chapter also covers the evolution of the structure and function of the governance since 2004 through the current Plan update process. 1.1 Background The IRWMP is an outgrowth of a collaborative process that began in 2004, when regional and local associations, agencies, groups, and organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area signed a Letter of Mutual Understandings (LOMU) to develop an IRWMP for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. To facilitate development of the 2006 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2006 Plan), the participants agreed to organize into four Functional Areas (FA): ● Water Supply & Water Quality, ● Wastewater & Recycled Water, ● Flood Protection & Stormwater Management, and ● Watershed Management & Habitat Protection and Restoration. Representatives from agencies that represented the FAs formed a Technical Coordinating Committee which served as the original governing body and provided oversight for the IRWMP process. In January 2007, following completion of 2006 Plan, this group became known as the San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC). During the development of the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) in 2009, the CC developed an additional organizational structure based on demographic and geographic divisions in order to address the challenges of integrated management at the scale of the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region (Bay Area Region or Region). Four Subregions were defined: East, West, South, and North. The Subregions have subsequently become the focal points for outreach and project solicitation and integration in the IRWMP. The CC still includes representatives from the FAs and the FAs continue to address IRWM issues as needed. 1.2 Governance Team and Structure This section describes roles and responsibilities of the IRWMP participants. As Figure 1 illustrates, regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, environmental groups, business groups, the public and other interested parties participated in the development of the IRWMP, serving in an advisory role at the CC and Subregion levels. The participants and their roles are described in the following sections. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-2 Governance Figure 1-1: IRWMP Governance Structure 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee The CC is the “RWMG” for the IRWMP. The role of the CC is to provide leadership, oversight and administrative support for the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM process. The CC is composed of representatives from Bay Area water supply agencies, wastewater agencies, flood control agencies, ecosystem management and restoration agencies, regulatory agencies, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), and members of the public. Any interested person may participate on the CC. The CC is responsible, directly or through participating agencies, for decision-making and actions including, but not limited to, establishing IRWMP goals and objectives, prioritizing projects, identifying financing for CC and IRWMP activities, implementing Plan activities, making future revisions to the IRWMP, hiring and managing consultants, coordinating, authorizing and/or approving grant proposals and managing funding agreements. The CC has no independent fiscal responsibility or capability except via the participating organizations. Legal actions such as contracting and submitting grant funding applications are carried out by individual participating agencies on behalf of the CC, and cost sharing agreements are developed on a case-by-case basis as necessary. Costs associated with administrative functions of the CC, IRWMP development, and Plan implementation are covered in a variety of ways, including grants, multi-agency contributions through FA associations, funds from individual project proponents, and in-kind contributions of staff time from participating entities. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-3 Governance The CC is composed of a Chair and Vice Chair, individuals from resource and regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations and other interested stakeholders, including members of the public. There are 12 voting representatives made up of three representatives from each of the four FAs, many of which have statutory authority over water resources. Guidelines for the CC established in June 2007 defined two-year terms for the Chair and Vice Chair and stipulate that the Chair and Vice Chair cannot be from the same water/wastewater and flood/watershed combined FAs (see Appendix A-1: Chair and Vice Chair Roles). For more information on the CC’s decision-making process, see Section 1.3.2. The CC meets monthly. Agendas are distributed in advance via listserv (about 314 contacts as of this IRWMP) and are posted to the IRWMP website. After each meeting, summaries are posted on the IRWMP website. The listserv is open to anyone who signs up on the IRWMP website. The following subsections identify the stakeholders that make up the full CC, which include water resource management agency and other stakeholders, LOMU signatories, FA representatives – statutory (voting) members of the CC, and subcommittees. 1.2.2 Stakeholders The goals in promoting stakeholder engagement are to:  Develop a broader understanding of the water resources management needs of the Bay Area Region;  Expand the scope of the IRWMP (from the 2006 version) to define in more detail the relationship between land use planning decisions and water resources management decisions;  Engage NGOs, resource management agencies, and other stakeholder groups in a more comprehensive manner in the IRWMP update process; and  Identify and address the needs of disadvantaged and tribal communities. A broad stakeholder outreach process is crucial to ensure that this IRWMP identifies local issues, reflects local needs, promotes the formation of partnerships, and encourages coordination with state and federal agencies. One of the benefits of this planning process is that it brings together a broad array of groups into a forum to discuss and better understand shared needs and opportunities. Residents of the Region are facing rapidly changing conditions, mainly related to urban growth, that create challenges in water resources management and the stewardship of environmental resources. Agencies and planning jurisdictions must work closely together in order to assure the delivery of clean, reliable water supplies while maintaining the quality of life and environmental values in the Region. If sufficient planning is not undertaken, the consequences for the Region could be significant. The IRWMP benefits from active participation by a wide range of Stakeholders. Stakeholders are defined as any person or organization interested in or affected by provisions of the IRWMP and more broadly by water resources management decisions. Members of the CC and other Stakeholders have participated in periodic Stakeholder meetings, reviewed draft document materials, and provided collaborative input to shape the formation of this IRWMP. Stakeholder 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-4 Governance comments are recorded and the CC responds to these comments by indicating how they were reflected in the IRWMP or if not, why not. By participating in Stakeholder meetings to develop this IRWMP, participants have created opportunities for establishing and developing mutually beneficial partnerships. All water resources management agencies in the Bay Area Region are represented in the IRWM planning process either directly or indirectly through membership in a participating association or other business relationship, such as membership in Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC), Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) and Bay Area Flood Protection Agency Association (BAFPAA). 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types During the development of the IRWMP, targeted stakeholder outreach activities involved a diverse group of water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood control, watershed, municipal, environmental, and regulatory groups. These outreach activities sought to inform, educate, and engage constituents, stakeholders, and interested parties throughout the nine- county Bay Area. Targeted outreach was conducted via stakeholder workshops, Subregional and individual County/Agency outreach to stakeholders in their particular area, and a new website. The list of IRWMP stakeholders is maintained by the CC; stakeholders for the IRWMP have been identified through the following mechanisms: ● Development of the 2006 Plan Stakeholders were initially identified during the development of the 2006 Plan through collection of information directly from water resources management agencies and through outreach efforts and public meetings. Some information about stakeholders was also collected during the development of the four Functional Area Documents (FADs) that served as a baseline to the 2006 Plan. As development of the IRWMP progressed, additional stakeholders were identified through workshops, local government meetings, the project website and several other forums. The Stakeholder database was updated to reflect additional stakeholder groups identified through the 2013 IRWMP outreach activities. ● Development of Local Planning Documents Stakeholders were also identified from the public involvement process that occurred during the development of the individual agency planning documents used to develop the FADs (e.g., General Plans, Urban Water Management Plans, Water Supply Master Plans, Wastewater Master Plans, Recycled Water Master Plans, Flood Protection Management Plans, Stormwater Management Plans, Watershed Management Plans, etc.). ● Subregional Workshops and Regional Outreach and Meetings The Subregional leads organized and facilitated community workshops using an updated listserv and other notifications to publicize the meetings. The workshops provided an overview of the value of regional water management planning, examples of successful grant applications, an overview of the update process, and highlights of the new climate 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-5 Governance change element of the Plan. Stakeholders were able to ask questions and were invited to consider local water resources management challenges that could be addressed through collaboration with partners. ● Disadvantaged Communities The 2013 IRWMP update process targeted Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) for inclusion in the development of the IRWMP and identification of potential water resources management projects. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines DACs as communities in which the Median Household Income (MHI) is less than 80% of the statewide average. Using 2010 Census data, communities that fit the economic threshold were identified. Subregional leads and other CC stakeholder members identified potential regional water resources management challenges that affected these communities in particular and/or other agencies and resources that would know about water supply and water quality challenges in those communities. Subregions have targeted agencies and organizations specific to those communities and engaged in concerted outreach to make them aware of the IRWMP update process, solicit their participation, help identify water resources management problems, and offer assistance so DACs could understand their opportunities to have their needs and concerns addressed by the Plan and its list of proposed projects for state funding. The outreach and engagement team will assist Subregions to make continued progress with these DAC outreach efforts. In 2016, the Bay Area began its IRWM Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP) process, funded through the 2014 Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act (Proposition 1) and administered by The CA Department of Water Resources. The Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee endorsed the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) to be the Grant Administrator and Program Manager for the Bay Area, who partnered with the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) to coordinate outreach, capacity building, and a needs assessment for Bay Area Tribes. The mandate of the program is to include underrepresented populations (including Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), Under- represented Communities (URCs), Economically Disadvantaged Areas (EDAs), and Tribes) into IRWM and other water-related decision making processes. The ultimate goal is to build the capacity of communities and community-based groups to develop and submit IRWM-eligible projects for implementation to address priority water issues identified through tailored outreach and needs assessment processes. EJCW originally partnered with 17 community-based groups and agencies located in DACs around the Bay Area to conduct these tailored outreach and needs assessment processes. In 2019, grant administration for the program was transferred to the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). See Chapter 14 Section 6 and 7 for additional information on the DACTIP. ● Native American Tribes Tribal members are dispersed into the Bay Area population and in some cases do not live in Tribal-specific communities. With that as a challenge, the initial outreach and engagement team for the 2013 Plan Update worked with Tim Nelson, DWR Tribal Liaison for the North Central Region Office and the state Native American Heritage Commission to identify tribal members in the Bay Area Region. Beginning with the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-6 Governance Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP), the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW), contracted with the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) to coordinate outreach and capacity-building for Bay Area Tribes. The ultimate goal of the Tribal process is to include Bay Area Tribes and Bay Area Tribal communities in the local IRWM decision-making bodies directly and for those Tribes and Tribal organizations to be prepared to submit and implement IRWM eligible projects. CIEA first conducted outreach to Tribes and Tribal organizations whose members are descended of the first people of the Bay Area. Several regional Tribes have been identified. Of these, CIEA has partnered with five Tribal Program Partners to receive support and develop their own capacity to work on water stewardship and planning in the Bay Area. Tribal Program Partners include the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Association of Ramaytush, Him-R^n, Indian People Organizing For Change (IPOC), and the Muwekma Ohlone. CIEA’s initial effort of identifying Tribal interests involved outreach to Ohlone gatherings, reaching out to Tribal Chairmen and Chairwomen to discuss the opportunity of the DACTIP and conducting interviews with Tribal representatives about their water resources management needs, concerns, interests and ability to participate in the development of Tribal-specific projects that could be addressed through IRWM. See Chapter 14 Sections 6 & 7 for additional information on the DACTIP. 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories The following organizations are signatories to the 2004 LOMU and continue to be involved: 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) is a retail water purveyor supplying drinking water to more than 320,000 people living in the Cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. The District also provides conservation/protection of the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, one of its sources of water supply. 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) serves as the council of governments and comprehensive planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area. It was established in 1961 to protect local control, plan for the future, and promote cooperation on area-wide issues. ABAG’s region comprises the nine Bay Area counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma—and the 101 cities within those counties, serving over 7 million people in a 7,000 square mile area. ABAG committees also include representatives from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Economic Forum, and more. ABAG programs include conducting research and analysis and providing planning and outreach. ABAG projects range from job and population research, data analysis, earthquake preparedness research, green business strategies to on-line training classes. In addition, ABAG administers the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies BACWA is a joint powers authority (JPA) formed in 1984 comprised of local governmental agencies that operate publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) which discharge to the waters of San Francisco Bay Estuary. Together, BACWA’s members serve more than 7 million people 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-7 Governance in the nine-county Bay Area, treating all domestic and commercial wastewater and a signif icant amount of industrial wastewater. BACWA is governed by a five person Executive Board comprised of one representative from each of the joint powers agreement signatory agencies: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), East Bay Dischargers Authority, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the City and County of San Francisco, and the of San Jose. BACWA and its members support committees and groups that facilitate communication about key issues affecting the municipal wastewater community, keep agency staff apprised of important regulatory and policy developments, and provide a venue for establishing regional collaboration. BACWA served as the fiscal agent for development of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Project Master Plan. BACWA members that are located in the Bay Area Region are listed in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) Members1 Public Agencies Table 1: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Table 2: Central Marin Sanitation Agency Table 3: City of Belmont Table 4: City of Benicia Table 5: City of Brisbane Public Works Table 6: City of Burlingame WWTP Table 7: City of Fairfield Table 8: City of Livermore Table 9: City of Millbrae Table 10: City of Palo Alto Figure 1: City of Petaluma Figure 2: City of Piedmont Figure 3: City of Pleasanton Figure 4: City of Redwood City Figure 5: City of Richmond WPCP Figure 6: City of San Carlos Table 11: City of San Jose Table 12: City of San Mateo Figure 7: City of St. Helena Table 13: City of Sunnyvale Table 14: Delta Diablo Sanitation District Table 15: Dublin-San Ramon Services District Table 16: East Bay Dischargers (City of San Leandro, Oro Loma Sanitary District, Castro Table 20: Napa Sanitation District Figure 8: North San Mateo Sanitation District Figure 9: Novato Sanitary District Figure 10: Pinole/Hercules WPCP Figure 11: San Francisco International Airport Table 21: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Figure 12: San Mateo County Figure 13: Sanitary District of Marin County No. 1 (Ross Valley) Figure 14: Sanitary District of Marin County No. 2 (Corte Madera) Figure 15: Sanitary District of Marin County No. 5 (Tiburon) Figure 16: Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 2-3 Figure 17: Sausalito/Marin City Sanitary District Figure 18: Sewage Agency of Southern Marin Figure 19: Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Figure 20: Sonoma County Water Agency Table 22: South Bayside System Authority (South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP, City of Belmont, City of Redwood City, City of San Carlos, West Bay Sanitary District) Figure 21: Stege Sanitary District Figure 22: Tamalpais Community Services District 1 The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District is also a BACWA Member, but its service area falls outside of the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (it is in the Central Valley RWQCB), which defines the Bay Area region for this IRWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-8 Governance Public Agencies Valley Sanitary District, City of Hayward, Union Sanitary District) Table 17: East Bay Municipal Utility District Table 18: Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Table 19: Mt. View Sanitary District Figure 23: Town of Yountville Table 23: Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Figure 24: West Bay Sanitary District Table 24: West County Agency Figure 25: West Valley Sanitation District 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) was created in 2003 to represent the interests of 26 cities and water districts, as well as two private utilities that purchase water from the San Francisco Regional Water System. BAWSCA’s goals are to ensure high-quality, reliable water supply for the 1.7 million people residing in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties that depend on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) regional water system. BAWSCA has the authority to coordinate water conservation, supply and recycling activities for its agencies; acquire water and make it available to other agencies on a wholesale basis; finance projects, including improvements to the regional water system; and build facilities jointly with other local public agencies or on its own to carry out the agency’s purposes. BAWSCA’s member agencies are listed in Table 1-2. Table 1-2: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Members Cities and Water Districts 1 Alameda County Water District 2 City of Brisbane 3 City of Burlingame 4 Coastside County Water District 5 City of Daly City 6 City of East Palo Alto 7 Estero Municipal Improvement District 8 Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District 9 City of Hayward 10 Town of Hillsborough 11 Los Trancos County Water District 12 City of Menlo Park 13 Mid-Peninsula Water District  City of Millbrae  City of Milpitas  City of Mountain View  North Coast County Water District  City of Palo Alto  Purissima Hills Water District  City of Redwood City  City of San Bruno  City of San Jose  City of Santa Clara  Skyline County Water District  City of Sunnyvale  Westborough Water District Private Utilities  California Water Service Company  Stanford University 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCC FC&WCD) manages the flood- and stormwaters in city and county areas of Contra Costa County, develops 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-9 Governance flood control plans, and establishes and collects development fees. CCC FC&WCD is an active partner in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, which jointly holds a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit containing a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District Formed in 1936, the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) is a retail and wholesale water distributor, delivering treated drinking water directly to customers in central and eastern Contra Costa County. In addition, wholesale treated water is provided to the City of Antioch, the Golden state Water Company in Bay Point, the Diablo W ater District in Oakley, and the City of Brentwood. CCWD provides raw (untreated) water to the Cities of Antioch, Martinez and Pittsburg, as well as to industrial and irrigation customers. CCWD serves approximately 500,000 people and is one of the larger urban water districts in northern California and a leader in the protection of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. CCWD serves as the contract administrator for the East Contra Costa County IRW MP. 1.2.3.7 East Bay Municipal Utility District Formed in 1923, EBMUD provides water for approximately 1.3 million people in a 331-sq-mile area in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, extending from Crockett on the north, southward to San Lorenzo (encompassing the major cities of Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco to Walnut Creek, and south through the San Ramon Valley. EBMUD’s wastewater system serves approximately 685,000people in an 88-sq-mile area in Contra Costa and Alameda counties along the Bay’s east shore, extending from Richmond on the north, southward to San Leandro. 1.2.3.8 Marin Municipal Water District The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) has been providing drinking water to residents in Marin County since 1912. MMWD currently serves approximately 190,000 people in a 147 square mile area of Marin County. 1.2.3.9 City of Napa The City of Napa has been operating a municipal drinking water system since 1922. Located at the northeast end of San Pablo Bay in the lower Napa Valley, the City currently serves more than 86,000 people in and around the City limits and Upvalley along the Conn Transmission Main. The City also provides treat-and-wheel service of State Water Project (SWP) supplies to the Cities of American Canyon and Calistoga, and makes retail water available for the Town of Yountville and the City of St. Helena. Within the City of Napa’s service territory, recycled water is supplied by the Napa Sanitation District. Steelhead and Chinook in the Napa River 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-10 Governance 1.2.3.10 North Bay Watershed Association The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) is a partnership of 16 public agencies in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties dedicated to facilitating projects and activities across political boundaries to promote the stewardship of the San Pablo Bay watershed. Agencies participate in the NBWA to discuss issues of common interest, explore ways to work collaboratively on water resources projects of regional concern, and share information about projects, regulations, and technical issues. The partner agencies of the NBWA are listed in Table 1-3. Table 1-3: North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) Agencies Partner Agencies  Bel Marin Keys Community Services District  Central Marin Sanitation Agency  City of Petaluma  City of San Rafael  City of Sonoma  County of Marin  County of Sonoma  Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District  Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program 1. Marin Municipal Water District 2. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 3. Napa Sanitation District 4. North Marin Water District 5. Novato Sanitary District 6. Sonoma County Water Agency 7. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Associate and Group Associate Members  City of Mill Valley  Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin 8. City of Novato 9. The Bay Institute 10. Tomales Bay Watershed Council 1.2.3.11 City of Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto operates city-owned utility services that include electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater services. The City of Palo Alto provides water supply for approximately 60,000 people living in the City of Palo Alto and has received all of its potable water supply from the SFPUC since 1962. The City of Palo Alto is a member of BAWSCA, and works through BAWSCA to manage its SFPUC contract and to interact with the SFPUC. In addition to water supply, the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater and recycled water services for over 200,000 residents of Palo Alto and its surrounding areas. The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant treats wastewater from the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford. 1.2.3.12 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission The SFPUC provides retail water, wastewater service and municipal power to the City and County of San Francisco. The SFPUC also owns and operates the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System that delivers water to 28 wholesale customers. The SFPUC serves approximately 2.5 million residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the Bay Area. Approximately one-third of the water deliveries go to retail customers in San Francisco, while wholesale deliveries to agencies in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties comprise the other 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-11 Governance two-thirds. The SFPUC is currently implementing an extensive capital improvement program to repair, replace, and seismically upgrade the water system’s aging infrastructure to ensure reliable delivery of its water supply. BAWSCA member agencies are served wholly or in part by the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy Water System. 1.2.3.13 City of San Jose The City of San Jose’s Environmental Services Department provides drinking water supply, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and recycled water supply services to local residents. Created in 1961, the San Jose Municipal Water System serves four different neighborhoods in the City of San Jose: North San Jose/Alviso, Evergreen, Edenvale and Coyote. The San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is one of the largest advanced wastewater treatment facilities in California. It treats and cleans the wastewater of over 1,500,000 in the 300-square mile area encompassing San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno. About 10 percent of the treated water is recycled through South Bay Water Recycling pipelines for landscaping, agricultural irrigation, and industrial needs around the South Bay. 1.2.3.14 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) was formed in 1996 as a collaborative effort of representatives from Santa Clara County and South Bay. Its members include representatives from businesses and industrial sectors; professional and trade organizations; civic, environmental, resource conservation, and agricultural groups; regional and local public agencies; and the general public. The SCBWMI addresses issues in water rights and water supply reliability, flood management, regulatory compliance, land use, and public awareness and involvement. Table 1-4 provides a list of member organizations are SCBWMI signatories. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-12 Governance Table 1-4: Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) Signatories Public Agencies 1. California Department of Fish & Game 2. City of Cupertino 3. City of Palo Alto 4. City of San Jose 5. City of Santa Clara 6. City of Sunnyvale 7. Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District 8. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 9. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 1. Santa Clara County 2. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority 3. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 4. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 5. Santa Clara Valley Water District 6. US Army Corps of Engineers 7. US Environmental Protection Agency 8. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Business and Trade Associations 1. California Restaurant Association/Dairy Belle Freeze 2. Home Builders Association of Northern California 3. San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce ● Santa Clara Cattlemen's Association ● Santa Clara County Farm Bureau ● Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Environmental and Civic Groups ● CLEAN South Bay ● Greenbelt Alliance ● Leagues of Women Voters of Santa Clara County ● Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Group ● San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory ● San Francisquito Watershed Council ● Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society ● Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter ● Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition ● Stevens and Permanente Creeks Watershed Council ● Western Waters Canoe Club 1.2.3.15 Santa Clara Valley Water District The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) manages an integrated water resources system that includes the supply of clean, safe water, flood protection and stewardship of streams on behalf of Santa Clara County's 1.8 million residents in 1,300 square miles. SCVWD effectively manages 10 dams and surface water reservoirs, three water treatment plants, a state-of-the-art water quality laboratory, nearly 400 acres of groundwater recharge ponds and more than 275 miles of streams. SCVWD also provides wholesale water and groundwater management services to local municipalities and private water retailers who deliver drinking water directly to homes and businesses in Santa Clara County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-13 Governance 1.2.3.16 Solano County Water Agency Formed in 1951, the Solano County Water Agency (Solano CWA) provides water supply and flood control services for cities and irrigation districts in Solano County and parts of Yolo County. Solano CWA leads efforts to protect rights to existing sources of water and works to secure new sources of water for water supply reliability and future growth. In addition to its irrigation customers, Solano CWA delivers untreated water to its wholesale customers, who serve more than 400,000 residents. These wholesale customers include:  City of Benicia  City of Fairfield  Maine Prairie Water District  Solano Irrigation District  City of Suisun City  City of Vacaville  City of Vallejo 1.2.3.17 Sonoma County Water Agency Created in 1949, the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma CWA) is a water wholesaler that provides drinking water to approximately 570,000 residents of Sonoma and Marin counties. In addition, Sonoma CWA provides sanitation and flood control services to residents of Sonoma County. Sonoma CWA wholesales water to the following agencies:  City of Cotati  City of Petaluma  City of Rohnert Park  City of Santa Rosa  City of Sonoma  Town of Windsor  North Marin Water District  Valley of the Moon Water District  Forestville Water District  MMWD 1.2.3.18 State Coastal Conservancy The State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), established in 1976, is a non-regulatory state agency whose goal is to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the shore. The legislature created the SCC as a unique entity with flexible powers to serve as an intermediary among governmental agencies, NGOs, citizens, and the private sector in recognition that creative approaches would be needed to preserve California’s coast and San Francisco Bay lands for future generations. The San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Rinconada Water Treatment Plan, SCVWD 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-14 Governance Program, administered by the SCC, was established in 1998 to address the natural resource and recreational goals of the nine-county Bay Area in a coordinated and comprehensive way. 1.2.3.19 Zone 7 Water Agency The Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) was formed in 1957 to manage groundwater, flood control, and water supplies for the Livermore-Amador Valley. Zone 7’s service area includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and the surrounding unincorporated areas, providing roughly 215,000 residents with a reliable supply of high quality water. Zone 7 also supplies water supplies to the Dougherty Valley area of Contra Costa County. By pursuing multiple water supply strategies and state-of-the-art technologies, Zone 7 is committed to ensuring the needs of its customers are met, even in times of drought. Zone 7’s wholesale customers include:  Dublin San Ramon Services District  City of Pleasanton  City of Livermore  California Water Service Company 1.2.4 Functional Areas The 2006 Plan included four FADs whose purpose was to (1) identify specific needs and challenges relating to the specific FA; (2) describe water management strategies and approaches to address these needs; and (3) develop a list of potential strategies and implementation projects that would maximize benefits and enhance opportunities for regional cooperation within a given FA. Each FA has responsibility for a particular type of regional water management, and responsibilities extending beyond IRWM planning activities. The IRWMP maintains the four FAs and the three purposes described above. The four FAs are: ● Water Supply & Water Quality. The Water Supply-Water Quality (WS-WQ) FA addresses water supply and water quality opportunities and challenges throughout the Region and is led by BAWAC and its member agencies. ● Wastewater & Recycled Water. The Wastewater-Recycled Water (WW -RW) FA addresses wastewater treatment and discharge and recycled water treatment and distribution within the Bay Area, and is led by BACWA. ● Flood Protection & Stormwater Management. The Flood Protection-Stormwater Management (FP-SM) FA addresses regional issues in management of flood- and stormwaters, led by BAFPAA and coordinated with BASMAA. ● Watershed Management-Habitat Protection & Restoration. The Watershed Management-Habitat Protection and Restoration (WM-HPR) FA addresses management of hydrologic systems with emphasis on habitat protection and enhancement and is led by the SCC, in partnership with SFEP, Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) and NBWA. The four FAs are represented in the CC by three designated individuals, or their alternates, and are considered the “voting representatives.” Voting representatives are appointed by their 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-15 Governance respective FA groups and may change over time. If the CC is not able to reach consensus on an item that needs a decision, the Chair or Vice Chair may ask for a vote from this body. However, this situation has yet to arise and the group has been successful in achieving consensus in all cases. The CC’s FA representatives receive direction from their corresponding FA agencies and interests. For example, the three voting representatives of the Flood Protection and Stormwater Management FA receive direction from BAFPAA. BAFPAA policy is reflective of policies adopted by elected officials related to BAFPAA members such as County Supervisors or Boards of Directors. For some other participants, policy direction is aligned with elected officials (e.g., Water District Boards, Sanitary District Boards, City Councils, Agency Boards, County Supervisors, etc.) or NGOs. FA representatives also take into consideration the interests of other stakeholders and the public. The FA representatives, or their designated alternates, are responsible for attending all CC meetings, reviewing matters in advance for discussion at the meetings, helping give direction to consultants, participating in CC subcommittees, and reporting back to their FAs, agencies and constituents. 1.2.5 Subregions A “Subregional” approach was developed to facilitate truly integrated projects with smaller geographical areas and better address the diversity of needs and ideas across the Bay Area Region, and provide better local access to the IRWM process. Between submittal of the IRWMP in 2006 and the RAP in 2009, the CC evaluated five different scenarios seeking to balance populations and areas and decided on a Subregional approach which established four geographic Subregions – North, East, South and West (Figure 1-2). In contrast to FAs that function across the IRWM Region, Subregional activities are focused on a local scale. The Subregional approach has the following benefits:  Facilitate project integration;  Local governmental entities and NGOs are more aware of their own constituents’ concerns regarding water management issues and can better represent the needs of their particular DACs;  Projects can be better identified from smaller organizations, citizens’ groups and DACs whose projects might otherwise not be recognized by a larger regional body;  Using a designated Subregion lead, the IRWMP information can be disseminated to local groups who might not otherwise travel outside their geographic area to voice their concerns, needs, or ideas; and  The system attempts to provide for equitable distribution of funding for projects. The four Subregions were established, in part, to ensure local participation and ownership of the outcomes from the process. Each of these Subregions is essentially several DWR detailed analysis units (DAUs), or small watersheds. Once the DAUs were identified, political boundaries 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-16 Governance were used to adjust the Subregion boundaries to maintain the integrity of counties and agencies within a Subregion. This Subregional approach, focused on more localized issues and outreach, was designed to increase the participation of stakeholders who had not previously been involved in the IRWM process, and facilitated the development of integrated projects. Stakeholders who may be better able to engage at the Subregional level include NGOs, watershed and conservation groups, representatives of DACs, community-based organizations, environmental justice groups and communities, industry and agricultural organizations, park districts, educational institutions, and local general governments where many land-use decisions are made. Calculations of area and population within each Subregion were used to establish ‘Target Allocations’ for funding. Areas and population were weighted as follows:  50% distribution based on number of Subregions (4)  25% distribution based on population in each Subregion  25% distributed based on area of each Subregion Based on these calculations the following allocation targets were established:  North Bay 25%  East Bay 29%  South Bay 25%  West Bay 22% Subregion groups meet regularly and each establishes its own schedule for meetings and other activities. Information on Subregions and materials for stakeholders can be found on the IRWMP website (http://bayareairwmp.org/). While the Subregional approach will bring new parties into the IRWM process, final decisions concerning IRWMP plans, priorities and funding continue to occur at the regional level. While much of the Plan development effort is now at the Subregional level, regional efforts may include, but may not be limited to:  Regional discussion and actions concerning water supply and imports;  Actions and policies to improve the water quality of San Francisco Bay;  Oversight and integration of Subregional processes;  Coordination of grant proposals for regional scale activities;  Efforts to address impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise;  Actions to address regional flood protection, including with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather prediction programs and the sediment reduction/transport effort; and  Regional habitat protection for tidal, riparian and estuarine habitats 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-17 Governance The Subregions are described below. Figure 1-2: IRWM Subregions 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-18 Governance 1.2.5.1 North Subregion The North Subregion consists of portions of Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties and the majority of Marin County. These counties have the smallest populations in the Bay Area Region, the largest land area, the most individual counties, and are projected to grow the least (ABAG 2009). Solano County has the largest projected growth and contains the largest number of DACs within the North Subregion. The Lead for the North Subregion is the NBWA. Meetings held within the Subregion are Joint County meetings and county-specific stakeholder meetings organized by the County lead. County lead meetings are conducted to update stakeholder lists and develop preliminary lists of projects, with subsequent input review. 1.2.5.2 East Subregion The East Subregion consists of the majority of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties which includes a large continuous urban area from Richmond to Fremont, making up one of the major metropolitan areas in the Bay Area Region. This Subregion makes up over 35% of the total population and has among the highest growth rates in the Bay Area Region. DACs are primarily concentrated within the continuous urban area that spans the two counties. This Subregion includes an overlap area with the East Contra Costa County IRWM region. The East Subregion is led by at least one representative from each county, which makes up an informal executive committee that presides over Subregional meetings, coordinates outreach efforts, and represents the Subregion at CC meetings. Each county representative is responsible for disseminating information on upcoming grant rounds and other Subregional activities and for conducting regular outreach to all stakeholders across FAs for inclusion in the IRWMP process. Outreach mechanisms in this Subregion include County Watershed Forums that include members from various watershed groups, state and local agencies and private citizens. Additionally, water supply agencies coordinate fairly regularly with their customers and with each other on their common objectives, and with landowners for flood protection. 1.2.5.3 South Subregion The South Subregion consists of the portion of Santa Clara County that drains to the San Francisco Bay. This Subregion includes the City of San Jose, one of the three major metropolitan areas in the Bay Area Region, as well as 13 other cities and towns. Santa Clara County has the highest population of all the counties included in the Bay Area Region, with a high growth rate, and clusters of DACs in areas of high urban concentrations. SCVWD serves as the lead for the South Subregion. SCVWD conducts its own regular outreach to all stakeholders across FAs. Outreach mechanisms include IRWM-specific workshops to solicit input on projects and priorities, participation in the Countywide stormwater management program, joint planning efforts with water recyclers, ongoing collaboration with water retailers, Napa River Watershed 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-19 Governance extensive on-going newsletter outreach and coordination with cities on flood protection projects and environmental stewardship activities. SCVWD also has its own functional master plans and grant programs. For each, it provides outreach to the community and interested parties. 1.2.5.4 West Subregion The West Subregion consists of the County of San Francisco and the majority of San Mateo County. The City of San Francisco, which coincides with the County boundaries, is one of the three major metropolitan areas in the Bay Area Region. The two Counties in this Subregion have populations and growth rates in the mid-range, compared to other Counties within the Bay Area Region. Both San Francisco and the portion of San Mateo County within the Bay Area Region include clusters of DACs. 1.2.6 Other Stakeholders In addition to the LOMU signatories, many organizations and agencies with roles in water resources planning and/or management in the Bay Area previously participated in development of the FADs and/or the IRWMP. These entities included:  Environmental Water Caucus  Clean Water Action  The Bay Institute  Sierra Club  Environmental Justice Coalition for Water  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)  Napa County Resource Conservation District  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission  League of Women Voters  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SF RWQB) In addition, representatives of small areas within the San Francisco Bay Area that have been engaged in their own concurrent planning efforts also attend CC meetings for the Bay Area IRWMP. These include East Contra Costa County which is participating in the East Contra Costa IRWMP and Napa County, which is participating in the Westside Sacramento IRWMP. All members of the CC contribute to reaching decisions at CC meetings, serve on subcommittees, participate in Subregional activities, identify and evaluate projects for inclusion in the Plan and grant applications, assist in drafting documents, and participate in various meetings and workshops at the state level. Stakeholder activities and the CC’s role in coordinating with other stakeholders during the IRWMP development are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Involvement. These stakeholders include the following state and federal agencies:  SCC  DWR  State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)  SF RWQB  BCDC 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-20 Governance  SFEP (SFEP has an Implementation Committee that meets four times a year and which includes many listed regulatory and resource agencies. IRWMP updates are provided at these meetings.)  California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)  USACE  NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)  California Environmental Protection Agency (CALEPA)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)  California Department of Transportation (DOT) Additional discussion on coordination with state and federal agencies, and effective communication and coordination, both internal and external to the Bay Area Region, can be found in Chapter 15: Coordination. 1.2.7 Subcommittees Subcommittees are work groups established by the CC as needed in order to accomplish specific tasks on behalf of the CC and the Region. The subcommittees are used to frame the issues, develop options and make recommendations through a collaborative process, which are then forwarded to the full CC for discussion and resolution. The following subcommittees are active for the IRWMP: Plan Update Team (PUT). The PUT subcommittee includes various FA representatives and Subregion leads, and is a subset of the CC, committed to the day-to-day managing of the IRWMP update process. The PUT subcommittee currently serves as the primary “work group” for the IRWMP, addressing tasks as requested by the CC and bringing forward material for discussion and decision. CC Chair and Vice Chair participate as needed. Project Screening Committee (PSC). The PSC was established to facilitate the process of incorporating new project ideas and processing/updating existing projects, as well as making recommendations to the CC, for the IRWMP and future funding applications, such as the Round 2 IRWM Implementation Grant. The PSC works with Subregions to receive and organize project proposals, identify synergies and encourage collaboration, review projects and ensure that projects are in accordance with DWR IRWM Grant Program Guidelines and the parameters of specific funding opportunities. Website. The Website Subcommittee is tasked with ensuring that the website provides a reasonable communication and information tool, and is appropriately updated. Planning and Process. The Planning and Process subcommittee was established to analyze issues, perform specific work tasks as needed, and recommend potential actions to the CC. As noted above, these subcommittee work groups have been established by the CC as needed in order to accomplish specific tasks on behalf of the CC and the region. As such, they will remain active, become re-activated, or additional subcommittees will be established as needed during Plan implementation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-21 Governance 1.3 Procedures for IRWMP Development The following sections describe the IRWMP development process. 1.3.1 Public Outreach and Involvement Process A broad stakeholder outreach process is crucial to ensure that the IRWMP identifies local issues, reflects local needs, promotes the formation of partnerships, and encourages coordination with state and federal agencies. One of the benefits of a regional planning process is that it brings together a broad array of groups into a forum to discuss and better understand shared needs and opportunities. The IRWMP process invites active public participation of all interested stakeholders. The main forum for IRWM planning, discussion and decisions is the CC. Anyone who wants to participate in the monthly meetings can do so. Because the CC meetings encourage broad participation, non-voting attendees usually outnumber voting participants. These “non-voting” members include: (1) Chair and Vice Chair of the CC, (2) additional individuals representing agencies involved in one or more FAs, (3) staff of resources and regulatory agencies, (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations, and (5) individuals representing other interested organizations or simply themselves. Many of these stakeholders are listed in Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.6, above. Participants in the CC collaborate in a number of ways:  Subcommittees: Agencies, non-governmental organizations, regional planning organizations, and other stakeholders serve on subcommittees where policies and other recommendations are developed and forwarded to the full CC for consideration and discussion.  Functional Area group: This collaboration is particularly the case between two of the FAs – Flood Protection and Stormwater Management and Watershed Management and Habitat Protection and Restoration (here, for example, stakeholders with specific interests in environmental issues contribute significantly to the development of multi- purpose projects). The Water Supply and Water Quality and Wastewater and Recycled Water FAs also routinely collaborate.  Subregional activities: Participants work together at the local level to reach out to local organizations and encourage and enable their participation in the IRWMP process. They work with local communities to help identify and evaluate projects for inclusion in the Plan and for grant applications, may assist in drafting documents.  Representation at the state level: The CC is the venue where representatives of the Bay Area are selected to represent the region in various meetings and workshops at the state level. The public involvement process is built upon the success of the collaborative efforts within the region and with the surrounding IRWMP regions. Stakeholders were identified through their involvement or interest in water, environment, and similar projects in the past; interviews and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-22 Governance brainstorming sessions were used to identify potential stakeholders and their interests. These entities were contacted and invited to participate in the IRWMP and to identify other potentially interested groups. By this process, a varied and broad group was encouraged to become stakeholder participants, including entities that were not necessarily involved with any past efforts. Past and potential stakeholders were identified as environmental groups, conservancy groups, DACs, water suppliers, municipalities, sanitation districts, flood control districts, Native American tribes and their representatives, developers, landowners, adjacent IRWM areas, state agencies, elected representatives, and interested individuals. Methods used to do outreach include direct emails, mailings, face-to-face interaction, event participation, flyers, notices, surveys, notices in organization newsletters and presentations. Outreach also takes place at the local agency level during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other project approval processes. With the involvement of the stakeholders, facilitation of meetings to ensure inclusive processes, tracking of stakeholder comments, and efforts to incorporate those comments into the Plan document, the IRWMP has been able to consider and utilize a broad range of inputs and ideas. Every stakeholder was and continues to be able to add projects to the list of candidate projects for implementation of the IRWMP, projects that pertain to water resources management and contribute to the goals and objectives of the Plan. During the development of the IRWMP, outreach efforts included:  Conducting interviews with IRWMP participants — public agencies and NGOs — to document their experiences in developing the 2006 Plan, expectations and desires with regards to project outreach, including obtaining their recommendations on the best methods for communicating with their constituencies to ensure awareness and involvement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-23 Governance  Updating the website (http://www.bairwmp.org/) to provide information to the IRWMP participants, as well as a broader public audience. The website provides access to documents, project forms, IRWMP chapters, and documents for review, and notices about opportunities to review them.  Stakeholder workshops and meetings were conducted at key milestones during the IRWMP development to ensure an inclusive and transparent planning process, promote open communication between participating entities and other stakeholders, identify stakeholder interests and concerns, and incorporate stakeholder comments into the IRWMP.  Stakeholder workshop notices were distributed via email using the IRWMP database consisting of approximately 2,000 contacts.  Notices were also posted on the IRWMP website and distributed to local newspapers in advance of the scheduled meeting time.  Meetings were held in different parts of the San Francisco Bay Area to encourage participation throughout the Region. Specific outreach activities since Plan completion in 2006:  Updated website to allow for easier maintenance, document sharing, access to and submittal of forms and review process.  Listserv email access to allow public to sign up for update emails.  Continued monthly CC meetings, open to all interested parties.  Created Subregional planning level to facilitate better access for smaller or local organizations.  Created BAFPAA.  Created subcommittee for Planning and Process to accomplish specific tasks on behalf of the CC, including writing the RAP document, and proposing a process for inclusion of future projects.  Created the PSC.  Created the PUT for purposes of managing the IRWMP update process. Stakeholder Workshop 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-24 Governance  Created the Website Subcommittee for purposes of managing updates to the IRWMP website.  Created BAWN.  DAC and tribal outreach associated with the DAC Involvement Program. 1.3.2 Decision-Making Process The CC is a consensus-based organization that strives to get the consent, not necessarily the total agreement, of the members for direction and decisions and attempts to resolve conflicts before proceeding. The CC’s decision-making process typically follows these steps: ● Frames the issue. ● Develops facts and options. Usually the CC delegates research and development tasks to a working subcommittee with broad representation. ● Develops criteria to evaluate options consistent with IRWMP goals and objectives. This role is usually delegated to the same working subcommittee with broad representation. ● Presents the subcommittee analysis and evaluation for consideration by the CC. ● For major issues, seeks additional input from regional FA groups that also provide broad geographic representation. ● Delegates next steps back to the subcommittee. ● Finalizes decisions, work efforts, or direction. The CC operates through consensus-based decision making and has succeeded in reaching consensus on all decisions during the past. If an issue needing a firm decision cannot be resolved via consensus, the Chair or Vice Chair of the CC shall call for a vote (See Appendix A-2: Voting Principles2). 1.3.3 Document Review Process The document review process was designed to promote efficiency and maximize stakeholder and public involvement. Reviews are performed and drafts are released as they are developed. Drafts remain on the website and are available for public review for the duration of the IRWMP update process. The process, which applies to all chapters, is as follows: DRAFT #1: Review to identify major issues and errors. 2 The Voting Principles were drafted in 2009 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-25 Governance Reviewers: PUT, CC chair, CC vice-chair, FA reps and Subregion leads.  Consultant team updates 2006 IRWMP materials with RAP and other new information.  Documents are made available to the reviewers.  Review occurs through process of simultaneous collaboration.  Consultant goes through final document from reviewers, creates list of conflict areas to be resolved, tracks substantive changes or comments to reflect origin and works with PUT to determine how to incorporate comments.  If a significant rewrite is required, the PUT will review the document again before it goes to the next stage of review.  Reviewers provide recommendations for additional reviewers with particular interests in the draft that are not on the targeted reviewers list.  Consultant incorporates comments into Draft #2. DRAFT #2: Targeted Review to solicit comments from select agency and organization staff on adequacy of the draft. Reviewers: Draft #1 Reviewers, agency and stakeholder representatives who have been identified to review IRWMP materials, key people in FAs, Subregions and other stakeholder groups who want to review the draft and recommended reviewers from Draft #1 review process.  Document is sent to Targeted Reviewers.  Reviewers provide comments.  Consultant processes all comments. ■ Consultant team compiles consensus comments and incorporates into Draft #3. ■ Consultant team consolidates substantive comments, tracks substantive changes or comments to reflect origin and creates a list of any conflict areas to be resolved.  PUT+ provides resolution of conflict areas as direction for inclusion in Draft #3 DRAFT #3: Public Review. Reviewers: All interested parties, organizations and individuals.  Document, in PDF, will be available for download through the website and at physical locations. The draft will be available until such time as all sections are compiled into draft IRWMP document.  Reviewers will provide comments via form or letter. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-26 Governance  Consultant processes all comments. ■ Consultant team compiles consensus comments and incorporates into Final ■ Consultant team consolidates substantive comments, tracks substantive changes or comments to reflect origin and creates a list of any conflict areas to be resolved.  PUT+ provides resolution of conflict areas, with support from Consultant team, as direction for inclusion in the Final document. Throughout the review process, notifications of opportunity to review the documents along with instructions on comment submissions were disseminated via website notice, email to the listserv and via media release. 1.4 Balanced Access and Opportunities CC meeting participants include a broad and balanced representation of community sectors and environmental and water resources interests. In addition to representatives from water supply, recycled water and wastewater agencies, flood control and stormwater-related agencies, and watershed and habitat protection organizations, participants in CC meetings include staff from regional planning agencies such as SFEP, regulatory agencies such as DWR, and representatives from NGOs such as the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). Participation in the IRWMP process is inclusive. There are no requirements for participation in the CC and monthly meetings are open to all stakeholders and members of the public. Meeting notices are posted on the IRWMP website prior to each meeting, as are agenda materials, monthly CC meeting notes and associated announcements. Agenda packages are also sent via e-mail to the CC IRWMP email notification list, which is open and inclusive. Individuals may subscribe to receive emails notifying them of postings to the website via the website (http://www.bairwmp.org/). 1.4.1 Effective Communication with Stakeholders and the Public The IRWMP update process utilizes regularly agendized meetings of public agencies and NGOs in the Bay Area Region’s four Subregions, as well as its monthly, public CC meetings, as well as updates to its website, to inform the public about IRWMP efforts and the opportunity to affect the content of the document as well as identify potential projects for funding. The website allows for members of the public to track upcoming and recent meetings, review draft chapters and provide comment, sign up for email updates, contact the administrator, find a contact list of CC representatives, and submit project ideas and/or proposals via the secure web portal. Regular email updates on upcoming and recent CC meetings are sent to all subscribers of the IRWMP listserv. The website also serves as a key vehicle for communication among the CC. Meeting agenda and information is posted on the website at least one week in advance of the CC meetings. Meeting notes are generated from each monthly CC meeting to record comments, decisions, agreements and action items. Draft and Final CC meeting minutes are distributed to attendees and are published on the Plan website. In addition, each Subregion has a page on the BAIRWMP website to post presentations, meeting agendas, minutes, and local contacts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-27 Governance The “listserv” function allows members of the public and other stakeholders to sign up for email updates regarding IRWMP activities. In addition direct emails, the stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts will include mailings, face-to-face interaction, event participation, classroom instruction, flyers, notices, surveys, and presentations to communicate with the public and stakeholders. Members of the public may also contact their local CC representative through the email contact information listed in the website for questions regarding regional water management efforts or IRWM planning and implementation in the Bay Area Region. The public has access to the IRWMP process through several avenues including:  http://www.bairwmp.org  Monthly CC meetings  Subregional meetings  Press releases regarding IRWMP updates  Agendized meetings of various associations and coalitions throughout the Bay Area, including: a. ABAG b. BAWN c. BAFPAA IRWMP Website, Contact Page 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-28 Governance d. BACWA e. BAWAC f. BASMAA g. BAWSCA For members of the public who may not have web access, local outreach is conducted by each Subregion through local water resources management agencies and other local organizations who can reach customers and constituents. This ensures that smaller stakeholder groups and the public at-large have an opportunity to learn about the IRWM process close to home and in a forum designed to initiate new participants in the IRWMP process. This Subregional outreach includes efforts to bring local NGOs, municipalities, and any other member of the public. The outreach efforts were conducted prior to project list updates to allow time for the identification and integration of new and existing projects on the Subregional level. All projects identified on the Subregional level were screened for potential integration and regionalization. Subregional meetings began as early as 2010 to alert the public about the IRWMP update process, the project list, and future grant opportunities for project implementation. 1.4.2 Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities and Native American Tribes Outreach to these specifically identified stakeholders is addressed in Section1.2.2 and Chapter 14.6 & 4.7. 1.4.3 Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Efforts and State and Federal Agencies The Bay Area Region is adjacent to five planning regions that are currently in the process of developing or updating IRWMPs (See Chapter 2, Figure 2-23). These consist of North Coast, Westside Sacramento, East Contra Costa County, Pajaro River Watershed and Santa Cruz County. During the RAP the Bay Area Region CC directly contacted and coordinated efforts with water supply, wastewater, flood protection, watershed, and habitat restoration agencies in adjacent and overlapping IRWM regions. After initial contact and as appropriate, adjacent regions were given the opportunity to consider partnering and integrating with the Bay Area Region. For more information on the region description and neighboring IRWM efforts, see Chapter 2. The collective efforts of these interconnected IRWMPs will not only benefit their respective regions, but each other and the watersheds of northern California as a whole. The efforts are coordinated in the following ways:  Attending CC meetings  Inclusion of interested parties in listserv for email updates  Information available on the IRWMP website  Items on participating agency agendas  Updates to interested organizations and agencies 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-29 Governance The Region also participates in the statewide "Roundtable of Regions" that shares information and often meets with DWR to give a more generalized and broad-based view of IRWM-related issues. 1.5 Collaboration Process Used to Establish Plan Objectives Development of objectives for the IRWMP was an iterative and consensus-based process. Led by the PUT, the process also included review by the FAs and the CC. Stakeholder outreach and involvement, discussed in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Involvement was critical to this process. Proposed goals, objectives and suggested measures for the IRWMP were discussed at the first Workshop where stakeholders were given opportunity to provide input. At the workshop, the PUT members described the development process for the goals and objectives, and provided a list of deleted objectives, as well as opportunity for stakeholders to submit comments. Based on discussion at the workshop and stakeholder input, the PUT refined and finalized the list of goals and objectives, which were approved by the CC This open and transparent decision-making process was important to ensure that all perspectives within the Region were considered in the IRWMP. Additionally, many of the local planning documents that serve as the basis for this IRWMP involved extensive stakeholder involvement as well. Figure 1-3 shows the steps in the goals and objectives development process. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-30 Governance Figure 1-3: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures 1.6 Long-term implementation of the Plan Participants are planning to adopt the IRWMP by the end of 2019. Following adoption, the Plan will be implemented through execution of projects by their respective project proponents. Progress toward attaining the regional goals and objectives will be reviewed periodically and additional work will be completed on the IRWMP as needed through an adaptive management framework. The IRWMP governance structure supports IRWMP implementation into the future. The CC, as the institutional structure for overseeing IRWMP development, will continue to be responsible for the IRWM planning and Plan management. The CC will continue to meet on a regular, as needed, basis to:  Review the IRWMP with DWR to ensure DWR standards are met  Receive updates on regional efforts relevant to IRWMP implementation 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-31 Governance  Oversee the evaluation and prioritization of projects for future grant rounds  Communicate on behalf of the CC to others including DWR, other IRWM Regions, DACs and tribes, other water resource management programs of interest (e.g., US EPA and other federal and state programs). The CC will also oversee Website Development and Data Management. The website (bayareairwmp.org) will continue to be used to support the IRWMP in a variety of ways including making the Plan, CC meeting materials, project descriptions and progress reports for projects funded via Prop 1 IRWM grants accessible to the public as well as a library of Bay Area Climate Change and other resources. Additionally, web tools, such as collaborative mapping, information collection tools and more, may be developed for collaboration and project development. In addition to the CC, the subcommittees will meet as needed. For more information on Plan implementation, monitoring and adaptive management, see Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring. 1.7 Interim and Formal Changes to the Plan and Plan Updates The planning horizon of this IRWMP will be 20 years from initial adoption. Formal re- assessment which will require readoption of the Plan will occur every five years within that 20-year timeframe, provided IRWM planning funds are available, unless one of the following events triggers an assessment prior to the scheduled five -year interval:  Significant change in conditions as defined by the CC with input from the Stakeholders  Achievement of an objective which necessitates setting a revised or replacement regional objective  The need, as determined by the CC with Stakeholder input, to set new regional objectives  Availability of new information, which may be particularly relevant with respect to the Climate Change Chapter. Since its development, interim updates have occurred. For example, the 2006 Plan was updated to include additional projects for funding. The added projects were placed in Appendices, approved by consensus after project proponents filled out the template and some presented their projects in more detail at the CC meeting. Additionally, the Chair/Vice Chair Roles, Subregions, and Voting Principles were all developed between the 2006 the 2013 Plans and approved at the CC. The 2019 Plan Update is in response to the 2016 IRWM guidelines. The update also includes more substantive information on Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal communities through the Proposition 1 Disadvantaged and Tribal Communities Involvement Program.Addressing interim changes will continue through the term of the Plan by the CC, subject to available resources. Further details on IRWMP implementation, including long-term implementation and adaptive management, are found in Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-32 Governance 1.8 Plan Adoption Upon the completion of the IRWMP, the CC will publish a notice of intention to adopt the Plan in accordance with §6066 of the Government Code and shall adopt the Plan in a public meeting of the CC. The governing bodies of each agency that is part of the CC will formally adopt the IRWMP. Additionally, each project proponent named in an IRWM Grant application will also adopt the IRWMP. For purposes of Plan adoption, the CC consists of the Chair, Vice Chair, and FA representatives (formal members). The formal members of the CC, along with all project proponents included in grant funding agreements and applications, will bring the IRWMP and future IRWMP updates to their governing bodies for adoption. Currently, the following agencies and organizations have formal members in the CC:  ABAG – Most members are local agencies  BACWA – Local agency  CCC FC&WCD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  CCWD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  EBMUD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  MMWD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  NBWA – Most members are local agencies  SFEP – Includes local agencies, some with statutory authority of water supply or water management  SFPUC – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  SCVWD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  Sonoma CWA – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  SCC – State agency with statutory authority over water management  Zone 7 – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management All the agencies listed above have signed the LOMU. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxiii San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table of Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... xxxv List of Figures........................................................................................................................ xxxv Chapter 2: San Francisco Bay Area Region Description ............................ 2-1 2.1 Bay Area Region Description ............................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Region Boundaries ................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Region Watersheds ................................................................ 2-4 2.1.3 Region Service Agencies ....................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.1 Water Agencies .................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.2 Wastewater Agencies ........................................... 2-7 2.1.3.3 Flood Protection Agencies .................................... 2-9 2.1.3.4 Land Use Agencies .............................................. 2-9 2.1.4 Importance of the Bay Area Region and IRWM Planning ....... 2-9 2.2 Region Characteristics .................................................................... 2-12 2.2.1 Climate ................................................................................. 2-12 2.2.2 Geography and Topography................................................. 2-13 2.2.3 Flood Plains and Flood Zones .............................................. 2-14 2.2.4 Geologic Setting ................................................................... 2-17 2.2.5 Hydrology and Geomorphology ............................................ 2-17 2.2.6 Groundwater Basin Boundaries ............................................ 2-21 2.2.7 Biodiversity and Protected Lands ......................................... 2-23 2.2.8 Biologic and Aquatic Resources ........................................... 2-23 2.2.9 Land Use .............................................................................. 2-33 2.2.10 Social and Cultural Makeup.................................................. 2-38 2.2.11 Economic Conditions and Trends ......................................... 2-40 2.2.12 Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities ..... 2-41 2.2.13 Native American Tribal Communities ................................... 2-46 2.3 Overview of Bay Area Region Water Supplies ................................ 2-46 2.3.1 Imported Water Supplies ...................................................... 2-47 2.3.1.1 Mokelumne River Watershed ............................. 2-47 2.3.1.2 Tuolumne River Watershed ................................ 2-47 2.3.1.3 State Water Project ............................................ 2-48 2.3.1.4 Federal Water Projects ....................................... 2-48 2.3.1.5 Russian River Watershed ................................... 2-49 2.3.2 Local Water Supplies ........................................................... 2-49 2.3.3 Other Water Supplies ........................................................... 2-49 2.3.3.1 Recycled Water .................................................. 2-49 2.3.3.2 Desalinated Water .............................................. 2-52 2.3.3.3 Water Transfers and Interties ............................. 2-53 2.3.3.4 Groundwater Banking ......................................... 2-53 2.3.4 Water Supply Reliability ....................................................... 2-53 2.4 Water Demand and Conservation ................................................... 2-53 2.4.1 ACWD .................................................................................. 2-55 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxiv San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.4.2 BAWSCA ............................................................................. 2-55 2.4.3 CCWD .................................................................................. 2-56 2.4.4 EBMUD ................................................................................ 2-56 2.4.5 MMWD ................................................................................. 2-57 2.4.6 City of Napa ......................................................................... 2-57 2.4.7 SFPUC ................................................................................. 2-58 2.4.8 SCVWD................................................................................ 2-59 2.4.9 Solano CWA ........................................................................ 2-59 2.4.10 Sonoma CWA ...................................................................... 2-60 2.4.11 Zone 7 .................................................................................. 2-60 2.5 Water Quality .................................................................................. 2-61 2.5.1 General Bay Area Region Water Quality Issues ................... 2-61 2.5.2 Specific Source Water Quality Issues ................................... 2-63 2.5.2.1 Surface Water Quality ........................................ 2-63 2.5.2.2 Groundwater Quality .......................................... 2-64 2.5.2.3 Recycled Water Quality ...................................... 2-64 2.5.2.4 Desalinated Water Quality .................................. 2-65 2.5.3 Water Quality Regulations .................................................... 2-65 2.5.3.1 TMDLs ............................................................... 2-65 2.5.3.2 Salt and Nutrient Management ........................... 2-67 2.5.3.3 Drinking Water ................................................... 2-68 The Technical Programs Branch consists of the Quality Assurance Section, the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program Section, and the Technical Operations Section. ............................................ 2-68 2.5.3.4 Recycled Water .................................................. 2-68 2.6 Major Water Related Infrastructure ................................................. 2-69 2.6.1 Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................ 2-69 2.6.2 Major Wastewater Infrastructure .......................................... 2-72 2.6.3 Flood Protection Infrastructure ............................................. 2-72 2.6.4 Infrastructure Reliability ........................................................ 2-73 2.7 Regional Issues, Needs and Challenges ......................................... 2-75 2.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Challenges ..................................... 2-75 2.7.2 Flood Protection Challenges ................................................ 2-76 2.7.2.1 Floodplain Management ..................................... 2-76 2.7.2.2 Stream Ownership and Maintenance.................. 2-77 2.7.3 Financial and Funding Challenges ....................................... 2-77 2.7.4 Environmental and Watershed Challenges ........................... 2-77 2.7.5 Dependence on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ............ 2-78 2.7.5.1 Reducing Dependence on the Delta ................... 2-78 2.7.6 Interagency Coordination Challenges ................................... 2-78 2.7.7 Challenges to Expanding Recycled Water Use .................... 2-79 2.7.8 Climate Change ................................................................... 2-79 2.8 Relationship to Other Regional Water Management Efforts ............ 2-79 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxv San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.9 References ...................................................................................... 2-82 List of Tables Table 2-1: Threatened and Endangered Species in the Bay-Delta ....................................... 2-25 Table 2-2: Bay Area Critical Coastal Areas .......................................................................... 2-26 Table 2-3: Bay Area Marine Protected Areas ....................................................................... 2-33 Table 2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution ................................................... 2-34 Table 2-5: Demographic Characteristics for the San Francisco Bay Area ............................. 2-38 Table 2-6: Current and Projected Age Distribution for the San Francisco Bay Area.............. 2-39 Table 2-7: Current and Projected Employment Characteristics for the Bay Area .................. 2-40 Table 2-8: Definition of Disadvantaged Communities by Income Factor(a) ............................ 2-42 Table 2-9: Bay Area Recycled Water Programs ................................................................... 2-51 Table 2-10: Summary of Bay Area Region Water Supply and Demand ................................ 2-55 Table 2-11: ACWD Water Supply and Demand .................................................................... 2-55 Table 2-12: BAWSCA Water Supply and Demand ............................................................... 2-56 Table 2-13: CCWD Water Supply and Demand .................................................................... 2-56 Table 2-14: EBMUD Water Supply and Demand .................................................................. 2-57 Table 2-15: MMWD Water Supply and Demand ................................................................... 2-57 Table 2-16: City of Napa Water Supply and Demand ........................................................... 2-58 Table 2-17: SFPUC Water Supply and Demand – Retail and Wholesale Water System ...... 2-58 Table 2-18: SCVWD Water Supply and Demand ................................................................. 2-59 Table 2-19: Solano CWA Water Supply and Demand(a) ........................................................ 2-60 Table 2-20: Sonoma CWA Water Supply and Demand ........................................................ 2-60 Table 2-21: Zone 7 Water Supply and Demand .................................................................... 2-60 Table 2-22: Water Quality Constituent Concentrations for Major Bay Area Supplies(a) ......... 2-63 Table 2-23: TMDL Projects – Completed and in Development ............................................. 2-67 14 List of Figures Figure 2-1: RWQCB Region 2 Boundary and Bay Area Region Counties ............................... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Major Cities of the Bay Area Region ..................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3: Watersheds of the Bay Area Region .................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4: Major Water Agencies of the Bay Area Region..................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-5: Major Flood District Boundaries in the Bay Area Region .................................... 2-11 Figure 2-6: Bay Area Region Topography ............................................................................ 2-15 Figure 2-7: 100 and 500-year Flood Zones .......................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-8: Bay Area Region Vegetation Land Cover ........................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-9: Significant Bay Area Region Groundwater Basins .............................................. 2-22 Figure 2-10: Critical Coastal Areas in the Bay Area .............................................................. 2-32 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxvi San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-11: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution ................................................ 2-34 Figure 2-12: Bay Area Region Land Use Patterns ................................................................ 2-37 Figure 2-13: Population Growth in Bay Area Counties .......................................................... 2-39 Figure 2-14: Job Growth in Bay Area Counties ..................................................................... 2-41 Figure 2-15: Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................................ 2-43 Figure 2-16: Concentration of Minority Populations .............................................................. 2-44 Figure 2-17: Environmental Justice Communities and Infrastructure .................................... 2-45 Figure 2-18: Bay Area Water Use by Supply Source ............................................................ 2-47 Figure 2-19: Historical Population and Water Use in the Bay Area ....................................... 2-54 Figure 2-20: Major Water Infrastructure Serving the Bay Area Region ................................. 2-71 Figure 2-21: Major Bay Area Region Wastewater Facilities .................................................. 2-74 Figure 2-22: Surrounding IRWM Regions ............................................................................. 2-81 15 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-1 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Chapter 2: San Francisco Bay Area Region Description This chapter describes the physical, environmental and hydrologic features of San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Region (Bay Area Region or Region), it’s social and demographic characteristics and provides an overview of the Region’s water system. 2.1 Bay Area Region Description The Bay Area Region was approved as an Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) region by DWR in 2009 through the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) to maximize opportunities to integrate local water management activities and promote partnerships and multi-objective projects that benefit local communities and the natural environment. 2.1.1 Region Boundaries While the overall contributing watershed of the San Francisco Bay (Bay) extends far into the interior of California, the Bay Area Region boundary corresponds to the Bay watershed as defined by the SF Regional Water Quality Control Board (SF RWQCB), Region 2. The watershed functions as the sole drainage outlet for waters of the Central Valley, conveying the flows of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers that enter the Bay system through the Delta at the eastern end of Suisun Bay (Figure 2-1). Coastal regions that drain to the Pacific Ocean range from Marin County’s Stempel Creek in the north to San Mateo County’s Pescadero- Butano Creek Watershed in the south. The Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta is excluded from the Bay Area Region; it is managed by other IRWM regions and independent multi‐purpose programs. The Bay Area Region’s relationship to the Delta is further discussed in Section 2.1.4. The Bay Area Region includes all or portions of the nine counties which surround San Francisco Bay (known as the Bay Area), including Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Marin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties. Many counties are divided between the Bay Area Region and other IRWM regions to better coincide with natural watershed boundaries. The East Contra Costa County IRWM region is the only neighboring IRWM planning region that overlaps with the Bay Area Region boundaries. It is also the only area within the Bay Area Region where the organizational and physical infrastructure boundaries are not consistent with the state‐defined hydrologic basin boundaries, as discussed further in Section 2.8. The Region includes three major metropolitan cities—San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland— and a total of approximately 100 smaller cities and towns (Figure 2-2). Rainbow in Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-2 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-1: RWQCB Region 2 Boundary and Bay Area Region Counties 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-3 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-2: Major Cities of the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-4 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.1.2 Region Watersheds The San Francisco Bay Area is a complex network of watersheds, marshes, rivers, creeks, reservoirs, and bays predominantly draining into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. The largest bodies of water in the Bay Area Region are the San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay. The San Francisco Bay is one of the largest bays in the world. Many inlets on the edges of the three major bays are designated as bays in their own right, such as Richardson Bay, San Rafael Bay, Grizzly Bay, and San Leandro Bay. Nearby bays along the Pacific Coast include Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, Drakes Bay, Bolinas Bay, and Half Moon Bay. The largest rivers are the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers which drain into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and thence to Suisun Bay. Other major rivers of the North Bay are the Napa River, the Petaluma River, the Gualala River, and the Russian River; the former two drain into San Pablo Bay, the latter two into the Pacific Ocean. The Bay Area has a broad network of streams, creeks, and arroyos. Due to low rainfall in the summer months (May–October), many Bay Area creeks are intermittent, flowing above ground only during part of the year. Resulting from this extensive network of waterways, the Bay Area Region covers numerous watersheds ranging in size from a few square miles to several hundred square miles. Figure 2-3 depicts the principal watersheds in the Bay Area Region based on the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) standardized hydrologic unit system. This system delineates watersheds based on surface hydrologic features and generally single outlet drainage points. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-5 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-3: Watersheds of the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-6 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.1.3 Region Service Agencies The Bay Area Region includes all, or part of the service areas of all water agencies, flood protection agencies, and wastewater agencies in the Bay Area. These agencies conduct the full range of water resources management activities, including supplying water, protecting and enhancing water quality, flood protection, and environmental stewardship. They work together through regional associations such as Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC), Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), Bay Area Flood Protection Agency Association (BAFPAA), Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). In addition, they work in partnership with watershed groups, state agencies and federal agencies, such as the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA), SF RWQCB, San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP), State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), Tomales Bay Watershed Council, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2.1.3.1 Water Agencies The following water agencies serve the majority of the water demands in the Bay Area Region:  Alameda County Water District (ACWD)  Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency3 (BAWSCA)  Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)  East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)  Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD)  City of Napa  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)  Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)  Solano County Water Agency (Solano CWA)  Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma CW)  Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) The service area boundaries of these agencies are illustrated in Figure 2-4. Several of these agencies have service area boundaries that extend outside the Bay Area Region but only the service area within the Region is included. The portions of the service areas outside the Bay Area Region boundary are included in other IRWM regions and/or water management efforts (described in Section 2.8). The San Francisco Bay Area water supply agencies have a history of working together on water resource management issues through BAWAC. Regional efforts enable Bay Area water agencies to capitalize on collective resources, expertise, and knowledge in order to achieve 3 BAWSCA member agencies include the SFPUC regional system customers and are served wholly or in part by the SFPUC regional system. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-7 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description water quality and supply reliability goals. Additional information on these agencies is included in Chapter 1. 2.1.3.2 Wastewater Agencies There are numerous wastewater management agencies in the Bay Area Region, including cities, sanitation districts, community services districts, water agencies, counties, and other local agencies. Like water supply agencies, wastewater agencies have recognized the value in regional cooperation and collaboration as means of advancing shared interests and resolving common issues. While not every wastewater management agency actively participates in the IRWM effort, their service areas are included within the Region. Many wastewater agencies are represented by BACWA, which has a long history of providing a forum for coordination on region‐wide wastewater management issues. Wastewater agencies represented in this effort through participation in BACWA are listed in Chapter 1. Sonoma Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant, Clarifier 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-8 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-4: Major Water Agencies of the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-9 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.1.3.3 Flood Protection Agencies In California, flood protection is provided by various government entities, including USACE, DWR, the State Reclamation Board, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), counties, cities, special districts (such as flood control and water districts), and local Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs). In the Bay Area Region, flood protection primarily is provided by countywide flood control districts. These agencies create standards, rules, ideas, and concepts that are developed into comprehensive countywide flood control plans and design and construct projects to improve flood protection. The Bay Area flood protection agencies have a history of working together on water resource management issues, largely through BAFPAA, which promotes the sharing of ideas, technologies, experiences, legislative approaches and funding strategies. BAFPAA also provides a forum for regional coordination and collaboration with state and federal regulatory and resource agencies. The ten Bay Area agencies that are signatories to BAFPAA include the Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa and San Mateo Counties Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts (FCWCD), the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Works, SCVWD, Solano CWA, Sonoma CWA, and Zone 7. As shown in Figure 2-5, most of the flood district boundaries coincide with County boundaries and extend outside the Bay Area Region. 2.1.3.4 Land Use Agencies Land use planning in the Bay Area Region typically takes place through local city and county governments, as well as the following regional planning organizations: • Association of Bay Area Governments: ABAG is the primary regional land use planning agency for the Bay Area representing nearly all of the region’s population. ABAG strives to enhance cooperation and coordination between local governments to reach regional planning goals. • Metropolitan Transportation Commission: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and other major Bay Area transit systems (MTC, 2012). • Joint Policy Committee: The Joint Policy Committee (JPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and MTC, and pursues implementation of the Bay Area's Smart Growth Vision as expressed in the Smart Growth Preamble and Policies and the Smart Growth Strategy / Regional Livability Footprint Project. Chapter 13 provides detail on the relationship between land use planning and IRWM planning. 2.1.4 Importance of the Bay Area Region and IRWM Planning The Bay Area Region is an appropriate area for IRWM planning for many reasons. The Region boundary is consistent with the RWQCB Region 2 boundary and water resource management agencies within the Region have longstanding relationships and have historically coordinated 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-10 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description planning efforts to varying degrees. Establishing the Bay Area IRWM Region builds upon these existing historical efforts and provides context for increased integration and coordination. The San Francisco Bay is an important ecological, recreational, and commercial resource. The San Francisco Bay is located at the downstream end of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which is the largest estuary on the west coast (and second in the nation), conveying nearly 40 percent of the state’s surface water from the Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley to the Pacific Ocean. The Delta is both a rich and diverse ecological habitat and a major water supply source for the entire state. Precipitation falling in the Sierra Nevada flows downriver to the Delta where it is pumped into the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) to supply 25 million Californians with drinking water and irrigate 750,000 acres of farmland. Two-thirds of the state’s salmon pass through the Bay and Delta each year, as do an estimated half of the waterfowl and shorebirds migrating along the Pacific Flyway (SFRWQCB, 2004). This extensive watershed (60,000 sq. miles) drains nearly half the area of inland California to the Bay, which also is the receiving water for the many local drainage basins of the Bay Area Region. In addition to its ecological importance, the San Francisco Bay is an important recreational and commercial resource. Sailing and other boating, windsurfing and kite surfing, kayaking, and fishing are popular sporting activities in the bay. The San Francisco Bay serves as a major international shipping port, with major facilities including the Ports of Oakland and Richmond, as well as smaller facilities that include the Ports of San Francisco and Redwood City. Salt is harvested in evaporation ponds and commercially sold to food companies and other industries. Photo Credit: Jitze Couperus The San Francisco Bay and Golden Gate Bridge 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-11 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-5: Major Flood District Boundaries in the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-12 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In addition to the hydrologic connection of the Bay Area Region, several other features help to create a unique regional connection: Distinctive Identity. The Bay Area has a strong regional identity, tied together by connections to the Bay, interdependent economies, shared natural resources, and common cultural experiences. Ecologic Connection. The Bay estuary and its supporting local watersheds host a distinct natural environment and ecology that includes many important habitats for significant species. Nationally and Internationally Renowned. The Bay Area is a nationally and internationally recognized region. It is a global center for innovation and technology, home to more Fortune 500 companies than almost any other region in the United States, and is the fifth largest metropolitan region in the United States. The San Francisco Bay itself is a famous water body. History of Regional Planning. Water management agencies throughout the Bay Area have a long history of regional cooperation and planning through groups such as BAWAC, BACWA and Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). The ABAG, MTC, and BART also have regional planning programs in the Bay Area. The SF RWQCB and San Francisco Bay Conservation and BCDC have regulatory purview over most of the Bay Area Region. Through these programs and others, Bay Area Region water resources management agencies have been collaborating for years to develop regional solutions to water resources issues throughout the region. The Bay Area Region IRWM planning efforts are crucial to preserving the unique characteristics of the Bay Area. The following sections provide a more detailed description of Bay Area Region’s characteristics and water supply. 2.2 Region Characteristics 2.2.1 Climate Climate is the basic driver of stream flow and other hydrologic factors, and determines the ecology of the Bay Area Region. Climatic conditions are generally characterized as Mediterranean with moist, mild winters and hot, dry summers. The Region’s varied topography creates numerous microclimates dependent upon elevation, proximity to the Bay or coast, orientation with respect to the ocean, and wind patterns. The microclimates of the Bay Area Region also cause differences in rainfall amounts and evapotranspiration rates across the region and contribute to varied vegetation and habitats. Like most of Northern California, the Bay Area Region is largely governed by weather patterns originating in the Pacific Ocean. In the winter, the southern descent of the Polar Jet Stream brings mid-latitude cyclonic storms. Over 90 percent of the Bay Area Region’s precipitation falls between November and April, delivering an annual rainfall of between 15 and 20 inches in the South Bay and between 20 and 25 inches in the North Bay. Higher elevations in the Region, particularly along the north or west facing slopes of the North Bay, may receive over 40 inches of rain per year. In the summer, the Hawaiian High Pressure cell over the northern Pacific creates mild and dry weather for inland areas of the region. Conversely, coastal and bay areas 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-13 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description often are covered by a thick marine fog layer, which forms off the coast and moves eastward through gaps and passes into the bay. Watersheds in the northern part of the Bay Area Region receive the highest amount of precipitation, primarily due to topographic effects of Mt. Tamalpais and proximity of the marine layer. The Suisun Bay area watersheds are influenced by pressure systems in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) system; high winds develop in the summer as warm low pressure systems in the Central Valley draw cooler marine air from the Bay eastward through the Carquinez Straits. Areas east of the East Bay Hills receive less precipitation and have higher temperatures than areas west of the hills. Similarly, southern Alameda County and the Santa Clara Valley experience drier and warmer climatic conditions since they are further removed from marine influences than the North Bay. The Santa Cruz Mountains create a rain shadow effect over the South Bay, resulting in the lowest annual precipitation rates in the Bay Area Region. Temperature and precipitation on the Peninsula are influenced by wind patterns associated with the east and west sides of the Coast Ranges and Santa Cruz Mountains. Gaps in the mountains allow marine air and fog to cool temperatures in some locations, particularly in San Bruno and Redwood City. Evapotranspiration rates in the Bay Area Region are influenced by the distribution, type, and percent cover of vegetation, as well as factors such as temperature and humidity. Evapotranspiration rates in the South Bay, for example, are higher than in the North Bay due to lower precipitation, less vegetative cover, and higher temperatures. 2.2.2 Geography and Topography The Bay Area Region is located in the central Coast Range mountains and is distinct in California as the only location where streams interior to the Coast Range drain directly to the coast. The Bay is the tidal estuary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system. Figure 2-6 illustrates the topographic variation within the region. Fog in Napa County 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-14 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.3 Flood Plains and Flood Zones Bay Area Region watersheds typically are characterized by urbanized valleys and bayside alluvial plains that are surrounded by steep, less developed uplands. Valley flooding tends to occur when large, widespread storms follow several days of rainfall. The most widespread flood damages occur in urbanized, low-gradient, low elevation areas when the capacity of natural or engineered channels is exceeded and floodwaters spread through urban neighborhoods. In low- lying areas near the Bay, flooding may be exacerbated by high tides and storm surges that back up riverine flows. Figure 2-7 illustrates the 100-year and 500-year flood zones mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program. The 100-year flood zone represents the area with at least 1 percent chance of flooding in any year. The 500-year flood zone illustrates urbanized valleys and Bay plains with the potential for shallow, overland flooding of less than 1 foot, or that are protected from the 100-year flood zone by levees. Local flooding may occur following intense, short-duration storm bursts that can cause storm drain surcharges. Because of the topography of alluvial plains, floodwaters escaping some stream channels may flow away from the flooding stream, crossing open areas or flowing through city streets until reaching an adjacent watercourse. This type of flooding compounds and exacerbates local flooding that occurs when storm drains and small channels become blocked or surcharged during storms. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-15 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-6: Bay Area Region Topography 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-16 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-7: 100 and 500-year Flood Zones 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-17 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.4 Geologic Setting Identifying a watershed’s general location and placement within the overall Bay Area Region in relation to basic structural features is important to understanding watershed function, sediment delivery, watershed hydrology, water quality, and resulting habitat opportunities. The San Francisco Bay lies in a basin that extends from the Santa Clara Valley in the south to the Napa, Sonoma, and Petaluma valleys in the north. The Bay is generally oriented northwest/southeast between the San Andreas Fault zone to the west and the Hayward and Calaveras Fault zones to the east. The Bay is a relatively recent feature (estimated to be approximately 10,000 years old) that was inundated by sea-level rise associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum. The Bay is relatively shallow, with 85 percent of its area less than 30 feet deep. Much of the perimeter of the Bay is occupied by shallow tidal mud flats, tidal marshes, diked or leveed agricultural areas, and salt ponds. These tidal baylands support important aquatic and wetland habitats and have been the focus of many restoration activities over the past 30 years. In the future, the physical extent of the Bay will depend on the balance between the continually rising sea level, the rate of sediment delivery to the Bay, and potential tectonic subsidence (or uplift) that may affect the depth of the Bay. In the North Bay, the Petaluma River, Sonoma Creek, and Napa River watersheds are generally north/south oriented, somewhat elongated basins that are aligned in parallel with the dominant tectonic structure. In these watersheds, central trunk streams collect flows and sediment from east/west oriented tributaries emerging from adjacent uplands, fans, and canyons. Similarly, in the South Bay, the Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River watersheds are generally north/south aligned systems parallel to the strike of the tectonic structure. Central trunk streams assimilate smaller local tributaries that emerge from the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west of the Santa Clara Valley or the Mt. Hamilton segment of the Diablo Range to the east of the Santa Clara Valley. The central lowland valleys of these watersheds house the region’s important alluvial aquifers. Several other Bay Area Region watersheds are oriented perpendicular to the generally northwest/southeast alignment of Bay faults and geologic structure. This is observed in watersheds of the East Bay and Peninsula whose headwaters originate in the hills above the Bay and whose major tributaries flow generally east or west out of the steeper headwaters, across a transitional alluvial fan zone, and across a more gently sloping bay plain before reaching the Bay. 2.2.5 Hydrology and Geomorphology The San Francisco Bay watershed and its sub-basins are complex hydrologic systems with multiple and concurrent water inputs and outputs. In addition to the San Francisco Bay itself, surface water bodies located in the Bay Area Region include:  Ocean bays and lagoons, such as Bolinas Bay and Lagoon, Half Moon Bay, and Tomales Bay  Urban lakes, such as Lake Merced and Lake Merritt 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-18 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description  Large lakes and reservoirs, such as Anderson Reservoir, Briones Reservoir, Calaveras Reservoir, Crystal Springs Reservoir, Kent Lake, Lake Chabot, Lake Hennessey, Nicasio Reservoir, San Andreas Lake, San Antonio Reservoir, San Pablo Reservoir, Upper San Leandro Reservoir, Lake Del Valle  Numerous smaller lakes and reservoirs  Rivers and creeks (listed by watershed in Table 2-1 and by CCA in Table 2-3) Due to local topography and geology, surface runoff can cause a range of geomorphic functions – including erosion, transport, or deposition – throughout the Bay watershed. Tectonic, faulting, and structural controls are of particular importance, as they often influence the relative distribution of sediment source, transport, or depositional areas in the region. The majority of human impacts to watershed systems are linked to land use or land cover alterations, as well as channelization and alteration of waterways. Land use and channel modifications alter the fundamental hydrologic cycle by impacting infiltration rates and capacity. Land development that uses impermeable surfaces reduces infiltration, resulting in increased surface runoff. Surface runoff from some disturbed upland and urbanized areas collects and transports pollutants and organic materials into Bay Area Region streams and wetlands. Surface runoff carries a variety of dissolved materials including: minerals dissolved from bedrock deposits (calcium carbonate); metals derived from bedrock (iron and aluminum) or human activities (zinc and lead); pesticides, herbicides, toxic pollutants, and industrial waste materials; phosphorus and nitrogen; and oxygen (Holdren, 2001). Concentration of these surface pollutants can degrade water bodies until they are no longer able to serve beneficial purposes. The hydrologic function of Bay Area Region watersheds has been greatly affected through surface land cover and land practice alterations. As shown in Figure 2-8, a broad band of urbanization surrounds the Bay, covering much of the gently sloping bay plain terrain. In the last few decades, urbanization has extended beyond the immediate Bay plain to the interior valleys and foothills of the North Bay, East Bay, and South Bay. Increased stream flows that have resulted from Bay Area Region urbanization have been associated with increased bed and bank erosion and potential for increased downstream sediment transport and deposition. Geomorphic effects of urbanization can be less obvious since urbanization includes construction of reservoirs, stormwater management systems, and channel engineering which mitigate some direct impacts. However, such systems often introduce secondary geomorphic impacts, such as the “hungry stream” effect associated with Campbell Creek, Napa County 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-19 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description reduced sediment source areas and streams that have increased erosive competence. The hungry stream effect results in a reduction in sediment delivery to the Bay and coastal areas and shoreline erosion. Ranching practices, most notably cattle and sheep grazing, also have impacted watersheds and have resulted in soil compaction and the replacement of a wide variety of native grasses with lower coverage non-natives. These changes increased surface runoff, gullying, channel incision and the severe destabilization of creek banks and beds from direct animal activity. Effects of grazing in several sub-basins of the Bay watershed are still evident today. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-20 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-8: Bay Area Region Vegetation Land Cover 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-21 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.6 Groundwater Basin Boundaries The Bay Area Region has 28 identified groundwater basins, which underlie approximately 30 percent of the region (California’s Groundwater, 2003) as shown in Figure 2-9. Groundwater is an important part of the water supply for several parts of the Bay Area Region. The major groundwater basins used for supply are described below: Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin: The Santa Clara Valley basin runs parallel to the Coast Ranges and is bounded by the Diablo Range to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The basin contains a large inland valley drained by tributaries to San Francisco Bay including Coyote Creek, the Guadalupe River, and Los Gatos Creek. The Santa Clara Groundwater Basin includes four sub-basins – the East Bay Plain, San Mateo Plain, Santa Clara, and the Niles Cone. Napa-Sonoma Valley Groundwater Basin: The Napa-Sonoma Valley basin consists of the Sonoma Valley and Napa-Sonoma Lowlands sub-basins. The Sonoma Valley Sub-basin is located in the southeastern corner of Sonoma County and extends over an area of 70 square miles. The cities of Sonoma, Schellville, and Valley of the Moon are located in the recharge area of the sub-basin. The Napa-Sonoma Lowlands Sub-basin covers 65 square miles located north of San Pablo Bay. The sub-basin consists of two main water-bearing formations: Recent and Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits and the Pleistocene Huichica Formation. Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin: The Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin, located south of Rohnert Park, drains to the southeast towards San Francisco Bay. Alluvial-fan deposits and stream-valley alluvium compose the major part of the aquifer. Estuarine deposits of sand beneath are an important local source of ground water (USGS, 2006). Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin: The Livermore Valley groundwater basin is located in the Livermore-Amador Valley. It extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills and from the Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland. Principal streams draining the Livermore Valley include Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo Las Positas; minor streams include Alamo Creek, South San Ramon Creek, and Tassajara Creek. These streams converge on the west side of the basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley (DPLA2, 2006). Westside Groundwater Basin: The Westside Basin is the largest groundwater basin on the San Francisco Peninsula, bounded by Golden Gate Park to the north, the San Bruno mountains to the east, the San Andreas Fault and Pacific Ocean to the west, and the San Mateo Plain groundwater basin to the south. The basin is comprised of unconsolidated sediments of the Colma formation of Pleistocene age and the Merced Formation of Pleistocene/Pliocene age. As described in Section 2.5, in general, groundwater in the Bay Area Region is of good quality and suitable for most purposes, with some locally high concentrations of certain constituents. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-22 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-9: Significant Bay Area Region Groundwater Basins 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-23 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.7 Biodiversity and Protected Lands The Bay Area is an internationally recognized biodiversity hotpot, nationally one of the six most important. It is recognized for its abundance of birds, plants, insects and other species, and known for a high diversity of endemic species which thrive in the Mediterranean-type climate. The metropolitan nature of the region and continuing urban sprawl, have prompted major efforts to conserve this biodiversity. The Bay Area is a leader in open space protection with 1.2 million acres currently under permanent protection and habitat conservation plans that cover the entire Bay Area. There were three significant milestones in this effort: 1. The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project (1999) featured a consortium of public agencies and focused on the conservation of historic tidelands. This Project became a model for subsequent habitat protection efforts. 2. The Bay Area Open Space Council initiated the first regional plan for conserving the Bay Area’s biological diversity in 2004, with development of the San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project. This study established the Conservation Lands Network and outlined actions needed to sustain the diversity and health of the ecological community in the nine county Bay Area. 3. The San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project, completed in 2011 developed a framework for the protection and restoration of submerged habitats in the San Francisco Bay. The network of protected lands and more information can be found on the Conservation Lands Network website at http://www.bayarealands.org/. In addition, the Bay Area acknowledges that the relationship between Tribes and their land and natural resources is complex, extending from time immemorial to the present day and beyond. Tribal governments demonstrate excellence in caring for their lands and natural resources with respect and minimal financial resources. Tribes look to their land and natural resources to provide and support essential elements of Native life and culture—from subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering, to sources of economic development and Tribal sacred places. 2.2.8 Biologic and Aquatic Resources The Bay estuary is the largest estuary of the West Coast and one of North America’s most important. It is an environmentally sensitive and biologically diverse ecosystem made up of freshwater streams, tidelands, marshlands, wetlands, mudflats, farmland and other unique systems. Bay Area watersheds and their associated habitats provide a myriad of water resource and ecological benefits to both humans and wildlife. Napa Marshlands 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-24 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Watersheds provide freshwater sources for humans and wildlife; floodplains and wetlands can reduce flood impacts and improve water quality and groundwater resources; diverse habitats allow wildlife to flourish; and vegetation can reduce water temperatures and minimize erosion and sedimentation. Native habitats include: Riparian: Montane riparian areas in the region are associated with lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs and meadows, as well as rivers, streams and springs. In these systems water may be permanent or ephemeral. Valley foothill riparian habitats are found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, slightly dissected terraces, lower foothills, and coastal plains. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography. Lacustrine: Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed river channels containing standing water. Typical Bay Area lacustrine habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, intermittent lakes, and shallow ponds (including vernal pools) in which rooted plants can grow. Additionally, relic or maintained stock ponds often provide important wetlands habitats in many parts of the East Bay, South Bay, and Peninsula. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life, while intermittent types usually do not. Wetlands: Freshwater wetlands in the region occur in tidal areas with low salinity due to mixing and are populated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens. Tidal wetlands are characterized as salt or brackish marshes consisting mostly of perennial graminoids and forbs, along with algal mats on moist soils and at the base of vascular plant stems. The Bay Area is home to over 90 animal and plant species that have been designated by state and federal agencies as threatened or endangered (Center for Biological Diversity 2012), including the ones listed in Table 2-1. The Bay Area provides an important wintering site for migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway, as well as a spawning area for anadromous fish. Two-thirds of the state’s salmon population passes through the Bay and Delta each year, however populations continue to undergo significant decline and are the focus of ongoing recovery efforts. In September 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released the final Recovery Plan for the Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit, which focuses on the recovery of populations from Punta Gorda in northern California to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County, including the San Francisco Bay estuary and its tributaries. Several streams in the Bay Area have been identified for recovery actions, including Pescadero Creek and Lagunitas Creek where focus populations for recovery exist. Persistence of Lagunitas Creek coho populations is due in large part to long- term dedicated coordination and action among local citizens and agencies (NMFS 2012). California Clapper Rail Photo Credit: USFWS 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-25 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-1: Threatened and Endangered Species in the Bay-Delta Classification Species Mammals San Joaquin kit fox, Salt-marsh harvest mouse, Southern sea otter Birds California least tern, California Ridgway’s rail, Western snowy plover, Marbled Murrelet, Northern spotted owl Reptiles Giant garter snake, Alameda whipsnake, Green sea turtle, Leatherback sea turtle, Olive ridley sea turtle, San Francisco garter snake Fish Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead trout, Delta smelt, Tidewater goby Amphibian California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander Crustaceans California freshwater shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Longhorn fairy shrimp, Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, black abalone Insects Callippe silverspot butterfly, Delta green ground beetle, Lange’s metalmark butterfly, Mission blue butterfly, Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly, San Bruno elfin butterfly, Bay checkerspot butterfly, Smith’s blue butterfly, Ohlone tiger beetle, Zayante band-winged grasshopper, Plants Antioch Dunes evening-primrose, Baker’s larkspur, Beach layia, Calistoga allocarya, Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch, Clousa grass, Contra Costa wallflower, Coyote ceanothus, Few-flowered naverretia, Fountain thistle, Keck’s Checker- mallow, Lake County stonecrop, Loch Lomond coyote thistle, Many-flowered navarretia, Marin dwarf-flax, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, Bapa bluegrass, Pallid Manzanita, Palmate-braced bird’s beak, Pennel’s bird’s beak, Pitkin Marsh lily, Presidio clarkia, Presidio Manzanita, San Francisco lessingia, San Joaquin Orcutt grass, San Mateo thornmint, San Mateo woolly sunflower, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Sebastapol meadowfoam, Soft bird’s-beak, Solano grass, Sonoma alopecurus, Sonoma spineflower, Sonoma sunshine, Suisun thistle, Tiburon jewelflower, Tiburon mariposa lily, Tiburon paintbrush, Vine Hill clarkia, White sedge, White-rayed pentachaeta, Yellow larkspur Source: USFWS 2012, sfbaywildlife.info 2012. Given the setting of the Bay Area Region, the areas adjacent to the coast and Bay are extensive and have high ecological significance. Critical Coastal Areas (CCAs) are specially designated land areas of the California coast where state, federal and local government agencies and other stakeholders have agreed to improve degraded water quality or protect exceptional coastal water quality from the impact or threat of nonpoint source pollution by coordinating expertise and resources. The SF RWQCB jurisdiction has a total of 32 designated CCAs, including several that have been proposed as high priority CCA planning and implementation areas. Table 2-2 lists Female Chinook Salmon in the Napa River 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-26 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description each of the Bay Area CCAs and describes each one’s importance. The CCAs span across seven Bay Area regions, as shown in Figure 2-10. More information on the listed CCAs can be found on the California Coastal Commission website by following the individual hyperlinks in the table. Table 2-2: Bay Area Critical Coastal Areas CCA Name Description Walker Creek The Walker Creek watershed covers 73 square miles in West Marin County, an area of rolling hills to steep gullies. The majority of the watershed is private property, and the major land uses are livestock ranching and dairies. The creek is a protected habitat for coho salmon (the native run is generally extirpated, but CDFW has recently reintroduced coho on an experimental basis), steelhead trout, and California freshwater shrimp. Major tributaries are Chileno Creek and Keys Creek. Tomales Bay Tomales Bay, a 28-km2 bay on the west coast of Marin County, is one of the major estuaries on the Pacific Coast of California, supporting abundant wildlife, including marine mammals and migratory wildfowl. It is a very popular recreation area for kayaking, fishing, hiking, and sightseeing, and the Bay is one of four commercial oyster-growing areas in the state. Tomales Bay Ecological Reserve is located in the Bay. Lagunitas Creek The 103 square mile Lagunitas Creek watershed is the largest watershed in Marin County. Primary tributaries are San Geronimo, Devil’s Gulch, Nicasio Creek, and Olema Creek. A large part of the watershed is within state and federal parklands; the largest landowner is the National Park Service. The second largest landowner is Marin Municipal Water District, and Marin County Open Space District holds about 2,000 acres in the watershed. There are a number of small towns along the San Geronimo Creek tributary. Bird Rock The remote ‘Bird Rock’ Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) has only 0.3 miles of coastline. The National Park Service manages the wilderness shoreline of this CCA (Point Reyes National Seashore), and a portion of the ASBS lies in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Point Reyes Headlands Reserve and Extension ‘Point Reyes Headlands’ ASBS in Marin County has 4.8 miles of coastline. This ASBS lies within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary; the National Park Service (Point Reyes National Seashore) manages the shoreline. Offshore of this CCA is the Point Reyes Headlands State Marine Conservation Area and Extension. On the peninsula leading to the headland are historical working dairy ranches, but these do not drain directly into the ASBS. A road follows the entire ASBS, but the slope of the headland is such that any road run-off also flows away from the ASBS. Double Point ‘Double Point’ State ASBS, located in Marin County, has only 0.7 miles of coastline; a portion of the ASBS lies in the Gulf of the Farallones 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-27 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description National Marine Sanctuary. This area is in a rural part of the Point Reyes National Seashore, and the National Park Service manages the shoreline of this CCA. The area surrounding Double Point is accessible only to hikers, and has primitive trail camps to the north and east of this ASBS. Duxbury Reef Reserve and Extension ‘Duxbury Reef’ ASBS in Marin County has 3.4 miles of coastline. This ASBS lies entirely within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Offshore of this CCA is the Duxbury Reef State Marine Conservation Area and Extension, which is managed by CDFW. James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve This watershed flows into the ‘James V. Fitzgerald’ ASBS in San Mateo County, which has 5.5 miles of coastline. Offshore of this CCA is the James V. Fitzgerald State Marine Park. San Mateo County manages the Marine Park, which was preserved for its unique underwater habitat and extensive tide pools. This ASBS lies entirely within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. San Gregorio Creek San Gregorio Creek and its tributaries are impaired by accelerated rates of erosion and sedimentation resulting from natural geologic and climatic processes, augmented by human land use practices. The largest anthropogenic sources of sediment are believed to be active and abandoned roads on unstable slopes near stream channels; and hillside gullies on agricultural and range lands in the lower watershed, formed primarily as a result of hillside row-cropping in the 1930s. Pescadero Creek With an extensively wooded upper watershed, willow-alder riparian corridors, and a large estuarine marsh, this 80 square mile watershed supports one of the largest remaining runs of steelhead within the San Francisco Bay region. It also supported a large coho salmon run as recently as the late 1960s, although few if any coho have returned to spawn in recent years. Pescadero Marsh is the largest wetland habitat between San Francisco Bay and Elkhorn Slough. Butano Creek With an extensively wooded upper watershed, willow-alder riparian corridors, and a large estuarine marsh, this 80 square mile watershed supports one of the largest remaining runs of steelhead within the San Francisco Bay region. It also supported a large coho salmon run as recently as the late 1960s, although few if any coho have returned to spawn in recent years. Pescadero Marsh is the largest wetland habitat between San Francisco Bay and Elkhorn Slough. Alameda Creek and Flood Control Channel Alameda Creek drains the largest watershed in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region, about 700 square miles. The creek historically supported anadromous fisheries of steelhead trout, coho salmon, and Pacific and river lamprey, and still supports one of the best native stream fish assemblages in the San Francisco Bay Region. Although dammed in a number of locations, much of Alameda Creek remains natural, with the exception of a large earthen channel Army Corps project in the lower end of the creek. Alameda Creek is a high quality creek with the potential to support significant anadromous fish populations, if restored. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-28 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description Calabazas Creek Calabazas Creek extends approximately 13.3 miles from the confluence with the Guadalupe Slough to the Saratoga foothills. The watershed drains approximately 21 square miles within the cities of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Saratoga. Three major tributaries include Regnart Creek, Rodeo Creek, and Prospect Creek. The creek channel has been significantly modified, yet retains large sections of natural channel. Fish are rare due to limited habitat, extreme stormwater flows, and barriers associated with the modified channel. There are many road crossings, including stormwater outfalls that likely contribute to extreme stormwater flows in the creek. High stormwater flows have contributed to a high level of channel instability and stream bank scour that has created a sediment problem in the stream channel. Corte Madera Creek The Corte Madera Creek watershed is a 28 square mile watershed in central eastern Marin County. The creek, which has a number of tributaries including Cascade Creek, San Anselmo Creek, Larkspur Creek, and Ross Creek, flows from open space headwater areas through a highly urbanized area to San Francisco Bay. The watershed supports a number of aquatic species including steelhead trout, and has significant salt marsh wetlands at the mouth of the creek where it flows into the Bay, at the Corte Madera Marsh State Marine Park. Coyote Creek (Santa Clara Co.) Sixteen major creeks drain this 322-square-mile watershed. The county's largest watershed, it extends from the urbanized valley floor upward to the vast natural areas of the Mt. Hamilton range. The watershed’s main waterway, Coyote Creek, is the longest creek in the county. The watershed is home to over 1,000,000 people and provides aquatic and riparian habitat for plants and animals, including threatened or endangered species such as the California red-legged frog, bank swallow, steelhead, and Chinook salmon. Gallinas Creek Gallinas Creek runs from the upper slopes of San Rafael open space areas in an open channelized stretch through an urban residential area, then winds through the Santa Margherita Island and Santa Venetia preserves, and discharges into San Pablo Bay. Guadalupe River The Guadalupe River is surrounded by dense urban development, and passes through the heart of the City of San Jose. This river supports an important anadromous fishery, and is used for recharge of public water supply aquifers. The lower river reach flows into the former Cargil Salt Ponds, which are in the process of wetland restoration. Lake Merritt Lake Merritt, also known as the jewel of Oakland, is a 140-acre tidal estuary in the City of Oakland. With an average depth of eight to ten feet and 3.4 miles of shoreline, it is home to migratory waterfowl, aquatic life, and is a significant public recreation resource for Oakland. Matadero Creek Matadero Creek originates near the town of Los Altos Hills and flows in a northeasterly direction through the residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the City of Palo Alto and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Downstream of the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. Highway 101), Matadero Creek discharges into the Palo Alto Flood Basin, which outfalls into the Bay. Matadero Creek has a total watershed area of about 14 square miles, of which approximately 11 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-29 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description square miles are mountainous land, and 3 square miles are gently sloping valley floor. Miller Creek Miller Creek runs east from Big Rock Ridge in central Marin County through the Las Gallinas Valley and into San Pablo Bay. The Miller Creek watershed has been grazed continuously since the 1800s, and the creek has experienced severe widening and down-cutting as a result. The creek maintains more of its natural channel than other eastern Marin County streams, and supports a variety of native fish. The majority of the creek is in agricultural uses in the upper and lower reaches, with suburban residential areas in the middle reaches. Napa River The Napa River watershed encompasses an area of approximately 426 square miles at the northern end of San Pablo Bay in the San Francisco Estuary. The Napa River and its tributaries support an unusually diverse community of native fishes including two salmonid species: steelhead and Chinook Salmon. The Napa River basin has been identified as an “anchor watershed” with the highest potential for maintaining and restoring current and historic salmonid populations in the San Francisco Bay Area and it appears to support the largest remaining run of steelhead in the streams that discharge directly to San Francisco Bay. Novato Creek Novato Creek is a perennial stream that extends about 17 miles from its headwaters at Stafford Dam to San Pablo Bay. Areas near the Bay are largely salt marsh and leveed wetlands. The stream system supports steelhead and other native fishes. Petaluma River The Petaluma River, located in southern Sonoma and Northern Marin counties, drains an area of approximately 146 square miles into San Pablo Bay. The river is tidally influenced in the lower 11 miles, up to downtown City of Petaluma, and it is used for navigation by commercial and recreational vessels. Considerable open space remains in the watershed, and the watershed supports an unusually diverse community of native fish and wildlife species in its stream, riparian, and wetland habitats. San Francisquito Creek The San Francisquito Creek Watershed is approximately 42 square miles, extending from Skyline Boulevard at the top of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the San Francisco Bay. The watershed includes public lands and numerous private landowners in the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Portola Valley and Woodside, unincorporated land areas of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and Stanford University. San Francisquito Creek and Los Trancos (a large tributary) represent the boundary between the two stated counties. Stanford University is the largest landowner in the watershed owning over 8,000 acres in both counties. San Leandro Creek San Leandro Creek is a significant East San Francisco Bay creek. Its headwaters are in watershed and public parklands, and include drinking water reservoirs; downstream, it flows through urban areas. San Leandro Creek supports a diverse range of fish, native and non- native vegetation, and recreational opportunities. With good restoration, San Leandro Creek has the potential for reintroducing fish spawning. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-30 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description San Lorenzo Creek The lower portion of the 48-square mile San Lorenzo Creek watershed is urbanized, and the headwaters are located in rural, agricultural, and low-density residential areas. San Lorenzo Creek supports diverse wildlife, including anadromous fish, although a concrete-lined creek section and other barriers block fish passage. Two shallow reservoirs (Cull and Don Castro) are also in this system. San Mateo Creek San Mateo Creek flows from the Peninsula watershed through the Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir at Crystal Springs Dam, through Hillsborough and San Mateo out to San Francisco Bay. The watershed provides wildlife habitat and fish spawning habitat, including preservation of rare and endangered species. The Crystal Springs Reservoir is used for municipal and domestic water supply. San Pablo Creek The San Pablo Creek Watershed covers 27,640 acres and includes approximately 109 miles of creek channel. The headwaters of San Pablo Creek run through the City of Orinda before entering drinking water reservoirs (San Pablo and Briones) managed by the EBMUD. The lands in the upper watershed are largely undeveloped watershed and parklands managed by the East Bay Regional Park District and EBMUD. As water leaves San Pablo Reservoir, it flows through the heavily urbanized, residential, and commercial areas of the cities of Richmond and San Pablo before reaching salt marshes adjacent to San Pablo Bay. San Rafael Creek San Rafael Creek in eastern Marin County is fed by several small creeks that run through a primarily urban residential area, then through industrial areas where the creek is channelized into a canal, and thence into San Francisco Bay. The canal area is heavily impacted by urban Nonpoint Source runoff, including from several marinas and light industry. Sonoma Creek Sonoma Creek drains a 170-square mile area from the Sonoma and Mayacamas Mountains into the Valley. Land cover in the watershed as of 2000 was as follows: 12 percent urban (concentrated along Highway 12 in the central part of the watershed), 2 percent other paved area, 14 percent vineyard, 15 percent other agricultural (primarily hayfields and pasture), and 56 percent non-agricultural, undeveloped open space. About 18 percent of the watershed was protected open space, generally in upland State Parks and private conservation easements. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-31 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description Suisun Slough Suisun Slough flows through Suisun Marsh, the largest contiguous brackish water marsh on the west coast. It is a resting and feeding ground for waterfowl migrating on the Pacific Flyway, and provides essential habitat for many bird, mammal, amphibian, and fish species, as well as endemic plants. Marsh management influences salt water intrusion into the San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta. Wildcat Creek The Wildcat Creek watershed covers 6,848 acres and includes approximately 22 miles of creek channel. The upper watershed in contained in Wildcat Canyon, and the land use is parkland. Wildcat Regional Park and Tilden Regional Park, both managed by the East Bay Regional Park District, cover the upper watershed. In the lower reaches, Wildcat Creek flows through the heavily urbanized, residential, and commercial areas of the cities of Richmond and San Pablo before reaching salt marshes adjacent to San Pablo Bay. Source: California’s Critical Coastal Areas website (http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/cca-nps.html). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-32 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-10: Critical Coastal Areas in the Bay Area Source: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_sfbay1.htm 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-33 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In addition to CCAs, some areas of the coast are considered to be Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), in which human activity is restricted to protect the sensitive area. The MPAs are listed in Table 2-3. Table 2-3: Bay Area Marine Protected Areas MPA Name Limitations Double Point/Stormy Stack Special Closure Closed to the public. Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, with the exception of limited clam harvesting and permitted shellfish operations. Duxbury Reef SMCA Take of all living marine resources is prohibited except the recreational take of finfish from shore and abalone. Egg (Devil’s Slide) Rock to Devil’s Slide Special Closure Transit in between the rock and the mainland between these points is prohibited at any time. Closed to the public. Estero de Limantour State Marine Reserve (SMR) Take of all living marine resources is prohibited. Montara SMR Take of all living marine resources is prohibited. Pillar Point SMCA Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, with the exception of limited fishing and seafood harvesting. Point Resistance Rock Special Closure Closed to the public. Point Reyes SMR and SMCA Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, with the exception of limited fishing and crabbing. Point Reyes Special Closure Transit on the south side of Point Reyes headlands in between the mean high tide line to a distance of 1,000 feet seaward of the mean lower low tide line is prohibited at any time. Closed to the public. 2.2.9 Land Use Rangeland, forest land and agriculture combined occupy almost 70 percent of the Bay Area Region’s 4.7 million acres (Table 2-4 and Figure 2-11). Land use patterns within the Region are illustrated in Figure 2-12 and described below.4 4 While the Bay Area region is defined by the boundaries of RWQCB Region 2 for this IRWMP, the land use data presented here is based on data available for the entire nine-county region, due to difficulty isolating data for the hydrologic region. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-34 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution Land Use Acreage Percent of Total Rangeland 1,222,236 27.8% Forestland 963,464 21.9% Agriculture 943,100 21.5% Residential 555,620(a) 12.7% Industrial(b) 278,451 6.3% Urban Open Space 159,881 3.6% Commercial/services 110,778 2.5% Other(c) 122,735 2.8% Military 30,581 0.7% Mixed Use(d) 5,122 0.1% Total 4,391,968 100% Notes: (a) More recent estimates indicate 618,000 acres (ABAG 2009). (b) Includes industrial and major infrastructure. (c) Includes sparsely vegetated and wetlands. (d) Includes residential/commercial and commercial/industrial. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2006. Existing Land Use 2005. Figure 2-11: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution Rangeland Forestland Agriculture Residential Industrial Urban Open Space Commercial/Services Other Military Mixed Use 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-35 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Rangeland: Rangeland includes herbaceous, shrub and brush, and mixed rangeland areas and is prominent on Coast Range foothills throughout the region. Southeastern Santa Clara County contains the highest proportion of rangeland in the Bay Area (24 percent). Much of the remaining rangeland is distributed among the rolling grasslands of Alameda (15 percent), Contra Costa (13 percent), Marin (13 percent), and Sonoma Counties (14 percent). Forest Land: Forest lands include deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forested areas. Nearly one third of the Bay Area Region’s forested lands are located in the Santa Cruz Mountains in southwestern Santa Clara County. An additional 20 percent of the region’s forested lands are in northern Napa County, while 18 percent are located in northern Sonoma County. Agriculture: Agriculture includes croplands, vineyards, orchards, nurseries, confined feeding areas, and farmsteads. Agricultural areas in Solano (31 percent) and Sonoma (46 percent) counties make up the majority of active cropland in the region. Agricultural areas are also concentrated in Napa County and the southern edge of Contra Costa County. Residential: Residential land includes rural and single family homes, mobile homes, apartments and multifamily residential and group quarters. The counties with the region’s highest concentration of residential areas include Sonoma (25 percent) and Santa Clara (18 percent), likely due to rural and semi-rural development patterns. Other concentrations of the region’s residentially developed land are located in the counties of Alameda (13 percent), Contra Costa (15 percent), and San Mateo (10 percent). Industrial: Industrial includes light and heavy industrial land uses, as well as major infrastructure, such as roads, airports, power facilities, municipal wastewater and water supply facilities, communication facilities and other land uses. Santa Clara County (22 percent) and Alameda County (18 percent) have the highest industrial land use acreage of the region. Urban Open Space: Urban open space includes areas that have been affected by urban development but contain minimal paving and buildings. These areas include golf courses, racetracks, campgrounds, cemeteries, urban parks, and vacant lands. Alameda (18 percent), Contra Costa (19 percent), and Santa Clara (17 percent) counties contain the majority of urban open space within the Region. Commercial/Services: This land use classification includes retail and wholesale, educational facilities, hospitals and health centers, prisons, local government and other public facilities, offices, research centers and emergency services. In addition to the three major metropolitan centers, smaller urban centers and vast highway corridors lined with commercial and services land uses occur throughout the region. Santa Clara Alameda County Vineyard and Golf Course 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-36 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description County, home of Silicon Valley, contains the highest percentage of this land use (23 percent), followed by Alameda County (18 percent). Other: The Other land use classification includes the sparsely vegetated and wetland acreages reported by ABAG, though this “other” land use classification is not comprehensive for these features. The Bay Area Region is home to several thousand acres (more than included in the ABAG “other” land class) of wetland habitats, including tidal marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian, seeps, pools, springs, and others. Military: After major closures occurred in the 1990s, the major active duty military installations that remain in the Region are the Travis Air Force Base in Solano County and Coast Guard Island in Alameda County. Mixed Use: Mixed use describes urban centers that contain a diverse mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The counties with the region’s highest concentrations of mixed use include Alameda (29 percent), San Francisco (19 percent), and San Mateo (33 percent). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-37 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-12: Bay Area Region Land Use Patterns 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-38 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.10 Social and Cultural Makeup The San Francisco Bay Area consists of 9 counties (whole and partial), 101 municipalities, 2.6 million households and a population of 7.15 million (Bay Area Census, 2010), making the metropolitan region the second largest in California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Table 2-5 provides an overview of key Bay Area demographic characteristics. Note that as mentioned in Section 2.1.1, some counties are divided between the Bay Area Region and other IRWM regions to better coincide with natural watershed boundaries; census information cited is, however, only available to describe the larger Bay Area. Table 2-5: Demographic Characteristics for the San Francisco Bay Area Existing 2010 (a) Projected 2030 (b) Percent Change Total Population 7,150,739 8,719,300 18% Total Households 2,608,023 3,171,940 18% Residential Acreage(c) 618,302 646,376 5% Average Residential Density 4.22 4.91 16% Median Household Income $ 102,000 $ 126,400 19% Notes: (a) Bay Area Census, 2010. (b) ABAG projections, 2009. (c) The projected 2030 residential acreage is less than projected in the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP, likely in response to the economic downturn. Growth projections show a continuation of existing trends. Currently, almost half of the region’s population resides in Santa Clara and Alameda counties, which continue to grow at the fastest rates. Despite large proportions of residential areas compared with other land use types, North Bay counties, including Marin, Sonoma, and Napa, have the lowest population densities and are also projected to change the least. Figure 2-13 shows existing and projected populations in each of the Bay Area counties. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-39 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-13: Population Growth in Bay Area Counties5 Source: ABAG, Census 2010, ABAG 2012. A significant shift in the age distribution of Bay Area residents is anticipated to occur over the next 20 years (Table 2-6). The population of working-age residents is expected to drop from about 62 percent to 57 percent of total, while the proportion of seniors is expected to increase from about 14 percent in 2010 to 21 percent by 2030. Table 2-6: Current and Projected Age Distribution for the San Francisco Bay Area Existing 2010(a) Projected 2030 Percent Change 0-4 years 455,384 543,296 19% 5-19 years 1,349,783 1,459,408 8% 20-44 years 2,587,300 2,979,078 15% 45-64 years 1,930,198 1,948,310 1% 65+ years 1,018,994 1,789,187 76% Note: (a) ABAG 2009. The Bay Area is a racially diverse region. Approximately 58 percent of the Region’s population was of a race other than white. Hispanics/Latinos and Asians make up the two large minority groups in the Region at 24 percent and 23 percent, respectively, and African Americans represent approximately 6 percent of the population (ABAG, 2010). The Native American population in the Bay Area according to the 2010 census is 48,493 or 0.7 percent of the total population. 5 The One Bay Area / Sustainable Communities Strategies projections have been identified as a “preferred alternative” but have not yet been adopted. This is expected to occur in 2012. They are included because they may better reflect the impact of current economic conditions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-40 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.11 Economic Conditions and Trends The Bay Area is among the largest metropolitan areas in the United States and the second- largest in California. With a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $535 billion, the Bay Area is the 19th largest economy in the world. On a per capita basis, it has the highest GDP in the United States at $74,815 (Bay Area Economic Forum, 2012). The region is at the cutting edge of global technology and is a leader in many key indicators of regional, national and global competitiveness. Water supply reliability and water quality have a tremendous effect on the continuing success of the Bay Area’s economy. The Bay Area’s productivity stems from a variety of factors, including a concentration in high value-added activities, a well-educated workforce, and a spirit of innovation. The Bay Area leads most other U.S. metropolitan regions in its employed share of management, technology, and engineering occupations. The Bay Area also plays a leading role in delivering innovation to the U.S. economy, with more than one third of the nation’s overall venture capital investments occurring here and the highest economic productivity of the nation. The Bay itself is an important economic resource, providing commercial and sport fishing, and other tourist and recreational economic opportunities. Table 2-7 lists current and projected employment characteristics for the Bay Area. Table 2-7: Current and Projected Employment Characteristics for the Bay Area Existing 2010 Projected 20306 Percent Change Total Jobs(a) 3,385,294 4,738730 36% Commercial/Industrial Acreage 231,777 248,415 7% Average Employment Density 14.6 19.1 31% Notes: (a) Projections for employment have been adjusted downward by about 8 percent from the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP plan, likely in response to the economic downturn. Source: ABAG, 2010. Almost half of the region’s jobs are located in Santa Clara and Alameda counties (27 percent and 21 percent, respectively), which together provide 1.62 million jobs. Employment densities in North Bay counties are relatively low, with Marin, Sonoma, Solano and Napa collectively hosting 15 percent of the region’s jobs. ABAG’s growth projections estimate significant job growth, particularly in Solano and Sonoma counties which currently have lower employment densities (Figure 2-14). 6 These values are from ABAG’s 2009 projections. The Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) preferred alternative has a lower 2030 jobs projection of 4,195,567 (a 24% increase). However, the SCS projections have not yet been adopted. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-41 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-14: Job Growth in Bay Area Counties 2.2.12 Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities The environmental justice movement began with the struggles of minority populations against the location of toxic waste dumps and waste facility sitings within their communities, but it has since expanded to encompass equal access to clean water supplies, protection from flooding hazards, and provision of open spaces and recreation opportunities (Liu, 2001). Certain environmental hazards may disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income neighborhoods and are increasingly being linked to a range of conditions such as asthma, cancer, and birth defects (CBE 2012, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, 2005). An understanding of the location of disadvantaged and environmental justice communities can help the region to identify water resources management projects that improve water quality, open space and recreation opportunities, and flood protection within these neighborhoods. Additionally, because restoration of rivers and waterfronts is a recognized catalyst for community revitalization, watershed projects can contribute to sound community development in disadvantaged areas. The placement of water infrastructure in or near these communities also can cause concern. From the environmental justice perspective, sewage treatment plants, desalination facilities, and recycling plants – while providing benefit to the community as a whole – can serve to add to the cumulative environmental burden of nearby communities due to odors, effluent, sewage backups, and industrial buildings. Identifying these communities will allow agencies to ascertain the impact of their operations and to work with the community to mitigate problems or more appropriately locate proposed new facilities. California legislation AB1747 (2003) defines disadvantaged communities (DACs) as those with a Median Household Income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the state MHI. As of 2010, 80 percent of the state of California’s MHI was $48,314 (Table 2-8). Within census tracts that fall under that 80 percent limit, there are a wide range of income levels, from very poor to more moderate. To capture these differences, Table 2-8 also lists other poverty metrics. Figure 2-15 illustrates the distribution of DACs in the Bay Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-42 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-8: Definition of Disadvantaged Communities by Income Factor(a) Income Limit State Median Household Income (2006-2010)(a) $60,883 80% of State MHI $48,706 60% of State MHI $36,530 Federal Poverty Level, 2006(b) $19,091 CPUC’s Universal Lifeline Telephone Service threshold(c) $28,200 Notes: (a) State MHI is based on 2010 U.S. Census data. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html (b) Threshold for 3 persons in family or household for 2011 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html; California has average household size of 2.89 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html. (c) California Public Utilities Commission. 2006. Universal Lifeline Telephone Service. Effective from 06/01/09 to 05/31/12 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/telco/public+programs/ults.html. Environmental justice communities are defined as low-income communities and communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by programs, policies, or activities that have resulted in adverse health or environmental impacts. President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 (1994) specifically directed federal agencies to address these situations. Figure 2-16 illustrates census tracts that contain greater than 30 percent of one minority population (Asian, black or African-American, or Hispanic origin), as well as those census tracts with greater than 30 percent in multiple categories. To begin to understand the environmental burden these communities may endure, the locations of wastewater treatment facilities and flood-prone areas are examined in Figure 2-17. Mapping the locations of environmental justice communities and environmental burdens can assist water and flood agencies to identify water resources management projects that may reduce or relieve potential water-related adverse impacts to these communities. Efforts to effectively involve and collaborate with disadvantaged and environmental justice communities are discussed in Chapters 12 and 14. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-43 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-15: Disadvantaged Communities 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-44 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-16: Concentration of Minority Populations 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-45 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-17: Environmental Justice Communities and Infrastructure 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-46 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.13 Native American Tribal Communities According to the 2000 census, the American Indians and Alaska Native population in the Bay Area was 43,000, making it the 3rd largest urban American Indian population in the US. According to the Pew Foundation, in 2013 Native American women married outside of their race at the highest percentage, accounting for 58 percent of mixed race marriages in the United States within the 12 month period. This suggests that the Native American Population may be statistically higher in the Bay Area. This Bay Area Native community also includes California Indians from nearby reservations and tribal communities, and those who have relocated to the Bay Area from around the United States as part of the Indian Diaspora into the Bay, which can be traced to forced assimilation including termination and Indian relocation policies of the 1950s-60s. Tribal members are dispersed into the Bay Area population and do not live in Tribal-specific communities. Bay Area Tribal families for whom the Bay is their historical homeland have often been displaced outside of the Bay due to housing costs and other economic pressures. However, deep connections remain along with a continued responsibility to steward traditional territory and cultural resources. Although this presents a challenge for outreach and engagement, efforts to effectively involve and collaborate with Native American Tribal Members are discussed in Chapters 12 and 14. 2.3 Overview of Bay Area Region Water Supplies The Bay Area’s prosperity and continued leadership in economic development and environmental protection, rely on continued delivery of high quality, reliable water supplies. Bay Area water agencies continue to seek to protect the reliability and quality of existing supplies through innovative water management strategies and regional cooperation. The following sections outline current and projected quantity and quality of water resources throughout the Bay Area Region, and introduce some of the challenges facing water in the future. Bay Area Region water agencies manage a diverse portfolio of water supplies, including imported surface water (SWP, CVP, Tuolumne, Mokelumne), local supplies, and other types of supplies (Figure 2-18). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-47 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-18: Bay Area Water Use by Supply Source 2.3.1 Imported Water Supplies Approximately two-thirds of the Bay Area Region’s water supply is imported from Sierra Nevada and Delta sources through various federal, state and local projects. Nearly all Bay Area Region water agencies depend on imported water as an important component of their water portfolios. 2.3.1.1 Mokelumne River Watershed Over 600 square mile watershed of the Mokelumne River, located on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, provides EBMUD with approximately 90 percent of its water supply. EBMUD has water rights and facilities to divert up to 325 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Mokelumne River. Snowmelt that feeds the upper Mokelumne River is collected and stored in the Pardee Reservoir (located near Valley Springs) and Camanche Reservoir (10 miles downstream from Pardee). In addition to storage, Pardee and Camanche Reservoirs provide recreation opportunities, power generation, flood control and irrigation, and supplies for fisheries and riparian plants and wildlife (EBMUD, 2010). 2.3.1.2 Tuolumne River Watershed The SFPUC owns and operates the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System that conveys water from the Tuolumne River watershed in Yosemite National Park on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The watershed, which provides approximately 85 percent of SFPUC’s supply, serves customers in San Francisco and 28 wholesale customers located in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties (represented by BAWSCA). The Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System provides up to two thirds of the BAWSCA service area water supply and up to 19 percent of ACWD and SCVWD’s service area supplies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-48 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Three major reservoirs collect runoff: Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, Lake Lloyd, and Lake Eleanor.7 Water is diverted from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir into a series of tunnels, aqueducts and pipelines that cross the San Joaquin Valley to facilities located in Alameda County. Conveyance facilities then deliver water to wholesale customers and San Francisco. 2.3.1.3 State Water Project The SWP originates in northern California and conveys water over 500 miles to the Bay Area, and central and southern California through a system of reservoirs, aqueducts and pump stations. Initially constructed starting in the late 1950’s, the SWP is the largest state-built, multi- purpose water project in the country, consisting of 34 storage facilities, reservoirs and lakes, 20 pumping plants, four pumping-generating plants, five hydro-electric plants and approximately 700 miles of aqueducts and pipelines. The primary water source for the SWP is the Feather River, which is a tributary of the Sacramento River. Water released from Oroville Dam flows down natural river channels to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Bay Area supplies are pumped from the Delta into the North Bay and South Bay Aqueducts (NBA and SBA), from which water is delivered to ACWD (27 percent of total supplies), the City of Napa (39 percent of total supplies), SCVWD (15 percent of total supplies), Solano CWA (13 percent of total supplies), and Zone 7 (82 percent of total supplies). 2.3.1.4 Federal Water Projects Several Bay Area Region agencies receive Delta water through the CVP, which is operated by USBR. The CVP extends from the Cascade Range in the north to the plains along the Kern River in the south, with a major part of water flowing through the Delta and pumped at Jones Pumping Plant. Initially, the project protected the Central Valley from water shortages and floods, but now serves farms, homes, and industry in the Central Valley and Bay Area. CVP also produces electric power and provides flood protection, navigation, recreation, and water quality benefits, and is the primary source of water for much of California’s wetlands. In fact, over 400,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of CVP supplies are dedicated to state and federal wildlife refuges and wetlands (USBR 2011). CVP supplies water to CCWD (over 75 percent of total agency supplies) and SCVWD (almost 30 percent of total agency supplies). 7 Releases from Lake Eleanor and Lake Lloyd are used to satisfy in-stream flow requirements, downstream obligations, and to produce hydroelectric power. Neither of these reservoirs is permitted for potable use. South Bay Aqueduct 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-49 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description The Solano Project, also operated by USBR, stores water in Lake Berryessa in Napa County and provides Solano CWA with approximately 87 percent of its water supplies. 2.3.1.5 Russian River Watershed The Russian River drains an area of 1,485 square miles in Sonoma and Mendocino counties and provides approximately 4 percent of the total water supplied to the Bay Area (DWR, 2009). Sonoma CWA operates the water conveyance facilities along this river, which makes up its primary source of water supply. 2.3.2 Local Water Supplies Local Surface Water: Local watersheds provide an important source of supply to several Bay Area Region water agencies. For MMWD, the City of Napa and the Sonoma CWA, local surface water provides over 60 percent of total supplies. For other agencies, local surface water supplies contribute a small but important part of their diverse water supply portfolios. For example, CCWD uses water supplies from Mallard Slough and the San Joaquin River; EBMUD’s secondary water supply source comes from runoff originating in local watersheds of the East Bay area; and the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds produce about 15 percent of the total water supply for SFPUC. Groundwater: Groundwater is another important local supply source for many Bay Area Region agencies, including ACWD, BAWSCA member agencies, SCVWD, SFPUC, and Sonoma CWA. 2.3.3 Other Water Supplies Recycled water, desalination, transfers and interties, and groundwater banking are used by many Bay Area Region agencies to supplement their water supplies. 2.3.3.1 Recycled Water The development of recycled water is a critical element of the region’s water supply portfolio. Recycled water provides a reliable and sustainable local water supply, in addition to environmental restoration and enhancement, surface water protection, preservation of drinking water, improvement of water quality, and reduction of wastewater discharges. Many Bay Area Region water agencies produce and use recycled water to supplement to supplement local water supplies. Over 30 agencies in the Bay Area Region have developed recycled water programs to provide recycled water to their customers for a variety of uses including irrigation, commercial, industrial, agricultural, municipal and residential. The Bay Area has a long history of regional recycled water planning, including the development of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP) Master Plan and the North Bay Regional Water Recycling Feasibility Study and Program. These planning efforts have occurred through the regional collaboration of various government agencies and partnerships in the Bay Area, including but not limited to BACWA, the Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC, formerly the San Francisco Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition), the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA), and BAWSCA. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-50 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In 2015, the Bay Area recycled approximately 58,000 AFY, almost 10 percent of the wastewater effluent generated, and supply is expected to more than double over the next 20 years (BACWA 2018 Recycled Water Survey). Table 2-9 provides a list of the recycled water programs in the Bay Area. Funding for recycled water projects in the Region has come from Propositions 50 and 84, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) programs, Title XVI Water Resources Development Act, in addition to agency funding. Individual agencies can apply for state and federal funding as well as establish partnerships to pursue funding. Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Reservoir under Construction 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-51 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-9: Bay Area Recycled Water Programs  City of American Canyon  Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD)  Contra Costa Water District  Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD)  Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)  DERWA (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority)  East Bay Municipal Utility District  City of San Leandro  Fairfield Suisun Sewer District (FSSD)  City of Livermore  Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District  Marin Municipal Water District  Mt. View Sanitation District  City of Mountain View  City of Napa  County of Napa  Napa Sanitation District  North San Mateo County Sanitation District/Daly City  Novato Sanitary District  North Marin Water District  Oro Loma Sanitary District  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission  City of Palo Alto  City of Petaluma  Redwood City/South Bayside System Authority  Santa Clara Valley Water District  Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin  South Bay Water Recycling  South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA, member of the Western Recycled Water Coalition, but they are not in the Bay Area Region)  Sonoma County Water Agency/Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District  South County Regional Wastewater Authority  City of Sunnyvale  Union Sanitary District  Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District  Town of Yountville An example of a partnership established to pursue funding is the WRWC. In an effort to study recycled water use opportunities and secure federal funding for identified projects, 22 water and wastewater agencies from northern and central California are members of the WRWC8. Since 2009, WRWC projects have been awarded over $38 million in federal funding. For more information go to http://barwc.org/. Partnering agencies continue to collaborate on a regional scale to promote legislation to authorize federal funding for recycled water projects. In February of 2012, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2012 (H.R. 3910) was introduced, which would facilitate implementation of recycled water projects, expecting to yield approximately 8 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, City of Hayward, City of Mountain View, City of Palo Alto, City of Redwood City, City of San Jose, South Bay Water Recycling, City of Sunnyvale, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Ironhouse Sanitary District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose Water Company, Zone 7 Water Agency 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-52 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 35,000 AFY of recycled water in the near-term and over 70,000 AFY in the future (BARWC, 2012). Additional recycled water projects are discussed in Chapters 4 and 12. BACWA actively promotes and develops recycled water through its Recycled Water Committee in an effort to protect the environment and increase water supply reliability in the region. In addition to promoting the development of regional partnerships, the Committee monitors and provides input on legislative and regulatory issues that affect the Bay Area, collaborates to secure state and/or federal funding for Bay Area recycled water projects, and develops regional informational pieces to Increase public awareness of recycled water and its use in the Bay Area. For more information, go to http://bacwa.org/committees/water-recycling. In addition, BAWSCA encourages enhanced recycled water use through participation in BACWA. Various BAWSCA agencies participate in local recycled water programs and have developed projects to achieve recycled water goals set for the Bay Area. For more information on BAWSCA agencies’ recycled water projects see http://bawsca.org/water-conservation/recycled-water/. NBWRA promotes water reuse through the North Bay Water Reuse Program, which is a coordinated regional effort among various water and sanitation agencies9 in Sonoma, Marin and Napa Counties. Currently Phase 1 of the Reuse Program is being implemented, consisting of six recycled projects throughout the three program counties. Final design and construction of these projects is anticipated to be completed by 2019, allowing production of up to 5,500 AFY of recycled water. In addition, a Phase 2 Scoping Study is underway to identify potential new projects and additional member agencies (NBWRA, 2012). For more information go to http://nbwra.org/index.htm. 2.3.3.2 Desalinated Water As a high-quality, drought-proof local supply, desalination is an increasingly competitive water supply alternative for Bay Area Region water agencies. Desalination projects currently being pursued by Bay Area Region agencies include:  CCWD, EBMUD, SFPUC, SCVWD and Zone 7 are currently collaborating on the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project, which is anticipated to produce between 10 to 50 mgd. Pilot testing was completed in 2009, site specific analyses are scheduled to be completed by 2013 if implemented, and construction is scheduled to begin in 2018.  ACWD is currently using brackish groundwater desalination at its Newark Desalination Facility to supplement water supplies.  MMWD investigated desalination and built a successful 1 mgd pilot plant, although a larger project is not currently being pursued.  BAWSCA member agencies have several projects to investigate desalination that are in stages of feasibility planning, evaluation and pilot testing. Additional projects are discussed in Chapter 12. 9 Members of NBWRA include: Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, Napa County, Napa Sanitation District, Novato Sanitary District, North Marin Water District and Napa County, Sonoma County Water Agency, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-53 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.3.3.3 Water Transfers and Interties Several Bay Area Region water agencies (including ACWD, CCWD, EBMUD, SCVWD, SFPUC, Solano CWA and Zone 7) have participated in various types of water transfers to supplement their existing water supplies. These transfers and interties are important to help water agencies manage excess water and aid neighboring agencies in drought or other emergencies. Examples of water transfer and intertie arrangements are described in Chapter 4. 2.3.3.4 Groundwater Banking Many Bay Area Region agencies (including ACWD, SCVWD, Zone 7, and Solano CWA) participate in offsite groundwater banking programs for increased supply reliability. Typically, offsite groundwater banking allows storage of excess supplies in wet years for use in dry years. Examples of local groundwater banking programs are described in Chapter 4. 2.3.4 Water Supply Reliability Although water supply and demand is unique to each agency, all Bay Area Region agencies face similar challenges relating to water supply reliability. Many challenges, including threats to baseline supplies, increasing demands, hydrologic variations, and infrastructure vulnerability, are facing the Region and will need to be understood and addressed by IRWMP projects. These water supply reliability challenges are described in more detail in Chapter 4. 2.4 Water Demand and Conservation Although the Bay Area Region water agencies are all located in the same hydrologic region, water demand characteristics for the Bay Area vary greatly due to the following factors:  Source of Supply - Since the availability, reliability and quality of water supplies depends on the source, each agency has unique challenges in meeting its water demands.  Bay Area Climate Variations – Wide variation in local climates results in a corresponding variation in outdoor water use across the region and sometimes within the service area of agencies. Agencies closer to the San Francisco Bay tend to have cooler climates and higher precipitation (and thus a lower water demand) than areas further inland.  Population Density - Higher density, urban areas such as San Francisco tend to have less outdoor landscaping and lower outdoor water demand than more suburban areas in Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties.  Type of Users - Water use demand patterns vary by user type—residential, commercial, industrial or agricultural—and are unique to each agency. Agencies, such as Zone 7 and Solano CWA, with significant agricultural or landscape use have distinct seasonal use patterns with peak water demand in the hottest, driest months. Agencies with large industrial or residential customers, such as SFPUC, are likely to have a more constant and predictable water demand pattern. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-54 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Historically, the Bay Area has experienced a significant increase in population with a minimal associated change in total water use. This trend can be seen in Figure 2-19 which shows the regional summary of population versus water use. The Water Conservation Bill of 2009, or SBX7-7, provides the regulatory framework to support the statewide reduction in urban per capita water use. Each water retailer must determine and report its existing baseline water consumption and establish an interim target in their 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and a 2020 water use target in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Although water wholesalers are not required to meet the targets outlined in SBX7-7, many Bay Area wholesalers implement conservation programs and policies in partnership with and/or on behalf of their water retail agencies. This not only helps to ensure compliance with SBX7-7, it also helps to ensure long-term water supply reliability goals are met. Figure 2-19: Historical Population and Water Use in the Bay Area It is expected that the demand management measures, combined with alternative resources and strategies, and regulatory requirements will allow Bay Area Region water agencies to continue to meet projected demand through 2035 in average years. Normal year shortfall are not projected, however in dry years all but 4 major agencies—MMWD, City of Napa, SFPUC and Zone 7 —project a shortfall. Without strong local and regional planning, most Bay Area 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 6,000,000 6,500,000 7,000,000 7,500,000 19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Population200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Annual Water Use (AFY In Thousands)Population Total Water Use 1987-1992 Drought 2007 Drought 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-55 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Region water agencies could experience future supply shortfalls in severe droughts. Supplies and demands of the Bay Area Region are summarized in Table 2-10 and show that supplies are adequate through 2035 except in dry year scenarios where a shortfall is projected. Supply and demand data for each major Bay Area Region water supply agency are provided in the following sections, and water conservation strategies are further discussed in Chapter 4. Table 2-10: Summary of Bay Area Region Water Supply and Demand Note: (a) Does not include Sonoma CWA. 2.4.1 ACWD ACWD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-11. Shortfalls are projected for dry years and are expected to be offset in part by local and off-site groundwater storage. Table 2-11: ACWD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year(a) Single Dry Year(b) Multiple Dry Year(c) 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population(d) 344,300 382,500 415,600 382,500 415,600 NA Supply (AFY) 77,900 76,600 76,000 56,100 56,800 58,400 Demand (AFY) 52,600 68,600 69,800 65,800 67,000 63,300 Difference (AFY) 25,300 8000 6,200 -9,700 -10,200 -4,900 Notes: (a) Table 9-2. (b) Table 9-3. (c) Based on maximum shortage projected from 2015 UWMP, Table 9-8. (d) 2015 UWMP, Table 1-3; 2.4.2 BAWSCA BAWSCA member agencies collectively purchase approximately two-thirds of their water supply from the SFPUC to serve a residential population of nearly 1.8 million people in a 468-square mile area. BAWSCA members utilize local surface water, groundwater, SWP and CVP water, recycled water and water conservation measures to meet their remaining water supply demands. Current and projected population, water supply and water demand for the BAWSCA agencies are presented in Table 2-12. By 2035, the population served by BAWSCA member Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population(a) 7,331,716 8,231,905 9,186,676 8,231,905 9,186,676 Supply (AFY) 1,475,595 1,719,535 1,793,699 1,522,959 1,563,757 1,073,975 Demand (AFY) 1,278,480 1,534,534 1,680,963 1,517,778 1,666,870 1,197,143 Difference (AFY) 197,115 185,001 112,736 5,181 -103,113 -123,168 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-56 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description agencies is expected to increase by about 378,000, a 22 percent increase over current levels. Even with current and planned water conservation activities, future water demands are projected to exceed available supplies after 2018. It is estimated that by 2035 up to 25 mgd in normal years and up to 76 mgd in drought years will be needed to meet BAWSCA demands (BAWSCA, May 2010).10 Table 2-12: BAWSCA Water Supply and Demand Current(a) Projected(b)(d) Normal Year Drought Conditions 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Population 1,781,530 1,870,393 2,122,507 1,870,393 2,122,507 Supply (AFY) 196,666 315,001 330,695 258,951 272,403 Demand (AFY) 196,666 315,001 358,720 315,001 358,720 Difference (AFY) 0 0 -28,025 -56,050 -85,196 Source: BAWSCA. Annual Survey, FY 2015-16 2.4.3 CCWD CCWD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-13. The District has planned purchases of 7,200 AFY in 2035 in single and multiple dry year scenarios. CCWD can meet demands with existing supplies in normal and single dry years until 2035 at which point it projects a shortfall. Table 2-13: CCWD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case (2040) Population 477,480 543,850 605,600 543,850 605,600 605,600 Supply (AFY) 213,700 247,000 249,800 194,000 196,000 161,500 Demand (AFY) 148,000 177,600 191,000 177,600 191,000 191,000 Difference (AFY) 65,700 69,400 58,800 17,000 5,000 -29,500 2.4.4 EBMUD EBMUD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented Table 2-14. Supply deficits are projected in dry years. 10 BAWSCA projections has some overlap with the supply and demand projection for ACWD and SCVWD. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-57 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-14: EBMUD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case (Year 2040, Year 3) Population 1.39 M 1.58 M 1.72 M 1.58 M 1.72 M NA Supply (AFY) 183,000 249,000 258,000 234,000 241,000 163,000 Demand (AFY)a 183,000 249,000 258,000 233,000 240,000 206,000 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 -43,000 Source: EBMUD 2015 UWMP and EBMUD O&M FY15 Statistical Report Notes: (a) “Demand” is reported as ‘Planning Level of Demand’ – adjusted demand for planning purposes after applying cumulative conservation and cumulative recycled water savings. In single and multiple dry years, demand is further reduced by customer rationing, ~7% in single dry year and ~20% in year 3 of multiple dry years. “Supply” includes actual and projected available CVP supplies and Bayside Project is on line in Year 3 of the multiple dry years. 2.4.5 MMWD MMWD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-15. MMWD expects to be able to meet its demands in both normal and dry year scenarios through 2035. Table 2-15: MMWD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 189,000 199,800 210,400 199,800 210,400 - Supply (AFY) 39,452 152,794 152,794 60,442 60,442 60,442 Demand (AFY) 38,866 41,685(a) 42,109(a) 41,685a) 42,109(a) 42,109(a) Difference (AFY) 586 111,109 110,685 18,757 18,333 18,333 Note: (a) Based on assumptions, including effective implementation of aggressive conservation program. 2.4.6 City of Napa The City of Napa’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-16. In 2020, demand is projected to outpace supply in single dry years but increases in supply after 2020 are expected to correct that imbalance. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-58 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-16: City of Napa Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2035 2030 2035 Worst Case (2035) Population 87,615 96,219 98,819 96,219 98,819 93,723 Supply (AFY) 29,150 32,873 32,873 17,962 17,962 19,896 Demand (AFY) 13,442 16,151 16,536 16,151 16,536 16,536 Difference (AFY) 15,708 16,722 16,337 1,811 1,426 3,360 While the City of Napa is the largest water agency in Napa County, more than 6,000 AFY in additional municipal demands are met by the cities of American Canyon, St. Helena, and Calistoga and the Town of Yountville. Each has its own water supply portfolio including local reservoirs, groundwater, retail purchases, or State Water Project entitlements. The City of Napa has a water relationship with these four nearby agencies, such as providing SWP treat-and- wheel service (American Canyon, Calistoga), retail sales (St. Helena), and emergency supply and water conservation assistance (Yountville). In the unincorporated areas of Napa County, demand is met primarily via local groundwater basins. 2.4.7 SFPUC The current and projected population, water supply and water demand for SFPUC’s retail and wholesale water system are presented in Table 2-17. Demands are projected to be met in every scenario. Table 2-17: SFPUC Water Supply and Demand – Retail and Wholesale Water System Current Projected Retail Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 847,370 983,568 1,087,468 983,568 1,087,468 Supply (AFY) 87,024 92,248 100,767 92,248 100,767 100,655 Demand (AFY) 87,024 92,248 100,767 92,248 100,767 100,767 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Current Projected Wholesale Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 1,800,897 2,062,427 2,242,606 2,062,427 2,242,606 Supply (AFY) 167,440 206,243 206,243 171,047 171,047 148,517 Demand (AFY) 167,440 206,243 206,243 206,243 206,243 206,243 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 -35,196 -35,196 -57,726 Source: SFPUC 2015 UWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-59 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.4.8 Valley Water Valley Water’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-18. Supplies are projected to meet demands in all scenarios except for a multiple dry year worst case scenario in 2040. In dry years, Valley Water plans to meet demands using reserves and carryover. Table 2-18: Valley Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 1,877,700 2,188,500 2,423,500 2,188,500 2,423,500 2,423,500 Supply (AFY)a,b,c 260,000 435,800 441,900 370,700 408,500 256,800 Demand (AFY) 285,000 408,600 435,100 370,600 434,300 434,100 Difference (AFY) -25,000 27,200 6,800 100 -25,800 -177,300 Notes: (a) Supply projections based on full implementation of the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan (b) Average water supplies during an extended drought (with 2035 demands) are 419,396 AFY. (c) Supplies in the single dry and multiple dry include use of reserves and carryover. 2.4.9 Solano CWA Solano CWA’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented Table 2-19. This table represents the part of Solano County that is in the Bay Area IRWMP and includes the cities of Fairfield, Benicia, Suisun City and Vallejo Supplies are projected to meet demands in all scenarios. Landscape Water Conservation in San Francisco 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-60 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-19: Solano CWA Water Supply and Demand(a) Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2035 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 280,128 312,560 350,069 312,560 350,069 350,069 Supply (AFY) 182,605 205,825 205,825 204,051 204,051 184,887 Demand (AFY) 182,194 207,350 207,350 207,350 207,350 207,350 Differenc e (AFY) 411 -1,525 -1,525 -3,299 -3,299 -22,463 Note: (a) Includes Fairfield, Benicia, Suisun City and Vallejo. 2.4.10 Sonoma CWA Sonoma CWA’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-20. Table 2-20: Sonoma CWA Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case (2040) Population 614,196 698,824 742,040 698,824 742,040 NA(a) Supply (AFY) 42,254 73,011 75,987 60,696 61,837 75,987 Demand (AFY) 42,254 73,011 75,987 73,011 75,897 75,897 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 -12,315 -14,150 0 2.4.11 Zone 7 Zone 7’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-21. Zone 7 projects to be able to meet demand in all water year types through 2035. Table 2-21: Zone 7 Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year(b) Single Dry Year(c) Multiple Dry Year(d) 2015 2030 2035 2030 2035 Worst Case Population(a) 238,600 285,300 285,300 285,300 285,300 291,000 Supply (AFY) 47,900 99,500 99,500 78,200 78,200 73,950 Demand (AFY) 47,900 89,500 92,800 48,500 49,900 58,600 Difference (AFY) 0 10,000 6,700 29,700 28,300 15,350 Notes: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-61 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description (a) Population (2010, 2020): UWMP, Table 2-2; Population (2035): 2011 Water Supply Evaluation Report, Figure 2-2. (b) Normal Year Supply and Demand: UWMP, Table 16-1; 2035 assumed to be the same as 2030. (c) Single Dry Year Supply and Demand: UWMP, Table 16-2; 2035 assumed to be the same as 2030. (d) Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand: UWMP, Table 16-3(d), worst case assumed to be the same as 2030. 2.5 Water Quality 2.5.1 General Bay Area Region Water Quality Issues Water quality issues facing the Bay Area Region include:  Microbes. Potential microbial contamination, particularly by Cryptosporidium and Giardia, is a water quality issue of concern for Bay Area surface water supplies. Cryptosporidium and Giardia have caused large waterborne disease outbreaks throughout the United States and are of particular concern for immunocompromised individuals. Surface water is generally more exposed to and impacted by microbial contaminants than groundwater.  Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Bromide and Disinfection Byproducts. Many of the Bay Area’s supplies, particularly from the Delta, contain high levels of TOC and bromide. These constituents are precursors to disinfection byproducts (DBPs), which are potential carcinogens. Bromide concentrations are primarily dependent on the amount of seawater mixing with freshwater in the Delta and can be challenging to reduce through treatment.  In 2002, the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) set target Delta source water concentrations for TOC and bromide at 3.0 mg/L and 50 μg/L, respectively, in an attempt to mitigate the potential formation of DBPs. The ROD also indicated that, should source water quality targets not be met, an equivalent level of public health protection (ELPH) should be achieved through treatment. This would involve use of treatment technologies specifically tailored to mitigate production of potentially harmful byproducts of disinfection and treatment. DBP production can be mitigated by innovative treatment strategies, but the process is difficult and expensive. Water quality at the Delta drinking water intakes is above the 3.0 mg/L target for organic carbon and, at most intakes, is several times the 50 μg/L bromide target (CALFED, 2007).  Total Dissolved Solids. Many Bay Area Region water sources contain high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), particularly groundwater, recycled water, and Delta supplies (Delta supply’s TDS concentrations and salinity are variable depending on the time and type of year as well as pumping patterns). TDS is a common water quality parameter used to measure salinity of water supplies. The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/L, Water Quality Testing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-62 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description above which problems with taste, odor and color may occur.  Nuisance algae. Nuisance algae is a major concern for many local and imported Bay Area Region surface water supplies. Agencies typically spend a significant amount of money to control algae, mitigate related taste and odor problems, and address filter clogging at water treatment plants.  Toxic pollutants. Major pollution challenges in the Bay Area Region are associated with legacy and emerging toxic pollutants. Legacy pollutants result from past human activities, including mining, military, pesticide manufacture and use and industrial activities. Emerging pollutants and sources of other toxic compounds include urban and rural runoff and other past and ongoing discharges. Pollutants of specific concern include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, flame retardants, solvents and pharmaceuticals. Mercury contamination is of particular concern for the many minority communities practicing subsistence fishing in the region.  Lead. Elevated levels of lead often are due to lead piping in the water distribution system and/or household plumbing, commonly in older housing developments and in DACs.  Urban Runoff. Urban and roadway runoff is a significant source of toxic pollutants such as mercury, PCBs, copper, nickel, and pesticides. In an effort to address this source of pollution, the RWQCB has developed more stringent regulations for stormwater permits. Whereas previous permits had required stormwater treatment where practicable, the new provisions require that runoff from projects that create or replace an acre or more of impervious surface must incorporate source control, site design measures, and stormwater treatment of runoff before discharge from the site.  Trash Control. Trash is transported into creeks through storm drains, by wind, and directly from adjacent roads and pedestrian areas. This can often be a problem in DACs located near industrial areas, where trash can create a neighborhood eyesore. In 2001, the RWQCB considered adding trash to the list of pollutants impairing Bay Area creeks. However, the listing was not made because of the lack of a consistent methodology to assess impairment from trash. Instead, all urban creeks, lakes, and shorelines were placed on a “monitoring” list. Municipalities are expected to assess trash impairments in their jurisdictions and to report their findings in their annual reports.  Grazing and Agriculture. Grazing and agricultural practices, when not properly managed can contribute water quality degradation. Agricultural uses may contribute fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants to surface water through irrigation runoff and impact groundwater quality by concentrating nitrates from irrigated agriculture and confined animal facilities. Trampling and direct consumption of stream and wetlands vegetation by improperly managed cattle may cause erosion and reduces biodiversity. Cattle also contribute nutrients and pathogens to surface runoff. Agencies throughout the Bay Area are actively addressing water quality issues in their service areas. In order to provide uniformly high quality water to all customers and to reduce treatment costs, many agencies blend higher quality supplies with lesser quality water. In addition, agencies are working to manage salts, dissolved solids and other constituents of concern 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-63 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description through several measures, including source water assessment, watershed protection, collaborative work groups, and advanced treatment technologies. Water quality protection and improvement are discussed further in Chapter 4. 2.5.2 Specific Source Water Quality Issues Bay Area Region water quality is dependent upon source of supply. Table 2-22 illustrates how select water quality parameters can vary significantly between major Bay Area sources. Table 2-22: Water Quality Constituent Concentrations for Major Bay Area Supplies(a) Parameter Sierra Nevada Supplies(b) Delta Supplies(c) Russian River Supplies(d) Livermore Valley Groundwater(e) TDS (mg/L) 27-230 330 130 – 180 608-1,146 Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 8-140 119 40-141 413-613 TOC (mg/L) 2.4-3.2 3.1 0.6 0.2 – 0.5 Chloride (mg/L) 3-16 90 0.12 95-193 Notes: (a) Water quality concentrations vary significantly by location, season, and hydrologic year type. Values presented here represent ranges measured at specific locations. (b) Data shown for Sierra Nevada Supplies include ranges found for both Tuolumne and Mokelumne Rivers sources, from the following documents: SFPUC. Annual Water Quality Report 2010; EBMUD. Annual Water Quality Report 2010. (c) Santa Clara Valley Water District April 2012 Water Quality Report http://www.valleywater.org/services/WaterQualityReports.aspx (d) TDS and Hardness values from the City of Petaluma, Department of Water Resource and Conservation. Annual Water Quality Report 2010. TOC and Chloride values from Water Quality Data from Russian River Basin, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties 2005-2010. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/610/pdf/ds610.pdf (e) TDS, hardness, and chloride reported values for Mocho Wellfield as reported in Zone 7’s 2010 Consumer Confidence Report http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf_docs/water_quality/2010-ccr-web.pdf. TOC values from Pam John et al. Feasibility Level Design of Recycled Water Facilities for Santa Clara County, presented at the 2005 Water Reuse Annual Conference (http://www.watereuse.org/ca/ 2005conf/papers/B1_pgittens.pdf). 2.5.2.1 Surface Water Quality Delta water supplies typically contain organic carbon, bromide, pathogens, salinity, nutrients, and algae. Salinity contributes to taste problems, limits recycling and groundwater recharge opportunities, and is closely linked to bromide concentration. Although seawater is the primary source of salinity, agricultural and urban discharges in the watershed also contribute to the salt load. Nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) lead to algal growth in reservoirs and conveyance structures. Algae cause tastes and odor problems and clog filters or otherwise interfere with water treatment. Additional water quality issues and objectives for Delta source water are discussed in Chapter 12. Supplies originating in the Sierra Nevada Mountains typically have the best water quality with very low salts and organic matter, since the water originates from snowmelt on granite peaks that allows few avenues for infiltration of salts and solids. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-64 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Russian River water supplies, like many other local water supplies, typically are of very good quality, with low levels of total dissolved solids and total organic carbon. As water flows to the Russian River aquifer, it flows through a thick layer of gravel and sand that acts as a filter, eliminating many regulated constituents. 2.5.2.2 Groundwater Quality Bay Area groundwater supplies are generally high quality. AB 1249 requires IRWM plans to include information as available on certain constituents if present in groundwater, specifically nitrates, arsenic, perchlorate, and Cr-VI. It should be noted that some of these constituents are naturally occurring in Bay Area groundwater basins, and not all Bay Area groundwater basins are currently used for water supply. Groundwater in many areas does not require treatment. In others, water utilities treat or blend the groundwater used for water supply to ensure that they meet all drinking water standards. Further information on water quality for each utility can be found in their respective Urban Water Management Plans. The Livermore Valley Basin is reporting the presence of nitrates, arsenic, and Cr-VI. The Napa Valley and Napa-Sonoma Valley Lowlands Basins also report nitrates, arsenic, perchlorates, and Cr-VI. San Francisco is reporting the presence of nitrates and Cr-VI for the Westside Basin. Zone 7 Water Agency, the agency managing the Livermore Valley Basin, has taken one of its wells out of service and added treatment processes to other wells in order to address nitrates and other constituents. Zone 7 has also developed Salt and Nutrient Management Plans and constructed and operates a groundwater demineralization facility to remove TDS and other contamination. Napa County, the agency managing the Napa Valley and Napa-Sonoma Valley Lowlands, reports that since the contaminants are naturally occurring and not widespread, there are minimal impacts on the groundwater quality. San Francisco meets water quality standards through blending. Many agencies are in the process of setting up further monitoring as required by their Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Data may not be readily available for groundwater basins that are not used for water supply. Testing conducted by the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program showed that most constituents of concern generally were below health-based thresholds. Pharmaceutical compounds were not detected in any of the tested wells. Seawater intrusion has affected some aquifers along the Bay, contributing high concentrations of chloride and other dissolved minerals to the groundwater, but reduced withdrawals and more effective groundwater management have alleviated impacts to many groundwater basins (further described in Chapter 4). 2.5.2.3 Recycled Water Quality Quality of recycled water supplies is a function of influent water quality and treatment. All recycled water in use in the Bay Area Region complies with applicable Title 22 water quality standards, which specify treatment and use requirements for various recycled water uses (including landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, cooling towers and other industrial uses, and toilet and urinal flushing). Some recycled water quality issues that can impact existing habitat and sensitive species include the amount of total dissolved solids and nitrates. The salinity of recycled water, which is generally 150 to 400 mg/L above potable levels (Tanji et al. 2008), is an important parameter in determining its suitability for irrigation and other uses. Depending on salinity levels, it may be unsuitable for irrigation of more salt sensitive plants or 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-65 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description for industrial purposes requiring higher quality water. This issue can often be addressed during project design, planning, and monitoring and would be considered on a project-by-project basis for IRWM planning. For examples, SCVWD, in partnership with the City of San Jose, is constructing the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center to help address salinity levels through the production of highly purified recycled water. 2.5.2.4 Desalinated Water Quality The overall quality of desalinated water is comparable to other high quality drinking water sources. Results from the MMWD Seawater Desalination Pilot Program showed that desalinated water met or exceeded all state and federal drinking water standards. 2.5.3 Water Quality Regulations 2.5.3.1 TMDLs The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), SWRCB, and RWQCBs have permitting, enforcement, remediation, monitoring, and watershed-based programs to prevent or manage pollution. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) contains two strategies for managing water quality including, (1) a technology-based approach that envisions requirements to maintain a minimum level of pollutant management using the best available technology; and (2) a water quality- based approach that relies on evaluating the condition of surface waters and setting limitations on the amount of pollution that the water can be exposed to without adversely affecting the beneficial uses of those waters. Section 303(d) of the CWA bridges these two strategies. Section 303(d) requires that the states make a list of waters that are not attaining standards after the technology-based limits are put into place. For waters on this list (and where the US EPA administrator deems they are appropriate), the states are required to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDL) — a number that represents the assimilative capacity of receiving water to absorb a pollutant—to control both point and nonpoint source pollution and must account for all sources of the pollutants that caused the water to be listed. In the Bay Area Region, surface water and groundwater quality is regulated by the SF RWQCB. The SF RWQCB classifies the San Francisco Bay and many of its tributaries as impaired for various water quality constituents. The SF RWQCB staff is currently developing more than 30 TMDL projects to address the impaired water bodies. Table 2-23 shows TMDL projects that have been completed and that are currently in development in the Bay Area Region. Chapters 4 and 12 provide additional discussion and examples of non-point source pollution control TMDL project development in the Bay Area Region. Additional information on TMDLs and 303(d) listings can be found on the SWRCB Lagunitas Creek 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-66 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description website, including the Integrated Report (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/impaired_waters_list/). One of the main regulatory planning documents for water quality is the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, administered by the SF RWQCB. It designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface and groundwater and includes implementation programs to achieve those objectives. Another local entity is the Clean Estuary Partnership (CEP), which is an innovative collaboration of the BACWA, the BASMAA, and the RWQCB designed to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. Other key participants include the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the Clean Water Fund, San Francisco Bay Keeper, the Port of Oakland, and the Western States Petroleum Association. The CEP works with RWQCB staff to fund and conduct technical research and analysis to support TMDL development and to conduct stakeholder outreach activities.11 11 For more information on the Basin Planning Process go to: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/mainpagegraphics/basin_planning_fs.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-67 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-23: TMDL Projects – Completed and in Development Completed TMDL Projects TMDL Projects in Development • Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury • Lagunitas Creek Sediment • Muir Beach Bacteria (proposed de- listing) • Napa River Pathogens • Napa River Nutrients (proposed de- listing) • Napa River Sediment • North San Francisco Bay Selenium • Pescadero and Butano Creeks Sediment • Richardson Bay Pathogens • San Francisco Bay Beaches Bacteria • San Francisco Bay Mercury • San Francisco Bay PCBs • San Vicente Creek and Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Bacteria • San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach Bacteria • Sonoma Creek Nutrients (proposed de- listing) • Sonoma Creek Pathogens • Sonoma Creek Sediment • Suisun Marsh Mercury and Dissolved Oxygen • Tomales Bay Mercury • Tomales Bay Pathogens • Urban Creeks Pesticide Toxicity • Walker Creek Mercury • Kiteboard Beach and Oyster Point Beach Bacteria • Permanente Creek Selenium • Petaluma River Bacteria • Pillar Point Harbor & Venice Beach Bacteria • San Francisquito Creek Sediment • San Gregorio Creek Sediment • Stevens Creek Toxicity • Source: SFRWQCB 2019. 2.5.3.2 Salt and Nutrient Management High salinity has become a particular constituent of concern for water planning. The rate at which salts accumulate in soils is an important factor in determining acceptable TDS levels for irrigation. In addition, the salinity and potential toxicity to plant foliage and roots from other specific constituents are potential concerns. Some groundwater basins contain salts and nutrients that exceed or threaten to exceed water quality objectives established in the applicable Water Quality Control Plans. These conditions can be caused by natural soils/conditions, discharges of waste, irrigation using surface water, groundwater or recycled water and water supply augmentation using surface or recycled water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-68 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In 2009, the SWRCB adopted a statewide Recycled Water Policy (Policy) to establish uniform requirements for the use of recycled water. The purpose of this Policy is to increase the use of recycled water from municipal wastewater sources in a manner that implements state and federal water quality laws. The Policy states that salts and nutrients from all sources, including recycled water, should be managed on a basin wide or watershed wide basis in a manner that ensures attainment of water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses. The SWRCB determined that the appropriate way to address salt and nutrient issues is through the development of regional or sub-regional salt and nutrient management plans rather than through imposing requirements solely on individual recycled water projects. Salt and nutrient plans must include a basin/sub basin wide monitoring plan that specifies an appropriate network of monitoring locations. The monitoring plan should be site specific and must be adequate to provide a reasonable, cost-effective means of determining whether the concentrations of salt, nutrients and other constituents of concern as identified in the salt and nutrient plans are consistent with applicable water quality objectives. For more information see Chapter 5. 2.5.3.3 Drinking Water The California State Board Water Boards (SWB) Drinking Water Program (DWP) regulates public drinking water systems. DWP consists of three branches: (1) the Northern California Field Operations Branch, (2) the Southern California Field Operations Branch, and (3) the Program Management Branch. The Field Operations Branches (FOBs) are responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts (SDWAs) and the regulatory oversight of about 7,500 public water systems to assure the delivery of safe drinking water to all Californians. In this capacity, FOB staff perform field inspections, issue operating permits, review plans and specifications for new facilities, take enforcement actions for non-compliance with laws and regulations, review water quality monitoring results, and support and promote water system security. In addition, FOB staff are involved in funding infrastructure improvements, conducting source water assessments, evaluating projects utilizing recycled treated wastewater, and promoting and assisting public water systems in drought preparation and water conservation. FOB staff work with the US EPA, the SWRCB, RWQCBs, and a wide variety of other parties interested in the protection of drinking water supplies. On the local level, FOB staff work with county health departments, planning departments, and boards of supervisors. Primacy has been delegated by CDPH to certain county health departments for regulatory oversight of small water systems, and FOB staff provide oversight, technical assistance, and training for the local primacy agency personnel. 2.5.3.4 The Technical Programs Branch consists of the Quality Assurance Section, the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program Section, and the Technical Operations Section. Recycled Water The DWP establishes regulations and criteria for water recycling to protect public health. The RWQCB issues permits for water recycling to ensure groundwater and surface water quality are protected and to implement DWP recommendations for protecting public health. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-69 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.6 Major Water Related Infrastructure The following sections list the major water-related infrastructure for the Region. 2.6.1 Drinking Water Infrastructure Bay Area Region water agencies rely upon a diverse network of water related infrastructure that includes major aqueducts that convey water supplies from the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Delta. Major transmission facilities throughout the region include:  Contra Costa Canal: The 48-mile long Contra Costa Canal comprises the backbone of the CCWD transmission system for CVP. It originates at Rock Slough in East Contra Costa County and ends and ends at the Shortcut Pipeline near the Bollman Water Treatment Plant, delivering water to CCWD’s treatment facilities and raw water customers.  Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct: The 156-mile Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct conveys water from the Tuolumne River through the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to the San Francisco Bay Area. In Fremont, the aqueduct splits into four pipelines , all of which cross the Hayward fault. Pipelines 1 and 2 cross the San Francisco Bay to the south of the Dumbarton Bridge and Pipelines 3 and 4 run to the south.  Mokelumne Aqueducts: Three aqueducts form the Mokelumne Aqueduct System and convey most of EBMUD’s supply 84 miles from Pardee Reservoir on the Mokelumne River westward to Walnut Creek.  North Bay Aqueduct: The North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) is an underground pipeline operated remotely by DWR that conveys water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The NBA extends from Barker Slough in the Delta to Cordelia Forebay, outside of Vallejo. From the Cordelia Forebay water is conveyed via the NBA to Napa County, Vallejo and Benicia. Solano CWA and the Napa County FCWCD, which contracts for water supply on behalf of the cities and towns in Napa County, receive Delta supplies through the NBA.  Russian River Transmission Facilities: Sonoma CWA operates diversion facilities at the Russian River and an aqueduct system comprised of pipelines, pumps, and storage tanks. Three major reservoir projects provide water supply for the Russian River watershed: Lake Pillsbury on the Eel River, Lake Mendocino on the East Fork of the Russian River, and Lake Sonoma on Dry Creek. Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma provide water for agriculture, municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, in addition to maintaining the minimum stream flows required by water rights permits. Most of the streamflow in the Russian River during the summer is provided by water imported from the Eel River. Streamflows are augmented by releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma.  San Felipe Division: The San Felipe Division is comprised of pipelines and pumps that convey CVP water from San Luis Reservoir (a joint SWP CVP facility) to Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. In Santa Clara County, the San Felipe Division terminates at Coyote Pumping Plant, where it connects with SCVWD’s Cross-Valley Pipeline. The 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-70 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Cross Valley Pipeline is a source of supply for drinking water treatment plants, recharge ponds, and irrigation customers.  South Bay Aqueduct: The South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) conveys water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through over forty miles of pipelines and canals. Beginning at Bethany Reservoir, water is pumped through two parallel pipelines to the eastern ridge of the Diablo Range. From there, water flows by gravity to Patterson Reservoir, where some water is released for delivery to Livermore Valley. Water is then conveyed to a junction point where a portion is diverted into Lake Del Valle. Beyond Lake Del Valle, water flows south past Sunol and through the hills overlooking San Francisco Bay, terminating in a steel tank east of downtown San Jose. ACWD, Zone 7, and SCVWD receive SWP supplies conveyed through the SBA (South Bay Aque, 2006). A schematic of these facilities and major rivers located in and around the Bay Area Region is presented in Figure 2-20. In addition to pipelines and aqueducts, each water agency has its own extensive network of surface water storage reservoirs, groundwater extraction wells, water treatment plants, and distribution pipelines. Lake Del Valle 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-71 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-20: Major Water Infrastructure Serving the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-72 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.6.2 Major Wastewater Infrastructure Most of the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay and discharge effluent into the Bay are urbanized and sewered. Wastewater is discharged to publicly owned sewers and transported to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). In the San Francisco Bay region, POTWs are public agencies, governed by elected officials and funded with sewer user fees paid for by the users of the sewerage systems. Each of the POTWs in the San Francisco Bay Area Region has received National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the SF RWQCB. Major Bay Area Region wastewater facilities are illustrated in Figure 2-21. 2.6.3 Flood Protection Infrastructure The natural physical setting of the Bay Area and the increase in impervious surfaces due to urban development puts many areas in the Bay Area Region at risk for flooding. In order to manage stormwater and prevent damages from flooding, flood protection infrastructure has been developed throughout the region. In addition to storm drain systems that are common throughout the Bay Area Region, major Bay Area flood protection infrastructure projects have been constructed along the following waterways:  Alameda Creek. Twelve miles of Alameda Creek has been straightened, widened and rip-rapped and levee protection is provided for almost the entire length of the channel. In addition, the Arroyo del Valle reservoir in the Livermore-Amador Valley was constructed to regulate flows along this creek.  Corte Madera Creek. County Flood Control Zone Nine began a flood control project in the late 1960s which was originally intended to extend 6.5 miles through Larkspur, Kentfield, Ross, San Anselmo, and Fairfax. Construction at the downstream end created a trapezoidal earthen channel and, further upstream, a rectangular concrete channel part way through Ross. In 2011, DWR awarded Proposition 1E funding for the Phoenix Lake retrofit project, a component of the Ross Valley flood control projects, which will temporarily store stormwater runoff from watershed to lower flows in Ross Creek and Corte Madera Creek (Marin County 2011).  Guadalupe River. Two major flood protection projects were recently completed to provide 1 percent flood protection to the Guadalupe River. These projects included a large underground bypass about 2,700 feet long, twenty feet high and sixty feet wide to convey flood flows and allow the existing channel to be left in its natural condition so that critical steelhead salmon runs would not be adversely impacted. Currently, construction on the Upper Guadalupe Flood Protection Project is underway with completion scheduled for 2015. This project constitutes the last section of the larger Guadalupe river project. Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-73 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description  Napa River. Currently under construction is a flood control project on the Napa River to protect developed areas from flooding. The $400 million project includes raising several bridges, adding floodplain terraces, and a large restored wetland.  Novato Creek. Flood control improvements sufficient to prevent flooding during storms up to the 50-year recurrence interval are currently being developed.  Petaluma River. New floodwalls—part of a nearly complete $41 million flood control project—protected residents in the Payran neighborhood during the 2006 New Year’s flood.  San Francisquito Creek. In 2002, SCVWD completed a multi-agency project that provided interim flood protection to the communities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. The effort was a critical measure in protecting homes and businesses from the danger of flooding. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) continues implementation of projects to stabilize, restore and maintain the channel, which include ongoing capital projects within the 100-year floodplain. Since then, the JPA has received Proposition 1E and Proposition 84 grant awards for construction in support of this program.. Many DACs are located in floodplain areas where much of this flood protection infrastructure is located. These communities have the potential to be negatively impacted by flood control projects. 2.6.4 Infrastructure Reliability Maintaining and upgrading water resources infrastructure is crucial to successful water resources planning. Infrastructure in the Bay Area Region is vulnerable to effects from events such as seismic activity, levy failures, sedimentation, climate change impacts and system security breaches. A discussion of these issues and examples of mitigation strategies is presented in Chapters 4 and 12. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-74 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-21: Major Bay Area Region Wastewater Facilities 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-75 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.7 Regional Issues, Needs and Challenges The key issues, needs, challenges, and priorities for the Bay Area Region with respect to water resource management are described in the following sections. 2.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Challenges Challenges to achieving and maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements may include:  Compliance with Environmental Mandates: Depending upon the extent and jurisdiction of a water management project, water agencies must comply with some or all of the following regulations and agencies:  California Environmental Quality Act  National Environmental Policy Act (if a Federal interest exists)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  San Francisco Bay RWQCB  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service  California Department of Public Health Bay Area Region water resources management entities have observed problems imposed by severe funding and staffing limitations at the resource protection agencies, including long delays in permitting and the inability to commit sufficient resources to guiding and assisting applicants during the planning and decision-making phases of projects. IRWM planning, therefore, must be creative, flexible, and be well-planned to overcome environmental planning challenges. Open and ongoing discussions with the above agencies can be critical to project success. Additional discussion of agency coordination is provided in Chapter 15.  Compliance with Stormwater Requirements: Stormwater compliance presents a variety of challenges to both municipalities and stormwater management agencies. Local planning and plan review staff generally lack expertise in NPDES permit compliance and in stormwater treatment requirements. Guidelines that call for stormwater infiltration can be challenging to meet in the Bay Area Region, which has wide prevalence of low- permeability clay soils and high groundwater. In addition, stormwater NPDES programs have responsibility for defining their standards as well as for meeting those standards, so municipal stormwater program staff spends a significant proportion of their time and resources preparing regulatory compliance reports. Stormwater capture and management strategies are discussed in Chapter 4.  Compliance with Flood Protection Permitting: Environmental permits from the Corps, SF RW QCB, and the NMFS are typically required to construct flood protection or stream restoration projects and maintain existing facilities, even for routine maintenance 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-76 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description of channels, including dredging, bank repair, and vegetation management. Flood protection agencies must also cooperate with efforts by Federal and state wildlife agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to maintain and restore critical habitat and assist species recovery. In each case, the local flood protection agency must evaluate and mitigate, if necessary, the effects of these projects on conveyance of flood flows. The time and cost associated with obtaining these permits are a considerable burden on the local agencies. 2.7.2 Flood Protection Challenges Flood protection agencies throughout the region face challenges related to permitting, floodplain management, and stream ownership and maintenance responsibility. 2.7.2.1 Floodplain Management Development in upper elevations and steep hillside areas exacerbate problems of stream instability, erosion, and flooding. On lower elevations and flatter gradients, high land values are a disincentive to retaining riparian setbacks where natural geomorphic and ecologic processes such as flooding and minor erosion could occur without affecting structures. Floodplain and riparian management concerns include the following:  Development in Stream Corridors. During the 1940s through the 1970s, the “golden age of stream channelization” coincided with the most rapid urban development in the region. Stream restoration projects typically require reconfiguring channel cross-sections to accommodate increased flows and restore sediment equilibrium; development near streams constrains options for implementing these projects.  Accommodating Recreational Needs and Public Access. As the Bay Area’s population increases and urban development intensifies, there is increasing need for parks, trails and open space. Needs include active recreation areas such as playing fields and courts in addition to trails where residents can obtain access to nature. Many Bay Area riparian areas are used by homeless people for refuge and camping. This damages riparian areas and exacerbates problems with trash and potential water-borne pathogens.  Development in Areas Susceptible to Tidal Flooding. Although many portions of the Bay shoreline are protected from development or are in the process of restoration, there is significant ongoing development on the Bay-ward side of the freeways ringing the Bay. DACs are often located in low-lying flood-prone areas. The Bay is subject to El Niño episodes, which bring about a dangerous combination of severe storms and heightened seas, and resulting tidal flooding impacts.  Flood management strategies are discussed further in Chapter 4.  Recreation and public access are discussed further in Chapter 4. Flooding along Berryessa Creek 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-77 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description  State floodplain management task force recommendations are presented in Chapter 12. 2.7.2.2 Stream Ownership and Maintenance Ownership of Bay Area streams is a patchwork of public title, public easements, and private ownership. Flood protection agencies have adopted different policies with regard to jurisdiction over, or maintenance responsibility for, urban streams. Many Bay Area stream reaches have, in fact, no established public jurisdiction or established maintenance responsibility. As infrastructure ages and deteriorates, and as incised channels erode and evolve, resulting property damage and flooding threats often lead to claims and counterclaims among public agencies and private property owners. Stream maintenance can be managed through ecosystem restoration, a water management practice that is further discussed in Chapter 4. 2.7.3 Financial and Funding Challenges Water resources management entities in the Bay Area Region face several financial and funding challenges for regional projects, including:  Competing costs between existing operating costs and improvement projects  Lack of funding to maintain or replace aging infrastructure  Lack of funding to comply with stormwater permit obligations Chapter 11 discusses financial and funding issues for IRWM projects. 2.7.4 Environmental and Watershed Challenges The Bay Area Region watershed has numerous and significant water resource management and environmental stewardship challenges. These often occur when resources are managed for conflicting uses, such as instream flows and municipal water supplies or land use development and habitat conservation. Bay Area Region water agencies are tasked with balancing the water needs of sensitive environmental areas with the water needs of their customers, and ensuring that natural resources and habitats are shielded from potential adverse impacts associated with water resource management. Environmental water demands (including the quantity, timing, duration, and frequency of flows required by plants, wildlife, and fisheries) frequently conflict with water supply demands for agricultural irrigation and/or urban development. For example, diversions of water from streams and reservoir fluctuations can limit survival rates for aquatic and riparian species. Opportunities exist for water managers to evaluate their delivery schedules, reservoir ramping rates, and other flow requirements and find “windows” for providing flow for environmental and habitat support. Water management strategies to address environmental and watershed concerns are further discussed in Chapter 4. Effective management of the Region’s water resources also requires effective ongoing communication and collaboration between land and water resource managers and stewards. These relationships are further discussed in Chapters 12 and 13. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-78 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.7.5 Dependence on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Many Bay Area Region water agencies purchase imported water that flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, such as the SWP and CVP. Some agencies (such as CCWD and Zone 7) rely on the Delta to transport over 75 percent of their water supply. However, the long-term reliability of this water supply is unknown because of a variety of issues including infrastructure reliability, endangered species, water quality, sea level rise, ecosystem restoration, political interests and more. Approximately 1,600 miles of levees that are part of the California Central Valley Flood Control System, and another 1,000 miles of local levees, protect the Central Valley and Delta regions from flooding (DWR Flood Warnings, 2005) and protect Delta water supplies. In the event of a massive failure of these levees, the quality of Delta water could be severely compromised as salt water rushed in from the Bay to equalize water pressure. This would immediately affect the water supplies, since the CVP and SWP pumping plants would need to be shut down to prevent further saltwater intrusion. The Mokelumne Aqueducts that serve EBMUD customers, which cross the Delta and are protected by levees, could also be damaged by a major flooding event. Many groups within the state are pushing to improve the Delta but have conflicting visions of how to resolve the many issues surrounding the Delta. Because of the Bay Area’s dependence on the Delta as a critical water supply, the uncertainty of the Delta’s future is a significant concern for the Bay Area Region that must be addressed by water agencies and considered in the integrated planning process. 2.7.5.1 Reducing Dependence on the Delta The Bay Area – through both regional and individual agency programs and projects - has a long-standing commitment to efficient water use and development of local supplies that will result in reduced dependence on water exported from the Delta. Robust conservation programs have led per capita use in the Bay Area to decrease steadily since the 1980s (fig 2.19). There are also over 35 recycled water programs in the Bay Area (Table 2-9) and capacity is expected to more than double over the next 20 years (BACWA 2011 Recycled Water Survey). Agencies are expanding conjunctive use and considering projects such as groundwater banking to minimize impacts to the Delta during dry years. Agencies are also considering projects to develop alternative supplies (e.g., desalination) and optimize existing supplies (e.g., water transfers and interties) (Section 2.3.3). Regional and individual agency programs and projects advancing these strategies and others are included in this IRWMP, and will contribute to reduced Bay Area Region dependence on water exported from the Delta in future years. 2.7.6 Interagency Coordination Challenges Inter-jurisdictional coordination is a major challenge facing water resource management. Municipal boundaries, water supply service areas, and the boundaries of county flood protection agencies rarely coincide with watershed boundaries and can impede implementation of projects. As environmental protection initiatives, such as sediment TMDLs and habitat restoration, continue to adopt a watershed approach, the need for interagency coordination is increasing. However, regulatory guidance and permitting decisions are not made on a watershed basis, but on a project-by-project basis. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-79 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Although the Bay Area Region seeks to overcome regional conflicts and challenges toward integrated water resources planning and management, not all regional goals and objectives will be met exclusively through IRWMP implementation. Individual agencies and organizations also contribute to regional goals when addressing local challenges and implementing local programs. The IRWMP provides a regional lens and opportunity for collaboration on activities that are already being pursued by individual agencies to meet their local mandates. Effective management of water resources requires a collaborative approach to maximize resources while minimizing costs. Additional discussion and examples of regional cooperation is provided in Chapters 4 and 15. 2.7.7 Challenges to Expanding Recycled Water Use Expanding recycling water use is important for meeting future demands and it provides an all- weather local supply that helps adapt to climate change and other risks. However, several challenges may limit recycled water expansion. Some of the challenges include increasing salinity in recycled water supplies and the cost per acre-foot of water for expanding non-potable distribution systems. Potable reuse is another option for expanding recycled water, but requires extensive public engagement and regulatory support. 2.7.8 Climate Change Climate change is driven by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause an increase in temperature and stress natural systems, such as oceans and the hydrologic cycle. Climate changes that may affect Bay Area Region water resources include:  Higher temperatures and heat waves that increase demand for water, especially for agricultural and residential irrigation uses. The eastern and southern portions of the region are likely to see more pronounced warming than the coastal, northern and central Bay regions.  Water Uncertainty: A projected overall decrease in precipitation levels coupled with more intense individual storm events may lead to increased flooding. Higher temperatures that may cause more precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow, hasten snowmelt and increase runoff will affect water storage planning. Increased evaporation will create a generally drier climate, with wildfires likely to increase and groundwater basins likely to receive less replenishment.  Sea level rise, which is estimated to rise an average of 14 inches by 2050 (Cayan et al. 2009), will likely affect low lying infrastructure of all types, including many of the Bay Area Region’s wastewater treatment plants. Chapter 16 describes potential effects of climate change on Bay Area Region agencies and IRWM planning in more detail. 2.8 Relationship to Other Regional Water Management Efforts The sections below describe the Bay Area Region’s connections and coordination efforts with adjacent IRWM regions (Figure 2-22). For more information on 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-80 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Incorporation of Tomales Bay: In the 2006 IRWMP, the Tomales Bay watershed area in Marin County was covered under a separate Tomales Bay Watershed Integrated Coastal Water Management Plan but subsequent discussions have led to incorporation of the Tomales Bay area into the Bay Area IRWMP. Westside Sacramento River IRWMP: Napa County is split between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento River IRWMPs. The Bay Area Region generally covers the western part of Napa County and focuses on the Napa River and Suisun Creek watersheds. The Westside Sacramento River Region, which is part of the larger Sacramento River Funding Area delineated by DWR, generally covers the eastern part of Napa County and focuses on the Putah Creek/Lake Berryessa watershed. Depending upon their location within the county, projects will be incorporated into the appropriate IRWMP. Representatives from Solano County Water Agency and Napa County FCWCD provide a linkage between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento IRWMPs, enabling information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts. North Coast IRWMP: Sonoma and Marin Counties lie within both the North Coast IRWM Region and Bay Area Region. Marin County, which only has a small portion in the North Coast region, participates in the Bay Area IRWMP and pursues planning and project implementation in the North Coast Region, as do stakeholders in Sonoma County. The Sonoma County Water Agency provides a linkage between the Bay Area and North Coast IRWMPs, enabling strong information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts. East Contra Costa County IRWMP: The East Contra Costa County IRWM region is the only IRWM planning region with boundaries that overlap the Bay Area Region boundaries, straddling the Bay Area hydrologic region and the San Joaquin River hydrologic region. The overlap area contains two watersheds that drain to the east of the Mt. Diablo hydrologic divide (Willow Creek and Kirker Creek). These two watersheds are included in the Bay Area Region, resulting from the defined boundaries of the San Francisco Funding Area and RWQCB Region 2, and within the East Contra Costa County IRWM region, whose boundaries are defined by the hydrologic divide created by the ridgeline. East Contra Costa County attends Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee meetings and participated in the planning and prioritization processes for projects that are within the Bay Area regional boundary. Solano County Water Agency: Although originally a separate IRWMP, the Solano CWA area has been absorbed into neighboring regions. The southwestern portion of Solano County has been integrated into the Bay Area Region and the rest of the original IRWM region is coordinating with the Westside Sacramento River area. Pajaro River Watershed IRWMP: SCVWD is participating in both the Bay Area and the Pajaro River Watershed IRWMPs. The southern portion of its service area is part of the Pajaro River Watershed and drains to Monterey Bay, while the northern portion is part of the Bay Area and drains to the Bay. Santa Cruz IRWMP: The Santa Cruz IRWMP encompasses most of Santa Cruz County. Coordination between the Santa Cruz County and Bay Area Regions has focused on efforts to minimize the area not covered by a planning region in the Central Coast Funding Area in San Mateo County. As a result, the northern boundary of the Santa Cruz IRWM region was adjusted 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-81 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description in 2009 to encompass additional portions of small watersheds of Año Nuevo, reducing, yet not eliminating the gap (Regional Water Management Foundation, April 2009). Figure 2-22: Surrounding IRWM Regions 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-82 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.9 References ABAG 2005. Projections 2005 by Census Tract. Oakland, CA. ABAG 2006. Existing Land Use 2005. This data set is the most recent available. ABAG 2009. ABAG Projections 2009: Regional Projections. http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/currentfcst/regional.html ABAG 2009. Projections 2010 and 2030. Oakland, CA. ABAG Census 2010. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm. ABAG 2012 http://www.abag.ca.gov/overview/history.html, Accessed April 2012. ABAG 2012 Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft. http://scs.abag.ca.gov/plan_bay_area/. Alameda County Water District. June 2016 Urban Water Management Plan 2015-2020. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Climate, Physiography and Air Pollution Potential— Bay Area and its Subregions. http://www.baaqmd.gov/dst/papers/bay_area_climate.pdf BACWA Water Survey Results, November 2011. BACWA Review of the Nutrient Reduction Study. 17 September 2018. Bay Area Census, 2010. San Francisco Bay Area. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm Bay Area Economic Forum. 2012. Bay Area Fast Facts. Available: www.bayeconfor.org/baefregion.html, Accessed: April 20, 2012. BARWC. 2012. http://www.barwc.org/files/BARWC_11_x_17_Flyer_March%202012.pdf BAWSCA. April 2016. Annual Survey, Fiscal Year 2014-15. BAWSCA. May 2010. Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy, Phase 1 – Scoping Report. Brookes, Andrew. 1995. The Importance of High Flows for Riverine Environments. In: The Ecological Basis for River Management. Editors: David Harper and Alastair Ferguson. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. England. CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2004 Annual Report. CALFED Water Quality Program memo, 2004. http://deltavision.ca.gov/BlueRibbonTaskForce/Nov2007/Handouts/Attachment_%204.p df 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-83 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description California Coastal Commission. California’s Critical Coastal Areas, San Francisco Bay Region. Available at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_sfbay1.htm; accessed on April 24, 2012. California's Groundwater - Bulletin 118, Update 2003 http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__bullet in_118_-_update_2003_/bulletin118_2-sf.pdf Accessed April 2012 California Public Utilities Commission. 2006. Universal Lifeline Telephone Service. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/telco/public+programs/ults.htm. Cayan, D., Tyree M., Dettinger, M., Hidalgo, H., Das, T., Maurer, E., Peter Bromirski, P., Graham, N., and Flick, R. (2009). Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2009- 014, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.. Center for Biological Diversity. San Francisco Bay Area and Delta Protection. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/san_francisco_bay_area_and_delta_protec tion/index.html Accessed 09/12/12. Communities for a Better Environment. 2012. Environmental Justice. http://www.cbecal.org/issues/environmental-justice/ Accessed 09/12/12. DWR. 2005. Flood Warnings: Responding to California’s Flood Crisis. DWR. 2006. http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/information/pdf/South-Bay-Aque.pdf accessed January 31, 2006. DWR. February 2006. http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/basins/pdfs_desc/2- 10.pdf accessed 02/01/06 DWR. 2009. California Water Plan Update 2009, Volume 3 - San Francisco Bay. DWR 2009. Delta Risk Management Study, http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/dsmo/sab/drmsp/ Accessed 06/12/2012 EBMUD. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. 2005. Thirsty for Justice: A People’s Blueprint for California Water. Oakland, CA. Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. North American Lake Management Society and Terrene Institute, in cooperation with United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. Madison, WI. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-84 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. January 2007. Engineering Report - MMWD Seawater Desalination Pilot Program. Leopold, Luna B. 1997. Water, Rivers and Creeks. University Science Books. Macdonald, K. B., and M. G. Barbour. 1974. Beach and Salt Marsh Vegetation of the North American Pacific Coast. Pages 175-233 In R. J. Reimold and W. H. Queen, eds. Ecology of Halophytes. Academic Press, New York. Liu, F. 2001. Environmental Justice Analysis: Theories, Methods, and Practice. Lewis Publishers. Marin County - Department of Public Works, Watershed Program. 2011. Major Grant Award Kicks Off Ross Valley Watershed Flood Control Projects. http://www.marinwatersheds.org/documents/GrantAwardforPhoenixLakeIRWMProjectin RossValley.pdf Miller, G. 2012. http://georgemiller.house.gov/blogs/blog/2012/02/bay-area-water-recycling-bill- introduced.shtml Miller, N., Jin, J., Hayhoe, K., and Auffhammer, M (2007). Climate Change, Extreme Heat, and Energy Demand in California. PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2007-023 Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Central California Coast Coho Salmon. NRDC Green Gate. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species. Accessed January 30, 2006. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/greengate/wildlife/endangeredf.asp Based on June 2001 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report. North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA). 2012. North Bay Water Reuse Program website. Accessed November 1, 2012. Available at: http://www.nbwra.org/index.htm OPC (2011). State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document. Ocean Protection Council. Regional Water Management Foundation. April 2009. Santa Cruz IRWM Region Acceptance Process Submittal. Available at: ftp://ftp.water.ca.gov/IRWM- RAP/Santa%20Cruz/Santa%20Cruz%20FINAL%20IRWM%20RAP%20Submittal.pdf. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. San Francisco Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition. 2009. Projects. Available at: http://www.barwc.org/index.html; Accessed April, 2012. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2012. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/ Accessed 09/12/12. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-85 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description SFRWQCB. 2004. Watershed Management Initiative Integrated Plan. SFRWQCB. 2003. 2002 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Progress Report, Fall 2010. http://www.epa.gov/sfbaydelta/sfbaywqfund/pdfs/SFBWQIF-Fall2010ProgRptLtr.pdf San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Save the Bay. 2006. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Available: http://www.savesfbay.org/site/pp.asp?c=dgKLLSOwEnH&b=993829 Sfbaywildlifeinfo.org. http://www.sfbaywildlife.info/species/endangered.htm#birds Accessed 09/12/12. Solano County Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Sonoma County. 2012. http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/eir/gp2020deir/sec4-05.pdf accessed April 2012 Sonoma County Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Sustainable Water and Environmental Management in California’s Bay-Delta, 2012 (pre- publication copy). National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu. Tanji, K.; Grattan, S.; Grieve, C.; Harivandi, A.; Rollins, L.; Shaw, D.; Sheikh, B., and Wu, L. 2008. Salt Management Guide for Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water in Coastal Southern California- A Comprehensive Literature Review. TMDL & 303 List of Impaired Water Bodies. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303d/A ppendix_C_Report_02-09/table_of_contents.shtml#r2_revised Transbay Blog. 2009. http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/25/bay-delta-levees-climate-change-and- water-quality/ US Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Central Valley Project. http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Valley+Project#Group400 45 accessed December 11, 2012. US Census Bureau. 2011. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Totals, Estimates of Population Change for Metropolitan Areas and Rankings: July 1, 2010 to Jul 1, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/?s8fid=112761032793&s8fid=112762573903&countyNa me=sonoma Accessed 09/12/12. U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/groundwater/gwatlas/coastal/aquifers2.html accessed 02/01/06. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-86 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Groundwater Quality Data in the San Francisco Bay Study Unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program. U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Groundwater Quality in the North San Francisco Bay Groundwater Basins, California. University of California, Berkeley. http://calmap.gisc.berkeley.edu/resin_public_docs/SacramentoDeltaFlooding/MossSacD eltaRisk.pdf Young, W. J., editor. 2001. Rivers as Ecological Systems: The Murray-Darling Basin. Murray Darling Basin Commission. Canberra City, Australia. Zone 7 Water Agency. 2011. 2011 Water Supply Evaluation – A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluating Zone 7 Water Agency’s Water Supply System. Zone 7 Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Goals and Objectives Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i List of Figures............................................................................................................................... i Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives ................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Background ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Development of 2013 Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Requirements ......................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Development Process ............................................................ 3-3 3.2.3 Results: Goals, Objectives and Measures .............................. 3-5 3.2.3.1 Prioritizing the Objectives ..................................... 3-7 List of Tables Table 3-1: IRWMP Goals and DWR Requirements ................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-2: Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures for Meeting Regional Goals ............. 3-7 List of Figures Figure 3-1: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures ............... 3-2 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-1 Goals and Objectives Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives This chapter presents the goals and objectives for the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or Plan), representing what the stakeholders and the Coordinating Committee (CC) have determined they would like the IRWMP to accomplish when implemented. This chapter also describes how the goals and objectives were developed. To the extent feasible, measures of success have been suggested for IRWMP objectives in order to be able to evaluate progress of IRWMP implementation. The Bay Area Region has developed both goals and objectives for the IRWMP. No IRWMP standard exists to define “goals”, nor are they required by the Calif ornia Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Bay Area Region, however, has chosen to use goals as an additional layer for organizing and defining the objectives, due to the complexity of water management issues in the Region. Development of objectives for the IRWMP was an iterative and consensus-based process. Led by the Plan Update Team (PUT), the process also included review by the Functional Areas (FAs) and the CC. Stakeholder outreach and involvement, discussed in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Involvement was critical to this process. Proposed goals, objectives and suggested measures for the Bay Area IRWMP were discussed at the first Workshop on 7/23/2012 where stakeholders were given opportunity to provide input. This open and transparent decision- making process was important to ensure that all perspectives within the Region were considered in the IRWMP. Additionally, many of the local planning documents that serve as the basis for this IRWMP involved extensive stakeholder involvement as well. Figure 3-1 shows the steps in the goals and objectives development process. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-2 Goals and Objectives Figure 3-1: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures The following sections describe each step in more detail and identify what evaluation criteria were considered. 3.1 Background The process for developing the goals and objectives for IRWMP began with a review of the goals and objectives identified in the 2006 Plan. For the 2006 Plan, the goals and objectives were developed for each FA independently. Each FA outlined regional goals and objectives based on geographic integration of established local agency plans, projects, and programs. The process involved the following steps:  Compilation of the issues, conflicts and challenges from each FA, and definition of common water resource management interests  Compilation of the various goals and objectives identified in each FA to address water management challenges, and identification of overarching goals that transcend all functional areas of water resource management 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-3 Goals and Objectives  Revision of overarching goals and objectives based on stakeholder input and feedback, and development of a vision to guide implementation of the IRWMP  Discussion of proposed goals and objectives at stakeholder workshops The 2006 Plan identified six goals and 68 objectives generated by the four FAs. The effort did not include development of measures. The processes for establishing regional goals and objectives, as well as the goals and objectives identified by each functional area, are described in detail in the 2006 Plan. 3.2 Development of 2013 Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures 3.2.1 Requirements The approach to developing the 2013 goals and objectives, while still considering the FAs, focused on priority elements for the entire Bay Area and emphasized regional collaboration. The approach also incorporated 2012 DWR guidelines that a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) must consider overarching goals that apply to their region, including:  Basin Plan objectives  20x2020 water efficiency goals  Requirements of California Water Code (CWC) Section §10540(c) (identified in Table 3- 24 below) DWR also specifies that:  Objectives must address major water-related issues and conflicts  Objectives must be measurable by some practical means, quantitatively or qualitatively  Objectives may be prioritized 3.2.2 Development Process Development of the goals and objectives was a two step process: Step 1: Revisit and confirm, or modify the goals and objectives from the 2006 IRWMP with iterative input from the PUT, FAs, the CC and Stakeholders. Step 2: Determine how to best articulate the manner in which the objectives can be measured, either quantitatively or qualitatively. To start the process, the 2006 goals and objectives were distributed to the FA leads for review. Since the FAs were the authors of the original objectives, their initial review would ensure that the rationale driving the process and decisions could be maintained. The FAs were instructed to consider the following items in their review: 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-4 Goals and Objectives 1. Are the goals and objectives from the 2006 Plan still the most relevant? 2. Should any goals or objectives be eliminated or added? 3. What is the best way to articulate each objective so that it can be measured? With this guidance, the four FAs solicited input from their members and provided their recommendations to delete, add, or modify objectives to the PUT. After receiving the recommendations by the FAs, the PUT conducted a rigorous, iterative review of every goal and objective over the course of multiple meetings and calls. The PUT considered the following evaluation criteria for each goal and objective in the update process:  Does it address a major issue in the Region?  Is it already addressed by other objective(s)?  Does it address an outcome (as opposed to addressing a process)?  Is it consistent with 2012 Guidelines?  Is it measurable? Objectives were deleted if they were already addressed by another objective, could be merged with another objective(s), did not reflect 2012 Guidelines, or were not clear. The PUT presented this initial evaluation to the CC, which provided the PUT with direction for finalizing the proposed goals and objectives. Based on that input, the PUT prepared a final draft. The final draft included the following changes to the 2006 list:  The number of goals were reduced from 6 to 5  The number of objectives were reduced from 65 to 35  Objectives that address climate change and integration were added Once the recommended list of goals and objectives was developed, suggested measures for each objective were identified to provide a framework for measuring project outcomes and, ultimately, to gauge successful implementation of the IRWMP projects. The intent of these suggested measures is to allow project proponents to relate their individual project outcomes to the overall Plan objectives. Project proponents are encouraged to use these suggested measures. The suggested measures in Table 3.2 fall into two broad categories: (1) those that can be used when a specific project is implemented such as megawatt or kilowatt reduction in energy use, and (2) those that are better measured at a regional level by existing monitoring programs or by enhancing regional monitoring programs such as measuring reliability of supplies of appropriate quality. The measures were developed by the PUT as tools the Region can use to determine if the goals and objectives are being met as projects included in the Plan are implemented. For 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-5 Goals and Objectives more information see Chapter 8: Plan Performance and Monitoring, which contains performance measures and monitoring methods to ensure the objectives of the Plan are met. Although the PUT identified what the group determined to be the most appropriate measures for a given objective, the suggested measures do not encompass the entire universe of possible ways to measure success in meeting the Plan goals and objectives. Project proponents are encouraged to provide this information by quantifying the changes and benefits that will result from implementation of their proposed project(s). When this is not possible, qualitat ive descriptions may be provided, as allowed by the 2012 Guidelines. The proposed list of goals, objectives and measures was approved for stakeholder review by the CC and presented to stakeholders at the first workshop in July 2012 (for more information see Chapter 14). At the workshop, the PUT members described the development process for the goals and objectives, and provided a list of deleted objectives, as well as opportunity for stakeholders to submit comments. Each participant received a handout of the goals, objectives and measures that included space for comments, as well as an opportunity to submit comments via email. Based on discussion at the workshop and stakeholder input, the PUT refined and finalized the list of goals and objectives, which were approved by the CC at their August meeting. 3.2.3 Results: Goals, Objectives and Measures The five overarching goals of the Bay Area IRWMP are to: 1. Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability 2. Improve water supply reliability and quality 3. Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 4. Improve regional flood management 5. Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats As previously described, the 2012 Guidelines require IRWMP goals and objectives to address and consider, at a minimum, applicable Basin Plan objectives, 20x2020 water efficiency goals, and the requirements of CWC §10540(c). Table 3-24 lists which of the Bay Area goals address each of the required water management areas. Note that Table 3-24 illustrates how the Bay Area is meeting DWR’s minimum requirements, however the Region has developed a number of additional goals and objectives to meet overall watershed health including stormwater, flood protection, climate change and more (Table 3-25). 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-6 Goals and Objectives Table 3-24: IRWMP Goals and DWR Requirements DWR Requirements IRWMP Goals Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve regional flood management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Requirements of CWC §10540 Protection and improvement of water supply reliability, including identification of feasible agricultural and urban water use efficiency strategies. ✓ Identification and consideration of the drinking water quality of communities within the area of the Plan. ✓ ✓ Protection and improvement of water quality within the area of the Plan consistent with relevant basin plan. ✓ Identification of any significant threats to groundwater resources from overdrafting. ✓ Protection, restoration, and improvement of stewardship of aquatic, riparian, and watershed resources within the region. ✓ ✓ ✓ Protection of groundwater resources from contamination. ✓ Identification and consideration of water- related needs of disadvantaged communities in the area within the boundaries of the Plan. ✓ Basin Plan objectives ✓ ✓ 20x2020 water efficiency goals ✓ Objectives for the Bay Area Region were developed to support the goals and are categorized accordingly. The objectives generally apply to the Region as a whole and are meant to focus attention on the primary needs of the Region. Chapter 5: Integration describes the value of integrating water management strategies to achieve these regional goals. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-7 Goals and Objectives 3.2.3.1 Prioritizing the Objectives The PUT discussed and suggested various approaches to prioritize or organize the IRWMP goals and objectives, including sequential ranking and sorting as “high, medium, and low.” Ultimately, the consensus was that the goals should not be prioritized since all are equally important. There were two reasons for this decision. The first is that there was no scientific framework or justification for prioritizing the objectives. Secondly, the Bay Area Region is a broad geographic area made up of a very diverse group of stakeholders, which is reflected in the CC. The CC has aimed to be as inclusive as possible of all stakeholders in the Region, encouraging their active participation in the IRWM planning process. The 35 objectives included in the Plan were based on the issues that exist throughout the Region, as defined by different groups of stakeholders. The CC therefore recognized that each of the objectives is significant for at least some groups of stakeholders and that prioritizing some objectives over others implied prioritizing the needs of certain stakeholders over others. In order to maintain inclusivity, transparency and to avoid the possibility of alienating certain groups of stakeholders or discouraging their participation in the IRWM planning process, the CC has therefore decided not to prioritize objectives. Instead, the objectives are listed under each goal from most general to most specific. After attempting a sequential ranking of the objectives, it was agreed that there was no compelling reason to prioritize the objectives under each goal since the proposed project review process did not require prioritized objectives, and because prioritization would be very challenging given the diverse views in the Bay Area Region. Instead, the PUT agreed to list the objectives under each goal from most general to most specific. The CC approved this approach during their August 2012 meeting. Table 3-25 presents the goals, objectives and suggested measures for the Region. Table 3-25: Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures for Meeting Regional Goals Objectives Suggested Measures Goal 1: Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability 1.1 Work with local land, water, wastewater and stormwater agencies, project proponents and other stakeholders to develop policies, ordinances and programs that promote IRWM goals, and to determine areas of integration among projects Number of local policies, ordinances, incentives and other programs that promote integrated planning and development of Low Impact Development (LID) projects; number of integrated projects 1.2 Encourage implementation of integrated, multi-benefit projects Examples of collaboration between government and regulatory agencies, project proponents and stakeholders; number of integrated projects; number of benefits/partners/FAs 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-8 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures 1.3 Plan for and adapt to more frequent extreme climate events Number of projects that include climate change planning efforts; number of local efforts; number of projects that include climate adaptation strategies; number of projects that address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of runoff 1.4 Reduce energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate Megawatt or kilowatt reduction in energy use; megawatts of renewable power sources; number of projects with an energy reduction component; number of projects that incorporate strategies in CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan 1.5 Plan for and adapt to sea level rise Number of projects that plan for and adapt to sea level rise, including keeping important infrastructure out of hazard zone; considering range of sea level projections when evaluating proposed water management projects practice and promote integrated flood management; Acre-feet (AF) water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources; water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services; avoiding significant new development in areas that cannot be adequately protected from flooding or erosion 1.6 Secure adequate support, funding and partnerships to effectively implement plan Process to successfully respond to funding opportunities; dollars of grant funding; long-term project viability; number of projects implemented under new partnerships 1.7 Avoid disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities Community support for local projects; amount reduction in risk to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs); inclusion of DACTIP Needs Assessment work in regional planning efforts 1.8 Promote community education, involvement and stewardship Number of informational brochures, workshops, educational and technical assistance events that address water reliability, watershed health, flood risks, flood protection and other IRWM goals; educational curricula for K-12 1.9 Support data management for climate change vulnerabilities Number of projects that provide climate change vulnerability data; number of monitoring stations; number of links and items in Bay Area IRWMP website climate change library (in development at this time); climate change vulnerability assessments completed 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-9 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures 1.10 Enhance monitoring network and information sharing to support proper management of watersheds Number of monitoring stations, number of monitoring plans; number of watersheds with trends measured using indicators; number of links and material on Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) website (in development at this time) 1.11 Minimize health impacts associated with polluted water Compliance with all applicable water quality standards; number of customer complaints 1.12 Protect cultural resources Project-specific cultural resources survey and monitoring results; acres of culturally valuable area and/or resource acquired or preserved through conservation easements or other means; number of projects implemented with cultural resources surveys/monitoring; work in collaboration with Bay Area Tribes and Tribal communities for whom the Bay Area is their homeland to apply traditional ecological knowledge and traditional management strategies 1.13 Increase water resources related recreational opportunities Miles of trails, acres of parklands and/or access added; number of amenities, visitor days added; miles of upgrades to trails and acres of upgrades to parklands Goal 2: Improve water supply reliability and quality 2.1 Provide adequate water supplies to meet demands Reliability of supplies of appropriate quality 2.2 Provide clean, safe, reliable drinking water Compliance with drinking water standards; acceptable levels of constituents of concern in drinking water at point of delivery 2.3 Minimize vulnerability of infrastructure to catastrophes and security breaches Number of vulnerability assessments; number of efforts to address vulnerabilities 2.4 Implement water use efficiency to meet or exceed state and federal requirements Progress toward SBX7-7 goals, number of water conservation measures adopted; annual per capita water use; acre feet of annual savings 2.5 Increase recycled water use Acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water use replaced by non-potable supply; AFY recycled water delivered to customers 2.6 Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater AF of water storage; number of conjunctive management projects developed; AFY of reduced water dependency on the Delta; AFY of reduced dependency on imported water supplies 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-10 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures 2.7 Provide for groundwater recharge while protecting groundwater resources from overdraft AFY artificial groundwater recharge; number of projects that address changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of recharge. 2.8 Protection of groundwater resources from contamination Migration of contaminant plumes; recharge area protection; degree to which groundwater quality meets basin plan objectives; monitoring of groundwater quality trends for nitrate concentrations and salinity; number of adopted groundwater management plans; number of SNMP activities implemented according to plan Goal 3: Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 3.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate watershed and bay processes Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; acres of wetlands protected and/or restored; acres of fee simple or conservation easements acquired. 3.2 Maintain health of watershed vegetation, land cover, natural stream buffers and floodplains, to improve filtration of point and nonpoint source pollutants Acres of enhanced or reconnected floodplains; acres of created treatment wetlands; acres of uplands enhanced through best management practices, revegetation, sediment reduction or other measures; number of Low-Impact Development stormwater projects 3.3 Minimize point-source and non- point-source pollution Implementation of delivery reduction practices; number of LID projects that store and infiltrate stormwater runoff; AFY stormwater capture; progress toward meeting established water quality objectives, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); acreage managed with approved Best Management Practice (BMP) techniques. 3.4 Control excessive erosion and manage sedimentation Progress toward meeting established water quality objectives, sediment TMDLs and NPDES; number of sediment management or biotechnical bank stabilization projects; acres of uplands enhanced through best management practices, revegetation, sediment reduction or other measures 3.5 Improve floodplain connectivity Acres of floodplain reconnected and preserved in 100-year floodplains; number of projects that reconnect former floodplains or create floodplain enhancements 3.6 Improve infiltration capacity Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; acres of uplands enhanced through best management practices, revegetation, runoff reduction or other measures; miles of streams 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-11 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures de-channelized; LID projects implemented that include bioswales to increase perviousness; AFY stormwater capture; acres of created or enhanced floodplains 3.7 Control pollutants of concern Progress toward meeting established water quality objectives, TMDLs and NPDES; number of projects that benefit water quality of 303(d) listed stream parameters Goal 4: Improve regional flood management 4.1 Manage floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation Annual flood damages in dollars; frequency and extent of flooding; number of innovative flood management projects; AFY annual flood flows 4.2 Achieve effective floodplain management that incorporates land use planning and minimizes risks to health, safety and property by encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas Policies and programs that encourage LID in new and rehabilitated development 4.3 Identify and promote integrated flood management projects to protect vulnerable areas Number of integrated flood management projects including elements such as sediment management, fisheries enhancement, natural channel function improvement, riparian habitat enhancement, ground water recharge, etc. Goal 5: Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats 5.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate habitat for species protection Acres of habitat protected, restored and/or rehabilitated for species protection; number of at- risk species addressed; miles of wildlife corridors protected; acres of upland, riparian and bayland habitat restored and/or protected 5.2 Enhance wildlife populations and biodiversity (species richness) Number of species delisted; number of species addressed; population numbers targeted and/or improved; acres of expanded and/or enhanced habitat; number of species re-introduced 5.3 Protect and recover fisheries (natural habitat and harvesting) Number of species delisted; number of listed species addressed; creek miles of increased spawning habitat for fish; number of projects that improve passage 5.4 Reduce geographic extent and spread of pests and invasive species Acres of invasive species cover; invasive species numbers and/or targets reached; number of projects that map or monitor invasive species; acres of reduced impact from presence of pests and invasive species 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Resource Management Strategies Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies ........................................... 4-1 4.1 Resource Management Strategies Identification and Selection ......... 4-1 4.2 Selected Resource Management Strategies ..................................... 4-9 4.2.1 Strategies to Reduce Water Demand ................................... 4-10 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency ....................... 4-10 4.2.1.2 Urban Water Use Efficiency ............................... 4-11 4.2.2 Strategies to Improve Operational Efficiency ........................ 4-12 4.2.2.1 Conveyance – Delta ........................................... 4-13 4.2.2.2 Conveyance – Regional/Local ............................ 4-13 4.2.2.3 Imported Water .................................................. 4-17 4.2.2.4 Infrastructure Reliability ...................................... 4-18 4.2.2.5 System Reoperation ........................................... 4-15 4.2.3 Strategies to Increase Water Supply .................................... 4-19 4.2.3.1 Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Management ...................................................... 4-19 4.2.3.2 Water Recycling ................................................. 4-22 4.2.3.3 Desalination – Brackish and Seawater ............... 4-21 4.2.3.4 Surface Storage – CALFED ............................... 4-25 4.2.3.5 Surface Storage – Regional/Local ...................... 4-25 4.2.3.6 Water Transfers ................................................. 4-16 4.2.3.7 Stormwater Capture and Management ............... 4-26 4.2.4 Strategies to Improve Water Quality ..................................... 4-30 4.2.4.1 Pollution Prevention ........................................... 4-30 4.2.4.2 Urban Runoff Management ................................ 4-35 4.2.4.3 Water Quality Protection and Improvement ........ 4-36 4.2.4.4 Salt and Salinity Management ............................ 4-33 4.2.4.5 Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation ............... 4-31 4.2.4.6 Monitoring and Modeling .................................... 4-35 4.2.4.7 Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution ................ 4-30 4.2.4.8 Matching Water Quality to Use ........................... 4-30 4.2.4.9 Wastewater Treatment ....................................... 4-39 4.2.5 Strategies to Improve Flood Management ............................ 4-27 4.2.5.1 Integrated Flood Risk Management .................... 4-27 4.2.6 Strategies for Resource Stewardship Practice...................... 4-41 4.2.6.1 Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ...................................................... 4-50 4.2.6.2 Ecosystem Restoration ...................................... 4-41 4.2.6.3 Sediment Management ...................................... 4-44 4.2.6.4 Recharge Areas Protection ................................ 4-44 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Resource Management Strategies 4.2.6.5 Agricultural Lands Stewardship .......................... 4-41 4.2.6.6 Watershed Management and Planning ............... 4-48 4.2.6.7 Land Use Planning and Management................. 4-44 4.2.7 Strategies Related to People and Water .............................. 4-51 4.2.7.1 Economic Incentives .......................................... 4-51 4.2.7.2 Outreach and Education ..................................... 4-52 4.2.7.3 Regional Cooperation ......................................... 4-53 4.2.7.4 Recreation and Public Access ............................ 4-54 4.2.7.5 Water-dependent Recreation ............................. 4-55 4.2.7.6 Water-dependent Cultural Resources ................. 4-56 4.3 Strategies Considered but Not Carried Forward .............................. 4-56 4.3.1 Precipitation Enhancement or Fog Collection ....................... 4-57 4.3.2 Crop Idling for Water Transfers ............................................ 4-57 4.3.3 Dewvaporation/Atmospheric Pressure Desalination ............. 4-57 4.3.4 Irrigated Land Retirement ..................................................... 4-57 4.3.5 Rainfed Agriculture ............................................................... 4-58 4.3.6 Waterbag Transport/Storage Technology ............................. 4-58 4.3.7 Forest Management ............................................................. 4-58 4.4 References ...................................................................................... 4-58 List of Tables Table 4-1: Resource Management Strategies in California Water Plan Updates ................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4-2: Disposition of 2006 Bay Area IRWMP – Water Management Strategies ............... 4-3 Table 4-3: Selected 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Resource Management Strategies(a) ................. 4-5 Table 4-4: Selected Resource Management Strategies that Address Regional Goals ............ 4-6 List of Figures Figure 4-1: Projected Recycled Water Use in the Bay Area .................................................. 4-23 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-1 Resource Management Strategies Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies A resource management strategy (RMS) is a project, program, or policy that helps local agencies manage their water and related resources. The intent of the RMS standard is to encourage diversification of water management approaches as a way to mitigate for future uncertainties, including the effects of climate change. The 2016 Guidelines require that the IRWMP document the range of RMS considered to meet the IRWM objectives and identify which RMS were incorporated into the IRWMP. The effects of climate change on the IRWM region must be factored into the consideration of RMS. RMS to be considered must include, but are not limited to, the RMS found in Volume 3 of the California Water Plan (CWP) Update 2013. Accordingly, this chapter describes how the Bay Area Coordinating Committee (CC) and its subcommittees developed an updated set of RMS for the IRWMP based on both the strategies included in the 2006 plan and the latest set of statewide water management goals and RMS developed by DWR as part of the CWP Update 2013. As was the case with the 2006 Plan, the IRWMP incorporates an extensive range of RMS that includes most of the RMS on DWR’s latest list along with some additional Bay Area-specific RMS developed for the 2006 Plan. The chapter provides a brief description of each RMS along with examples of how these strategies are being implemented in the Bay Area. 4.1 Resource Management Strategies Identification and Selection Table 4-1 presents the RMS list from the CWP Update 2013. DWR identifies a set of 30 RMS organized into eight main categories. Table 4-1: RMS in CWP 2013 Update(a) Category Resource Management Strategies Reduce Demand • Agricultural Water Use Efficiency • Urban Water Use Efficiency Improve Operational Efficiency • Conveyance – Delta • Conveyance – Regional/Local • System Reoperation • Water Transfers Increase Water Supply • Conjunctive Management & Groundwater • Desalination – Brackish and Seawater • Precipitation Enhancement (drop) • Recycled Municipal Water • Surface Storage – CALFED • Surface Storage – Regional/Local Improve Flood Management • Integrated Flood Management 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-2 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-1: RMS in CWP 2013 Update(a) Category Resource Management Strategies Improve Water Quality • Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution • Groundwater / Aquifer Remediation • Matching Quality to Use • Pollution Prevention • Salt and Salinity Management • Urban Stormwater Runoff Management Practice Resources Stewardship • Agricultural Land Stewardship • Ecosystem Restoration • Forest Management (drop) • Land Use Planning and Management • Recharge Area Protection • Sediment Management • Watershed Management People and Water • Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants & Water Pricing) • Outreach and Engagement • Water and Culture • Water-Dependent Recreation Other (drop all) • Crop Idling for Water Transfers • Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination • Fog Collection • Irrigated Land Retirement • Rainfed Agriculture • Waterbag Transport / Storage Technology Notes: (a) RMS highlighted in grey were dropped from further consideration in the IRWMP update and are discussed in Section 4.3. The CC reviewed and considered DWR’s 2013 RMS in light of the strategies adopted in the 2006 Plan along with current activities being implemented and/or proposed by participating agencies in the Bay Area and the potential effects of climate change. Most of the RMS on the DWR 2013 list are the same or similar to those that were included in the 2006 plan and are being implemented in the Bay Area. Most of these were carried forward for inclusion in the 2013 plan update. RMS highlighted in grey on Table 4-1 were dropped by the CC from further consideration; these are mostly strategies from the “other” category that, in general, have limited application in the Bay Area region. Section 4.3 indicates the reasons that these RMS were not carried forward. Table 4-2 lists the 26 water management strategies included in the 2006 Plan. These strategies were reviewed by the CC in comparison to DWR’s RMS list from the CWP Update 2013 to determine which strategies were the same or similar on both lists and which strategies from the 2006 Plan were different and should be kept on the RMS list in addition to those already reflected on DWR’s 2013 list. The right-hand column in Table 4-2 summarizes the decisions regarding whether to keep, replace, or drop each of the 26 water management strategies from the 2006 Plan. A strategy was identified for replacement if it was the similar to one on DWR’s 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-3 Resource Management Strategies 2013 RMS list in order to reflect DWR’s more current RMS terminology. Section 4.2 describes all of the strategies marked as Keep or Replace in more detail. As shown in Table 4-2, two strategies from the 2006 Plan were dropped from further consideration. The Water Supply Reliability Strategy was dropped because it was redundant with numerous other RMS (e.g., urban water use efficiency, infrastructure reliability, surface storage). The Wetlands Enhancement and Creation Strategy was also dropped as a separate RMS because it is covered by DWR’s broader RMS for Ecosystem Restoration. However, the CC requested that the description of the Ecosystem Restoration RMS indicate that wetland creation and enhancement is the chief target of restoration efforts within the Bay Region. Table 4-3 presents the 37 resource management strategies selected for the IRWMP, organized by the seven categories that DWR has identified in the 2013 CWP. Many RMS were included because they reflect current practices. Other RMS provide new opportunities to address regional issues (as described in Chapter 2 Region Description). Consistent with the decision making structure and process established in Chapter 1: Governance, recommendations were considered, modifications were made, and ultimately there was concurrence with the final list of RMS to include in this chapter. Each of the selected RMS addresses the Regional Goals and associated objectives as presented in Table 4-4. In addition, per the 2012 Guidelines, note that numerous RMS adopted by the CC were selected, in part, for their potential to address climate change. Examples of adopted RMS that address issues related to climate change include Urban Water Use Efficiency, Water Recycling, Desalination – Brackish and Seawater, Surface Storage – Regional/Local, Integrated Flood Management, Ecosystem Restoration and Regional Cooperation, among others. More information about how the RMS address climate change vulnerabilities can be found in Chapter 16. Table 4-2: Disposition of 2006 Bay Area IRWMP – Water Management Strategies 2006 IRWMP Water Management Strategy Disposition in 2013 Plan Update Water Conservation Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Urban Water Use Efficiency Flood Management Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Integrated Flood Management Water Supply Reliability DROP since many other RMS help address this overarching goal Groundwater Management Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Stormwater Capture and Management KEEP – Stormwater Capture and Management Water Recycling KEEP this broader term “Water Recycling” rather than CWP Update 2013 RMS of Recycled Municipal Water in order to capture both municipal reuse and greywater reuse Conjunctive Use Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conjunctive Management and Groundwater 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-4 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-2: Disposition of 2006 Bay Area IRWMP – Water Management Strategies 2006 IRWMP Water Management Strategy Disposition in 2013 Plan Update Desalination Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Desalination – Brackish and Seawater Imported Water KEEP - Imported Water Surface Storage Replace with two CWP 2013 Update RMS for Surface Storage – CALFED and Surface Storage – Regional/Local Water Transfers KEEP – same as CWP Update 2013 RMS – Water Transfers Interties Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conveyance – Regional / Local Infrastructure Reliability KEEP – Infrastructure Reliability Groundwater Banking Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Water Quality Protection and Improvement KEEP – Water Quality Protection and Improvement Non-point source (NPS) Pollution Control Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Pollution Prevention and Urban Stormwater Runoff Management Water and Wastewater Treatment KEEP Wastewater Treatment and replace “Water Treatment” with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Monitoring and Modeling KEEP – Monitoring and Modeling Ecosystem Restoration KEEP – same as CWP 2013 Update Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement KEEP – not covered by CWP 2013 Update RMS. Addresses protection of existing habitats Wetlands Enhancement and Creation DROP as separate RMS but emphasize as the chief focus in the Bay Area under Ecosystem Restoration RMS Watershed Planning Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Watershed Management Land Use Planning Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Land Use Planning and Management Recreation and Public Access KEEP – Recreation and Public Access Regional Cooperation KEEP – Regional Cooperation Water Conservation Incentives Education and Outreach KEEP – same as CWP Update 2013 RMS for Outreach and Engagement 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-5 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-3: Selected 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Resource Management Strategies(a) Reduce Water Demand • Agricultural Water Use Efficiency • Urban Water Use Efficiency Improve Operational Efficiency • Conveyance – Delta • Conveyance – Regional/Local • System Reoperation • Water Transfers • Imported Water* • Infrastructure Reliability* Increase Water Supply • Conjunctive Management and Groundwater • Water Recycling • Surface Storage – CALFED • Surface Storage – Regional / Local • Stormwater Capture and Management* Improve Flood Management • Integrated Flood Management Improve Water Quality • Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution • Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation • Matching Quality to Use • Pollution Prevention • Salt and Salinity Management • Urban Stormwater Runoff Management • Water Quality Protection and Improvement* • Monitoring and Modeling* • Wastewater Treatment* Practice Resources Stewardship • Agricultural Lands Stewardship • Ecosystem Restoration • Land Use Planning and Management • Recharge Areas Protection • Sediment Management • Watershed Management • Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement* People and Water • Economic Incentives • Outreach and Engagement • Water and Culture • Water-dependent Recreation • Regional Cooperation* • Recreation and Public Access* Note: (a) The Selected RMS are from DWR California Water Plan Update 2013 except those marked by the “*”, which were carried forward from the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-6 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-4: Selected Resource Management Strategies that Address Regional Goals Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies to Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies to Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Conveyance – Regional/Local ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Imported Water ✓ ✓ Infrastructure Reliability ✓ ✓ System Reoperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies to Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Recycling ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Desalination – Brackish and Seawater ✓ ✓ Surface Storage – CALFED ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-7 Resource Management Strategies Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies to Increase Water Supply (Continued) Surface Storage – Regional ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Transfers ✓ ✓ Stormwater Capture and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies to Improve Water Quality Pollution Prevention ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Runoff Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Quality Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Salt and Salinity Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Monitoring and Modeling ✓ Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution ✓ ✓ Matching Water Quality to Use ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Wastewater Treatment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-8 Resource Management Strategies Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies to Improve Flood Management Integrated Flood Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies for Resource Stewardship Practice Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ecosystem Restoration ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Sediment Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recharge Areas Protection ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Agricultural Lands Stewardship ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Watershed Management and Planning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Watershed Management and Planning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Land Use Planning and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-9 Resource Management Strategies Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies for People and Water Economic Incentives ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Outreach and Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Cooperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation and Public Access ✓ Water-dependent Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ Water-dependent Cultural Resources ✓ ✓ 4.2 Selected Resource Management Strategies This section provides a brief description of each of the 37 RMS Selected for the IRWMP (Table 4-3) based on DWR’s RMS descriptions in the CWP Update 2013, the 2006 Plan, and input from the CC. Following this are just a few examples, where applicable, of existing Bay Area efforts that apply to each strategy. In most cases, there are many more examples throughout the Bay Area region where these strategies are being implemented. As is evident from these examples, a broad range of resource management strategies are already being implemented throughout the Bay Area region. The RMS descriptions are organized by the seven categories DWR presents in the CWP Update 2013. Note that RMS can, in some circumstances, be incongruent. For example, a shoreline trail (Public Access RMS) could potentially be incompatible with the Ecosystem Restoration RMS if the trail were sited through a sensitive habitat area. There are a variety of ways in which agencies consult that provide a means to resolve such incompatibilities. In this example, resource agencies would place restrictions on trail location and operation to preclude adverse impacts on the species or resources under their jurisdiction. Refer to Chapters 12 and 13 for descriptions of consultation among agencies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-10 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.1 Strategies to Reduce Water Demand These two management strategies address water conservation or efforts to reduce the amount of water that is used for both agricultural activities and urban use including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency RMS Description The agricultural water use efficiency management strategy involves improvements in the technology and management of water, both on-farm and within the water delivery system, that provide water supply, water quality and environmental benefits. There are opportunities for implementation of agricultural water management efficiencies primarily from three activities:  Hardware: Improving on-farm irrigation systems and water supplier delivery systems;  Water management: Improving management of on-farm irrigation and water supplier delivery systems; and  Crop water consumption: Reducing non-beneficial evapotranspiration. The agricultural water use efficiency strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts As described in Chapter 2 – Region Description, about 21.5 percent of land in the Bay Area region is in agricultural production, which includes a wide variety of crops as well as grazing. In 2010/11, the agricultural industry contributed an estimated $1.8 billon12 to the Bay Area economy. The majority of cropland within the Bay Area region occurs within Sonoma and Solano Counties. In recent years, the Sonoma County Water Agency has targeted wine growers with demonstrations of how to conserve water and reduce energy usage for crop irrigation and cooling. In Solano County, the Agricultural Water Conservation Committee of the Solano Water Advisory Committee assists growers with water use efficiency and is responsible for activities including: 12 Includes gross value of agricultural products in the nine Bay Area Counties and accounts for all agricultural products, including crops, nursery products, livestock, and grazing (various sources: County Crops Reports 2010). Improving efficiency of agricultural irrigation can result in substantial demand offset. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-11 Resource Management Strategies  Operation of automated weather stations throughout Solano County for use by irrigators in irrigation scheduling.  The Irrigation Hotline, a telephone service providing user-friendly data from 4 local weather stations; and The Irrigator, a newsletter for irrigators of urban turf and other crops.  Weathernews Website for Solano County growers to distribute information such as reference evapotranspiration, phenology models, degree days, temperatures, and precipitation.  Workshops on irrigation scheduling and management and irrigation system evaluations. About 25 percent of the county’s farmers participate in the Committee’s programs (Solano CWA, 2012). In Napa County, agricultural industry groups, local government agencies, and non-profit organizations partner to promote water use efficiency. Wine grapes are the dominant agricultural crop and growers routinely use deficit irrigation practices13 to improve wine quality and to conserve water. Growers in Napa County utilize local weather stations (CIMIS or individually owned weather stations) and many growers monitor soil moisture to further refine irrigation schedules to meet plant needs while efficiently applying irrigation water. Agricultural irrigation audits and water assessments are available commercially and through Napa County Resource Conservation District. In Alameda County, Zone 7 Water Agency provides untreated water to agricultural (e.g., vineyards) customers in the Livermore Valley to reduce the use of treated potable water for irrigation. Agricultural water use efficiency strategies are implemented in other counties within the Bay Area region as well, and this strategy will remain active in the IRWMP. 4.2.1.2 Urban Water Use Efficiency RMS Description The urban water use efficiency management strategy involves technology improvements as well as behavioral changes related to indoor and outdoor residential, commercial, and industrial water use that lower total demand, lower per capita use, and result in benefits to water supply, water quality and the environment. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, 13 Deficit irrigation is a watering strategy that limits water application to drought -sensitive growth stages of the crop. Example of BMP 5, Maloney Waterwise Demonstration Garden, City of Sonoma. Photo by Sonoma County Master Gardeners, 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-12 Resource Management Strategies enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts There is widespread implementation of this management strategy throughout the Bay Area. Over the last twenty plus years, the population in the Bay Area has increased significantly while water use has remained relatively constant, due in part to increases in urban water use efficiency (refer to Section 2.4, Chapter 2). An analysis of statewide and regional water consumption estimated that the Bay Area’s per capita water use was among the lowest in the state, at 64 gallons per capita per day (LAO 2017). Most Bay Area water agencies are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) and have committed to implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce California’s long-term urban water demands. In 2009 the CUWCC adopted changes to the list of BMPs to provide more flexibility in achieving water conservation while identifying BMPs all members are expected to implement (“Foundational BMPs”) as a matter of their regular course of business, including Utility Operations (metering, water loss control, pricing, use of a conservation coordinator, wholesale agency assistance programs and water waste ordinances) and Education (public information and school education programs). Additionally, as described in Section 2.4, the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 requires progress towards a statewide 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020, and mandated that each urban retail supplier establish a water use target in the 2010 UWMPs. The legislation further requires that retailers report an interim 2015 water use target, their baseline daily per capita use, and 2020 compliance daily per capita use, along with the basis for determining those estimates. Conservation programs being implemented by Bay Area water agencies, often in partnership with land use agencies, include: • Residential Water Surveys • Residential Plumbing Retrofits • High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebates • System Water Audits • Metering • Large Landscape Programs • Washing Machine Rebates • Public Information Programs • School Education Programs • Regional Water Campaigns • Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Programs • Wholesale Assistance • Conservation Pricing • Conservation Coordinator • Water Waste Prohibitions • Replacement • Weather-based Irrigation Controller • Bay Friendly Landscape Program 4.2.2 Strategies to Improve Operational Efficiency This set of management strategies targets improvements in the efficiency, reliability and effectiveness of water supply storage and delivery systems to provide multiple benefits associated with water supply reliability, flood hazard management, environmental resource protection, and, in some cases, public access and recreation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-13 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.2.1 Conveyance – Delta RMS Description Conveyance provides for the movement of water from its source to the area of use. Conveyance involves use of natural channels as well as manmade facilities (e.g., constructed channels, pipes and tunnels). The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a major source of supply for the Bay Area region. Thus, Delta conveyance facilities are an important element of the region’s water supply system. Management strategies to maintain and improve both the overall Delta and the regional Delta conveyance system are integral to the Bay Area’s water supply reliability. The Delta conveyance “system” includes a highly developed network of natural streams and sloughs as well as constructed channels through the Delta bordered by levees to prevent flooding of adjacent islands. This system of through-Delta conveyance is connected to the diversion structures, canals, aqueducts, pumps, and reservoirs that comprise the State’s SWP and the federal CVP water systems and deliver water into the Bay Area region and other regions in the state. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts As described in Chapter 2 and shown on Figure 2-17, almost 30 percent of the Bay Area’s water supply is conveyed through and diverted from the Delta. Section 2.3.1.3 summarizes the Bay Area agencies that receive water from the SWP system via either the North Bay Aqueduct or the South Bay Aqueduct. Over the past several years, Zone 7 and DWR have implemented projects to improve and expand the 16-mile South Bay Aqueduct. These projects improve Delta supply conveyance for the Bay Area users and provide Zone 7 with 130 cfs of expanded conveyance capacity to move additional water supply it secured through water transfers. The Bay Area water agencies that are SWP and/or CVP contractors are actively participating in ongoing efforts to implement the State’s dual goals to restore the Delta ecosystem and improve water supply reliability from and through the Delta, including the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which includes wetland/habitat restoration in the Delta coupled with new water conveyance facilities to better move water supplies through the Delta for export. 4.2.2.2 Conveyance – Regional/Local RMS Description Conveyance provides for the movement of water from its source to the area of use. Within the Bay Area region water conveyance is provided by both natural and manmade facilities. Water DWR South Bay Aqueduct 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-14 Resource Management Strategies conveyance supports several objectives including water supply delivery, flood management, in- stream habitat uses, water quality protection, and recreation. Section 2.6.1 in Chapter 2, Regional Description, provides a discussion of the major local and regional water transmission facilities in the Bay Area. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts The list of recent and planned regional and local conveyance projects in the Bay Area is quite long. Water agencies throughout the Bay Area are continually investing in their conveyance systems to maintain integrity, expand capacity, include redundancy and reliability, protect water quality, and improve energy efficiency. In addition, several agencies have implemented interties between their conveyance systems to improve water delivery flexibility and emergency response. A few selected projects are highlighted below. Conveyance Projects  SFPUC Water System Improvement Program. The SFPUC has implemented conveyance projects as part of its $4.3 billion capital improvement program for the regional water system that service more than 2.5 million customers in the Bay Area. Projects include repair and replacement of several major conveyance pipelines including those that bring Hetch Hetchy water, through upgrades to the Irvington Tunnel, and around and across the southern end of the San Francisco Bay, as shown below. Specific conveyance facility projects include: Bay Division Pipeline Reliability Upgrade, Crystal Springs / San Andreas Transmission Upgrade, Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Replacement, New Irvington Tunnel, Peninsula Pipeline Seismic Upgrade, San Antonio Back-up Pipeline, and San Joaquin Pipeline System. Interties  BAWSCA Member Agencies’ Interties. BAWSCA member agencies maintain vital local emergency interconnections throughout their individual systems. There are 25 BAWSCA member agencies that have interconnected systems.  EBMUD – CCWD Interties. EBMUD currently has an one-way raw water intertie (from EBMUD to CCWD) and a small treated water intertie with CCWD. In 2007, EBMUD and CCWD completed construction of intertie facilities, including a 170 foot pipeline, linking CCWD’s Los Vaqueros Pipeline with EBMUD’s Mokelumne Aqueduct. These facilities can pass up to 100 mgd from EBMUD to CCWD Regional efforts to help increase water supply reliability include regional interties. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-15 Resource Management Strategies and up to 60 mgd from CCWD to EBMUD. EBMUD and CCWD each own and maintain their separate portions of the intertie facilities and coordinate operations when needed.  MMWD – NMWD Interties. The current Intertie Agreement between NMWD and MMWD was executed in March 1993. The agreement provides a mechanism for MMWD and NMWD to utilize their respective water systems’ surplus water and surplus system capacity in a coordinated manner which respects that each district must first meet the needs of its water users, and permits the optimum use of same for the benefit of the customers of both districts (NMWD, 1993). The term of the current agreement expires in 2014. The two agencies are currently in negotiation to revise and extend the agreement.  SCVWD – SFPUC Intertie. SCVWD currently has an existing intertie with SFPUC (located in Milpitas), which allows both agencies to convey up to 40 mgd of water in the event of a natural disaster or planned outage. 4.2.2.3 System Reoperation RMS Description System reoperation means changing existing operation and management procedures for existing reservoirs and conveyance facilities to increase water related benefits, including water supply reliability, flood hazard reduction, ecosystem protection and restoration, and water quality improvement. There are three basic purposes of reoperation: (1) to address specific existing needs; (2) to improve operational efficiency and water supply reliability; and (3) to anticipate and adapt to future changes. System reoperation is a tool for project owners to willingly make changes in how their systems operate to best meet their changing needs. Reoperation of existing reservoirs and conveyance facilities can help integrate surface and groundwater supplies, facilitate water transfers, improve instream flows, and provide integrated water supply, flood management, ecosystem and water quality benefits. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts In the Bay Area, reoperation efforts in progress have focused on improving supply reliability, and ecosystem conditions (instream flows), and in some cases protecting water quality. Select programs and projects that include system reoperation are highlighted below.  CCWD Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion. The Contra Costa Water District, in conjunction with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation developed the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion to expand the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from 100,000 acre-feet potentially up to 250,000 acre-feet. Project objectives are to improve Bay Area drinking water quality and reliability; reduce the effects of Delta water diversions on aquatic resources and enhance the Delta and tributary environment. The expanded reservoir storage capacity provides valuable flexibility to adjust the timing of water diversion from the Delta to minimize impacts on sensitive fishery resources and maximize supply reliability and water quality. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-16 Resource Management Strategies At the same time, given the strategic location of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir near the State Water Project system facilities, water supply can be delivered to Bay Area water customers via the South Bay Aqueduct without using the existing state or federal system Delta pump, neither of which provide effective fish screening protections. CCWD has completed reservoir expansion to 160,000 acre-feet to provide water supply reliability and water quality benefits to its customers while improving Delta ecosystem conditions. The District continues to study further reservoir expansion with Reclamation and other Bay Area water agencies to allow further reoperation flexibility for Delta diversions that can achieve additional integrated benefits. 4.2.2.4 Water Transfers RMS Description Water transfers involve the voluntary sharing of water supplies on a short or long-term basis. The California Water Code defines a water transfer as a temporary or long -term change in the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use due to a transfer, sale, lease, or exchange of water or water rights. A temporary water transfer is defined as occurring for one year or less (Water Code Section 1725), while a long-term water transfers has a duration of more than one year (Water Code Section 1728). Transfers can occur between neighboring agencies or across the state, provided there is either a means to physically convey and/or store the water or a way to account for an in lieu supply exchange. Water transfers can be a temporary or permanent sale of water or a water right by the water right holder; a lease of the right to use water from the water right holder; or a sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. Water transfers can also take the form of long-term contracts for the purpose of improving long-term supply reliability. In combination, water transfers can serve as one element of flexible system reoperation and can be linked to many other water management strategies including surface water and groundwater storage, conjunctive management, conveyance efficiency, water use efficiency, water quality improvements, and ecosystem protection and enhancement. These linkages often result in increased beneficial use and reuse of water overall and are among the most valuable aspects of water transfers. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts Through collaborative water transfers, Bay Area agencies are making the most of available water supplies. Historic and existing water transfer arrangements in place in the region include the following:  CCWD Long-Term and Short-Term Water Transfers. CCWD has long-term agreements that enable it to purchase up to 12,200 AFY from East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) during droughts.  SFPUC Water Transfers. The SFPUC participated in the DWR Drought Bank to help meet demands during the 1987-1992 drought, and has also purchased water from the Kern County Water Bank. SFPUC is also investigating the possibility of a dry-year water transfer in the Tuolumne River basin with Modesto Irrigation District/Turlock Irrigation District for 2 mgd. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-17 Resource Management Strategies  SCVWD Short-Term Water Transfers. SCVWD participates in water transfers and exchanges on a routine basis. For example, in 2003 when CVP and SWP allocations initially were low, SCVWD purchased about 28,000 AF through six separate transactions.  Solano CWA Water Contractors Water Transfer Agreements. There are currently several agreements for water transfers within the group of Solano CWA water contractors, including the Solano Irrigation District City Agreements, the Solano Project Drought Measures Agreement, and the Vallejo Agreements.  Zone 7 Agriculture-to-Urban Water Transfers. Long-term agriculture-to-urban water transfers have enabled Zone 7 to increase its SWP entitlement from 46,000 to 80,619 AFY. Zone 7 also has a 15-year contract (renewable for another 15 years at Zone 7’s option) with Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) to acquire up to 5,000 AFY of additional supply. 4.2.2.5 Imported Water RMS Description As described in Chapter 2, Regional Setting, a substantial amount of the Bay Area’s water supply is imported, coming to the Bay Area region from Sierra Rivers, the Delta, or the Russian and Eel Rivers. Because imported water constitutes such an important component of many agencies’ baseline supplies, this RMS involves active participation in appropriate efforts to protect and ensure the delivery and viability of imported supplies. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts For Bay Area water agencies the most significant current program addressing Delta imported water is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP program is a collaborative effort to restore the Delta’s ecosystem and protect water supplies. It is a multi-agency effort of local, regional, state and federal agencies to implement a combination of ecosystem restoration and management efforts and water system infrastructure projects that will provide for both ecosystem improvement and improved water supply reliability. Many Bay Area agencies participate in the process. The Sonoma County Water Agency has a Water Supply Strategies Action Plan, currently being updated for 2013, that identifies near-term and long-term actions needed to increase the reliability, resiliency and efficient use of its water supply imported from the Eel River and the Russian River upstream of Sonoma County in Mendocino and Lake Counties. The Eel River facilities are owned and operated by PG&E; SCWA is taking an active role in protecting its imported water supply; for example the agency will be conducting studies needed for PG&E’s future Potter Valley Project relicensing process, pending in 2022. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-18 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.2.6 Infrastructure Reliability RMS Description Bay Area agencies recognize the importance of maintaining and upgrading their water supply, wastewater, stormwater, and flood control infrastructure to improve service and reliability of water supplies. Bay Area agencies will continue to implement improvement projects to ensure the reliability of their systems. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts Agencies throughout the region continually strive to enhance the reliability of existing infrastructure. In addition to the conveyance projects highlighted above in Section 4.2.2.2, a few examples of the types of Infrastructure Reliability projects in place throughout the region are provided below.  CCWD’s CIP Projects. CCWD’s CIP for fiscal years 2012-2021 identifies approximately $147.2 million for untreated water supply and transport projects to improve seismic reliability, water conveyance, pipelines and canals.  SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan. Adopted in October 2012, the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan is the District’s strategy for providing a reliable and sustainable future water supply for Santa Clara County. The strategy has three key elements: (1) secure existing supplies and infrastructure, (2) optimize the use of existing supplies and infrastructure, and (3) increase recycling and conservation. One of the approved activities is to update the District’s Infrastructure Reliability Plan that addresses recovery from short-term outages and infrastructure system robustness.  Solano CWA’s Highline Canal Study and North Bay Aqueduct Improvements. Solano CWA is evaluating the potential to expand its infrastructure reliability through the Highline Canal Study, and North Bay Aqueduct Improvements. The Highline Canal Study is evaluating whether a connection from the NBA to SID’s Highline Canal would improve reliability of local water supplies. The project facilities would include a pump station, a connection to the NBA and a connection to the Highline Canal.  Zone 7’s Infrastructure Projects. Zone 7’s 2005 Well Master Plan proposes to increase well production/recovery capacity by up to 42 mgd to increase reliability and redundancy of the water system. Zone 7 is also working on the SBA Enlargement Project, which will increase the SBA and South Bay Pumping Plant capacity from 300 to 430 cfs; and Altamont WTP construction, which will provide up to 42 mgd of additional surface water treatment capacity. The Bay Area is home to aging water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection infrastructure. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-19 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3 Strategies to Increase Water Supply Most water agencies in the Bay Area implement a diverse portfolio of water management strategies to increase water supply. A sample of the specific projects and programs currently being implemented is presented in subsequent sections. 4.2.3.1 Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Management RMS Description Conjunctive management is coordinated and planned use of both surface water and groundwater resources to maximize the availability and reliability of water supplies to meet various management objectives. Water is stored in the groundwater basin for later use by intentionally recharging the basin when excess water supply is available such as during years of above-average surface water supply or through the use of recycled water. Conjunctive use also includes in-lieu groundwater recharge through the provision of treated surface water and acquisition of supplemental water supplies. Effective conjunctive management not only increases the reliability and the overall amount of water supply in a region, but may provide other benefits such as flood management, environmental water use, and water quality improvement. Aquifer recharge can increase groundwater storage by directing surface water (when available) into the aquifer through injection wells, spreading the water on permeable ground surfaces, or introducing the water into streams that are connected to the aquifer through permeable streambeds. The stored water in the aquifer can then be withdrawn at a later time when surface water is less available. Groundwater banking improves operational flexibility and efficiency, provides additional dry year supply reliability, and helps manage water levels in the groundwater basin. Methods include in lieu recharge, direct recharge or injection wells (aquifer storage and recovery). This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Active groundwater management programs are in place for Bay Area groundwater supplies and in many cases include conjunctive use. In addition, several Bay Area agencies are currently participating in interregional groundwater banking programs with Semitropic Water Storage District and Mojave Water Agency (MWA). Nearly all Bay Area water agencies are investigating ACWD and many other Bay Area water agencies currently implement conjunctive use programs. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-20 Resource Management Strategies groundwater banking options for the future. Select examples of conjunctive use programs in the Bay Area are noted below.  ACWD Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use. ACWD optimizes the use of imported SFPUC and SWP surface water supplies, using the local groundwater basin to store these supplies in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, which underlies the ACWD service area. ACWD makes use of a series of former quarry pits to recharge the local groundwater basin with the imported surface water supplies.  SCVWD Conjunctive Use Program. SCVWD has implemented an active conjunctive use program for more than 80 years. SCVWD’s integrated water system includes 10 reservoirs, 17 miles of canals, four water supply diversion dams, almost 300 acres of recharge ponds, 91 miles of controlled in-stream recharge, 142 miles of pipelines, three drinking water treatment plants, three pump stations, recycled water facilities, and imported supplies from the SWP and CVP.  Solano Irrigation District Conjunctive Use Wells. SID uses groundwater conjunctively with surface water supplies. SID groundwater well network consists of 29 wells ranging from 400 to 1,000 feet below the surface. Groundwater is primarily used to supplement irrigation demands in areas constrained by conveyance capacity for surface water deliveries. The historical yield of the groundwater system is 15,000 AFY (Solano County LAFCO, 2009).  Westside Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use Project. SFPUC is currently conducting a pilot program with the cities of Daly City and San Bruno and Cal Water (South San Francisco) for the Westside Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use Project, involving the use of SFPUC surface water in-lieu of pumping groundwater during normal and wet years.  Zone 7 Groundwater Banking Program. Zone 7 supplements its local groundwater storage capacity with off-site storage capacity in groundwater banking programs, including 65,000 AF of storage capacity in the Semitropic Water Storage District and 120,000 AF of storage capacity in the Cawelo Water District, located in Kern County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-21 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3.2 Desalination – Brackish and Seawater RMS Description Desalination utilizes various water treatment processes to remove salt from water for beneficial uses. Desalination is applied to both seawater and brackish water (low salinity water). The principal method for desalination used in California is reverse osmosis. This process can be used to remove salt as well as specific contaminants in water such as disinfection byproducts, volatile organic compounds, nitrates and pathogens. Desalination offers many potential benefits, including the following: • A new source of potable water supply • High quality water, even during periods of drought • Local supply under local control • Reduced dependence on imported supplies This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts A large number of Bay Area agencies have pursued or are considering desalination projects t o contribute to their future water supply portfolios. Please refer to Section 2.3.3.2 in Chapter 2, Regional Description, for a description of several example projects. The 5-MGD Newark Desalination Facility uses reverse osmosis for groundwater desalination. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-22 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3.3 Water Recycling RMS Description The CWP Update 2013 identifies a Recycled Municipal Water RMS that focuses specifically on treatment and reuse of municipal wastewater; it does not include commercial, industrial or institution water reuse that may result from “internal” onsite or process reuse prior to discharge to a municipal system and it does not include grey water reuse. The Bay Area CC decided to include a broader Water Recycling RMS that includes municipal reuse along with these other approaches to water recycling. Water recycling is a strategy that increases the usefulness of water by reusing a portion of the existing waste stream that would be discharged to the environment, by redirecting the water to another local application. This action does not necessarily increase the amount of water in the water supply, but it enables conserving higher quality water for appropriate uses. Recycled water is integrated into the water supply for potable or non-potable uses. Non-potable reuse includes any application not involving drinking water for human consumption, such as landscape or agricultural irrigation, commercial applications like car washes or dual-plumbed office buildings, or industrial process such as oil refineries or cooling towers. Potable reuse results in augmentation to drinking water supplies, and it can be either direct or indirect. Indirect potable reuse is using highly purified recycled water for groundwater recharge or surface water reservoir augmentation. Currently, recycled water is only used for non-potable uses in the Bay Area. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) includes the largest wastewater agencies in the Bay Area. In 2010 BACWA surveyed member agencies to develop recycled water projections for the Bay Area, presented in Figure 4-1. Based on survey results, the following conclusions were established:  In 2010 the Bay Area recycled almost 10 percent of the effluent generated.  The State Water Resources Control Board estimated that 29,100 AFY were produced in the Bay Area in the year 2000. The 2010 production was nearly 60,000 AFY, which is almost twice that amount. Recycled water is a drought-resistant supply that can contribute to improved supply reliability. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-23 Resource Management Strategies  Recycled water production is expected to more than double over the next twenty years to 120,000 AFY.  The current and future predominate uses of recycled water are for landscape irrigation and industrial facilities (including boiler washdown and cooling by oil refineries). Figure 4-1: Projected Recycled Water Use in the Bay Area14 Table 2-9 in Chapter 2 lists recycled water programs in the Bay Area and describes regional recycling initiatives such as the North Bay Water Reuse Program. A few selected examples of the numerous water recycling programs currently in the Bay Area include: South Subregion  Santa Clara County Recycling Partnerships and the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. SCVWD has entered into recycling partnerships with three recycled water producers in Santa Clara County: the South Bay Water Recycling Program; the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant; and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority. About 18,000 acre-feet of recycled water was used in Santa Clara County in 2012. In 2010 the SCVWD Board of Directors approved agreements with the City of San José to build an advanced water treatment facility (to be completed in summer of 2013) that will produce up to 10 million gallons per day of highly purified recycled water. This near distilled-quality water will be blended into existing recycled water provided by the Santa Clara/San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant’s recycled water producer, South Bay Water Recycling, which will improve overall non-potable recycled water quality so that the water can be used for a wider variety of irrigation and industrial purposes. SCVWD will also use the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center to engage stakeholders and demonstrate the effectiveness of the advanced 14 BACWA, Recycled Water Survey Results, November 2011. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-24 Resource Management Strategies treatment technologies, which helps set the stage for future decisions regarding potable reuse. SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan specifies actions that support making decisions in 2016 about how to proceed with potable reuse in Santa Clara County. East Subregion  DSRSD EBMUD San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program. In 1994, DSRSD and EBMUD entered into an agreement to facilitate the development of a joint water recycling program. The San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program is a multi-phase project designed to supply recycled water to DSRSD and EBMUD. Transmission and distribution lines have been completed and currently serve 56 DSRSD customers at 205 sites and 10 EBMUD customers at 41 sites. When completed, the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program will serve about 3.3 mgd of recycled water to DSRSD and 2.4 mgd of recycled water to EBMUD. North Subregion • The California Coastal Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife have proposed and are implementing a salinity reduction and habitat restoration project for the 9,460-acre Napa River Unit of the Napa- Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area. The Napa River Unit is located at the northeast edge of San Pablo Bay, adjacent to the Napa River. The purpose of the Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration Project is to restore a mosaic of habitats, including tidal habitats and managed ponds, and provide for better management of ponds in the Napa River Unit to support populations of fish and wildlife. This project includes the annual delivery of approximately 3,000 AF of tertiary recycled water from the SVCSD as an ongoing supply of non-saline water for restoration, with subsequent agricultural use. West Subregion • Regional Efforts. The SFPUC, the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and California Water Service Company (Bayshore District) are jointly pursuing a project to produce and distribute recycled water in the South San Francisco and San Bruno areas. Recycled water for the project will be produced at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant jointly operated by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno (SFPUC, 2011). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-25 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3.4 Surface Storage – CALFED RMS Description The CALFED Record of Decision (2000) identified five potential surface storage reservoir projects for further investigation by federal, state and local interests. Implementation of one or more of these projects was included in the adopted CALFED long-term comprehensive program to restore ecological health and improve water management of the Bay-Delta. The five storage reservoir projects include:  In-Delta Storage Project – the Delta Wetlands Project, proposed by a privately owned entity, is proceeding through the environmental permitting process.  Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion – CCWD completed reservoir expansion to 160 TAF in 2012.  North-of-the Delta Offstream Storage – Sites Reservoir proposal.  Shasta Lake Water Sources Investigation (expansion of Shasta Reservoir) – studies are in progress lead by Reclamation.  Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation – studies for the Temperance Flat Reservoir in progress lead by Reclamation. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and improve regional flood management. Existing Bay Area Efforts As discussed in subsection 4.2.2.5 System Reoperation, CCWD in conjunction with DWR and Reclamation developed the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to expand the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from 100,000 acre-feet potentially up to 250,000 acre-feet. CCWD proceeded with reservoir expansion to 160,000 acre-feet and completed construction in mid- 2012. The District continues to study further reservoir expansion with DWR, Reclamation and potential Bay Area partners. As studies on the other CALFED surface storage project concepts are completed, Bay Area water agencies participating in the federal and state water systems will be engaged in decisions regarding whether to fund and proceed with these additional storage projects. 4.2.3.5 Surface Storage – Regional/Local RMS Description Surface storage is the use of reservoirs to collect water for later release and use. Given California’s natural hydrology pattern, characterized annually by a long dry season and a shorter Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an important surface storage reservoir in Contra Costa County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-26 Resource Management Strategies ”wet” season, and including cyclic droughts that can extend for multiple years, surface water reservoirs play an important role in capturing surface water supply when it is available and holding it until it is needed for use. Reservoirs are an important strategic facility for responding to emergencies and for adapting to projected climate change effects on precipitation. Most water agencies in the state and in the Bay Area rely on surface water reservoirs as a key part of their water supply systems. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts The Bay Area is currently exploring a variety of surface storage projects for potential water supply reliability and water quality benefits. A few examples of projects underway throughout the Bay Area region include the following:  SCVWD Anderson Dam. SCVWD has dam safety operating restrictions on five of its 10 reservoirs, including Anderson Reservoir. Anderson Reservoir is the District’s largest reservoir and has more capacity than the remaining reservoirs combined. The Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project will restore the reservoir capacity from 61,810 acre-feet to 90,373 acre-feet, providing important storage and operational flexibility.  SFPUC Restoration of Calaveras Reservoir capacity. The adopted WSIP includes the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project, which will result in construction of a new seismically sound dam, allowing the reservoir to be returned to its full capacity of 96,850 acre-feet and restoring about 60,000 acre feet of reservoir storage to the SFPUC water system. The restored capacity provides storage for emergency and drought water supplies, providing up to 7 mgd over the SFPUC design drought. In general, a restored Calaveras Reservoir provides 40 percent of the SFPUC’s local system storage capacity. 4.2.3.6 Stormwater Capture and Management RMS Description This RMS is not on DWR’s list but has been retained by the Bay Area CC from the 2006 Plan and given an updated definition and focus. In the 2006 Plan, this RMS focused on efforts to protect water quality and maintain flood protection; however, these objectives are addressed by other RMS including Urban Runoff Management (4.2.4.2) and Integrated Flood Management (4.2.5.1). For this 2013 plan update, this RMS is refocused on efforts to capture stormwater primarily for water supply purposes, while acknowledging that doing so also has potential associated water quality, flood management and ecosystem benefits. Stormwater capture and management may include rainwater harvesting systems that serve individual properties, or local or regional efforts to capture and store stormwater in cisterns or surface reservoirs or to recharge the groundwater. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-27 Resource Management Strategies improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and improve regional flood management. Existing Bay Area Efforts While many Bay Area agencies already use their local reservoirs to capture stormwater runoff in local watersheds, existing efforts to capture and use stormwater runoff from developed urban areas is more limited. An example of a stormwater capture program underway in the Bay Area Region is provided below:  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Rainwater Harvesting Program. The purpose of this program is to raise awareness regarding rainwater harvesting and to promote installation of rainwater harvesting systems throughout San Francisco. The program includes information on rainwater harvesting, permitting guidance and rainbarrel/cistern subsidies. 4.2.4 Strategies to Improve Flood Management Watershed runoff generated in Bay Area headwaters is rapidly augmented by runoff from relatively impervious urban areas in the lower watersheds. The Mediterranean climate of the region also concentrates the storm season. Annual precipitation varies greatly, within any given season, and spatially across the region. For example, average annual rainfall in San José is 15 inches, whereas average annual rainfall in San Rafael is 36 inches. Taken together, the regional geography, development patterns, and climate promote an important need for regional and local flood management strategies. Many creeks in the Bay Area can flood within 30 to 60 minutes of a particularly powerful storm burst, causing millions of dollars in damages and catching businesses and residents off guard. Flood risk management projects protect communities and properties from flooding hazards through improved conveyance, detention, and retention techniques as well as flood emergency preparedness and flood recovery support. 4.2.4.1 Integrated Flood Risk Management RMS Description This strategy includes efforts to assist individuals and communities to manage flood flows, reduce flooding risk, and prepare for, respond to and recover from a flood. Integrated Flood Management is recognized as an approach to flood management15 and strives to achieve multiple objectives and enhanced outcomes. Integrated flood risk management utilizes watershed management to achieve additional runoff reductions through source area control, improved infiltration, and use of naturally existing surface detention features to reduce or delay peak flows. Carefully integrated flood risk management projects provide opportunities for water supply increases and for ecosystem and habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Flood Risk Management projects and programs can be generally grouped into three categories: Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (Education, Emergency response, Flood Insurance, Post flood recovery); Land Use Management (Floodplain restoration and regulation, 15 Draft California Water Plan Update 2013, Chapter 28 Flood Management. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-28 Resource Management Strategies Building codes); Structural Approaches (Dams, Levees, Floodwalls, Channelization, Maintenance). Integrated Flood Management provides an overall flood management strategy for long-term economic stability, public safety, and enhancement of environmental stewardship. There are six basic strategies for incorporating flood management into Integrated Water Management: 11. Integrated Flood Management and Land Use - Incorporates flood management into land use planning recognizing that both can impact flood magnitudes and flood risks. Land use planning can reduce flood risks by limiting development within floodplains. 12. Leverage Natural Watershed Features – Enhances natural watershed features to reduce the intensity, duration or impacts of flooding. Undeveloped floodplains can store and slowly release floodwaters and wetlands can filter runoff for groundwater infiltration. 13. Adopt a “Best Mix” of Structural and Nonstructural Approaches – Compares the available structural and nonstructural approaches and selects a strategy or a combination of strategies that is most appropriate for management objectives. 14. Implement Regional Flood Management at a System Scale - Opportunities and impacts of flooding and management are evaluated at a regional scale, across geographic and agency boundaries to achieve sustainable outcomes, informed decisions, and prioritized investment. 15. Promote Multiple Benefits - Focuses on implementing projects with multiple benefits. Management of floodwaters and stormwaters could be a resource for water supply, pollution prevention and source control, as well as ecosystem restoration. 16. Implement Multiple -Hazard Management - Incorporates flood risks induced by other hazards, into a multiple hazard approach to planning. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) promotes integrated approaches to overcome challenges facing flood risk management in the region. Under a MOU with nine counties, BAFPA member agencies address the major flood protection and stormwater management objectives and issues for the watersheds in the region. BAFPAA’s approach is described below. Refer to Section 2.6.3 in Chapter 2, Regional Description, for a description of major Bay Area flood protection projects. Napa River Flood Control Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-29 Resource Management Strategies 1. Employ Collaborative Approaches. Bay Area flood protection agencies actively pursue collaborative approaches to planning and designing projects. This approach brings together the interests of health and safety and environmental resource protection into the planning and design phases, where objectives can be coordinated and integrated. Flood protection agencies facilitate consensus at each stage of project development and implementation. 2. Innovative Multi-Benefit Projects. Bay Area agencies have developed regional approaches to address sea level rise and coastal flooding, combining flood control and tidal marsh enhancement. Inland areas in a common watershed are transitioning to flood control projects that function simultaneously as habitat restoration projects. 3. Managing Floodplains and Riparian Areas. To participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by FEMA, municipalities must engage in minimum levels of floodplain management. Nearly all Bay Area municipalities have floodplain management ordinances based on the FEMA model. Over the past two decades, riparian protection policies have also been developed in several Bay Area municipalities. 4. Providing Stream Maintenance Outreach and Education. Many Bay Area flood protection agencies have “jurisdiction” over streams within their boundaries, but the streams themselves are very often in private ownership. Lack of continuous access to streams hampers agencies’ ability to maintain stream stability and capacity. To address maintenance in these areas, the agencies seek to assist property owners through outreach and education programs. 5. Obtaining Voter Approval for Flood Protection Funding. Bay Area flood protection agencies have, in some situations, obtained the required two-thirds voter approval of taxes or fees to fund their activities. 6. Coordinating among Jurisdictions. In some areas, Bay Area flood protection agencies have formalized cooperative arrangements to manage watersheds. 7. Infrastructure Maintenance. Repair and upgrades to existing aging infrastructure is a general responsibility of flood managers. Targeting high profile (i.e. critical public services) and at risk infrastructure (i.e. located in floodplains or coastal zone) enables flood managers to prioritize projects and leverage available budgets to maximize benefits. 8. Education/Outreach and Flood Issues and NFIP. Development in the Bay Area is concentrated around major waterbodies (i.e., San Francisco Bay, Napa River, Alameda Creek, Novato Creek), and coastal areas. As noted above, there are challenges for flood managers relative to private property. Education for land owners is critical in engaging the community to purchase flood insurance and plan for flood risk. 9. Controlling Invasive Species. Bay Area flood control agencies discourage or prohibit planting of invasive species in areas where they have ownership or easement. Several Bay Area agencies have prepared streamside planting guides which are available free to help guide appropriate plant selection. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-30 Resource Management Strategies 10. Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness. Flood damage can incur high costs of life and property. Bay Area agencies recognize the importance of proactive emergency planning to prepare for flood events and post flood recovery. There are a variety of mechanisms, including public outreach, local emergency notification broadcasting, and information centers. 4.2.5 Strategies to Improve Water Quality Water quality protection and improvement includes efforts to protect existing good water quality, prevent pollution, and clean up and improve areas of poorer or degraded water quality. Nine RMS have been identified to address water quality. 4.2.5.1 Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution RMS Description The goal of the public water systems throughout the state of California is to provide a reliable supply of safe drinking water to the public. Water treatment and distribution are the two key components which provide for delivery of safe, high quality drinking water. Drinking water treatment includes physical, biological, and chemical processes to make water suitable for potable use. Distribution includes storage, pumping, and pipe systems to protect and deliver water to customers. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts Throughout the Bay Area, water agencies strive to provide uniformly high quality water to all customers. Water treatment plants play a key role in insuring high quality water for customer delivery and in managing multiple supply sources with varying source qualities. Bay Area agencies routinely expand and improve their treatment facilities as one strategy in managing overall delivered water quality. Interrelated strategies to protect and improve drinking water supplies include pollution prevention, water quality protection and improvement, groundwater and aquifer remediation, and watershed management. Select examples of Bay Area projects include:  SCVWD Water Treatment Plant Upgrades. SCVWD completed multi-million dollar projects to upgrade two of its three water treatment plants (Penitencia and Santa Teresa), including installation of new chemical facilities, conversion from chlorine to ozone in order to effectively combat taste and odor compounds and reduce the potential for forming THMs, and improved plant recycled water filtering, washing and clarifying systems. The Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project is currently in the design phase with construction scheduled to begin in 2016.  Organic Carbon Removal Technology Testing. Solano CWA received a CALFED grant to test organic carbon removal technologies for drinking water supplies and is working with cities to consider implementation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-31 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.5.2 Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation RMS Description Groundwater contamination can and has resulted from several sources, both naturally occurring, such as arsenic, or manmade, such as leaking underground storage tanks. The groundwater and aquifer remediation strategy employs several approaches to treat and reuse contaminated groundwater either in place or through extraction, treatment, and discharge or reuse. It also involves efforts to limit and contain contamination within an aquifer and clean-up these aquifers so that they may be used for water storage for beneficial use. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few select examples of groundwater and aquifer remediation projects within the Bay Area include:  Alameda County Water District Underground Injection Control Project. ACWD with the USEPA identify aquifer remediation wells within the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin to inject fluids to enhance the remediation of a cleanup site (ACWD, 2012).  San Mateo County Health System Underground Storage Tank Program. This program ensures regulations are followed and inspected as well as to educate business on how to maintain their underground storage tank (San Mateo County, 2012). 4.2.5.3 Matching Water Quality to Use RMS Description Not all water uses require the same quality of water or level of water treatment. Potable water should be reserved for those uses that require potable water standards (e.g., drinking water supplies), while other uses that do not require potable water (industrial, construction, landscape and agricultural irrigation) can use lesser quality or recycled water. Various laws are in place to ensure water quality matches use, including Title 22, Chapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 22). Recycled water can also be treated to a wide range of purities that can be matched to different uses. Under Title 22, DPH has set bacteriological water quality standards on the basis of the expected degree of public contact with recycled water. Title 22 identifies several levels of recycled water based on level of treatment and disinfection, including: Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water; Disinfected Secondary-23 Recycled Water; Disinfected Secondary-2.2 Recycled Water; and Undisinfected Secondary Recycled Water. Title 22 further identifies allowable uses for each of these different levels of recycled water based on the potential impacts to public health. Existing Bay Area Efforts Section 4.2.3.2, Water Recycling, provides numerous examples of recycled water projects in the Bay Area that produce various qualities of recycled water. Below are two examples of projects 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-32 Resource Management Strategies that produce very high quality recycled water for industrial and other uses, as well as one example of on-site wastewater recycling for sanitary uses.  Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. As described under Section 4.2.3.2, this facility is capable of producing high-purity water for blending with tertiary effluent to produce a blended recycled water with low total dissolved solids (total dissolved solids concentrations target is 500 milligrams per liter). By providing high- purity recycled water, the facility will increase the marketability of the water, allowing SCVWD to expand recycled water service to uses with more stringent water quality requirements.  EBMUD Richmond Advanced Recycled Water Expansion Project (RARE). EBMUD’s program demonstrates innovation and achieves real water savings by recycling effluent from West County Wastewater District. Helping to meets its goal of delivering 20 million gallons per day of recycled water by the year 2040, the district completed a water treatment plant that treats secondary effluent from a local wastewater district for use by the Richmond Chevron oil refinery. Using microfiltration and reverse osmosis, the project delivers 3.5 million gallons per day of highly purified water to the refinery, reducing demand for potable water by the same amount. By redirecting flows from the wastewater district, the project will reduce wastewater and pollutant discharges into the San Francisco Bay for part of each year.  525 Golden Gate “Living Machine.” The SFPUC headquarters building at 525 Golden Gate includes a wide array of green building features including several systems that reduce potable water consumption by matching water quality to use. Gray and blackwater generated by the building is treated onsite and re-used to satisfy 100 percent of the water demand for the building’s low-flow toilets and urinals, reducing per person water consumption from 12 gallons to 5 gallons. In addition, building’s rainwater harvesting system can capture and store up to 250,000 gallons of water per year for use in exterior irrigation systems, replacing use of potable water for irrigation. By utilizing these systems, 525 Golden Gate consumes 60 percent less water than similarly sized buildings. 4.2.5.4 Pollution Prevention RMS Description The pollution prevention strategy aims to protect water quality at its source and prevent contamination and degradation. This preserves water quality, reduces the need and cost of other water management and treatment strategies. Pollution prevention efforts throughout a watershed help support beneficial use and reuse of water for a broader number and type of downstream water uses. Improving water quality by protecting source water is consistent with and reinforces a watershed-based approach to water resource management. This RMS is interrelated to strategies for Urban Runoff Management (4.2.4.2), Water Quality Protection and Improvement (4.2.4.3), Wastewater Treatment (4.2.4.9), and Watershed Management and Planning (4.2.6.6.). This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-33 Resource Management Strategies improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Bay Area stormwater managers are undertaking a variety of efforts to reduce pollutants of concern and prevent pollution of local and regional waters. Select efforts from among many being implemented throughout the Bay Region are highlighted below:  Countywide Cleanwater Programs. In many counties in the Bay Area, agencies responsible for stormwater management have joined together to form countywide cleanwater programs aimed at facilitating compliance with regional stormwater regulations, supporting regional stormwater quality efforts and providing public outreach and education regarding stormwater pollution. Examples of countywide programs in the Bay Area include the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Marin County STOPPP, the Napa Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, San Mateo Countywide STOPPP, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.  The Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group. As part of BACWA, this group leverages limited resources to develop and carry out innovative regional pollution prevention projects that help member agencies comply with permit requirements and educate the public regarding pollution prevention practices. 4.2.5.5 Salt and Salinity Management RMS Description Salinity refers to the level of dissolved minerals in the water. With the exception of freshly fallen snow, salt is present to some degree in virtually all natural water supplies as soluble salts in rocks and soil begin to dissolve as soon as water reaches them. While these minerals can be beneficial, higher concentrations of salts can pose problems for various beneficial uses from causing scaling in industrial process, or irrigated crop and landscape vegetation impacts to taste effects in drinking water or even possible health effects. Salt sources are naturally occurring and may affect local surface and groundwater. In addition, water reuse, water softeners, and agricultural irrigation are among the practices that can increase salinity in surface and groundwater. Salt and salinity management contributes to improving water supplies and reducing salt loads through prevention, treatment, disposal, storage and aiming to achieve a sustainable salt balance. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Several Bay Area agencies are pursuing salt management activities within their service areas as well as participating in regional efforts to address salinity management. Some of those efforts are highlighted below. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-34 Resource Management Strategies  Contra Costa Water District Evaluation of Historic Salinity Conditions. The Contra Costa Water District’s report “Historical Fresh Water and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay” provides a review of more than 100 years of studies, monitoring data, scientific reports, and modeling analyses that establish the historical salinity conditions in the Western Delta and Suisun Bay (CCWD, 2009). The report findings provide a historic baseline to inform management approaches, including a better understanding of intrusion, salinity levels, and sources.  Northern California Salinity Coalition (NCSC). NCSC, dedicated to protecting the region’s water supplies from salt contamination, is comprised of eight Bay Area water agencies: ACWD, CCWD, EBMUD, SFPUC, SCVWD, Solano CWA, Sonoma CWA, and Zone 7 Water Agency. The Northern California Salinity Coalition is focusing its efforts in the following areas: seawater desalination, brackish groundwater desalination, salinity increases in groundwater basins and the impact on water supplies, seawater intrusion, control of salinity in wastewater to improve recycling options for irrigation or industrial use, and other related issues. The NCSC has endorsed 26 regional and local salinity related projects. The NCSC has developed the following strategic objectives:  Regional Leadership  Legislative Coordination  Coalition Membership  Education and Outreach  Regulations and Collaboration  Sonoma County Water Agency Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. Sonoma CWA and USGS identified salinity issues in the southern part of the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin. Numeric modeling could be conducted to evaluate data gaps and simulate future conditions. Sonoma CWA has developed a salt and nutrient management plan for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SCWA, 2012a). The approach included a series of workshops to identify sources; develop a draft monitoring plan; assimilate capacity, fate, and transport; anti-degradation analysis; and implementation measures. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-35 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.5.6 Urban Stormwater Runoff Management RMS Description Urban runoff management addresses both stormwater and dry-weather runoff. Dry-weather runoff most commonly results from excess landscape irrigation that flows to the storm drains. A watershed approach to runoff management consists of a series of best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce the pollutant loading and reduce the volumes and velocities of urban runoff discharged to surface waters. These BMPs may include facilities to capture, treat, and recharge groundwater with urban runoff, public education campaigns to inform the public about stormwater pollution, technical assistance and stormwater pollution prevention training. This strategy also includes promotion of low impact development (LID) that minimizes hydromodification within the watershed. Interrelated strategies include RMS for Pollution Prevention, Integrated Flood Management, and Urban Water Use Efficiency. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts  BASMAA Design Guidance Manual. BASMAA has developed a Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection “Start at the Source”, which is intended to assist members16 in efforts to address stormwater management.  Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program. Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District initiated the Urban Runoff Management Program to reduce or eliminate pollutants discharges from urban areas into storm drainages, local creeks, and Suisun Marsh. Key components of the URMP include industrial and commercial inspections, education outreach to schools and the general public, monitoring municipal maintenance activities, and ensuring that local residential and commercial construction sites do not contribute to pollution in our local waterways (FSSD, 2012).  Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Rainwater Harvesting Program. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District offers cash 16 BASMAA members include the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program, Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Sonoma County Water Agency and Vallejo Sanitation District. An interior roof drain discharges to a vegetated swale in Emeryville, CA. This is an example of an “approved alternate location” for stormwater discharge. From SFPUC, 2009. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-36 Resource Management Strategies rebates to residents of the Napa River watershed who install rain gardens and rain barrels/cisterns to treat and capture stormwater.  San Pablo Avenue Green Stormwater Spine. The San Francisco Estuary Partnership initiated this as a pilot project and model for Bay Area municipalities implementing “green” infrastructure projects as part of their stormwater management efforts. The Spine Project will design, build, and monitor an array of LID projects distributed along 12.5 miles of San Pablo Avenue, a major thoroughfare passing through a number of East Bay cities. 4.2.5.7 Water Quality Protection and Improvement RMS Description This strategy is not on DWR’s RMS list but has been retained by the Bay Area CC. This strategy focuses on efforts to protect water quality throughout all stages of its life cycle. Water protection must start at the source, whether that is a remote or local watershed or a groundwater basin. Source to tap protection should be provided, preserving the quality of water supplies as they are transported to the end users. In addition, protecting and restoring ecosystems associated with receiving waters will also enhance water quality since water quality is not only a function of the pollutants in the water body, but also the ability of that water body to sustain aquatic life across the food web. Interrelated strategies include RMS for Pollution Prevention, Urban Runoff Management, Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution, Ecosystem Restoration, Agricultural Lands Stewardship, Watershed Management and Planning, and Salt and Salinity Management. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts The examples listed above under the Pollution Prevention RMS (Countywide Cleanwater Programs and the Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group) also have elements that address this RMS. A few additional examples focused on protecting water quality at its source include:  CCWD Middle River Intake. CCWD seeks to protect drinking water supplies from degrading and variable Delta water quality. This project relocates the drinking water intake further east in the Delta, allowing for diversion of higher quality water.  Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership. Lake Berryessa provides drinking water for nearly 500,000 people and provides year-round recreation opportunities for more than a million people each year. Lake Berryessa water also serves farmers and businesses downstream. Solano County Water Agency participates in this voluntary program facilitated by the Solano Resource Conservation District along with many other local and regional agencies and other stakeholder groups. The program works to educate boaters, campers, day visitors and other lake users about the importance of water quality and good personal stewardship practices.  Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan. This plan was used to develop strategies and methods to protect groundwater quality and to manage 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-37 Resource Management Strategies groundwater supply reliability. Strategies related to water quality protection in the plan include minimizing salt water intrusion, and working with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge and prevent groundwater contamination. An example of a specific program from the plan that is underway to protect groundwater quality is the SCVWD Well Ordinance Program. Under this program, SCVWD permits and inspects well construction, maintenance and destruction to ensure that these activities will not allow transport of contaminants into drinking water aquifers.  Solano CWA Land Use BMP Program. High dissolved oxygen content and turbidity concentrations in SWP water from the NBA encourage blue-green algae during winter months, which affect water taste and odor. Solano CWA is implementing land use BMPs in the watershed to reduce organic carbon and turbidity loading, and encouraging upper watershed protection and grazing practices (Solano County Water Agency, 2010).  Tuolumne River Watershed Protection. The SFPUC has formed partnerships with the National Park Service, the California Department of Forestry, and several other agencies to protect the Tuolumne River watershed, which is the source water for the SFPUC’s drinking water supply to over 2.5 million people in the Bay Area. The effort includes detailed monitoring of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir conditions, water turbidity levels, microbial contaminants, and aqueduct disinfection levels, as well as visual inspections, research on land uses within the watershed, and meeting with other agencies and stakeholders to discuss watershed activities and promote awareness of water quality issues.  Ettie Street Pump Station Urban Runoff Diversion to EBMUD. Since 2017, EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) accepts and treats up to 0.5 MGD of urban runoff flow captured during dry weather at the Ettie Street Pump Station owned by the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. This project provides a significant environmental benefit by treating the pollutant-laden flows which were previously directly discharged to the San Francisco Bay. 4.2.5.8 Monitoring and Modeling RMS Description Monitoring and modeling projects track and predict water quantity and quality affecting water supplies, and local watershed conditions. Water quality monitoring measures source water protection and stormwater pollution reduction strategies. Watershed modeling projects address surface runoff and channel flows, sediment loading and transport, and flood management. While monitoring and modeling are often an element of implementing other RMS strategies, the Bay Area CC also elected to retain this as a separate strategy. The Bay Area has implemented some important regional and subregional monitoring programs that help inform the development and implementation of actions under other RMS. These modeling and monitoring programs, in some cases stand-alone efforts, provide valuable input for project development and feedback on project effectiveness. These types of efforts will also play an increasingly important role in climate adaptation response to support adaptive management strategies that rely on routine continual monitoring and adjustments as needed. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-38 Resource Management Strategies This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goal: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of the great number of monitoring and modeling projects and programs in the Bay Area include:  Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Alameda County has developed a Multi- year Monitoring Plan to manage urban stormwater and protect natural aquatic resources of Alameda County and San Francisco Bay (ACCWP, 2003).  BACWA Annual Monitoring. BACWA works to ensure that water quality information is fully utilized to promote the health and needed protection of the San Francisco Bay. BACWA supports its public utility members— the clean water agencies of the San Francisco Bay region—to promote understanding of the water quality needs and requirements of the region and to make water quality protection and enhancement a priority in regional communities.  BASMAA Regional Monitoring Strategy and the Regional Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (RWQCB, 1999). BASMAA cooperated with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to adopt the Regional Monitoring Strategy. The Regional Board’s most recent conceptual strategy is based on the design of its Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program efforts and uses several categories depending on the spatial extent, type of pollutant or stressor and level of detail and data quality required. Participants are involved in the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary. The Regional Monitoring Program performs regular Status and Trends monitoring throughout the Bay, and also sponsors special studies to strategically address specific water quality problems and information gaps.  Estimating Tidal and Residual Circulation in San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The objective of this project is to determine the magnitude and location of variations in hydrodynamics (water currents and salinity) within San Francisco Bay which result from changes in freshwater inflows from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, to measure tidal flows in the Delta, and to distinguish between natural variations of flow and variations of flow caused by state and federal water projects.  Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Modeling. SCVWD’s groundwater management program includes development and implementation of groundwater modeling to support operational decisions and long-term planning. SCVWD has developed calibrated flow models for the Santa Clara, Coyote Valley, and Llagas subbasins, which are used to evaluate groundwater storage and levels under various operational and hydrologic conditions. Maintaining calibrated models that can be used to forecast groundwater conditions is a critical part of SCVWD’s groundwater management strategy.  San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). This program, managed by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, monitors contamination in the SF Bay-Delta Estuary, including pilot efforts in its watersheds. It has a world-class dataset on estuarine contaminants providing long-term trends through sampling of water, sediment, bivalves, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-39 Resource Management Strategies bird eggs, and fish. Data collected under this program are combined with data from other sources to provide for comprehensive assessment of chemical contamination in the Bay. In 2011, 17 high priority watersheds were identified for stormwater sampling to meet the new requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for additional information on the loads of sediment and contaminants. 4.2.5.9 Wastewater Treatment RMS Description Wastewater treatment is not on DWR’s RMS list but the Bay Area CC decided to retain this as a separate strategy, distinct from the broader Water Quality Protection and Improvement RMS because of the substantial role that these treatment plants play in managing water quality. Wastewater treatment plays important roles in protecting public health and environmental resources within the Bay Area. Regulatory requirements for treated water quality are becoming more stringent and many Bay Area agencies are turning to innovative treatment technologies to help maintain regulatory compliance and protect the health of end users. Several Bay Area wastewater entities are upgrading to tertiary treatment in order to maximize recycled water opportunities and provide additional protection to receiving water bodies. For most of the nine Bay Area counties, residential wastewater, consisting of all waste flushed or washed down sinks and drains of residences and commercial establishments, is collected in sewers and flows to secondary or advanced wastewater treatment facilities across the Bay Area. Much of the industrial wastewater produced throughout the region, following pretreatment, is also discharged to publicly owned sewers and subsequently transported to these treatment plants. Harmful pollutants such as bacteria, suspended solids, heavy metals, and toxic chemicals are removed, and treated effluent is discharged to the Bay. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of continual investment in Bay Area wastewater treatment facilities and capabilities include:  EBMUD Integrated Master Plan for Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP). The EBMUD MWWTP was originally constructed in 1951. Despite the addition of new treatment processes and completion of major capital improvements since that time; aging infrastructure, along with increasingly stringent water quality and environmental regulations have made it necessary to identify options for maintaining and enhancing the wastewater treatment facilities in the future. Currently, EBMUD is developing an Integrated Master Plan for its MWWTP. The development of this integrated master plan 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-40 Resource Management Strategies will consider all the competing priorities of aging infrastructure needs, seismic vulnerabilities, regulatory changes, service area growth, Resource Recovery (R2) Program strategies, climate change impacts, recycled water needs, and operational improvements for the MWWTP as well as recommendations for future improvements.  San José/Santa Clara WPCP Master Plan. The San José/Santa Clara W ater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) is the largest advanced wastewater treatment facility in the western United States, with a permitted average dry weather flow of 167 mgd. The WPCP is facing many of the same issues as other wastewater plants in the Bay Area: aging infrastructure, anticipated changes in water quality regulations and sea level rise. The WPCP is located on a 2,680-acre site that includes biosolids lagoons, drying beds and bufferlands between Plant operations and neighboring land uses, including an 850-acre former salt pond and the lower reach Coyote Creek. The Plant Master Plan identifies projects needed to address aging infrastructure, reduce odors, accommodate projected population growth in the Plant’s service area, add nutrient removal, enhance filtration and disinfection capabilities, and promote restoration and resource recovery; and develops a land use plan for the entire site.  Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan and Primary Treatment Facility Design. The City of Sunnyvale has initiated a master planning process to renovate its existing Water Pollution Control Plant, which currently has an average dry weather flow rate of 14 mgd. The Plant was originally constructed in 1950 and is in need of rehabilitation to address critical aging infrastructure. The master plan will include overall rehabilitation as well as new processes and facilities for some portions of the existing Plant. The project also includes design and construction of a new primary treatment facility.  San Francisco Public Utilities Program Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP). This multi-billion dollar program will upgrade San Francisco’s sewer system to address aging infrastructure, seismic vulnerability and climate change impacts. The SFPUC has developed a series of goals and levels of service to guide improvements at all three of the City’s wastewater treatment plants and systems throughout the City. Phase 1 of the SSIP consists of critical repairs to solids processing and energy recovery facilities, as well as construction of green infrastructure projects. Phase II of the SSIP will consist of upgrades to additional facilities, including seismic and system reliability upgrades to pump stations and treatment facilities, as well as green infrastructure projects.  Napa Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. The Master Plan, competed in April 2011, was prepared to determine the capacity of existing facilities, estimate future wastewater loads and regulatory impacts and develop a recommended plan for upgrading existing facilities to optimize operation and expand capacity of the EBMUD's Main Wastewater Treatment Plant 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-41 Resource Management Strategies wastewater treatment plant. The recommended project developed by the master plan would expand existing WWTP facilities to increase treatment capacity, satisfy regulatory requirements and produce up to 12 mgd of recycled water. The master plan also developed three projects that could be implemented in the future to increase recycled water production, address changing effluent ammonia concentration regulations, and enhance the WWTP’s maintenance facilities. 4.2.6 Strategies to Practice Resource Stewardship 4.2.6.1 Agricultural Lands Stewardship RMS Description In the draft CWP Update 2013 DWR describes agricultural land stewardship as broadly meaning the conservation of natural resources and protection of the environment. Land managers practice stewardship by conserving and improving land for food, fiber and biofuels production, watershed functions, soil, air, energy, plant and animal and other conservation purposes. Agricultural land stewardship also protects open space and the traditional characteristics of rural communities, as well as open space within urban areas. Moreover, support for public benefits from stewardship activities helps landowners maintain their farms and ranches rather than being forced to sell their land because of pressure from urban development. Agricultural lands will increasingly be relied on for flood management and water storage and conservation, as well as to provide critical habitat at key locations and sequester carbon, while maintaining ongoing primary productivity of food and fiber. Agricultural lands stewardship includes the following practices and strategies:  Croplands management to reduce streambank erosion or stormwater runoff  Assistance in identifying suitable crops and management of them  Technical help on wildlife-friendly farming techniques for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem  Cover soil, water, and habitat conservation planning Agricultural land stewardship has been practiced and encouraged by California Department of Conservation’s programs, local RCDs, the US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, and various non-governmental entities for many years. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Although it is not practical to list every existing agricultural lands stewardship project within the region, a few select examples are noted below.  Marin County Pine Gulch Creek Watershed Enhancement Project. Pine Gulch Creek Watershed Enhancement Project located in Marin was a voluntary cooperative effort on the part of the local farmers. The project modified existing water operations to support sustainable agriculture and enhance aquatic habitat supporting coho salmon and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-42 Resource Management Strategies steelhead trout. The project included irrigation diversion, limited riparian withdrawals and storage that would accommodate water needs for the growing season between July and December (California Coastal Conservancy, 2012).  Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project. The Rutherford Reach Restoration Project is a voluntary cooperative project initiated by the Rutherford Dust Society and agricultural landowners in 2002 with a goal of restoring a 4.5-mile reach of the Napa River. The project is a public-private partnership being led by Napa County and involving several additional public agencies and 25 riverside property owners, many of whom have dedicated productive agricultural lands to expand the riparian forest by 18 acres along the Napa River. The project improves water quality, enhances wildlife habitat, and attenuates flood waters. Similar efforts are being planned for an additional 9-mile reach of the Napa River through the cooperative efforts of Napa County and private agricultural landowners.  Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County. The Natural Resources Trust has conserved approximately 3,000 acres of land in Contra Costa County. The Trust lands include Clayton Ranch, Roddy Ranch, Fuss Property, and Vaquero Farms. In addition to managing these properties the trust collaborates with willing landowners interested in seeing their land protected in perpetuity (Natural Resources Trust, 2012).  Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Stewardship Program manages easement properties and protects and manages District-owned agricultural land. Management practices include: building and maintaining constructive relationships with easement landowners; maintaining a clear understanding of the condition of our easement sites through periodic monitoring visits; documenting features of the land through photographs, written reports and maps; enforcing conservation easements if the need arises; and protecting the conservation values of the property (Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District, 2012). 4.2.6.2 Ecosystem Restoration RMS Description Ecosystem restoration seeks to repair past damage to ecosystem processes and functions and improve the condition of our modified natural landscapes and biological resources to provide for their resilience and sustainability. Under this strategy efforts are focused on rehabilitation of important elements of ecosystem structure and function. Enabling the return of the physical and biological processes that shape the landscape can be instrumental in improving upland, wetland, and riparian habitat conditions and restoring watershed function. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-43 Resource Management Strategies Successful restoration increases the diversity of native species and biological communities and the abundance of habitats and connections between them. This can include rehabilitating upland areas, reproducing natural flows in streams and rivers, curtailing the discharge of waste and toxic contaminants into water bodies, controlling non-native invasive plant and animal species, restoring riparian canopy cover, removing barriers to fish migration in rivers and streams, and recovering wetlands so that they can store floodwater, recharge aquifers, filter pollutants, and provide habitat. Restoration of aquatic, riparian and floodplain ecosystems is important because these systems are directly affected by water and flood management actions, and are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Further, these habitats will play an important role in responding to the effects of climate change related to sea level rise and changes in precipitation runoff patterns that are predicted to result in more frequent and larger flood events. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Ecosystem restoration is occurring throughout the Bay Area. In 1999, in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals scientists determined that 100,000 acres of tidal wetlands is necessary for a healthy and sustainable Bay, from the 44,000 acres of healthy tidal marsh that existed at the time. Approximately 32,000 acres of restorable shoreline areas have been acquired and are in the process of being restored. The Bay Area continues to work towards protection of an additional 24,000 acres of restorable wetlands (Save the Bay, 2012). Similarly, the San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project released a report in 2011 which identifies types, amount and distribution of upland habitats within the Bay Area and identifies research needs as well as management approaches to protect and restore Bay Area habitats. A few selected examples of specific restoration efforts are noted below.  The Peralta Creek Restoration Project. The project converted a flood channel back into natural habitat providing flood protection and creating a sustainable wildlife habitat. Alameda County Public Works Agency received the 2009 American Public Works Association Environmental Project of the Year and the 2009 Association of Bay Area Governments Growing Smarter - Preserving and Protecting the Environment Award for the Peralta Creek Restoration Project (Alameda County Sustainability, 2012).  Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan). The Habitat Plan was developed in association with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California The South Bay Salt Ponds project aims to restore 15,100 acres of former salt ponds to tidal wetlands. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-44 Resource Management Strategies Department of Fish and Wildlife, in consultation with stakeholder groups and the general public. The purpose of the Habitat Plan is to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in specific areas of Santa Clara County and to contribute to the recovery of endangered species. The Habitat Plan evaluates natural-resource impacts and mitigation requirements comprehensively in a way that is more efficient and effective for sensitive species and habitats and provides a mechanism to streamline permitting for development and maintenance activities. The Habitat Plan allows the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San José to receive endangered- species permits for activities and projects they conduct and those under their jurisdiction.  Sonoma Baylands and Sears Point. The Sonoma Baylands Wetland Demonstration Project (Sonoma Baylands) is located on 348 acres of formerly diked farmland. The design approach for Sonoma Baylands was to create the appropriate conditions whereby a marsh would evolve in response to natural processes occurring at the site. The adjacent 2,327-acre Sears Point was acquired in 2005 to restore tidal, seasonal, and riparian wetlands, streams, and upland habitats for a wide range of native plants and animals, to protect open space, and to develop public access and educational opportunities, including extending the San Francisco Bay Trail.  South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. The largest wetland restoration project on the West Coast, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is a multi-agency effort to restore 15,100 acres of salt production ponds to tidal wetlands ecosystem. The goals of the program are ecosystem and habitat restoration, public access and flood management for the South Bay (SCVWD, 2011). See Chapter 13 (Section 13.2.1.4) for a detailed description of the project.  Yosemite Slough Wetlands Restoration, Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. This project has allowed youth in the surrounding area to become involved with the restoration effort. The project has not only involved the community, but offered an example of tidal marsh restoration in an urbanized watershed, and improved stormwater quality. Upon completion of the project it would result in more transitional habitat, and a reduction in invasive plants. This unique project would be the largest contiguous wetland area in the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2012). 4.2.6.3 Land Use Planning and Management RMS Description Integrating land use and water management involves planning for the housing and economic development needs of a growing population while providing for the efficient use of water, water quality, energy and other resources and for the effective protection and sustainable management of natural resources. Land use policy and planning is one of the most effective methods of reducing hydrologic and ecologic impacts associated with detrimental changes in land cover. Land use planning can improve the siting of potential developments to reduce adverse impacts. Planning projects can restore floodplain connectivity, protect stream buffers, reduce urban stormwater pollution, and enhance habitats. Land use policies and ordinances can also reduce flood hazards and damages, as well as result in water conservation as human use 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-45 Resource Management Strategies and irrigation demands are reduced. Land use planning and policy activities may include the following actions:  Development of water and/or watershed elements for local city or county general plan updates;  Adoption of policies linking land use, water demands, and watershed protection;  Development of creek setback ordinances to protect riparian corridors for wildlife habitat and flood protection;  Development of stream corridor enhancement measures for use during recreation and trails design  Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to address post-development peak discharge rate, volume, and pollutant loadings to receiving waters.  Mandatory recycled water use ordinances This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of this resource management strategy include:  Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program is effort between local government and the community, working together to protect creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. Member agencies include several cities and water agencies throughout Alameda County (Alameda County Sustainability, 2012).  ABAG-MTC Joint Policy Committee and Plan Bay Area. Under the coordination of the Joint Policy Committee, ABAG and MTC, in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC, are leading an initiative, “OneBayArea,” to coordinate efforts among the region’s counties and cities to “create a more sustainable future”. A major effort of OneBayArea is the development of Plan Bay Area: the region’s long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation, and housing. Refer to Section 13.1.1.2 in Chapter 13, Relationship to Local Land Use Planning for more detail on these efforts.  Focusing Our Vision. A state supported regional planning initiative to develop a vision for housing the projected population of the Bay Area (8.75 million people by 2030) while protecting the character and uniqueness of the region. Unlike prior attempts to develop regional growth solutions, this project was organized from the start around the precept that widespread support was essential. In addition to a high level of commitment from the private sector and local and regional government agencies, the involvement of local communities is a key ingredient. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-46 Resource Management Strategies  Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management and Enhancement Project. The Southern Sonoma RCD, the Coastal Conservancy, and the Sonoma County Water Agency are undertaking the Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management and Enhancement Project to address flooding issues in the Schellville Area. The greatest flood hazard reduction opportunities identified involved the conversion of existing land uses and runoff reduction in the watershed. Significant opportunities for tidal wetland restoration and sea level rise adaptation were also identified, including opportunities on lands that are presently flood- prone. Having substantial undeveloped and agricultural lands and lands already committed for habitat purposes, Lower Sonoma Creek offers tremendous potential for the creation of a large, contiguous habitat corridor in a tidal zone where adaptation to rising sea levels will be dictating significant change in the years to come.  Regional Open Space Visioning Task Force. Sponsored by the Bay Area Open Space Council and Greenbelt Alliance, this task force is evaluating regional data and land use policies, creating maps, and developing strategies for how to fully protect 2 million acres in the Bay Area. The goal is to protect 1 million of these acres through land use policy and programs. 4.2.6.4 Recharge Areas Protection RMS Description Recharge areas are those areas that provide the primary means of replenishing groundwater. Natural recharge occurs where surface water is able to percolate through the sediment into the underlying aquifer areas containing the groundwater. This strategy focuses on protecting these groundwater recharge areas from being paved over or otherwise developed or used in a manner that would interfere with groundwater recharge. It also includes protecting these areas from contamination to protect groundwater quality. Efforts include both physical protection of these areas as well as education to insure that the public and private land owners and managers protect these areas. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of agencies that manage groundwater recharge areas throughout the Bay Area region include:  Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Santa Clara Valley Water District maintains and operates 18 recharge systems. The District’s recharge program uses both in-stream and off-stream facilities for their efforts. To protect recharge areas, the District reviews land use plans and encourages the preservation of natural infiltration and reduction of imperious surfaces in recharge areas, conducts vulnerability studies to assess the vulnerability of groundwater to different land uses, assisting with drinking water source assessments, reviews land use plans to identify threats to groundwater, and works with local agencies on guidelines and model ordinances for such issues as graywater systems (SCVWD, 2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-47 Resource Management Strategies  Solano County Ground Water Management Plan. Several agencies overlying the groundwater basin in Solano County established a groundwater management plan. In addition to the plans the Solano County Water Agency prepares biannual reports on the groundwater levels for the area (Solano County Water Agency, 2012).  Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program and Plan. The plan was adopted in 2007 by the Sonoma County Water Agency, City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, and the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SCWA, 2012b). In Fall 2010, Sonoma CWA initiated watershed scoping studies for flood control and groundwater recharge projects in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Sonoma Valley watersheds. The goal of the studies is to evaluate the feasibility of implementing multi-benefit projects that will provide stormwater detention and groundwater recharge, while maximizing opportunities for flood control, water quality enhancement, and potential open space benefits. 4.2.6.5 Sediment Management RMS Description Sediment moving across the landscape is an essential watershed process. Within our modified watersheds and developed landscapes, sediment management remains critical, beginning with the headwaters and continuing into the coastal shores; it is integral to managing surface water systems for water supply, ecosystem health, flood management and public access and enjoyment. This strategy involves projects and actions that work to preserve natural sediment processes, reduce nuisance sediment loads, and add sediment to sediment-depleted systems. The Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region has identified categories as generally appropriate for beneficial reuse of dredged materials as including tidal wetland restoration, landfill cover, levee rehabilitation, beach nourishment, etc. Agencies such as the San Francisco BCDC and organizations such the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture are currently developing management tools to facilitate beneficial reuse of sediment for wetlands restoration projects. Sediment management is often integrated into broader actions under resource management strategies for watershed management, environmental and habitat protection and improvement, restoration and integrated flood management. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Relevant examples of sediment management actions being implemented in the Bay Area region are summarized above under the Integrated Flood Management RMS. Additional examples include:  Local ordinances in Sonoma and Napa Counties require development and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans for a variety of agricultural developments to protect water quality and soil health. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-48 Resource Management Strategies  Marin County’s Devil’s Gulch Culvert Modification that involved removing two degraded culverts, bank armoring and revegetation to decrease erosion and stream sedimentation, decrease road density, improve fish passage, increase native plant species composition, and increase shading.  Flood Control 2.0 (San Francisco Estuary Partnership) is a grant funded project to improve flood control channel design to restore wetland habitat, water quality, and shoreline resilience at three creek mouths- San Francisquito, Lower Novato, and Lower Walnut creeks. The redesign takes sediment clogging local flood control channels and redistributes it in areas where wetlands can be restored.  San Francisco Littoral Cell Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan. This effort is being led by the California Sediment Management Workgroup, a collaborative effort by federal and state agencies chaired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Natural Resources Agency, in partnership with ABAG and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. The objective of the plan is to assist coastal government entities, municipalities, stakeholders, and communities in developing strategies for beneficial reuse of sediments to address coastal erosion and storm damage. The Plan will provide sufficient information for local and regional coastal decision makers to develop policies and execute management sub-plans for the future vitality of beaches and shoreline areas throughout the littoral cell.  Implementing Sonoma Creek and Napa River Sediment TMDLs. Local entities are implementing practice based on sediment TMDLs in both watersheds to improve water quality and enhance aquatic habitat by reducing excess erosion and sedimentation caused by a wide range of activities including roads, agriculture and stream bank failure. 4.2.6.6 Watershed Management RMS Description The primary objective of Watershed Management is to increase and sustain a watershed’s functions and its ability to provide for the diverse needs of the communities. The watershed is an appropriate and effective scale at which to coordinate and integrate management of numerous physical, chemical and biological processes that make up a drainage basin ecosystem. Using a watershed approach is beneficial because it addresses problem-solving in a holistic manner with all appropriate stakeholders actively involved. Watershed Management and Planning necessarily involves evaluation of existing watershed conditions, identification of issues and opportunities, and development of strategies, policies, and projects that contribute to healthy watershed functioning. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts In the Bay Area, many local watersheds have created (or are proposing to create) watershed plans to balance water supply, wastewater treatment, flood management, and habitat protection 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-49 Resource Management Strategies needs. Watershed management contributes to coordinated protection, restoration, and improvement of hydrologic, geomorphic, and biologic functions of the San Francisco Bay drainage basin. There are a large number of Watershed Management and Planning projects and programs underway throughout the Bay Area. A few select examples are listed below. • EBMUD Watershed Improvement and Protection Program. EBMUD’s 1996 East Bay Watershed Master Plan included development and implementation of a range management program, which won the Association of California Water Agencies’ Theodore Roosevelt Environmental Award. The Plan was updated in 2018 and continues to provide clear guidance regarding the sustainable management of East Bay watershed lands. • Marin County Watersheds Program. The Watershed Program began in spring 2008, is staffed by the County Flood Control division and is supported by a grant from DWR. The Program focuses on watersheds within County flood zones areas that have support and agreement from City councils and local agencies. Watershed planning efforts are under way in Ross Valley and San Geronimo Valley. The Program develops frameworks to integrate flood protection, creek and wetland restoration, fish passage and water quality improvements with public and private partners to protect and enhance Marin’s watersheds. Watershed master plans are also in process in Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio and Coyote Creek (Mill Valley) and planning is underway in Easkoot Creek (Stinson Beach), Novato, Gallinas and Miller Creek watersheds. Ballot measures would be considered to generate funds to construct the identified improvements (Marin County DPW, 2012). • Napa County Watershed Management Plans. The Napa County RCD works with land managers and other interested stakeholders to develop management plans for local watersheds. Plans have been developed for the Carneros Creek, Sulphur Creek, and Dry Creek watersheds. Management plans provide an assessment of watershed conditions, the natural resource goals of land managers, and best management practices to achieve conservation goals. The RCD works with individuals and groups of land managers in each of the watersheds to implement priority projects such as fish barrier removal, riparian restoration, and sediment source reduction projects. • Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plan. The Pilarcitos watershed in San Mateo County drains 28 square miles, including old-growth forests, farm land and the City of Half Moon Bay. In addition to providing water supply to the City of San Francisco, rural San Mateo County and the City of Half Moon Bay, the watershed supports several threatened species, including steelhead trout. Loss of habitat from channelization, water diversions, sedimentation, non-native vegetation and fish passage barriers, has resulted in a strains on steelhead and other species. An Integrated Watershed Management Plan was developed to address steps to restore the watershed and protect and recover steelhead trout and other native species. Other goals of the IWMP included developing cost-effective water supply and water recycling projects, restoring stream channels, removing and controlling non-native vegetation and ensuring water quality for both human and biotic uses. (San Mateo County Resources Conservation District, 2008). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-50 Resource Management Strategies • SFPUC Peninsula and Alameda Watershed Management Plans. The SFPUC developed the comprehensive management plans for the Peninsula and Alameda Watersheds in an effort to provide the optimal environment for the production, collection, and storage of the highest quality water for the City and County of San Francisco and suburban customers. The management plans were designed to protect water quality and the broad assemblage of the watershed’s natural and cultural resources, while balancing concerns for public access and revenue generation. Primary issues included impacts of grazing on natural resources, control of invasive vegetation and fire hazards, and protection of special status species. • San Mateo County – San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan. State and federal agencies assisted in the development of this plan. This project’s purpose is to direct future planning and restoration implementation in the watershed (Natural Heritage Institute San Gregorio, 2010). • Santa Clara Basin WMI Action Plan. Santa Clara Basin WMI developed the Action Plan. The Action Plan includes strategic objectives that incorporate watershed management into general plans, encourage drainage systems that detain and retain runoff, advocates integrates planning process for floodplains and riparian corridors across cities and counties general plans, encourages expanding the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, develops integrated, multi-objective planning and adaptive management, and encourages development of TMDLs and water quality assessments. • Sonoma County – Upper Mark West Watershed Management Plan. The Sotoyome RCD developed this Plan to provide tools, resources and guidance for stakeholders to protect the natural environment in the upper Mark West Creek watershed. The plan includes efforts to restore and enhance altered landscapes, and to steward the land in perpetuity (Sotoyome RCD, 2008). 4.2.6.7 Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement RMS Description This strategy, retained by the Bay Area CC from the 2006 plan, seeks to protect, preserve and restore important wildlife habitat and ecosystem functions. This strategy emphasizes protecting important remaining open space lands to preserve existing environmental and habitat values and protect these areas from impact. Conservation easements, strategic acquisitions and other protections of watershed lands are important mechanisms to implement this strategy. From an integrated water resource management perspective, protection of headwaters and sensitive habitats can reduce pollutant loading and improve water quality by reducing stormwater flows into local drinking water reservoirs. Protection of watershed lands also conserves habitat The San Mateo County RCD developed the Pilarcitos Creek Watershed Management Plan as an integrated approach to drinking water quality and sensitive species protection. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-51 Resource Management Strategies linkages for wildlife and avian species dependent on wetlands and water bodies. Watershed improvement is also part of this strategy and includes land management strategies such as invasive species control, erosion control, and vegetation management that enhance and preserve habitat and environmental benefits. Related strategies include the Ecosystem Restoration RMS and the Watershed Management and Planning RMS. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Numerous public and non-governmental organizations are actively planning and implementing projects that protect watershed lands through acquisition of easements and fee title. Protected Bay Area lands increased by 27 percent between 2000, from 794,000 acres to 1,007,200 acres in 2005.17 Protected lands are tracked by the Bay Area Open Space Council and Greenbelt Alliance and can be found at www.bayarealands.org. Acquisition programs take a large range of forms, via federal and state agencies and funding programs (USFWS, EPA, National Park Service, California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board), cities and counties, local public districts (Resource Conservation Districts, Water Agencies, Open Space Districts, Park Districts), and private land trusts (Sonoma Land Trust, Peninsula Open Space Trust, Marin Agricultural Land Trust, Land Trust of Napa County, Save Mt. Diablo, Save the Redwoods League, Sempervirens Fund, etc.). Many examples of this strategy’s implementation include cooperative efforts between entities, such as the Solano Land Trust and California Coastal Conservancy, with a grant from the Wildlife Conservation Board, to acquire approximately 1,165 acres of land north of Cordelia Junction, to protect significant natural landscapes and wildlife corridors (CDFG, 2012). Various examples of habitat protection and improvement are list below under the Ecosystem Restoration RMS and Watershed Management and Planning RMS. 4.2.7 Strategies Related to People and Water 4.2.7.1 Economic Incentives RMS Description Economic incentives include financial assistance and pricing policies intended to influence water resource management. Economic incentive mechanisms can include low-interest loans, grants, pricing of water, sewer, flood protection services, and tax rebates. Government financial assistance can provide incentives for integrated resource plans by regional and local agencies and help water agencies make subsides available to their water users for a specific purpose. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. 17 Greenbelt Alliance: Protected Lands Data Base. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-52 Resource Management Strategies Existing Bay Area Efforts In addition to the water conservation efforts described in Section 4.2.1.2, a few examples of economic incentives programs influencing water resources management throughout the Bay Area region include:  Water Conservation Incentives Programs. Many water agencies in the Bay Area utilize financial incentives (e.g., rebates, grant programs, or subsidies) to encourage conservation measures such as turfgrass replacement, ultra low-flush toilets, high efficiency appliance retrofits, rainwater harvesting, and irrigation audits.  Measure B, SCVWD’s Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection special tax. Measure B, passed in November 2012 in Santa Clara County, offers a continuation of the prior Clean Safe Creeks program. The measure establishes 15 years of funding for five priorities and several projects that use grants and partnerships as a means to achieve identified goals and objectives. These grants and partnerships include opportunities to prevent and remove contaminants in surface and groundwater; provide outreach, education and support of creekside clean-ups; enhance creek and bay ecosystems, study and pilot test new water conservation programs, provide drinking water dispensers for students, and remove excess nitrate from drinking water. Funding from these projects supports the community and includes substantial outreach to local municipalities, non-profits, and schools.  EBMUD Recycled Water Pricing. EBMUD uses a variety of economic incentives to encourage use of recycled water. EBMUD’s primary incentives are in the form of subsidized costs and reduced rates for recycled water. For example, EBMUD offers new recycled water customers a 20 percent volumetric rate discount for recycled water as compared to potable water rates. EBMUD also funds cost-effective site retrofits and training for existing potable water customers to accommodate recycled water use. 4.2.7.2 Outreach and Education RMS Description This strategy reflects the importance of outreach and education to increase awareness, influence behavior, build support, and affect public and stakeholder actions related to watershed management, water and natural resource protection, conservation and stewardship. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Many of the programs and projects highlighted throughout this chapter under the other resource management strategies involve a notable outreach and education component. See in particular, examples described under water quality protection and improvement, watershed management and planning, land use planning, agricultural stewardship and water use efficiency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-53 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.7.3 Regional Cooperation RMS Description This strategy, retained by the Bay Area CC from the 2006 Plan, recognizes the importance and benefit of regional coordination in effective integrated water management. This strategy includes the development and continuation of regional forums to plan and implement effective integrated water resource management programs. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A variety of cooperative regional planning efforts, coalitions and forums, in addition to this IRWMP, are currently being undertaken by Bay Area agencies. These include the following:  Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA)  BAFPAA  Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)  Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC)  Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)  ABAG  San Francisco Bay Joint Venture (SFJV)  Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium (BAECCC)  Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN)  California Association of RCDs (CARCD) Bay-Delta and Central Coast Regions, including RCDs in the Bay Area counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo.  North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA)  North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA)  Northern California Salinity Coalition (NCSC)  San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-54 Resource Management Strategies As a regional planning effort, all of the proposed IRWM projects and programs will employ Regional Cooperation as a water management strategy. 4.2.7.4 Recreation and Public Access RMS Description This strategy recognizes that construction and maintenance of public trails and other public access points along water bodies can increase social enjoyment, awareness and investment in protection of water resources. Interpretive signage, facilities, and trails within watersheds and along water bodies, provide the opportunity to educate people about the water resources and management needs. Access to watersheds and water bodies increases the public’s connection to and awareness and appreciation of water resources. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goal: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability. Existing Bay Area Efforts The Bay Area region enjoys substantial open space resources that provide public access and recreation opportunities within the regions watersheds. There are numerous public trail systems and interpretive facilities, numerous county and city-wide trail master plans, and the following regional efforts:  San Francisco Bay Trail. The project seeks to complete development of a 500-mile long hiking and bicycling trail that encircles the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, connects to parks, and links to transportation facilities.  Bay Area Ridge Trail. Project that aims to complete a second 500-mile trail ring around the Bay Area region along the ridgeline; when completed this will include many trails across protected watershed areas.  San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail. The Water Trail program is an ongoing effort led by the Coastal Conservancy, ABAG, BCDC and the Department of Boating and Waterways to create a network of launch and landing sites, for human-powered boats and beachable sail craft access San Francisco Bay. This trail links the nine Bay Area counties and also joins to three other regional trail systems.  California Coastal Trail. The California Coastal Trail, which was initiated by Proposition 20 in 1972, is a network of public trials that run along California’s coastline. The trail passes through Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Several individual open space districts throughout the Bay Area partner with these regional efforts and also work to provide additional public access and recreation opportunities in their local communities. In addition, several local organizations have provided funding to prevent certain state parks in the Bay Area from being closed to public use due to state budget cuts. For example, the Sempervirens Fund, a non-profit group in Los Altos, provided funding to keep Castle Rock State Park open and the Coe Park Preservation Fund, another nonprofit group, provided funding to keep Henry W. Coe State Park open. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-55 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.7.5 Water-dependent Recreation RMS Description Water-dependent recreation includes a wide variety of outdoor activities that occur on or in the water, such as swimming, boating, fishing and rafting. This also includes activities that are enhanced by water features but do not require actual use of water, such as hiking, birding or other wildlife viewing, camping and picnicking. This strategy focuses on development and maintenance of water-dependent recreation access and opportunities within the Bay Area. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of water dependent recreation projects and programs underway throughout the Bay Area region include the following:  Alameda Creek Regional Trail. This 12 mile multi-use trail in southern Alameda County provides access to Coyote Hills Regional Park (EBRPD, 2012a).  Contra Loma Resource Management Plan. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a Resource Management Plan to guide the future land and water resources management of the Contra Loma Reservoir and Recreation Area (EBRPD, 2012c). Contra Loma Reservoir offers boating, fishing and swimming.  Crystal Springs Regional Trail. This planned 17.5 mile trail will extend from San Bruno to Woodside incorporating existing trails along the Crystal Springs Reservoirs. The trail connects with a number of San Mateo County Parks including Junipero Serra Park, Edgewood Park, and Huddart Park (County of San Mateo, 2012).  Future Use and Operation of Lake Berryessa, Napa County, California. This comprehensive plan was established for the redevelopment and management of visitor services to support traditional, short-term, and diverse outdoor recreation opportunities such as boating, fishing and swimming at Lake Berryessa. This document builds on the analysis from the 1992 Lake Berryessa Environmental Impact Statement (United States Department of the Interior, 2012). While Lake Berryessa is not within the IRWM planning region, redevelopment of the lake will provide improved access and services to the population throughout the region.  Guadalupe River Trail and Lake Almaden. The goal of the City of San José trail project in San José is to create a trail from the Bay (connecting to the Bay Trail) to Lake Almaden Park, over 10 miles of trail. Maintaining a recreational component at the lake where a mercury remediation and cold water fisheries improvement project is under consideration.  Napa Valley Vine Trail / River Trail. Led by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition, the trail will extend 47 miles from the Vallejo Ferry to the City of Calistoga. The trail will be level, paved, and family-friendly. The Vine Trail will include the Napa River Trail, which 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-56 Resource Management Strategies provides several miles of recreational activities for hikers, fisherman, joggers, bicyclists, and boaters, as well as a setting for wildlife observation and environmental education. 4.2.7.6 Water-dependent Cultural Resources RMS Description This strategy recognizes that there are resources associated with the cultural history of the Bay Area that are water-dependent and require awareness and protection to be preserved. These may range from ceremonial practices to historic water infrastructure to water based landscapes to heritage practices dependent on water. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Examples of efforts to protect and preserve water-dependent cultural resources include the following:  Turtleback Trail Interpretive Tour, China Camp State Park. China Camp State Park preserves the site of one of the many Chinese shrimp-fishing villages that thrived along the Bay shoreline in the late 1800s. The Turtleback Trail Interpretive Tour provides educational panels and an audio tour to inform park visitors of the cultural and natural history of the area.  Angel Island State Park Interpretation Master Plan. Angel Island has rich and varied cultural history, having served at different times as a seasonal hunting and gathering grounds for the Coast Miwok, a harbor and supply stop for Spanish explorers, a U.S. immigration station, a U.S. military station and a cattle ranch. The Interpretation Master Plan, developed by California State Parks and the Angel Island Conservancy, is a comprehensive roadmap for developing new and improved educational programs, facilities, and recreational opportunities at the park.  Port of San Francisco History Tour. To celebrate its 150th anniversary, the Port of San Francisco developed a tour to showcase the history of San Francisco’s waterfront. The Port of San Francisco installed twenty pylons along the waterfront that contain historical photos and educational information regarding history of each particular location. The tour is also available online and in mobile format. 4.3 Strategies Considered but Not Carried Forward The CC considered RMS included in the 2006 Plan as well as RMS presented in CWP Updates for 2009 and 2013. Seven potential RMS presented on Table 4-1 were not carried forward to Table 4-3 due to consideration of their potential efficacy and applicability in the Bay Area region. In some cases, the strategy may partially meet the Regional goals and objectives, but may not be technically feasible, is limited in capacity to strategically address regional water planning needs, or may likely result in trade-offs that do not maximize the potential benefit. When the potential RMS is not applicable or feasible, or is not anticipated to provide substantial benefit relative to existing land uses and water programs, the strategy is identified below, and not 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-57 Resource Management Strategies discussed further. As time progresses and strategies advance, these may become more applicable to the Bay Area. 4.3.1 Precipitation Enhancement or Fog Collection Precipitation enhancement, commonly called “cloud seeding,” artificially stimulates clouds to produce more rainfall or snowfall than they would naturally. Cloud seeding injects special substances into the clouds that enable snowflakes and raindrops to form more easily. This technology is still evolving relative to California water issues and is not considered by the Bay Area as a reliable long-term solution. Fog collection is not used in California as a management technique but does occur naturally within coastal vegetation. 4.3.2 Crop Idling for Water Transfers Crop idling is removal of lands from irrigation with the aim of returning the lands to irrigation at a later time. Crop idling is done to make water available for temporary water transfers. However, crop idling to support water transfers implies some land use trade-offs. For example, land removed from agricultural production may limit the productiveness of the agricultural industry in the region, create disproportionate impacts on low income and disadvantaged groups, and have cumulative impacts on habitat, water quality, and wildlife. In areas that may be eligible for crop idling, this strategy may be implemented on a small scale; however it is anticipated that Agricultural Water Use Efficiency RMS, described in Section 4.2, above, will be more effective in addressing water management. 4.3.3 Dewvaporation/Atmospheric Pressure Desalination Dewvaporation is a specific process of humidification-dehumidification desalination. Brackish water is evaporated by heated air, which deposits fresh water as dew on the opposite side of a heat transfer wall. The energy needed for evaporation is supplied by the energy released from dew formation. This is an emerging technology with several limitations including lack of proven science, potential capital costs and affordability, and secondary effects such as brine disposal. Although this technology could allow for small-scale reclamation of salt water, the Bay Area has determined that focusing on traditional desalination, as described in Section 4.2, would be more technically feasible to address long-term reliability. 4.3.4 Irrigated Land Retirement Irrigated land retirement is the permanent cessation and removal of farmland from irrigated agricultural production to support water transfer or for solving drainage-related problems. While irrigated land retirement can potentially provide water supply, water quality, and habitat benefits, it also can also have several adverse impacts. Adverse impacts include potential urban growth inducement, socioeconomic impacts to local communities that can be environmental justice issues, and inconsistency with federal, state, and local land use policies. The potential water supply benefits of irrigated land retirement can be achieved with strategies that are more consistent with Bay Area IRWM Plan goals. Drainage-related problems have not been identified as a significant water management issue in the Bay Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-58 Resource Management Strategies 4.3.5 Rainfed Agriculture Rainfed agriculture is when all crop consumptive water use is provided directly by rainfall on a real time basis. Due to unpredictability of rainfall frequency, duration, and amount, there is significant uncertainty and risk in relying solely on rainfed agriculture. It is anticipated that combining rainfed agriculture as one component of broader, larger strategies, including Agricultural Water Use Efficiency or Agricultural Lands Stewardship, will be more effective in addressing water management needs within the Bay Area. 4.3.6 Waterbag Transport/Storage Technology The use of waterbag transport/storage technology involves diverting water in areas that have unallocated freshwater supplies, storing the water in large inflatable bladders, and towing them to an alternate coastal region. This strategy does not directly address regional water management issues, and it is unknown at this time if it would be technically feasible. 4.3.7 Forest Management Forest management activities can affect water quantity and quality. However, in most of the Bay Area forests are not generally managed for production. In the majority of the Bay Area, forests are managed primarily as watershed lands and open space for recreation. As such forest resource management strategies are captured under watershed management and planning, ecosystem restoration and water-dependent recreation resource management strategies. 4.4 References Alameda County Department of Weights and Measures, Alameda County 2010 Crop Report, 2011. Alameda County Sustainability, Clean Water Program – Countywide, available at www.acgov.org/sustain/what/water/cwpc.htm, accessed July 2012. Alameda County Sustainability, Creek Restorations, available at http://www.acgov.org/sustain/what/ecosystem/creeks.htm#lcr, accessed July 2012. Alameda County Water District (ACWD, 2012), Groundwater Resources, available at www.acw4.org/engineering/groundwater.php5, accessed July 2012. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) (2003). Stormwater Quality Management Plan, July 2001 – June 2008. February 19, 2003 BASMAA, Start at the source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection 1999. California Coastal Conservancy, Exhibit 3: Project Summary and Detail, Pine Gulch Creek Watershed Enhancement Project, available at www.scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/sccbb/2005/0512/0512Board11h_Pine_Gulch_Creek_ Ex3.pdf, accessed July 2012. City of Hercules, Chelsea Wetland Restoration, available at www.ci.hercules.ca.us/index.aspx?page=227, accessed July 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-59 Resource Management Strategies California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Wildlife Conservation Board Funds Environmental Improvement and Acquisition Projects, available at www.cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/wildlife-conservation-board-funds- environmental-improvement-and-acquisition-projects-5/, accessed July 2012. California Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, California Bay-Delta Authority, California Energy Commission, California Department of Public Health, California Public Utilities Commission, California Air Resources Board, with assistance from California Urban Water Conservation Council and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (California Department of Water Resources et al.) 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. February, 2010. Sacramento, CA. Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, Contra Costa County Agriculture Report 2010. CCWD, Historical Freshwater and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay, December 2009. County of San Mateo, Division of Parks, Crystal Springs Regional Trail, available at www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/parks/menuitem.f13bead76123ee4482439054d17332a 0/?vgnextoid=c46bc8909231e110VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1, accessed July 2012. County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Energy – Water Snapshot, August 1, 2006. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Arroyo del Cerro Resource Enhancement Project, Diablo Foothills Regional Park, 2009, available at www.ebparks.org/Assets/files/rep/REP_Arroyo_del_Cerro_2009.pdf, accessed July 2012. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Inter-Agency Intertie Projects, available at www.ebmud.com/about-ebmud/news/project-updates/inter-agency-intertie-projects, accessed July 2012. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Alameda Creek Regional Trail, available at www.ebparks.org/parks/trails/alameda_creek, accessed July 2012a. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Contra Costa Canal Trail, available at www.ebparks.org/parks/trails/contra_costa, accessed July 2012b. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Park Planning, available at www.ebparks.org/planning/, accessed July 2012c. Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, Stormwater Management, website, accessed July 10, 2012. Updated Hamilton/Bel Marin Keys W etland Restoration, official website www.hamiltonwetlands.org/index.php, accessed July 2012. Marin County Department of Agriculture, Marin County Livestock & Agricultural Crop Report 2011, May 2012. Marin County Community Development Agency, Marin County Watershed Management Plan, April 2004. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-60 Resource Management Strategies Marin County Department of Public Works (Marin County DPW), Watershed Program at http://www.marinwatersheds.org/participant_overview.html, accessed July 2012. Marin Municipal Water District, Southern Sonoma County RCD, and Sonoma Ecology Center, and North Bay Watershed Association (MMWD et. al.), Consolidated Proposal for Coastal Non-Point Source Projects, May 2008. Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), Water Rates, available at http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=210, accessed July 2012. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Napa County FCWCD), Flood District, available at www.countyofnapa.org/FloodDistrict, accessed July 2012. Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) , San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan, prepared for Natural Heritage Institute, 2010, prepared by Stillwater Sciences, available at www.sanmateorc4.org/SanGregorioWMP_final.pdf, accessed July 2012 Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County, official website, http://www.anrtccc.org/ProjectsCompleted2.html, accessed July 2012. North Coast County Water District (NCCWD), Pacifica Recycled Water Project, http://www.nccwd.com/Pipeline_Project.html, accessed June 6, 2013. North Marin Water District (NMWD) and Marin Municipal Water District, Intertie Agreement, March 11, 1993, available online at http://www.marinwater.org/documents/MA600.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2013. Petaluma, Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, official website, http://cityofpetaluma.net/wrcd/wastewater.html, accessed September 2012 San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Yosemite Slough Wetlands Restoration, Candlestick Point State Recreation Area, available at www.sfestuary.org/projects/detail.php?projectID=37, accessed July 2012. San Francisco Estuary Project, San Francisco Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). 1992, updated 2007. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines, November 2009. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), City and County of San Francisco 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Regional Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, October 1999. San Francisco Water Power Sewer (SFWPS) Sources and Supply Planning, available at www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=75, accessed July 2012a. San Francisco Water Power Sewer (SFWPS), Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery, available at www://216.119.104.145/bids/projectDetail.aspx?prj_id=126, accessed July 2012b. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-61 Resource Management Strategies San Mateo County Department of Agriculture, San Mateo County 2010 Agricultural Crop Report. San Mateo County Health System, Underground Storage Tank Program, available at www.smchealth.org/Underground%20Storage%20Tanks, accessed July 2012. San Mateo County Resources Conservation District, 2008, Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plant, prepared for San Mateo County Resources Conservation District and California State Water Resources Control Board, prepared by PWA, available at www.sanmateorcd.org/PilarcitosIntWtrshdMgmPlan_TxtFigs.pdf, accessed July 2012. Santa Clara County Parks, Coyote Lake-Harvey Bear Ranch Master Plan, available at www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/Future%20Plans%20Here/Pages/Coyote-Lake-Harvey-Bear- Ranch-Master-Plan.aspx, accessed July 2012. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Flood Protection & Stream Stewardship Master Plan, 2010. Santa Clara Valley Water District, (SCVWD). Stewardship Report, 2011. Santa Clara Valley Water District, (SCVWD), Groundwater Supply, available at www.valleywater.org/Services/GroundwaterSupply.aspx, accessed July 2012. Save the Bay, Wetland Restoration, available online http://www.savesfbay.org/wetland- restoration, updated 2012. Solano County Department of Agriculture, 2008 Solano County Crop and Livestock Report, 2009. Solano County LAFCO, Final Municipal Service Review: Solano County Water, Irrigation, Reclamation, and Flood Management Agencies, 2009. Solano County Water Agency, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan – Final Draft, 2010 Solano County Water Agency Groundwater Studies, available at www.scwa2.com/Projects_Groundwater_Studies.aspx, accessed July 2012. Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District, Stewardship, available at www.sonomaopenspace.org/Content/10122/stewardship.html, accessed July 2012. Sonoma County Parks, Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail Phase 1, available at www.sonoma- county.org/parks/laguna_sr.htm, accessed July 2012. Sonoma County Water Agency, RMC, Implementing Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, presentation, January 23, 2012a. Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program, available at www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/, accessed July 2012b. Sotoyome Resource Conservation District, Upper Mark West Watershed Management Plan, Phase 1: Watershed Characterization and Needs Assessment, available at www.sotoyomercd.org/watershed/UpperMarkWestMgtPlan-Phase1.pdf, accessed July 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-62 Resource Management Strategies State of California Bond Accountability, San Francisco Stormwater & Flood Management Priority Projects, available at www.bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Project.aspx?ProjectPK=3860-P1E-363&pid=5, accessed July 2012. State of California Parks and Recreation, General Plans and Classification Actions, available at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21299, accessed July 2012. SWRCB, 2006 CWA Section 303(D) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. United States Department of the Interior, Reclamation, Purpose and Need Statement, available at www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa/purpose_need.html, accessed July 2012. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Pacific Southwest Region, San Pablo Bay, NWR Cullinan Ranch Unit Restoration Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 2010, available at www.fws.gov/cno/refuges/cullinan/index.cfm, accessed July 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Integration of Supporting Activities Table of Contents Chapter 5: Integration of Supporting Activities ......................................... 5-1 5.1 Optional IRWM Supporting Activities ................................................. 5-1 5.2 Planning Activities ............................................................................. 5-1 5.2.1 Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans .................. 5-1 5.2.1.1 Guidance for Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans in the Region ......................... 5-2 5.3 Policies Supporting IRWM ................................................................. 5-2 5.3.1 Integration Policy .................................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Example Integration Policies .................................................. 5-3 5.3.3 Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Principles .................. 5-5 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-1 Integration of Supporting Activities Chapter 5: Integration of Supporting Activities 5.1 Optional IRWM Supporting Activities This chapter presents some potential activities that may be undertaken in support of Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) in the Bay Area. The supporting activities described here have been grouped in two broad categories: (1) Planning; and (2) Policies. The activities described in this chapter are presented such that individual agencies or other participants within the region can choose to use them if desired. The added value and benefits associated with implementing these supporting activities are discussed in this chapter, with further supporting material provided in Appendices B-1 through B-4. 5.2 Planning Activities 5.2.1 Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans Example: Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin is located in southern Sonoma County, California bordering San Pablo Bay. The overlying community includes both urban areas as well as a significant amount of rural and agricultural land. Groundwater is an important resource to the area, which could be impacted by agriculture fertilizer use, stream diversions, groundwater pumping, and irrigation with recycled and potable water. In recognition of the importance of recycled water projects and their growing significance in meeting state-wide water demands, the State adopted the Recycled Water Policy in 2009. The Recycled Water Policy requires that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) be developed to manage salts and nutrients on a watershed- or basin-wide basis. As the primary local distributor of recycled water, the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District is leading the development of the Sonoma Valley SNMP in conjunction with other stakeholders within the basin area. Preparation of the Sonoma Valley SNMP began in 2012 and progressed through an 18-month collaborative development process using an existing stakeholder infrastructure created through the voluntary Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program. Development of the Sonoma Valley SNMP was a stakeholders-based collaborative effort that held workshops to present information when key milestones were reached. Data gathered through technical analysis completed for the Sonoma Valley basin found that, in general, relatively low salinity and nitrate concentrations are found throughout most of the Inland Area of the subbasin, and concentration trends for salinity and nitrate over time are flat or stable. The average total dissolved solids and nitrate concentrations in the Inland Area are below basin plan objectives, and there is available assimilative capacity. Given that water quality concentration trends are relatively flat over time, and below water quality objectives, no new management measures were recommended for implementation as part of the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Existing best management practices in the basin will continue and new data will become available through the groundwater monitoring program that was developed as part of the Sonoma Valley SNMP. The Sonoma Valley SNMP is included in Appendix B-2, and the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-2 Integration of Supporting Activities most recent Sonoma Valley SNMP documents can be found on the following website: www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/ 5.2.1.1 Guidance for Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans in the Region The Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans for the San Francisco Bay Region may be found in Appendix B-1, and was developed as part of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) preparation effort described above. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received partial funding through the Bay Area’s Proposition 84 Planning Grant for their SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The purpose of the Guidance Document is to describe common steps that may be taken by Bay Area agencies, entities and stakeholders to prepare a SNMP. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is expected to consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. In addition to Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, Zone 7 Water Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have developed or are developing SNMPs for other local groundwater basins/sub-basins in the San Francisco Bay Region. 5.3 Policies Supporting IRWM This section discusses potential policy language that could be customized and adopted by agencies’ governing bodies in order to demonstrate institutional alignment with specific strategies, objectives, and priorities described in this Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The language could be tailored for each participating entity and could be more specific or directive. It is up to each agency to decide whether to adopt the IRWM Plan with or without reference to additional policy language. 5.3.1 Integration Policy The BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) has emphasized “integration” in the Plan update, and included the following objective: Encourage implementation of integrated, multi-benefit projects, under the broad goal: Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability. As part of the outreach effort seeking new projects for inclusion in the Plan update, the sub- regions encouraged the development of integrated projects. In ranking projects for the 2013 Plan, the CC placed the heaviest emphasis on projects that met the most objectives across the Plan goals, and the highest scoring projects were those that met objectives in multiple Functional Areas. The most integrated projects scored highest. In ranking projects for the 2019 Proposition 1 Round 1 funding, projects were given a point if the project achieved multiple benefits. Qualitative discussions on multiple benefits and regional priorities were held to determine ranking if projects scored similarly. The CC has deliberated including a policy statement supporting integrated projects and elaborating upon the integration objective in the Plan Update. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-3 Integration of Supporting Activities 5.3.2 Example Integration Policies Examples of integration policies already in place throughout the region are presented below. Example: North Bay Watershed Association The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) has endorsed a policy on “Integrated /Multi- Benefit Water Management Projects” and encouraged member agencies to adopt the policy or an equivalent. Both Marin Municipal Water District and North Marin Water District have adopted such a policy. The MMWD Policy statement adopted on May 3, 2012 states “It is the policy of the Marin Municipal Water District to achieve multiple benefits in the planning and implementation of its water management projects, where appropriate, and to coordinate these projects with other agencies, to realize the maximum number of benefits from a project. It is the intent of this policy to encourage collaboration within and among MMWD and other agencies to conduct integrated water management planning and achieve multiple benefits on water management projects that provide appropriate opportunities. These may be water supply, stormwater management, flood control, public access, recreation, watershed resource management, and/or wastewater management projects, where more than one benefit may be achieved”. Other NBWA member agencies have identified equivalent existing policies. Sonoma County Water Agency has adopted an equivalent policy statement on “Multi-Benefit and Integrated Water Resource Projects”. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has an equivalent ordinance – Ordinance No.1 –that includes “…an integrated approach that applies to all the Napa County watersheds”. The Marin County Board of Supervisors has approved a Watershed Program that: “ provides a framework to integrate flood protection, creek and wetland restoration, fish passage and water quality improvements with public and private partners to protect and enhance Marin’s watersheds.” Example: East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay MUD has adopted a Sustainability and Resilience Policy18 to guide the use of resources (economic, environmental, and human) in a responsible manner to meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet the needs of tomorrow. The Policy calls for EBMUD to maintain strong working relationships with local regulatory agencies, industry and public interest organizations, other water and wastewater agencies, cities and counties to develop sustainable environmental guidelines and communicate the environmental significance of EBMUD’s current and future operations and activities. Example: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco PUC’s Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP) is a 20-year, multi-billion dollar citywide investment required to upgrade San Francisco’s aging sewer infrastructure to ensure a reliable and seismically safe sewer system. In developing the SSIP, the SFPUC endorsed specific, measureable goals and objectives that will guide project selection and will be used to evaluate program implementation and success. A number of the goals and objectives stress integration: 18 EBMUD Policy 7.05, Effective 26 June 18. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-4 Integration of Supporting Activities  Integrate Green and Grey Infrastructure to Manage Stormwater and Minimize Flooding. The use of innovative green stormwater projects together with upgrades to sewer pipelines (grey) will minimize stormwater impacts on neighborhoods and the sewer system.  Provide Benefits to Impacted Communities. SSIP projects will provide both economic and job benefits to the communities it serves.  Modify the System to Adapt to Climate Change. New facilities will be built using a climate change design criterion so that the sewer system will be better able to respond to rising sea levels and other impacts.  Achieve Economic and Environmental Sustainability. The SFPUC will beneficially reuse and conserve the by-products of our wastewater and stormwater treatment systems. Example: Santa Clara Valley Water District The Santa Clara Valley Water District has adopted the following policy on integration:  E-1.1. An integrated and balanced approach in managing a sustainable water supply, effective natural flood protection and healthy watersheds is essential to prepare for the future. Strategies that support this policy include:  S 2.2. Develop, maintain, and implement in an integrated and balanced manner long- term master plans, asset management plans and capital improvement plans to support water utility operations, protect infrastructure, and optimize investment.  S 2.3. Coordinate with the development of a 20-year integrated watershed master plan which incorporates groundwater recharge areas, sea level rise, and updated hydrologic analysis to identify potential future project that promote natural stream condition in the watershed.  S 2.1.2.5. Work with the wildlife agencies to address the impact of district water supply operations on fish.  S 3.2. and S 4.2. Coordinate preparation of a 20-year integrated watershed master plan which incorporates best available stream condition data, riparian corridors, sea level rise, countywide trails master plan, and updated hydrologic analyses to identify potential future projects that reduce flooding and sedimentation, improve water quality, and promote a more nature stream condition within the watershed.  S 4.1.2.2. Identify and incorporate enhancement opportunities into capital projects and operations. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-5 Integration of Supporting Activities Example integration policy or equivalent documents described above are provided in Appendix B-3. These examples may be useful to other Bay Area agencies considering adopting a policy supporting integration or development of integrated projects. 5.3.3 Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Principles The BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) has established Climate Change as an overarching theme. This Plan includes a chapter on Climate Change which is based upon understandings derived from the most current science available for the region, and was developed in accordance with Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning dated November 2011 (Schwarz et al 2011), which identifies Sea Level Rise, Flooding, and Water Supply as the most vulnerable categories for the Bay Area. The California Water Plan 2013 Update states that California is already seeing the effects of climate change on hydrology (snowpack, river flows), storm intensity, temperature, winds, and sea levels, and that planning for and adapting to these changes will be among the most significant challenges facing water and flood managers this century. Climate change will affect both sea level and the temporal and spatial distribution of runoff in California, affecting the reliability of water supplies and operations of California’s water supply system. In support of local agency efforts to consider, plan for and adapt to Climate Change affects, a template Climate Change adaptation policy statement is included in Appendix B-4, which includes the following general principles: Project Specific Risk Assessments: Consider the effects of climate change on existing and proposed projects to evaluate project merit. A risk assessment should identify all types of potential impacts, degrees of uncertainty, consequences of failure, likelihood of failure, and risks to existing resources. Consider how foreseeable climate impacts may affect project success and incorporate anticipated impacts into project planning and design. Avoid investing in projects that are likely to be undermined by climate-related changes. Co-Objectives of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation: Develop a planning process that supports comprehensive climate response, aligning greenhouse gas mitigation strategies with adaptation actions. Strategies and projects should minimize energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and sustain the natural ability of ecosystems to cycle and sequester carbon and other greenhouse gases. Forward-Looking Goals and Progressive Time-Scales: Focus goals on future climatic and ecological conditions rather than those of the past. Develop strategies for near-term and long- term timescales, as well as transitional strategies. For sectors where there is uncertainty in the timing and/or severity of climate change impacts, planners should include climate change factors in decision support analyses (scenario planning) in order to enable the development and implementation of appropriate adaptation options. Agile and Informed Management: Employ an adaptive management decision making framework that is flexible and responsive to changes in climate, ecology and economics. Resource planning and management is capable of continuous learning and dynamic adjustment to accommodate uncertainty, take advantage of new knowledge, and cope with r apid shifts in climatic, ecological, and socio-economic conditions. Planners should consider preserving and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-6 Integration of Supporting Activities developing adaptation options that can be implemented in the future when more is known about the timing and/or magnitude of actual impacts. This process would include assessing/testing the adaptive capacity for operational adjustment of the existing system as well as re-engineering of water systems in tandem with making investments in infrastructure renewal and replacement. Utilities should also consider enhancing their existing data monitoring programs to include new information that would help identify triggers for when climate adaptation options should be implemented. Robust in an Uncertain Future: Adaptation strategies and actions should provide benefit across a range of possible future conditions to account for uncertainties in future climatic conditions, and in ecological and human responses to climate shifts. Prioritize actions based on their risks and benefits, as well as the likelihood that they will reduce the vulnerability of built and natural environments. High priority actions include those that have a high probability of producing beneficial adaptation outcomes, improve the capacity of highly vulnerable systems to adapt to climate change impacts, and/or that produce the greatest combination of benefits under a range of possible future climate scenarios. Ecosystem Enhancement: Employ strategies that enhance the capacity of human communities to adapt to extreme, climate change driven events by implementing ecosystem- based solutions that also benefit fish, wildlife, and habitat. Prioritize activities that provide co- benefits for people, habitat, and the economy. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Project Review Process Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 6: Project Review Process ............................................................ 6-1 6.1 Background ....................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Summary........................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Procedures for Submitting a Project .................................................. 6-2 6.3.1 Project Template .................................................................... 6-2 6.3.2 Call for Projects ...................................................................... 6-3 6.3.2.1 Targeted Assistance for DAC Project Proponents ........................................................... 6-4 6.3.3 Review Matrix ........................................................................ 6-5 6.4 Procedures for Reviewing Projects ................................................. 6-14 6.4.1 IRWMP Project Lists ............................................................ 6-14 6.4.1.1 Master List.......................................................... 6-14 6.4.1.2 Active List ........................................................... 6-14 6.4.2 Project Review ..................................................................... 6-15 6.5 Results ............................................................................................ 6-16 6.5.1 Procedure for Communicating the List of Selected Projects ............................................................................... 6-17 6.6 Adaptive Management Process ....................................................... 6-17 List of Tables Table 6-1: Project Scoring Methodology ................................................................................. 6-7 Table 6-2: Project Scoring Results ....................................................................................... 6-18 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-1 Project Review Process Chapter 6: Project Review Process The Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) will be implemented through the specific studies, actions, projects, and programs proposed by the Region’s stakeholders and participants. This chapter describes the process that was used for submitting, reviewing and scoring projects and provides the final, prioritized list of projects. Recognizing that regional priorities evolve over time, the Coordinating Committee (CC) will periodically review this IRWMP and the project listings herein, depending on changing conditions and availability of funds to perform future work, and make adjustments as necessary to respond to changes throughout the Region. 6.1 Background The 2006 Plan was adopted with 127 projects, which were sorted based on consistency with project assessment criteria. Subsequent to the adoption of the 2006 Plan, additional projects were added as appendices. The 2006 Bay Area project prioritization process involved the following steps:  Screen Projects for Inclusion in the IRWMP.  Assemble IRWMP Projects into Cohorts.  Identify Prioritization Criteria.  Assess Projects with Respect to Criteria. The screening method and criteria used for inclusion in the IRWMP varied by each of the four Functional Areas (FAs); the cohorts were based on “readiness to proceed;” and the categories of assessment criteria were: IRWMP Goals, Bay Area Regional Criteria, Proposition 50 Program Preferences, and Proposition 50 Statewide Priorities. The project assessment conducted for the 2006 Plan did not assign scores or rank the project list. The prioritization process was developed and implemented during the Plan development. Based on input from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the 2012 Guidelines, the IRWMP project assessment criteria have been expanded beyond “readiness to proceed” to reflect factors identified by DWR, and the projects have been scored and ranked accordingly. The following sections describe the process. 6.2 Summary The project prioritization process involved the following steps:  Assembling a Master list of projects (Section 6.4.1)  Conducting a preliminary Subregional review to determine project eligibility (Section 6.4.2) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-2 Project Review Process  Identifying prioritization criteria and weighting (Section 6.3.3)  Scoring projects (Section 6.5) To identify potential projects that support IRWMP implementation and promote its goals and objectives, the CC held an open “call for projects,” which gave stakeholders the opportunity to submit their projects and project concepts for consideration. Stakeholders were encouraged to submit projects through a variety of channels, including Subregional meetings, public workshops, email correspondence solicitations, and the IRWMP website. The solicitation yielded 332 projects submitted for inclusion in the Plan. Full project descriptions can be found in Appendix F.bayareairwmp.org/projects The review and ranking process was developed by the Plan Update Team (PUT) and approved by the CC. The goal was to develop a process, from submittal through prioritization, which was transparent, replicable and consistent. Stakeholders were presented with the proposed process at the first public workshop on July 23 and given an opportunity to provide comments. The CC developed a scoring methodology that assigns projects into three tiers. The prioritization of projects is based upon a detailed two phase screening process consisting of an initial screening by the Subregion leads, followed by project evaluation and ranking. The process encouraged Subregional integration while ranking at a regional level. The review and scoring process was available on the website so that project proponents were well informed about the process and how the projects would be ranked, as they completed their templates (see Section 6.3.1). All projects submitted are maintained on a Master List, and the list will be updated as projects are developed through time and re-prioritized. A discussion of how each proposed project is related to resource management strategies selected for use in the IRWMP is found in Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies. 6.3 Procedures for Submitting a Project To facilitate the project review, the PUT developed the following process and materials: 6.3.1 Project Template In order to be eligible for review, all proponents were required to complete and submit the project template (Appendix C) or input project information directly into a web-based form based upon the project template. In developing the template, the PUT attempted to balance the level Bay Area IRWMP Website 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-3 Project Review Process of effort and resources required by the project proponent to complete it, with the information needed in order to assess and rank the project. The PUT also framed the template to encourage submittal of projects that were at a more conceptual stage rather than just ready-to- proceed projects. To support the submittal of projects at various stages of readiness, proponents were instructed to complete as much of the template as possible, but that all projects would be reviewed regardless of completeness. The template also outlined the cost/benefit information that would be required at a further stage for inclusion in a grant proposal. This allowed proponents to understand the level of detail that would be required to participate in a grant application, without yet requiring them to provide it. The project template was approved by the CC in March 2012. A new project template was used in 2019 for the Proposition 1 Implementation funding round and utilized an online format to streamline the collection process. 6.3.2 Call for Projects The CC launched an open call for projects in June 2012 via electronic notification The notification provided a link to the Project Template on the website and indicated the submittal due date — originally September 1, later moved to September 7— offered a “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) section, and provided other relevant information. Stakeholders were informed of the project submittal deadline and process in a number of venues and communications. Meetings included Workshop #1 which was attended by 80 people and at which project criteria and online project submittal instructions were presented in detail. Additional meetings at which the criteria, deadline and process were described included Subregional meetings, water and land use-related meetings and workshops, local government meetings, regular meetings of water associations and other meetings at which CC members were present. The communications avenues that explained the submittal process and deadline included the website notice and instructions, four emails to the 1,500-person master list that were related to Workshop #1, and separate email notices to the Subregional lists. In all the communications, stakeholders were encouraged to submit projects, by the deadline, in any stage of development, including concepts or ideas. The Subregion process provided an opportunity to move the concepts towards more developed implementation projects by providing guidance on project criteria, framing of the project in the context of being a multi-benefit, integrated project, and, in some cases, suggestions about potential partners. More information about the Subregion outreach process is provided in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement. Project proponents of both new and existing projects were instructed to complete the online project template. In order to facilitate this process, the CC did the following:  Created a new online interface that allowed project proponents to easily update existing projects and enter new projects.  Created basic instructions to help people input project data in the interface. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-4 Project Review Process  Contacted project proponents of existing projects, including Disadvantaged Community (DAC)-serving projects, and gave them accounts to access the site and website rights to update their own projects.  Invited other stakeholders to submit projects.  Provided guidance regarding the template to stakeholders at Workshop #1, including the opportunity to participate in a hands-on, step-by-step support session, though none of the participants requested that level of assistance at the workshop. With a few minor exceptions, the online project template provided an efficient and relatively easy way to submit and collect project proposals. For the Proposition 1 Implementation funding, the CC launched an optional call for short form project proposals in November 2018, to gauge regional interest in projects and understand what types of projects would be submitted. The formal call for projects occurred in May 2019. More information on the stakeholder outreach for project submittal is presented in Chapter 14. 6.3.2.1 Targeted Assistance for DAC Project Proponents An effort was made to assist organizations, agencies, communities and Tribes with limited technical and time capacities to participate in the process and submit projects, particularly for projects serving DACs and Tribes. The State of California’s Proposition 1 Disadvantaged Communities Involvement Program was developed to ensure the involvement of DACs, Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs), and Underrepresented Communities (URCs). T he Bay Area Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP), begun in 2016, includes a Needs Assessment conducted through outreach partner organizations located in DACs and capacity building activities designed to aid in project development and support future access to funding. In addition, a minimum 10% of the Bay Area Funding Region’s allocation is designated for projects benefitting Disadvantaged Communities. The following organizations and Tribes participated in the DACTIP: • California Indian Environmental Alliance • Amah Mutsun Tribal Band • Association of Ramaytush • Him-R^n • Indian People Organizing For Change (IPOC) • Muwekma Ohlone • All Positives Possible • Greenaction for Environmental Justice and Health 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-5 Project Review Process • The Resilient Communities Initiative • Sonoma Ecology Center & Daily Acts • Shore Up Marin • Marin County Community Development Agency • The Watershed Project • Friends of Sausal Creek • Ronald V. Dellums Institute for Sustainable Policy Studies and Action • Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful • Nuestra Casa • Youth United for Community Action • Contra Costa Resource Conservation District • City of Hayward See Chapter 14 Section 6 & 7 for additional information on the DACTIP partners, goals and process. 6.3.3 Review Matrix The PUT focused significant effort in developing a matrix to outline the project scoring methodology (Table 6-1: 2019 Proposition 1 Scoring Methodology Criteria- Directly from Prop 1 Guidelines Point Value Does the project address the critical needs and/or priorities of the IRWM region as identified in the IRWM plan? 1 Is the project sufficiently justified by the description given in the narrative of Section D.1? Does the narrative include requisite referenced supporting documentation such as models, studies, engineering reports, etc.? Does the narrative include other information that supports the justification for the proposed project, including how the project can achieve the claimed level of benefits? 3 Does the project address and/or adapt to the effects of climate change? Does the project address the climate change vulnerabilities assessed in the IRWM Plan? 2 Does the Work Plan include a complete description of all tasks necessary to result in a completed project? Are all necessary and reasonable deliverables identified? 3 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-6 Project Review Process Collectively, are the Work Plan, Schedule, and Budget thorough, reasonable, and justified; and consistent with each other? (see scoring criteria document for considerations) 4 Continue from Column H: 1.Does the project clearly and concisely address all required topics listed in sectionC.1 of the PIF, including summarizing the major components, objectives and intended outcomes/benefits of the project? 2. Are the tasks shown in the Work Plan, Schedule and Budget consistent? 3. Are the costs presented in the budget backed up by and consistent with supporting justification and/or documentation? 4. Is the Schedule reasonable considering the tasks presented in the Work Plan? Does the project sponsor have legal access rights, easements, or other access capabilities, to the property to implement the project? If not, does the project sponsor provide a clear and concise narrative and schedule to obtain the necessary access? 2 Does the budget leverage funds with other private, Federal, or local fund sources? 1 Is the primary benefit* claimed in Table 3 of the Project Information Form logical and reasonable given the information provided in the Work Plan? *For Decision Support Tools, non-physical benefits will be considered. 2 Does the project provide multiple (more than one) benefits? 1 Does the project provide benefits to more than one IRWM region and/or Funding Area? 1 If the proposed project addresses contamination per the requirements ofAB1249, does the project provide safe drinking water to a small disadvantaged community? 1 Does the proposed project employ new or innovative technology or practices? 1 Does the project provide a benefit(s) to a DAC, EDA and/or Tribe (minimum 75%)? 1 Did the applicant provide a narrative on cost considerations that is fully explained based on information requested in the Project Information Form? 2 Table 6-). The intent was to develop a methodology that reflected DWR guidelines, limited ambiguity, and was replicable and transparent to participants and stakeholders. The scoring methodology reflects the criteria of the Guidelines as well as the Bay Area IRWMP Goals and Objectives. The criteria include:  Addressing Multiple Goals  Integrating Multiple Resource Management Strategies  Strategic Considerations for IRWM Plan implementation (regionalism, partnerships and integration)  Project Status 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-7 Project Review Process  Technical Feasibility  Benefits to DAC Water Issues  Benefits to Native American Tribal Community Water Issues  Environmental Justice Considerations  Project Costs and Financing  Economic Feasibility  Climate Change Adaptation  Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions  Reducing Dependence on the Delta Development of the assessment methodology and scoring was an iterative process. First the PUT began with the "review factors" identified in the 2012 Guidelines and used that to finalize the scoring metrics, and assessment methodology, identifying what to score and how to score it. Where appropriate, the Guidelines were also consulted for direction regarding the assessment methodology and weighting of the review factors. The PUT weighted the review factors indicating most important to least important from the perspective of identifying projects to include in the Plan. Certain criteria, such as benefits to disadvantaged communities (DAC) water issues and reducing dependence on the Delta, did not receive points, but instead were assigned a Yes/No scoring so they could be identified and sorted by this factor. The scoring methodology was approved by the CC in August 2012. In developing a project review process, the CC did not consider any specific grant program- related selection criteria. The purpose of identifying projects in the IRWM Plan is to understand the needed actions to meet the IRWM Plan objectives and therefore not prioritize projects based on any specific grant program. The CC will apply grant criteria when moving projects from the scored list in the IRWMP to a specific grant proposal list. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-8 Project Review Process Table 6-1: 2019 Proposition 1 Scoring Methodology Criteria- Directly from Prop 1 Guidelines Point Value Does the project address the critical needs and/or priorities of the IRWM region as identified in the IRWM plan? 1 Is the project sufficiently justified by the description given in the narrative of Section D.1? Does the narrative include requisite referenced supporting documentation such as models, studies, engineering reports, etc.? Does the narrative include other information that supports the justification for the proposed project, including how the project can achieve the claimed level of benefits? 3 Does the project address and/or adapt to the effects of climate change? Does the project address the climate change vulnerabilities assessed in the IRWM Plan? 2 Does the Work Plan include a complete description of all tasks necessary to result in a completed project? Are all necessary and reasonable deliverables identified? 3 Collectively, are the Work Plan, Schedule, and Budget thorough, reasonable, and justified; and consistent with each other? (see scoring criteria document for considerations) 4 Continue from Column H: 1.Does the project clearly and concisely address all required topics listed in sectionC.1 of the PIF, including summarizing the major components, objectives and intended outcomes/benefits of the project? 2. Are the tasks shown in the Work Plan, Schedule and Budget consistent? 3. Are the costs presented in the budget backed up by and consistent with supporting justification and/or documentation? 4. Is the Schedule reasonable considering the tasks presented in the Work Plan? Does the project sponsor have legal access rights, easements, or other access capabilities, to the property to implement the project? If not, does the project sponsor provide a clear and concise narrative and schedule to obtain the necessary access? 2 Does the budget leverage funds with other private, Federal, or local fund sources? 1 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-9 Project Review Process Is the primary benefit* claimed in Table 3 of the Project Information Form logical and reasonable given the information provided in the Work Plan? *For Decision Support Tools, non-physical benefits will be considered. 2 Does the project provide multiple (more than one) benefits? 1 Does the project provide benefits to more than one IRWM region and/or Funding Area? 1 If the proposed project addresses contamination per the requirements ofAB1249, does the project provide safe drinking water to a small disadvantaged community? 1 Does the proposed project employ new or innovative technology or practices? 1 Does the project provide a benefit(s) to a DAC, EDA and/or Tribe (minimum 75%)? 1 Did the applicant provide a narrative on cost considerations that is fully explained based on information requested in the Project Information Form? 2 Table 6-2: Prop 84 Project Scoring Methodology Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Addresses Multiple Goals How the project contributes to the IRWM Plan Objectives Number of goals and objectives the project addresses Total of 200 points allocated among the 5 goals; 10 points per objective until 40 points maximum per goal (for Flood goal, 40 points if all objectives addressed) 200 27% Integrates Multiple Resource Management Strategies How the project is related to resource management strategies Address multiple RMS (CWP Management Outcomes) 20 points per each of the six CWP Management Outcomes met 120 16% 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-10 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Strategic Considerations for IRWM Plan implementation Regionalism: How much of the Bay Area Region does this project benefit? 50 points: project provides direct benefits to 1) 2 or more of the Bay Area Sub-Regions; or 2) at least three counties (portions within Region); or 2) six or more of the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP. 50 7% 25 points: provides direct benefits to 1) at least two counties (portions with Region); or 2) at least three of the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP. 15 points: project provides direct benefits to one of the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP, AND at least one county (portions within Region). 5 points: project provides direct benefits to more than one watershed of smaller scale than the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP. Partnership: How many entities are partnering to implement this project? 30 points if project involves three or more partners that include both government agencies and NGOs 20 points if project involves three or more partners. 10 points if project involves two partners. 0 points if Project involves only one entity. 30 4% Integration with land use planning 20 points: Project increases coordination between water resources agencies and land use planning agencies 20 3% Project Status 2 points for each criterion met: 10 1% 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-11 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Considers the project's readiness to proceed What is the current status of the project (with respect to the criteria listed in the scoring)? Construction Drawings Land acquisition/easements complete CEQA/NEPA complete Preliminary Design complete Conceptual Plans complete Technical Feasibility Technical feasibility of the project. Accesses the availability and quality of technical information in supporting project plan and results Is this a common and widely accepted technology with well documented results? 75 points: Technical feasibility has been well documented and based on similar, successful studies and/or projects or established literature; the project is using a technology or processes that meet industry standards; the project includes pilot study results and/or an agency’s own operational results to estimate benefits; project site conditions are known (soils, hydrology, ecology) 75 10% Is there enough known about the geologic conditions, hydrology, ecology or other aspect of the system where the project is located 35 points: the project has not been done before but the project proponents provide adequate documentation related to the feasibility of the proposed process and project site conditions are known (soils, hydrology, ecology) 0 points: the project has not been done before, does not use industry standard processes, and/ or the project's projected benefits exceed those of similar studies with no supporting documentation provided. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-12 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Benefits to DAC Water Issues Considers if project provides specific benefits to critical water issues for disadvantaged communities and/or increases DAC participation. Does the proposed project provide specific benefits to critical DAC water issues Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Benefits to Native American Tribal Community Water Issues Considers if project provides specific benefits to critical water issues for Native American tribal communities and/or increases tribal participation. Does the proposed project provide specific benefits to critical Native American tribal community water issues? Yes: 15points 15 2% Environmental Justice Considerations Considers if project addresses inequitable distribution of environmental burdens. Does the proposed project redress inequitable distribution of environmental burdens and/or improve access to environmental goods? Yes: 15points 15 2% Project Costs and Financing Identifies if project costs and financing have been assessed. Has a project cost estimate been prepared and documented in Section 3 of the Project Template? Yes: 25 points 25 3% Does project have identified sources at least 25% match funding? Yes: 25 points 25 3% 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-13 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Economic Feasibility Benefits, monetized or non-monetized can be estimated (consistent with DWR Guidelines.) Does the response to Section 3, Table A indicate proponent would be able to provide necessary data for an economic analysis, for a potential grant application? 50 points if primarily "yes" 50 7% Climate Change Adaptation Contribution of the project in adapting to the effects of climate change. Will the project contribute to regional adaptation to projected climate change impacts? 5 points per strategy, up to 50 points 50 7% Reducing GHG Emissions Considers a project’s ability to reduce regional GHG emissions, as compared to project alternatives. Considerations include energy efficiency and reduction of GHG emissions when choosing between project alternatives. Compared to project alternatives, does the project reduce regional GHG emissions OR improve energy efficiency? 5 points per strategy, up to 50 points 50 7% Reducing dependence on the Delta Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Total 735 100% Yes/No question High point value 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-14 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Medium point value 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-15 Project Review Process 6.4 Procedures for Reviewing Projects 6.4.1 IRWMP Project Lists The projects were grouped into two project lists: a Master List and an Active List. The Master List contains all submitted projects, and the Active List contains projects that are moving forward for evaluation. The rules that govern the lists are as follows: 6.4.1.1 Master List The IRWMP Master Project List is a non-scored list of projects that includes all projects that have ever been submitted for inclusion in the Plan, including project concepts. The Master List is composed of all projects from the 2006 Plan, projects in the appendices to the 2006 Plan, projects that were subsequently added to the list by the CC and all projects submitted to the Plan during the update process. This list is located at: http://bayareairwmp.org/grants- projects/projects/. Any IRWMP stakeholder may submit a project for inclusion on the Master List by completing the Project Template (Section 6.3.1). In advance of a review process, the CC sends an email to the list serve and posts to the website asking the project proponents of all projects on the Master List to confirm that the project is still active and that they want their project ranked. If the project proponent fails to confirm their involvement, the project will not move forward to the Active Project List. Unless a project has been removed by the project proponent, it will remain on the Master List. Projects may be added to or removed from the Master Project List at any time; however this must be done by the project proponent(s).  To remove a project, the project proponent must submit a written request for removal to the CC. The request for removal must include: the project title, consent to remove the project from all project lists and the reason for removal of the project.  In the event of multi-entity projects, all entities must agree to a project’s removal.  It is the project proponent’s responsibility to notify, and get consent from, any and all partnering entities of the removal of the project from the IRWMP Master List.  In the case of multi-entity projects the “project proponent” refers to the lead entity. The CC may commence a call for new projects. The confirmed projects and new projects will comprise the IRWMP Active List. 6.4.1.2 Active List The Active List is a subset of the Master List and includes all projects that will be evaluated in the Project Review Process. (Section 6.4.2) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-16 Project Review Process It is the project proponent’s responsibility to:  Complete the Project Template (as described in Section 6.3.1)  Ensure that project information is up to date  Respond to CC requests for information Project(s) can be removed from the Active List by the CC if the project proponent does not meet its responsibilities. Projects removed from the Active List are maintained in the Master List until removed by the project proponent(s). Subsequent to the 2013 Project Review Process, updates to the Project lists will be added to the Plan as appendices. The process is described in Section 6.6. 6.4.2 Project Review Projects are reviewed by the Project Screening Committee (PSC). The PSC is a volunteer body composed of members active on the Bay Area Integration Regional Water Management (IRWM) Coordinating Committee (CC) and representing local public agencies, tribes, disadvantaged communities (DACs) and Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs), and other stakeholder organizations. For the 2019 review process, the PSC embraced the concept of the regional Proposal representing each Functional Area and each Subregion in the Funding Area, as defined in the 2013 Bay Area IRWM Plan, if such projects could be considered competitive, and also elevating projects that provided benefits to Tribes/DACs/EDAs, either through the 10% minimum reserved for Tribes/DACs/EDAs or through the General Implementation Project funding. Project Scoring and Selection Process For the 2019 Round 1 Implementation Project review, the PSC followed the following process: Quantitative Review Process: • PSC agreed to use the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Round 1 Grant Implementation Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) Project Level Evaluation scoring criteria to evaluate all project submittals (25 point scale). • Point totals were compiled for each project and averaged (Method 1). A second method compiled each project by rank and then averaged the rank, thus avoiding skew and outliers to provide all scorers equal voice (Method 2). Both Method 1 and Method 2 identified the same top 10 projects, just in a slightly different order. Qualitative Review Process: • PSC referenced the 2013 Bay Area IRWM Plan, the PSP, and the 2019 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines for guidance. The PSC removed any projects that the group agreed were not as competitive as other highly-ranked projects given the principles of the Bay Area IRWM and/or the statewide IRWM guidelines – i.e., 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-17 Project Review Process projects that needed to better articulate claimed benefits or only provided benefits to a very limited geographical area in comparison to other projects. • PSC reviewed the updated highest-ranked projects for Functional Area representation. • PSC reviewed the updated highest-ranked projects for Subregion representation. • PSC reviewed the updated highest-ranked projects for Tribal/DAC/EDA representation. Managing Conflict of Interest To ensure the scoring and selection process was fair and equitable, PSC members representing agencies or organizations did not score their own projects. In addition, the accepted ground rules for the July 15th, 2019 in-person ‘Scoring Review and Project Selection’ meeting included an agreement by all present not to lobby the group or advocate on behalf of their project, and to only provide additional information about a project if requested. Lastly, no member of the PSC received any additional information on how to put together a competitive project application compared to other applicants: the quantitative review process mirrored DWR’s 2019 PSP scoring criteria exactly and the qualitative review process was based on IRWM principles in the 2013 Bay Area IRWM Plan, the 2019 PSP, and the 2019 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines. In addition, qualitative selection goals such as Functional Area representation, Subregion representation, and Tribal/DAC/EDA representation were discussed at public CC meetings leading up to the project application deadline. 6.5 Results The Master List includes 690 projects, 332 of which were submitted (or re-submitted) in the 2012 call for projects and went through the two-phase project review process. The Master List includes the following subcategories for projects submitted during the 2012 call for projects: Number of projects on the Active List: 315 Number of regional projects: 30 Number of projects indicating benefits to DAC: 123 Number of projects that did not pass Subregion review: 17 Of the 332 projects submitted, the Subregion screening process identified 17 projects that were deemed ineligible because they did not meet the minimum criteria. Project proponents were provided a notice that the project did not advance to the ranking phase and were given an opportunity to address the CC at its monthly meeting. These projects remain on the Master List. The remaining 315 projects that were included in the Active List continued to Phase 2 for scoring and ranking based on the methodology described in Section 6.3.3. The results of the project scoring are shown in Error! Reference source not found.. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-18 Project Review Process 6.5.1 Procedure for Communicating the List of Selected Projects Once the Active List projects were ranked, draft scores were posted on the Bay Area IRWM website. The PSC also contacted project proponents by email to announce the draft scores, the criteria used to score each project, and the Project Review Process guidance. Proponents were informed that the scored list would be published in the Plan and the project information would be used to update the Plan and describe the efforts to develop regional, integrated, and multi- benefit solutions for our water resources. Project proponents were then given an opportunity to address errors identified in the project review process. Examples of errors the PSC would consider correcting included errors made by the scoring team or errors due to technical issues from the website and project information not being properly captured. Project proponents were requested to provide an explanation of the error and a proposed solution. Proponents were given two weeks to provide this information, which was submitted electronically. The PSC re-scored 17 projects. 6.6 Adaptive Management Process The water management issues facing the Bay Area will change over time as regulations become more stringent, environmental conditions change, and new regional interests and goals emerge. As these issues evolve over time, the type of projects considered as regional priorities for implementation will change. Further, as projects are implemented and additional studies are completed, their readiness-to-proceed will change. Recognizing that goals, objectives, and regional priorities evolve over time, the CC will review the Plan periodically, depending on changing conditions and availability of funds as future work is performed, and make adjustments as necessary to respond to changes throughout the region. This review will be informed by assessments performed by project proponents at the project level and by the CC at the Plan level (refer to Chapter 8: Plan Performance and Monitoring). Information collected through this review process will be used to inform decisions regarding IRWMP project sequencing, as well as updates to the regional goals, objectives, and priorities. This process of continual review and update will optimize the effectiveness of IRWMP implementation. The IRWMP Project Review Process will generally take place on a schedule that anticipates an IRWMP update, a Proposal Solicitation Package, or as determined necessary by the CC. Subsequent to the completion of the Project Review Process in the IRWMP update, projects to be added to the IRWMP will be reviewed and ranked by the PSC, subject to the approval of the CC, and a new list of Plan Projects generated. To the extent allowable under State IRWM guidelines and criteria, a new project submitted after adoption of the Plan will be considered by the appropriate functional area(s) to evaluate whether that project should be forwarded to the IRWMP CC as a high priority project to consider when the next available funding proposal is developed. The schedule and process for each functional area may vary. Updates to the Project lists will be added to the Plan as appendices. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-19 Project Review Process Table 6-3: Proposition 1 Round 1 Project Scoring Results Project Title Sponsor Subregion Functional Area Prop 1 Grant Request Rank by Ave Score RD1 System Fish Passage Improvements Alameda County Water District (ACWD) Leonard Ash East Watershed-Habitat $ 4,000,000 1 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District East Watershed $ 1,500,000 2 River Oaks Stormwater Capture Project City of San José, Jeff Sinclair South Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 4,350,000 3 NBWRP Phase 2 North Bay Water Reuse Authority - Jake Spaulding North Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 5,246,931 4 Calistoga Water and Habitat Project City of Calistoga and Napa County Resource Conservation District, Derek Rayner North Disadvantaged Communities $ 2,121,555 5 San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, Upstream of Highway 101 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 3,100,000 6 Bay Area Regional Water Conservation East Bay Municipal Utility District Multiple Water Supply-Water Quality $ 8,415,400 6 San Francisco Zoo Recycled Water Pipeline Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission West Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 562,648 8 McCosker Creek Restoration East Bay Regional Park District, Tiffany Margulici East Water Supply-Water QualityWatershedDisadvantaged Communities $ 910,500 9 Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gates Improvements Santa Clara Valley Water District South-West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 6,500,000 10 OLSD Sewer Pipeline Replacement Project Oro Loma Sanitary District South Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 1,000,000 11 Sutter Urban Flood Reduction City of San Pablo; Amanda Booth East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 4,000,000 12 Implementing BMPs on Rural Lands Sonoma Resource Conservation District, Valerie Quinto North Watershed $ 1,193,047 12 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-20 Project Review Process San Mateo Water Resources Program San Mateo Resource Conservation District West Water Supply-Water Quality $ 2,955,000 14 BART Hayward Maintenance Complex Rainwater Catchment, Bio-Retention Basin, and Solar Thermal project BART East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 5,441,180 14 Bayfront/Atherton Flood Protection Project County of San Mateo, Erika Powell South Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 3,216,484 16 Belmont Creek Watershed Restoration Project County of San Mateo West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 10,680,548 16 Hayward Recycled Water Project Phase- 2 City of Hayward; Jan Lee East Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 3,980,000 18 Bayfront Recycled Water and SLR Protection West Bay Sanitary District, Phil Scott, Manager West Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 15,000,000 19 Graywater Direct Installation Program for Underserved Communities Ecology Action Multiple Water Supply-Water Quality $ 338,387 20 Athlone Terrace Pump Station Upgrade County of San Mateo Dept of Public Works. Joe LoCoco (jlococo@smcgov.org) West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 3,750,000 20 Walnut/Angus pump stations upgrades San Mateo County Flood Control District. Mark Chow (mchow@smcgov.org) West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 2,181,450 22 Aging Concrete-Lined Channels Zone 7 Water Agency East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 10,375,000 23 Bluff Erosion Protection Preservation Esplanade City of Pacifica, Louis Sun West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 1,700,000 24 Beach Boulevard South Seawall Replacement City of Pacifica, Louis Sun West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 9,000,000 25 Chain of Lakes Pipeline Zone 7 Water Agency East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 33,000,000 26 Retional Upstream Detention Improvements Zone 7 Water Agency East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 7,625,000 27 Selected Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Impacts and Benefits Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 7: Impacts and Benefits ................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Water Conservation and Demand Management ................................ 7-3 7.3 Water Supply Enhancement .............................................................. 7-8 7.3.1 Infrastructure Reliability .......................................................... 7-8 7.3.2 Surface Water Supply ............................................................ 7-9 7.3.3 Groundwater Management ................................................... 7-10 7.3.4 Water Reuse ........................................................................ 7-11 7.3.5 Stormwater Capture ............................................................. 7-12 7.3.6 Desalination ......................................................................... 7-13 7.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement ..................................... 7-14 7.4.1 Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities ................................ 7-14 7.4.2 Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management ..................... 7-15 7.4.3 Aquifer Remediation ............................................................. 7-16 7.4.4 Salt and Salinity Management .............................................. 7-17 7.5 Watershed Management ................................................................. 7-18 7.6 Habitat Protection, Improvement and Restoration ........................... 7-19 7.6.1 Habitat Protection and Improvement .................................... 7-19 7.6.2 Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation ........................... 7-20 7.7 Flood and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management ............................. 7-22 7.7.1 Flood Management Facilities, Floodplain Protection ............ 7-22 7.7.2 Sea Level Rise (SLR) Hazard Management ......................... 7-24 7.8 Public Access, Recreation and Use................................................. 7-25 7.9 Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools ........................................ 7-26 7.10 Education, Outreach and Incentives ................................................ 7-27 7.11 Environmental Justice and Effects on Disadvantaged Communities ................................................................................... 7-28 7.11.1 DACs in the Bay Area Region .............................................. 7-29 7.11.2 Development and Identification of DAC Projects .................. 7-29 7.11.3 Current Projects in DACs ..................................................... 7-29 7.11.4 Potential Effects of IRWMP Implementation on DACs .......... 7-30 7.12 Effects on Native American Tribal Communities .............................. 7-30 7.13 References ...................................................................................... 7-31 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Impacts and Benefits List of Tables Table 7-1: Project Categories and Types Evaluated in This Chapter ...................................... 7-2 Table 7-2: Potential IRWMP Environmental Impacts by Project Types ................................... 7-4 Table 7-3: Potential IRWMP Benefits by Project Type ............................................................. 7-6 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-1 Impacts and Benefits Chapter 7: Impacts and Benefits This chapter contains a discussion of potential impacts and benefits of implementation of the IRWMP, including those within and between regions, and those potentially affecting disadvantaged, environmental justice concerns and Native American Tribal communities. Consistent with DWR requirements as described in the 2016 Guidelines, the discussion is not exhaustive but rather provides a screening level analysis to help any reader of the IRWMP generally understand the impacts and benefits of implementing the IRWMP. This overview of impacts and benefits will serve as a benchmark to help the IRWM planners assess whether the anticipated benefits of the IRWMP have been realized and/or unanticipated impacts have occurred. Impacts and benefits will be analyzed in more detail prior to implementation of specific projects. As appropriate, as project concepts are further developed and advanced for approval, detailed environmental impact assessment will be conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The status of CEQA/NEPA review varies by project and was collected and recorded during the project review process (see Section 6.3.3 in Chapter 6 for further information on the project review process). Project information is available online at the Bay Area IRWMP website. 7.1 Introduction For the purposes of characterizing potential impacts and benefits of IRWMP implementation, a list of potential project types was developed. The list reflects DWR’s latest set of primary management objectives for the 2013 Update of the California Water Plan, this IRWMP’s set of Resource Management Strategies presented in Chapter 4, and the current list of projects submitted for consideration as part of this IRWMP update process. Table 7-5 presents the list of project types evaluated in this chapter and shows how this project list relates to DWR’s most recent set of broad management priorities as laid out in the 2013 CWP Update. Sections 7.2 through 7.10 address each project category, and describe the potential environmental impacts, benefits, and interregional effects that could result from implementation. With respect to impacts, four areas of impact are considered: short-term site development or construction-related impacts (e.g., traffic, dust and noise associated with earthwork and/or construction activity); facility “footprint” impacts associated with disturbance of resources at and near the project site; facility/project operations impacts (e.g., energy use, air and GHG emissions, traffic associated with project operations and maintenance); and growth inducement potential (e.g., potentially associated with expanded service capability) leading to secondary effects of growth (e.g., increased land development, traffic, and service demands associated with growth). Sections 7.11 and 7.12 address potential impacts and benefits to Bay Area disadvantaged communities and Native American Tribal communities or resources, respectively. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-2 Impacts and Benefits Table 7-5: Project Categories and Types Evaluated in This Chapter CWP 2013 Update Management Objectives Project Categories and Types Reduce Water Demand Water Conservation and Demand Management • Agricultural Water Use Efficiency • Urban Water Use Efficiency Increase Water Supply Improve Operational Efficiency Water Supply Enhancement • Infrastructure Reliability • Surface Water Supply • Groundwater Management • Water Reuse • Stormwater Capture • Desalination Improve Water Quality Water Quality Protection and Improvement • Water, Wastewater Treatment Facilities • Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management • Aquifer Remediation • Salt and Salinity Management Practice Resource Stewardship Watershed Management • Watershed Erosion Control, Land Stewardship Habitat Protection and Restoration • Habitat Protection and Improvement • Ecosystem Restoration and Wetland Creation Improve Flood Management Flood and Sea Level Rise (SLR) Hazard Management • Flood Management Facilities, Floodplain Protection • SLR Hazard Management People and Water Public Access, Recreation and Use Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools Education, Outreach and Incentives 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-3 Impacts and Benefits Table 7-6 and the text in Sections 7.2 through 7.10 summarize typical impacts associated with each project type. Actual impacts of specific projects would vary depending on site-specific conditions, such as the sensitivity of on-site and nearby resources, as well as project design and operation details. Two of the project types, shown corresponding to DWR’s People and Water objective – Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools, as well as Education, Outreach and Incentives – are not expected to result in physical impacts and thus they are not addressed in Table 7-6. Table 7-7 summarizes potential benefits of IRWMP implementation by project type. The list of benefits shown in the table was developed to reflect both the statewide priorities presented in the latest CWP and IRWMP goals and objectives and reflected in the project descriptions submitted as part of the planning process. This chapter will be reviewed and updated during normal plan management activities as part of the regular Plan re-assessment and readoption process, which occurs on a five-year cycle. See Section Chapter 1, Governance, for a description of the Plan update process. 7.2 Water Conservation and Demand Management Water Conservation and Demand Management includes both agricultural and urban water use efficiency projects. Projects in this category can include rebate programs to accelerate plumbing retrofits or landscape changes, tiered rates and other financial incentive programs that influence customer behavior to reduce water use, and projects targeting agricultural conservation such as canal relining, irrigation improvements, crop changes, or other use reduction measures. The Bay Area has made significant strides in urban water use efficiency by reducing per capita water use; DWR studies indicate that per capita water use in the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region is among the lowest in the state (DWR et al, 2010). Water Conservation and Demand Management projects proposed as part of the IRWMP may include conversion to drought tolerant landscapes to promotion of BMPs for both urban and agricultural irrigation efficiency, among others. Potential Impacts In general, urban Water Conservation and Demand Management projects do not result in appreciable physical impacts as they often do not require new or modified facilities or other types of major land disturbance or new operations; rather, these projects involve behavioral changes and/or indoor/outdoor device and plumbing changes. Some irrigation improvements High efficiency clothes washers can help reduce urban water use. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-4 Impacts and Benefits may involve land disruption to install new irrigation equipment but this would most likely occur within areas already subject to regular maintenance, resulting in little “new” environmental impact. Agricultural Water Conservation and Demand Management projects could include lining agricultural water canals to reduce water loss through canal seepage. This practice reduces water losses, but may also have unintended consequences to nearby groundwater supplies, adjacent habitats and wetlands supported by or benefiting from the canal seepage. Table 7-6: Potential IRWMP Environmental Impacts by Project Types Project Categories and Type Impact Category Land Use Water Resources Biological Resources Air and Energy Delta water and biological resources Agriculture Land Use Compatibility Recreation Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Growth Inducement Potential Surface Water Groundwater Water Quality Flooding Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Pollutant Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy Use Water Conservation and Demand Management Agricultural and Urban Water Use Efficiency   Water Supply Enhancement Infrastructure Reliability         Surface Water Supply              Groundwater Management            Water Reuse            Stormwater Capture         Desalination             Water Quality Protection and Improvement Water, Wastewater Treatment Facilities           Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management        Aquifer Remediation          Salt and Salinity Management         Watershed Management 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-5 Impacts and Benefits Project Categories and Type Impact Category Land Use Water Resources Biological Resources Air and Energy Delta water and biological resources Agriculture Land Use Compatibility Recreation Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Growth Inducement Potential Surface Water Groundwater Water Quality Flooding Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Pollutant Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy Use Watershed Erosion Control, Land Stewardship         Habitat Protection and Restoration Habitat Protection and Improvement            Ecosystem Restoration and Wetland Creation            Flood and SLR Hazard Management Flood Hazard Management          SLR Hazard Management            Public Access, Recreation and Uses Water Dependent Recreation, Trails, etc.         2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-6 Impacts and Benefits Table 7-7: Potential IRWMP Benefits by Project Type Project Categories and Type Benefit Category Water Supply Reliability Water Quality Integrated Flood Management Climate Change Response Environmental Stewardship Community Involvement and Public Use Reduce total water demand through water use efficiency Reduce potable water demand Expand use of recycled water Expand stormwater reuse Diversity regional water management portfolio Increase storage or conveyance capacity Increase aquifer recharge Protect or improve surface water quality Protect or improve groundwater quality Improve drinking water quality Improve wastewater treatment Improve stormwater quality Respond to salinity issues Prevent nutrient loading Reduce risk of flooding Restore floodplains Improve flood ctrl through wetland restoration, protection Reduce stormwater runoff through improved infiltration Reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions Prepare for sea level rise, higher tidal surges Prepare for extreme climate events, and drought Contribute to carbon sequestration Protect existing high quality habitat Restore impaired habitat Promote recovery of threatened and endangered species Provide water for aquatic habitat Manage pests and invasive species Promote energy efficiency, use of renewable energy Potential to benefit a disadvantaged community Protect cultural resources Promote community outreach, education and stewardship Promote public access, water-oriented recreation Water Conservation and Demand Management Agricultural and urban use efficiency                  Water Supply Enhancement Infrastructure Reliability           Surface Water Supply        Groundwater Management                    Water Reuse                 Stormwater Capture                       Desalination        Water Quality Protection and Improvement Water, Wastewater Treatment Facilities                     Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management                  Aquifer remediation           Salt and salinity management            Watershed Management Watershed protection, sediment management, erosion control, land stewardship                      Habitat Protection and Restoration Existing Habitat Protection and Improvement                Ecosystem Restoration                      Flood and SLR Hazard Management Flood management facilities, floodplain protection                    SLR hazard management                     Public Access, Recreation and Use Trails, water-based recreation, water-dependent cultural uses (fisheries)         2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-7 Impacts and Benefits Project Categories and Type Benefit Category Water Supply Reliability Water Quality Integrated Flood Management Climate Change Response Environmental Stewardship Community Involvement and Public Use Reduce total water demand through water use efficiency Reduce potable water demand Expand use of recycled water Expand stormwater reuse Diversity regional water management portfolio Increase storage or conveyance capacity Increase aquifer recharge Protect or improve surface water quality Protect or improve groundwater quality Improve drinking water quality Improve wastewater treatment Improve stormwater quality Respond to salinity issues Prevent nutrient loading Reduce risk of flooding Restore floodplains Improve flood ctrl through wetland restoration, protection Reduce stormwater runoff through improved infiltration Reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions Prepare for sea level rise, higher tidal surges Prepare for extreme climate events, and drought Contribute to carbon sequestration Protect existing high quality habitat Restore impaired habitat Promote recovery of threatened and endangered species Provide water for aquatic habitat Manage pests and invasive species Promote energy efficiency, use of renewable energy Potential to benefit a disadvantaged community Protect cultural resources Promote community outreach, education and stewardship Promote public access, water-oriented recreation Modeling and Monitoring Tools Decision support systems (DSS) and technical data collection             Education, Outreach, and Incentives Student and community programs, school projects, financing programs           2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-8 Impacts and Benefits Potential Benefits The substantial benefits of Water Conservation and Demand Management include reductions in total water demand and reductions in potable water demand, expanding the regional water management portfolio and netting additional supply reliability throughout the system without any of the construction-related impacts associated with a “new” or supplemental supply project. Further, these projects have the benefit of reducing demands on imported water supplies such as the Sierra supplies delivered to the Bay Area by SWP and CVP, which convey water through the Delta, or by the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system or EBMUD’s Mokelumne systems, thereby lessening pressure of competing demands on a limited resource and improving surface and groundwater water quality in water source areas. Improved water quality and quantity in these areas aids in recovery of aquatic habitats and supports sensitive species. Reduced water consumption also aids in drought preparedness by conserving water supplies. Reducing average annual water deliveries reduces energy use associated with water conveyance and treatment, which in turn reduces air and GHG emissions. Reducing water demands provides in- lieu groundwater recharge. Improved water use efficiency can reduce nutrient leaching and prevent nutrient loading. Water conservation programs also provide community outreach and education benefits. Interregional Effects There are multiple interregional benefits of Water Conservation and Demand Management including better drought preparedness and reduced reliance on imported water. Reduced energy consumption and associated reductions in air emissions would benefit the Bay Area and Central Valley air basins. In addition, reductions in energy use due to reduced water transport and consumption also decreases contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, a global concern. 7.3 Water Supply Enhancement 7.3.1 Infrastructure Reliability Infrastructure Reliability projects can include facility repair, replacement, improvement or expansion at any point in the water supply system including conveyance, storage, treatment or distribution. Projects in this category may also include interties within or between systems to improve delivery flexibility and redundancy. The improvement and expansion of the South Bay Aqueduct element of the SWP executed by DWR and Zone 7 Water Agency are an example of this type of project. Examples of Infrastructure Reliability projects currently included in the IRWMP include system interties, reconstruction of aging storage tanks and pipelines, dam seismic retrofits and rehabilitations, and SCADA system upgrades. Potential Impacts Infrastructure Reliability projects often involve modifying or improving existing facilities, resulting in fewer construction and footprint-related impacts than would occur with construction of new facilities. Nonetheless, facility modifications and/or the addition of new facilities, such as conveyance interties or additional system storage could result in construction, footprint and possibly operational impacts that may affect adjacent developed land uses, or natural resources and cultural resources if undeveloped open space areas are affected. Improvements involving 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-9 Impacts and Benefits capacity expansion may lead to the potential for growth inducement and consequently, an increase in overall energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Potential Benefits The benefits of Infrastructure Reliability projects can include improved water supply and supply reliability, improved operational efficiency, increased energy efficiency (from replacement of outmoded equipment), reduced risk of outages under normal or emergency operations (e.g., following a major earthquake), and improved drinking water quality (e.g., from replacement of aging treated water storage facilities). Interregional Effects Projects designed to improve the reliability of existing conveyance systems that import water to the Bay Area may result in both impacts and benefits to the source water regions, such as the Delta, Sierra foothills or upper Russian River watershed, where water diversion, storage and conveyance facilities originate. Projects in these areas may result in construction and footprint impacts at facility sites as well as off-site water resource, hydrologic and aquatic resource impacts. Benefits to these areas could include facilities that better conserve water and are more energy efficient, reducing interregional operational impacts. Regional system interties can provide regional and interregional benefits by improving water supply capabilities during an emergency or extended drought. 7.3.2 Surface Water Supply Surface Water Supply projects include water transfers, or improvements to existing water supply systems tapping sources both within and outside of the San Francisco Bay Area hydrologic region, including changes in water diversions (from local, Delta, Sierra, Russian River or Eel River sources), interties, and/or surface water storage augmentation. Examples of Surface Water Supply projects currently included in the IRWMP include pilot projects for water transfers between major water agencies within the Bay Area and projects to restore operating capacity at dams. Potential Impacts Potential impacts of improved Surface Water Supply vary by activity, but can include adverse effects on surrounding land uses including agriculture, aquatic resources, water quality and other beneficial uses such as recreation (for potential increases in surface water diversions), cultural resources (e.g., archeological resources near waterways affected by facility construction or operation), growth-inducing impacts, increases in air pollutant and GHG emissions (to the extent that the project increases energy use from fossil fuels), and third party impacts (e.g., when State Water Project contractors have more [or less] water to sell to other water supply agencies). Storage facilities, such as reservoirs, can have large footprints and may be located in rural areas adjacent to agriculture and/or sensitive habitats (e.g., riparian woodland). Reservoir construction can adversely affect habitat and resident threatened and endangered species. Although currently there are limited Surface Water Supply projects included in the IRWMP that would be expected to adversely affect Delta resources, the Bay Area does rely on the Delta for a portion of its water supplies and such projects may be proposed in the future. Proposition 1 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-10 Impacts and Benefits prioritizes projects that help increase regional self-reliance for those areas that receive water from the Delta watershed. Potential Benefits Potential benefits of Surface Water Supply projects include improved water supply reliability under normal and emergency conditions (through, for example, diversifying an agency’s or region’s water supply, conveyance and storage portfolio), improved system resilience to extreme climate events, increased operational flexibility, and support of beneficial uses defined in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan (e.g., industrial and municipal water supplies). Interregional Effects Expanding local water supplies increases water supply options for the Bay Area and increases supply delivery flexibility. Improving and supplementing the water supply portfolio for Bay Area water providers may allow a reduction in the use of water from sources outside the hydrologic region, which could reduce impacts on source watersheds and may provide better flexibility to divert water at times when it results in less adverse environmental effect to water and aquatic resources. 7.3.3 Groundwater Management Specific Groundwater Management project types include conjunctive use, groundwater recharge, groundwater banking and recharge area protection. Examples of Groundwater projects in the IRWMP include groundwater recharge and groundwater banking projects in the North Bay, and a multi-county water reuse program that utilizes portions of recycled water for groundwater recharge. In other areas, rubber dams are used to encourage groundwater recharge (these projects often include fish ladders around those dams to improve fish access to upper habitats in the watershed). Many projects also identify conjunctive use or protection of recharge areas as a secondary benefit. Potential Impacts Groundwater Management may include recharge pond projects, which tend to be land intensive with site development impacts that could extend broadly into existing and surrounding land uses, including agriculture, open space, and natural resource areas. In riparian areas, construction of recharge ponds could impact aquatic and terrestrial species, for example, by reducing the frequency of local flooding/inundation which is typically beneficial for wetland areas. Conjunctive use projects may result in water quality impacts due to the interaction of surface and groundwater. Operational effects include potential additional energy use (associated with water conveyance, injection and pumping) and associated air and greenhouse gas emissions. Increased in water availability could lead to the potential for growth inducement. Potential Benefits Benefits of Groundwater Management projects may include reduced reliance on imported water through expansion of local water supplies, or increased storage capacity to allow for better timing of water imports to avoid upstream environmental impacts. Expanded local management and protection of water supplies may allow for reduced exposure to surface pollutants. Rain 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-11 Impacts and Benefits capture and storage of stormwater in groundwater basins could reduce flooding by minimizing peak runoff volumes in local streams. Stormwater or recycled water could be used to recharge overdrafted groundwater basins and also prevent saltwater intrusion associated with sea level rise (SLR) near San Francisco Bay. Groundwater may also be a source of water for existing high quality and restored habitats that could be managed or preserved to benefit sensitive species and improve water quality and supply. Capturing available local water supplies and recharging groundwater basins for future use is a form of green infrastructure management that supports local water demand and diversifies the local water management portfolio. Interregional Effects Interregional effects are common with Groundwater Management, specifically conjunctive use projects because of the relationship to surface water supplies. For example, local groundwater banking programs could store waters originating from other regions. Local storage would enable water to be diverted during less sensitive high flow periods and stored for use during dry weather periods. Depending on timing and compliance with upstream flow requirements, this could have the benefit of recharging some local groundwater basins, where there may be overdraft or salinity issues. A separate interregional effect could occur when local demand for imported water is reduced, for example through recycling, which would free source supplies for other beneficial uses such as groundwater recharge programs in those source areas. Interregional benefits could include enhanced summer stream flows and improved salmonid recovery in those upstream areas. 7.3.4 Water Reuse Water Reuse (non-potable, indirect and direct potable, and matching quality to use) projects involve development of treatment, storage, and conveyance facilities to serve appropriate water uses including landscape irrigation (e.g., business parks, roadway medians and golf courses), crop irrigation (e.g., vineyards in Sonoma and Napa Counties), industrial uses (e.g., oil refinery cooling in Contra Costa County), indoor uses (e.g., toilet flushing), groundwater recharge, and wetland/habitat creation. Examples of Water Reuse projects submitted for consideration as part of the IRWMP include multiple recycling projects throughout the Bay Area and potable reuse studies. Potential Impacts Water Reuse projects typically include modifications to wastewater treatment facilities, installation or expansion of recycled water distribution pipelines, pump stations, and system Using recycled water for landscape irrigation can help offset use of potable water supplies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-12 Impacts and Benefits storage. Modification of existing discharges from wastewater treatment facilities as well as the use of recycled water has the potential to adversely affect surface water hydrology, surface water and groundwater quality, and groundwater. Installation of treatment facilities, pump stations, pipelines, and storage can impact existing land uses, and may have temporary impacts to habitat and water quality. The operation of treatment processes to support water reuse requires additional energy with commensurate air and GHG emissions. Potential Benefits By making recycled water available to more customers, Water Reuse projects reduce the use of imported and local surface water and groundwater supplies, diversify the local and regional water portfolio, increase reliability, and provide a drought resistant water supply. Water Reuse projects often increase storage and conveyance capacity by constructing new pipelines and storage facilities. Water Reuse projects provide opportunities to match water quality to use (e.g., using recycled water instead of potable water for irrigation purposes) and preserve the highest quality water for potable use. As indicated in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3.3.1), the Bay Area recycled approximately 60,000 acre feet of supply in 2010, and recycled water supply is expected to double over the next 20 years (BACWA 2011 Recycled Water Survey). Water reuse projects help to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean by reducing wastewater discharges and can also support recovery of threatened and endangered species by reducing demand on local surface waters. Recycled water can also be used to support habitat restoration projects (e.g., wetlands creation), thereby providing local and regional habitat benefits. Non- potable water recycling processes can have lower energy requirements than other water sources (e.g., imported water) and therefore may help to lower or offset GHG emissions if used in place of more energy intensive water supplies. Finally, promotion of successful water reuse projects helps to educate the community about water issues and environmental stewardship. Interregional Effects Many of the benefits of Water Reuse projects are interregional, such as reduced reliance on imported water from the Delta and Eel River systems. Additional water in these systems reduces many of the documented environmental stressors that result from water diversion away from those ecosystems. Additional water flows in the Eel River would also benefit the Bear River, Wiyot, and Blue Lake Native American tribes there, for whom the river and the fishery are water dependent cultural resources. 7.3.5 Stormwater Capture Stormwater Capture projects include use of detention basins, roof gardens, rain barrels/cisterns, biofiltration and other technologies to capture, manage, and infiltrate stormwater onsite. Examples of Stormwater Capture projects included in the IRWMP include Low Impact Design (LID) projects at schools, in disadvantaged communities (DACs), and in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). In some cases, stormwater capture projects are linked to other project categories such as Groundwater Management and Education and Outreach. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-13 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Stormwater Capture projects are often responsive to, and dependent on, surrounding land uses, which generate stormwater for capture. Capturing stormwater is a generally passive activity that does not typically require treatment and therefore has few energy related impacts. Capturing stormwater however, may have impacts on downstream hydrology and water quality, potentially affecting aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Land use impacts could result from siting large facilities, such as detention basins, in constrained urban areas. These detention basins could affect flooding frequency and may also concentrate surface water pollutants, which would require long-term maintenance and funding. Potential Benefits Stormwater Capture systems, such as detention basins incorporated into the design of a new development, can result in beneficial management of the storm hydrograph. By detaining peak flows generated from new impervious surfaces, Stormwater Capture and Management projects reduce disruption of natural flow cycles by storing stormwater and minimizing potential downstream flooding impacts. These projects may also provide a wide range of benefits related to water supply, water quality, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and public health. Increasingly, new urban development projects utilize detention basins, roof gardens, or cisterns to capture and manage stormwater on-site. These actions may provide recreational opportunities by incorporating dual-acting design features such as detention basins that are used as playing fields or parks during summer months, or left to function as year-round wetlands. Design components such as wetlands can also address other watershed scale issues. For example, filtering runoff through vegetation reduces subsequent pollutant loading in receiving water bodies benefiting salmonid habitats. Implementation of Stormwater capture projects may support several beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to: groundwater recharge, marine habitat, and water contact recreation. Interregional Effects Stormwater Capture can be used to augment local water supplies and could reduce the need to import water from other regions. Stormwater capture programs in the urbanized Bay Area could reduce urban runoff pollutants, particularly during ‘first flush’ events entering San Francisco Bay and marine environments of the Pacific Ocean. 7.3.6 Desalination Desalination projects include projects designed to provide a new source of potable water supply by removing salts and dissolved solids from brackish or saline water. The IRWMP includes a regional desalination project that has been proposed by multiple Bay Area water agencies as well as a project that will investigate the feasibility of developing brackish groundwater aquifers for water supply. Potential Impacts Potential impacts from Desalination projects include impacts to surrounding land uses associated with siting a new treatment facility. Diversion of brackish or saltwater from the Bay 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-14 Impacts and Benefits has the potential to impact to aquatic resources as a result of entrapment and entrainment by intake structures. Disposal of brine generated during treatment operations could impact air and water quality. Desalination projects are often located to take advantage of operational efficiencies derived from using brackish water and therefore could impact estuarine habitat and other sensitive biological resources in the Bay and Delta. The desalination process remains relatively energy intensive and thus would increase energy use along with air and greenhouse gas emissions, and could have growth-inducing impacts as it would represent a new water supply source. Potential Benefits Potential benefits of Desalination include diversification of the region’s water supply portfolio by providing a new high quality source of supply that is not weather-dependent and would be available during periods of drought, reducing reliance on imported supplies. Implementation of Desalination projects may also support several beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to, industrial service supply, and municipal and domestic water supply. Interregional Effects Using Desalination to meet local water demand could improve short-term drought resistance and decrease drought effects in source watersheds. However, the increase in energy use and associated increase in air and greenhouse gas emissions associated with desalination could contribute to impacts on the regional and global climate. 7.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement There are many strategies to protect and improve surface and groundwater water quality, ranging from pollutant source control measures to active treatment technologies. Four methods are discussed below. 7.4.1 Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities projects include projects that would build or upgrade water or wastewater treatment plants and/or technology. Examples of Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities projects included in the IRWMP include pretreatment facilities to treat water obtained from regional transfers and interties. Some of these projects include use of renewable energy. Wastewater treatment plant aeration basin. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-15 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Water and Wastewater Treatment facilities require energy for treatment processes and, as a result, new or reconstructed facilities could increase energy use and associated air and greenhouse gas emissions. Wastewater treatment facilities often result in land use conflicts due to the potential for air quality, noise, odor, and visual effects impacts on adjacent land uses. Changes in discharge patterns may affect downstream hydrology and water quality, resulting in impacts to aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Potential Benefits Water and Wastewater Treatment projects protect and improve surface water and groundwater quality, which benefits both human and ecosystem health. Improved water quality benefits contact and non-contact recreational water activities such as fishing, swimming and boating. Improved water quality also protects riparian and aquatic habitats which often support rare, threatened and endangered species. Implementation of new water treatment processes supports the ability to meet drinking water standards and wastewater effluent requirements. New and upgraded treatment facilities are generally more energy efficient than older facilities and therefore may reduce energy use and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of Water and Wastewater Treatment projects may also support beneficial water uses defined in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to industrial service supply, and municipal and domestic water supply. Interregional Effects Reducing air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions through the implementation of new, energy efficient treatment technologies provides regional, interregional and global benefits. As described above under Water Reuse, modifying and improving wastewater treatment facilities to support recycled water production reduces the need for water imports and improves drought preparedness. Improvements to wastewater treatment facilities in other regions can provide water quality benefits to the Bay Area region and vice versa. Improvements to pretreatment processes could supp ort use of raw water from varying sources, thereby increasing treatment flexibility, supporting regional transfers, expanding existing water distribution infrastructure and encouraging interties between agencies. 7.4.2 Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management includes both urban and agricultural projects aimed at reducing runoff and improving water quality through the implementation of site design, source control and treatment control best management practices. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects could range from end-of-pipe capital improvements on existing stormwater systems, to development of a regional approach for reducing pollution in urban or agricultural runoff. Examples of Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects currently included in the IRWMP include efforts to reduce trash in urban waterways, efforts to reduce and control agricultural runoff, and efforts to install exclusion fencing to protect riparian areas from livestock. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-16 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Impacts resulting from implementation of Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects are highly varied depending on the nature of the management approaches that are employed. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects may have impacts associated with facility siting, since they would typically be near a riparian area that could impact surface water and water quality, and could also affect local flooding due to slowing and filtering of runoff. Implementation of agricultural runoff BMPs, such as silt fencing along riparian buffers could reduce land available for agriculture and affect terrestrial animal migration patterns near fenced stream corridors. With modified stream flows, aquatic resources could also be affected by runoff management. Potential Benefits Non-point source pollution is a leading source of water quality degradation and contributes largely to the degraded health of lakes, streams, San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, benefits resulting from implementation of Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects would directly benefit surface and groundwater water quality and would support nearly all beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, including provision of water for aquatic habitats and the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management also reduces stormwater runoff through improved infiltration, sometimes through the restoration of wetlands and can reduce the risk of local flooding. Agricultural runoff management can improve groundwater quality and prevent nutrient loading in receiving waters which in turn could reduce related GHG emissions. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management improves water quality for wildlife, aquatic species, water contact recreation, and human consumption. Cleaner water would promote community stewardship and would yield benefits to all communities. Interregional Effects Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management programs in upstream regions such as Sacramento and other parts of the Central Valley would improve water quality flowing into San Francisco Bay. Within the Bay Area urban runoff pollutants could be reduced and water quality would be improved before entering marine environments of the Pacific Ocean. 7.4.3 Aquifer Remediation Aquifer Remediation projects include projects that identify and clean contaminated groundwater through long-term groundwater injection, treatment processes and flow monitoring. There are salinity reduction projects underway in Alameda County (as discussed in the next section), however at this time, the IRWMP does not include any Aquifer Remediation projects. Pollution prevention activities can benefit aquatic species such as steelhead trout. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-17 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Aquifer Remediation projects could have impacts associated with long-term energy use for filtration and pumping, causing air and greenhouse gas emissions. Discharges from Aquifer Remediation projects, if left untreated, could affect local water quality in surface waters and other groundwater basins. Clean up activities may require use of hazardous materials to counteract poor groundwater chemistry. Potential Benefits Aquifer Remediation projects include removal of contamination from otherwise usable groundwater storage areas. Once clean, these aquifers can be recharged and returned to beneficial use, including provision of additional safe water and groundwater storage capacity that could aid in diversifying the regional water management portfolio. Aquifer Remediation projects also reduce drinking water treatment costs and protect human and environmental health. Interregional Effects Aquifer Remediation projects improve groundwater quality in selected aquifers and could allow for broader use of groundwater when remediation is complete. Maximizing use and quality of available groundwater storage enables regions to better manage water supplies and improve drought resistance. In some cases this may reduce the need for imported water from other regions, in other cases additional storage could allow for transfer of water at more ecologically opportune times to avoid environmental impacts associated with supply diversion and conveyance. 7.4.4 Salt and Salinity Management Salt and Salinity Management projects include use of membrane or distillation treatment to reduce salinity loads in wastewater or brackish or briny water sources, use of groundwater demineralization techniques to mitigate salt loading to groundwater basins and restoration of areas impacted by high salinity resulting from use of Delta imports or industrial operations and discharges. Examples of Salt and Salinity Management projects included in the IRWMP include expansion of an advanced recycled water purification center to manage salinity in non-potable recycled water. Several Bay Area groundwater management programs were formed in part to address salt and salinity management issues. Potential Impacts Impacts of Salt and Salinity Management projects, such as groundwater demineralization efforts, include disposal of the waste brine, which could affect aquatic habitat as well as surface and groundwater water quality. Treatment facilities required for these projects range in size from individual wellhead treatment units to larger centralized water treatment facilities; development of these facilities would result in both construction-related and footprint impacts affecting developed land use or open space/natural resources, depending on site location. Long-term water treatment requires energy and would result in air pollutant and GHG emissions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-18 Impacts and Benefits Potential Benefits The benefits of implementing Salt and Salinity Management projects include improved groundwater quality in areas where demineralization techniques are employed. Some imported and recycled water is high in salts and salinity reduction benefits water purveyors via lower treatment costs. Agriculture would benefit with higher crop yields, and could potentially create a stronger and more diversified market for available recycled water. Interregional Effects Salt and Salinity Management in Delta watersheds would improve water quality in downstream receiving waters including San Francisco Bay and would improve imported water quality. Some coastal groundwater basins have shown significant improvements with salinity management efforts to prevent sea water intrusion. 7.5 Watershed Management Watershed Management includes resource stewardship activities to benefit the watershed, such as sediment management, erosion control on roads and trails, stream crossing improvements (bridges and fish passage projects) and other land management projects such as the restoration of sloughs, wetlands or shorelines. Watershed planning may also include evaluating, modeling and monitoring these activities, and is discussed below. Examples of Watershed Management in the IRWMP include implementation of high priority projects in Pilarcitos Watershed of San Mateo County, as well as improvements in the Napa, Sonoma, Petaluma, Corte Madera, Lagunitas, Mill Valley, Berkeley (five creeks), San Francisquito Creek and other watersheds. Potential Impacts The impacts of W atershed Management projects include short-term construction impacts, such as those associated with erosion control projects that are site specific in nature. Occasionally there are larger watershed-scale programs, such as sediment TMDL programs (in Napa and Sonoma Counties) or restoration projects which are designed for long-term watershed improvement by reducing impacts caused by previous land use and development patterns. These larger scale programs could cause impacts to existing land use and to recreational use of streamside trails and possibly water dependent recreation uses. Streamside improvements could impact surface waters and water quality of aquatic habitats while broader watershed programs could also affect upland terrestrial habitats. Potential Benefits The benefits of Watershed Management include diversification of upland forest and rangeland habitat, improved soil structure, reduced erosion, and retention of water for aquifer recharge. Public access in Bay Area uplands and watershed lands continues to provide recreation and health benefits to the entire Bay Area population. There are many opportunities in urban watersheds to incorporate LID, fish passage, flood control, public access, habitat and vegetation management projects into the urban fabric to further improve urban riparian corridors with multiple benefits for stormwater quality and flood control. At the Bay margins are shorelines, levees, creek mouths, fresh water and tidal marshes that could be managed as a unit to provide 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-19 Impacts and Benefits habitat diversity and respond to increased flooding from the uplands while adapting to higher tidal surges and SLR generated by climate change. Watershed Management provides synchronization between related projects to provide multi-beneficial improvements for flood control, habitat diversity, and public access benefits. Interregional Effects Watershed Management efforts could improve water quality and fish habitat to ultimately support fishery recovery efforts targeting steelhead and salmon in the Bay-Delta system, which, in turn would benefit other coastal regions. 7.6 Habitat Protection, Improvement and Restoration This category is divided into two sections. Habitat Protection and Improvement applies to acquisition and protection of existing high quality habitats for the characteristics they possess, such as biological diversity or preservation of important ecosystem services. Habitat Restoration applies to activities to restore degraded natural areas and habitats that would benefit from focused efforts to improve selected ecosystem services, such as creation of wetlands to improve water quality. 7.6.1 Habitat Protection and Improvement Habitat Protection and Improvement projects include protection of high quality habitats and environmental resources. Examples of Habitat Protection and Improvement projects included in the IRWMP include land acquisition, resource management and mitigation banking. Many of the projects involve work within or adjacent to sensitive habitats such as streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and marine environments. Habitat protection is often integral to the success of with projects focusing on water quantity and quality. Potential Impacts Impacts related to implementation of Habitat Protection and Improvement projects often include construction related impacts, changes in or loss of sensitive habitat areas due to habitat conversion, changes to the hydrologic makeup of a site including effects to surface water, groundwater, and water quality, and effects on land use planning, including floodway protection and effects on agricultural land availability and local land values. In general, projects involving work within or adjacent to sensitive habitats would incur certain unavoidable impacts such as temporary disturbance to native species in sensitive aquatic and terrestrial habitats, temporary dewatering and disturbance of soils and bottom sediments. With disturbance of riparian soils also comes the possibility of disturbing cultural resources which are likely to be near streams and are of particular importance to local Native American Tribes. Protection of watershed lands or specific resource areas could result in modifications of available space for other uses including development and lands for public recreation. Potential Benefits Benefits of Habitat Protection and Improvement projects include retention of existing high quality biological habitats that would typically support hydrologic and geomorphic functions, such as intact riparian corridors and floodplains. Benefits of such projects may include retention of 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-20 Impacts and Benefits improvements to flow conveyance, maintenance of channel and bed form, sediment transport and deposition, and filtration of stormwater pollutants. In agricultural areas, protection of riparian habitats can prevent nutrient loading in downstream waters and improve stormwater infiltration. Protection and improvement of tidal wetlands can improve shoreline resilience to sea level rise and can prevent substantial greenhouse gas emissions from large carbon stores associated with shoreline disturbance of tidal marshes and/or lowland agriculture that leads to land subsidence. Protected habitats may include areas for rare, threatened or endangered species, which on San Francisco Bay shorelines include California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. Mitigation banks extend these benefits to preserve large high quality habitats to mitigate for habitat losses in other areas. Protected areas provide cover, nesting, and forage areas; improvement to soil quality; increase in the diversity of native vegetation and habitat structure; and the protection or improvement of wildlife corridors. Increase of Tribal cultural resources and awareness is an additional potential benefit to watershed management. The value of Indigenous stewardship and management practices informed by traditional management and Traditional Ecological Knowledge allows for Indigenous Peoples to take care of watershed, soil, forest and grassland, and the replanting of Native plants and vegetation. These methods help the improvement of cultural resources and ensure cultural continuance by teaching the next generation to maintain the traditional ties that Indigenous Peoples have to their heritage and stewardship responsibilities. Interregional Effects Habitat Protection and Improvement is particularly beneficial on an interregional scale when animal migration corridors can be preserved or improved. As climate change modifies habitats both animals and plants will migrate in search of suitable habitats and corridors to facilitate that migration will become increasingly important. 7.6.2 Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation projects include restoration of important biological habitats, and specifically wetlands because of their species diversity and importance to surface water management. Examples of Habitat Restoration projects included in the IRWMP include restoration of former industrial salt ponds to provide enhanced wetlands habitat, public access and recreational opportunities, fish passage and aquatic habitat restoration projects, creek daylighting, and multiple stream restoration projects. Potential Impacts Potential impacts resulting from Ecosystem Restoration are similar to those impacts described above for Habitat Protection and Improvement projects. Long-term impacts for Ecosystem Restoration however may also include changes in the distribution of aquatic and riparian vegetation species, depending upon the restoration targets. Changes in the physical characteristics of instream and floodplain habitats can lead to associated changes in local species composition and diversity, as the new conditions may favor a different suite of species. Riparian habitat restoration projects often require wider floodplains which could encroach upon 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-21 Impacts and Benefits existing adjacent land uses including agricultural lands. Removal of levees during salt pond restoration could result in modified tidal influence, possibly affecting local flood control facilities. Potential Benefits Benefits of Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation may include expansion of critical habitats for local rare, threatened or endangered species such as Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Red legged Frog, and California Tiger Salamander. Habitat quality is often an indicator of watershed health and improvement of these habitats also tends to benefit natural physical processes, such as creek migration or floodplain recruitment. Expansion of riparian or wetland habitats can slow or delay peak flood flows, reduce localized flooding, and improve stormwater management and overall water quality which indirectly provide public health and safety benefits. Improvements to local ecosystems may result in enhancements to several beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to: freshwater habitat, estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish migration, and fish spawning. Habitat restoration projects may also include provisions for recreation, groundwater recharge, and water quality. Restoration of tidal wetlands would provide resilience to storm surges and sea level rise, thereby enhancing and protecting human development. Stream restoration projects can improve access to historic salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitats (improving habitat for salmonids can also contribute to restoring cultural practices as Tribal communities regain opportunities to engage with these resources); improve conditions for movement by juveniles; increase the diversity of benthic taxa; and lower water temperature along the bank. Benefits may also extend to improved water supply quality and reliability. Improved water quality ensures the health and well being of terrestrial and aquatic species by providing clean water for all stages of the lifecycle. Interregional Effects Habitat Protection, Improvement and Restoration projects can improve the resilience of shoreline and upland ecosystems to withstand the effects of climate change. Upland ecosystems are subject to changes in temperature and soil moisture, which in turn could affect environmental water demands. Restoration projects that anticipate these effects and can help shoreline and upland ecosystems adapt to changing environmental conditions would have interregional benefits. An example of a fish ladder installed as to aid fish passage on a Bay Area stream. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-22 Impacts and Benefits 7.7 Flood and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management Flood Hazard Management and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management are separate discussions since multi-objective flood management projects in the upland and urbanized settings of the Bay Area are quite different from shoreline conditions at the interface of fluvial and tidal environments. Shorelines are affected by sea level rise, while urban conditions present their own set of special circumstances, yet both are closely related, as sea level rise will increasingly affect flood management in the Bay Area. 7.7.1 Flood Management Facilities, Floodplain Protection Flood Management Facilities and Floodplain Protection projects may include construction of new or improved floodwater conveyance, detention and retention facilities as well as restoration of floodplains to reduce peak flows. Examples of Flood Management Facilities and Floodplain Protection projects included in the IRWMP include a regional effort to facilitate identification of flood protection projects in the Bay Area Region as well as several projects in the North Bay and East Bay that include floodplain and habitat restoration, erosion control, and construction of storage basins to provide floodwater detention and increased infiltration. Potential Impacts Potential impacts resulting from implementation of Flood Management and Floodplain Protection projects could include impacts to surface waters, groundwater and water quality of the subject stream channel. Multi-objective approaches to flood control tend to emphasize low impact development techniques, naturalized channel systems and restoration of floodplain connectivity. Multi-objective approaches to flood management often require more land area and an expanded footprint to accommodate broader floodplains, detention basins and possibly trails as compared to traditional flood control techniques. These projects may result in impacts to cultural resources from disturbing soils and land use compatibility issues. In floodways constrained by existing development land use compatibility may require installation of “harder” flood management infrastructure that could impact existing, and often constrained, riparian and aquatic habitat zones. Floodplain restoration may result in habitat conversion that could impact aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Operation of these projects may result in changes in the frequency, duration, and magnitude of storm flows and flooding, as well as changes in the timing/seasonality of flows. Such hydrologic effects may potentially decrease the health and vigor of established floodplain vegetation, and eventually alter the distribution of floodplain habitats. Potential Benefits Potential benefits realized through implementation of Flood Management and Floodplain Protection projects include improved public safety through the management of stream flow volumes and peak flood events. Reduction of peak flows protects downstream properties and regional infrastructure from flood damage. Retention of floodwaters over aquifer recharge areas maximizes infiltration into the groundwater basin for water to be available for later use. This practice diversifies the local water portfolio and can reduce use of imported water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-23 Impacts and Benefits Multi-objective approaches to flood management can help to minimize or reverse past impacts to environmental resources (e.g., hydrology, sediment transport, and water quality, channel aesthetics,) caused by traditional approaches to flood control such as stream channelization and bank hardening. Increased use of floodplains for flood water storage and retention allows for overbank flows to spread out along the floodplain, providing habitat and ground water recharge benefits. Restoration of natural flooding events in stream systems helps to restore natural disturbance cycles, increasing species diversity and improving stream channel structure. Restoring floodplain connectivity can also lead to improved water quality by increasing opportunities for biofiltration. The benefits of integrated flood control projects include reduced risk of flooding, minimized vulnerability to sea level rise, improved carbon sequestration (through minimization of subsidence and minimization of construction within wetlands and tidal marshes), and protection or restoration of habitats that could promote recovery of threatened and endangered species. With public access these projects could also improve recreation opportunities and promote community education and stewardship. Interregional Effects Integrated Flood Management Facilities and Floodplain Protection projects begin within the region and end at the Bay or the coastal shoreline, and therefore have little environmental effect on other upland regions. The Pacific Ocean however will exert significant influence on flood management in all sections of coastal California, including the Bay Area and the Delta. Integrated projects, particularly those near the shoreline and at the mouths of streams will become increasingly important to manage or adapt to changing flood level baselines, undersized levees, modified habitat zones and changing shoreline conditions. Multi-objective approaches to flood management aim to reduce the impacts of traditional channelized flood control infrastructure (above) by restoring creeks to provide both flood control and habitat benefits (below). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-24 Impacts and Benefits 7.7.2 Sea Level Rise (SLR) Hazard Management SLR Hazard Management projects include evaluation of SLR exposure, development of SLR adaptation and management strategies and development of structural or natural flood control facilities. Examples of SLR Hazard Management projects included in the IRWMP include regional and local efforts to identify inundation areas and develop SLR adaptation strategies including habitat management, land use planning, managed retreat, engineered shoreline protection and natural shoreline treatment alternatives. Potential Impacts Potential impacts resulting from implementation of SLR Hazard Management projects would generally include impacts to surface water, groundwater, water quality and biological resources which typically would be within sensitive shoreline habitat zones. Control and mitigation of impacts within these sensitive zones would necessarily become part of proposed SLR projects. Projects in this category could also involve land use changes such as restoring bay-front habitats to form a buffer against tidal flooding, restricting land uses in waterfront zones, accommodating SLR with larger bridges and modified levees where needed, and employing managed retreat strategies to accommodate SLR. These strategies may result in land use conversion or land use compatibility issues (e.g., restricted development in waterfront areas, conversion of developed areas to habitat, impacts to agricultural lands). Habitat restoration may result in habitat conversion that could impact aquatic and terrestrial biological resources as well as other impacts described above in sections 7.6 Habitat Protection and Restoration. Potential Benefits Potential benefits realized through implementation of SLR Hazard Management projects include the protection of public safety through development and implementation of multiple SLR adaptation strategies. Construction of waterfront wetland buffers and implementation of land use restrictions in some areas subject to increased flooding and exposure to higher tidal surges could allow for slow accretion of sediments in tidal marshes to help protect existing infrastructure and reduce damage from SLR. Expanded or restored freshwater and tidal marshes in these buffers could also expand the tidal prism and help to lower flood elevations in certain areas. Use of recycled water to irrigate freshwater wetlands upland of tidal marshes would increase the biological diversity of San Francisco Bay shorelines and would also reduce wastewater discharges into the Bay. Maximizing fresh water recharge into low lying aquifers could also slow increases in groundwater salinity associated with SLR. Restoration of waterfront wetlands and marshes could produce more resilient aquatic and terrestrial habitats to protect existing human development and may also provide increased public access and opportunities for recreation. Benefits of habitat restoration and public access activities are further described under sections 7.6 Habitat Protection and Restoration and 7.8 Public Access, Recreation and Use. Interregional Effects Implementation of SLR projects in the Bay Area could benefit regionally important infrastructure such wastewater treatment plants, by providing critical flood protection. SLR projects that 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-25 Impacts and Benefits include green infrastructure or habitat restoration could support regional efforts to restore sensitive bayland habitats needed to support healthy communities of fish and wildlife in the Bay Area. In addition, SLR projects involving restoration of natural shoreline areas could provide water-related recreational opportunities for the greater Bay Area (e.g., hiking, boating, wildlife observation etc.) 7.8 Public Access, Recreation and Use Public Access, Recreation and Use projects include efforts to increase opportunities for public access to natural areas through creation or expansion of watershed lands, natural parks, trails and specific facilities for water oriented recreation. These types of facilities are often included as components of larger multi-benefit water management and flood control projects that also include habitat restoration and preservation. The IRWMP currently includes a beach restoration project in San Francisco Bay and conversion of some waterfront recreation facilities to accommodate landside access to the San Francisco Bay Water Trail. Many other multiple benefit projects include components aimed at increasing opportunities for public access and recreation including improved trails and interpretive signage. Potential Impacts Impacts resulting from implementation of Public Access, Recreation and Use projects could include temporary impacts to water quality and biological resources, and possible discovery of cultural resources during construction phases. Depending on the location and availability of visitor services, operation of Public Access, Recreation and Use projects may also cause longer term impacts to surrounding land uses due to recreation attracting additional people to the resource, potentially impacting neighborhoods, or possibly surrounding agriculture, as well as impacts to surface water and water quality (e.g., through possible increased litter, erosion, etc.) and increased disturbance to aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Recreation and Public Access projects are often included as a component of Habitat Protection, Enhancement and Creation and Flood and SLR Hazard Management projects and could also result in similar impacts and benefits as described above in sections 7.6 Habitat Protection and Restoration and 7.7 Flood and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management. Potential Benefits Development of Public Access, Recreation and Use projects provide multiple health benefits for local and regional populations. Restoration of natural areas and creation of new trails and shoreline activities provides expanded recreation opportunities, encouraging people get out-of- doors to walk, hike and exercise. Increased use of water-based recreational facilities can also 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-26 Impacts and Benefits provide economic benefits to the local community. Spending more time in local or regional parks may provide education opportunities through docent-guided tours or interpretive signage or direct observation. Education and connection to the natural environment may increase social investment in protection of local natural resources. Appropriate site selection and design of new open spaces may also provide or improve habitat or movement corridors to help sustain healthy populations of wildlife. Associated site improvements and habitat restoration may reduce pollutant loading, such as sediment from eroded stream banks. Proper incorporation of visitor facilities helps to realize human benefits while reducing impacts associated with human use. Interregional Effects There are several interregional trails within the Bay Area that connect to neighboring regions. The statewide Coastal Trail with connections to the North Coast and Central Coast is nearly complete in the Bay Area. The newly developed San Francisco Bay Water Trail could provide eastern connections to the Delta. The Bay Area Ridge Trail and the Bay Trail stay within the Bay Area, and provide outdoor recreation opportunities to all Californians (and world travelers) that chose to participate. Several IRWMP projects are proposed along these routes and would help to develop portions of, or connectors to these trails as well as other recreation opportunities. 7.9 Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools Planning, Modeling and Monitoring provides important tools for science based water resource and watershed management decisions. General project types in this program include technical data collection, watershed evaluations, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling and development of decision support systems. Examples of these project types included in the IRWMP include historic ecology baselines, technical mapping, effects of lea level rise on hydrologic baselines, decision support systems for future land use modeling (such as for sea level rise or floodplain management), mapping for improved habitat management in a changing climate and improved precipitation prediction and recording. Potential Impacts Planning, Modeling and Monitoring projects are generally strategic in nature or involve data collection and analysis using various software programs and have few, if any, physical impacts. A new streamside trail in Alameda County provides access to natural lands and serves as an important transportation link for bicyclists. Photo: Zone 7 Water Agency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-27 Impacts and Benefits Planning, modeling and monitoring projects tend to focus on water and resource management strategies designed to improve overall watershed health. Impacts may result from field access and observations but would be minimal and temporary. Possible impacts resulting from implementing recommendations would be separate from the effects of any planning, modeling or monitoring process, and would be evaluated on a project by project basis prior to implementation. Potential Benefits Planning, Modeling and Monitoring do not in themselves generate physical benefits, however they do inform management actions and help accrue benefits through improved understanding of environmental issues, constraints and opportunities and/or the development of collaborative planning strategies regarding water management. Planning projects provide means for agencies and organizations to understand water and environmental management tradeoffs, to prioritize solutions based on chosen criteria or objectives, and to take measured actions to achieve intended results. These planning processes facilitate efficient selection and integration of solutions to create projects that maximize societal and environmental benefits that respond to Statewide Common Goals as addressed in Table 7-5 in the introduction of this chapter. Interregional Effects Planning, Modeling and Monitoring can have multiple interregional benefits from the communication that supports them and from the sharing of information derived from these planning efforts. 7.10 Education, Outreach and Incentives Education, Outreach and Incentives include a variety of efforts to provide the public with information regarding water-related issues and to involve communities in reducing water demand and improving stewardship of water resources. Examples of these project types included in the IRWMP include providing training to residents regarding low water use landscaping, offering rebates for water efficient plumbing fixtures, irrigation and landscaping retrofits, providing opportunities for students to participate in watershed restoration projects, implementing classroom education programs regarding stormwater quality and developing LID demonstration projects at local schools. Potential Impacts Education, Outreach and Incentive programs are not likely to result in physical impacts. Projects that include on-the-ground actions such as habitat restoration or installation of low impact Fish monitoring in Napa County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-28 Impacts and Benefits development features may result in temporary construction and footprint related impacts, as discussed in Sections 7.6 and 7.7. Potential Benefits Education, Outreach and Incentive programs teach and encourage new social habits that can encourage water awareness in daily decisions to reduce consumption and encourage watershed health. Education programs have shown significant results in stretching scarce water supplies and have been essential components of conservation and overall demand management programs. Benefits derived from education, outreach and incentives programs also may support community stewardship and social investment in watershed health. Direct benefits of education based projects may lead to improvement in regional water quality as individual actions compound to implement broader goals to reduce water use, and minimize pollution. Direct benefits of habitat restoration and other volunteer activities include improvements to local aquatic and riparian habitats and improved water quality. Interregional Effects There are multiple interregional benefits of Education, Outreach and Incentive programs; most notable is a general statewide reduction of water consumption benefitting virtually all aspects of water management. Few other strategies can claim such success. Education and outreach to the public will continue to be important in managing supply demand and increasing awareness of climatic effects on water supplies and personal adaptation strategies. 7.11 Environmental Justice and Effects on Disadvantaged Communities Environmental justice is a concept that looks at the distribution of environmental benefits (e.g., clean air, water and open space) and burdens (e.g., pollution, noise, toxic hazards) among communities. Environmental justice often applies to disadvantaged communities (DACs) (communities with a Median Household Income of less than 80 percent of the State Median Household Income) that have been affected by adverse health or environmental impacts linked to programs, policies, or activities that disproportionately affect those neighborhoods. See Section 2.2.12 for a more detailed discussion of environmental justice and DACs. The 2012 Guidelines require identification and consideration of water-related needs of disadvantaged communities and evaluation of the impacts and benefits of IRWMP implementation on these communities. Water-wise gardening is just one of many ways to involve the local community in water conservation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-29 Impacts and Benefits 7.11.1 DACs in the Bay Area Region Figures 2-15 and 2-16, in Chapter 2, show the location of DACs/Tribes and minority populations in the Bay Area region. DACs/Tribes tend to be located in urban areas at the lower ends of watersheds. Due to their location, these communities may also bear the environmental burden of proximity to infrastructure such as wastewater treatment plants, which provide benefits to the broader community, but can negatively affect those communities that are closer to the direct impacts of such facilities (such as noise, odors, etc.). In some instances, Tribes may not be connected to water systems, which can lead to unreliable sources of water and/or drinkable water. Figure 2-17, shows the location of wastewater treatment facilities in relation to DACs/Tribes in the Bay Area Region. 7.11.2 Development and Identification of DAC Projects A priority for the IRWMP has been to include DACs in consideration of related water resource projects. To encourage inclusion of DAC related projects, targeted outreach was provided to DAC project proponents and project scoring included consideration of a project’s ability to provide DAC benefits. Section 14.6 in Chapter 14, Stakeholder Engagement, provides more detail on the steps taken to involve DACs in the IRWMP process. 7.11.3 Current Projects in DACs The IRWMP currently includes 123 projects that were identified by project proponents as providing DAC benefits. Six of these projects were identified during the IRWMP project review process as providing environmental justice benefits. A majority (approximately 52 percent) of these projects are located in the East Bay Subregion. Approximately 20 percent of the DAC projects are located in the North Bay Subregion, while the South and West Bay Subregions contain less than 10 percent each. Approximately 20 percent of DAC projects are regional projects or are located in more than one Subregion. A majority of projects identified as providing DAC benefits are aimed at implementing low impact design features to control stormwater, improving levees and other flood control facilities, developing climate change adaptation strategies, restoring habitat or providing education and outreach to involve the community (including DACs) in watershed stewardship and protection efforts. In addition, a considerable number of wastewater treatment and recycled water projects were identified during the review process as providing DAC benefits. Examples of projects that would provide environmental justice and DAC benefits include:  Retrofit streets in DACs with low impact development features to control stormwater  Conduct outreach to involve DAC communities in watershed stewardship activities  Install stormwater retention and groundwater recharge facilities to improve flood protection  Fund trash capture infrastructure and tracking tools for DACs  Create seasonal wetlands to provide habitat and flood control benefits to a DAC 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-30 Impacts and Benefits  Improve water supply reliability through the development of local groundwater and recycled water supplies  Restoring Native American cultural resources and accessibility for Tribal cultural continuance 7.11.4 Potential Effects of IRWMP Implementation on DACs A majority of impacts resulting from implementation of DAC projects would likely consist of short-term impacts related to construction activities at specific sites. In some cases, implementation of projects that involve construction of new facilities (i.e., recycled water or wastewater treatment plants) could result in impacts such as altered visual character, increased noise or increased air emissions from facility operations. However, most of these projects are aimed at upgrading outdated facilities, and are expected to reduce negative environmental effects of facility operation. Potential Benefits Potential benefits of projects in DACs include improved water quality and reliability, improved flood protection, increased protection from risks associated with climate change, increased awareness regarding water related issues, social investment in watershed health, and increased access to open space and water oriented recreational opportunities. Potential benefits from implementation of wastewater treatment and recycled water projects are the same for disadvantaged communities as they are for other communities in the Bay Area and include reduced wastewater discharge, improved effluent quality, improved water supply reliability and drought protection. 7.12 Effects on Native American Tribal Communities There are several Tribes with traditional territories in the San Francisco Bay Area whose territories overlap with adjacent IRWM regions including Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of Stewarts Point Rancheria, Federated Villages of Lisjan, Him-R^n , the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Association of Ramaytush. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band's traditional territories extend into the southern portion of the SF Bay IRWM region and into the adjacent Santa Cruz and Pajaro River Watershed IRWM regions. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria are a federally recognized Tribe in the North Bay Area with designated territories in Marin County and southern Sonoma County. The Tribes has expressed concern about potential impacts to cultural resources from project activities. The Tribe participated with the Sonoma CWA in development of their Stream Maintenance Program, which identifies soil disturbing activities as the primary source of impacts to cultural sites and identify mitigation measures to protect those sites near streams. Federated Indians Graton Rancheria is also concerned about sea level rise and are investigating how it affects cultural sites, which include Angel Island and the San Rafael islands, among many other coastal areas. Tidal marsh restoration has been identified as an adaptation strategy in response to sea level rise. Creek mouths are of particular interest because of the interchange between tidal and fluvial systems, and these locations are typically where artifacts and cultural sites may be located. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-31 Impacts and Benefits The traditional territories of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe includes the following counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, most of Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa and portions of Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano and San Joaquin. The Lytton Rancheria Tribe operates the San Pablo Lytton Casino in the East Bay even though it is outside of their territory, which is north of Santa Rosa, and consequently outside of the Bay Area region. Potential Benefits The main potential benefit for the inclusion of Tribes in the Bay Area IRWM is increased awareness of regional activities for Tribal communities. Allowing Tribes to be a part of the decision-making process from the start rather than towards the end of conversations will prove to make a difference in meaningful relationship-building between governments. Projects that improved water quality and reliability, improved flood protection, increased protection from risks associated with climate change, increased awareness regarding water-related issues, social investment in watershed health, and increased access to open space and water-oriented recreational opportunities are some of the traditional ecological knowledges that Tribes will be more familiar with, since they have been stewarding these lands for hundreds of years. Like all other communities of the Bay Area, Tribes will benefit from the implementation of wastewater treatment and recycled water projects, reduced wastewater discharge, improved effluent quality, improved water supply reliability, and drought protection. 7.13 References BACWA Water Survey Results, November 2011. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), State Water Resources Control Board, California Bay-Delta Authority, California Energy Commission, California Department of Public Health, California Public Utilities Commission, California Air Resources Board, 2010. 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, February 2010. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Performance and Monitoring Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i List of Figures............................................................................................................................... i Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring .................................................... 8-1 8.1 Overview of Bay Area IRWMP Implementation Approach ................. 8-1 8.2 Institutional Structure and Responsibilities ........................................ 8-2 8.2.1 Role of the CC........................................................................ 8-2 8.2.2 Project Proponents’ Roles and Responsibilities...................... 8-4 8.3 Monitoring Performance .................................................................... 8-5 8.3.1 Monitoring Plan Performance ................................................. 8-5 8.3.2 Monitoring Project Performance ........................................... 8-13 8.4 Mechanism for Adapting Project Operations ................................... 8-23 List of Tables Table 8-1: Existing Monitoring Efforts ..................................................................................... 8-7 Table 8-2: Sample Project Performance Measures and Monitoring Strategies ..................... 8-15 List of Figures Figure 8-1: Adaptive Management Cycle .............................................................................. 8-23 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-1 Performance and Monitoring Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring The Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a dynamic document and its success is related to how well its goals and objectives are accomplished, at both the Plan and project levels. This chapter presents the approach to implementing the IRWMP: the institutional structure and parties responsible for plan implementation and monitoring, ongoing data management, and how performance data will be used to improve future versions of the Plan. The intent is to ensure:  Progress is being made towards meeting the objectives in the Plan.  Projects listed in the Plan are being implemented  Projects are monitored to comply with all applicable rules, laws, and permit requirements. IRWMP objectives and regional priorities will continue to be reviewed for relevance and modified as needed to ensure the Plan reflects changing regional needs and continues to be effective. Additionally, the list of projects will be reviewed and evaluated every five years, or as needed, to ensure that Plan objectives will be met, that the Plan projects offer the greatest benefit possible and that the list of Plan projects continues to address IRWMP objectives as well as state and regional priorities. This ongoing review and update will allow the plan to evolve in response to changing conditions and as better data is developed. IRWMP revisions will result in: (1) An updated evaluation of information and data related to watershed conditions (2) An evaluation of projects/actions and their contribution to meeting IRWMP objectives (3) Revised objectives, strategies, and projects based on new conditions and past project successes 8.1 Overview of Bay Area IRWMP Implementation Approach Participants are planning to adopt the IRWMP by the end of 2019. Following adoption, the Plan will be implemented through execution of projects by their respective project proponents. Progress toward attaining the regional goals and objectives will be reviewed periodically and additional work will be completed on the IRWMP as needed through an adaptive management framework. IRWMP updates and subsequent re-adoption by the parties responsible for development and implementation of the Plan will occur as appropriate in response to significant material change to the IRWMP or events such as:  Significant change in environmental and/or economic conditions as defined by the Coordinating Committee (CC) with input from the Stakeholders. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-2 Performance and Monitoring  The need, as determined by the CC with Stakeholder input, to revise or establish new regional objectives and/or strategies. 8.2 Institutional Structure and Responsibilities 8.2.1 Role of the CC The institutional structure for overseeing IRWMP development is the CC and the CC will continue to be responsible for the Bay Area IRWM planning and plan management. This body includes participation by agencies with a broad range of water management interests, including: water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, flood protection, stormwater management, watershed management, habitat protection and restoration, and land use planning. In addition, resource and regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), environmental groups, business groups, the public, and other interested parties serve in an advisory role. Responsibilities of the CC include overseeing the Plan development process, participating in and facilitating outreach activities, reviewing and directing assessment methodologies, and making day-to-day decisions necessary to guide IRWMP development and implementation. The roles and responsibilities of the various participants envisioned to carry out the broad purposes of the governance structure have been described in Chapter 1: Governance. Since development of the original plan, the CC has demonstrated the ability to:  Work together and reach consensus on key decision points, despite the large geographic scope of the Region, the diverse water resource management interests represented, and the short timeframe for Plan development;  Foster coordination, collaboration and communication across a diverse array of water resources management entities throughout the Region;  Provide a forum for involvement by resource agencies, environmental justice groups and other interested parties though targeted outreach efforts and public workshops throughout development of the Plan;  Develop and promote a unifying vision that reflects the water resources needs for the Bay Area Region, and guide the development of goals and objectives, integrated water management strategies, and priorities for the Bay Area Region;  Manage the entirety of the Plan development process including: contract compliance for the planning grant; management and oversight of a consultant team; web site development; development of a data management system (DMS); and the writing, editing, and production of the IRWMP; BAFPAA Conference, 2013 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-3 Performance and Monitoring  Encourage development of new coalitions and associations (ex: Bay Area Flood Protection Agency Association [BAFPAA] and Bay Area Watershed Network [BAWN]); and  Develop a process to identify and prioritize projects for grant submittal. Based on the accomplishments of the CC described above, this organizational structure, or an equivalent structure, will continue to serve as the decision-making and management body of the Plan. The role of the CC in implementing the IRWMP is described below. The level of effort in each area may depend on the amount of funding and staff resources available. 1. The CC will continue to follow the current structure for coordination and collaboration on implementation issues and provide focused leadership for implementing and updating the IRWMP. Through the ongoing meetings the CC will: a. Foster partnerships and facilitate participation by a broad range of water resource management stakeholders, including environmental justice groups, resource agencies, public agencies, environmental groups, and the general public. b. Provide a regional forum for cross-jurisdictional coordination. c. Oversee continued outreach and data dissemination to stakeholders. d. Provide decision-making authority for further development and/or implementation of the Plan. e. Define the process of implementation where coordination and collaboration are needed, including IRWMP performance tracking, monitoring and updating, and other mutually agreeable implementation activities. f. Periodically review the ongoing institutional structure and discuss whether improvements are needed and propose options for improvements to best serve IRWMP implementation needs effectively and meet the needs of the participating organizations. g. Review the information captured in the DMS. h. Oversee preparation of the state implementation grant applications. i. Review and update the project list as necessary 2. The CC will oversee maintenance of the DMS and provide links to regional and state data systems. The intent of the DMS is to ensure efficient use of available data, stakeholder access to data, and to ensure the data generated by IRWMP implementation activities can be integrated into existing state databases. For more information, see Chapter 9: Data Management. 3. The CC will survey proponents of all the projects identified in the Plan, which will include, both, projects that have been funded through the State grant process and those that have not. The annual or biannual surveys will explore project status, challenges and more and will reflect DWR reporting requirements for funded projects. The CC will identify a subcommittee who will create/review questions for the survey and direct the appropriate persons or consultants to administer the survey and collect results. The results will be presented to the CC and posted on the website. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-4 Performance and Monitoring 4. The CC will organize a biannual workshop that includes stakeholders, project proponents and the public, to engage a broader discussion of Plan and project implementation and provide a mechanism for dialogue between the parties. The workshop will also provide a forum to review regional efforts that overlap with BAIRWMP objectives. To the extent possible, other existing efforts, such as the State of the Estuary Conference or other regional water forums will be leveraged to enhance dialogue. 5. The CC will be responsible for monitoring progress toward meeting IRWMP objectives and monitoring project proponents’ progress in implementing projects. The CC will not be responsible for carrying out individual projects or programs in the IRWMP. In addition to the CC, the other subset of the Stakeholder Group critical for Plan implementation is the project proponent, as described below. 8.2.2 Project Proponents’ Roles and Responsibilities Project proponents are those IRWMP Stakeholder agencies or entities that have projects included in the Plan. Information on each of the IRWMP Projects and a summary list of all IRWMP Projects is maintained in a database at http://bairwmp.org/projects. It is envisioned that project proponents will have the roles and responsibilities described below (note that while all project proponents are encouraged to update the CC on their projects, these tasks are aimed at projects receiving funding). 1. Prepare project-specific monitoring plans prior to the start of project construction or implementation. 2. Conduct project-specific monitoring activities in accordance with the project-specific monitoring plan. 3. Seek opportunities to integrate, where possible and practical, IRWMP Projects in order to most-efficiently achieve the regional objectives. This process may be facilitated at regional, Subregional and/or Stakeholder meetings (including the biannual meetings initiated by the CC) as well as the project review process, but project proponents are also encouraged to seek these opportunities outside of that forum. 4. Provide updated project-specific information for the project database as necessary to reflect major project milestones (e.g., California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) completion, 100% design, construction underway, construction complete, and project completion). Although this particular role is not a requirement, it is in the best interest of the project proponents to keep the database current, so the most updated information is used to evaluate projects as outside funding sources become available. Furthermore, projects that have received funding will not be included in subsequent grant proposals unless updates have been completed. 5. Identify a point person for each project who will provide in a timely manner to the CC and/or consultant, requested information for projects selected for inclusion in a grant application. 6. Identify a point person for each project who will provide in a timely manner to the Grantee and/or consultant, requested information for projects selected for funding through a funding agency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-5 Performance and Monitoring 7. Comply with grant requirements, as identified by the funding agency, in order to qualify for grant funding. 8.3 Monitoring Performance IRWMP performance will be assessed at two levels: the project level and the Plan level. The Plan is framed around regional goals and objectives that all contribute to the overall vision of sustainable water resources management within the Bay Area (see Chapter 3: Objectives). Assessment of plan performance is necessary to evaluate how effectively the Plan is achieving these regional goals and objectives. Progress toward achieving these objectives or the need to modify priorities in response to regional changes will be assessed periodically, as availability of funding allows. The methods to be used in assessing Plan and project performance are described below. 8.3.1 Monitoring Plan Performance As described in previous sections, and assuming sufficient funding and resources are available, future work on IRWM planning and implementation will be completed with guidance from the IRWMP CC. The water management issues facing the Bay Area Region will change over time as environmental conditions change, and new regional interests and goals emerge. Recognizing that goals, objectives, and regional priorities evolve over time, the CC will review this Plan periodically, depending on changing conditions as future work is performed, and make adjustments as necessary to respond to changes throughout the Region. As part of this process, the CC will collect the information gathered by a variety of sources to assess IRWMP performance in contributing to regional goals, objectives, and IRWMP vision. As discussed in Chapter 3, the CC developed suggested measures to guide project proponents, to allow progress of the individual projects to be measured and to gauge the impact of the overall IRWMP. The CC will use the measures in Chapter 3 to evaluate progress toward achieving the IRWMP goals and objectives. It is anticipated that plan performance will be evaluated every two years, based on the information collected in the DMS, by assessments performed by project proponents at the project level, surveys, and other relevant documents and stakeholder input. In addition, there are a variety of ongoing monitoring programs currently in place in the Bay Area that the IRWMP CC may leverage to support the assessment of plan performance. Table 8-8 lists several of the existing Bay Area monitoring programs that the CC may elect to use in support of its assessment of progress toward the IRWMP regional goals as future work is completed. Table 8-8 does not represent a comprehensive listing of water resources monitoring programs throughout the Region. Recognizing that the status of IRWMP project implementation will SFEI Sediment Study 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-6 Performance and Monitoring evolve with Plan implementation and the type of monitoring best suited for assessing Plan performance will change accordingly. The CC will evaluate the utility of various ongoing monitoring efforts for assessing Plan performance over time. It is anticipated that the CC will use a subset of the programs presented in Table 8-8 in conjunction with other monitoring programs not included in this table to assess the Region’s progress toward achieving its goals and objectives as appropriate. Besides data collected by agencies in their resource management roles, as part of the IRWMP, stakeholders are invited to provide data, reports, or studies to benefit information contained in the IRWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-7 Performance and Monitoring Table 8-8: Existing Monitoring Efforts Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Local Policy Survey Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Availability of vacant land, timing of future development, type of future development, density of development, transportation, land use policy and other land use related factors that could affect development. ABAG, Local governments Ongoing The San Francisco Estuary Institute Regional Monitoring Program SFEI Monitors contamination in the Estuary. Determines spatial patterns and long- term trends in contamination through sampling of water, sediment, bivalves, bird eggs, and fish, and evaluates toxic effects on sensitive organisms and chemical loading to the Bay. The Program combines RMP data with data from other sources to provide for comprehensive assessment of chemical contamination in the Bay. http://www.sfei.org. SFEI Annual The State of San Francisco Bay Report ABAG Science-based assessment of the health of San Francisco Bay, focusing on the water, habitats, living resources, ecological processes, and stewardship. http://www.sfestuary.org/ San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) every five years Air Quality Monitoring Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regional monitoring for a variety of weather elements: BAAQMD, ARB Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-8 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board (ARB) Wind, Rainfall, Air Quality, Air Temperature, etc. Bay Area Protected Lands Database Bay Area Open Space Council Maps of protected public and private open space lands throughout the Bay Area. Bay Area Open Space Council Ongoing Watershed Sanitary Surveys California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Agency specific documents which assess existing water quality within a watershed and identify specific water treatment processes for the source waters for the purposes of human consumption. Water supply agencies Updated every 5 years San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project CALFED, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) Conducts monitoring and regional mapping of spartina in order to perform eradication activities. CALFED, USFWS Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, SCC Ongoing California Partners In Flight (CalPIF) Study Area Database CalPIF Standard bird monitoring sites and provides a repository for species breeding status information for the entire state. CalPIF, Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program (DWSAP) CDPH Monitors and assesses the quality of surface and groundwater sources according to federal and state standards for drinking water. Identifies potential contaminating activities within the source watershed. Water supply agencies Updated when deemed necessary by CDPH California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Data repository for endangered/native species sightings and population locations, but no CDFW Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-9 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency comprehensive monitoring program. CalFish.org CDFW CDFW maintains a database with fish range and habitat information, but no comprehensive monitoring program. CDFW Ongoing California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) DWR Groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. Local Monitoring Entities Every five years beginning in 2015 Flood Control Facilities Flood control agencies Monitoring of catch basins and storm drains near the urban/wildland interface during storms; Debris monitoring and monitoring activities, erosion repair activities, removal of excessive vegetation and reshaping of stream banks for improved flow in rivers and streams. Flood control agencies Ongoing Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program Institute for Bird Populations Assesses and monitors the vital rates and population dynamics of over 120 species of North American land birds. Institute for Bird Populations Ongoing Bird Counts National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count, Great Backyard Bird Count, and the Feederwatch Bird Count. National Audubon Society Ongoing Songbird Populations Point Reyes Bird Observatory Long-term monitoring of songbird populations for the past 30 years. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Wastewater Treatment Plants/Publicly Owned POTWs Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-10 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency System (NPDES), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Treatment Works (POTWs) are required to monitor for the following: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD), total suspended solids, oil and grease, chlorine residue, pH, fecal coliform, and toxicity in effluent discharged. Annual Self-Monitoring reports are required. Regional Wetlands Monitoring Program SCC Utilize GIS mapping of wetland projects, the California Rapid Assessment Method of wetland conditions, and other tools to monitor wetlands on a regional scale. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), SCC, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) As funding allows Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Statewide groundwater quality monitoring and assessment program mandated by the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001. Participation by private drinking well operators is encouraged through the Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment Project. The San Francisco Bay Region is assessed in two hydrogeologic provinces. SWRCB, U.S Geological Survey (USGS), voluntary local participation Regional Assessments every 10 years, trend monitoring every 3 years NPDES, Municipal Stormwater Permits SWRCB Issued to countywide collaboratives for management plan-based approach to implementing Local municipalities and agencies Permits are renewed every 5 years 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-11 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency stormwater pollution prevention BMPs. The permit conditions require monitoring of BMPs. Nonpoint Source (NPS) Control Program- Tracking and Monitoring Council SWRCB Monitors NPS pollutant trends and impairments in the Bay Area. Evaluates effectiveness and success of projects and programs funded by the NPS program that are designed to protect and restore water quality. Coordinates with the SWAMP program. SWRCB, RWQCBs, SCC, USEPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Ongoing Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) SWRCB Statewide monitoring effort designed to assess the conditions of surface waters in streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries throughout the state. Monitoring efforts vary by RWQCB. However, sampling methods are standardized across the State. RWQCB As funding allows Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances for San Francisco Bay SWRCB Monitoring of contaminant concentrations and toxicity levels in water and aquatic species of the San Francisco Bay. SFEI, RWQCB Ongoing Bay Area Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Information Network (BAMBI) SWRCB Currently being developed to utilize rapid bioassessment techniques in order to determine the distribution and population counts for macroinvertebrates in the Bay Area. SWRCB, Municipalities Under development 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-12 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Bird Breeding Survey USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Population data and population trend analyses on more than 400 bird species. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Ongoing Habitat Conservation Plans Various agencies and organizations Conservation planning for special-status species in a defined geographic area; Contains mitigation to offset development and monitoring requirements to measure success of restored and protected areas. Various agencies and organizations Varies Annual Self-Monitoring Recycled Water Reports Wastewater/water/recycled water agencies Reports on recycled water analysis, recycled water used, list of users, total daily deliveries, site inspections, effluent violations and corrective actions, updates to future plans to expand recycled water program and any special studies or projects. Permitted wastewater/water/ recycled water agencies Annual, due March 15 Source water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, and microbes in source and treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ongoing Treated water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, microbes, disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts in treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-13 Performance and Monitoring 8.3.2 Monitoring Project Performance As part of the IRWMP performance assessment, the projects will be evaluated with respect to stated performance measures. Assuming adequate funding and resources are available, the agencies identified as proponents of priority projects will be responsible for implementing the project as well as project-specific monitoring strategies. As shown in Table 8-9, project proponents will be responsible for collecting project information, including project implementation status, throughout implementation. In addition, the project proponents will assess project performance with respect to the stated performance metrics for the project on a quarterly basis, or as dictated by the reporting requirements associated with the funding source. Projects that are included in the Plan, but are not funded will be encouraged to follow a similar monitoring and reporting plan. Project proponents will be asked to provide monitoring and reporting information on their projects on an annual or bi-annual basis, through survey requests associated with the projects database (DMS) housed on the IRWMP website. The CC will utilize the performance measures identified by the project proponents in the monitoring plans to measure progress. Project specific monitoring plans shall reflect the DWR requirements identified in the 2016 Guidelines which include the following: 1. A description of what is being monitored/performance measures. Examples include:  Number of innovative flood management projects  Number of projects that benefit water quality of 303(d) listed stream parameters  Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated  Increase in local water supplies (in Acre-feet per year [AFY])  Acres of invasive species cover  AF water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources  Megawatt or kilowatt reduction in energy use,  Climate mitigation and adaptation strategies such as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 2. A description of measures to remedy problems encountered during monitoring. 3. A description of the location of monitoring and monitoring frequency. 4. A description of monitoring protocols and methodologies, and assignment of the responsibility for monitoring. 5. A description of what data will be shared with the IRWMP Stakeholders and with what frequency. Identification of what state databases information will be provided to, and requirements for data submittal. 6. Resources and procedures to ensure the monitoring schedule will be maintained (e.g., identify responsible parties and alternates and funding for monitoring). Napa River Fish Monitoring 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-14 Performance and Monitoring Metrics are intended to serve as measurable benchmarks for establishing success of projects following implementation. A sample of potential metrics that are being used in measuring project implementation performance are presented in Table 8-9. These IRWMP projects are complete and reflect specific project goals. Each project implemented will include its own set of metrics and monitoring strategies and as projects become further developed, metrics may evolve to better capture the performance of projects with respect to meeting project objectives. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-15 Performance and Monitoring Table 8-9: Sample Project Performance Measures and Monitoring Strategies Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Bay Area Regional Conservation and Education Program  Replace 2,250 high-water using toilets with high-efficiency Toilets, and achieve total 38 AF water savings  Install 51,000 high-efficiency washers and achieve a total of 1,400 AF.  Hold 20 water-efficient gardening events, 10 professional training courses  Distribute 2,000 water-saving pocket guides  Install 400 weather-based irrigation controllers and achieve 50 AF water savings  Number of Rebates issued over course of the program  Actual demand reductions/water savings achieved  Customer satisfaction with program  Increased public awareness about efficient landscaping practices  Number of informational materials issued  Track number of rebates issued and associated water savings.  Monitor water demands to track reductions over time.  Survey program participants  Track number of events held, participants, and education materials distributed East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A (Emeryville)  Offset potable water use by 2,800 AFY with recycled water  Reduced potable water demand  Flow measured at treatment plant  Flow meter monitoring at treatment plant  Water use monitoring/meter readings at customer sites Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project  Replace existing undersized, failing culverts with culverts sized for 100-year storm event  Reestablished engineered fills to support transmission line  Reestablish and stabilize trail road surface to engineered specifications for travel  Allow upstream and downstream passage for salmonids  Increase channel capacity at stream crossing  Integrity of trail at improved stream crossing and ability to pass at 100 year storm flows  Improved reliability of water conveyance through transmission line  Improved integrity of trail surface for use by recreational uses  Passage of salmonids at improved crossings  Hydrologic capacity of streams at improved crossings  Site inspections and photo monitoring  Streambed monitoring surveys  Evaluate records of conveyance of water through secured transmission line  Salmonid surveys and monitoring  Pre- and post-construction photographic and video documentation of hydrology 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-16 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Marin/Sonoma Conserving Our Watersheds: Agricultural BMP Projects  50-75% reduction in fine sediment delivery from fencing and revegetation practices  60-90% reduction in nutrient and pathogen loading  Survival of at least 80% for revegetation projects  Increase native riparian tree & shrub cover by 65% for revegetation projects  Increase woody plant species richness in the riparian zone by 50% for revegetation projects  Number of management practices completed  Miles of stream fenced  Linear feet of streambank repaired  Reduction in fine sediment delivery  Increase in percent bank stability  Number and survival of planted trees.  Increase native tree and shrub cover, and diversity.  Monitoring conducted based on CDFW Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, USDA NRCS Technical Office Field Guide, and Marin Resources Conservation District Riparian Zone Monitoring Plan Napa County Milliken Creek Flood Damage Reduction, Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration Project  Successful fish passage to spawning and rearing grounds in the upper watershed.  Safely convey the 100-year flood.  Protect structures from the 100-year flood.  Evidence of steelhead spawning activity in reach above former dam location (i.e. presence of redds/nests).  Presence of rearing/foraging juvenile salmonids in reach above former dam site.  Lowered water surface elevation.  Stable longitudinal and cross sectional stream channel profile.  Steelhead spawner surveys.  Steelhead snorkel surveys.  Photographic documentation.  Site specific water surface and channel field surveys.  Post flood flow high water survey. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-17 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy City of Oakland Sausal Creek Restoration Project  Plant 84 native trees within the project area to mitigate for 33 native trees to be removed as part of the project.  Increase population of resident native rainbow trout by 25% at the end of 5 years.  80% survival rate of newly planted species at end of five years.  Improve diversity of resident and migrating native bird species in project area.  Widen creek corridor to 1.5 times wider than existing channel width.  Ensure >90% of the preserved native trees survive in the first 5 years.  5% increase in trout population per year over 5 years.  Survival rate of plants meeting project goals.  Increase diversity of native bird species by 20% at end of 5 years.  Floodprone width.  Survey retained and newly planted trees for health and survival rates to comply with the City of Oakland Tree Permit.  Fish surveys  Annual plant monitoring through transect counts.  Quarterly bird monitoring.  Annual geomorphic surveys and cross-sections. Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project  Supply water for 100 customers for 38+ years.  Improved warning system for pump failure and low tank volume.  120 toilet/urinal replacements.  80 washer replacements  High community attendance at workshops or surveys.  Available drawdown at the new well is at least 90 feet.  Pumping rate is at least 150 gpm to meet the design criteria for the well.  Alarms are activated during pump failure or when water level in tank reaches the low level set point.  3 AFY reductions in water demand.  Installations are completed and devices are functional.  Measure drawdown after well installation.  Measure water level in well annually.  Test alarm system monthly.  Track the number of installed high efficiency devices.  Track and compare water meter records from before high efficiency devices are installed to after devices are installed. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-18 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Petaluma Flood Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, and Recreation Project for Capri Creek  Peak flow reduction to existing out-of- bank flows of 60, 194, and 254 cubic feet per second in 10-year, 50-year, 100-year storms, respectively  Capture and removal of 15-20 cubic yards of debris annually, providing for sediment placement on flood terrace.  Provide 5 acres of enhanced habitat.  Surrounding residents participate in stewardship programs  Flood impacts to identified land uses  Debris and sediment removed from flood terrace rather than having debris travel downstream to Petaluma River and toward the Bay.  Use of the restored site by various species.  Citizen participation in monitoring, maintenance, and enjoyment of the creek corridor.  Observe stream at headwall during storm events.  Track out-of-bank flows and surface flood depths during storm events.  Field surveys and sampling following construction and during a 5-year monitoring period.  Track and record the number of citizens participating in annual maintenance day(s) and other outreach events. City of Redwood City Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project  Prevent 250 homes from being flooded  Treat 62 acre-feet of runoff during 1-yr storm, 106 acre-feet of runoff during 5-yr storm , 182 ac-ft of runoff during 25-yr storm  Provide 62 acre-feet of stormwater runoff for habitat enhancement of ponds  Flood impacts along the Bayfront Canal and Atherton Channel  Track out-of-bank flows and surface flood depths during storm events. Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project Phase 1A - South Westside Basin, Northern San Mateo County  Store 35,000 acre-feet by 2017 for drought supply.  Amount of stored water in aquifer  Quality of groundwater  Track elevation of groundwater  Monitor Water Quality 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-19 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Richmond Breuner Marsh Restoration Project  Create, restore or enhance approximately 60 acres of wetlands and 90 acres of coastal prairie upland habitat.  Increased public access for recreation and public education  Increase in presence of marine, intertidal, and upland species.  Acres created or restored  Vegetation Cover and Type  Increased hydrologic capacity/function  Public use for recreation  Participation in educational events  Annual surveys of Sediment Stakes, Staff Gages, Tidal Prism  Track public visitation  Track participation in educational events Roseview Heights Infrastructure Upgrades for Water Supply and Quality Improvement, Santa Clara County  Replace unengineered redwood water tanks with seismically engineered bolted steel tanks.  Eliminate water leakage (300,000 gallons/month) from tanks  Increase useful life of galvanized water mains.  Reduction of chlorine levels to 0.2 chlorine residual throughout entire system  New tanks constructed.  Source meter reading (San Jose Water) closely matches meter readings per individual customer usage.  Water clarity and chlorine residuals at the farthest end of the distribution system.  Track meter readings monthly at the source  Track customer meter reading quarterly  Perform annual tank maintenance and valve exercise plans  Standard monthly water testing  Test TTHM and HAAS annually San Francisco Bay Climate Change Pilot Projects Combining Ecosystem Adaptation, Flood Risk Management and Wastewater Effluent Polishing  Develop capacity to store up to 8 million gallons of secondary treated wastewater for up to 6 hours.  Capacity for more frequent peak flows – up to 5 MG of wastewater for up to 6 hours for 3 to 5 events per year.  Increase acceptance for ecotone slopes  Equalization facility built.  Storage availability/capacity as required.  Generation of peer reviewed journal papers  Conceptual design of 2 additional pilot projects which incorporate lessons learned from this project  Presentation of results to BACWA and other regional entities  Monitoring plan to be developed Sign off by OLSD following project completion  OLSD report on facility functionality  Outreach document in quarterly reports and papers and posted on the website 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-20 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility  Upgrade facilities to treat 1.6 MGD of industrial wastewater and first flush storm water to a higher quality.  Use 100% recycled water for all non- potable water demands.  Reduce occurrence of illicit discharges by upgrading IW infrastructure.  Increase in effluent quality entering the Bay.  Percent decrease in quantity of effluent being sent to the Bay.  Percentage decrease in annual potable water use.  Percentage increase in annual recycled water use for non-potable purposes.  Annual reduction in infrastructure breakdowns and violations for the IW treatment plant.  Water quality testing of effluent  Water metering to measure reduction in effluent being sent to the bay, reduction in potable water use, and increased amount of recycled water use.  Survey of work order and history logbooks San José Green Streets & Alleys Demonstration Projects  Reduce impervious surfaces by over 55,000 square feet and create up to 32,500 square feet of biorention rain gardens to treat runoff.  Install 5,000 square feet of permeable pavers.  Capture and infiltrate 334 pounds of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) per year.  Infiltration trenches and dry wells will be designed to capture, store, and infiltrate 80% of the annual runoff from the alleys and tributary areas of adjoining properties  Decrease in Total Suspended Solids (TSS) using the Spreadsheet Method (CPSWQ, Inc).  Significant pollutant load reductions.  Track pollutant loads  Bay Friendly certification maintenance methods  Pre- and Post-construction water quality monitoring  Final report discussing findings 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-21 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy San Pablo Rheem Creek Wetlands Restoration Project  Create and establish up to 4.82 acres of seasonal wetlands on an approximately 10 acre site adjacent to Rheem Creek.  Preserve 5.2 acres of upland watershed.  Confirm that created seasonal wetlands have been established within 5 years.  Wetlands will accommodate Rheem Creek overtopping during storm events.  Seasonally flooding: soils will pond and/or saturate for long (>7 days) to very long (>30 days) continuous durations.  The frequency of inundation and/or saturation of the restored wetlands shall be a minimum of 18.25 continuous days per year.  Vegetative cover will consist predominantly of native wetland plant species or other wetland species.  Total average wetlands vegetation cover ≥ 60% of reference wetlands by monitoring Year 3 and ≥ 70% by monitoring Year 5.  Improved water quality from Rheem Creek into San Pablo Bay.  Annual reports according to USACE and SF RWQCB Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)  Evaluate amount, character and quality of wetlands through Aerial photography, Field surveys, GIS analysis  Monitor water quality and flood management  Track large storm events in annual reports. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-22 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy St. Helena Upper York Creek Dam Removal and Ecosystem Restoration Project  Provide upstream passage to 1.7 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead and habitat connectivity for both anadromous and resident fish and other aquatic and riparian species  Restore approximately 2 acres of degraded riparian and aquatic habitat within the existing upper dam and reservoir area.  Natural transport of gravel materials and organisms downstream.  Reduce downstream fine sediment releases.  Noticeable trout and salmon in the creek.  Revegetated ecosystem with plant, animal and fish life.  Reduction of dead fish along stream banks  Minimization of downstream fine sediment delivery resulting in mortality of aquatic organisms  Riparian, aquatic and habitat regrowth in the project area.  Terrestrial wildlife reintroduction.  Visually inspect the area three times per year for the first three years following the project completion Students and Teachers Restoring a Watershed (STRAW) Project—North and East Bay Watersheds  Restore a minimum of 15,000 linear feet of wetland/riparian habitat  After 5 years, restoration sites will have achieved a riparian bird index (RBI) that rates as “good” or “excellent.”  Achieve a minimum of 75% survival rate for planted native vegetation  3,500 volunteers annually.  80% increase of participants’ environmental knowledge, skills and attitudes through STRAW workshops, classroom activities and restoration projects.  Linear feet of each project/increased density of native vegetation  Planted native vegetation percent survival and vigor.  Number of people participating in various STRAW activities.  Percent of participants who indicate a positive change in their environmental knowledge, skills and attitudes after participation in a STRAW activity.  On ground measurements/ photomonitoring  Area search surveys will be conducted on plots that are 0.5-1.5 hectares in area.  Monitor plant survival rate and vigor by species  Track number of participants that participate in STRAW activities.  Survey a subset of participants through written and on-site assessments. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-23 Performance and Monitoring 8.4 Mechanism for Adapting Project Operations Water resources management issues facing the Bay Area Region evolve over time in response to continually changing regulations and other emerging issues. Projects were identified as top priorities for regional implementation based on their ability to address goals and objectives. As the Region’s goals and objectives evolve over time, the ability of projects to address these goals and objectives will similarly change. In addition, project performance will be periodically assessed with respect to established performance measures. Maintaining flexible project operations will allow projects to adapt to the changing needs of the Region while performing well with respect to performance measures. Figure 8-2 presents the circular relationship between the data collection at the project and the regional level and how these results are used to modify the IRWMP priorities and project sequencing, which then in turn could change the monitoring program. Figure 8-2: Adaptive Management Cycle 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-24 Performance and Monitoring Each project identified in this IRWMP has a lead project proponent that has agreed to oversee project implementation. The project proponent will be responsible for ensuring that project operations are adjusted as appropriate based on the changing needs of the Region. As future work is completed, the CC will recommend whether changes to the Region’s goals, objectives, and needs should be considered. In response to the CC assessment, and considering the project’s performance with respect to its performance measures, project proponents will be responsible for identifying and adjusting project operations as appropriate and feasible. The relationships between project performance, Plan performance, and adjustments to the regional goals are illustrated in Figure 8-2. Additionally, as future work is completed, the CC may recommend revisions to project priorities and sequencing based on past performance. For example, should certain San Francisco Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) be achieved and water quality improved in certain watersheds, the IRWMP CC may recommend that projects addressing those TMDLs no longer be considered the highest priority projects for regional implementation. Regional implementation priorities will evolve as regional goals and objectives change over time, and as the Region progresses toward attainment of those goals and objectives. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Data Management Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 9: Data Management ..................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Overview of the Data Needs within the Bay Area Region .................. 9-1 9.2 Data Collection Techniques .............................................................. 9-2 9.3 Approach to Data Management and Dissemination ........................... 9-2 9.4 Data Management and Dissemination ............................................... 9-4 9.4.1 Project-Level Data Management and Dissemination .............. 9-4 9.4.2 Functional Area and Sub-region-Level Data Management ..... 9-5 9.4.3 Plan-Level Data Management and Dissemination .................. 9-6 9.5 Existing Data Collection and Monitoring Efforts ................................. 9-7 9.6 Data Gaps and Potential New Data Collection Programs ................ 9-11 9.7 Validation and QA/QC Measures .................................................... 9-15 9.8 Supporting Statewide Data Needs .................................................. 9-15 List of Tables Table 9-1: IRWMP Data Management Responsibilities(a) ....................................................... 9-3 Table 9-2: Example Existing Monitoring Efforts ...................................................................... 9-7 Table 9-3: Data Gaps and Potential Regional Data Sharing Opportunities ........................... 9-12 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-1 Data Management Chapter 9: Data Management 9.1 Overview of the Data Needs within the Bay Area Region As part of IRWMP implementation, data will be collected to support assessment of project and Plan performance. A primary data need within the Bay Area IRWM Region is to collect and maintain accurate, reliable, and current data about the projects that are included and have received IRWM grant funding under the IRWM Plan. Data will be gathered at the project level to assess the performance of projects in meeting their objectives, and to gauge the region’s progress toward achieving its goals. Project overviews are routinely developed to allow stakeholders to quickly familiarize themselves with each project. Metadata collected for each project includes things like keywords, location data, participating organizations, budget, status, etc. In order to develop a robust metadata ontology19, standards including FGDC and CERES have been consulted and cross-referenced. The CC will make periodic calls for project proponents to update their information. This will help to ensure that the project information is current. As the data needs of the Region continue to evolve, the project metadata schema can be updated by appending new fields to the existing ontology. It is also necessary to be able to browse and search projects based on a variety of criteria including keyword, location, Functional Area, participating people and organizations. By addressing these needs, the CC will ensure that the projects directory provides a useful platform for the future planning needs of the region. It is also necessary to gather and manage contact information for the BAIRWMP stakeholders, with an easy way to search and browse the directories of key people and organizations active in the Region. This contact information will also be organized into email lists for use in updating stakeholders, agency representatives, and project proponents regarding ongoing activities in the region as well as important opportunities and deadlines. The Region’s data management system also needs to document the planning process and all of its associated meetings and workshops. The contacts directory and lists described above are necessary for organizing and coordinating these events. Meetings and workshops must be announced on the website and presented in context with their related meeting materials. For example, when viewing an event, it should be possible to view the agenda and meeting minutes. It should also be possible to download any handouts and presentations from the meeting, as well as have links to any other online resources that were discussed at the event. These materials should be archived so that they can be organized and accessed as needed after the event. The Region will also curate topical information libraries or “specialty collections”, such as climate change, in a virtual library. This library will hold climate change information, resources, 19 A metadata ontology is effectively a conceptual “world view” for the information. The BAIRWMP data management system includes fields such as Projects, People, Organizations, Documents, Locations; the ontology is the model of the relationships between those things and how individual metadata fields are managed. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-2 Data Management and lists of other sources, which can be added to over time as new material is developed and becomes available. In the future other specialty collections can be added. In addition to project-specific data generated through project implementation, data collected as part of region-wide monitoring programs is available to support IRWMP assessment at the Plan level. Various local and regional monitoring programs are currently underway throughout the region. Several of these programs are described in Chapter 8 – Performance and Monitoring, and are listed in Table 9-2. The process for managing and disseminating this information to stakeholders is discussed below. In addition, opportunities for data collection have been identified and a process for integrating collected information into statewide programs is described. Apart from those containing sensitive information, publicly funded data and materials are made available to the public via the BAIRWMP website (www.bairwmp.org) in an easily accessible and searchable format. A sustainable strategy will be adopted to ensure that these documents remain available over time, and are not subject to any particular funding round or consultant’s tenure. The formats for resource URLs will be designed to be technology-neutral (e.g., no jsp, asp, php extensions that have remnant proprietary elements). Whenever content is reorganized on the site, redirects will be used to preserve the functionality of existing links that have already been bookmarked or circulated in emails and documents (e.g., PDFs, reports, and meeting minutes). 9.2 Data Collection Techniques One of the primary methods for gathering data is outreach to the project leads. Periodically the IRWMP CC will contact the project proponents and request that they enter or update their information in the site. Each project proponent will have a personal login for the site that will be used to control access, enforce permissions, and ensure that they have access to the correct content and areas of the site. The Website Subcommittee will be able to modify these permissions and grant additional access as necessary. Meeting materials will be posted and updated by the meeting organizers and participants. Meetings organizers will enter the metadata for their events including title, description, location, date/time, presenters, etc. They will then be able to upload agendas and minutes. Participants will also be able to upload their handouts and presentation files. The content for specialty libraries will be gathered via a call to the stakeholders. There may also be some high-level planning undertaken by CC subcommittees to identify potential source documents. These materials will then be cataloged into the BAIRWMP website. The files will be uploaded and metadata will be entered for each resource. This work can be done either by designated members of the consultant team, or by the document contributors themselves. 9.3 Approach to Data Management and Dissemination A variety of steps will be required for IRWMP implementation, including adoption, implementation of priority projects, and updated approaches to data management as needs evolve. Successful completion of each of these steps will require effective data management and dissemination, as described below. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-3 Data Management Information will be collected and compiled at several levels as appropriate, including the project level, the Functional Area level, the sub-regional level, and the IRWMP level. At each of these levels, effective data management and dissemination contributes to successful IRWMP implementation. Table 9-10 identifies the types of activities that will be undertaken as part of IRWMP implementation. The level of effort for each activity may vary depending on its need and upon the amount of funding and resources available. Table 9-10: IRWMP Data Management Responsibilities(a) Responsible Party Data Management and Dissemination Task Frequency Project Proponents  Compile and maintain project implementation information through monitoring program implementation  Disseminate project implementation information, as necessary, to meet applicable reporting requirements  Disseminate project implementation information, as appropriate, to Functional Area stakeholder group  Quarterly, or as dictated by grant reporting requirements.  Annually or bi- annually, in response to FA or CC requests. Functional Areas  As appropriate or as requested by CC, consolidate and present regional information, including detailed analysis of one or more water resource management areas  Periodically Sub-regions  As appropriate, consolidate and present information on priority projects and needs within each of the four geographic sub-regions.  Periodically IRWMP CC  Compile information prepared by Project Proponents, Functional Areas, or Sub-regions into regional outlook  Present project-specific information submitted to Bay Area website database by Project Proponents  Disseminate regional outlook to stakeholders  Periodically Note: (a) Tasks, frequency, and responsible parties assume adequate funding and other resources are available. Compiling or reviewing this information on a regional scale will enable the IRWMP CC to communicate effectively about the contribution of IRWMP projects to the region’s goals, objectives, and vision. The type, level, and frequency of data management and dissemination activities and the parties responsible for implementing those activities may change as the IRWMP CC periodically 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-4 Data Management reviews the effectiveness of the ongoing institutional structure. As much as possible, the design of the BAIRWMP website favors a self-service model of data update, where individual project leads and committee members can upload their own data without going through a webmaster or utilizing specialized technology skills. This removes bottlenecks and restrictions from the content-creation process, while still preserving review and permissions structure to ensure quality data and oversight. 9.4 Data Management and Dissemination A large quantity of information will be developed and collected as part of IRWMP implementation and performance assessment. This information will range from water supply and demand information to recycled water usage, water quality data, floodplain reduction project information, stormwater runoff quality and quantity, and habitat mapping information. Chapter 8 – Performance and Monitoring, lists examples of existing Bay Area monitoring efforts, and provides examples of performance metrics and the variety and types of information to be gathered at the project level. As shown in Table 9-1, data will be collected at the project level, reported and compiled on the website, and then reviewed and disseminated through the website. The data on the website may be further disseminated through other means. Data management and dissemination responsibilities at each level are described below. The BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) has prioritized the use of open source software tools for supporting its data management needs. This choice brings several advantages. With open source software, the group has free reign to customize the software as it sees fit and is not locked in to any one vendor. Also, some software tools are being developed by multiple IRWMPs as well as several of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). This approach enables these organizations to share the cost of developing common tools and benefit from the advancements that are externally funded. The existing BAIRWMP website is based on a metadata-driven Content Management System (CMS), which is a web-based software system concerned with enabling non-technical users to manage web content which is also designed and built around a carefully thought-out metadata schema in order to support effective querying from an increasingly complex body of information. This ensures that even as the site grows to hold a large volume of material, it will still be easily accessible via search and browse tools. The site will include a search engine that automatically indexes all content in the site, including deep-search within Microsoft Office and PDF documents. The group will also carefully design an organizing and navigation system to make it as easy as possible to browse the materials. This will also support visitors who want to learn more about the BAIRWMP and the IRWMP process without looking for a particular resource. 9.4.1 Project-Level Data Management and Dissemination At the project level, project proponents will be responsible for submitting inform ation on project implementation status as well as evaluating project performance with respect to the performance measures identified for each project, potential examples of which are presented Chapter 3 – Objectives, and in Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-5 Data Management The BAIRWMP website has been customized with reporting tools for projects funded under Proposition 1, Proposition 84, and Proposition 50. These tools provide an easy-to-use engine for project leads to provide the required reporting information, including financial tracking data as well as narrative reporting based on predefined fields and criteria. The reporting tools provide a means to organize this information for compilation into aggregate reports. For projects funded through IRWM, quarterly reporting (or intervals as stipulated in grant agreements) is required through the website’s reporting tools. Reporting data will be compiled on the website, monitored for completeness, and provided to the state by the agency administering the Implementation Grant or other funding agreement. Proponents of other implemented projects are similarly encouraged to track this information through the website on a regular basis. The BAIRWMP website will feature a profile in the CMS for each project. These project profiles will be adapted over time to meet the information gathering needs of the CC. They will also function as workspaces where project proponents can upload materials including work plans, budgets, reports, documents, datasets, and more. The workspaces can also be configured as mini-sites for the projects. As many of these projects may not have their own websites outside of the BAIRWMP website, these homepages, or mini-sites, will provide valuable functionality to the project leads. They will enable project proponents to share their successes and tell their stories in ways that are both visually impactful and supported by knowledge-management and other CMS features. Because these sites are nested inside, and powered by, the main BAIRWMP website, the content-generation activity of the project leads will also generate valuable content in the BAIRWMP site. 9.4.2 Functional Area and Sub-region-Level Data Management Assuming sufficient funding and resources are available, the FA and sub-region groups may each collect data for use in assessing the region’s progress toward goals and objectives on an annual basis. FAs may track the following kinds of information:  WS-WQ Functional Area: Regional water use, water conservation, and population throughout the region.  WW-RW Functional Area: Amount of recycled water use throughout the region, type of uses of the recycled water, cost of recycled water and new projects.  FP-SM Functional Area: Number of acres within FEMA flood zone and number of floods and reported damages throughout region.  HP-WM&R Functional Area: Amounts and quality of habitats conserved, enhanced and restored, status of wildlife populations, land use practices developed and/or implemented. This data will be indexed and viewable based on Functional Area tagging, and will be disseminated to the Bay Area IRWMP CC to support its periodic IRWMP information update and assessment process. In addition, data will be used in conjunction with the project-level data compiled and managed by the project proponents to assess the region’s progress toward achieving its goals in each Functional Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-6 Data Management The BAIRWMP CMS will feature metadata tags for the functional areas, making it possible to easily browse and search resources by Functional Area. This will become especially important as the content of the site grows in volume. The Functional Area meta-tags will ensure that searching and browsing by Functional Area remains easy and meaningful with a minimum of overhead and human input. The East, South, West, and North sub-regions may also collect and compile data pertaining to their respective geographic areas on a variety of subjects from time to time, as needed or as requested by the CC. Information collected at the sub-region level may include project-related data such as needs assessments and sub-region priorities, implementation project lists, reporting on project implementation outcomes, monitoring efforts, etc. 9.4.3 Plan-Level Data Management and Dissemination As described in previous sections, and assuming sufficient funding and other resources are available, future work will be guided by the CC. As part of this process, the CC will collect the information gathered by the Functional Areas and Sub-regions to assess IRWMP performance in contributing to regional goals, objectives, and IRWMP vision. The CC can compile and manage this information, and ultimately disseminate the data to the public. As future work is completed, the FAs and Sub-regions will provide data to the CC in electronic format. Existing regional data collection sources (such as those identified in Table 8-8) may also be reviewed for their applicability in assessing Plan performance, as resources and funds permit. As appropriate, this data will be maintained, along with project-specific data and information compiled by the Functional Areas, on the BAIRWMP website. The IRWMP data will be publicly accessible from the IRWMP web portal. While every effort will be made to ensure open, public access to data used in the Plan performance assessment, confidentiality agreements may be required to obtain a portion of the data used to support Plan assessment. In these limited cases, data availability will be managed in a manner consistent with the terms of individual confidentiality agreements. IRWMP stakeholders and the general public will be informed of the process and online data availability through email announcements and postings on the BAIRWMP website home page. In addition, it is anticipated that future work will include public outreach aimed at encouraging stakeholder participation. Outreach will be used as a forum for generating public awareness and disseminating the information in the data library. Meeting materials and information on activities of the IRWMP CC will be made available online in a transparent manner. Meeting announcements will be featured prominently and synchronized with email announcements. An archive of past meetings will be kept on the website along with meeting materials such as agendas, minutes, presentations, and handouts. These materials will be archived by year and committee and will be searchable through the site’s search functionality. For additional information on anticipated stakeholder involvement during Plan implementation, please refer to Section 14: Stakeholder Engagement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-7 Data Management 9.5 Existing Data Collection and Monitoring Efforts Within the Bay Area, several regional, local, and state-sponsored monitoring programs currently exist that monitor the conditions of the Plan’s four Functional Areas. The table below shows the programs and responsible parties collecting data. Implementing agencies lead the effort to collect and disseminate monitoring data. The responsible agencies listed below generate the data at the local level. Examples of these existing monitoring efforts are presented in Table 8-1, Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring, and below in Table 8-8. It may be possible to utilize these existing programs to support Plan performance assessment. Table 9-11: Example Existing Monitoring Efforts Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Local Policy Survey ABAG Availability of vacant land, timing of future development, type of future development, density of development, transportation, land use policy and other land use related factors that could affect development. ABAG, Local governments Ongoing The State of San Francisco Bay Report ABAG Science-based assessment of the health of San Francisco Bay, focusing on the water, habitats, living resources, ecological processes, and stewardship. http://www.sfestuary.org/ SFEP Updated every five years Air Quality Monitoring Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board (ARB) Regional monitoring for a variety of weather elements: Wind, Rainfall, Air Quality, Air Temperature, etc. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ARB Ongoing Bay Area Protected Lands Database Bay Area Open Space Council Tracking of protected public and private open space lands throughout the Bay Area. Bay Area Open Space Council Ongoing Watershed Sanitary Surveys CA Department of Public Health (CDPH) Agency specific documents which assess existing water quality within a watershed and identify specific water treatment processes for the source waters for the Water supply agencies Updated every 5 years 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-8 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency purposes of human consumption. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project CALFED, USFWS Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, SCC Conducts monitoring and regional mapping of spartina in order to perform eradication activities. CALFED, USFWS Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, SCC Ongoing California Partners In Flight (CalPIF) Study Area Database California Partners in Flight Standard bird monitoring sites and provides a repository for species breeding status information for the entire state. California Partners in Flight, Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program (DWSAP) CDPH Monitors and assesses the quality of surface and groundwater sources according to federal and state standards for drinking water. Identifies potential contaminating activities within the source watershed. Water supply agencies Updated when deemed necessary by DHS California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) CDFW Data repository for endangered/native species sightings and population locations, but no comprehensive monitoring program. CDFW Ongoing CalFish.org CDFW DFG maintains a database with fish range and habitat information, but no comprehensive monitoring program. CDFW Ongoing Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) DWR Monitors urban water supply and demand. UWMP and updates approved and deemed complete by DWR. Water supply agencies Urban Water Management Plan updates required every five years. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation DWR Groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in Local Monitoring Entities Every five years beginning in 2015 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-9 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Monitoring (CASGEM) California's groundwater basins. Flood Control Facilities Flood control agencies Monitoring of catch basins and storm drains near the urban/wildland interface during storms; Debris monitoring and monitoring activities, erosion repair activities, removal of excessive vegetation and reshaping of stream banks for improved flow in rivers and streams. Flood control agencies Ongoing Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program Institute for Bird Populations Assesses and monitors the vital rates and population dynamics of over 120 species of North American land birds. Institute for Bird Populations Ongoing Bird Counts National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count, Great Backyard Bird Count, and the Feederwatch Bird Count. National Audubon Society Ongoing Songbird Populations Point Reyes Bird Observatory Long-term monitoring of songbird populations for the past 30 years. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing NPDES, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) RWQCB Wastewater Treatment Plants/Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are required to monitor for many constituents including the following: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD), total suspended solids, oil and grease, chlorine residue, pH, fecal coliform, and toxicity in effluent discharged. Annual Self- Monitoring reports are required. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Annually, Ongoing Regional Wetlands Monitoring Program SCC, SFJV Utilize GIS mapping of wetland projects, the California Rapid Assessment Method of wetland conditions, and other tools to monitor wetlands on a regional scale. USEPA, SCC, SFJV, SFEI As funding allows 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-10 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program SWRCB Statewide groundwater quality monitoring and assessment program mandated by the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001. Participation by private drinking well operators is encouraged through the Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment Project. The San Francisco Bay Region is assessed in two hydrogeologic provinces. SWRCB, USGS, voluntary local participation Regional Assessment s every 10 years, trend monitoring every 3 years NPDES, Municipal Stormwater Permits SWRCB Issued to countywide collaboratives for management plan-based approach to implementing stormwater pollution prevention BMPs. The permit conditions require monitoring of BMPs. Local municipalities and agencies Permits are renewed every 5 years NPS Control Program- Tracking and Monitoring Council SWRCB Monitors NPS pollutant trends and impairments in the Bay Area. Evaluates effectiveness and success of projects and programs funded by the NPS program that are designed to protect and restore water quality. Coordinates with the SWAMP program. SWRCB, RWQCBs, SCC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NOAA Ongoing Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) SWRCB Statewide monitoring effort designed to assess the conditions of surface waters in streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries throughout the state. Monitoring efforts vary by RWQCB. However, sampling methods are standardized across the State. RWQCB As funding allows Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay Regulated dischargers Monitoring of contaminant concentrations and toxicity levels in water and aquatic species of the San Francisco Bay. SFEI, RWQCB Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-11 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Bay Area Macroinverte- brate Bioassessment Information Network (BAMBI) SWRCB Currently being developed to utilize rapid bioassessment techniques in order to determine the distribution and population counts for macroinvertebrates in the Bay Area. SWRCB, Municipalities Under development Bird Breeding Survey USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Population data and population trend analyses on more than 400 bird species. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Ongoing Habitat Conservation Plans Various agencies and organizations Conservation planning for special-status species in a defined geographic area; Contains mitigation to offset development and monitoring requirements to measure success of restored and protected areas. Various agencies and organizations Varies Annual Self- Monitoring Recycled Water Reports Wastewater/w ater/recycled water agencies Reports on recycled water analysis, recycled water used, list of users, total daily deliveries, site inspections, effluent violations and corrective actions, updates to future plans to expand recycled water program and any special studies or projects. Permitted wastewater/wat er/recycled water agencies Annual, due March 15 Source water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, and microbes in source and treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ ongoing Treated water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, microbes, disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts in treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ ongoing 9.6 Data Gaps and Potential New Data Collection Programs While extensive water resources monitoring is ongoing in the region, additional opportunities exist for data gathering to fill gaps and expand knowledge about the region’s remaining water resources. Some potential additional data gathering opportunities, to fill perceived gaps, are illustrated inTable 9-12. Additional data gathering will occur as time and funding allows. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-12 Data Management Table 9-12: Data Gaps and Potential Regional Data Sharing Opportunities Data Gap Program Type Potential Implementing Agency Program Description Water Supply-Water Quality Regional Groundwater Information Regional Groundwater Monitoring Program Groundwater basin managers. Compile local groundwater monitoring data from throughout the region to conduct an assessment of groundwater quantity and quality for basins within the region. Regional groundwater assessments should be conducted every 5 years. Wastewater and Recycled Water Compilation of Regional Recycled Water Information Regional Recycled Water Reporting RWQCB Regional compilation of quantity and quality of recycled water produced and used within the region. This system would track and encourage utilization of recycled water to conserve potable supplies. Information is already provided to RWQCB. Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Compilation of Regional Impervious Surface Information Regional Monitoring of Impervious Surfaces RWQCB Regional monitoring of trends in urbanization through tracking the extent of impervious surfaces and undeveloped lands with the use of GIS mapping. This information can be utilized when designing restoration efforts and to examine the effects of altered hydrology on streams, and habitats. Additionally, this information will be useful for stormwater and flood control management agencies to assess application of appropriate BMPs and management measures according to the extent of imperviousness in the region. Compilation of Regional Storm Drainage Information Regional Storm Drainage Mapping RWQCB Collaborative effort to develop a regional map showing locations of creeks, underground culverts, storm drains, and flood control channels. Use the Oakland Museum Creek Maps as an example for a region-wide effort to map storm drainage networks. This information will improve regional efforts for habitat restoration, flood control, and water-quality monitoring. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-13 Data Management Data Gap Program Type Potential Implementing Agency Program Description Non-Point Source Pollution Data Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program SWRCB The State Water Resources Control Board is developing the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program to track and monitor nonpoint source pollution in the Bay Area, but it is not yet effective. The Program could be expanded to compile both runoff quantity and quality information. Emerging Contaminants Monitoring Regional Monitoring of Emerging Contaminants SWRCB Conduct regional monitoring of emerging contaminants, such as endocrine disrupting compounds, in water, sediment, and aquatic species. Expand upon the existing Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances to include emerging contaminants. Extend the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) to include monitoring of the quality of urban creeks in addition to sites within the San Francisco Bay. Floodplain Management Information Regional Monitoring of Floodplains BAFPAA Regional mapping and monitoring of floodplains, including acreage protected, connectivity, and management techniques. Monitoring information would facilitate planning, design, and execution of flood- protection projects. Watershed Management, Habitat Protection, and Restoration Regional Stream Channel Maps Regional Monitoring of Stream Channel Functioning CDFW Regional mapping and monitoring of channel bed and bank conditions, including extent of functioning riparian corridors. Regional mapping and monitoring of sediment source, transport, and depositional areas. This information will be useful to monitor the success of creek restoration projects, assess the need for future restoration efforts, and track habitat conditions for wildlife and aquatic habitat. Due to the extent of urbanization in the region, these data should be gathered in conjunction with local flood control and stormwater management agencies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-14 Data Management Data Gap Program Type Potential Implementing Agency Program Description Regional In- Stream Habitat Information Regional Monitoring of In- Stream Habitat Conditions USEPA-Office of Research and Development, CDFW Expand upon the Western Pilot Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (WEMAP) to implement standardized monitoring of in-stream habitat conditions (water quality, fish populations, benthic populations) within the region. Establish protocols and baseline data to assess urbanized habitat conditions. Regional Wildlife Corridor, Population, and Biodiversity Information Regional Monitoring of Wildlife Corridors, Populations, and Biodiversity CDFW Establish a regional monitoring system for wildlife corridors, populations, and species richness (for amphibians, birds, and mammals). This could expand upon the CNDDB, focusing solely on population monitoring within the region. Regional Invasive Species Information Regional Monitoring of Invasive Species CDFW, USFWS Regional monitoring program for presence and absence of invasive plant species. The program would provide information to target eradication and restoration activities. Regional At- Risk Native Species Monitoring Regional Monitoring of Native At-Risk and Special Status Species CDFW, USFWS Regional program to track presence and absence of at-risk native and special status species in the Bay Area. Due to resource limitations, there are few ongoing efforts that collect and compile data continuously at the regional level. While establishment of regional data collection and management programs such as those described above would provide deeper understanding of the challenges facing the region as it strives to achieve the goals of the IRWMP, the CC has not yet determined if that is best accomplished by better coordination with existing efforts, enhanced where feasible, versus creating any new regional monitoring effort directly under the IRWM Plan. While such a regional data integration approach may be valuable in concept, it is important to consider the potential costs and administrative/management commitments such an effort would entail. Table 9-12 lists potential implementing agencies for each potential program. Potential implementing agencies were identified based on their wide jurisdiction and access to the data needed to develop the recommended compilations and reports. Implementation of these monitoring and reporting programs would require resources beyond those of the IRWMP CC. Whether or not the IRWM Plan is the appropriate venue to fill gaps in regional monitoring is a subject that will continue to be explored as the Plan is implemented. Stakeholders, project proponents, regional organizations, DWR, and the public will be invited to engage in a broader discussion of Plan and regional monitoring efforts and needs. This will also provide a forum to 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-15 Data Management review regional efforts that overlap with BAIRWMP Objectives. To the extent possible, other existing efforts, such as the State of the Estuary Conference or other regional water forums will be leveraged to enhance dialogue. After this discussion, Bay Area IRWM Plan participants will be in a better position to determine whether IRWM is the optimal venue to address some of the gaps identified. 9.7 Validation and QA/QC Measures The data cataloged into the Bay Area IRWM portal will be reviewed by the CC through the Website Committee as it comes online. If the Website Committee members find issues with the uploaded data, they can easily contact the document contributor or original author for corrections or clarifications. Additionally, the gathered data will be subject to ongoing review and correction by the BAIRWMP stakeholders. By providing prominent links to contact the document authors and Website Committee, the Region will encourage the crowd-sourcing of these data corrections. These measures will ensure the review of the gathered data and expedite the process of identifying and correcting any errors or inaccuracies. 9.8 Supporting Statewide Data Needs As described in Table 8-8, a wealth of information is collected by individual Bay Area agencies and water resource programs. While a limited number of programs compile and assess water resources data for the Bay Area region, it is not clear whether new regional assessments versus more efficient coordination of existing efforts would lead to more useful regional information. As future work is completed, the Bay Area’s data library of relevant water resources information and data that have been collected by projects funded through IRWM grants will grow. Whether the library can become a more comprehensive resource throughout the region has yet to be determined. As such, the process represents an important first step toward developing a regional perspective on water resources management information. The data and conclusions developed through the Bay Area IRWMP assessment process may be used by state agencies for developing regional fact sheets and determining regional funding priorities. In addition, DWR may use the information developed through future work to support updates to the California Water Plan. The California State Water Plan is updated on a five-year cycle. Periodic information updates could be coordinated with the State Water Plan update. Another opportunity for data coordination may be found with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The RWQCBs are currently reviewing new data standardization and data provision requirements to accompany 401-certification permits. If this program becomes formalized, additional opportunities for regional data integration may arise. Such requirements and standards would provide data at the project-scale that could then be aggregated for a regional interpretation. Coordination with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB will continue with implementation of the Bay Area IRWM Plan. In addition to compiling water resources data and information about Bay Area IRWM Projects, the Bay Area data will support statewide data activities by retaining data collected to support project performance assessment in a manner consistent with continuing statewide data collection programs. Consistency with statewide monitoring programs is critical to ensure that regional projects contribute to efficient, uniform, and comprehensive study design and data collection. Data collected as part of IRWMP project implementation is expected to be compatible with applicable statewide data collection programs such as the Surface Water 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-16 Data Management Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) and the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) programs, and the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN). Upon completion of the IRWMP performance assessment, project-specific data, along with the associated quality assurance/quality control information, will be available in a format that can easily be integrated into statewide data collection and tracking programs. As appropriate, the CC will also encourage project proponents to contribute data to the California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES), an information system developed by the California Resources Agency to facilitate access to natural resource data. The CMS that powers the BAIRWMP includes built-in support for exporting project metadata to CERES using the FGDC-XML metadata standard. Resources cataloged in the site can be easily exported in a format that is consumable by the CERES information clearinghouse. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Financing Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 10: Financing ................................................................................ 10-1 10.1 Local Funding Opportunities ........................................................... 10-1 10.1.1 Capital Improvements Program Funding (Revenue Bonds, Certificates of Participation) ..................................... 10-1 10.1.2 Property Tax Assessment (Assessed Valuation) .................. 10-2 10.1.3 User Fees ............................................................................ 10-2 10.1.4 Innovative Local Funding Mechanisms ................................. 10-2 10.1.4.1 Tamalpais Lands Collaborative .......................... 10-2 10.1.4.2 Napa County, Measure A ................................... 10-2 10.1.4.3 Ross Valley Storm Drainage Fee ....................... 10-3 10.1.4.4 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Measure B .... 10-3 10.1.4.5 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Grant Program ............................................................. 10-3 10.1.4.6 Alameda County Watershed Projects ................. 10-4 10.1.4.7 Zone 7 Water Agency, Stanley Reach Project .... 10-4 10.1.4.8 Potential Spending Offset Projects ..................... 10-4 10.1.4.9 Investor Owner Utility Investments ..................... 10-5 10.1.4.10 Resources Identified by Stakeholders ................ 10-5 10.2 State Funding .................................................................................. 10-5 10.2.1 Proposition 1 ........................................................................ 10-6 10.2.2 Proposition 84 ...................................................................... 10-6 10.2.3 Proposition 1E ...................................................................... 10-6 10.2.4 Proposition 50 ...................................................................... 10-6 10.2.5 Other State Funding ............................................................. 10-7 10.2.5.1 State Revolving Fund ......................................... 10-7 10.2.5.2 Safe Drinking Water SRF ................................... 10-7 10.2.5.3 Infrastructure SRF .............................................. 10-7 10.2.5.4 Clean Water SRF ............................................... 10-7 10.2.5.5 State Water Resources Control Board – Federal 319 Program ......................................... 10-8 10.2.5.6 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Recycling Funding Program ..................... 10-8 10.2.5.7 Department of Housing and Community Development – Community Development Block Grant ........................................................ 10-8 10.2.5.8 California Energy Commission (CEC) – Energy Conservation Assistance Act .................. 10-8 10.3 Federal Funding .............................................................................. 10-9 10.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Source Reduction Assistance ........................................................................... 10-9 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Financing 10.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF) ..................... 10-9 10.3.3 Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Program Development Grants .......................................................... 10-10 10.3.4 Environmental Protection Agency, Five Star Restoration Program............................................................................. 10-10 10.3.5 Water Resources Development Act .................................... 10-10 10.3.6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoration ............................ 10-10 10.3.7 National Park Service (NPS), Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program ........................ 10-11 10.3.8 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Program ........... 10-11 10.3.9 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), WaterSMART Grant Programs ................................................................. 10-11 10.3.10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant ............ 10-11 10.4 IRWM Project Funding .................................................................. 10-12 10.5 IRWM Plan Administration Funding ............................................... 10-13 List of Tables Table 10-1: Funding Opportunities ....................................................................................... 10-1 Table 10-2: IRWMP Funding: Past, Ongoing, and Near-Term Examples ............................ 10-22 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-1 Financing Chapter 10: Financing Securing adequate funding for program planning and implementation is one of the biggest challenges facing integrated planning efforts. Successful Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) implementation requires both capital and/or planning costs associated with project implementation as well as ongoing funding to support their continued operation, maintenance and administration. Table 10-1, at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary of funding opportunities by local, state, and federal funding sources. Table 10-2, also located at the end of this Chapter, documents previous, ongoing, and near-term funding for the IRWMP. The total cost for projects included in the Plan is about $4.1 billion, ranging from $27,500 to $292 million and averaging $13.9 million. The following sections identify various funding sources, their associated requirements and guidelines to assist with implementation of Plan Projects. 10.1 Local Funding Opportunities There are opportunities for grant funding available to the stakeholders in the Region which are well suited to many candidate projects. Many of these grant opportunities require that the Local Project Sponsor provide matching funds (“local match”) and funds for operations and maintenance once a project or program is constructed or implemented. The source of the local match and funds for operations and maintenance may include water and wastewater general funds; capital improvement funds; development impact fees; and general funds from local cities, county departments, other local agencies, private organizations, member dues, etc. Local taxpayers may also fund these projects through rate increases, bond measures, and tax increases. In the past, local entities have planned, implemented, and funded construction and operation of water-related projects. These funds may be available to fund Plan Projects or to provide the local match. 10.1.1 Capital Improvements Program Funding (Revenue Bonds, Certificates of Participation) Water districts, as well as other government entities (e.g., counties and cities), can raise funds by issuing municipal bonds or certificates of participation. Bonds and certificates of participation are governed by an extensive system of laws and regulations. Under these systems, investors provide immediate funding for the promise of later repayment. Generally, bonds and certificates of participation are used for capital improvement projects. In the case of a water district, bonds and certificates are secured by revenues from the water system and by property taxes received by the agency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-2 Financing 10.1.2 Property Tax Assessment (Assessed Valuation) Property taxes can be used for general expenditures, capital improvements, and to service bond and certificate debt. While this is a large and important source of funding for local agencies, in some cases, the State of California can divert these funds, thus rendering them unavailable. In addition, revenue from property taxes can fluctuate with the real estate market. 10.1.3 User Fees Funding for construction and operation and maintenance of water-related projects often comes from user fees, which are charges for water delivered to a home or business, or charges for wholesale water supplies. In addition to these fees, many agencies also charge “hook-up” or “connection” fees – charges for providing facilities to provide water or wastewater services to new development. These fees are also known as “facility capacity fees.” Facility capacity fee revenue is difficult to forecast due to the unpredictable timing of development activity. Development activity depends on real estate demands, the regional economy, and land use planning activity. Revenue from user fees and water charges can also fluctuate with the regional economy, short-term water use reductions or restrictions, and precipitation. 10.1.4 Innovative Local Funding Mechanisms Organizations across the Region have been developing innovative mechanisms to fund local programs. Some examples are presented below. 10.1.4.1 Tamalpais Lands Collaborative Established in March 2014, the Tamalpais Lands Collaborative (TLC) brings together the resources, talents, and philanthropy of the four agencies responsible for the management of Mt. Tamalpais (National Park Service, California State Parks, Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), Marin County Parks) and the conservation nonprofit Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. The partnership grew out of a history of public stewardship of Mt. Tamalpais and earlier collaborative efforts, including a plan by MMWD to create a nonprofit “Friends” organization for the Mt. Tamalpais Watershed. The collaborative supports conservation, stewardship, and public enjoyment of the nearly 10 square miles of local, state, and national parklands that encompass the Mt. Tamalpais region. 10.1.4.2 Napa County, Measure A Napa County voters passed Measure A in 1998, a 20 year 1/2 cent sales tax to generate revenue for watershed improvements and flood control. The tax was proposed by a coalition of stakeholders ("Community Coalition") to generate funds for the $450 million Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project. The Community Coalition included representatives from local, state and federal government, local business and environmental groups, and resource agencies. The Community Coalition developed the Living River Guidelines, which are written into the tax ordinance and require projects funded by Measure A to follow geomorphically sound design principles. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement was written that sets forth the expenditure plan for the County and its five cities. Each entity has projects designed to protect and enhance the Napa River, its tributaries and local watersheds. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-3 Financing 10.1.4.3 Ross Valley Storm Drainage Fee The Health and Safety Code allows the County of Marin to charge a fee for acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, and operating storm drainage facilities. In July 2007, the Marin County Board of Supervisors approved the levy of a storm drainage fee against those parcels that drain into the Ross Valley Watershed. The fee is to pay a portion of the annual costs for the flood protection and storm drainage improvement programs. The fee for each property is related to how much stormwater runoff it generates. The duration of the storm drainage fee is for fifteen years, terminating with fiscal 2026/27. For more information on efforts funded by the program see: http://marinwatersheds.org/rossvalleywatershed- org/documents/RossValleyWatershedAnnualReport2012_000.pdf 10.1.4.4 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Measure B In November 2012, Santa Clara County voters approved the renewal of Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure B—Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program—with over 73 percent public approval. Taxes will be used to:  Ensure safe, reliable water supply;  Reduce toxins, hazards and contaminants in waterways;  Protect water supply and dams from earthquakes and natural disasters;  Restore wildlife habitat and provide open space;  Provide flood protection to homes, schools and businesses; and  Provide safe, clean water in creeks and bays. Projects include a dam seismic retrofit, impaired water bodies improvement, fish habitat and passage improvement, creek restoration and stabilization, vegetation control and sediment removal for flood protection, and flood protection projects. More information on the Safe, Clean Water Program is available at: http://safecleanwater.org/. 10.1.4.5 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Grant Program Since 2001, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has awarded $16.4 million in grant funding to 86 projects in its three grant programs which include: Environmental Enhancement Grant, Trail and Open Space Grant, and Watershed Stewardship Grant. The grant funding is from the voter- approved Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Plan of 2000 (Clean, Safe Creeks), and the funded projects help achieve objectives included in the plan. Projects focus on: pollution prevention, educational outreach, non-native exotic plant removal, native plant revegetation, endangered species protection and fish barrier removal. There have been eight grant cycles to date, over 594 acres of tidal and riparian habitat created or restored and over 70 miles of recreational trails already opened for public access. Government agencies, non-profit organizations and schools are among the entities eligible to apply for funding. This funding source allows smaller organizations to implement smaller 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-4 Financing projects. The district’s completion of and support for environmental enhancement and trail projects through the Clean, Safe Creeks program has surpassed the original established goals. It is anticipated that between 2014 and 2028 grant cycles will be biennial and funded by the 2012 Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program with a focus on pollution prevention, stewardship, restoration, and trails. 10.1.4.6 Alameda County Watershed Projects The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Alameda County Resources Conservation District (ACRCD) work cooperatively to implement watershed resources management projects within the lands associated with the operation of the SFPUC’s water system. A Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies allows the SFPUC to provide funds to ACRCD to implement projects associated with water quality protection, fire management, grazing operations, riparian/wetland enhancement through, aquatic and upland habitat enhancement, public outreach and education and integrated watershed resources management. 10.1.4.7 Zone 7 Water Agency, Stanley Reach Project Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has been working to find creative ways to fund fish passage and habitat enhancement projects. The Stanley Reach project is using external mitigation revenue to fund portions of the project, which modifies and plants an existing trapezoidal channel with concrete structures that are barriers to fish passage. Mitigation funds are available from public and private sources and are associated with environmental impacts from other development based projects. Mitigation funds are often required to be spent within the watershed where the environmental impact occurs. Although this limits the availability and timing of these funds, projects that are ‘shelf-ready’ are often the same ones that seek grant funding, so this is a means to offset the need for grant funding altogether or to augment grants with another source of local match. Zone 7 plans to also use portions of the project to mitigate for environmental impacts from other projects built through the Capital Improvement Program, where possible. The regulatory agencies have been supportive of this effort and have encouraged potential mitigation partners to participate in the conversation. The use of mitigation funds provides a means to augment or fund environmental projects, but these are limited in scope and timing. This project is funded by Property taxes (83%) and Development Impact fees (17%). 10.1.4.8 Potential Spending Offset Projects In addition to revenue-generating initiatives, some local entities have developed initiatives that offset maintenance spending or could go to constructing other projects. Examples include:  The City of Livermore “Adopt-a-Creek-Spot” program that helps pair local volunteers with stretches of creek that need specific attention (trash and weed removal, etc.). Creek spots are located on property owned by the City of Livermore, Zone 7, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and along the Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas and Arroyo Seco. This Program helps offset maintenance costs with its use of volunteers and grant funds to purchase clean-up supplies and website, etc. Additional information about the ongoing Adopt-a-Creek Spot Program is available at www.trivalleycreeks.org.  Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Youth Work Program, where volunteers help perform summer maintenance of their channels. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-5 Financing 10.1.4.9 Investor Owner Utility Investments Investor owner utility (IOU) investments, can also support the goals and objectives of the Bay Area IRWM Plan. For example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which regulates IOUs, is formalizing their process and developing a policy framework to guide the regulation of recycled water development, production, and sales. IOUs may have significant incentives to expand recycled water when offered a favorable rate of return on their investments. 10.1.4.10 Resources Identified by Stakeholders Other funding mechanisms that Region stakeholders have used and/or have found to be effective to fund water resource projects include:  The California Financing Coordinating Committee hosts regular Funding Fairs that are open to the public and very helpful. The fairs provide opportunities for project proponents to obtain information about currently available infrastructure grant, loan and bond financing programs and options. For more information, visit: http://www.cfcc.ca.gov/funding_fairs.htm.  Estate planning for land trusts has allowed a number of conservation projects to take place. This is a strategy that can be further explored.  Several local foundations fund watershed, wetlands and riparian projects.  The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture funding database is a helpful resource that identifies federal, state and local agency funding sources as well as private sources such as foundations and educational institutions. For more information, visit: http://www.sfbayjv.org/funding-list.php  Utilizing teams of volunteers to staff watershed projects has been a highly successful practice for local non-profit organizations. 10.1.4.11 Measure AA On June 7th, 2016, residents of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area voted with a 70% majority to pass Measure AA, the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure. This measure is a parcel tax of $12 per year, raising approximately $25 million annually for twenty years to fund shoreline projects that would protect and restore San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, created by the California Legislature in 2008, is a regional agency created to fund shoreline projects that will protect, restore, and enhance San Francisco Bay through the allocation of funds raised by the Measure AA parcel tax. These funds are available for wetland and habitat restoration, flood protection features, and public access improvements along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-6 Financing 10.2 State Funding Potential funding for IRWMP implementation may be available through various state programs, which have included Propositions 1, 84, 1E, and 50. The discussion below and Table 10-1 provide information on state funding opportunities. 10.2.1 Proposition 1 Passed in 2014, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act (Prop 1) authorized $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds to fund ecosystems and watershed protection and restoration, water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, and drinking water protection. Of the $7.5 billion, Prop 1 authorized $510 million in IRWM funding throughout the state, which is allocated to 12 hydrologic region-based Funding Areas. The San Francisco Bay Funding Area was allocated $65 million under Prop 1 for IRWM funding. 10.2.2 Proposition 84 The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (Public Resources Code § 75001, et seq.), was passed by California voters in the November 2006 general election and provided $5.388 billion to support various water resource needs in the State, including IRWM, groundwater, and stormwater projects. Funding under this program is fully expended. 10.2.3 Proposition 1E Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act, encouraged new investments for flood protection and storm water management programs. It included the Stormwater Flood Management Program and the Early Implementation Program. The Stormwater Flood Management Program provided grants of up to $30 million per project to local entities for storm water flood management projects. The Early Implementation Program provided funding to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace levees, weirs, bypasses, and facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control; or to improve or add to facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control to increase flood protection levels for urban areas. Funding under this program is fully expended. 10.2.4 Proposition 50 The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, Water Code §79500, et seq., was passed by California voters in the November 2002 general election. Proposition 50 authorized $3.44 billion in general obligation bonds, to be repaid from the State's General Fund, to fund a variety of water projects such as: specified CALFED Bay-Delta Program projects including urban and agricultural WUE projects; grants and loans to reduce Colorado River water use; purchasing, protecting and restoring coastal wetlands near urban areas; competitive grants for water management and water quality improvement projects; CURRENT & PAST STATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR IRWMP IMPLEMENTATION: •Proposition 1 •Proposition 84 •Proposition 1E •Proposition 50 •Other (Pending Legislation, State Revolving Fund) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-7 Financing development of river parkways; improved security for state, local and regional water systems; and grants for desalination and drinking water disinfecting projects. Funding under this program is fully expended. 10.2.5 Proposition 68 Passed by California voters in June 2018, the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of (Proposition 68) authorized $4 billion for parks, trails, environmental restoration, climate change adaptation and outdoor recreation. The State Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program received $21 million for protection of and public access to the Bay Area’s public open space, $14 million for climate adaptation grants, and $20 million for grants consistent with San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act purposes. These funds are available for wetland and habitat restoration, flood protection features, and public access improvements along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. 10.2.6 Other State Funding 10.2.6.1 State Revolving Fund The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 authorized the creation of a revolving fund program for public water system infrastructure needs specific to drinking water. There is similar state legislation and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund reflects the intent of federal and state laws to provide grant funding or low-interest loans to correct deficiencies in public water systems based on a prioritized system. There are three different entities that provide loans and/or grants under the State Revolving Fund (SRF). 10.2.6.2 Safe Drinking Water SRF Under this SRF program, CDPH provides loans to assist public water systems in achieving and maintaining compliance with the SDWA. Up to $20 million is available per project. Disadvantaged community systems can obtain a zero interest loan and may be eligible for partial grant funding. All applications to this program are initially made for loans, however financial review may determine if grant funds apply. 10.2.6.3 Infrastructure SRF The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, also known as I-Bank, provides financing to local municipal entities for construction and/or repair of publicly owned water supply, treatment and distribution systems, and drainage, and flood control facilities. In addition to water-related projects, loans are available for public infrastructure projects that include parks and recreational facilities and environmental mitigation. 10.2.6.4 Clean Water SRF SWRCB also provides financing for wastewater treatment facility construction projects and expanded use projects that include nonpoint source and estuary projects. Funding options are available to public agencies, as well as non-profit organizations and Native American tribes, for up to $50 million per year. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-8 Financing 10.2.6.5 State Water Resources Control Board – Federal 319 Program This program, administered by the SWRCB, is a nonpoint source pollution control program that is focused on controlling activities that impair beneficial uses and on limiting pollutant effects caused by those activities. The program is federally funded on an annual basis. Project proposals that address Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation and those that address problems in impaired waters are favored in the selection process. There is also a focus on implementing management activities that reduce and/or prevent release of pollutants that impair surface and ground waters. Nonprofit organizations, local government agencies including special districts, tribes, and educational institutions qualify. State or federal agencies may qualify if they are collaborating with local entities and are involved in watershed management or proposing a statewide project. 10.2.6.6 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Recycling Funding Program This is a long-term program operated by the SWRCB that offers grants and low-interest loans for the planning, design and construction of water recycling facilities. Grants are provided for facilities planning studies to determine the feasibility of using recycled water to offset the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies. Pollution control studies, in which water recycling is an alternative, are not eligible. Planning grants are limited to 50 percent of eligible costs, up to $75,000. Construction grants are limited to 25 percent of project costs or $5,000,000, whichever is less. Only public agencies are eligible. The Water Recycling Funding Program receives funding from various sources, including Proposition 50 and the SRF. Due to the varying funding sources, preferences for funding can vary. For example, funding from Proposition 50 gives preference to those recycling projects that result in benefits to the Delta. 10.2.6.7 Department of Housing and Community Development – Community Development Block Grant The California Department of Housing and Community Development provides grants to cities and counties with a program emphasis on creating or retaining jobs for low-income workers in rural communities. Activities may include housing rehabilitation and public improvements, which may involve among other things, water, wastewater and other infrastructure projects as well as feasibility studies. 10.2.6.8 California Energy Commission (CEC) – Energy Conservation Assistance Act The California Energy Commission provides loan financing for water and wastewater utilities for energy efficiency projects, feasibility studies, and implementing energy-saving and renewable energy measures. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to, lighting, motors or variable frequency drives, pumps, insulation, HVAC, energy generation and cogeneration. There are two loan programs under this Act for energy efficient and energy generation projects. One program has a zero-interest, while the other has an interest rate of 1 percent. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-9 Financing 10.3 Federal Funding This section includes a discussion of funds available through various federal programs and specifies eligibility requirements. A summary of potential federal funding sources is also provided in Table 10-1. 10.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Source Reduction Assistance The purpose of this program is to prevent the generation of pollutants at the source and ultimately provide an overall benefit to the environment. This program seeks projects that support source reduction, pollution prevention, and/or source conservation practices. Source reduction activities include: modifying equipment or technology; modifying processes or procedures; reformulating or redesigning products; substituting raw materials; and generating improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. Pollution prevention activities reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants via such procedures as: using raw materials, energy, water or other resources more efficiently; protecting natural resources through conservation; preventing pollution; and promoting the re-use of materials and/or conservation of energy and materials. Eligible organizations include units of state, local, and tribal government; independent school district governments; private or public colleges and universities; nonprofit organizations; and community-based grassroots organizations. 10.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF) This program began in 2008 to support projects to protect and restore San Francisco Bay. The SFBWQIF has invested over $58 million in 49 grant awards. These projects include over 80 partners who are contributing an additional $168 million to restore wetlands and watersheds, and reduce polluted runoff. For more information see: http://www2.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/bay- area-water-projects. Sonoma Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant Solar Panels 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-10 Financing 10.3.3 Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Program Development Grants This program seeks projects that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. The US EPA has identified three priority areas: (1) the development of a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program; (2) the improvement of the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation; and (3) the refinement of the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources. A 25 percent match is required. Eligible entities include states, tribes, local governments, interstate associations, intertribal consortia, and national non-profit, non-governmental organizations. 10.3.4 Environmental Protection Agency, Five Star Restoration Program This program is a partnership among various entities, including the US EPA, U.S. Forest Service, National Association of Counties and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This program provides grants, technical support and opportunities for information exchange to develop community capacity to sustain local natural resources for future generations. Projects focus on elements, including on the ground restoration, meaningful environmental education, diverse partnerships, and measurable ecological and educational/social benefits. Average grant awards range from $25,000 to $35,000 and require fifty percent match. 10.3.5 Water Resources Development Act The Water Resources Development Act is federal legislation, first passed in 1974, that enables authorization of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects, including levee repair, beach management, aquatic ecosystems, flood emergency and water infrastructure projects. The Act has traditionally been reauthorized every two years, but was last enacted in 2007. Steps towards developing a Water Resources Development Act for the 112th Congress are currently underway. After the Act is passed, Congress will appropriate funding for projects in one of the annual Energy and Water Development appropriation bills. 10.3.6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoration This program provides funding for restoration projects that use a habitat-based approach to foster species recovery and increase fish production. The funding opportunity focuses on coastal habitat restoration projects that aid in recovering listed species and rebuilding sustainable fish populations or their prey. Roughly $20 million could potentially be available over the next three years (starting in 2013) to maintain selected projects, dependent upon the level of funding made available by Congress. Typical awards are anticipated to range from $500,000 to $5 million over three years. For more information see: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/funding/coastalrestoration.html. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-11 Financing 10.3.7 National Park Service (NPS), Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program The purpose of this program is to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. The program provides staff assistance, but not funding, to meet this intent. Projects are evaluated on how successfully they meet the following criteria: (1) a clear anticipated outcome leading to on-the-ground success; (2) commitment, cooperation, and cost- sharing by interested public agencies and non-profit organizations; (3) opportunity for significant public involvement; (4) protection of significant natural and/or cultural resources and enhancement of outdoor recreational opportunities; and (5) consistency with the NPS mission. Eligible organizations include non-profits, community groups, tribes or tribal governments, and state or local government agencies. 10.3.8 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Program The Water and Waste Disposal Program provides financial assistance in the form of grants and loans for the development and rehabilitation of water, wastewater, and storm drain systems within rural communities. Funds may be used for costs associated with planning, design, and construction of new or existing water, wastewater, and storm drain systems. Eligible projects include storage, distribution systems, and water source development. There are no funding limits, but the average project size is between $3 and $5 million. Projects must benefit cities, towns, public bodies, and census-designated places with a population less than 10,000 persons. The intent of the program is to improve rural economic development and improve public health and safety. 10.3.9 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), WaterSMART Grant Programs This grant program is intended to fund collaborative local projects that improve water conservation and management through advanced technology and conservation markets. Through this program, federal funding is provided to irrigation and water districts for up to 50 percent of the cost of projects involving conservation, efficiency and water marketing. Eligible applicants include irrigation and water districts and state governmental entities with water management authority. Applicants must be located in the western U.S. (California is an eligible area). Applicants do not have to be part of a USBR project but proposals with a connection to USBR will receive more weight in the evaluation process. Past and proposed programs have included Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, Advanced Water Treatment Pilot and Demonstration Projects, and Grants to Develop Climate Analysis Tools, and Title XVI – Water Reclamation and Reuse. Funding opportunities vary depending on available program funding. 10.3.10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant This grant program provides funds for projects that provide long-term protection of wetlands, and the fish and wildlife that depend upon wetlands. Applicants must provide local match equal to that requested. The Small Grants Program provides up to $75,000 in funding and the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-12 Financing Standard Grants Programs averages $40 million annually for the whole U.S. and is applicable to projects exceeding $75,000. Entities that are eligible include organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Small Grants only apply to the U.S. Applications are continuously accepted by the USFWS for this grant. In addition to the programs listed above, specific congressional authorizations and funding may be obtained to study, build, and construct specific projects in the Region. Potential sources include legislation and funding associated with renewal of the Clean Water Act (CWA), SDWA, and appropriations for specific agencies, such as the USACE and the US EPA. The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorizes projects and policies of the Civil Works program of the USACE. The USACE is a federal agency in the Department of Defense with military and civilian responsibilities. At the direction of Congress, USACE plans, builds, operates, and maintains a wide range of water resources facilities in U.S. states and territories. The agency’s traditional civil responsibilities have been creating and maintaining navigable channels and controlling floods. However, in the last two decades, Congress has increased USACE’s responsibilities in ecosystem restoration, municipal water and wastewater infrastructure, disaster relief, and other activities. WRDA often includes specific authorizations for federal, regional, and local projects. Inclusion in WRDA authorizes a given project but does not guarantee funding for a specific project. Local projects can also receive authorization and federal funding as part of appropriations for the US EPA. The US EPA will enter into assistance agreements with local agencies to fund studies and projects associated with: (1) various environmental requirements (e.g., wastewater treatment); (2) identifying, developing, and/or demonstrating necessary pollution control techniques to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution; and/or (3) evaluating the economic and social consequences of alternative strategies and mechanisms for use by those in economic, social, governmental, and environmental management positions. 10.4 IRWM Project Funding Securing funding for Plan Projects is a significant issue for IRWMP implementation. The Bay Area Region has had success in moving projects identified in the 2006 Plan towards implementation by securing funding through a variety of sources. Funding opportunities are typically focused on a specific resource management strategy or policy issue, so those projects that may rank highest in importance or priority to stakeholders may or may not be the first to be funded. The Coordinating Committee (CC), project proponents and stakeholders understand that it is important to be flexible and responsive to funding opportunities as they arise. Error! Reference source not found. documents a sample of previous, ongoing and near-term funding for the IRWMP. The projects described are a subset of the project list and are meant to convey breadth of funding sources, representing efforts in each of the Functional Areas. Project funding information for individual projects in the Plan is included with the project templates (http://bairwmp.org/projects). Not all project descriptions include financing details. As described in Chapter 6, candidate projects were evaluated for basic eligibility for inclusion in the Plan and then ranked for based on the criteria identified by the Project Update Team (PUT). The criteria included the completeness of the financial information presented, but projects were 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-13 Financing evaluated regardless of whether this information was provided. Proponents were encouraged to submit conceptual projects or those that did not yet have full information available. During the preparation of applications for the various funding opportunities, the financing elements and certainty of the proposed funding will be evaluated in more detail for potential eligible projects. For each funding source identified, suitable projects on the Plan Projects list will be put forward in an application. A summary of funding needs and the funding status for each Plan Project will be prepared after project selection has taken place. This summary will include estimates of outside funding assistance, amount of matching funds, type of matching funds, and whether the matching funds have been secured. For example, the CC is currently working on a DWR Prop 84 IRWM Implementation grant application (Round 2) and gathering this information for 20 projects, for a total request of up to $20 million. Funding for the 2013 IRWMP update was provided by DWR through a Proposition 84 planning grant and supported by the member agencies. This 2019 update was funded by in-kind service from CC members. It is currently expected that implementation of the IRWMP will continue to rely upon in-kind services; however, at some point in the future, additional grant funds may be required to offset the costs associated with IRWMP administration. 10.5 IRWM Plan Administration Funding In addition to funding individual projects the IRWMP must address the need for ongoing funding of the planning and administration of the Plan. In 2007 and 2010, funding agreements were developed with the Functional Areas (FAs) to identify funding for planning and administration needs. These funds were largely used to support the 2013 Plan Update as well as website development. The Region is currently self-funded, as needed, for any IRWM Plan administration through CC member in-kind services. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-1 Financing Table 10-1: Funding Opportunities Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Proposition 1* Water Use Efficienc y DWR CalConse rve Water Use Efficiency Revolving Loan Loans to local agencies to fund specific types of water conservation and water use efficiency projects and programs to achieve urban water use targets. Total of $10 million available. Projects should allow local agencies to provide no-cost efficiency upgrades to residents or aid customers in financing repair of expensive customer leaks. Local Agencies Solicitation is available on a first-come, first- served basis until funds are exhausted. Resourc e Stewards hip Sacrame nto-San Joaquin Delta Conserva ncy Ecosyste m, Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Grant Program Competitive grants for multi-benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in accordance with statewide priorities. Emphasis on projects using public lands and those that maximize voluntary landowner participation. No match requirement. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies Four cycles conducted so far, next cycle TBD. Resourc e Stewards hip San Joaquin River Conserva ncy Multi- Benefit Water Quality, Water Supply, and Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Competitive grants for projects that contribute to the protection or restoration of the San Joaquin River watershed between Friant Dam and State Route 99. No per-project funding limit, no match requirement. Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, tribes, mutual water companies Solicitations typically annual, last solicitation closed December 2018. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-2 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Resourc e Stewards hip Secretary for Natural Resource s Ocean Protection Council: Ecosyste m, Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Competitive grants. Priority issues are marine managed areas, coastal and ocean water quality impacts, fisheries, and climate change. Minimum project budget $250,000 (DAC exceptions). Public agencies, public universitie s, nonprofits, public utilities, tribes, mutual water companies TBD, most recent solicitation closed March 2019. Resourc e Stewards hip Sierra Nevada Conserva ncy Sierra Nevada Watershe d Improvem ent Program Competitive grants focused on forest health projects that result in multiple watershed benefits. Projects should be located within a forested area of the Sierra Nevada Region. Maximum award $1 million for implementation projects (including fee title acquisition) and up to $100,000 for project development activities. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes. TBD, most recent pre-applications were due August 2019. Solicitations occur roughly annually. Resourc e Stewards hip State Coastal Conserva ncy Ecosyste m, Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Grants funding multi-benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects. Matching funds not required, but encouraged. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . No current solicitations. Flood Manage ment DWR Coastal Watershe d Flood Risk Reduction Grants funding projects in coastal areas that focus on multi-benefit flood risk reduction, Projects in Delta are excluded. Maximum award unknown. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water Program Guidelines public comment period closed in September 2019. Final guidelines and proposal solicitation to follow. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-3 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application including addressing flood risk and public safety, enhancing coastal ecosystems, and promoting natural resources stewardship and public access corridors. companies . Water Supply DWR Groundwa ter Plans and Projects Funding for projects that develop and implement groundwater plans and projects consistent with sustainable groundwater planning 50% match requirement. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . No future solicitations anticipated. Water Supply SWRCB Groundwa ter Sustainabi lity Funds projects that prevent or cleanup the contaminatio n of groundwater that serves or has served as a source of drinking water. Planning projects between $100,000 and $2 million. Implementation projects between $500,000 and $50 million. 50% match required. The project must be identified as a high priority by the applicable state or federal regulatory agencies. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . Unknown if additional rounds will occur. Water Supply, Water DWR Integrated Regional Water Multi-benefit projects including Project must be included in an Integrated Public agencies, nonprofits, Round 1: Fall 2019 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-4 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Quality, Resourc e Stewards hip Managem ent – San Francisco Bay water reuse, efficiency, conservation , groundwater, stormwater, conveyance, desalination, water quality improvement , and decisions support tools. Regional Water Management Plan. CEQA must be complete in 12 months after final grant award (exceptions for DACs). $52 million available across two rounds of funding. public utilities, federally recognize d and California State Native American tribes and mutual water companies . Stormwat er SWRCB Storm Water Grant Program Multi-benefit stormwater management projects including green infrastructure , rainwater and storm water capture projects and storm water treatment facilities. Stormwater Resource Plan required to apply. Award size has ranged from $250,000 to $1 million. Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, federally recognize d Native American tribes, state Native American tribes listed on Native American Heritage Commissi on’s California Tribal Consultati on List, and mutual water companies . Early 2020 Water Quality SWRCB Clean Water State Revolving Fund Low-interest loans and other financing mechanisms Max $50M per agency per year, with a max financing Public Agencies, non-profit organizati ons, Applications are accepted on a continuing basis. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-5 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application (principal forgiveness) are available for wastewater treatment facility construction projects and expanded use projects that include nonpoint source and estuary projects. term of 20 years. Native American tribes Resourc e Stewards hip Wildlife Conserva tion Board Streamflo w Enhance ment Noncompetiti ve grants that fund projects that enhance stream flows and are consistent with the objectives and actions outlined in the California Water Action Plan, with the primary focus on enhancing flow in streams that support anadromous fish; support special- status, threatened, endangered, or at-risk species; or provide resilience to climate change No match requirement. No maximum award amount, total funding anticipated to be $64 million. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . July 2020 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-6 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Water Supply DWR Water Desalinati on Grant Program Funds planning, design, and construction of potable water desalination facilities for both brackish and ocean water. Also provides grants for pilot, demonstratio n, and research projects. Up to $10 million for construction projects, lower amounts for other project types. Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, federally recognize d and California State Native American tribes and mutual water companies . Continuous application process is currently closed. May reopen late 2019. Water Supply SWRCB Water Recycling Grants and loans for planning and construction projects that offset the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies. Planning projects – 50% match is required, maximum grant award is $75,000 Construction projects – 50% match is required, maximum grant award is 35% of the total project cost or $15 million Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, federally recognize d and California State Native American tribes and mutual water companies . Applications accepted on rolling basis Water Supply California Water Commiss ion Water Storage Investmen t Program Water storage projects Applications no longer being accepted. Program closed. No future solicitations anticipated. Water Supply SWRCB Water System Infrastruct ure Improvem ents – Safe Drinking Water Grants and loans. Funds/financ es drinking water improvement s to publicly and privately owned Interest rate is 50% of general obligation bond rate. Maximum repayment term 20 years Publicly and privately owned community water systems and nonprofit, No application deadline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-7 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application community water systems and nonprofit, non- community water systems. non- community water systems Resourc e Stewards hip California Departm ent of Fish and Wildlife Watershe d Restoratio n & Delta Water Quality and Ecosyste m Restoratio n Projects should address watershed priorities that may include wildfire recovery response and prevention, headwaters management , meadow ecosystem restoration, coastal wetlands protection, and others. Minimum or maximum grant amount unknown, anticipated total available funding this solicitation approximately $37 million. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . Deadline TBD. Proposal solicitation package being finalized as of September 2019. Resourc e Stewards hip Secretary for Natural Resource s Watershe ds and Urban Rivers Grants funding multi-benefit watershed and urban rivers enhancemen t projects in urban watersheds that increase regional and local water self- sufficiency. No minimum or maximum grant amount. Approximately $9.3 million available in each cycle. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . No future solicitations anticipated. Proposition 84 Funds are fully expended Proposition 1E Funds are fully expended 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-8 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Proposition 50 Funds are fully expended Other Water Supply HUD Communit y Developm ent Block Grant Program Grants are available with a program emphasis on creating or retaining jobs for low income workers in rural communities. Grants of up to $2.5M are available, whereby award limits are typically $1.5M. City with less than 50,000 residents and County jurisdiction s with less than 200,000 residents in unincorpor ated areas. Notices of funding availability scheduled for release in January each year. Applications are invited by an annually and are continuously received and reviewed throughout the year. Awards are made on an ongoing basis. Water Supply DWR New Local Water Supply Constructi on Loans Eligible projects include a canal, dam reservoir, desalination facility, groundwater extraction facility, or other construction or improvement , including rehabilitation of a dam for water supply purposes by a local public agency for the diversion, storage, or distribution of water which will remedy existing Loans: $5M max per construction project, $500,000 max per feasibility project. The interest rate is equal to the rate that the State pays on the general obligation bonds sold to finance the program. Local Public Agencies Continuously accepting applications. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-9 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application water supply problems. Energy Efficienc y CEC Energy Financing Program Low interest loan financing for water and wastewater utilities for energy efficiency projects, feasibility studies, and implementin g energy- saving and renewable energy measures. Max loan amount is $3M per application or 12 times the annual energy savings, whichever is less. 3% interest rate. Publicly owned water and wastewate r treatment facilities, cities, counties, special districts, or other non- profit entities. Applications are available on the CEC website Water Quality SWRCB, SWRCB, I-Bank State Revolving Fund Provides low-interest loans and/or grants to assist public agencies in correcting deficiencies in water infrastructure Grants and loans can be combined with other funding sources. Publicly owned treatment works, local public agencies, non-profit organizati ons, and private parties Applications vary depending on type of project and agency from which funds requested. Applications are accepted on a continuing basis. Water Quality SWRCB Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provides low interest loans or grants to assist public water systems in achieving or maintaining compliance with the SDWA. Project include water Up to $500,000 per planning study; $20M per project and a max of $30M per entity Public Water System Pre-application invitations annually. Disadvantaged system can obtain a zero interest loan. Applications are for loans; financial review determines if grant funds apply. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-10 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application treatment facilities, replace aging infrastructure , planning studies, consolidation of water systems, source water protection, etc. Projects must be needed to comply with SDWA. Water Quality I-Bank Infrastruct ure State Revolving Fund Program The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank provides loans for construction and/or repair of publicly owned water supply, treatment and distribution systems, and drainage, and flood control facilities. Loans are also available for public infrastructure , such as solid waste collection and disposal, environment al mitigation, as well as Loan: $10M per project ($2M max per environmental mitigation project per year, $2M max per project for parks and recreation facilities) and $20M per jurisdiction per fiscal year. Local Municipal Entity Preliminary applications are at ibank.ca.gov 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-11 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application projects such as parks and recreational facilities and public safety facilities. Water Quality SWRCB Clean Water State Revolving Fund Low-interest loans and other financing mechanisms are available for wastewater treatment facility construction projects and expanded use projects that include nonpoint source and estuary projects. Max $50M per agency per year, with a max financing term of 20 years. Public Agencies, non-profit organizati ons, Native American tribes Applications are accepted on a continuing basis. Water Quality SWRCB Federal CWA 319(h) Program (Nonpoint source grant program) Funding to support projects throughout the State to restore impaired surface waters through the control of nonpoint source pollution Project Funding: $250,000-$1 million. 25% local match required but waived for Disadvantaged Communities and small water systems. For 2012, funding for planning/asses sment projects ranges between $75,000 and $125,000 and funding for implementation projects ranges Public agencies, public colleges, 501(c)(3) non-profit organizati ons, tribes, state and federal entities Applications accepted in periodic application cycles. During the project solicitation process, applicants submit a brief concept proposal via FAAST. Applicants with the highest- ranking concept proposals will be invited to submit a full proposal. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-12 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application between $250,000 and $750,000. Water Supply SWRCB Water Recycling Funding Program Grants are provided for facilities planning studies to determine the feasibility of using recycled water to offset the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies. Water recycling construction projects that meet objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program are eligible to compete for Proposition 50 grant funds. Grants for planning studies will cover 50% of eligible costs, up to $75,000. Grants for construction will cover up to 25% of costs or $5M (whichever is less). Construction projects not eligible for grants may also apply for loans are under the SRF loan program. Public agencies Applications accepted on continuous basis. Water Quality SWRCB Cleanup and Abatemen t Account This account generally provides public agencies with grants for emergency Use of funds are limited to activities specified by the State Water Board and include among other Public agencies with authority to cleanup or abate a waste. Requestors must first contact the State Water Board or submit an online application using FAAST. Requests can be 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-13 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application cleanup or abatement of conditions of pollution where no viable responsible parties are available to undertake the work. things, waste cleanup and abatement of effects of a waste, and remedying a significant water pollution problem. made on an ongoing basis. Water Quality SWRCB Agricultur al Drainage Loan Program This program provides loans, from the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986, to fund treatment, storage, conveyance, or disposal of agricultural drainage water. Funding cap is $20 million for implementation projects and $100,000 for feasibility studies. Rates are set at 1/2 of the State's General Obligation bond rate City, county, district, joint powers authority or other political subdivisio n of the State involved with water managem ent Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. Water Quality SWRCB Agricultur al Drainage Managem ent Loan Program This program provides loans, from Proposition 204, to fund treatment, storage, conveyance, or disposal of agricultural drainage water. Funding cap is $5 million for implementation projects and $100,000 for feasibility studies. Rates are set at 1/2 of the State's General Obligation bond rate City, county, district, joint powers authority or other political subdivisio n of the State involved with water managem ent Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-14 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Water Quality SWRCB Undergro und Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Funds are available to provide a means for petroleum underground storage tank (UST) owners and operators to meet the federal and state requirements . The Fund also assists a large number of small businesses and individuals by providing reimburseme nt for unexpected and catastrophic expenses associated with the cleanup of leaking petroleum USTs. Loans are available in amounts up to $1.5 million, depending on project and special program. Various entities depending on special program. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. Water Quality, Water Supply SWRCB Suppleme ntal Environm ental Projects The SWRCB or Regional Boards may allow Supplementa l Environment al Projects to be implemented or funded to partially satisfy a monetary assessment made in an Generally, projects with a value of at least $50,000 will be considered under this program. Projects may either be performed by the discharger or third parties paid by the discharger . Sign up forms for the project proponent list are available on the SWRCB website. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-15 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application administrativ e civil liability order. Projects must directly benefit or study groundwater or surface water quality or quantity. FEDERAL Water Quality US EPA Source Reduction Assistanc e This program supports source reduction/pol lution prevention projects that provide an overall benefit to the environment by preventing pollutants at the source. Award amounts typically range from $25,000 - $75,000. Units of State, local, and tribal governme nt; independe nt school district governme nts; private or public colleges and universitie s; nonprofit organizati ons; and community -based grassroots organizati ons. Applications accepted in periodic application cycles. Water Quality US EPA San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvem ent Fund This program supports projects to protect and restore San Francisco Bay, including through water quality and habitat improvement , wetlands Award amounts have recently ranged between $500,000 - $2 million. 50% match required. State, local governme nt agencies, districts, and councils, regional water pollution control agencies Applications accepted on an annual cycle. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-16 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application and watersheds restoration, and polluted runoff reduction. and entities, state coastal zone managem ent agencies, public and private universitie s, and colleges, and public or private non- governme ntal, non- profit institutions . Water Quality and Resourc e Stewards hip US EPA EPA Wetlands Program Developm ent Grants Projects that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigation s, experiments, training, demonstratio ns, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution Three priority areas identified by the US EPA: Developing a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program; improving the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation; and refining the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources Awards for 2012 were anticipated to range from $50,000 to $350,000. 25% match required. States, tribes, local governme nts, interstate associatio ns, intertribal consortia, and national non-profit, non- governme ntal organizati ons are eligible to apply. Applications accepted in periodic application cycles. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-17 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Resourc e Stewards hip US EPA and other partners Five Star and Urban Waters Restoratio n Program This program provides challenge grants, technical support and opportunities for information exchange to facilitate community- based wetland, riparian and coastal habitat restoration projects. Project sites may be public or private land. Key project elements include on the ground restoration, environmental education, partnerships and measurable results. Schools, youth groups, public, private or corporate landowner s, local, state and federal governme nt agencies, local non- profit organizati ons, etc. Applications generally open in late fall, with award notification in late spring. Resourc e Stewards hip NMFS NOAA Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoratio n This program provides funding for restoration projects that use a habitat- based approach to foster species recovery and increase fish production, with a focus on coastal habitat restoration projects. Typical awards are anticipated to range from $500,000 to $5 million over three years Institutions of higher education, non- profits, commerci al organizati ons, U.S. territories, and state, local and Native American tribal governme nts. Applications accepted upon issuance of Funding Opportunity Announcement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-18 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Resourc e Stewards hip NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservat ion Assistanc e Program The program provides technical and staff assistance to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. Note: RTCA does not provide monetary grants or loans. Projects will be evaluated on how they meet the following criteria: 1) A clear outcome leading to on the ground success; 2) Commitment , cooperation, and cost- sharing by applicant; 3) Opportunity for significant public involvement; 4) Protection of significant natural and/or cultural resources and enhancement of outdoor recreational opportunities; and 5) Consistency with the NPS mission. Nonprofits, community groups, tribes, or tribal governme nts; and state or local governme nt agencies. Applications are generally due in the summer for assistance during the next fiscal year. http://www.nps.g ov/rtca/ Resourc e Stewards hip NRCS Watershe d Protection and Flood Preventio n Funding for activities that promote soil conservation and the preservation of the watersheds of rivers and streams throughout the U.S. Matching funds are not required: applicants must generally provide matching ranging from 0%-50% in cash or in-kind resources depending on such factors as project type and the kinds of structural measures a project proposes. States, local governme nts, and other political subdivisio ns; soil or water conservati on districts; flood prevention or control districts and tribes. Potential applicants Not currently soliciting applications. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-19 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application must be able to obtain all appropriat e land and water rights and permits to successful ly implement proposed projects. Water Quality USDA Rural Develop ment Water and Waste Disposal Program Program that provides financial assistance (loans and grants) for community water, wastewater, and drainage systems in rural areas Funds may be used for planning, design, and construction of new or existing systems; eligible projects include storage, distribution, source development; no funding limits, but average project size is $1.83-5 million. Greater funding share provided for low-income communities. Grants may be made for up to 75% of eligible project costs. Cities, towns, public bodies, and census designate d places with population s less than 10,000. Must demonstra te financial need. Applications accepted on a continuous basis. Water Supply USBR WaterSM ART Challenge Grant Programs Reclamation provides 50/50 cost share funding to irrigation and water districts and states for Matching funds are required. Applicants must provide a minimum 50% of project costs in non-federal cash or in-kind resources. Eligible applicants include irrigation and water districts, state governme ntal Funding opportunities vary depending on available program funding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-20 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application projects focused on water conservation , efficiency, and water marketing. Past and proposed programs have included Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, Advanced Water Treatment Pilot and Demonstrati on Projects, Grants to Develop Climate Analysis Tools. entities with water managem ent authority. Projects must be located in Western United States. Resourc e Stewards hip USFWS North American Wetlands Conservat ion Act The Small Grants Program provides funding, up to $75,000, for projects that provide long-term protection of wetlands and wetlands dependent fish and wildlife. Funding available under the Standard Grants Program averages $40M annually for Partners must match the grant request at a 1 to 1 ratio. Organizati ons and individuals who have developed partnershi ps to carry out wetlands conservati on projects in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Small Grants only apply to the U.S. Applications accepted on continuous basis. Proposals may be submitted at any time during before the fiscal year deadline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-21 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application the whole U.S. and is provided to projects exceeding $75,000 per proposal. * Note that only programs relevant to the Bay Area IRWM Region have been included. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-22 Financing Table 10-2: IRWMP Funding: Past, Ongoing, and Near-Term Examples Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Regional Green Infrastructure Project ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Watershed Partnership Technical Assistance ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Watershed Program Administration ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Administration ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Grant Administration Alameda County Water District Alameda County Water District Alameda Creek Phase 2 Fish Passage Project Alameda County Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Alameda County Water District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Alameda County Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Administration Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Regional Conservation Outreach Campaign Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Grant Administration Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Bay Friendly Coalition/SW Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Bay Friendly Coalition/SW Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Center for Ecosystem Mgt & Research (CEMAR) ABAG/SFEP S.F. Estuary Steelhead Monitoring Program Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dist Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dist CCCSD-Concord Recycled Water Pipeline City of Calistoga City of Calistoga Calistoga Recycled Water Storage Facility City of Campbell ABAG/SFEP Hacienda Avenue Green Street Improvement Proj. City of Napa Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program City of Napa Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program City of Napa Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project City of Oakland City of Oakland Oakland Sausal Creek Restoration Project City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Mt. View / Moffett Area Recycled Water Project City of Petaluma City of Petaluma Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV City of Redwood City City of Redwood City Redwood City Recycled Water Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-23 Financing Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title City of Redwood City City of Redwood City Redwood City Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project City of San Jose City of San Jose San José Green Streets Demonstration Projects City of St Helena City of St Helena St Helena Upper York Creek Dam Removal--St. Helena, Napa River Watershed Committee for Green Foothills ABAG/SFEP Restoration Guidance and San Francisquito Watershed Restoration Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District CCWD-EBMUD Regional Intertie (VFDs) Contra Costa Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District San Pablo Rheem Creek Wetlands Restoration Project Contra Costa Water District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Contra Costa Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project DERWA DERWA DERWA Phase 3 Recycled Water Expansion Project Dublin San Ramon Services Dist Dublin San Ramon Services Dist Central Dublin Recycled Water Distrib. & Retrofit Proj. East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District New Business Guidebook Pilot Program East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District Richmond Advanced Recycling Expansion Proj (MF Equip) East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District California WaterStar Initiative - Bay Area East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bayshore Phase 1A - Interstate 80 Pipeline East Bay Municipal Utility District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A East Bay Municipal Utility District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program East Bay Municipal Utility District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Regional Park District Richmond Breuner Marsh Restoration and Public Access Project Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation Dist Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation Dist Novato South Service Area - Hamilton Field, Stage 1 Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District WaterSMART Irrigation with AMI/AMR Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Direct Installation High Efficiency Toilet Program Marin Municipal Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project Marin Municipal Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Marin RCD Marin RCD Marin/Sonoma Conserving Our Watersheds Montara Water & Sanitary District Montara Water & Sanitary District Groundwater Exploration Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-24 Financing Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title Napa Co. RCD Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program / Napa County Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project Napa County Napa County Napa Milliken Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Fish Passage Barrier Removal Napa Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District Napa State Hospital Pipeline Construction, Stage 1 Napa Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District Los Carneros Water District and Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay Recycled Water Pipelines North Coast Water District North Coast Water District Pacifica Recycled Water Project North Marin Water District North Marin Water District North Marin Recycled Water Project Novato Sanitary District Novato Sanitary District Novato North Service Area Project Oro Loma/EBDA ABAG/SFEP San Francisco Bay Climate Change Pilot Projects Combining Ecosystem Adaptation, Flood Risk Management and Wastewater Effluent Polishing Point Blue ABAG/SFEP Stream Restoration w/ Schools in North Bay DACs Point Blue Point Blue The Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW) Project Roseview Heights Municipal Water Agency Roseview Heights Municipal Water Agency Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main upgrades S.F. Estuary Institute ABAG/SFEP Flood Infrastructure Mapping & Communication Tool San Francisco Airport San Francisco Airport San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Harding Park Recycled Water Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project San Mateo Co. RCD ABAG/SFEP Pescadero Integrated Flood Reduction & Habitat Enhancement Project San Mateo County San Mateo County Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project San Mateo Resources Conservation District San Mateo Resources Conservation District Drought Relief for South Coast San Mateo County Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District South Bay Advanced RW Treatment, Reverse Osmosis 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-25 Financing Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title Santa Clara Valley Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Santa Clara Valley Water District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Santa Clara Valley Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Santa Clara Valley Water District - City of San Jose Santa Clara Valley Water District South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Trt Proj Santa Clara Valley Water District / City of Sunnyvale Santa Clara Valley Water District / City of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Continuous Recycled Water Production Facilities and Wolfe Road Pipeline Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Admin Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Admin Solano County Water Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Sonoma County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Sonoma County Water Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Sonoma Resource Conservation District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Sonoma Resource Conservation District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Napa Marsh Restoration / Recycled Water Project Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Project, Stage 1 Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist North Bay Water Reuse Program -- Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Project - Phase 2 State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy Bair Island Restoration State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy South Bay Salt Pond 16A/17 Habitat Restoration State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Stinson Beach Water District Stinson Beach Water District Stinson Beach Water Supply & Drought Preparedness Plan Stopwaste.org Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Admin Urban Tilth ABAG/SFEP Richmond Shoreline & San Pablo Flood Project Watershed Project ABAG/SFEP Storm Water Improvements & Pilot Project at Bay Pt. Zone 7 Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Mocho Basin GW Demineralization Project Zone 7 Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Zone 7 Water Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief & Water Conservation Project Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Supply Drought Preparedness Project * Local Project Sponsor is a grant sub-recipient that collaborates with Project Lead to implement the project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Technical Analysis Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 11: Technical Analysis.................................................................. 11-1 11.1 Documents Used in Plan Development ........................................... 11-2 11.1.1 Land Use Plans .................................................................... 11-2 11.1.2 Water Resource Management Plans .................................... 11-2 11.1.3 Water Quality Plans ............................................................. 11-3 11.1.4 Facilities’ Plans and Master Plans ........................................ 11-4 11.1.5 Resource Conservation Plans .............................................. 11-5 11.1.6 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Plans ................................................................................... 11-6 11.2 Regional Reports and Studies ......................................................... 11-7 11.3 Technical Analysis and Methods ..................................................... 11-8 11.4 Data Needs ..................................................................................... 11-8 List of Tables Table 11-1: Examples of Technical Analysis Utilized in Plan Development .......................... 11-1 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-1 Technical Analysis Chapter 11: Technical Analysis The intent of this Chapter is to document that the IRWM Plan Update is based on sound technical information, analyses, and methods. The following sections provide a description of studies, models, or other methodologies used to analyze the technical information and data sets, and explains how they have shaped the Coordinating Committee’s (CC) and stakeholders’ understanding of water management in the Region. The IRWMP Update documents the results of a collaborative effort between public agencies with varying water, wastewater, flood and watershed management responsibilities and numerous other interested entities. The Bay Area IRWMP was developed using data provided in the four FA20 Documents (FADs, see Chapter 1) as well as local and subregional planning documents and information. The planning and analysis conducted at the local and subregional levels has been used as the basis for analysis performed at the IRWM Plan Level.  Local Level. The “Local Level” refers to water resources planning that is conducted over a relatively limited geographic extent, such as an individual municipality, flood zone, or small/partial watershed. Planning and analysis occurring at the local level frequently serves as the basis for planning and analysis conducted at larger geographic scales.  Subregional Level. The “Subregional Level” refers to water resources planning and analysis that is conducted across a larger geographic scale than the local level, while not encompassing the entire region. Subregional-level planning includes planning across multiple municipalities, large flood zones, or large watersheds. For example, planning conducted by water, wastewater, or flood protection agencies that serve multiple municipalities, or planning conducted by a watershed group addressing an entire large watershed or multiple watersheds would be considered subregional planning. This type of analysis and planning frequently builds upon analyses and plans developed at the local level.  IRWM Plan Level. The “IRWM Plan Level” refers to the water resources planning and analysis being conducted across the entire Bay Area region, such as that being conducted through IRWMP development. This type of planning frequently incorporates and builds upon planning conducted at both the local level and the subregional level. Typically regional efforts build on local ones. However, the Bay Area’s IRWMP efforts have also influenced organizational activities as well as projects and implementation more locally. For example, flood management started as a local effort and in 2007 Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) was developed as an outgrowth of the IRWM planning process. BAFPAA was established to coordinate planning and implementing flood protection services amongst the flood protection agencies in the Bay Area. Since that time, flood related projects have received significant funding—$1M in Round 1for flood mapping and $2M from the 20 The four functional areas, as listed in chapter 1 are: (1) Water Supply & Water Quality, (2) Wastewater & Recycled Water, (3) Flood Protection & Stormwater Management, and (4) Watershed Management & Habitat Protection and Restoration. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-2 Technical Analysis Environmental Protection Agency project to develop innovative approaches for bringing environmental benefits and cost-savings to flood protection infrastructure along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. For water conservation as well, prior to the 2006 IRWM Plan, conservation efforts in the Bay Area were implemented at the local level by utilities for their service area customers. Early regional conservation programs came from the 2006 IRWM Planning efforts. Climate change is being elevated to the regional level through the Plan update and the impact is already evidenced through the project list. 11.1 Documents Used in Plan Development A wide variety of technical studies have been developed at the local level and the subregional level, and used in development and support of the Bay Area IRWMP. Many studies are also being conducted in parallel with IRWMP development. The Plan builds upon these existing documents, plans and programs, combining them into a comprehensive plan for water resources management throughout the region. The Plan was prepared using information and guidance provided by agencies representing all four Functional Areas (FAs) and, to varying degrees, municipalities, town councils, regulatory, environmental and land use planning entities that represent the CC and Stakeholders. The IRWMP in turn, will be used by these same entities to guide and support their future regional water resources management efforts. Appendix D-1 provides a table with most of the key technical studies that were collected, reviewed and evaluated by the CC, as well as links to the reports where available. The following types of documents contain the baseline information used in the development of Plan: 11.1.1 Land Use Plans Land use plans provide for the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and services of urban and rural communities. General plans are a compendium of city or county policies regarding long-term development, in the form of maps and accompanying text (for more information on General Plans see Chapter 13: Relation to Land Use Planning). In California, general plans have seven mandatory elements (circulation, conservation, housing, land use, noise, open space, safety and seismic safety) and may include any number of optional elements (such as water, air quality, economic development, hazardous waste, and parks and recreation). Most local general planning documents generally have identified water management resource strategies that integrate with land use planning efforts and oftentimes reference and tie to regulatory requirements, such as water quality requirements of relevant basin plans. By law, each city and county is required to update the Housing Element of its general plan every five years and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recommends that the remaining elements be reviewed every eight to ten years. 11.1.2 Water Resource Management Plans Water Resource Management reports document the reliability and availability of the Region’s water supplies to meet current and projected demands, in addition to identifying infrastructure needs to provide effective water resource management. Different local agencies have different authorities to prepare and implement Groundwater Management Plans. Some agencies are special act districts that have groundwater management authority. Others adopt Groundwater Management Plans following the AB 3030 procedure for development of a groundwater management plan. AB 3030, the Groundwater 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-3 Technical Analysis Management Act, authorized local agencies to prepare Groundwater Management Plans for groundwater basins not subject to adjudication or other form of regulation. AB 3030 lays out a procedure for development of a groundwater management plan. The act also specifies twelve technical components which can be included in a groundwater management plan, including replenishment strategy, mitigation of overdraft, mitigation of contaminated groundwater, and avoidance of saline intrusion. Zone 7 Water Agency, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Diablo Water District have developed Groundwater Management Plans. Finally, SB 1938 requires any public agency seeking State funds administered through DWR for the construction of groundwater projects or groundwater quality projects to prepare and implement a groundwater management plan with certain specified components. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act applies to public and private municipal water suppliers with more than 3,000 connections or supplying more than 3,000 AFY. The act requires suppliers to assess the reliability of their water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Suppliers must describe and evaluate sources of water supply, water demand, water quality, water conservation goals and activities and other relevant information and programs. This information is used by the urban water supplier to develop an Urban Water Management Plan, which is submitted to DWR in years ending in five and zero (e.g., 2005, 2010, and 2015). About 45 of the Plan participants have filed UWMPs (See Appendix D-1). Many water suppliers develop and update Water Master Plans and Integrated Water Resources Plans (IWRPs) which present data and analyses including flow projections and facility requirements for wastewater treatment at the service area level. These plans build upon the information and analysis presented in the UWMPs to identify issues, goals and objectives, as well as water supply and water quality needs, at the agency level. These plans also present potential strategies for achieving the goals and meeting the identified water supply and water quality needs of the region. Appendix D-1 provides information on Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD) Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan as well as Dublin San Ramon Services District’s Water Master Plan. At the local level, General Plans (see Section 11.1.1) and Municipal Services Reviews (MSR) conducted throughout the region present analysis of land use, development plans, and population trends. These data and analyses are limited in geographic scope, focusing on municipalities. Still, these planning documents provide the basis for planning at a larger geographic scope. The information and analysis presented in General Plans and MSRs is developed by water suppliers at the subregional level into UWMPs, Water Master Plans and Integrated Water Resources Plans (IWRPs), Groundwater and Stormwater Management Plans. The strategies presented in these documents, together, provide the basis for development of IRWMP water management strategies. Finally, the information developed in the project-specific plans serve as the foundation for development of IRWMP projects and programs. 11.1.3 Water Quality Plans Water quality plans are generally designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect beneficial uses of water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-4 Technical Analysis The Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan protects the beneficial uses of water within the Bay Area hydrologic region, designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. As conditions change, such as the identification of new TMDLs or water quality standards, the Basin Plan is amended. The Recycled Water Policy requires that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans be completed by 2014 to facilitate basin-wide management of salts and nutrients from all sources in a manner that optimizes recycled water. The plans are intended to protect groundwater from accumulating salt and nutrient concentrations that would degrade the quality of groundwater and limit its beneficial uses. The Recycled Water Policy requires stakeholders to develop implementation plans to meet these objectives for salts and nutrients which are then adopted by Regional Boards as amendments to the region's Basin Plan. Zone 7 Water Agency, SCVWD, and SCWA are is also developing a Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (http://www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/). Storm drain master plans and other stormwater management plans identify infrastructure necessary for effective stormwater management and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP). Contra Costa, Alameda County Counties, and Zone 7, and several cities have Stormwater Master Plans. In addition, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association developed a Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. 11.1.4 Facilities’ Plans and Master Plans A facilities plan and/or master plan is a development plan that provides the framework by which future planning decisions are made. It is an action plan for a particular resource or service such as recycled water, flood control, and wastewater, and can include planned facilities. Additional local efforts include Flood Insurance Rate Maps are developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify 100-year floodplains for use in determining flood insurance rates. Stormwater NPDES permits require implementation of BMPs and effectiveness monitoring for pollution prevention. At the subregional level, wastewater agencies develop Wastewater Master Plans which present data and analyses including flow projections and facility requirements for wastewater treatment at the service area level. Recycled Water Master Plans provide information related to available supply and demand, wastewater disposal, public perception as well as facility requirements for recycled water at the service area planning level. At the subregional level, but on a greater scale, the 1999 Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP) Recycled Water Master Plan was developed to determine the potential for using high quality recycled water to augment water supplies, to support the restoration of the Bay/Delta system and wastewater discharge management into the San Francisco Bay.21 The BARWRP Recycled Water Master Plan built upon local agency data 21 The BARWRP Master Plan is categorized as subregional because it did not include the North Bay. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-5 Technical Analysis to develop subregional issues, goals and objectives, subregional flow projections, and potential recycled water markets and associated costs. http://bacwa.org/committees/recycled- water/documents. The North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) is another example of a subregional approach- http://www.nbwra.org/. The North Bay Water Reuse Program (NBWRP) is a coordinated regional effort among a group of water and sanitation agencies in Sonoma, Marin and Napa Counties, organized as the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA), to offset potable water demand by promoting water reuse for agriculture, urban and environmental uses. By using an integrated approach to recycled water applications, the NBWRA is creating a regional water reuse Program to implement projects that provide a reliable new water supply that will help meet the North Bay region’s long-term needs. 11.1.5 Resource Conservation Plans Resource conservation plans in this context are those watershed, river, and conservation plans that analyze the natural, biological, recreational, and historical resources of a particular watershed, subregion or Region. Watershed management plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), and natural community conservation plans (NCCPs) are developed at the subregional level and provide a review of land use planning information, biological assessments, and limiting factors analysis to identify mitigation measures, restoration activities, and habitat protection actions that can be taken to offset potential impacts associated with development and operations and maintenance. Broader watershed monitoring projects and programs are also initiated to collect data watershed-wide, often extending into multiple watersheds. Data collected and analyzed may include water quality, wildlife populations, sediment sources and transport, and in-stream flow conditions. Restoration plans, watershed assessments, and monitoring efforts are also developed at the subregional level to evaluate the conditions of local watersheds. These plans are generally limited in geographic scope, but serve as the basis for subregional and regional planning. At the local level, visioning exercises, restoration plans, watershed assessments, and monitoring efforts evaluate the conditions of local watersheds. These plans are generally limited in geographic scope, but serve as the basis for subregional and regional planning. Project-specific data and analyses are also compiled at the subregional level. Project planning documents include detailed feasibility, design, and cost information for development of watershed, habitat, and ecosystem protection and restoration projects. Analysis of restoration alternatives and description of environmental benefits accrued from project implementation are also prepared at the subregional level Regional Habitat Goals Plans have set the planning and information base for the entire region. Three major efforts have been undertaken in the Bay Area to date, spanning the near-shore ocean and sub-tidal bay areas, the baylands, and the region’s terrestrial uplands.  The 1999 Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report set habitat type, quality and acreage goals for wetland habitats at the bay’s edge, and has become a foundational 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-6 Technical Analysis document guiding nearly 40,000 acres of habitat restoration in the region. This report is currently undergoing a major update for climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation responses led by the Coastal Conservancy in partnership with nearly 20 regional conservation, policy and regulatory bodies. http://www.sfei.org/node/2123.  The San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report was released in 2010, outlining a bold vision for a hidden part of the Bay Area. Led by the Coastal Conservancy with the Ocean Protection Council, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, NOAA Fisheries and Restoration Center, and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the 50-Year Report presents a strong, non-regulatory vision for how to move forward with science‐based subtidal research, protection, and restoration. Marking the first time that comprehensive information about submerged areas in the Bay has been compiled, the report has inspired a variety of in-the-water restoration efforts, including oyster, eelgrass, and living shoreline projects that benefit aquatic fish, invertebrates, and wildlife. http://www.sfbaysubtidal.org/.  The Conservation Lands Network has been developed by the Bay Area Open Space Council. Over 125 organizations and individuals came together to identify the most essential lands needed to sustain the “natural infrastructure” of our region. Over 4.3 million acres and over 1,000 variables were considered – from redwood forests to California red-legged frog habitat, from climate change to migratory routes. The Coastal Conservancy was an early and ongoing supporter and funder of this effort with several other foundations and public agencies. The Conservation Lands Network map, report, and interactive on-line map were released in 2011 and are available to land managers, legislators and local planners to help them make informed and integrated decisions, and regularly assess the region’s progress towards these goals. www.bayarealands.org. 11.1.6 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Plans A number of planning documents representing the Bay Area Region as a whole as well as the various subregions were reviewed to identify climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. The main regional approach to climate change mitigation is being implemented through Plan Bay Area, an integrated long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan, developed as a joint initiative by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). In addition, communities throughout the Bay Area Region have adopted Climate Action Plans (CAPs), which contain a set of strategies intended to guide community efforts for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As of June 2012, a total 86 local governments in the Bay Area Region have completed community emissions inventories (the first step in developing a CAP) and 30 have finalized and adopted a CAP (Institute for Local Government, 2012). Table 12-3 in Chapter 12: Relation to Local Water Use Planning identifies climate mitigation strategies included in local and regional climate action planning documents. A vulnerability analysis was developed using DWR’s Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning guidelines and a synthesis of climate change scenarios for the San Francisco Bay Region and statewide (including the Sierra Nevada) prepared by others (see Chapter 16). Sea level rise and coastal flooding are especially important in the Bay Area Region and the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-7 Technical Analysis State provides guidance to help state agencies incorporate future sea-level rise impacts into planning decisions. The National Academy of Sciences report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington, was released in June 2012 and the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document was accordingly updated in March 2013. This guidance will continue to be updated as the science of climate change develops. California produces periodic scientific assessments on the potential impacts of climate change in California and reports potential adaptation responses as required by Executive Order #S-03-05. The State's third major assessment, released in 2012, reported projected climate change impacts and provided understanding of the interactions of those potential impacts on the ground exposure, sensitivity, and response capacity of natural and human systems. In addition there are a number of other regional efforts in the Bay to update planning documents in the light of projected climate change. These include a technical climate change update to the San Francisco Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report to incorporate an assessment of the predicted impacts and associated adaptation strategies on the Baylands ecosystem. There are also likely to be more focused, collaborative, cross-sector planning efforts to study vulnerability and adaptation at a sub-regional scale. An example is BCDC’s Adapting to Rising Tides project which is focused on a portion of the Alameda County shoreline, from Emeryville to Union City. Additional information on this project can be found at: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/climate_change.shtml. 11.2 Regional Reports and Studies Various coordinated efforts provide data and results from regional-scale studies that assess the health of water and additional environmental resources. Important examples of these regional studies include: The State of San Francisco Bay 2011 presents a science-based assessment of the health of San Francisco Bay. The authors reviewed available data and developed methods for evaluating the status and trends of the Bay’s vital signs. By providing all interested parties with these results, the broader community can consider whether resource managers, regulators, and citizens are taking enough of the right actions to protect the Bay. With this assessment, the Estuary Partnership will begin to report on the state of the Bay approximately every five years, with the goal of educating the public and helping scientists and managers make decisions about how to best allocate resources to protect and restore the Bay. Additional information is available on their website: http://www.sfestuary.org/about-the-estuary/sotb/. The San Francisco Estuary Institute Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary is an innovative collaboration of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the regulated discharger community, and the San Francisco Estuary Institute. It monitors contamination in the Estuary, information water quality regulators need to manage the Estuary effectively. SFEI generates a Regional Monitoring Report every year, accessible on their website: http://www.sfei.org. The Bay Area Regional Reliability Program (BARR) is a consortium of the Bay Area’s largest water agencies that are working togethers to develop a regional solution to improve the water supply reliability for over 6 million area residents and thousands of businesses and industries 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-8 Technical Analysis located therein. The Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Partners include Alameda County Water District, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Marin Municipal Water District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency. The BARR Partners have joined forces to leverage existing facilities and, if needed, build new ones to bolster regional water supply reliability. More information is available on their website: www.bayareareliability.com. 11.3 Technical Analysis and Methods Numerous sources of technical information formed the foundation of the Plan. Table 11-3 provides examples of these analyses performed by agencies in evaluating their water management needs. 11.4 Data Needs During the course of the preparation of this IRWMP, data needs were identified by stakeholders and resource specialists working on the plan. Data needs identified for the Region include:  Updated climate change projections to reflect new data, methods, and improved understanding of climate change  Regional hydroclimate (hydrology and weather), including projections of microclimatic change and fog  Statewide hydroclimate data on imported water supplies that show influence of climate change  Data on sea level rise  Weather variability (e.g., monthly averages of maximum and minimum daily air temperatures monthly precipitation and ET, etc.) in the Region and subregions  Market saturation of water efficient fixtures  Projections of future habitat change  Improved projections of wetland response to sea level rise 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-1 Technical Analysis Table 11-3: Examples of Technical Analysis Utilized in Plan Development Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Stream Management Master Plan HEC-HMS (calibrated to stream gauge date) and HEC- RAS with Digital Elevation and Terrain Models created from LiDAR data, and updated digital soils and rainfall data Service area hydrologic and hydraulic models and innovative techniques for stormwater management Used to integrate flood protection, water supply, recreation, and water quality and habitat Zone 7 Water Supply Evaluation probability-based water supply model; key water supplies were modeled as uncertain variables – their value was determined through Monte Carlo methods. Risk assessment of water supply shortages Used to evaluate a diverse set of water supply options for meeting the Valley’s water supply needs Zone 7 Flood Protection Monitoring HEC-HMS, HEC- RAS, HEC-FDA for Risk and Uncertainty (RU) analysis, GIS Detention basin; analysis and design; stream hydraulic modeling; watershed parameters (topography, drainage); levee elevations based on the RU analysis Watershed analysis for calculating peak design flows Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Permanente Creek Flood Protection Project FLO-2D, HAZUS- MH FLOOD Flood limits and depths; economic losses Used to compare alternative flood management strategies and analyze flood damage reduction from the selected project SCVWD 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-2 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project HEC-RAS channel and HEC-HMS watershed modeling coupled with FLO-2D for overbank modeling Flood limits and depths Used to compare alternative flood management strategies and analyze flood damage reduction from the selected project US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); SCVWD 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan Water Evaluation and Planning model; Groundwater flow models Water supply availability under different future scenarios; groundwater levels and storage under different future scenarios Used to compare alternative water supply strategies and analyze water supply reliability with selected water supply strategy; prioritizes projects for achieving water supply objectives SCVWD 2015 UWMP IWRMAIN; Water Evaluation and Planning model Water demand projections; water supply availability under future conditions Used to compare demands and supplies for evaluating water supply reliability SCVWD and other water agencies with UWMPs (See Appendix D-1) Conservation Lands Network MARXAN Multi-factor prioritization of habitats for regional biodiversity value Used to assess the value of lands for habitat protection and restoration efforts Bay Area Open Space Council Lagunitas Creek Stewardship Plan Salmon limiting factors and recovery priorities; State Water Board directives Prioritization of fishery restoration actions to be taken by MMWD over a ten-year period. Used to consider and prioritize strategies, techniques and projects, for managing creek habitat for the benefit of aquatic resource populations of coho salmon, steelhead, and California MMWD 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-3 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source freshwater shrimp. Wildfire Protection and Habitat Improvement Plan Prioritized recommendations for vegetation management on 22,000 acres of watershed lands, in order to support fire hazard reduction and biodiversity with drinking water protection as the number one priority. Used to prioritize vegetation management actions and strategies to support drinking water protection. MMWD Mt. Tamalpais Watershed Road and Trail Management Plan Designation of official network of unpaved roads and trails on MMWD’s Mt. Tamalpais Watershed; prioritization of work plan for restoration and decommissioning. Used to consider and prioritize sediment reduction work on unpaved roads and trails, and restoration work on recreational and access trails. MMWD Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Source Site Assessment California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salmon id Stream Habitat Restoration Manual methods Evaluation and categorization of all unpaved roads in the Lagunitas Creek Watershed, yielding prioritized list of restoration and sediment reduction work. Used to consider and prioritize sediment reduction work on unpaved roads downstream of Peters Dam in Lagunitas Creek watershed. MMWD San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Capital Improvement Project (East Bayshore Road to San Francisco Bay) FLO‐2D, which simulates channel flows and overland flows Flood limits and depths Used to compare alternative flood management strategies and analyze flood damage reduction from the selected project San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-4 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Dam Seismic Stability Evaluations Field and laboratory testing; statistical analyses Dam deformation potential; fault rupture hazard to dams and outlet structures; adequacy of dam freeboard and spillway Used to identify necessary infrastructure improvements for meeting water supply objectives SCVWD Upper Tuolumne Hydrology Under Climate Change Scenarios Hydrologic modeling (HFAM), climate change scenario development Predicted future reservoir inflows Long-term water supply planning SFPUC, Tuolumne Irrigation District, Hydrocomp Inc. San Francisco Groundwater Pumping Model Groundwater model (MODFLOW) Constraints and potential yield of groundwater pumping in SF Local water supply, groundwater, and environmental management SFPUC, City of Daly City Calaveras Forecasting During WSIP NWS climate forecasts, Hydrologic models (statistical rainfall-runoff model, TOPMODEL, CNRFC forecasts) operations model, rule curves Operational recommendations and flood forecasts for contractors and ACWD Flood control SFPUC, California Nevada River Forecast Center (CNRFC), USGS data, National Weather Service (NWS) Supplemental Statement of Water Diversion and Use Internal water balance and operations models Water diversion and use Reporting to SWRCB and water supply management SFPUC, US Geological Survey (USGS) data Alameda Creek Surface Water/Sunol Valley Groundwater Flow Models Hydrologic and operational models (ASDHM, HSPF, statistical models), groundwater models Reservoir inflows, groundwater levels, flows in environmentally sensitive reaches Long-term water supply planning, environmental compliance, infrastructure planning SFPUC, McBain and Trush Pilarcitos Creek HSPF and statistical models Inflows to local reservoirs Compliance with Pilarcitos IWMP SFPUC 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-5 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Water Conservation Potential and Demand Forecast Model Internal water conservation estimate and future demand based in population and housing projections Estimated conservation potential and effect on future demand Identification of potential conservation projects SFPUC Sewer System Improvement Program, Level of Service Model Simulations Hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) model simulations Estimates volumes and frequencies of combined sewer discharge and flooding performance improvements through use of hard and green infrastructure. Stormwater management and flood control SFPUC, Wood 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Relation to Local Water Planning Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 12: Relation to Local Water Planning ........................................... 12-1 12.1 Overview of Bay Area Water Resource Planning ............................ 12-1 12.1.1 Local and Regional Water Resources Plan Inventory ........... 12-1 12.1.2 Example Local Water Planning Documents .......................... 12-3 12.1.2.1 Urban Water Management Plans ....................... 12-3 12.1.2.2 Stormwater Management Plans ......................... 12-3 12.1.2.3 Sewer System Management Plans ..................... 12-3 12.1.2.4 Watershed Plans and Habitat Restoration Plans .................................................................. 12-3 12.1.3 Regional Water Resources Planning .................................... 12-4 12.2 Use of Local Water Plans in IRWMP Planning ................................ 12-4 12.2.1 Development of Regional Description and Resource Management Strategies ....................................................... 12-4 12.2.2 Identification of IRWMP Projects .......................................... 12-4 12.3 Participation by Agency Personnel .................................................. 12-4 12.3.1 Subregional Workshops ....................................................... 12-5 12.3.2 Briefings at Regional Planning Forums ................................ 12-5 12.4 Dynamics Between Local Planning and IRWM Planning ................. 12-6 12.4.1 Plan Consistency ................................................................. 12-6 12.4.1.1 Consistency and Coordination between Local Water Plan Content the IRWMP ......................... 12-6 12.4.1.2 Considering Updates to Local Plans ................... 12-6 12.4.1.3 Resolving Inconsistencies with Local Water Plans .................................................................. 12-6 12.4.1.4 How Regional Planning Efforts Feed Back to Local Planning Efforts ........................................ 12-6 12.4.1.5 Mechanisms to Ensure Consistency Between IRWMP Projects and Other Plans ...................... 12-7 12.4.2 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in Local Plans .......................................................................... 12-7 12.4.2.1 Climate Change Mitigation Strategies ................. 12-7 12.4.2.2 Climate Change Adaptation Strategies ............... 12-8 12.5 References ...................................................................................... 12-1 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Relation to Local Water Planning List of Tables Table 12-1: Bay Area Water Resource Plan Types by Water Management Activity and Functional Area .............................................................................................. 12-2 Table 12-2: Climate Change Mitigation Strategies Identified in Bay Area Regional and Local Plans(a) ......................................................................................................... 12-11 Table 12-3: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Identified In Bay Area IRWMP and Local Plans ............................................................................................................ 12-12 Table 12-4: Summary of Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies Identified by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ........................................ 12-14 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-1 Relation to Local Water Planning Chapter 12: Relation to Local Water Planning The California Water Plan notes that coordination in water planning at all levels is essential for the successful management of California’s water system in the face of increasing challenges due to climate change, growing water demand and uncertainty regarding availability of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Accordingly, this chapter discusses the relationship between the IRWMP and local water planning efforts and documents the local water plans on which the IRWMP is based. The intent of coordinating the IRWMP with local water planning efforts is to ensure that the IRWMP is congruent with local water plans and reflects current, relevant elements of local water planning and water issues common within the region. The 2012 Guidelines require that this chapter describe how the IRWMP relates to local planning efforts (including how regional planning feeds back into local planning and how any inconsistencies between local and regional plans are identified and resolved) and incorporate climate mitigation and adaptation strategies from local plans into the IRWMP. 12.1 Overview of Bay Area Water Resource Planning 12.1.1 Local and Regional Water Resources Plan Inventory Water agencies throughout the Bay Area continually engage in resource management planning and periodically prepare reports to memorialize long-range planning. In order to characterize water resources planning underway in the Bay Area, IRWMP authors first prepared a comprehensive inventory of plans reflecting the four Functional Areas (water supply and water quality, wastewater and recycled water, flood protection and stormwater management, and watershed management – habitat protection and restoration) and the four Subregions (shown in Appendix D 1-1 in Chapter 1). Sources for the inventory, presented in Appendix D, included the 2006 Plan, agency websites, project application forms, and Coordinating Committee (CC) member input. Consistent with the 2012 Guidelines, the inventory indicates the jurisdiction of each plan, when the plan is updated and relevance to the IRWMP (in terms of Bay Area water management activities and Subregion). The final inventory contains over 100 Bay Area water resources plans. The CC may use the inventory as a database that planners can consult and revise when updating the IRWMP in the future to help facilitate coordination between the IRWMP and local planning efforts. Table 12-4 summarizes the types of local and regional plans in effect in the Bay Area, categorized by the water management activities identified in the 2012 Guidelines and by Functional Area. Section 12.1.2 describes some of these plan types. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-2 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12-4: Bay Area Water Resource Plan Types by Water Management Activity and Functional Area Water Management Activity (2012 Guidelines)(a) Corresponding Functional Area Plans in Bay Area IRWMP Water Plan Inventory (b) Addressing these Topics General Specific Multi-Purpose Program Planning City and County General Planning Emergency Response, Disaster Plans • Groundwater Management • Urban Water Management • Water Supply Assessments • Agricultural Water Management • Salt and Salinity Management Water Supply & Water Quality • Water Supply Management Programs • Urban Water Management Plans • Clean Water Programs • Groundwater Management Plans • Salt Management Plans • Salt/Nutrient Management Plans • Water Supply Evaluations • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program • Integrated Resource Management Plan • Water Supply Strategies Action Plans • Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan Wastewater & Recycled Water • Recycled Water Master and Strategic Plans • Sewer System Master Plans • Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan • Water Reuse Programs • Flood Protection • Stormwater Management • Low Impact Development Flood Protection & Stormwater Management • Stormwater Management Plans • Flood Management Plans • Sediment Management Studies/Plans • Stream Management Master Plans • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program • Stream Maintenance Plans • Watershed Management Watershed Management - Habitat Protection & Restoration • Habitat Restoration Plans • Watershed Management and Stewardship Plans • Habitat Conservation Plans • Conservation Strategy Plans • Habitat and Species Recovery Plans • Historical Ecology Studies • Vegetation Management Plans • Habitat Stewardship Plans • Stream Maintenance Plans • Coastal Waters Management Plans • Watershed Action Plan • Invasive Species Studies/Plans Notes: (a) IRWM Grant Program Guidelines - Propositions 84 and 1E (November 2012), pages 58 – 59. (b) Appendix D presents the Bay Area IRWMP Water Plan Inventory. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-3 Relation to Local Water Planning 12.1.2 Example Local Water Planning Documents 12.1.2.1 Urban Water Management Plans The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires all urban water suppliers22 to carry out long-term resource planning responsibilities through development of Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). UWMPs assess the reliability of the supplier’s water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal and drought conditions. A list of major water suppliers in the Bay Area is provided in Chapter 2, Regional Description. Appendix D lists all UWMPs within the Bay Area region. 12.1.2.2 Stormwater Management Plans Compliance with the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP), administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, is the primary driver for addressing water quality in stormwater discharges in the Bay Area. Many municipalities have formed countywide “clean water” programs, some of which prepare annual work plans to define actions, responsibilities and schedules to be implemented by program members to support compliance with the MRP (e.g., Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Action Plan). Refer to Chapter 13 for additional information on stormwater management plans for individual land use projects. It should be noted that Senate Bill 985 requires the development of a stormwater resource plan in order to receive grants for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects. Stormwater Resource Plans developed in the Region are approved by the CC and attached as addenda to this Plan. All CC approved Stormwater Resource Plans can be found in Appendix G. 12.1.2.3 Sewer System Management Plans In 2006 the State Water Resources Control Board adopted requirements for all public sanitary sewer collection system agencies prohibiting sewer overflows that result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Under these requirements, each sewer collection system agency is required to develop a plan to provide for the proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of the collection system. There are eleven required elements to the plan (e.g., goals, operation and maintenance program, overflow emergency response program). The Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) has worked with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop the SSMP Development Guide to assist wastewater collection agencies in preparing SSMPs. Appendix D includes links to the plans for San Mateo County, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, and Novato Sanitary District. 12.1.2.4 Watershed Plans and Habitat Restoration Plans In the Bay Area, many local watersheds have created (or are proposing to create) watershed plans to balance water supply, flood management, and habitat protection needs. Many watershed planning efforts are voluntary; however, in some cases, watershed or habitat plans are motivated by regulatory drivers and permitting processes (e.g., developed in association with consultation pursuant to Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act). 22 A supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-4 Relation to Local Water Planning Section 4.2.6.6 of Chapter 4, Regional Description provides several examples of watershed planning projects and programs underway throughout the Bay Area; refer to Appendix D for additional examples. 12.1.3 Regional Water Resources Planning Although the focus of this chapter is on local water resources planning, a variety of regional planning efforts (in addition to the IRWMP) have been underway for many years, most of which are described in other chapters of this report. Examples include planning initiatives of the regional water management organizations described in Chapter 15 (see Section 15.2.2), regional planning by the Association of Bay Area Governments that informs long-term planning for water and wastewater services (see Section 13.1.1.1 in Chapter 13), regional planning for climate change described below in Section 12.4.2, the North Bay Watershed Association (described in Chapter 13, Section 13.2.1.4), and planning for major regional projects like South Bay Salt Ponds and South Bay Shoreline Study (described in Chapter 13, Section 13.2.1.4). 12.2 Use of Local Water Plans in IRWMP Planning In essence, this IRWMP has combined information presented in numerous water resources plans into a single document. Rather than superseding local planning, the IRWMP uses these documents as a basis for developing a wider regional view of water supply, water quality, wastewater and recycled water, flood protection and stormwater management, and watershed management and habitat protection/restoration. 12.2.1 Development of Regional Description and Resource Management Strategies Preparation of Chapter 2: Regional Description relied on current local and regional water resources plans as well as more up-to-date information provided by water managers and regional water resources agencies to describe (for example) the characteristics of Bay Area water supplies, groundwater basin characteristics, water demand and conservation, and major water-related infrastructure. Preparation of Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies relied on similar inputs to characterize water use efficiency, recycled water, storage and other strategies currently being employed in the Bay Area. 12.2.2 Identification of IRWMP Projects Many of the local plans in Appendix D identify projects and programs to implement IRWMP objectives and are the source for numerous projects that are proposed for funding. Project applications require agencies to indicate water resources plans relevant to the proposed project. In addition, IRWM projects must indicate compliance with select water resources plans and proponents must adopt the IRWMP in order to be eligible for funding. 12.3 Participation by Agency Personnel Many IRWMP participants are directly involved in local water resources planning for their respective agencies and were involved in developing plans identified in Appendix D. Water resource managers are involved throughout the IRWMP process, serving as members of the Coordinating Committee, Subregional and Functional Area groups and other working groups, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-5 Relation to Local Water Planning and providing input at various meetings. Their knowledge and expertise of local plans influence all aspects of the IRWMP, including development of IRWMP objectives, selection of resource management strategies to implement, the project selection process, and review of all IRWMP chapters, among other things. 12.3.1 Subregional Workshops Subregional workgroups organize and facilitate community workshops that provide an overview of the IRWMP process, and invite stakeholders to consider ways to address local water challenges through collaborative partnerships. Refer to Chapter 14 for a description of all of the outreach efforts used to engage local water resources and other stakeholders in development of the IRWMP. 12.3.2 Briefings at Regional Planning Forums Existing forums promoting regional planning occur through the following entities23:  Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)  Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)  Joint Policy Committee  Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA)  Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)  Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC)  Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA)  Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN)  North Bay Watershed Association  City/county councils of government  Low Impact Development Leadership Group  Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) of Napa County  Santa Clara County Basin  Watershed Management Initiative  Bay-Delta Region of Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) Functional Area leads and other IRWMP participants conduct briefings at these forums (and at joint meetings between regional entities) to update participants on IRWMP planning and to solicit input on development of the Plan including review of draft chapters. Chapter 15 provides 23 Chapters 1 and 2 describe the roles of most of these organizations, with the following exceptions: BAWN, a network of natural resource professionals and com munity members who work locally to protect watersheds throughout the Bay Area; WICC, an advisory committee to the Napa County Board of Supervisors and provides support for community efforts to improve the health of Napa County’s watersheds; Santa Clara County Basin Watershed Management Initiative, a collaboration among regional and local agencies and non-governmental organizations to advance watershed management goals in the South Bay, and the Bay-Delta Region of RCDs, which includes RCDs from around the Ba y Area working to conserve, protect and restore the watersheds of the Bay Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-6 Relation to Local Water Planning more detail regarding coordination activities undertaken with local, regional and state agencies, stakeholders and neighboring IRWM regions in developing the Plan update. 12.4 Dynamics and Coordination between Local Planning and IRWM Planning 12.4.1 Plan Consistency 12.4.1.1 Consistency and Coordination between Local Water Plan Content the IRWMP Using current water resources plans as source material for the IRWMP, extensive participation by local and regional water resource planners, requiring adoption of the IRWMP by project proponents, and using compliance with specified local plans as eligibility criteria for proposed projects are the steps that have been implemented to preclude inconsistencies between the IRWMP and local water plans. 12.4.1.2 Considering Updates to Local Plans The existing mechanisms to coordinate local planning efforts with IRWMP planning will continue into to the future. The CC may use the water plan inventory presented in Appendix D as a database that future planners can consult and revise when updating the IRWMP. The database can be sorted by agency, Subregion, and Functional Area to facilitate participation. Planners can capture updates to local plans and reflect these in future revisions to the IRWMP. 12.4.1.3 Resolving Inconsistencies with Local Water Plans Any inconsistencies between plans will be addressed on a case by case basis. In the event that inconsistencies between a local water plan and the IRWMP are identified, IRWMP participants will resolve the inconsistency through direct consultation with the agency that prepared the plan. 12.4.1.4 How Regional Planning Efforts Feed Back to Local Planning Efforts While local and regional planning forms the foundation of the IRWMP, the IRWMP provides opportunities for regional planning to inform local plans. The collaborative planning that occurs through the IRWMP process, and adoption of the IRWMP by project proponents, will inevitably feed into local planning in multiple ways (e.g., reflecting regional objectives, policies and projects in local plans; pursuit in one Subregion of successful interagency solutions achieved in another Subregion). Participation in the IRWMP process to develop regional solutions to the challenges faced by individual agencies can help each agency meet its goals and objectives, forges connections among agency personnel that persist outside the IRWMP context, and invests agency planners and decision makers in regional planning. Climate change presents many challenges for water resources agencies that demand a regional approach. Advancements in research in this dynamic field may frequently outpace local planning. Chapter 16, Climate Change, identifies vulnerabilities for water resources and adaptation strategies (e.g., implementing multifunctional green infrastructure along rivers and the bayshore, raising and armoring flood structures, and removing critical infrastructure out of the hazard zone). That analysis will feed back to local planning efforts through briefings to the CC, the Climate Change Technical Advisory Group and the regional planning forums listed above; and commitments by IRWMP participants to incorporate information into future local planning efforts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-7 Relation to Local Water Planning 12.4.1.5 Mechanisms to Ensure Consistency Between IRWMP Projects and Other Plans There are a number of mechanisms already in place to ensure consistency between IRWMP projects and other local and regional plans:  Permits and Approvals. Issuance of permits and other approvals often is contingent on consistency with applicable plans. Examples include:  San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan  San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Clean Air Plan  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission – San Francisco Bay Plan  California Coastal Commission, designated local agencies - coastal management programs  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires Environment Impact Reports to discuss inconsistencies between a project and applicable plans; some criteria for determining the significance of environmental impacts are based on plan or policy consistency, and require mitigation to resolve inconsistencies.  General Plan Consistency Determinations by cities and counties are typically required for water resources projects, although the findings may be advisory in some cases. 12.4.2 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in Local Plans Managing risks associated with climate change requires implementation of both mitigation strategies and adaptation strategies. Climate change mitigation strategies aim to reduce climate extremes through reduction of GHG emissions, while climate change adaptation strategies manage and respond to the impacts of climate change (California Natural Resources Agency, 2009). The 2012 Guidelines require that the IRWMP consider and incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies from local plans. In response to this requirement, a number of representative plans from the Bay Area Region as a whole as well as the various Subregions were reviewed to identify climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. 12.4.2.1 Climate Change Mitigation Strategies In the Bay Area Region, the main regional approach to climate change mitigation is being implemented through Plan Bay Area.24 Plan Bay Area is an integrated, long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan, developed as a joint initiative by ABAG, BAAQMD, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and MTC. Under Plan Bay Area, the Bay Area Region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy will be incorporated into the land use allocation in the next Regional Transportation Plan, slated for adoption in 24 Plan Bay Area can be found at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/draft-plan-bay- area.html. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-8 Relation to Local Water Planning summer 2013. The primary GHG reduction strategy employed by Plan Bay Area is to promote compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development with better access to mass transit. In addition to the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy being developed by Plan Bay Area, communities throughout the Bay Area Region have adopted Climate Action Plans, which contain a set of strategies intended to guide community efforts for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to advance compliance with State GHG reduction targets. As of June 2012, a total 86 local governments in the Bay Area Region had completed community emissions inventories (the first step in developing a Climate Action Plan) and 30 had finalized and adopted a Climate Action Plan (Institute for Local Government, 2012). Table 12-5 identifies climate mitigation strategies included in local and regional climate action planning documents. These strategies were drawn from a selection of plans representing the four Bay Area Subregions. In terms of water management in the Bay Area, a key water management strategy employed to mitigate climate change is reducing demand via implementation of water conservation measures, which cuts energy consumption from water treatment and conveyance. 12.4.2.2 Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Climate change adaptation strategies are included in a wide range of regional and local planning documents such as urban water management plans, habitat restoration plans, wastewater treatment master plans, watershed stewardship plans and water supply strategies. Adaptation strategies for the Bay Area are also being developed through several regional initiatives focused specifically on climate change adaptation. Table 12-6 identifies climate change adaptation strategies included in representative regional and local plans according to corresponding Functional Areas and vulnerabilities and priorities identified in Chapter 16. The plans reviewed, listed at the bottom of the table, reflect all Functional Areas and sub regions. Note that the scope, focus, and age of the plans varied considerably; these factors undoubtedly contributed to fact that the degree to which climate change adaptation was addressed also varied considerably. A number of plans identified adaptation strategies, as shown in Table 12-6, although a strategy like “water conservation” was not always identified as a climate adaptation strategy. Several plans identified joint studies and working groups aimed at improving modeling and/or developing adaptation strategies.25 The review confirmed that, with the exception of urban water supply26, the approach to water resources planning in general varies widely across Functional Areas and among agencies. For example, with respect to sea level rise and vulnerable water resources infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment plants), not all local plans reviewed contained adaptation strategies. This may reflect the absence of a legal requirement for a plan rather than a lack of planning for sea level rise; some agency websites indicated that climate change planning was indeed underway. 25 Examples of joint studies and working groups identified in local plans include the Climate Ready Water Utilities Working Group, Climate Resilience Evaluation and Assessment Tool, and Piloting Utility Modeling Applications for Climate Change. 26 The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Section 10610 et seq.) requires every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 acre- feet of water annually to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) for the purpose of “actively pursue[ing] the efficient use of available supplies,” and stipulates required contents of UWMPs. Consequently, UWMPs tend to include similar climate adaptation strategies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-9 Relation to Local Water Planning Recognizing that flooding from sea level rise threatens the long-term viability of Bay Area neighborhoods, job centers, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, schools, emergency services, and vital ecosystems on which our quality of life and the regional and state economies depend, the BCDC prepared a vulnerability assessment for the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The assessment, published in 2011, focused on shoreline development, the Bay ecosystem, and governance. The report provided the basis for a subsequent amendment to the Bay Plan specifically addressing sea level rise. While the report acknowledged the limitations of BCDC’s regulatory authority to ensure that sea rise is taken into consideration in project planning, it also identified a number of strategies that the agency and others can undertake to address issues identified in its vulnerability assessment, summarized in Table 12-7. Flooding resulting from sea level rise can threaten shoreline infrastructure. Another regional effort to address sea level rise is being led by the Joint Policy Committee, which coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, the BAAQMD, the San Francisco BCDC and MTC. In September 2012, the Joint Policy Committee adopted a work plan to develop a Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy. The objective of the project is to ensure the ongoing health and ecological viability of regional natural resources; coordinate adaptation mechanisms that transcend local jurisdictional boundaries; and share the costs of adaptation responses at a regional level. The sea level rise adaption strategy work plan focuses on developing a “bottom-up” regional strategy where the regional agencies work with local entities to assess vulnerabilities and risks, identify critical assets, explore adaptation options, and use a balanced approach to identify costs, benefits and adaptation strategies for the natural resources and ecosystem services provided by the Bay and its watersheds. The first phase of this effort includes considering sea level rise exposure in the current Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy and its Environmental Impact Report (described above under Section 12.4.2.1). The second phase will include convening and supporting Subregional and local planning adaptation planning efforts, and incorporating lessons learned into the Bay Area’s second Sustainable Communities Strategy. The third phase will include developing a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy, informed by the lessons learned in phases one and two, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-10 Relation to Local Water Planning which will be incorporated into the third iteration of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. This effort is also proposed as an IRWMP project. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies identified in local and regional plans include (clockwise from top) restoring shoreline habitats, increasing use of recycled water, and improving levees and flood control structures. As acknowledged in Chapter 16, as more information becomes available on impacts of climate on water resources and adaptation strategies emerge and mature, planning at all levels will need to be updated. Existing regional planning forums provide venues to disseminate this information, and the IRWMP provides a vehicle to support regional solutions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-11 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12 -5: Climate Change Mitigation Strategies Identified in Bay Area Regional and Local Plans(a) Category of Action Strategy/Action Transportation • Establish a regional public charger network for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles • Establish vehicle buy-back and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or battery electric vehicle purchase incentives • Expand car sharing services • Increase MTC’s vanpool program incentive • Establish a clean vehicles rebate program • Implement a Smart Driving Strategy (tire pressure rebates, in-vehicle fuel economy meter rebate program) • Implement a Commuter Benefits Ordinance • Encourage and accelerate implementation of bicycle/pedestrian plans • Consider establishing a Car-Free Sunday community event to demonstrate non-vehicular uses for streets • Adopt of low emission government vehicles Land-Use & Planning • Support mixed-use infill and new development • Utilize Priority Development Areas in development planning • Shift parking policies to promote infill development • Require new development to supply an adequate number of street trees and private trees • Require new sidewalks, crosswalks, and parking lots to be made of cool paving materials with a high solar reflectivity. Energy Use • Achieve zero net energy performance in new construction by 2020 • Enhance and lower the cost of energy efficiency services and standards for existing residential and non-residential buildings • Develop a local, clean, decentralized renewable energy supply • Use city codes, ordinances, and permitting to enhance green building, energy efficiency, and energy conservation • Promote green building and energy efficient development for government operations and city infrastructure • Encourage existing development and require new development to utilize PG&E's Smart Meter system to facilitate energy and cost savings • Reduce carbon intensity of energy supply provided by utilities • Participate in and promote greenhouse gas emissions inventory tracking and reporting • Incentivize solar energy installation Water/Wastewater • Reduce community and municipal water use through building and landscape design and improvements • Increase or establish use of reclaimed/grey water systems • Encourage existing development and require new development to utilize smart water meters to facilitate water and cost savings • Improve the efficiency of water and wastewater facilities • Increase water reuse Waste Reduction & Recycling • Increase recycling, organics diversion, and waste reduction associated with municipal operations • Expand the types of materials that can be recycled locally, such as certain plastics. • Expand efforts to eliminate waste at its source • Reduce the availability or use of common materials that are not recyclable or that are not cost-effective to recycle Habitat Conservation & Agriculture • Initiate Priority Conservation Areas pilot program • Complete the region’s three major multi-use trails • Increase the amount of food grown and consumed locally • Develop a regional agricultural and farmland protection plan Community Outreach & Education • Launch a coordinated outreach and education campaign to mobilize residents, businesses, and industry • Partner with schools to promote sustainability efforts • Prepare local residents for job opportunities in the emerging green economy • Increase awareness and action in the City government by providing training on how to increase sustainability at home and in the workplace Note: (a) Mitigation strategies were drawn from a selection of plans representing the region as a whole as well as the four Bay Area Subregions. Plans reviewed for mitigation strategies include Plan Bay Area: Technical Summary of Proposed Climate Policy Initiatives (May 4, 2012), Plan Bay Area: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy (May 16, 2012), City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan (June 2009), City of Pleasanton Climate Action Plan (2012), City of Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan (2012), City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan (2007) and City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-12 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12 -6: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Identified In Bay Area IRWMP and Local Plans Vulnerabilities by Priority Overview Adaptation Strategies Identified in Bay Area IRWMP(a ) Functional Area Affected Ad aptation Strategies in Local Plans (b), (c) General Specific Sea Level Rise Low-lying Baylands increasingly vulnerable to more frequent, longer, deeper flooding Critical infrastructure in the hazard zone, for example 22 wastewater treatment plants and 12 power plants vulnerable to 100 -year coastal flood More intense storms leading to more frequent, longer, deeper flooding generally expected • Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects. • “No Regrets” approach to address immediate or ongoing concerns while reducing future risks • Establish a climate change adaptation public outreach and education program. • Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation strategy development and regional approaches. • Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness. • Update building codes and zoning. • Multifunctional ecosystem-based adaptation along the bayshore and rivers • Remove critical infrastructure from hazard zone • Raise, armor and maintain flood control structures that protect critical infrastructure that cannot be moved. • Excluding placement of new infrastructure in areas likely to be inundated. • Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans. Flood Protection & Stormwater Management • Elevated, terraced levees (South Bay) • Marsh restoration Wastewater and Recycled Water Flooding Water Supply and Hydropower Sierra Nevada Sources – decrease in total precipitation is possible; decrease in snow pack is expected; increased evapotranspiration is expected; shift in timing of runoff virtually certain; and timing and amount of power generation is expected to change • Continued water conservation • Reduce reliance on imported water • Increased use of recycled water • Improve potential movement of water supplies among neighboring agencies during periods of extreme water shortage • Expand available water storage • Adopt land use ordinances that protect natural functioning of groundwater recharge areas Water Supply & Water Quality • Water conservation • Additional storage to take advantage of wet season water • Diversifying water supply portfolios through development of additional supplies and/or transfers • Local capture and reuse projects • Desalination • Increased use of recycled water • Additional treatment options to respond to water quality impacts Delta Sources – impacts from sea level rise Regional Sources – continued variability in precipitation; potentially less spring precipitation; more intense storms may affect surface water runoff, storage, groundwater recharge Water Quality Sierra Nevada Supplies – imported water potentially vulnerable to water quality change • Evaluate capability of surface water treatment plants to respond to extreme storm events and increased risk of wildfires. • Encourage projects that improve water quality of contaminated groundwater sources • Increase implementation of LID techniques to improve stormwater management. Delta Supplies – increased salinity from sea level rise, increased turbidity from extreme storm events Regional Supplies – water quality impacts from increased temperature, decreased precipitation, decreased recharge, more intense storms, increased wildfire risk, longer periods of low flow conditions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-13 Relation to Local Water Planning Vulnerabilities by Priority Overview Adaptation Strategies Identified in Bay Area IRWMP(a ) Functional Area Affected Ad aptation Strategies in Local Plans (b), (c) General Specific Ecosystem and Habitat Changes in temperature and precipitation, together with increased wildfire will result in impacts to species, increased invasive species’ ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, changes in growing ranges for vegetation. • Provide or enhance connected “migration corridors” and linkages between undeveloped areas for animals and plants • Promote water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services • Re -establish natural hydrologic connectivity between rivers and floodplains Watershed Management – Habitat Protection and Restoration • Incorporate sea level rise into baylands restoration planning Water Demand Demand likely to increase due to increases in air temperature, increased evaporation losses and longer growing season • Continued water conservation • Implement tiered pricing to reduce water consumption and demand Water Supply and Water Quality • Water conservation - Commercial, industrial and residential water conservation programs - Utility demand management programs - Water-efficient landscaping programs Notes: (a) Refer to Chapter 16 for a discussion of climate change vulnerabilities, priorities and adaptation strategies. (b) Includes strategies that promote adaptation, whether identified as such or not in the local plan. (c) Plans reviewed for adaptation strategies include EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2011) and Main Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Use Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2011), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s 2010 UWMP (2011), SCVWD’s UWMP (2010), Contra Costa Water District’s UWMP (2011), the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Draft Master Plan (2011), South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project Final EIR/EIR (2007), Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District, The 50 Year Plan (2009), Napa Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan, (2011), North Bay Watershed Association, North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan (2003), Napa County Resource Conservation District, Napa River Watershed Owner’s Manual (1994), Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Long Term Water Supply Strategy Phase IIA Final Report (2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-14 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12 -7: Summary of Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies Identified by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Shoreline Development Risk Assessments. Conduct risk assessments for shoreline areas and larger shoreline projects. General Strategies • Design for the Long-Term. Design projects to be resilient to a mid-century sea level rise projection and adaptable to longer-term impacts. • Consider Impacts. Build projects that do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety, or if projects do increase flood risks, ensure that regional public benefits outweigh the increased risk of flooding. • Incorporate Flood Protection. Protect new projects from future storm activity and sea level rise by using setbacks, elevating structures, designing structures that tolerate flooding or other effective measures. Public Access • Design to Avoid Impacts. Site, design, manage and maintain public access to avoid significant adverse impacts from sea level rise and shoreline flooding. • Accommodate Future Conditions. Design any public access to remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or provide equivalent access to be provided nearby. Shoreline Protection • Locate Where Appropriate. Build shoreline protection only if necessary to protect existing or appropriate planned development. • Setbacks. Set aside land on the upland side of levees to allow for future levee widening to support additional levee height so that no fill is placed in the Bay. • Integrate with Other Protection Measures. Integrate shoreline protection projects with current or planned adjacent shoreline protection measures. • Nonstructural Protection. Include provisions for nonstructural shoreline protection methods such as marsh vegetation, whenever feasible. • Minimize Impacts. Avoid, reduce or mitigate adverse impacts to natural resources and public access from new shoreline protection. • Public Access. Design and construct shoreline protection to avoid blocking physical and visual public access. Bay Ecosystem General Strategies • Preserve Sensitive Habitat. Preserve and enhance habitat in undeveloped areas that are both vulnerable to future flooding and have current or potential value for important species. • Incorporate Habitat into Shoreline Protection Design. Design shoreline protection projects to include provisions for establishing marsh and transitional upland vegetation as part of the protective structure, wherever feasible. • Include Buffers. Include a buffer, where feasible, between shoreline development and habitats to protect wildlife and provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises. Research and Planning • Conduct Research and Monitoring. Conduct comprehensive Bay sediment research and monitoring to understand sediment processes necessary to sustain and restore wetlands. • Update Targets to Accommodate Climate Change. Update regional habitat conservation and restoration targets to achieve a Bay ecosystem resilient to climate change and sea level rise. Governance Regional Conservation Strategy • Adaptive Management. Develop a regional strategy for conservation and development of the Bay and its shoreline that incorporates adaptive management. • SB 375. Ensure that the strategy is consistent with the climate change mitigation goals of SB 375 and the principles of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy. • Update. Update the strategy regularly to reflect changing conditions and scientific information. Mapping • Map Vulnerable Areas. Include maps of shoreline areas that are vulnerable to flooding based on projections of future sea level rise and shoreline flooding. • Consult Authorities. Prepare the maps under the direction of a qualified engineer and regularly update them in consultation with government agencies with authority over flood protection Integration • Long-Term Planning. Identify and encourage the development of long-term regional flood protection strategies that may be beyond the fiscal resources of individual local agencies. • Incorporate Multiple Agencies. Develop a framework for integrating the adaptation responses of multiple government agencies. • Integrate with Local Processes. Provide information, tools, and financial resources to help local governments integrate regional climate change adaptation planning into local community design processes. • Environmental Justice. Address environmental justice and social equity issues. • Hazards and Emergencies. Integrate hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning with adaptation planning. Source: Table 5.1 in San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2011. Living With a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. October 6, 2011; adapted by ESA. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-1 Relation to Local Water Planning 12.5 References California Natural Resources Agency, 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, 2009. Institute for Local Government, Track Bay Area Progress, June 2012. Available online: http://www.ca-ilg.org/post/track-bay-area-progress, accessed February 8, 2013. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), Climate Change Hits Home: Adaptation Strategies for the San Francisco Bay Area, May 2011. Available online: http://www.spur.org/files/SPUR_ClimateChangeHitsHome.pdf, accessed February 8, 2013. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 13: Relation to Local Land Use Planning ..................................... 13-1 13.1 Land Use Planning in the Bay Area ................................................. 13-1 13.1.1 Regional Planning ................................................................ 13-2 13.1.1.1 ABAG ................................................................. 13-2 13.1.1.2 Joint Policy Committee and Plan Bay Area......... 13-2 13.1.1.3 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission .................................. 13-3 13.1.1.4 LAFCOs and Municipal Service Reviews ........... 13-4 13.1.1.5 Land Management by Federal, State and Other Non-Municipal Agencies ........................... 13-4 13.1.2 Local Land Use Planning ..................................................... 13-5 13.1.2.1 Cities, Counties and Multipurpose Agencies ....... 13-5 13.1.2.2 General Plans .................................................... 13-5 13.1.2.3 Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Conditional Use Permits ..................................... 13-9 13.1.2.4 Water Supply Assessments .............................. 13-11 13.1.2.5 Stormwater Management Plans ....................... 13-11 13.1.2.6 Flood Protection and Floodplain Management . 13-12 13.1.2.7 Other Regulatory Drivers .................................. 13-12 13.2 Current Relationship between Land Use and Water Planning Agencies ....................................................................................... 13-13 13.2.1 Examples of Current Collaboration ..................................... 13-13 13.2.1.1 Long-Term Planning ......................................... 13-13 13.2.1.2 Project-Driven Consultation .............................. 13-14 13.2.1.3 Other Forms of Collaboration ........................... 13-15 13.2.1.4 Profiles of Successful Integrated Planning ....... 13-17 13.2.2 Bay Area IRWMP Coordination with Land Use Planning Agencies ............................................................................ 13-22 13.2.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement .................................. 13-22 13.2.2.2 Outreach to Cities and Counties ....................... 13-22 13.3 Future Efforts to Improve Interactions Among Land Use and Water Resources Planning Entities ............................................... 13-27 13.3.1 Constraints Inhibiting Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers ................. 13-27 13.3.2 Opportunities to Improve Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers in the Future .......................................................................... 13-29 13.3.3 Planning Future Collaboration ............................................ 13-31 13.3.3.1 Draft Climate Change Collaboration Plan ......... 13-31 13.3.3.2 BayCAN ........................................................... 13-31 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan - DRAFT ii Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.4 References .................................................................................... 13-32 List of Tables Table 13-1: Agencies and Providers Involved in Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Services in Alameda County............................................................................................. 13-7 Table 13-2: North Bay Watershed Association - Member Agencies And Water Resources Functions ..................................................................................................... 13-18 Table 13-3: Bay Area IRWMP Meetings with City and County Planning Agencies ............. 13-23 Table 13-4: Constraints Identified by Survey and Interview Participants that Inhibit Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resource Managers ................ 13-28 Table 13-5: Opportunities Identified by Survey and Interview Participants to Facilitate Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers ..................................................................................................................... 13-30 List of Figures Figure 13-1: W ater Resources Policies Contained In Bay Area General Plans ................... 13-10 Figure 13-2: Meeting Frequency between City Departments and Agencies Regarding Surface Water and Ground Water ............................................................................. 13-26 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-1 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Chapter 13: Relation to Local Land Use Planning The intent of this chapter is to foster enhanced communication between land use managers and regional water management groups. The IRWM Plan Guidelines require that the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) describe the current relationship between land use and water resources managers (e.g., how water management input is considered in land use decisions and vice versa), identify current constraints to collaboration, explore opportunities to facilitate improved collaboration, and identify plans to further a collaborative, proactive relationship between land use planners and water managers in the future. This chapter was developed based on literature review of current planning efforts, written surveys completed by land use planning agencies, telephone surveys conducted with water resources planners, and meetings at regional planning forums. Refer to Chapter 2 for a description of the major water resource agencies in the Bay Area and to Chapter 12 for an overview of water resources planning in the region. Many of the IRWMP objectives require coordination between land use planners and water managers; as a result, improving collaboration between land use planners and water resource managers will support accomplishment of the IRWMP objectives. Indeed, Objective 1.1 specifically calls for coordination between local land, water, wastewater and stormwater agencies to promote IRWM goals and identify areas of integration among projects. Examples of other objectives that would benefit from increased coordination include Objective 1.5 – Plan for and adapt to sea level rise; Objective 2.6 – Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater; Objective 3.3 – Minimize point-source and nonpoint-source pollution; Objective 4.1 – Identify and promote integrated flood management projects; and Objective 5.1 – Protect, restore and rehabilitate habitat for species protection. Refer to Chapter 3, Objectives, for further discussion of IRWMP objectives. 13.1 Land Use Planning in the Bay Area Bay Area cities and counties typically have primary authority over land use decisions while management of water resources typically is the purview of special districts, flood control agencies, investor-owned utilities, and mutual water companies. Integrating land use and water resources decision-making is essential for meeting existing and future resource management challenges. Described below are regional and local land use planning agencies and major planning initiatives. The San Francisco Bay Area is the ancestral territory of Bay Area Tribes. The majority of Bay Area Tribes acknowledge an inherent responsibility for managing their ancestral territories regardless of whether they currently have the capacity to do so. Therefore, Bay Area Tribes’ jurisdiction goes beyond the gathering, fishing, and hunting rights, which each individual Tribal member retains. Each of the Bay Area Tribes have a land use stewardship responsibility and each Tribe conducts these activities according to their own traditional policies, laws, mandates, and capacity. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-2 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.1.1 Regional Planning The key agencies involved in Bay Area-wide regional land use planning include the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the other member agencies of the Joint Policy Committee (JPC). 13.1.1.1 ABAG ABAG coordinates planning activities within the region and carries out select state and f ederal statutory duties, including setting state-mandated fair-share regional housing allocations for Bay Area cities and counties. ABAG’s members include the nine Bay Area counties and the 101 cities and towns within the Bay Area.27 Formed in 1961, ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and coordination among local governments. ABAG has examined regional issues such as housing, transportation, economic development, and the environment. ABAG’s “Projections" series provides long-term population, housing, and economic forecasts through a series of computer models. Transportation and air quality agencies, water agencies, local governments, and others rely on ABAG’s model results for planning. 13.1.1.2 Joint Policy Committee and Plan Bay Area As mentioned in Section 2.1.3.4 in Chapter 2, the regional planning efforts of ABAG, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC) are coordinated by the JPC. Formed in 2003, the JPC is composed of twenty members from these agencies, and select representatives from the State (One Bay Area, 2013). The Joint Policy Committee provides structure for coordinating the development and drafting of major planning documents for its four member agencies. Under the coordination of the JPC, ABAG and MTC, in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC, are leading an initiative, “OneBayArea,” to coordinate efforts among the region’s counties and cities to “create a more sustainable future”. A major effort of OneBayArea is the development of 27 Note that ABAG includes the entirety of all nine Bay Area counties and therefore overlaps with other IRWM regions. Plan Bay Area encourages resource conservation and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by advocating for compact, mixed-use re- development in existing urban areas. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-3 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Plan Bay Area: the region’s long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation, and housing. Plan Bay Area responds to Senate Bill 375, requiring California’s metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SB 375 requires the adoption of a Sustainable Communities Strategy that identifies where the region’s population will be housed and integrates land use planning and transportation planning via compact, mixed-use development: development patterns that advance stewardship of water resources consistent with the Ahwhanee Principles.28 During development of Plan Bay Area, which began in 2010, the JPC engaged with local land use planning agencies and the public to identify and assess several scenarios for the region. The Draft Plan Bay Area and corresponding Draft EIR were released on April 2, 2013 for public review. The Draft Plan Bay Area features a preferred scenario that assumes a land use development pattern that concentrates future household and job growth into Priority Development Areas identified by local jurisdictions. It pairs this land development pattern with MTC’s Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy, which dedicates nearly 90 percent of future revenues to operating and maintaining the existing road and transit system. The JPC is also leading a regional effort to develop a Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy by working with local entities to assess risks, identify critical assets and explore sea level rise adaptation options. The results of the effort will be incorporated into future Plan Bay Area updates. See Chapter 12, Relationship to Local Water Planning, for more detail. 13.1.1.3 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission The BCDC is a state agency created in 1965 to protect and enhance the San Francisco Bay by regulating development along the Bay and its shoreline. BCDC has permit jurisdiction over shoreline areas subject to tidal action up to the mean high tide line and including all sloughs, tidelands, submerged lands, and marshlands lying between the mean high tide and 5 feet above mean sea level for the nine Bay Area counties with Bay frontage, and the land lying between the Bay shoreline and a line drawn parallel to, and 100 feet from, the Bay shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Plan, prepared in 1969 and amended in 2007 and 2011, guides the protection and use of the Bay and its shoreline and provides policy direction for BCDC’s permit authority 28 The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities, written in 1991 by the Local Government Commission, are a set of principles to intended to guide development of compact, mixed - use, walkable, transit-oriented communities. In 1995, the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use were created to encourage integration of water resource, planning and land use decisions. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission regulates development along the Bay shoreline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-4 Relation to Local Land Use Planning regarding the placement of fill, extraction of materials, determination of substantial changes in use of land, water, or structures within its jurisdiction, protection of the Bay habitat and shoreline, and maximization of public access to the Bay. 13.1.1.4 LAFCOs and Municipal Service Reviews To provide for better coordination of local land use planning, the California Legislature created Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) within each county to discourage urban sprawl and to preserve open space and agricultural lands while meeting regional housing needs and planning for the efficient provision of public services and utilities, including water and wastewater service. LAFCOs have approval authority (with some limits) over the establishment and expansion of municipal and service district boundaries, including expansion related to a city proposing to expand its sphere of influence. LAFCOs also have responsibility to conduct Municipal Service Reviews which evaluate the provision of municipal services within each county. Municipal Service Reviews are required to include determinations regarding (among other things) infrastructure needs or deficiencies, growth and population projections for the affected area, and government structure options (including service providers). 13.1.1.5 Land Management by Federal, State and Other Non-Municipal Agencies Several other agencies besides regional governments (described above) and municipal governments (described below) exercise land use planning authority independent of local land use planning agencies for lands or projects that fall under their control. The land use planning authority of these entities may derive from land ownership or regulatory authority over certain lands. Examples of these agencies and the lands or project types that they manage in the Bay Area include:  National Park Service (e.g., Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Presidio of San Francisco)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge)  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (e.g., the San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, in partnership with San Francisco State University)  California Fish and Wildlife (e.g., the Eden Landing pond complex of the South Bay Salt Ponds)  Water resources agencies (e.g., for management of water bodies, watersheds, and flood control features under their control)29  University and college campuses (e.g., UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, Cal State East Bay)  California Coastal Commission (regulating development along the coast via the California Coastal Act and review of Local Coastal Programs) 29 Pursuant to Section 53091 et seq of the California Government Code, the activities of many water resource agencies are exempt from certain local land use policies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-5 Relation to Local Land Use Planning  California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (regulating select energy and utility projects, respectively) Some of these entities develop land use plans containing policies governing the lands that they manage. Examples include the Golden Gate National Recreation Area General Management Plan, the Presidio Trust Management Plan, the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, watershed management plans implemented by water resource agencies, and long range development plans implemented for university and college campuses. 13.1.2 Local Land Use Planning 13.1.2.1 Cities, Counties and Multipurpose Agencies As indicated in Chapter 2 (Sections 2.1.1 and Section 2.2.9), the Bay Area includes all of San Francisco County and parts of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Marin, Napa, Sonoma and Solano counties (see Figure 2-1). There are 101 incorporated cities in the Bay Area; Figure 2-2 depicts major cities in the region. While most land use planning in the Bay Area takes place through city and county governments30 many are multipurpose agencies with respect to one or more water management areas, and each deals with multiple water resources agencies. The number of agencies involved in water resources and land use planning, coupled with constraints on staff resources, can impede collaboration. As an example, Table 13-8 indicates the array of agencies involved in water, wastewater, and stormwater management in one Bay Area county -- Alameda. The information in Table 13-8 is drawn from the County’s Municipal Service Review (Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, 2005). As shown, there are 16 water, wastewater, and flood control service providers; stormwater management and wastewater collection are generally within the purview of the cities and the county; and while water services are largely provided by “limited purpose” agencies, three cities and one county service area are water retailers. At the other end of the spectrum, various branches within the City and County of San Francisco manage the full scope of water resources and land use planning functions within that jurisdiction. Governance patterns within the other seven counties in the region generally trend closer to the Alameda County example. Key local planning processes that influence, and are influenced by water resources management include general plans; specific plans, zoning ordinances and conditional use permits; water supply assessments; and stormwater management, discussed below. 13.1.2.2 General Plans Each city and county in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of its jurisdiction. The general plan is a statement of development policies and is required to include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, 30 There are exceptions to this, including the universities and colleges, and in some cases water resources agencies (e.g., for management of water bodies, watersheds, and flood control features); the California Coastal Commission (regulating development along the coast) and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (regulating development close to San Francisco Bay); and the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (regulating select energy and utility projects, respectively). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-6 Relation to Local Land Use Planning noise, and safety elements. The land use element designates the proposed general distribution, location, and extent of land uses and includes a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for lands covered by the plan. General Plans and Development. With respect to planning development to accommodate housing growth, the State Planning and Zoning law (California Government Code 65580 et seq.) prescribes that the housing element of a general plan may not be constrained by the lack of all needed governmental services, including water service. The housing element is required to plan for the housing allocated to a given city or county pursuant to Government Code Section 65584 (in this case the Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG, discussed below). To the extent that governmental services, like a public water supply, are not available to fully meet a city’s or county’s housing allocation, state law requires the city or county to “remove the governmental constraints” to the development of the housing described in the general plan. This requirement promotes the state general plan policy that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order” that “requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels”. State legislation (discussed below under Water Supply Assessments) ensures that specific housing and other development projects are not approved and constructed without a demonstrated, adequate water supply. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-7 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table 13-8: Agencies and Providers Involved in Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Services in Alameda County Provider Water Sewer Flood Control Stormwater Wholesale Retail Importing Extraction/ Wells Ground-water Mgmt. Treatment Recycled Water Potable Raw Recycled Collection Treatment Disposal Maintenance Permitting Preventive "Limited Purpose" Providers Alameda County Flood Control and Conservation District  Alameda County Water District     Contra Costa Water District Castro Valley Sanitary District  Dublin San Ramon Services District      East Bay Municipal Utility District        Oro Loma Sanitary District   Union Sanitary District    Washington HCD  Zone 7 Water Agency       Cal Water  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission     State Water Project East Bay Dischargers Authority  Livermore-Amador Valley Wastewater Management Agency  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-8 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Provider Water Sewer Flood Control Stormwater Wholesale Retail Importing Extraction/ Wells Ground-water Mgmt. Treatment Recycled Water Potable Raw Recycled Collection Treatment Disposal Maintenance Permitting Preventive Multipurpose Agencies Cities Alameda      Albany     Berkeley      Dublin   Emeryville    Fremont   Hayward       Livermore         Newark    Oakland     Piedmont      Pleasanton      San Leandro      Union City    Castlewood and Five Canyons County Service Areas    East Bay Regional Park District  Alameda County    Source: Table ES-2 in Final Municipal Service Review Volume II – Utility Services, Report to the Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, 2005; adapted by ESA. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-9 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Water Resources in General Plans. Water resource topics are usually addressed in general plan conservation, public services and/or open space elements. Policies are developed which connect the management of water resources and provision of water supply infrastructure with development patterns. In 2003, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research published general plan guidelines that encouraged jurisdictions to include an optional water element in their general plan to allow a more thorough consideration of water supply availability and subsequent development decisions. The water element of the general plan must be developed in coordination with any county-wide water agency and with all districts and city agencies that have developed, serviced, controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the city or county for which the general plan is prepared. Such coordination must include the discussion and evaluation of water supply and demand information. As of May 2012, 5 counties and 18 cities in the Bay Area had adopted optional water resources elements in their general plans (Governors Office of Planning and Research 2011, Governors Office of Planning and Research 2012). In 2007, legislation31 was passed to facilitate coordination between land use and flood risk management agencies by updating cities’ and counties’ responsibilities related to local land use planning requirements. Specifically, the legislation requires cities and counties to amend their general plan land use, conservation, safety and housing elements to consider and address flood risks. Revised water resources policies are required to be developed in coordination with applicable flood management, water conservation and groundwater agencies. Figure 13-3 presents the results of a survey (described in Section 13.2.2) of the prevalence of water resources policies contained in city and county general plans. 13.1.2.3 Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Conditional Use Permits City and county planning agencies also use specific plans, zoning ordinances and other development regulations (e.g., urban limit lines), and conditional use permits to implement the general plan and regulate development as well as the protection of water resources within their jurisdictions. Specific plans can be used to implement policies of a general plan “that are specific to financing infrastructure improvements and extensions [within a particular area], or cost recovery programs may be implemented by matching land uses with supporting public facilities (Governors Office of Planning and Research, 2001).” Conditional use permits (CUPs) are planning tools to impose specific requirements on a given proposed land use. In the context of water resources management, CUPs can provide opportunities to impose requirements that advance numerous policies, including low impact development (LID) features to manage stormwater run-off and reduce impervious surfaces and reduce flooding potential. 31 AB 162, codified in Government Code Sections 65302(a), 65302(d), 65302(g), 65584.04 and 65584.06 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-10 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Figure 13-3: Water Resources Policies Contained In Bay Area General Plans Notes: (a) “Other sustainable development" includes green building, density increase, water recycling, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, open space conservation, green government, climate change and sea level rise plans, complete streets, transit oriented development, and rainwater and greywater reuse. Source: San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Local Governments Watershed Inventory, September 12, 2012. 62% 35% 75% 56% 85% 81% 35% 69% 46% 33% Watershed Conservation Watershed restoration Creek or riparian conservation Creek or riparian restoration Flood control Stormwater management Green streets/Low impact development policies Water quality Litter or trash management Other sustainable development Water Resources Policies included in City General Plans a 100% 63% 75% 50% 88% 88% 38% 100% 0% 63% Watershed conservation Watershed restoration Creek or riparian conservation Creek or riparian restoration Flood control Stormwater management Green streets/Low impact development policies Water quality Litter or trash management Other Sustainable development Water Resources Policies included in County General Plans a 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-11 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.1.2.4 Water Supply Assessments Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 (codified primarily in the California Water Code and Public Resources Code) took effect in 2002 and require increased efforts to identify and assess the reliability of water supplies and increased levels of communication between land use planning authorities and local water suppliers. SB 610 requires that CEQA review for most large projects and smaller projects meeting certain thresholds include a water supply assessment. The water supply assessment must address whether existing water supplies will suffice to serve the project and other planned development over a 20-year period in average, dry, and multiple-dry year conditions, and must set forth a plan for finding additional supplies necessary to serve the project. Cities and counties can approve projects notwithstanding identified water supply shortfalls provided that they address such shortfalls in their findings. SB 221 (applying to similar sized projects as those addressed in SB 610) requires that cities and counties impose a new condition of tentative subdivision approval, requiring that the applicant provide a detailed, written verification from the applicable water supplier that a sufficient water supply will be available before the final subdivision map can be approved. 13.1.2.5 Stormwater Management Plans Among the Functional Areas addressed in this IRWMP, stormwater management may reflect the highest degree of integration of water resources and land use planning. Compliance with the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP) is the primary driver for addressing water quality in stormwater discharges and a primary means of improving water quality in Bay Area receiving waters, consistent with the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Section C.3 of the MRP requires the permittees (cities, counties and special districts) to use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects of 10,000 or more square feet to address pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows. Therefore, compliance with Section C.3 provisions requires upfront land use and site design planning to identify appropriate stormwater control measures. Municipalities generally implement the provisions of Section C.3 by requiring a stormwater control plan, describing proposed long-term stormwater control measures, to be submitted as part of the development approval process for new projects. If onsite measures are not feasible, project proponents can work with municipalities and regulatory agencies to identify regional off-site stormwater management facilities. The C.3 provisions may preclude certain land uses and/or development of certain sites if appropriate measures are not feasible. Section C.6 of the MRP requires permittees to implement a construction site review and inspection program to avoid and minimize water quality impacts from construction activity. Prior to issuance of grading permits, permittees are required to review adequacy of stormwater and erosion control plans and verify that construction sites disturbing one acre or more of land have filed a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires (among other things) preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies best management practices to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-12 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Many municipalities have formed countywide “clean water” programs to meet MRP regulations by sharing resources and collaborating on projects of mutual benefit. Senate Bill 985 requires the development of a stormwater resource plan in order to receive grants for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects. Stormwater Resource Plans developed in the Region are approved by the CC and attached as addenda to this Plan. Stormwater Resource Plans can be found in Appendix G. 13.1.2.6 Flood Protection and Floodplain Management An important driver of flood protection planning in the Bay Area is the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIP offers federally backed flood insurance to communities that develop and adopt floodplain management ordinances to regulate development in high flood risk areas. Because flood insurance is a prerequisite for obtaining a mortgage for properties within floodplains, nearly all Bay Area municipalities have floodplain management ordinances based on the FEMA model. The NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS) provides further incentive to develop floodplain management ordinances by offering reductions on flood insurance premiums to communities that undertake additional floodplain management activities. Ordinances require new residential construction or reconstruction to follow guidelines to reduce risk of flood damage and encourage a multi-objective approach to floodplain management. 13.1.2.7 Other Regulatory Drivers There are numerous additional ways in which water resources regulations drive land use agency action, including the examples discussed below. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan, developed and implemented by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is the central planning document governing water quality in the Bay Area. The Basin Plan provides a program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect beneficial uses. In 1995, the Water Board adopted a watershed management approach to achieving water quality goals specified in the Basin Plan. The watershed management approach relies on water quality monitoring and stakeholder involvement, including local land use agencies, to develop watershed action plans to address high priority water quality issues. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states identify and restore water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Once a water body is identified as impaired, a TMDL is developed to identify sources of pollutants and specify actions necessary to ensure attainment of water quality standards. TMDLs must account for all sources of a pollutant, including point and nonpoint sources. Because nonpoint source pollution is strongly related to local land use, land use management is an essential component of TMDL implementation. Examples of land use actions that may be required under a TMDL include urban and agricultural erosion control measures, agricultural fertilizer and waste management measures, riparian buffers and setbacks and urban runoff management measures. There are currently nine completed TMDLs in the Bay Area that address a range of pollutants including mercury, pathogens, sediment, PCBs and pesticide toxicity. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-13 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Senate Bill X7-7 (codified in California Water Code Sections 10608 and 10800-10853) creates a framework to reduce California’s per capita water consumption 20% by 2020. The law establishes methods for urban retail water suppliers to determine their urban water use target. Methods specified include: setting a conservation target of 80 percent of their daily per capita water baseline; utilizing performance standards for indoor, landscaping, industrial and institutional uses; meeting 95 percent of the per capita water goal for their specific hydrologic region as identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and other state agencies in the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan; or using an alternative method developed by DWR. The bill also requires urban water suppliers to set an interim urban water use target and meet that target by December 31, 2015. SB X7-7 also requires agricultural water suppliers to implement efficient water management practices and prepare, adopt, and periodically revise agricultural water management plans to document their water conservation efforts. DWR is required to work cooperatively with the California Urban Water Conservation Council in achieving the goals of SBX7-7. Implementation of SB 7X 7 requirements is resulting in changes in local land use planning practice to encourage and require reductions in per capita consumption. For example, some Bay Area municipalities are collaborating with local water districts to incorporate water efficiency requirements into the development approval process. 13.2 Current Relationship between Land Use and Water Planning Agencies To characterize the existing relationship between local land use agencies and water resource managers, literature review of current planning and consultation processes was conducted, and surveys and interviews were conducted with agencies throughout the region. 13.2.1 Examples of Current Collaboration Consultation between land use planners and water resources managers occur during long-term planning, at the project level, and in association with a variety of specific initiatives and regulatory drivers. For the purposes of structuring this section, examples of interaction are presented in the following categories:  Long-Term Planning  Project Driven Consultation  Other Forms of Collaboration 13.2.1.1 Long-Term Planning General Plan Consultation. As described above, consultation, development and approval of general plans provides an opportunity for interaction between water resource managers and land use planners. Urban Water Management Plans. A major driver of coordination between water supply managers and land use managers is the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The Act requires all urban water suppliers32 to carry out long-term resource planning responsibilities through development of Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). UWMPs assess the 32 A supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-14 Relation to Local Land Use Planning reliability of the supplier’s water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal and drought conditions. In preparing the UWMP, the urban water supplier is required to coordinate with other appropriate agencies, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, including land use planning agencies. UWMPs must be provided to land use agencies following each update (i.e., every five years). When a city or county proposes to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the water agency is required to provide the planning agency with the current adopted UWMP and other information relevant to the system’s sources of water supply. Appendix 12 lists all UWMPs within the Bay Area region; 25 cities in the Bay Area reg ion are water retailers, providing water service within their jurisdictions and preparing their own UWMPs. Demographics, Forecasts and Resource/Facilities Planning. The projections that most Bay Area water and wastewater agencies use for demand forecasts and facilities planning usually rely to some extent on ABAG forecasts, general plan forecasts, or other inputs from cities and counties to ensure the provision of adequate services. In addition to the examples above, Appendix 12 identifies numerous other long-term planning efforts relevant to Bay Area water resources. Flood Protection Planning. In 2007, legislation33 was passed to encourage cities and counties to adopt a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) in conjunction with the revised safety element of the general plan. In 2010 ABAG adopted a multi-jurisdictional local hazard mitigation plan. The plan was developed with input from agencies with both land-use and water management authority, including city and county governments, water districts and flood control districts. The purpose of the plan is to identify and assess vulnerability to hazards in the Bay Area and to identify specific actions that can be taken to reduce risk from hazards. The plan contains a description of general land-use planning actions that can be taken within the Bay Area to mitigate flooding hazards. Examples of strategies related to flood management include providing mechanisms to ensure new development in floodplains is reviewed by local flood control districts, enforcing compliance with NFIP requirements for new construction and encouraging setbacks for developments near floodways. Participating governments and special districts in the Bay Area have also developed their own annexes to ABAG’s multi-jurisdictional plan, which document each government’s specific efforts to mitigate flood risk. 13.2.1.2 Project-Driven Consultation There are numerous triggers for consultation between land use planners and water resource managers at the project level. Several water resource managers interviewed indicated that receipt of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document on a project (e.g., a Notice 33 AB 2140, codified in Government Code Sections 65302.6 and 8685.9 Flooding in Napa County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-15 Relation to Local Land Use Planning of Preparation for an environmental impact report) triggered consultation with a local land use agency. Many water resource managers have consultation requirements under CEQA as responsible agencies or agencies with jurisdiction by law. Water supply managers also become involved in project consultation through Water Supply Assessment requirements described under Section 13.1.2.4. Others identified consultation driven by development permits and other steps in project review (e.g., plan reviews, issuance of tentative subdivision maps). One agency staff indicated that occasionally she learns about a project when the agency received an application for water service. 13.2.1.3 Other Forms of Collaboration Collaboration and consultation between water managers and land use planners takes many other forms; examples include:  Periodic and regularly scheduled multi-disciplinary meetings with planning agency staff  Development of water- and resource-conservation based ordinances and policies (e.g., recycled water ordinances)  Presentations to the Council of Mayors  Routine meetings with City Managers  Topic-specific forums such as the integration of stormwater and wastewater management  Development of guidance documents (e.g., the Ocean Protection Council’s State of California Sea-level Rise Guidance Document, San Mateo County’s Green Streets)  Development of education and outreach programs (e.g., the Bay Area Regional Water Conservation and Education Program, Bay Friendly Landscaping and Gardening Coalition, described in Section 4.2.1.2 of Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies)  Development of multi-agency habitat or watershed planning documents (e.g., the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project, described in Section 4.2.6.2 of Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies).  LID Leadership Group initiatives (e.g., Bay Area Green Infrastructure Master Planning Grant; project to identify local plans, policies and programs that lead to the development of integrated water projects).  Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) of the Bay Area – RCDs across the Bay Area collaborate to coordinate technical, financial and educational resources to meet local and regional demands for conservation, restoration, and protection of soil, water, and related natural resources.  San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, a regional agency with a governing board made up of local elected officials, was created in 2008 to raise and allocate local resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-16 Relation to Local Land Use Planning  Bay Area Open Space Council, a regional collaborative of land conservation and management entities working towards long-term protection of sensitive habitat and open space lands in the Bay Area.  Adapting to Rising Tides, a collaborative planning effort to help San Francisco Bay Area communities adapt to rising sea levels, increasing the Bay Area’s preparedness and resilience to sea level rise and storm events while protecting critical ecosystem and community services. Led by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center; engages local, regional, state and federal agencies and organizations, as well as non-profit and private associations.  San Francisco Littoral Cell Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan is currently being developed to assist government entities, municipalities, stakeholders, and communities in developing strategies for beneficial reuse of sediments within the region from the Golden Gate to Pacifica to address coastal erosion.  San Francisquito Creek JPA was conceived as a flood management program among the counties and cities of San Mateo and Santa Clara that border the creek, as well as the Santa Clara Valley Water District. With the goal of transforming San Francisquito Creek from a divisive liability into a unifying asset, the JPA plans, designs, and implements projects from the upper watershed to coastal wetlands that are of mutual interest to these jurisdictions. The JPA’s multijurisdictional approach to solving problems is reflected in these projects. They serve the interrelated ecosystem, recreational, and disaster protection needs of the region, and are funded by multiple local, state, and federal partners.  ReNewIT – Engineering Research Center for Re-inventing the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure. ReNewIT is an interdisciplinary research center funded by the National Science Foundation whose partner institutions include Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, and New Mexico State University. Some specific aims of research include incorporating resource recovery and energy production into engineered water systems, engineering natural systems to improve water quality, water quality and habitat, overcoming impediments to adopting new urban water management strategies, and providing improved decision-making tools to decision makers.  SFEP Implementation Committee. The Committee (made up of representatives from local/state/federal agencies, business/industry, and environmental organizations) coordinates implementation of Partnership activities, helps to set work priorities, exchanges ideas and suggestions about management issues, and recommends work plans and budgets for approval.  Bay Area Watershed Network - The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) is a network of natural resource professionals and community members who work locally to protect watersheds, from headlands to the Bay, throughout our region. The BAWN provides opportunities to share information and coordinate ideas, proposals, and activities. San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, established under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, brings together public and private agencies, conservation groups, development interests 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-17 Relation to Local Land Use Planning and others to restore wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay watersheds and along the Pacific coast of San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma counties.  Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative Land Use Subgroup. San Mateo Green Streets Manual and Low Impact Development street and parking lot retrofits, funded by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.  The Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium is a regional collaborative of natural resource managers, scientists, and policy and funding entities working to secure nature’s benefits for the region in the face of accelerating climate change.  Grand Boulevard Initiative (a retrofit of El Camino Real). This initiative is a collaboration of 19 cities, counties, and local and regional agencies to improve the performance, safety, and aesthetics of El Camino Real from Daly City to San José. The project aims to include low-impact development features such as water efficient landscaping, vegetated stormwater strips and pervious pavement. 13.2.1.4 Profiles of Successful Integrated Planning Four examples of highly collaborative planning in the Subregions are presented below. Refer also to Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies. North Subregion: Comprehensive, Multi-Agency Watershed Planning The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) was created in 2001 to help member agencies work cooperatively on water resources issues in order to promote stewardship of the North Bay watershed. Location. The NBWA planning area includes parts of eastern Marin and southern Sonoma and Napa counties that drain to San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Agencies Involved. Table 13-9 identifies the agencies participating in NBWA and their respective Functional Areas. Functional Areas Involved. Water supply and water quality; wastewater and recycled water; flood protection and stormwater management; watershed management- habitat protection and restoration. Description. The NBWA was formed for the purpose of integrating local planning efforts related to water resources management and habitat enhancement by using a collaborative format for information exchange between and amongst water management agencies and land use planning agencies (e.g., cities and counties). The goals of the NBWA include working cooperatively to maximize effective use of resources; enhancing NBWA’s influence on local, state and federal policies; increasing eligibility for watershed based funding; and educating communities about the importance of watershed stewardship. The NBWA Board of Directors is composed of primarily elected officials from North Bay cities, counties and water resource agencies and is responsible for overall governance. The NBW A watershed Council is comprised of interested stakeholders across the region and is advisory to the NBWA Board of Directors. Several technical committees comprised of staff from member agencies and the NBWA Watershed Council are responsible for meeting the goals of the association. These technical 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-18 Relation to Local Land Use Planning committees meet jointly and independently to coordinate activities, share information, and discuss topics of joint concern. NBWA developed the North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan and, subsequently, oversaw development of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the North Bay to provide a framework for supporting improved water resources management. Implementation of these plans includes coordinating with local land use agencies. In addition, NBWA has implemented and/or funded a variety of creek restoration, water quality monitoring, watershed stewardship, and climate adaptation projects in the North Bay. Some specific examples of successful collaborative projects initiated by NBWA include coordinating a tri-county effort to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads, funding a stormwater infiltration program for three North Bay counties and implementing a multi-county effort to develop an online tool to help North Bay communities adapt to sea level rise. East Subregion: Rigorous Land-Use Based Water Demand Forecasting An accurate analysis of existing and future water demands is “the foundation for comprehensive water supply planning” (Johnson, 2004), a critical intersection of land use and water resources planning, and the link between urban growth and water supply. Since 2000, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has implemented a land use-based approach to estimating water demands which relies on close coordination with land use agencies within its water service area to project demand for potable supplies essentially to the parcel level. Location. Parts of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Agencies Involved. EBMUD, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and cities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Functional Areas Involved. Water supply and water quality; wastewater and recycled water. Table 13-9: North Bay Watershed Association - Member Agencies And Water Resources Functions Member Agency Water Supply & Water Quality Wastewater & Recycled Water Flood Protection & Stormwater Management Watershed Management- Habitat Protection & Restoration Land Use Planning Bel Marin Keys Community Services District   Central Marin Sanitation Agency  City of Mill Valley (Group Associate Member)    City of Novato (Associate Member)  City of Petaluma      City of San Rafael   City of Sonoma    County of Marin    County of Sonoma   2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-19 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Member Agency Water Supply & Water Quality Wastewater & Recycled Water Flood Protection & Stormwater Management Watershed Management- Habitat Protection & Restoration Land Use Planning Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District  Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program    Marin Municipal Water District    Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District   Napa Sanitation District  North Marin Water District   Novato Sanitary District  Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin (Group Associate Member)  Sonoma County Water Agency     Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District  The Bay Institute (Associate Member)  Tomales Bay Watershed Council (Associate Member)  Description. EBMUD’s land use based approach used geographic information system (GIS) technology to digitize polygons of similar land uses over aerial photographs to create a detailed GIS land use coverage for EBMUD’s entire service area (EBMUD and Montgomery Watson, 2000). Existing (base year) water demands were determined for each land use polygon based on actual metered consumption data (normalized for weather and other factors), using another EBMUD GIS-based application. Based on water consumption and land area in each land use category, an average land use unit demand (LUD), expressed in gallons per day per acre, was generated for each land use. To estimate future demands, land use polygons in the GIS database were updated to reflect future development based on adopted general plans and specific plans, and maps showing future land uses based on these revisions were prepared and presented to planning agencies for review. Consultation with planning agencies of the cities and counties in the EBMUD’s service area was a key aspect of the EBMUD’s demand study, and EBMUD staff and demand study consultants met with each of the city and county planning agencies to confirm general plan land use designations for future development, to identify redevelopment areas, and to 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-20 Relation to Local Land Use Planning identify phasing of future development over the demand study planning period. Future annual average demands thus calculated were then adjusted to incorporate estimated reductions in distribution system demand due to conservation and non-potable water (e.g., recycled water) use, based on EBMUD’s Water Supply Management Program 2040 preferred portfolio of conservation and non-potable water programs (EBMUD et al., 2009). EBMUD updates its demand forecasting periodically. EBMUD’s forecasting methodology provides a complement to the requirements for Water Supply Assessments (described in Section 13.1.2.4). EBMUD’s demand forecasting methodology incorporates land-use planning into EBMUD’s water supply management program to ensure that EBMUD will have sufficient supply to meet projected demand, while Water Supply Assessments require that water management planning is incorporated into land use decisions to ensure that development will not occur without sufficient water supply. South Subregion: Integrated Habitat Restoration and Flood Control for Local Municipalities The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and the South Bay Shoreline Study provide successful examples of projects involving collaboration among a diverse group of agencies with the goal of providing an array of benefits, such as wetlands restoration and enhancement, flood management, recreation and public access. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project began in 2003 and the South Bay Shoreline Study began in 2006, both are still in progress. Location. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project involves restoration of former salt ponds located in three pond complexes along the South San Francisco Bay: Eden Landing near Hayward, Ravenswood near East Palo Alto, and Alviso. The South Bay Shoreline Study will eventually provide flood protection to all Santa Clara County Baylands, from Palo Alto to Southern Alameda County, in addition to the former salt ponds within the Alviso Pond complex and adjacent properties such as areas around Moffett Field. The first reach will protect important infrastructure such as the San Jose/Santa Clara Wastewater Treatment Plant and the community of Alviso. Agencies Involved. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project: California State Coastal Conservancy , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, East Bay Regional Park District, and South Bay cities and counties bordering the salt ponds (e.g., City of San Jose, City of Sunnyvale). South Bay Shoreline Study: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California State Coastal Conservancy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and local sponsors and other land-owning agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Jose. Functional Areas Involved. Flood protection and stormwater management; watershed management - habitat protection and restoration. Description. As described in Section 4.2.6.2 of Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project involves restoration of 15,100 acres of former salt ponds while providing for flood management and wildlife-oriented public access and recreation. The South Bay Shoreline Study is being developed to accomplish similar goals, including flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and public access. Because these two projects have 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-21 Relation to Local Land Use Planning similar objectives and geographic scope, planning and management of the projects has been closely integrated. Due to the nature of the proposed projects, consultation with local planning agencies is a key component of the project planning process. For example, city and county input is needed to implement project components such as habitat restoration, flood protection and public access features which all require decisions regarding land use. In order to involve local planning agencies, development of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project includes periodic local government forums to provide local government representatives with opportunities to exchange information and voice concerns regarding the project. Similarly, local government participation is a critical part of the planning process for the South Bay Shoreline Study, as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required to collaborate with local sponsors to identify a locally preferred alternative, and in the case of Phase 1, the City of San José is an underlying landowner as well as a primary beneficiary of proposed flood control features. The nature of both of these processes provided the opportunity for water managers and land use planners to collaborate in providing a variety of needed services and benefits to the South Bay region. Thus far, this collaboration has successfully resulted in over 3,000 acres of habitat restoration and when complete, will provide 15,100 acres of habitat restoration as well as critical flood protection for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant and the local community, including the approximately 2,000 residents of the community of Alviso. West Subregion: Land Use and Water Resources Management under One Roof The City and County of San Francisco integrates water resources management and land use planning through multiple city departments. Location. City and County of San Francisco Agencies Involved. Various departments of the City and County of San Francisco, including Planning, Public Works, Recreation and Park, Municipal Transportation Agency, Redevelopment Agency among others; and the SFPUC. Functional Areas Involved. Water supply and water quality; wastewater and recycled water; flood protection and stormwater management; watershed management- habitat protection and restoration. Description. The interaction between City and County of San Francisco departments having different responsibilities, priorities, and areas of expertise on common projects facilitates the integration of land use and water planning. Within San Francisco, the SFPUC provides potable water, recycled water and sewer services; and implements urban watershed planning to reduce stormwater flows to the City’s combined system. The SFPUC uses the Planning Department’s growth forecasts in developing projections of future water demand. The Recreation and Park Department manages remnant City-owned natural areas within San Francisco and manages other City parks and recreation areas, which provide opportunities for using recycled water for irrigation. The Department of Public Works builds, operates, and maintains City infrastructure; it coordinates construction work within public rights of way and many of its street improvement projects incorporate green stormwater management technologies endorsed by other City departments to reduce, filter, or slow stormwater runoff. The San Francisco Planning Department guides the long-term development of the City’s built and natural environment, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-22 Relation to Local Land Use Planning prepares and updates the City’s general plan and sub area plans, and reviews projects for environmental impacts. Collaboration among City departments occurs at numerous junctures during planning, project review, and rule-making. An example of a recent multi-departmental water resource initiative is San Francisco’s Non-potable Water Program, which is a collaboration between the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection, the San Francisco Department of Public Health and the SFPUC. This program promotes on-site non-potable water reuse for commercial, multi- family and mixed-use developments by providing technical and regulatory guidance, establishing a streamlined approval process, and offering grants to help fund retrofits for non- potable reuse. The SFPUC estimates that this program has the potential to offset up to 3.4 mgd of potable water demand. 13.2.2 Bay Area IRWMP Coordination with Land Use Planning Agencies As described in Chapter 1, development of the IRWMP is led by the Coordinating Committee (CC). The CC is responsible for providing leadership and oversight for the IRWMP process. The CC is composed of 12 voting representatives, made up of three representatives from each of the four Functional Areas as well as non-voting representatives from resource and regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations and other interested stakeholders. Monthly CC meetings are open to all interested parties and provide an opportunity for land use planning agencies to participate in the IRWMP. 13.2.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement In addition to the CC, the IRWMP effort draws on input from the four Functional Area workgroups, four Subregional groups, CC subcommittees (established as needed), and targeted stakeholder outreach (stakeholder workshops, sub-regional outreach and individual county/agency outreach). These workgroups and subcommittees provide opportunities for land use planning agencies to participate in and contribute to the IRWMP (e.g., through providing collaborative input or reviewing and commenting on draft document materials). Refer to Chapter 14, Stakeholder Engagement, for a detailed description of outreach conducted in support of the IRWMP. 13.2.2.2 Outreach to Cities and Counties As part of the development of the IRWMP, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP)34 convened discussions on collaborations between water agencies and land use agencies and conducted a survey of local governments to establish a baseline inventory of local watershed policies and to assess the current degree of inter-agency collaboration. As shown in Table 13-10, discussions occurred at nine sub-regional or regional meetings in the Bay Area. The goal of these meetings was to provide an overview of the IRWMP update and 34 The San Francisco Estuary Partnership is a coalition of resource agencies, non -profits, citizens, and scientists working to protect, restore, and enhance water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in and around the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary. Working cooperatively, SFEP share s information and resources that result in studies, projects, and programs that improve the Estuary and communicate its value and needs to the public. The Association of Bay Area Governments is the home agency for Partnership staff and finances. SFEP’s offices are located at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board in Oakland. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-23 Relation to Local Land Use Planning project selection process and to initiate a dialog to identify the current status of, and ways to improve the relationship between water planning and land use planning. Discussion participants included water management, land use and regulatory agencies as well as nongovernmental organizations. Key findings of the discussions include:  Programs, policies, and plans are in place throughout the Bay Area that encourage collaboration between water and land use agencies; however, if these are not fully funded then implementation may be difficult to achieve.  Collaborations between agencies may lead to less expensive solutions to water and land use problems.  Research is being conducted in the Bay Area to consider water solutions for the next 100 years. Such efforts may lead to improvements in collaborations between land use and water agencies. Table 13-10: Bay Area IRWMP Meetings with City and County Planning Agencies Date Organization Agencies in Attendance November 2012 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Woodside; County of San Mateo, Caltrain, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Caltrans March 2012 May 2012 September 2012 December 2012 Low Impact Development Leadership Group Cities of Campbell, Emeryville and San José, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Zone 7 Water Agency, BCDC, ABAG, SF Bay Regional Board, Caltrans December 2012 Santa Clara Watershed Management Initiative Land Use Subgroup Cities of Mountain View, San José, Sunnyvale; County of Santa Clara, West Valley Clean Water Program (cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos), CLEAN South Bay, Santa Clara Valley Water District January 2013 North Bay Watershed Association Counties of Marin and Sonoma; Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, Novato Sanitary District, Central Marin Sanitation Agency, North Marin Water District, Marin Municipal Water District, and Sonoma County Water Agency February 2012 April 2012 Sustainable Watershed Forum Cities of Emeryville, El Cerrito, Campbell, San Jose; Counties of Marin and San Mateo; ABAG; BAFPAA, BASMAA, BCDC, Caltrans, EBDA, EBMUD, EPA, MTC, SFEI, SFPUC, Santa Clara County Urban Runoff Program, Regional Board, Zone 7 Water Agency Source: San Francisco Estuary Partnership, How to Improve Collaboration Between Land Use & Water Agencies: SFEP Stakeholder Outreach Findings for the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update, June 2013 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-24 Relation to Local Land Use Planning In addition to convening these discussions, SFEP conducted a survey of cities and counties in the Bay Area to:  Evaluate the extent to which local governments have implemented watershed protection policies (e.g., in general plans and other policy documents) and identify obstacles to policy development.  Assess the degree of inter-agency coordination currently occurring between local government and resource agencies, and  Identify obstacles to coordination. The survey was sent to planning and public works departments in all 101 cities and 9 counties in the Bay Area; the following 56 municipalities participated in the survey: Participating Cities35 Alameda El Cerrito Oakley San Rafael Albany Emeryville Orinda San Ramon American Canyon Fairfax Pinole Santa Clara Belmont Gilroy Pittsburg Santa Rosa Benicia Hayward Redwood City St Helena Brentwood Hillsborough Richmond Suisun City Calistoga Larkspur Rio Vista Sunnyvale Campbell Milpitas San Anselmo Town of Colma Cloverdale Monte Sereno San Carlos Town of Los Altos Hills Corte Madera Mountain View San Jose Town of Moraga Daly City Newark San Mateo Town of Tiburon Dixon Oakland San Pablo Union City Participating Counties Alameda San Francisco Contra Costa San Mateo Marin Solano Napa Sonoma Questions in the survey included whether select water resources topics (e.g., watershed conservation and restoration, creek/riparian restoration and conservation, flood control, stormwater management green streets/LID, water quality) were addressed in general plan policies, ordinances, regulations or codes; whether the municipality has – as well as obstacles to developing and implementing -- watershed plans, creek or riparian setback ordinance, or creek restoration program; and frequency of interactions with districts and departments responsible for the municipality’s surface water and groundwater resources. 35 One respondent did not indicate which city she or he represented. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-25 Relation to Local Land Use Planning The survey indicated that the majority of cities and counties surveyed have water quality, stormwater management, flood control, and creek/riparian conservation or restoration policies (see Figure 13-3), but that there are obstacles to implementation. To characterize the degree of interagency collaboration regarding surface water and groundwater resources, the survey evaluated the frequency of meetings between public works and planning departments and other government departments and agencies (e.g., environmental services departments, flood control districts, water districts), regarding surface and groundwater resources. As shown in Figure 13-4, city and county governments met most frequently with flood control, public works, planning, transportation, parks and environmental services departments. City and county governments met most infrequently or never with public health, flood control, water and wastewater districts. Note that county governments have a lower overall level of coordination on water resource issues compared to city governments. These data show that there is an opportunity to improve the degree of coordination and communication at the county level and among agencies that currently meet infrequently or never regarding water resources. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-26 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Figure 13-4: Meeting Frequency between City Departments and Agencies Regarding Surface Water and Ground Water Source: San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Local Governments Watershed Inventory, September 12, 2012. 5 14 13 7 8 8 17 14 12 9 15 5 24 16 20 23 31 31 18 19 11 25 26 2 15 10 10 13 1 3 6 9 18 7 1 Meeting Frequency -City Departments Meet infrequently/ Never Meet frequently Don't know - N/A 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 7 6 5 6 2 6 4 1 3 2 3 1 4 1 Meeting Frequency -County Departments Meet infrequent/Never Meet frequently Don’t Know -N/A 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-27 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.3 Future Efforts to Improve Interactions Among Land Use and Water Resources Planning Entities To plan for future collaboration, the CC considered input received via the discussions, surveys and interviews with land use and water resource managers and developed a plan setting forth steps to improve collaboration following completion of this IRWMP. In developing the plan, the CC considered feasibility, responsiveness to constraints and regional priorities, efficacy and ease of implementation of potential opportunities to improve collaboration. 13.3.1 Constraints Inhibiting Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers Table 13-11 below summarizes obstacles to collaboration that were identified through the outreach activities through interviews with water resource managers. Opinions varied among survey and interview participants regarding how much coordination is desirable, and whether there were constraints inhibiting collaboration, but many participants perceived of one or more obstacles to better inter-agency collaboration and the development of watershed-based resource initiatives. The most common issue identified among land use agencies was constraints on resources and funding, which likely stems in part from the effects of the recession on the staffing and budgets of many cities, counties and special districts. The recession has resulted in lay-offs, early retirement and higher staff turnover at many Bay Area municipalities, leading to lapses in collaboration. Given these staff and budget constraints, City and county managers may be less inclined to support consultation and training beyond that required by law. As indicated in Section 13.1, the number of agencies involved in water resources and land use planning – each with its specific mission, area of authority, jurisdictional boundaries, and consultation strategies -- can impede collaboration. The root causes of many of the constraints to collaboration are largely beyond the authority or ability of the CC to surmount (e.g., flat or declining revenues, increasing regulatory requirements, and differing missions among agencies). However, the challenges common to these agencies (e.g., strained natural resources; complex, changing regulations) have already spawned numerous interregional organizations and initiatives that have thrived for years. In the future, the severity and magnitude of challenges associated with climate change will necessitate further collaboration among water and land use agencies and integrated solutions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-28 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table 13-11: Constraints Identified by Survey and Interview Participants that Inhibit Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resource Managers Category Constraint Resources • Resources. Lack of resources (financial, human, technical) ▪ Reductions in city, county and agency staff participation in regularly scheduled meetings since economic downturn. ▪ Lack of dedicated resources for water-oriented infrastructure improvements (e.g., stormwater improvements, creek restoration/protection, green infrastructure planning and implementation). • Turnover. Staff turnover leading to lapses in collaboration. • Education. Lack of cross-training regarding land use planning and water resources management. Priorities • Missions. Differing missions, agendas and priorities among agencies. ▪ City staff thinks in terms of broad policies, goals; stormwater agencies focus on permit compliance. ▪ Divided responsibilities over water resources. • Boundaries. Differing boundaries between land use and water agencies’ jurisdictions complicates coordination. • Leadership. Lack of support for integration from public officials. Other • Lack of communication between agencies and departments. • Complex regional regulations lead to difficult approval processes. • Project review and consultation processes occur late in the planning process. • Considerable variation in consultation among agencies (may depend on individual staff relationships). • Lack of regulatory mandate for coordination. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-29 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.3.2 Opportunities to Improve Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers in the Future Table 13-12 below summarizes opportunities to improve collaboration that were identified through the outreach activities. In general, the opportunities identified by participants fell into one of three categories: Communication, Training and Information Sharing; Leadership; and Program and Project Development. The suggestions ranged from very general (e.g., increase frequency of meetings) to more specific (e.g., develop a GIS tool to identify projects with similar goals). Several suggestions focused on climate change (“Utilize climate change as a common denominator to encourage agency collaboration for integrated solutions”; “Develop a set of climate-change- oriented integrated projects”) as a basis for improving collaboration. Some suggestions for improving collaboration are beyond the authority of CC members to implement. For example, the authority to include flood control agency staff in development review processes generally rests with land use agencies. In this case, consultation mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) represents an existing mechanism for consultation with responsible and trustee agencies which typically would include a flood control district. Note that under Section 15060.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, project applicants can request early, “pre-application” consultation with a lead agency (typically a city or county). The lead agency can include agencies with an interest in that type of project in the consultation. Flood control agencies – as well as other water resource agencies -- can request that lead agencies include them in any pre-application consultation occurring under Section 15060.5 for particular types of projects. The suggestions presented in Error! Reference source not found. are undergoing review as part of IRWMP development and may be considered for implementation by individual participating agencies. Select strategies are being incorporated into a draft Collaboration Plan for implementation by the CC, described in the next section. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-30 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table 13-12: Opportunities Identified by Survey and Interview Participants to Facilitate Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers Category Opportunity Communication, Training and Information Sharing • Meetings. ▪ Increase frequency of meetings with land use agencies (e.g., include water/flood agency staff in development review processes) ▪ Convene biennial summits with land use agencies ▪ Increased use of the IRWM subregional approach to involve multiple agencies in managing specific water resources to advance common goals ▪ Hold workshops on implication of land use planning on water resources ▪ The regional groups that already meet (e.g., BAWAC, BASMAA, etc.) can help promote coordination as some participating agencies focus on land use • Tools. Develop web-based tools (e.g., maps, processes) or social media for incorporating water resources into land use planning • Climate Change. Utilize climate change as a common denominator to encourage agency collaboration for integrated solutions Leadership • Commitment. ▪ Increase commitment by agency leadership for interdepartmental, interagency, interdisciplinary coordination (workload prioritization) ▪ Increase commitment by water agency leadership for staff to provide input in land use policy development (general plan, zoning) • Champions. Engage public officials or “local champion” to lead collaborative planning efforts • IRWMP Participation. Conduct outreach to land use agencies to encourage participation in the CC and its subcommittees Projects and Program Development • Integrate Collaboration. Develop policies, plans and programs that set clear environmental goals and encourage collaboration (e.g., a guide for developing integrated projects, a green infrastructure master plan for the Bay Area, a set of climate change-oriented integrated projects, a GIS tool to identify projects with similar goals) • Partner on Projects. Pursue multi-objective projects in partnership with land use agencies. Collaboration can lead to integrated solutions that may be less expensive than implementing separate projects 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-31 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.3.3 Planning Future Collaboration As indicated in Chapter 14, Section 14.8, stakeholder engagement will continue following adoption of the IRWMP, and will be the vehicle for implementing the recommendations for improving collaboration between land use planning and water resources management described below. Climate change has the potential to significantly affect a wide range of issues important to both water management and land use planning including water supply, agricultural productivity, wildfire and flood risk, and ecosystem function. Climate Change Response Action is identified as a Statewide Priority for the IRWM Grant Program; consequently, climate change response is a theme that appears throughout the 2016 Guidelines and this IRWMP. The severity and magnitude of challenges associated with climate change as well as the scope of regional adaptation strategies (described in Chapter 16) will necessitate further collaboration among water and land use agencies and the development of integrated solutions. For these reasons, development and implementation of a collaboration plan focused on climate change is recommended. 13.3.3.1 Draft Climate Change Collaboration Plan This draft plan incorporates input and feedback of the CC and other IRWMP reviewers regarding suggestions for improving future collaboration and will be refined and finalized by the CC through the on-going monthly meetings described in Section 14.9. What follows are issues to be considered and reviewed by the CC to develop and implement the Collaboration Plan.  The suggested goal of the draft Collaboration Plan is to support collaborative inter- agency solutions to climate change in the Bay Area by promoting a shared understanding of climate change projections, vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies.  Consistent with the current stakeholder outreach plan, outreach to land use planning and water resources agencies will continue to be organized and implemented by subregion, which allows for consideration of local issues related to climate change and sea level rise.  Biennial summits through existing platforms are suggested (e.g., BAFPAA meetings, Council of Mayors meetings). Consistent with the goal of the collaboration plan, the summits should focus on disseminating information presented in Chapter 16, including climate change vulnerabilities of the region’s water resources (water supply, water quality, wastewater management and flood management), and recommended adaptation strategies. Examples of topics for subsequent summits include updates in climate change research, vulnerability assessments, and adaptation strategy development. 13.3.3.2 BayCAN In 2018, the SFPUC helped launch the Bay Area Climate Adaptation Network (BayCAN), a collaborative focused on Bay Area local government adaptation response to climate change. SFPUC has served as steering committee chair since its inception in July 2018. (www.baycanadapt.com). BayCAN member agencies include other water utilities, city representatives, and environmental groups. BayCAN is part of a statewide network of collaboratives, the Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA), 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-32 Relation to Local Land Use Planning organized under the Local Government Commission (www.arccacalifornia.org). ARCCA includes collaboratives in San Diego, Los Angeles, Central Coast, Sacramento Region, Sierra, and North Coast. BayCAN facilitates collaboration on the full range of climate adaptation issues within the Bay Area and more widely in California. 13.4 References Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, Final Municipal Service Review: Volume II – Utility Services, November 10, 2005. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans, 2001. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), State of California General Plan Guidelines, 2003. Available online: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2013. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), The California Planners’ Book of Lists, January 10, 2011. Available online: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/2011bol.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2013. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Annual Planning Survey Results, May 3, 2012. Available online: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2012_APSR.pdf. Accessed February 8, 2013. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Karen E. Johnson, Water Resources Planning, and EDAW|AECOM in association with CBRE Consulting, Inc. and Weber Analytical, 2009. 2040 Demand Study, February 2009. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Montgomery Watson, Summary Report: Districtwide Update of Water Demand Projections, May 2000. Johnson, Karen E., and Loux, Jeff, 2004. Water and Land Use: Planning Wisely for California’s Future. North Bay Watershed Association, Fact Sheet. Available online at http://www.nbwatershed.org/assets/FactSheet051407.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013. North Bay Watershed Association, North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan: Phase 1 Executive Summary, October 2003. Available online at http://www.nbwatershed.org/SWP/ph1/Ph1_ExecSummary.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013. North Bay Watershed Association, Final Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, December 2, 2005. Available online at http://www.nbwatershed.org/library/FINAL_NBWA_IRWMP.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013. One Bay Area, Joint Policy Committee. Available online at http://onebayarea.org/about/joint- policy-committee.html, accessed April 16, 2013. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-33 Relation to Local Land Use Planning San Francisco Department of Public Works, Streets & Streetscapes, http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1105. San Francisco Department of Public Works, Great Streets Program, http://sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=88. San Francisco Department of Public Works, CULCOP: The Committee on Utility Liaison on Construction and Other Projects, http://sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=370. San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Local Governments Watershed Inventory, September 12, 2012. San Francisco Estuary Partnership, How to Improve Collaboration between Land Use & Water Agencies: SFEP Stakeholder Outreach Findings for the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update, June 2013. San Francisco Planning Department, Annual Report 2011-2012; available: http://www.sf- planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9064. San Francisco Planning Department, Public Notice: Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Natural Areas Management Plan, August 2011, http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2005.0912E_NOA.pdf. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco General Plan Housing Element, Part 2: Objectives and Policies, 2009, http://www.sf- planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/I1_Housing.html#HOU_ISSUE_8. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, About Us, http://www.sf- planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9064 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco’s Urban Watersheds, http://www.sf- planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9064. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco’s Urban Watersheds: Lake Merced, http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=197. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water for Today and Tomorrow, http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=74. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011, http://www.sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=1055. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2013 Water Availability Study for the City and County of San Francisco, March 2013, http://www.sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3589 San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, Natural Areas Program, http://sfrecpark.org/parks-open-spaces/natural-areas-program/. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Stakeholder Engagement Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................... 14-1 14.1 Stakeholder Engagement for the IRWMP ........................................ 14-1 14.2 Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in Plan Development .......... 14-1 14.3 Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholders ...................................................... 14-4 14.3.1 Identification of Stakeholders ............................................... 14-4 14.3.2 Local and Regional Water Resource Agencies..................... 14-4 14.3.3 State and Federal Resource and Regulatory Agencies ........ 14-4 14.3.4 Non-Governmental Organizations ........................................ 14-4 14.3.5 General Public...................................................................... 14-5 14.4 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Process ................................... 14-5 14.4.1 Stakeholder Assessment ...................................................... 14-5 14.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop ..................... 14-6 14.4.3 Stakeholder Engagement Plan ............................................. 14-7 14.5 Stakeholder Engagement Activities ................................................. 14-9 14.5.1 Subregional Outreach .......................................................... 14-9 14.5.2 Functional Area Outreach .................................................... 14-9 14.5.3 Participation in the Coordinating Committee ....................... 14-10 14.5.4 Public Workshops .............................................................. 14-11 14.5.5 General Outreach Materials and Distribution ...................... 14-14 14.5.6 Local Government Outreach .............................................. 14-15 14.6 Engagement of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities ................................................................................. 14-16 14.6.1 Approach to DAC Engagement .......................................... 14-16 14.6.2 Identification of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities.......................................................... 14-16 14.6.3 Clarification of DAC Project Criteria .................................... 14-18 14.6.4 DAC-Specific Outreach Materials ....................................... 14-18 14.6.5 Targeted DAC Outreach and Engagement ......................... 14-19 14.6.6 DAC Project Support and Guidance ................................... 14-19 14.6.7 Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program............................................................................. 14-20 14.7 Native American Tribe Identification and Outreach ........................ 14-23 14.7.1 Native American Tribal Identification .................................. 14-23 14.7.2 Initial Tribal Outreach and Next Steps ................................ 14-26 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Stakeholder Engagement List of Tables Table 14-1: Public Workshop #1 Participants ..................................................................... 14-12 Table 14-2: Public Workshop #2 Participants ..................................................................... 14-14 Table 14-3: DAC Criteria and Priority Funding Considerations ........................................... 14-18 List of Figures Figure 14-1: Stakeholder-based Approach to Developing the IRWMP ................................. 14-3 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-1 Stakeholder Engagement Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement 14.1 Stakeholder Engagement for the IRWMP Development of the IRWMP involved a diverse group of water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood control, watershed, municipal, environmental, and regulatory groups whose input played a key role in defining sustainable water resources management goals and objectives, and identifying and selecting priority projects to help meet those goals and objectives. Stakeholder engagement activities were used to inform, educate, and engage constituents, stakeholders, and interested parties throughout the nine-county Bay Area. This chapter details the stakeholder engagement process for developing the IRWMP, which is intended to identify water management goals, objectives, strategies and priorities in a collaborative regional process in accordance with both the requirements and spirit of the 2012 Guidelines. Bay Area agencies recognize that involving stakeholders in development of an integrated approach to water resources management benefits all parties by ensuring that social, economic, environmental, and technical considerations are taken into account in the planning stages and establishment of regional priorities. The types of stakeholder engagement activities outlined in this chapter were critical to ensuring a viable and representative Plan Update with broad-based support. 14.2 Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in Plan Development Stakeholder engagement activities were planned and implemented to ensure that the IRWMP reflects the knowledge and interests of residents, public agencies, businesses, and institutions with respect to water supply reliability, improving water quality, flood protection, and protecting natural resources. Stakeholder engagement efforts were intended to generate awareness and interest, and to help provide the opportunity for people with different levels of knowledge, interest, resources and capacities to shape the IRWMP and share in the potential benefits. A phased approach was used to plan and implement engagement activities to inform the IRWMP. The approach was informed by reflections and lessons learned from the 2006 Plan development process, and it intended to achieve engagement goals and objectives as efficiently as possible, including leveraging existing venues and relying on a “spider-web” approach to disseminating information. The phases of stakeholder engagement (also displayed in Figure 14-1) included: Phase 1 (January – April 2012) focused on information gathering, which consisted of conducting interviews and developing an assessment of past stakeholder engagement efforts; clarifying DWR guidelines for integrated regional water management plans generally, and projects benefitting disadvantaged communities (DACs) specifically; and consolidating and augmenting the stakeholder contact list. Phase 2 (April – June 2012) focused on planning and preparation, which included convening a Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop; developing a Stakeholder Engagement Plan; producing easy-to-understand informational materials, including fact sheets, a frequently-asked- 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-2 Stakeholder Engagement questions document, and a series of maps; preparing for public workshops; and developing a process for identifying DAC projects and providing guidance to DAC project proponents. Phase 3 (June 2012 – August 2013) focused on the implementation of outreach and engagement activities, which included preparing for and conducting public workshops, executing the process for identifying and providing guidance for DAC-serving project submissions, and promoting stakeholder review of draft chapters of the IRWMP. See Section 14.5 for more details on these activities. It should be noted that ongoing stakeholder engagement activities continued throughout these phases, including CC meetings, subregional meetings, county meetings within the subregions, Functional Area meetings, as well as meetings focused on the integration of water and land use planning (see Section 14.5 for descriptions of these activities). 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-3 Stakeholder Engagement Figure 14-1: Stakeholder-based Approach to Developing the IRWMP 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-4 Stakeholder Engagement 14.3 Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholders 14.3.1 Identification of Stakeholders The San Francisco Bay Area is comprised of nine counties, nearly seven million residents, 101 cities, a wide variety of interests and priorities, and a range of economic and ethnic demographics. The IRWMP stakeholder engagement approach took this diversity into account, and it provided a range of opportunities for stakeholders to get involved and share their input. The 2006 Plan development and implementation process generated several stakeholder contact lists. In addition, contacts lists were developed and maintained by subregional leads to enable them to provide updates about upcoming meetings and share information specific to their respective geographic areas. In order to maximize efficiency, these various contact lists were consolidated into a master stakeholder list containing approximately 1,500 contacts. The list collectively represents all local and regional water resource and flood agencies, watershed organizations, a complete and current list of elected city, county and state officials, city and county land use agencies, disadvantaged community representatives, environmental and community groups, media, and Native American Tribal contacts (the master stakeholder contact list is included as Appendix E-1). Throughout the IRWMP development process, contacts in the master stakeholder list were provided with information about key milestones and deadlines, public workshops, and opportunities to review draft chapters. 14.3.2 Local and Regional Water Resource Agencies Local and regional water resource management agencies are the most active participants in the Bay Area IRWMP, as these agencies will be implementing the vast majority of the projects included in the 2013 Plan and they are more likely to have sufficient resources to participate in the process. These agencies are collectively responsible for meeting the Bay Area’s needs with respect water supply and water quality, flood protection and stormwater management, wastewater and recycled water, and watershed management-habitat protection and restoration. 14.3.3 State and Federal Resource and Regulatory Agencies State and federal agencies play a role in the implementation of IRWMP projects via regulatory and public resource stewardship mandates. Stakeholder agencies include the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 14.3.4 Non-Governmental Organizations Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an important role in regional watershed management through planning and implementation of habitat protection and restoration projects, administration of monitoring efforts, and education and outreach programming. Many of these entities may have the interest but not the resources to participate actively in the Bay Area IRWMP. A number of NGOs represent the interests of disadvantaged communities (DACs) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-5 Stakeholder Engagement in the Bay Area. The Bay Area IRWMP team targeted NGOs representing watershed management, environmental and DAC interests for participation in workshops and ongoing communications via email announcements and the BAIRWMP website. Throughout the update process, a representative from the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) served as a central point of contact for outreach to DACs and the organizations that represent them. 14.3.5 General Public All Bay Area citizens depend on water and how it is managed, and interested citizens were able to access information about the IRWMP document, the update process, project criteria and submission, and meetings and workshops. Members of the public also had the opportunity to review and provide input on draft chapters of the Plan. The primary sources of information for the public were the BAIRWMP website and update emails. Through notices sent to the master mailing list, and re-distributed to partner and stakeholder lists, a significant number of people who follow water and land use issues were made aware of the update process, and were encouraged to visit the website and attend meetings and workshops. 14.4 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Process 14.4.1 Stakeholder Assessment A stakeholder assessment was conducted in early 2012 to inform the development of the engagement strategy. The assessment was informed by interviews with thirteen Bay Area IRWMP stakeholders, including CC participants, NGO staff, and representatives of DACs and Tribal communities. The interviews focused on understanding stakeholder experiences during the development of the 2006 Plan, identifying their interests and concerns, and soliciting their ideas on how best to address their concerns for the IRWMP process. Key findings from the stakeholder assessment included:  Stakeholder engagement goals were not clearly identified for the 2006 Plan development process. This made measuring success challenging.  Conducting outreach through the subregional groups is effective and should be leveraged as much as possible.  Engaging disadvantaged and Tribal communities in the Bay Area is challenging, especially since drinking water quality is not a significant concern in the Bay Area and water resource management issues are rarely a top priority. Further, DWR’s criteria for DAC projects need to be clarified.  Simple, consistent messaging should be developed and shared about the IRWMP to help stakeholders understand why they should care about it.  It is not realistic to expect an NGO or small public agency to develop a project proposal. Most NGOs and small public agencies need to partner with a larger agency with the resources needed to develop the proposal. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-6 Stakeholder Engagement The full assessment, including the list of interviewees, is included in Appendix E-2. The assessment helped to foster a common understanding of stakeholder interests and to lay the groundwork for the Stakeholder Engagement Plan. 14.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop Fifteen CC participants and consultants representing various Bay Area water resource management and government agencies participated in a half-day Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop on April 17, 2012. Workshop participants helped define stakeholder engagement objectives for the IRWMP, and identified priorities and strategies for engaging stakeholders in developing the IRWMP. Workshop participants discussed current and potential engagement activities (in all sub-regions and across all functional areas), and discussed where there might be gaps in engagement and how best to address them. In addition, workshop participants identified strategies to engage and identify projects in DACs and Tribal communities. Key recommendations resulting from the Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop included:  Develop a robust and continually updated contact list of Bay Area IRWMP stakeholders.  Help stakeholders understand the IRWMP and why it is important; this will be a key part of the outreach effort.  Keep the BAIRWMP website more current, including newsletters or e-mail updates and a calendar of upcoming activities.  Ensure that subregional leads share information at other meetings they attend, and use outreach at those meetings to build the stakeholder contact list and encourage participation in the process.  Some level of outreach to and engagement with DACs and Tribes is necessary and should be well documented.  Contact current Bay Area IRWMP DAC project managers (i.e., DAC projects included in the 2006 Plan) to determine if there might be a “Phase 2” expansion of the projects benefitting DACs. This could potentially qualify as a DAC project for inclusion in the 2013 Plan Update.  Leverage existing DAC/Tribal outreach mechanisms.  Inquire with subregions, functional areas, and individual water resource management agencies whether there are potential DAC serving projects already under consideration. See Appendix E-3 for the Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop agenda. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-7 Stakeholder Engagement 14.4.3 Stakeholder Engagement Plan A Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) was developed to address the interests and priorities clarified by the assessment, the April 17, 2012 engagement planning workshop, DWR guidelines, and input from the CC and Public Outreach Committee. The SEP identifies stakeholder engagement goals and objectives for the IRWMP, and outlines the strategy and specific engagement activities to be implemented. Section 14.5 describes the engagement activities identified in the SEP. The stakeholder engagement goals and objectives described below helped guide engagement efforts to inform the development of the IRWMP, and they will be referenced to both evaluate success and to guide ongoing engagement following the completion of the Plan. Stakeholder engagement goals (note: while goals #3 and #7 focus on plan preparation, their intent is to generate interest from and involve a broader range of stakeholders): 11. Develop a broader understanding of the water needs of the Bay Area. 12. Increase broad public awareness of regional water resource management planning. 13. Expand the scope of the IRWMP to include planning for climate change impacts and to provide for greater collaboration with land use agencies. 14. Further engage NGOs in the collaborative planning process. 15. Further engage DACs in the collaborative planning process. 16. Identify and address the needs of DACs and Tribal communities within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area IRWMP. 17. Include a significant number of multi-benefit, inter-subregional projects – including DAC- serving projects – in the IRWMP. Stakeholder engagement objectives: 18. IRWMP Awareness  BAIRWMP stakeholders know the IRWMP is being updated and understand why it is important for their respective groups to be involved.  Stakeholders understand the opportunities for public participation in content development and review.  Stakeholders understand the decision-making processes associated with the IRWMP, including:  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding content 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-8 Stakeholder Engagement  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding potential water projects and their prioritization 19. Stakeholder Identification and Inclusion  The CC listserv is easy to join, open to the public, and the participant list is maintained and continually expanding.  Stakeholders are regularly identified and are invited to join the CC listserv and participate.  Stakeholders representing DACs and Tribes are identified for targeted outreach and engagement. 20. Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholder Input and Review  Stakeholders inform content development by providing information and data to the Plan Update Team and/or the technical consultants, including at CC meetings, subregional meetings, and workshops. Stakeholders can help frame issues, identify challenges and recommend solutions, including recommendations for policies and programs that involve collaboration and integration among organizations and agencies.  Stakeholders are able to review and provide feedback on draft chapters of the IRWMP, which are available on the BAIRWMP website.  Stakeholders see how their input was addressed in the IRWMP and/or are informed of why their comments are not reflected. 21. Project Identification  The IRWMP includes projects that meet the needs of the Bay Area region and conform to DWR requirements.  Stakeholder involvement in the IRWMP identifies projects that reflect integration among water management functions, agencies, and organizations to provide multiple benefits to communities. 22. Coordination and Collaboration  The IRWMP process fosters coordination, collaboration and creative thinking among public agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses and individuals to identify and address the region’s water resource challenges and opportunities.  Agencies, organizations and individuals involved in the Bay Area IRWMP are informed of the stakeholder engagement activities of other participants allowing for the effective and efficient use of resources. The complete Stakeholder Engagement Plan is included as Appendix E-4. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-9 Stakeholder Engagement 14.5 Stakeholder Engagement Activities What follows are descriptions of the stakeholder engagement activities identified in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, and implemented to support the development of the IRWMP. 14.5.1 Subregional Outreach The IRWMP development process emphasized a subregional outreach approach in order to promote the identification of successfully integrated projects and to provide more accessibility to the IRWMP process by stakeholders. The subregional approach allowed for improved local stakeholder access to the Bay Area IRWMP process and greater collaboration among water interests within the Subregions. Each of the Subregions has a lead (or leads) who convenes subregional outreach meetings, provides updates to stakeholders within the Subregion, reviews submitted projects, and serves as a regular point of contact. Each lead maintains a stakeholder contact list and determines outreach and engagement efforts appropriate for their geographic area. A log of subregional meetings and communications is included as Appendix E-5. In addition to the subregional meetings, the Bay Area IRWMP and its related activities are discussed at various non-IRWMP meetings that occur within the Subregions. 14.5.2 Functional Area Outreach Some regular CC participants serve as Functional Area (FA) leads. In this capacity, the FA leads provide regular Bay Area IRWMP updates to regional water resource management membership organizations, which allows them to reach a broad audience of agencies and organizations interested in a specific functional area. Updates included information about the IRWMP development process, opportunities to review draft chapters and upcoming public workshops. FA leads also discussed the need to identify DAC projects and solicited input from participating agencies on potential projects. FA outreach represents an efficient approach to partnering with existing groups to engage a diverse group of stakeholders. The FAs are described below:  Water Supply and Water Quality The Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC) is the coordinating organization for water supply and water quality FA. BAWAC is comprised of water agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties. BAWAC meets on a monthly basis and agenda topics typically includes the Bay Area IRWMP and other topics of mutual interest.  Watershed Management-Habitat Protection and Restoration The Bay Area program of the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) has served as the IRWMP CC FA lead and is responsible for coordinating the activities of the Watershed Management-Habitat Protection and Restoration FA. SCC works in partnership with watershed and open space protection groups throughout the region to advance regionally-significant conservation priorities. The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) is a primary coordinating organization for Bay Area watershed and habitat organizations. BAWN is a collaboration of federal, state, 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-10 Stakeholder Engagement and local agencies and non-profit organizations as well as individuals concerned with watershed planning, management and restoration. CC participants who are also BAWN members are actively seeking increased coordination and collaboration on Bay Area watershed and habitat efforts and information, particularly on the multiple benefits of watersheds. Additional efforts in which CC members have been participating on an ongoing basis include: the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI), Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), and the 2012 Silicon Valley Watershed Summit.  Flood Protection and Stormwater Management The Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) is the primary coordinating organization for the Flood Protection and Stormwater Management FA. CC participants have also been leaders in BAFPAA which holds monthly meetings and/or conference calls, and an annual workshop. There is a standing Bay Area IRWMP item on the BAFPAA agenda and FA leads disseminate Bay Area IRWMP information and updates. BAFPAA coordinates with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) representatives to manage the FA.  Wastewater and Recycled Water Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) is the primary coordinating organization for the wastewater and recycled water FA. BACWA is a joint powers agency, formed under the California Government Code by the five largest wastewater treatment agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its members include the many municipalities and special districts that provide sanitary sewer services to more than 6.5 million people. 14.5.3 Participation in the Coordinating Committee The Coordinating Committee (CC) serves as the organizing body and plenary forum for the development and implementation of the IRWMP. The CC holds monthly meetings at a regular time that are open to the public and are held at centrally located and public transportation accessible venues. CC meetings are noticed on the BAIRWMP website, and meeting agendas and materials are shared through a CC email distribution list and are also available on the BAIRWMP website. Decision-making at CC meetings is conducted by consensus, and all attendees are encouraged to participate in discussions and the decision-making process. Stakeholders can request that topics be placed on the agenda for future meetings. Stakeholders can also participate in one or more of the CC subcommittees. Tribes are working diligently to join and be a part of both these sub committees and the coordinating committee itself. CC subcommittees include:  Plan Update Team Dog Creek Culvert 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-11 Stakeholder Engagement  Project Screening Subcommittee  Planning and Process Subcommittee  Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Subcommittee  Website Subcommittee The participation of individuals representing organizations beyond water interests in the CC and its subcommittees has increased awareness and coordination with other Bay Area planning efforts (e.g., land use and transportation) as well as environmental and community issues, e.g., coastal and bay interests, and recycling and educational efforts. 14.5.4 Public Workshops Two public workshops were conducted to provide information and solicit input the IRWMP36. The CC and Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Subcommittee helped to develop the agenda and design the format for each workshop. Broad outreach and publicity for the workshops resulted in a high level of participation both in terms of numbers and variety of participants. That outreach and publicity included:  Three pre-workshop emails and one post-workshop email were sent to the master contact list for each workshop. Contacts from the master list redistributed the information to their own lists and newsletters, further extending the notification reach.  Announcements were provided at meetings hosted and/or attended by subregional leads and CC participants.  Subregional leads sent notification emails to their respective contact lists.  Notices and workshops materials were posted on the BAIRWMP website, including some materials translated into Spanish.  Media releases were distributed to local, regional, environmental and non-English media outlets. 36 While three workshops were initially planned, holding a third workshop was not deemed critical since stakeholders were able to participate in monthly CC meetings. Public Workshop #1 Notice 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-12 Stakeholder Engagement The public workshops helped foster new connections and partnerships between NGOs and community organizations and water and flood agencies, and provided assistance to stakeholders in answering questions about projects and Plan content. Examples of workshop outreach materials can be found in Appendix E-7.  Workshop #1: July 23, 2012 Participants provided input on the IRWMP objectives and received guidance on DAC project criteria and the online project submittal process. Following presentations and a question-and-answer session, the workshop attendees were organized into groups according to their geographical location to promote direct interaction with subregional leads. More than 80 stakeholders attended the workshop, representing a wide range of organizations and interests; the table below includes stakeholder groups represented by categories of participants. Table 14-1: Public Workshop #1 Participants Participant Category Entities Represented Environmental Interests, Community and Environmental Justice Organizations California Land Stewardship Institute; Conservation Corps North Bay; Daily Acts; FOLAW ; Friends of Sausal Creek; Gallinas Watershed Council; Institute for Conservation Advocacy Research & Education; League of Women Voters Palo Alto; Marin Audubon Society; Mount Veeder Stewardship Council; San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory; San Francisco Estuary Partnership; Sierra Club; The Watershed Project; Trout Unlimited Agricultural Interests San Mateo County Farm Bureau Water Agencies and Special Districts Alameda County Resource Conservation District Clean Water Program; Coastside County Water District; Contra Costa County Flood Control District; Contra Costa Resource Conservation District; Corte Madera Flood Board; East Bay Municipal Utility District; East Bay Regional Parks District; Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District; Marin Municipal Water District; Napa County Resource Conservation District; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority; Santa Clara Valley Water District; Sonoma County Water Agency; Zone 7 Water Agency State and Federal Agencies Delta Protection Commission; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service US Army Corps of Engineers Local Government Alameda County Public Works Agency; Bay Area Joint Policy Committee; City of Belmont; City of East Palo Alto; City of Hayward; City of Oakland; City of Palo Alto; City of Redwood City; Napa County; Stopwaste.org; Suffolk County Water Authority; Town of Hillsborough Private Sector Service Providers AECOM; Brezack & Associates Planning; Carollo Engineers; CDM Smith; ESA PWA; Horizon Water and Environment; Kliman Sales; Sloan Valve; Sound Watershed Consulting; 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-13 Stakeholder Engagement Participant Category Entities Represented RMC Water and Environment; Whitley Burchett & Associates; Zentraal Acterra  Workshop #2: January 28, 2013 Participants received a presentation on the process for scoring and ranking projects for inclusion in the IRWMP, project criteria for DWR grant applications, and future funding rounds. Following additional presentations on funding sources and how to address potential funding challenges, a facilitated group discussion of panelists and workshop attendees took place. During this facilitated discussion, workshop attendees shared a number of successful strategies and approaches for funding water resource management projects. Public Workshop #2 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-14 Stakeholder Engagement Table 14-2: Public Workshop #2 Participants Participant Category Entities Represented Environmental Interests, Community and Environmental Justice Organizations Acterra; Bay-Friendly Landscaping and Gardening Coalition; Daily Acts; Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy; ICARE; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; North Bay Watershed Association; San Francisco Estuary Institute; San Francisco Estuary Partnership; Sonoma Land Trust Water Agencies and Special Districts Alameda County Resource Conservation District; Alameda County Water District; Contra Costa County Flood Control District; Contra Costa Resource Conservation District; East Bay Dischargers; East Bay Regional Parks District; Marin Municipal Water District; North Bay Water Reuse Authority; San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program; Santa Clara Valley Water District; Sonoma County Water Agency; Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District; Zone 7 Water Agency Federal Agencies Environmental Protection Agency Local Government City of Belmont; City of East Palo Alto; City of Livermore; City of Napa Stopwaste.org Private Sector Service Providers Arup; Balance Hydrologics; Carollo Engineers; CDM Smith; Newfields; Parsons; Stillwater Sciences; West Yost Associates A list of attendees for each workshop is included in Appendix E-7. 14.5.5 General Outreach Materials and Distribution Outreach materials were developed and distributed throughout the IRWMP development process to keep stakeholders informed and to encourage their participation in meeting, workshops, and the project submittal process. Materials included informational flyers, a frequently-asked-questions document, presentation materials and information on the BAIRWMP website (see Appendix E-6). Materials were distributed at CC meetings, regional public workshops, subregional meetings, other water- and land use-related meetings, and were posted on the BAIRWMP website. Materials and notices were distributed centrally to the regional stakeholder list, as well as by the subregional leads to their respective contact lists. In addition, media releases were submitted to local newspapers prior to stakeholder workshops. The project website serves as the principal channel to educate the public about the IRWMP. The website includes background information, materials for CC meetings and public workshops, and notices of opportunities to review draft chapters. The website also provides an e-mail address (info@bayareairwmp.org) to allow public submission of comments, questions, and requests for information. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-15 Stakeholder Engagement In 2012, a new system was developed to allow submission of project applications through the BAIRMWP website. Additionally, in response to a stakeholder recommendation, a “forum” section was added to allow potential applicants to post information about project partnerships wanted and/or offered. This approach was designed to serve as an online “matchmaking” portal to connect organizations and agencies with DAC-serving projects looking for partnerships. 14.5.6 Local Government Outreach Local governments were targeted for specific outreach due to the nature of integrated regional water management and its relationship to local land use planning. Presentations and briefings were provided to local government agencies to inform them on the Bay Area IRWMP, to highlight the interrelated nature of water and land use planning and need for coordinated planning, to ensure local needs were addressed in the IRWMP, and to provide an opportunity for local governments to provide feedback on IRWMP development. Specific briefings and presentations included:  City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Technical Advisory Group  November 15, 2012  Santa Clara County C3 Ad Hoc Task Force (Santa Clara County Cities and Water Agencies)  December 5, 2012  Low-impact Development (LID) Leadership Group  March 7, 2012  May 16, 2012  September 23, 2012  December 3, 2012  February 8, 2013  Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA)/ Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) joint meeting in Oakland  December 12, 2012  North Bay Watershed Association  January 24, 2012  April 13, 2012  June 13, 2012  July 6, 2012 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-16 Stakeholder Engagement  October 9, 2012  November 2, 2012  December 13, 2012  January 4, 2013  Sustainable Watershed Workshops  February 12, 2012  April 30, 2012 14.6 Engagement of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities 14.6.1 Approach to DAC Engagement The IRWMP process found the inclusion of DACs and water resource projects that serve them a priority. The approach to engaging DACs and the organizations that represent them was informed by the review of DWR guidelines and policies in addition to a review of benchmark programs. The approach was further informed by interviews with Bay Area DAC representatives as part of the assessment process (See Appendix E-2 for a summary of findings from the interviews focusing on DACs). Key components of this approach included:  Inviting DAC representatives to participate in all aspects of the IRWMP process, including initial stakeholder interviews, CC and subregional outreach meetings, public workshops, and the review of draft chapters.  Making the IRWMP process easy to understand for a broad audience, and making information easy to access through the website and non-technical outreach materials.  Clearly identifying the location of DACs and their spatial relationship to water resource management considerations, including wastewater treatment facilities and flood-prone areas.  Clarifying DWR’s DAC project eligibility criteria and communicating this information to DAC representatives and water resource agencies.  Conducting targeted outreach and providing hands-on guidance to support the identification and development of projects serving DACs. 14.6.2 Identification of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities State of California legislation AB-1747 (2003) defines disadvantaged communities as those with a Median Household Income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the State MHI, or $48,706 (2010 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-17 Stakeholder Engagement Census). While the MHI of each of the nine Bay Area counties is well above the 80 percent threshold for the State, there are disadvantaged communities located in each county, with the majority of these communities located in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Chapter 2, Regional Description, contains additional information and maps of disadvantaged communities in the Bay Area using 2010 Census data. Environmental justice communities are disadvantaged communities and communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by programs, policies, or activities that have resulted in adverse health or environmental impacts. Placement of water infrastructure including sewage treatment plants, desalination facilities and recycling plants can place a burden on nearby communities due to odors, effluent, sewage back-ups and industrial buildings. Identifying the location of disadvantaged and environmental justice communities is an important step in ensuring that agencies, stakeholders and the general public can determine the impact of operations and plans on these communities. In order to facilitate the identification of these communities, in 2013 the Bay Area IRWMP team developed a series of 2010 Census-based maps to promote the consideration of disadvantaged and environmental justice communities in IRWMP projects. In addition to developing a region- wide map, more detailed DAC subregional maps were developed identifying major streets, rivers and streams. The maps were distributed broadly to Bay Area organizations and agencies, including representatives of DACs and environmental justice communities, and were made available on the BAIRWMP website. The development and wide distribution of these maps (along with other outreach materials) proved to be helpful in generating DAC project ideas and, ultimately, having DAC projects included in the Plan. Portion of East Subregion DAC Map 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-18 Stakeholder Engagement 14.6.3 Clarification of DAC Project Criteria Clarifying DWR’s DAC project eligibility criteria, which was recommended in the stakeholder assessment, proved to be another valuable strategy in identifying DAC projects for the IRWMP. At the outset of the IRWMP development process, DWR guidance to the plan developers regarding DAC eligibility project criteria was that in order to qualify as a DAC project for grant funding purposes, a project needed to both benefit a community with a median household income below the DWR threshold and meet a “critical water supply or water quality need”. Given that water supply and water quality are not common challenges for Bay Area communities, these criteria limited the number of projects that could meet DWR criteria for funding match waivers which are an incentive to DAC participation. Following the release of the Proposition 84 Round 2 Draft Proposal Solicitation Package in July 2012 and subsequent exchanges with DWR staff, DWR clarified that it intended to offer a funding match waiver for any project that served a community with a median household income below the DWR threshold, meaning that a project did not necessarily have to address a critical water supply or water quality need to be considered an eligible DAC project. DWR further clarified that DAC projects meeting a critical water supply or water quality need would qualify for DAC-dedicated funding and would receive priority when projects are evaluated for funding (i.e., priority points). Additionally, DWR confirmed that flood control projects could meet a critical water quality need, making them eligible for DAC-dedicated funding in addition to the match funding waiver. The table below illustrates the two types of DAC projects eligible for IRWM funding. Table 14-3: DAC Criteria and Priority Funding Considerations Project Submitted Qualifies for Match Waiver Qualifies for Dedicated DAC Funding Qualifies for Priority Points 1. Serves DAC ✓ 2. Serves DAC and critical supply and/or quality ✓ ✓ ✓ The clarification of DAC project eligibility criteria for funding match waivers and dedicated DAC funding was conveyed broadly in communications and outreach with stakeholders. This clarification expanded the potential for Bay Area communities to submit DAC projects to be included in the IRWMP. 14.6.4 DAC-Specific Outreach Materials A variety of materials were developed and disseminated to support outreach to disadvantaged communities and the identification of DAC water resource projects to be included in the IRWMP, including: 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-19 Stakeholder Engagement  DAC maps  A DAC-specific factsheet including information on DAC project eligibility criteria, general information about Bay Area IRWMP, guidance for submitting DAC project proposals, and points-of-contact for additional questions or guidance.  A dedicated DAC page was created on the BAIRWMP website containing information and links related to DACs, including the series of DAC maps; information on DAC project eligibility, DAC points-of-contacts, and a link to the DWR DAC mapping tool. Select DAC outreach materials are included in Appendix E-8. 14.6.5 Targeted DAC Outreach and Engagement The IRWMP update process in 2013 included targeted outreach to disadvantaged communities. All DAC representatives involved in the 2006 Plan were contacted to encourage their submittal of new projects to be included in the Plan Update. Agency staff from Bay Area communities containing DACs were contacted to encourage their participation in the IRW MP process, including the identification of projects for their communities. Outreach was conducted through the Functional Area groups, particularly water quality/water supply and flood protection FAs, to help identify DAC projects. In addition, all DAC contacts were included in the master contact list and received all BAIRWMP-related email notifications to ensure they were aware of upcoming events and deadlines. DAC contacts were invited to participate in broader engagement efforts, including monthly CC meetings and public workshops. While efforts were made to reach to as many stakeholders as possible in the 2013 process, there was noticeably little Tribal and Disadvantaged Community participation. This is mainly because materials and workshops are not likely to reach Disadvantaged and Tribal communities without direct and coordinated outreach efforts by a trusted third party. In 2016, the Bay Area began its IRWM Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP). The mandate of the program is to include underrepresented populations (including DACs, URCs, EDAs, and Tribes) into IRWM and other water-related decision making processes, with an ultimate goal of building the capacity of communities and community based groups to develop and submit IRWM-eligible projects for implementation to address priority water issues identified through tailored outreach and needs assessment processes. See sections 14.6.7 & 14.7 for additional information on the DACTIP. The California Indian Environmental Alliance is conducting Tribal outreach and coordination as part of the DACTIP’s outreach process. Their outreach includes attending Tribal cultural events where they hand out materials and introduce themselves to elders and first explain who they are and what their mission is. They then ask to meet another time to further explain their efforts and goals once they become more comfortable and familiar with who they are. This process has led to further Bay Area Tribal engagement in IRWM. 14.6.6 DAC Project Support and Guidance To facilitate DAC project identification and development, the 2013 year Bay Area IRWMP team offered hands-on guidance and support to potential DAC projects proponents to ensure that the application process was clear, that their projects met DWR’s eligibility criteria, and that their 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-20 Stakeholder Engagement project development and submittal processes were progressing successfully. DAC liaisons were available in each subregion to respond to questions and requests for information, and they conducted regular check-ins with DAC project proponents by phone and email to ensure their project development processes were progressing. DAC project proponents that received targeted assistance included:  Alameda County Flood Control Agency  City of Berkeley  City of Calistoga  City of East Palo Alto  City of Oakland  City of Pittsburg  Committee for Green Foothills  Friends of Sausal Creek  Rural Community Assistance Corporation/Town of Pescadero  San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority  The Watershed Project A log of DAC targeted outreach and project assistance is included in Appendix E-8. 14.6.7 Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program The Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program (DACIP) is a Proposition 1 (2014 Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act) funded program that was designed to ensure the involvement of disadvantaged communities (DACs), economically distressed areas (EDAs), and underrepresented communities (URCs) in IRWM planning efforts and decision- making processes. The State allowed an expanded definition of eligible participants outside of the traditional definition of Disadvantaged Community, which allowed the Bay Area to include unincorporated communities and homeless communities in programmatic engagement. The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) was endorsed by the Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee in 2016 to be the Grant Administrator and Program Manager for the Bay Area DACIP, and EJCW partnered with the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) to conduct Tribal outreach and a needs assessment, To implement the DAC portion of the DACTIP, EJCW partnered with organizations already working in communities that qualified as DACs throughout the Bay Area to expand outreach efforts and conduct tailored needs assessment processes to engage and build the capacity of communities to identify their own water-related issues, to participate in IRWM decision-making processes, and ultimately develop and submit IRWM-eligible projects to address priority water- related issues identified through the Needs Assessment process. Concurrently, CIEA conducted outreach to Tribes to begin a separate needs assessment process in Tribal communities. In 2019, grant administration for the program was transferred to the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-21 Stakeholder Engagement Outreach Partners Selected as part of the DACTIP for DACs are as follows: • All Positives Possible (Vallejo) • City of Hayward (Tennyson Corridor) • Marin County Community Development Agency (Dillon Beach & Pt. Reyes Station) • Shore Up Marin (Marin City & San Rafael Canal District) • Sonoma Ecology Center & Daily Acts (Petaluma, Penngrove, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Rodgers Creek (Creekside Village/Temelec/Chanterelle), & The Springs) • Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice (Bayview-Hunters Point) • Ronald V. Dellums Institute for Sustainable Policy Studies and Action (Sobrante Park, Columbia Gardens, & Brookfield Village) • Nuestra Casa & Youth United for Community Action (East Palo Alto) • Friends of Sausal Creek (Oakland Fruitvale Neighborhood) • Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (Antioch, Pittsburg, & Bay Point) • Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful (San Jose) • The Watershed Project (Richmond, San Pablo, & El Sobrante) The majority of the Outreach Partners were selected through an RFQ process by the Bay Area IRWM Region Coordinating Committee. Three of these communities (Vallejo, East Palo Alto, Antioch/Pittsburg/Bay Point) and the Outreach Partners working in them were identified through an initial “gaps analysis” of high priority DACs not covered by the initial 10 Outreach Partners selected through the RFQ process. Phase 1 DACTIP activities being carried out by the Outreach Partners, coordinated by EJCW and then SFEP, include Outreach, Needs Assessment, Capacity Building, and Technical Assistance and Project Development. Other DACTIP activities to more meaningfully include DACs, EDAs, and URCs into IRWM processes include working to change the CC governance and voting structure to formally include DAC and Tribal representatives, investigating expanding funding to encourage DAC, EDA, and URC participation in all regional planning processes, and creating connections between communities/community groups and water-related decision- making bodies to leave behind social infrastructure to ensure continued involvement of communities and community groups in IRWM beyond the life of the DACTIP funding. Outreach & Needs Assessment Outreach and Needs Assessment activities are simultaneously and iteratively being carried out by Outreach Partner organizations in their respective communities, coordinated by first EJCW 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-22 Stakeholder Engagement and subsequently SFEP. Needs Assessments were tailored to each community to account for the variation in community capacity, context, and needs, but were designed to ensure varying individual strategies resulted in information that can be used to identify capacity building and technical assistance needs, further project development, and to support continuance in DACTIP communities and Tribes to participate in the regional IRWM process after the life of the DACTI Program. A decentralized approach was chosen to leverage existing relationships and allow for greater ability to thoughtfully involve community members in water management on a local scale. Needs Assessment activities include direct outreach and education, participation in local events to conduct broader outreach and education, website updates, meetings and presentations, as well as surveys, listening sessions, and interviews to determine needs, priorities, and strengths in these communities, as defined by community members. The Needs Assessment will inform the second phase of DACTIP work by providing insight into potential barriers to accessing funding, region-wide issues, and strategies for inclusion into regional planning efforts, and will inform future tailored outreach to communities. Capacity Building, Technical Assistance & Project Development In conjunction with Needs Assessment activities, Capacity Building for Outreach Partner organizations and communities is part of every stage of the DACTIP to ultimately support the development and submission of proposals to IRWM Prop 1 and other grants as applicable and to ensure communities and community groups stay engaged with these processes after the DACTIP formally concludes. Capacity Building that the Outreach Partners are being provided with includes coordination support and trainings on state processes for contracting, invoicing, and other administrative tasks, as well as outreach and needs assessment activities to build their capacities to develop solutions to issues in their communities, write grants, administer contracts and agreements, collect data, and report on their ongoing work at all levels. Other Capacity building and technical assistance will be offered to address capacity building needs identified through the needs assessment process, such as grant writing and water testing, to support project and proposal development for IRWM and other funding sources as applicable. The capacity building effort is ultimately intended to increase the capability of DACs, EDAs, and URCs to engage with and voice concerns at regional planning efforts, as well as to support water managers in understanding how to better meaningfully engage with all communities they serve. Building on Capacity Building activities and trainings, Outreach Partners will use the findings of their Needs Assessment processes to work with Technical Assistance Providers to develop project proposals to address identified issues. The Phase 2 workplan for the DACTIP is currently being adaptively developed by SFEP in coordination with the Bay Area CC and OPs to support and further the Program’s goals. The second phase of the DACTIP involves utilizing lessons learned from Outreach, the Needs Assessment, Capacity Building, Technical Assistance, and Project Development to address identified issues and barriers. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-23 Stakeholder Engagement 14.7 Native American Tribe Identification and Outreach 14.7.1 Native American Tribal Identification The Stakeholder Engagement Plan noted that outreach to Bay Area Native American Tribes and/or members would include the identification of Tribes and Tribal contacts, and initial communication with Tribal leaders. The process conducted in 2013 to identify Native American Tribes and Tribal members within the Bay Area IRWMP’s jurisdiction included conducting interviews with knowledgeable contacts from NGOs and water agencies and reviewing publicly- available resources from Tribes and information provided by DWR’s Tribal Liaison for the region. In 2016 the Bay Area engaged in the Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP) and the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) conducted further Tribal outreach and identification. . In 2013, it was determined that one Tribal community – the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians – currently owned land within the Bay Area IRWMP geographic boundary and may have distinct water resource interests, needs, or challenges, though they are not originally a first land Bay Area Tribe. The Lytton Band owns and operates the San Pablo Lytton Casino in the East Bay and is served by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Otherwise, there are individual members of other Native American Tribes residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, but they are dispersed into the general population and do not have distinct water quality or water supply challenges. In 2019, it was determined that two other Tribes – Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Mishewal Wappo – also own land and manage their own water systems. Other federally recognized Tribes in the larger Bay Area are located primarily in the North Bay/Sonoma County area, including the federally recognized Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Dry Creek, and Kashia Tribes. These Tribes mainly fall within the jurisdiction of the North Coast IRWMP where they are actively involved in the development of that region’s IRMWP. The Amah Mutsun Tribe participates in both the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM and the Bay Area IRWMP since it holds territory in both regions. CIEA’s outreach resulted in the identification of five Tribes for participation in the DACTIP: The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Association of Ramaytush, Indian People Organizing for Change, Him-R^n , and Muwekma Ohlone. Descriptions of each participating Tribal partner are provided below. Amah Mutsun The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (AMTB) is comprised of the living descendants of the Mutsun and Awaswas speaking peoples whose ancestral homeland encompasses the lands and waters of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and parts of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties—the territory known to the Tribe as Popeloutchom. The Tribe’s creation story describes how Creator specifically chose the Amah Mutsun to steward these lands and waters, as well as the Tribe’s four-legged, winged, finned, and plant kin. Despite a brutal history of subjugation and displacement from its ancestral territory during colonization and a loss of the Tribe’s federal recognition, the AMTB maintains its community 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-24 Stakeholder Engagement identity and its commitment to the stewardship of Popeloutchom. Honoring this commitment today requires the restoration and relearning of indigenous practices of resource management, as well as the development of new means of accessing the lands and waters from which the Tribe has been displaced. In 2013, the AMTB established the Amah Mutsun Land Trust (AMLT)—a Native-led 501(c)(3) non-profit organization—to serve as a vehicle for the Tribe’s re-engagement with its ancestral territory and stewardship role. Rather than solely pursuing direct ownership of land, AMLT focuses on cultivating partnerships with private and public landowners, including leading conservation organizations, to restore indigenous stewardship, presence, and perspectives to lands within the Tribe’s ancestral territory. These efforts have led to an array of innovative and historic collaborations, including a recent partnership with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to restore both Tribal and public access to the summit of Mt. Umunhum in Santa Clara County. Through the AMLT Native Stewardship Corp—a program focused on cultural relearning and the application of indigenous stewardship techniques—Tribal members are working directly to conserve natural resources and restore ecosystems in AMTB territory, including in a multi-year collaboration with California State Parks at Quiroste Valley Cultural Preserve in southern San Mateo County. Through sustained processes of outreach, collaboration, and direct engagement in conservation, research, and education led by AMLT, the Amah Mutsun are re-establishing a vital presence as indigenous stewards of Popeloutchom. Recognizing the intrinsic links between land and water resources, AMTB and AMLT are eager to help bring an indigenous perspective to the Bay Area IRWM process and to the broader management of water throughout their ancestral territory so that indigenous knowledge and cultural values are always a part of the region’s resource management practices. Indian People Organizing for Change "Indian People Organizing for Change (IPOC) is a community-based organization in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its members, including Lisjan-Ohlone Tribal members and conservation activists, who work together in order to preserve cultural and traditional heritage, as well as the goal to accomplish social and environmental justice within the Bay Area American Indian community." Him-R^n Him-R^n is an Ohlone, Plains and Bay Miwok Tribe, whose chairwoman is Ruth Orta. Ruth and members of the Tribe work alongside Coyote Regional Parks and collaborate on stewardship guidance on Native planting, materials for plant and boat making as well as basket weaving and brushes, and provides recommendations with details on how to care for the land. Coyote Regional Parks recognizes Him-R^n ’s ties to their traditional lands, which include Coyote Regional Parks who keep certain areas protected with fences to only allow for Him-R^n to continue practicing their Tribal ceremonies. Ruth coordinates and hosts Ohlone gatherings, and cultural heritage trainings (plant gathering, cultural trainings, tours of the regional park, acorn making, jewelry making from abalone, etc.), and gives talks to Tribal members and non-Tribal members. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-25 Stakeholder Engagement Association of Ramaytush Ohlone The Association of Ramaytush Ohlone (ARO) is an association dedicated to researching, revitalizing, and preserving Ramaytush Ohlone history and culture. The primary objectives of the ARO are to engage in research to expand knowledge about the Ramaytush Ohlone, to enhance public awareness of the Ramaytush Ohlone in San Francisco and San Mateo counties, to support cultural revitalization efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area, and to preserve natural and archaeological resources in Ramaytush Ohlone lands. The ARO partners with local, state, and federal agencies, and other Ohlone tribes and organizations to further its objectives. The ARO is not a public non-profit 501.c.3. Muwekma Ohlone The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of all known surviving Native American lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions San Jose, Santa Clara, and Dolores and the historic federally recognized Verona Band of Alameda County. Noted anthropologists and linguists such as Alphonse Pinart, Jeremiah Curtin, Alfred L. Kroeber, C. Hart Merriam, Edwin Gifford, James Alden Mason, and John P. Harrington during the late 19th and early 20th centuries interviewed the fluent speakers of the Indian languages spoken at the Muwekma rancherias. These tribal Elders include Jose Guzman and Maria de los Angeles Colos who still employed the linguistic term “Muwekma” which means “La Gente” meaning “The People” in the Chocheño and Thámien Ohlone languages of the East Bay and Santa Clara Valley. In 1906, BIA Special Indian Agent for California Charles E. Kelsey identified the Muwekma Tribal community as the Verona Band of Alameda County residing in Pleasanton, Niles, Sunol, Livermore, Newark and towns located around Mission San Jose. The tribe formally remained under the jurisdiction of the Indian Service Bureau as a landless tribe that was eligible for land purchase under the Congressional Homeless California Indian Acts and appropriations of 1906,1908 and later years as a result of the discovery of the 18 unratified California Treaties of 1851-52. In 2003, the Muwekma Language Committee was established to restore the Tribe’s Ohlone Language. Silent for over 65 years, Chocheño was spoken for the first time by several Muwekma councilmembers. Monica V. Arellano, Vice Chairwoman/Co-Chair of the Language Committee and Gloria E. Arellano-Gomez Councilwoman have been given the authority to issue public welcoming and blessings to Muwekma’s Ancestral Homeland. Joined by Sheila Guzman- Schmidt, Councilwoman/Committee Co-Chair whose great-grandfather was Jose Guzman and who was one of the last speakers of the Delta Yokuts and Chocheño Ohlone languages until his death in 1934. All three Councilwomen are very proud to have a leadership role in the restoration and preservation of the Tribe’s Language, Culture and Heritage. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-26 Stakeholder Engagement Since 1986, the Tribal leadership has been working diligently in addressing adverse impacts to their ancestral heritage cemetery and village sites. Since that time the Tribal leadership has co- authored numerous scientific and cultural publications and have presented at professional meetings on the skeletal biology and ancient DNA relative to their heritage sites. Over the years the Tribe has established a working relationship with governmental agencies, such as Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, Santa Clara County VTA, City of San Jose and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission as well as many other entities. 14.7.2 Initial Tribal Outreach and Next Steps Regardless of the limitations of geography, Tribal recognition, and resources, representatives of Bay Area Tribes are included in the Bay Area IRWMP master contact email list and each received multiple email notices about the 2013 public workshops. Efforts to involve Bay Area Native American Tribes in the 2013 Plan update process are found in Appendix E-9. Native American Tribes are sovereign nations and as such require coordination on a government-to-government basis. CC member agencies are looking for ways to involve Native Americans living in the Bay Area in the planning and implementation of specific projects included in the IRWMP. In its work through the DACTIP, CIEA focused on the five participating Tribal outreach partners. Through participating in the Ohlone Gathering in Fremont, CIEA reached Him-R^n , Muwekma Ohlone and other Tribes with affiliation to Bay Area Tribes. Ramaytush identified their point person. CIEA also reached out to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, and Lytton Rancheria. These Tribes want to be informed but will not be official Tribal Partners at this time. While there are numerous individual members of other Native American Tribes residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, a diaspora due to cost of living has spread many Natives away from their traditional lands. CIEA is committed to representing the needs of all Native American Tribal members through the DACTIP and is working to represent their water quality or water supply challenges and needs. 14.8 Stakeholder Engagement Following Adoption of the IRWMP Stakeholder engagement will continue following adoption of the IRWMP, and it will be essential to ensuring the successful implementation of the Plan. The Coordinating Committee will continue to serve as the organizing body and plenary forum for the Bay Area IRWMP, and discussions concerning stakeholder engagement strategies and opportunities will mainly take place at these meetings which are open to the public. What follows are stakeholder engagement considerations that will be reviewed and discussed by the Coordinating Committee to ensure that stakeholder engagement is continuing effectively and that adjustments are made as needed. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-27 Stakeholder Engagement  Stakeholder engagement goals and objectives, which are identified in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, will be revisited annually by the Coordinating Committee to determine the level of success in achieving them. In addition, the goals and objectives will be modified as needed to ensure they are consistent with current stakeholder needs and resources available.  Stakeholder outreach will continue to be organized and implemented by subregion, which allows for the consideration of local needs. Regional coordination across the subregions will help promote integration.  The BAIRWMP website will serve as the effort’s main resource for sharing information with stakeholders. The website will be easy to navigate. Information about opportunities to participate (Coordinating Committee meetings, subregional outreach meetings, IRWM funding rounds) will be kept up to date and posted on the website.  The master stakeholder contact list will be maintained and continually updated.  The Coordinating Committee will continue to look for ways to include representatives of DACs and Tribes in the Bay Area IRWMP process, including encouraging DAC and Tribal participation in future IRWMP funding rounds.  Future outreach to Bay Area Native American Tribes will include discussions with the with the California Indian Environmental Alliance to increase participation by Tribes in the Coordinating Committee and Sub Committees. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Coordination Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 15: Coordination ........................................................................... 15-1 15.1 Coordination of Activities within the Region ..................................... 15-1 15.1.1 Coordination with Regional Agencies ................................... 15-1 15.1.1.1 Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition .................... 15-2 15.1.1.2 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies ........................ 15-2 15.1.1.3 Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association ......................................................... 15-2 15.1.1.4 Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association ......................................................... 15-2 15.1.1.5 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation District ................................................................ 15-3 15.1.1.6 Bay Area Watershed Network ............................ 15-3 15.2 Coordination of Activities outside of the Region .............................. 15-3 15.2.1 Identification and Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Regions ............................................................................... 15-3 15.2.1.1 Relationship with the Westside Sacramento River IRWM Region ............................................ 15-6 15.2.1.2 Relationship with the North Coast IRWM Region ................................................................ 15-6 15.2.1.3 Relationship with the East Contra Costa County IRWM Region ......................................... 15-6 15.2.1.4 Relationship with the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Region ..................................................... 15-7 15.2.1.5 Relationship with the Santa Cruz IRWM Region ................................................................ 15-8 15.3 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies ................................ 15-8 15.3.1 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................................................. 15-10 15.3.2 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ....................................................................... 15-10 15.3.3 State Coastal Conservancy ................................................ 15-10 15.3.4 California Department of Water Resources ........................ 15-11 15.3.5 State Water Resources Control Board ............................... 15-11 15.3.6 California Resources Agency ............................................. 15-11 15.3.7 California Environmental Protection Agency ....................... 15-12 15.3.8 Department of Public Health............................................... 15-12 15.3.9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................ 15-12 15.3.10 ........................................................... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 15-12 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Coordination 15.3.11 .............................................................................. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......................................................................... 15-13 15.3.12 ....... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service ................................................... 15-13 List of Tables Table 15-1: Changes in Regional Boundaries since 2006 Plan ............................................. 15-5 List of Figures Figure 15-1: Surrounding IRWM Regions ............................................................................. 15-4 Figure 15-2: Location of Pittsburg and Antioch in Relation to Regional Boundaries and DACs............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-1 Coordination Chapter 15: Coordination This chapter presents an overview of the Bay Area IRWM region’s coordination with local, regional and state agencies, stakeholders and neighboring IRWM regions. 15.1 Coordination of Activities within the Region Developing this Plan Update involved a diverse group of water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood control, watershed, municipal, environmental, and regulatory groups whose input played a key role in defining water resources management goals and objectives, identifying and selecting priority projects to help meet those goals and objectives and coordinating IRWM related activities and efforts. A wide range of local and regional agencies and districts participated in development of the Plan and will continue to participate in IRWMP implementation. These local planning entities (see Chapters 12 and 13: Relation to Water Planning and Relation to Local Land Use Planning for more information), along with the general Stakeholder group, participated in CC meetings, Stakeholder meetings and workshops, provided updated data, reviewed and commented on IRWMP sections, sponsored projects, and participated in project review. A master stakeholder list was developed at the start of the Plan update process. The list contains approximately 1,500 contacts representing all local and regional water resource and flood agencies, watershed organizations, a complete and current list of elected city, county and state officials, city and county land use agencies, disadvantaged community representatives, environmental and community groups, media, and Native American Tribal contacts (Appendix 14-A). Contacts in the master stakeholder list were provided with information about key milestones and deadlines, public workshops, and opportunities to review draft chapters. All interested stakeholders and members of the public were provided access to information about the Plan, the Plan update process, project criteria and submission, and meetings and workshops. Members of the public also had the opportunity to review and provide input on draft chapters of the Plan. The primary sources of information for the public were the BAIRWMP website and update emails. Through notices sent to the master mailing list, and re-distributed to partner and stakeholder lists, a significant number of people who follow water and land use issues were made aware of the update process, and were encouraged to visit the website and attend meetings and workshops. In addition to regional meetings and workshops, subregional meetings and workshops also provided an opportunity for project proponents and stakeholders to coordinate their IRWM related activities and efforts. 15.1.1 Coordination with Regional Entities Water management agencies throughout the San Francisco Bay Area have a long history of regional cooperation and planning. A number of these regional water management organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area include organizations that span multiple regions. The following regional organizations play an integral role in regional and inter-regional coordination: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-2 Coordination 15.1.1.1 Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition The Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC) was formed in 2002 by ACWD, BAWSCA, CCWD, EBMUD, SCVWD, SFPUC, and Zone 7 to address regional water supply and water quality issues. BAWAC membership has since been expanded to include North Bay agencies MMWD, Solano CWA, and Sonoma CWA. BAWAC is committed to advancing water conservation in the region through new technologies, refinement of existing conservation programs, and evaluation of regional opportunities in marketing, product labeling, and research. Projects carried out by these agencies include a variety of regional water conservation programs, regional interties, and a subset has been steadily working on studies for a Regional Desalination Project. BAWAC agencies are represented in the Bay Area, East Contra Costa NS Westside and Pajaro IRWM regions. 15.1.1.2 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies The Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) is a joint powers agency formed in 1984 by the five largest wastewater treatment agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its members are local governmental agencies involved in urban water resource management and San Francisco Bay water quality stewardship. BACWA’s members treat all domestic, commercial and a significant amount of industrial wastewater in the Bay Area. BACWA was formed to foster regional understanding of watershed protection and enhancement for long-term stewardship of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. BACWA also actively promotes and develops recycled water through its Recycled Water Committee which monitors and provides input on legislative and regulatory issues that affect the Bay Area, collaborates to secure funding for Bay Area recycled water projects, and develops regional informational pieces to Increase public awareness of recycled water and its use in the Bay Area (for more information, see Chapter 2). BACWA members are represented in the Bay Area, East Contra Costa, Westside and Pajaro IRWM regions. 15.1.1.3 Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association The Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) was formed in 1990 in response to the NPDES permitting program for stormwater. BASMAA encourages regional consistency and efficient use of public resources. BASMAA, is a consortium of the following nine San Francisco Bay Area municipal storm water programs: Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program, Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, Napa County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Sonoma County Water Agency and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. Other agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City and County of San Francisco (combined sewer system), participate in some BASMAA activities. Together, these agencies represent more than 90 agencies, including 79 cities and 6 counties, and the bulk of the watershed immediately surrounding San Francisco Bay. BASMAA agencies span the Bay Area, East Contra Costa, Westside and North Coast IRWM regions. 15.1.1.4 Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association The Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) was formed in 2007 as a result of coordinated IRWM efforts by the regional flood protection agencies and provides a forum for regional coordination and collaboration with State and Federal regulatory and resource 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-3 Coordination agencies. The nine Bay Area agencies that are signatories to BAFPAA include the Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa and San Mateo Counties Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts, SCVWD, Solano CWA, Sonoma CWA, and Zone 7. Most of the flood district boundaries coincide with County boundaries and extend outside the Bay Area Region. BAFPAA agencies span the Bay Area, Pajaro and East Contra Costa IRWM regions. 15.1.1.5 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation District The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation District (BAWSCA) was enabled by AB 2058 in 2003 to represent the interests of 24 cities and water districts in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, and two private utilities that purchase water wholesale from the San Francisco regional water system. BAWSCA encourages water conservation and use of recycled water supplies on a regional basis. BAWSCA agencies span the Bay Area IRWM Region. In addition to the regional organization described above, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, ABAG, Bay Area Rapid Transit, and RWQCB all have regional planning programs/efforts for the nine-county Bay Area. The RWQCB and BCDC also have regulatory purview over the same nine counties. 15.1.1.6 Bay Area Watershed Network The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) is a network of natural resource professionals and community members working locally to protect watersheds throughout the Bay Area. BAWN members interact and collaborate in various ways, providing opportunities to exchange information and coordinate ideas, proposals, and activities valuable to the IRWM Planning process. 15.2 Coordination of Activities outside of the Region 15.2.1 Identification and Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Regions The Bay Area IRWM Region is adjacent to five IRWMP regions as shown in Figure 15-2 (there are no IRWM regions in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties). When preparing the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) application in 2009, the CC contacted and coordinated efforts with water supply, wastewater, flood protection, and watershed and habitat and restoration agencies in adjacent IRWM regions. Agencies are aware of each other’s efforts and projects that overlap planning regions have been identified and coordinated to the degree possible (see Section 15.2.1.3). Several of the agencies participating in the Bay Area IRWMP are also participating in these other regional planning efforts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-4 Coordination Figure 15-2: Surrounding IRWM Regions 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-5 Coordination Multiple IRWM planning efforts were initiated during 2005-2006 and several of these were consolidated into the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Plan. Since the IRWM Plan was first adopted in 2006 additional consolidation and clarification has occurred. Table 15-4 summarizes the historic overlaps in the San Francisco Bay Area region that have been consolidated since the 2006 Plan Table 15-4: Changes in Regional Boundaries since 2006 Plan The San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region Coordinating Committee (CC) and the other regions listed in Table 15-4 resolved the overlapping boundaries listed in the table through direct contact with the leaders of the other regional efforts in writing, phone conversations, and invitations for them to participate in CC meetings. The approach was for the other regions to determine for themselves if partnering and integrating with the Bay Area IRWM Plan was beneficial to them. Each reached their decision independently after visiting CC meetings and discussing the proposed mergers of the boundaries with their respective organizing committees. Below is a brief description the neighboring IRWM regions, their water management priorities and coordination with development of the Bay Area IRWM. Region Description of Previous Region Overlap Boundary Resolution Tomales Bay Watershed Integrated Coastal Water Management Plan Complete overlap The Tomales Bay Watershed Council decided not to pursue its Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan independently of the Bay Area IRWMP. IRWM efforts in the Tomales Bay watershed are now included in the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM effort. East Contra Costa County (ECCC) IRWM Plan Overlap of northwestern triangular area Integration of northwestern portion into the Bay Area Region. Efforts with the San Joaquin IRWM region to be coordinated under East Contra Costa County region’s governance Napa-Berryessa IRWM Plan Overlap of southwestern portion Complete integration of southwestern portion into the Bay Area Region. The rest of their original region is coordinating with the Westside IRWM Region. Solano IRWM Plan Overlap of southwestern portion Complete integration of southwestern portion into the Bay Area Region. The rest of their original region is coordinating with the Westside IRWM Region. Sonoma County Agencies Overlap of southeastern- portion Integration of southeastern portion into the Bay Area Region through Sonoma County Water Agency. The rest of the county is involved in the North Coast IRWM efforts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-6 Coordination 15.2.1.1 Relationship with the Westside Sacramento River IRWM Region Napa County is split between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento River IRWMPs. The Bay Area Region generally covers the western part of Napa County and focuses on the Napa River and Suisun Creek watersheds. The Westside Sacramento River Region, which is one of eight IRWMPs within the Sacramento Valley Funding Area delineated by DWR, generally covers the eastern part of Napa County and focuses on the Putah Creek/Lake Berryessa watershed. The drainage divide between Fairfield and Vacaville is the boundary between the Bay Area and Westside Regions. During development of the RAP application, Bay Area representatives contacted and coordinated with Solano County to resolve overlap areas. Representatives from Solano County Water Agency and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District provide a linkage between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento IRWMPs, enabling information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts as well as the potential for developing interregional projects. Both agencies are targeted reviewers for the Plan Update process and, as such, receive each draft chapter prior to public release for review and input. Both agencies are also members of the Westside IRWM coordinating committee. Depending upon their location within the Napa or Solano county, projects will be incorporated into the appropriate IRWM Plan. 15.2.1.2 Relationship with the North Coast IRWM Region The North Coast IRWM Planning area is consistent with the North Coast RWQCB boundary. The North Coast Region is made up of watersheds that drain to the Pacific Ocean from Marin County in the south to the Oregon border in the north and includes the counties of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Mendocino and Sonoma. The major issues in this region are primarily related to timber harvesting, management and enhancement of anadromous fisheries, and protection of wild and scenic rivers. This area is much less urbanized and much wetter than the San Francisco Bay Area, and thus has fewer problems with water supply reliability, stormwater management and urban runoff, and wastewater discharges. Sonoma and Marin Counties lie within both the North Coast IRWM and Bay Area IRWM Regions. The County of Marin, which only has a small portion in the North Coast region, participates in the Bay Area IRWMP and pursues planning and project implementation in the North Coast Region, as do stakeholders in Sonoma County. The Sonoma County Water Agency and the North Bay Watershed Association, both of which are PUT members, provide a link between the Bay Area and North Coast IRWMPs, enabling information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts. They also provide joint updates at Sonoma County Water Agency’s (SCWA) quarterly water advisory committee meetings which includes all of SCWA’s water contractors and members of the public including stakeholders 15.2.1.3 Relationship with the East Contra Costa County IRWM Region The East Contra Costa County (ECCC) IRWM region is the only IRWM planning region with boundaries that overlap the Bay Area Region boundaries, straddling the Bay Area and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions. The ECCC region is isolated from the remainder of Contra Costa County and the greater Bay Area by the ridgelines of Mt. Diablo in the south and west, and by the San Joaquin and Old Rivers on the north and east. However, the boundaries of the RWQCB Region 2 (and the San Francisco Funding area) also include the Willow Creek and Kirker Creek watersheds that drain to the east of the Mt. Diablo hydrologic divide thus creating an overlap. These two watersheds are included in the Bay Area Region, resulting from the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-7 Coordination defined boundaries of the San Francisco Funding Area and RWQCB Region 2, and within the East Contra Costa County IRWM region, whose boundaries are defined by the hydrologic divide created by the ridgeline. The entire East Contra Costa IRWM region drains to the Delta primarily through Marsh Creek, Kirker Creek, and Kellogg Creek watersheds. These watersheds encompass the jurisdictional boundaries of all of the East Contra Costa County IRWM region participating entities except for Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Water District, which serve an area broader than East Contra Costa County. The agencies in the East Contra Costa County region all fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 5). The dominant issues in this region are water quality in the Delta, flood control and floodplain development and endangered aquatic species protection, which are a subset of the large complement of water resources management issues in the Bay Area region as a whole. This overlap has caused some challenges. Under the definitions of funding areas as described in the DWR grant guidelines, the overlap area is potentially eligible for funds from both the San Francisco and San Joaquin funding areas. The potential for leveraging multiple funding sources with the San Francisco Bay IRWM region is especially important as the overlap area includes a disproportionate number of Disadvantaged Community (DAC) members. At the same time, the requirements for coordination are increased. The cities of Pittsburg and Antioch are located in an area that is contained within both the ECCC and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM regions (Error! Reference source not found.). Approximately 2 percent of the City of Pittsburg is located wholly within the San Joaquin area, with the remaining 98 percent located in the overlap area. Conversely, approximately 99 percent of the City of Antioch is located wholly within the San Joaquin funding area, with only 1 percent located in the overlap area. The Bay Point Area, which sits slightly northwest of Antioch, is fully within the San Francisco Bay funding overlap area. Both the ECCC and San Francisco Bay IRWM regions recognize the importance of implementing projects in the overlap area, particularly due to the high proportion of DACs present in this area. The two regions are currently collaborating to develop a mutually agreeable approach to determining which funding area(s) should contribute funding to support implementation of projects in the overlap area. A representative from East Contra Costa County attends Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee meetings and participated in the planning and prioritization processes for projects that are within the Bay Area regional boundary. 15.2.1.4 Relationship with the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Region The Pajaro River is the largest coastal stream between the San Francisco Bay and the Salinas River Watershed. Due to its large size, there are diverse environments, physical features, and land uses within the watershed. The Pajaro River coastal area has been identified by the State Coastal Conservancy as a Critical Coastal Area (CCA), and the river is also a tributary to Monterey Bay, a federally protected National Marine Sanctuary administered by the National 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-8 Coordination Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many of the water supply, water quality, flood management and environmental enhancement challenges are associated with this unique mix of agriculture, small urban developments and sensitive marine habitats. The Pajaro River Watershed and the Bay Area regions share similar interests in reducing reliance on the Delta for water supply, increasing recycled water use and water conservation, and providing high quality drinking water quality. The two regions also both have flood management goals, but the Pajaro River Watershed flood issues pertain to a single river , whereas the Bay Area surface hydrology is more complex. The two IRWM groups share interests in watershed management and environmental protection, but the land use in the Pajaro watershed, which is predominantly agriculture, is very different from the Bay Area. In addition, the Pajaro River Watershed is within the Central Coast hydrologic area. Coordination is facilitated through Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), which is part of both the Bay Area IRWM and Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Watershed Regions. The Bay Area effort includes representatives from SCVWD on the CC, PUT and the targeted reviewer list. 15.2.1.5 Relationship with the Santa Cruz IRWM Region The Santa Cruz County region encompasses approximately 80 percent of the population and 84.3 percent of the land area of northern Santa Cruz County. The planning region is based on watershed and jurisdictional boundaries as well as common water management issues, which are all geographically contained within the region. This area has challenges associated with limited water supplies, urban development limits associated with large portions of the region being forested, mountainous terrain, and significant precipitation. Coordination between the Santa Cruz County and Bay Area Regions has focused on efforts to minimize the area not covered by a planning region in the Central Coast Funding Area in San Mateo County. As a result, the northern boundary of the Santa Cruz IRWM region was adjusted in 2009 to encompass additional portions of small watersheds of Año Nuevo, reducing, yet not eliminating the gap. The gap area is in the Central Coast hydrologic region. 15.3 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies CC members have a long history of working with State and Federal agencies to address water resources management issues and are involved with implementation of the Region’s priority projects. Many proposed IRWMP projects require permits from resource and regulatory agencies and directly impact the region’s ability to effectively manage local water resources during the Plan implementation phase. In addition to the many state or federal regulatory decisions required, there are many opportunities for state or federal assistance with Plan implementation. Regulatory agencies can be of greater assistance in shaping plans and project as they are being developed, thereby making permit review more expedient. Resource and regulatory agencies can also contribute ongoing monitoring data to enable assessment of Plan and project performance A number of the state and federal agencies interact with CC members in the normal course of business. Although the interaction may not necessarily be specific to the IRWMP, they may be related to specific projects. Examples of member interaction with state and federal agencies include: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-9 Coordination  The California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) provides guidance, funding and staff assistance to the Bay Area IRWMP through its San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program. SCC is a non-regulatory state agency focused on land conservation, habitat protection and restoration, urban waterfront development, agricultural conservation and public access. Conservancy staff serve on the CC, assist in the leadership of the Watersheds/Habitat Functional Area and provide access and links to statewide Conservancy programs.  The San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) Implementation Committee which coordinates the implementation of partnership activities, helps to set priorities, exchanges ideas and suggestions about management issues, and recommends work plans and budgets. Members often bring ideas and issues before the committee for comment and consideration. The Committee is made up of representatives from local, state and federal agencies, business and industry, and environmental organizations. The committee provides (and posts) updates on IRWMP activities and progress. Regulatory agencies participating on the committee include: the Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Water Resources, Delta Protection Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The involvement of State and Federal agencies in the development of the 2006 IRWMP began with their participation during the development of the four Functional Area Documents (FAD). Resource and regulatory agencies were invited to participate in the Watershed Plan Development Committee, an open-ended membership group that provided guidance regarding the Watershed Plan’s purpose, development and application. State and Federal agencies that participated in this group included: CALFED (now the Delta Stewardship Council), the California Resources Agency, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the RWQCB and SCC. USACE, State Coastal Conservancy and SFEP were also involved early on in meetings with these agencies, forming a Resource and Regulatory Agencies Group. State and Federal agencies were invited to participate in the development of the IRWMP Update, attend CC meetings and workshops, and comment on draft chapters. To varying degrees they:  Participated in PUT and CC meetings,  Reviewed and commented on IRWMP Chapters,  Provided guidance on project ranking, and  Partnered on Candidate Projects On multiple occasions, DWR participated in Stakeholder meetings. An overview of the major State and Federal agencies that have been involved in the development of the Plan and/or implementation of IRWMP projects is provided below. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-10 Coordination 15.3.1 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board The mission of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best protect the beneficial uses of the state’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology and hydrology. RWQCB staff regulates permitting for discharges of fill and dredged material, stormwater permitting, water quality certifications, and waste discharge requirements. Representatives from the RWQCB are part of the CC and have been invited to participate in stakeholder workshops and CC meetings. 15.3.2 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), created by the California Legislature in 1965, is dedicated to the protecting and enhancing the San Francisco Bay, and to encouraging its responsible use.37 BCDC has planning and regulatory responsibility over development in San Francisco Bay and along the Bay’s nine-county shoreline. BCDC is a federally-designated state coastal management agency for the San Francisco Bay segment of the California coastal zone. This enables BCDC to use the authority of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act to ensure that federal projects and activities are consistent with the policies of its San Francisco Bay Plan and state law. The Commission is also responsible for administering development permits for the San Francisco Bay and Suisun Marsh. These permits must be obtained for proposed IRWMP projects affecting tidal wetlands or baylands habitats. Representatives from BCDC were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.3 State Coastal Conservancy The State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) was established in 1976 as a non-regulatory state agency that employs innovative approaches to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources. The legislature created the SCC as a unique entity with flexible powers to serve as an intermediary among governmental agencies, NGOs, citizens, and the private sector in recognition that creative approaches would be needed to preserve California’s coast and San Francisco Bay lands for future generations. The San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program, administered by the SCC, was established in 1998 to address the natural resource and recreational goals of the nine-county Bay Area in a coordinated and comprehensive way. The SCC serves all Californians and state visitors who are interested in enjoying, improving, and protecting the spectacular natural resources of the California coast and San Francisco Bay. Because of its accomplishments and relationships with other agencies, NGOs, and the private sector, the SCC serves as an advisory body for the Watershed Management & Habitat Protection and Restoration FAD (WM-HPR). The SCC’s work with local watershed and creeks groups allows it to serve as a representative for local watershed and habitat protection concerns throughout the Bay region. 37 Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Accessed July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-11 Coordination The SCC, as a member of the CC and PUT, is the most active State Agency participant in Bay Area IRWM planning. The SCC participated in meetings, reviewed and commented on Chapters, provided guidance on project ranking as part of the Project Selection Committee, and currently has a project on the Active list. 15.3.4 California Department of Water Resources The California Department of Water Resources (DWR), in cooperation with other state agencies, manages California’s water resources to benefit the state’s people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments. DWR provides dam safety and flood control services, assists local water districts in water management and conservation activities, promotes recreational opportunities, and plans for future statewide water needs. DWR also operates and maintains the State Water Project. On multiple occasions, DWR has participated in CC meetings. DWR representatives are Targeted Reviewers, which means that they have an opportunity to review the Chapters prior to release of the Public draft (see Chapter 1: Governance). 15.3.5 State Water Resources Control Board The mission of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is to “preserve, enhance and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations”.38 The SWRCB has joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection thus providing comprehensive protection for California’s waters. Representatives from the SWRCB have been invited to participate in key workshops and meetings and are on the list of targeted reviewers. 15.3.6 California Resources Agency The mission of the California Resources Agency is to “restore, protect and manage the state’s natural, historical and cultural resources for current and future generations using creative approaches and solutions based on science, collaboration and respect for all the communities and interests involved.”39 The Resources Agency is responsible for overseeing policies, activities and budgeting for 24 departments, commissions, boards, and conservancies within the state, including California State Parks, Department of Fish and Wildlife, DWR, BCDC, SCC, and Wildlife Conservation Board, among others. The Resources Agency collaborates with the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to provide a “California Watershed Portal” in order to identify ongoing watershed activities and provide links to planning and other tools. 38 State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). 2006. Home Page. Available: <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 39 California Resources Agency.2006. Home Page. Available: <http://resources.ca.gov/>. Accessed: July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-12 Coordination Representatives from the Resources Agency has been invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.7 California Environmental Protection Agency Formed in 1991, the mission of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is to “restore, protect and enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality and economic vitality”. Representatives from CalEPA were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops held throughout the development of the Plan. 15.3.8 Department of Public Health The Department of Public Health (DPH) regulates public water systems, including allowable treatment technologies for drinking water and the treatment and distribution of recycled water. Any Plan Projects that involve treatment of drinking water or recycled wat er will require coordination with DPH. 15.3.9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is “to provide leadership in sustaining and enhancing fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of the American people and to engage citizens in the shared stewardship of our nation’s natural resources.”40 The USFWS is responsible for enforcing federal wildlife laws, protecting endangered spices, restoring and conserving wildlife habitat, managing migratory birds, restoring nationally significant fisheries, and helping foreign governments with their conservation efforts. Representatives from the USFWS were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Established in 1970 in response to growing public demand, the mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is to protect human health and the environment. The USEPA develops and enforces regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The USEPA is responsible for researching and setting national standards for environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance.41 The USEPA is another regulatory agent responsible for discharges in to the San Francisco Bay and surrounding wetlands through oversight of Corps administration of CWA Section 404 permitting. The USEPA also manages and administers various grants and environmental financing programs for watershed management projects. The USEPA would be involved with proposed IRWMP projects related to discharge permits. 40 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Home Page. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Home Page. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-13 Coordination Representatives from the USEPA were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is to “provide quality, responsive engineering services to the nation42 by focusing on water resources, environment, infrastructure, and homeland security. Part of the Corps’ mission includes planning, designing, building and operating water resources and wetlands, as well as handling waterways regulation and permitting. The Corps carries out a wide array of projects that provide coastal protection, flood protection, hydropower, navigable waters and ports, recreational opportunities, and water supply. The Corps provides regulatory authority and funding assistance for a variety of water resources management projects in the Bay Area, particularly related to flood management and habitat restoration. Representatives from the Corps participated in various workshops. 15.3.12 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the management, conservation and protection of living marine resources of the Exclusive Economic Zone (water three to 200 miles offshore). NMFS reviews and predicts the status of fish stocks, validates compliance with fisheries regulations, and works to reduce wasteful fishing practices. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the ESA, NMFS works toward recovery of protected marine species, sustainable fisheries, and prevention of lost economic potential associated with overfishing, declining species and degraded habitats. Representatives from NMFS were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 42 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Home Page. Available: <http://www.usace.army.mil/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Climate Change Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures............................................................................................................................. iii Section 16: Climate Change ...................................................................... 16-1 16.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 16-1 16.2 Climate Change Projections Affecting the Bay Area Region ............ 16-2 16.2.1 Climate Change Scenarios ................................................... 16-2 16.2.1.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections ............... 16-3 16.2.1.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections ... 16-3 16.2.2 Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding .................................. 16-5 16.3 Vulnerability to Climate Change ...................................................... 16-7 16.3.1 Vulnerable Watershed Characteristics ................................. 16-8 16.3.2 Vulnerability Sector Assessment .......................................... 16-8 16.3.3 Water Demand ................................................................... 16-11 16.3.3.1 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-13 16.3.4 Water Supply ..................................................................... 16-13 16.3.4.1 Water Supply Portfolio of the Region ................ 16-14 16.3.4.2 Vulnerability to Potential Climate Change Impacts ............................................................ 16-14 16.3.4.3 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-15 16.3.5 Water Quality ..................................................................... 16-16 16.3.5.1 Imported Water ................................................ 16-17 16.3.5.2 Regional Surface Waters .................................. 16-18 16.3.5.3 Regional Groundwater ..................................... 16-18 16.3.5.4 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-18 16.3.6 Sea-Level Rise ................................................................... 16-19 16.3.6.1 Impacts ............................................................ 16-19 16.3.6.2 Vulnerability ...................................................... 16-21 16.3.6.3 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-22 16.3.7 Flooding ............................................................................. 16-28 16.3.8 Ecological Health and Habitat ............................................ 16-29 16.3.8.1 Bay Area Ecosystem Assets ............................ 16-29 16.3.8.2 Recent Studies and Findings ............................ 16-29 16.3.9 Hydropower ........................................................................ 16-31 16.4 Vulnerability Prioritization .............................................................. 16-31 16.5 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change ............... 16-32 16.5.1 Statewide Mitigation Strategies .......................................... 16-32 16.5.2 Statewide Adaptation Strategies for the Water Sector ........ 16-33 16.5.3 Regional Adaptation Strategies .......................................... 16-35 16.5.3.1 General ............................................................ 16-38 16.5.3.2 Sea-Level Rise ................................................. 16-38 16.5.3.3 Flooding ........................................................... 16-40 16.5.3.4 Water Supply .................................................... 16-41 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Climate Change 16.5.3.5 Water Quality ................................................... 16-42 16.5.3.6 Ecosystem and Habitat .................................... 16-43 16.5.3.7 Water Demand ................................................. 16-44 16.5.3.8 Hydropower ...................................................... 16-45 16.6 Next Steps .................................................................................... 16-51 16.6.1 Updates on Climate Change Research .............................. 16-51 16.6.2 Climate Change Models and Scenarios ............................. 16-51 16.6.3 Vulnerability Assessment Update ....................................... 16-51 16.6.3.1 Sea-Level Rise ................................................. 16-51 16.6.3.2 Flooding ........................................................... 16-52 16.6.3.3 Water Supply .................................................... 16-53 16.6.3.4 Water Quality ................................................... 16-53 16.6.3.5 Ecosystem & Habitat ........................................ 16-54 16.6.3.6 Water Demand ................................................. 16-54 16.6.3.7 Hydropower ...................................................... 16-55 16.6.4 Create a GHG Baseline ...................................................... 16-55 16.6.5 Quantify Adaption and Mitigation Strategies at the Project Level ...................................................................... 16-56 16.6.6 Develop Performance Metrics ............................................ 16-56 16.7 References .................................................................................... 16-56 List of Tables Table 16-1: Sea-Level Rise Projections (NRC 2012)4........................................................... 16-5 Table 16-2: Relative Sea-Level Rise Projections for San Francisco Bay (NRC 2012) .......... 16-6 Table 16-3: Summary of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment .................................... 16-9 Table 16-4: Estimated SWP Exports By Water Year Type – Future Conditions With and Without Climate Change .............................................................................. 16-15 Table 16-5: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast ................ 16-21 Table 16-6: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay ....... 16-22 Table 16-7: North Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay ...................................................................... 16-23 Table 16-8: East Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay .............................................................................................. 16-23 Table 16-9: West Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay ...................................................................... 16-24 Table 16-10: Miles of Roads and Railways Vulnerable To a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific and San Francisco Bay Coasts - 2050 .............................................. 16-27 Table 16-11: Estimated Length and Capital Cost of Coastal Armoring in Bay Area Counties ....................................................................................................... 16-27 Table 16-12: Climate Change Vulnerability Prioritization .................................................... 16-31 Table 16-13: AB 32 Scoping Plan Water Sector Mitigation Measures ................................ 16-33 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan iii Climate Change Table 16-14: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Responses and Performance Metrics ......................................................................................................... 16-45 List of Figures Figure 16-1: Historical and Projected Annual Average Air Temperature for the SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios ................ 16-4 Figure16-2: Projected Annual Precipitation for SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios .............................................................. 16-4 Figure 16-3: NRC (2012) Projections of Sea Level Rise ....................................................... 16-6 Figure 16-4: Recurrence Intervals of Extreme Water Levels ................................................. 16-7 Figure 16-5: Number of Days Max Temperature Exceeds the 98th Percentile ..................... 16-12 Figure 16-6: Monthly Mean Sea Level at the Presidio ........................................................ 16-20 Figure 16-7: Wastewater Treatment Plants and Power Plants on the San Francisco Bay Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood by 2050 ...................................................... 16-25 Figure 16-8: Electrical Transmission and Transmission Infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay Area ...................................................................................... 16-26 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-1 Climate Change Chapter 16: Climate Change 16.1 Introduction “Climate change is already affecting California and is projected to continue to do so well into the foreseeable future. Current and projected climate changes include increased temperatures, sea- level rise, a reduced winter snowpack, altered precipitation patterns and more frequent storm events. These changes have the potential for a wide variety of impacts such as altered agricultural productivity, wildfire risk, water supply, public health, public safety, ecosystem function and economic continuity.”43 “If the state were to take no action to reduce or minimize expected impacts from future climate change, the costs could be severe. A 2008 report by the University of California, Berkeley and the non-profit organization Next 10 estimated that if no such action is taken in California, damages across sectors would result in ‘tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs’ and ‘expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risk.’”44 “Climate change is already affecting California’s water resources. Bold steps must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, even if emissions ended today, the accumulation of existing greenhouse gases will continue to impact climate for years to come. Warmer temperatures, altered patterns of precipitation and runoff, and rising sea levels are increasingly compromising the ability to effectively manage water supplies, floods and other natural resources. Adapting California’s water management system in response to climate change presents one of the most significant challenges of this century … Water and wastewater managers and customers … can play a key role in water and energy efficiency, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and stewardship of water and other natural resources.”45 The conclusions described above make it imperative that climate change impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions be integrated into Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMP). This climate change section was developed based on the Proposition 84 IRW MP Guidelines for integrating climate change (October 2012). Those guidelines require the IRWMP to:  Describe, consider, and address the effects of climate change on the region and disclose, consider, and reduce where possible greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when developing and implementing projects.  Identify climate change impacts and address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, duration, timing, and quality of runoff and recharge.  Consider the effects of sea-level rise on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures. 43 California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide, 2012, Executive Summary. 44 California Adaptation Strategy, 2009, page 3. 45 Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water, DWR, 2008, page 2. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-2 Climate Change In addition, future updates should describe policies and procedures that promote adaptive management; and minimize risk, damage and loss due to climate change impacts. This section is intended to focus on assessing the potential climate change vulnerabilities of the Region’s water resources, identifying climate change adaptation strategies; with the overall goal of making climate change adaptation an overarching theme throughout the Plan. The recently issued Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning dated November 2011 (Schwarz et al. 2011) was used for guidance in developing this Plan section. In addition, information in “Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area (CEC Report CEC-500-2012-071)” dated July 2012, prepared for the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER), and related documents, were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. 16.2 Climate Change Projections Affecting the Bay Area Region The projections used in the analysis are based on information provided in “Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region (CEC-500-2012-042)” dated July 2012 (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012), prepared for the PIER program. 16.2.1 Climate Change Scenarios The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) provides a family of common scenarios that cover a range of plausible trends in GHG emissions over the 21st century as a result of economic, technological, and population change (IPCC 2007). The total amount of GHG emissions and the rate of accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere will drive climate change impacts. The IPCC scenarios are only a sample of the potential climate outcomes; they contain a level of uncertainty, and they have no probabilities assigned to them. Two GHG scenarios have been commonly used in recent planning documents for California. Scenario A2 (Medium–High Emissions) assumes higher GHG emissions and high growth in population and represents a more competitive world that lacks cooperation in sustainable development (similar to “business as usual”), while B1 (Lower Emissions) is a lower GHG emission scenario that represents social consensus and action for sustainable development. Generally, the B1 scenario might be most appropriately viewed as an optimistic “best case” or “policy” scenario for emissions that will require fundamental shifts in global policy, while A2 is more of a status quo scenario reflecting real-world conditions incorporating incremental improvements and may be the more realistic choice for decision-makers to use for climate adaptation planning. To date, actual global emissions have more closely tracked, and even exceeded, the A2 scenario put forth in 2000. Climate change assessments are performed using the output of computer models that project future conditions utilizing GHG emission scenarios as input. These models are not predictive, but provide projections of potential future climate scenarios that can be used for planning purposes. The primary climate variables projected by global climate models (GCMs) that are important for water resources planning in California are changes in air temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea-level rise. A set of six GCMs were run for the two GHG emissions scenarios, A2 and B1, and downscaled to locations in California. The six GCM models used were: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-3 Climate Change 1. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Parallel Climate Model (PCM) 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluids Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) model 3. French Centre National de Researches Meterologiques CNRM3 model 4. NCAR CCSM3 model 5. German MPI ECHAMS model 6. Japanese MIROC3.2 (medium-resolution) model Based on historical simulations, the selected models are capable of producing a reasonable representation of California’s seasonal precipitation and temperature, variability of annual precipitation, and the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012). 16.2.1.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections All of the models show increased warming throughout the 21st century, with average annual air temperature increasing about 2F to 5F by 2050. The Mediterranean seasonal precipitation pattern is expected to continue during the 21st century, with most of the precipitation occurring during winter from North Pacific storms. The hydro-climate (hydrology and weather) is expected to be influenced by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) with alternating periods of wet and dry water years. In the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there will be some shift to more winter precipitation occurring as rain instead of snow, with a reduction in snowpack accumulation and shifts in runoff patterns, especially during the summer and fall. 16.2.1.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections The historical average annual temperature in the San Francisco Bay Area region is 56.8F (13.8C). Overall average air temperatures in the SF Bay Area are expected to rise 2.7F (1.5C) between 2000 and 2050 regardless of the GHG emissions scenario, but the A2 and B1 scenarios project increases of 10.8F (6C) and 3.6F (2C), respectively, by the end of the 21st century. Figure 16-1 shows the projected air temperature change for the GCMs averaged from 2000 through 2100, compared with the historical baseline from 1950-2000 used for the initial conditions for the models. The temperature projections begin to deviate between the A2 and B1 scenarios around mid-century, with the A2 scenario increase about twice the B1 scenario by 2100 (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012). Precipitation in the Region, as shown in Figure 16-2, is essentially all due to rain, and significant shifts in the timing of precipitation are not expected to occur (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012). The SF Bay Area is likely to continue with a Mediterranean climate of cool wet winters and hot dry summers. Possible changes in precipitation projected by the GCMs are uncertain in part due to the highly variable precipitation that California experiences on an annual and decadal time scale. Up to the year 2050 annual precipitation changes produce mixed results; however there is an indication that conditions will be drier than the historical average in the second half of the century. Looking at averaged projections by month, it is possible to identify greater reductions in precipitation in March and April while November, December and January may remain relatively unchanged. While average conditions may be drier the expectation is that more intense downpours will occur during a somewhat shorter rainy season. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-4 Climate Change Figure 16-1: Historical and Projected Annual Average Air Temperature for the SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios Source: Figure 3, Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis (2012). Black line is historical, Blue line is B1 (Lower Emission) scenario. Red line is A2 (Medimum to Higher Emissions) scenario. Figure16-2: Projected Annual Precipitation for SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios Source: Figure 7, Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis (2012). Black line is historical, Green line is B1 (Lower Emissions) scenario, Brown line is A2 (Medium to Higher Emissions) scenario. A2 A2 B1 B1 A2 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-5 Climate Change 16.2.2 Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Sea-level rise is expected to increase the risk of coastal erosion and flooding along the California coast, and higher water levels due to sea-level rise could magnify the adverse impact of storm surges and high waves. Impacts to assets from extreme high tides in addition to net increases in sea level will likely result in increased inundation frequency, extents, and depths leading to catastrophic flooding and coastal erosion. Understanding the extent, depth and duration of inundation and the patterns of erosion will be necessary for characterizing infrastructure vulnerability in coastal areas. The picture is further complicated by the concurrent vertical movement of the land due to tectonic activity. Projections of the relative sea level, the sum of both sea level rise and vertical land movement, are therefore important in the SF Bay Area. Sea level has been measured at the Presidio tide gauge in San Francisco since 1854, with a recorded rise in relative sea level of 7.6 inches (19.3 cm) over the last 100 years (NRC 2012). Rates of relative sea-level rise vary along the coast in relation to vertical land movement: the observed rise per century is 8.0 inches (20.3 cm) in San Diego; 3.3 inches (8.4 cm) in Los Angeles; 2.7 inches (6.9 cm) in Port San Luis and is falling in Crescent City at a rate of 2.9 inches (7.4 cm) per century (NRC 2012, Table 4.6). Present sea-level rise projections suggest that global sea levels in the 21st century can be expected to be much higher which will result from higher rates of relative sea-level rise. These projections are summarized in the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document (OPC 2013) and in Table 16-1 below: Table 16-1: Sea-Level Rise Projections (NRC 2012)4 Time Period North of Cape Mendocino46 South of Cape Mendocino 2000 - 2030 -2 to 9 in 2 to 12 in 2000 – 2050 -1 to 19 in 5 to 24 in 2000 – 2100 4 to 56 in 17 to 66 in The National Research Council (NRC, 2012) updated the AR4 IPCC projections originally developed in 2006 by downscaling to the regional scale and by incorporating improved ice models, isostatic rebound and tectonic movement. Downscaling to the regional level increases uncertainty as does looking further into the future due to lack of understanding of physical processes, the ability to model the processes and the underlying assumptions of the scenarios. The NRC (2012) assigns high confidence to its 2030 projections but this confidence diminishes to low by 2100. 46 National Research Council, 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 5 The differences in sea-level rise projections north and south of Cape Mendocino are due mainly to vertical land movement. North of Cape Mendocino, geologic forces are causing much of the land to uplift, resulting in a lower rise in sea level, relative to t he land, than has been observed farther south. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-6 Climate Change Figure 16-3 shows the NRC (2012) projections for California in comparison with their projected global trend and also with the projections of Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009) which has been widely used in guidance. Figure 16-3: NRC (2012) Projections of Sea Level Rise Source: Figure 5.11, NRC (2012). V& R refers to Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009). In addition, the NRC (2012) report provides estimates of relative sea-level rise for San Francisco Bay by the inclusion of regional influences on sea level such as regional tectonic movement and gravitational influences of ice caps as shown in Table 16-2. The “Range” represents the high and low estimates from the models, and the “Projection” represents the mid- range estimate with an estimate of accuracy (i.e., +2 inches). Table 16-2: Relative Sea-Level Rise Projections for San Francisco Bay (NRC 2012) Year Projection (in) Range (in) 2030 6 2-12 2050 11 5-24 2100 36 17-66 Source: Table 5.3, NRC (2012) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-7 Climate Change The discussion above is in reference to mean sea level; however, the first impacts that will affect infrastructure will be from storms which generate more extreme water levels as shown in Figure 16-4 below. The figure shows that as sea-level rises (gray dotted lines) the extreme water level of a fixed recurrence event will also rise (gray solid lines). For infrastructure at a given elevation (denoted by the red line), the frequency of inundation will increase over time. In the example shown in Figure 16-4, a structure inundated with a 10 year return interval in 2020 will become inundated by a 1 year return interval by 2045. The exposure to more frequent extreme water levels will have an impact on infrastructure much earlier than mean sea level, e.g., operations will be affected more frequently well before the site is permanently inundated. Figure 16-4: Recurrence Intervals of Extreme Water Levels Source: Historical (solid black jagged line) and annual extreme water levels (black crosses) from Presidio tide gauge. Infrastructure at a given elevation is represented by the red line. Dotted lines indicate OPC 2011 projections. Year 2000 recurence intervals from Knowles (2010), developed from Kriebel (2011). 16.3 Vulnerability to Climate Change This section identifies the potential climate change vulnerabilities of the Region’s water resources. The climate change assessment presented in this section is at least equivalent to the checklist assessment in the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning and consistent with climate change requirements in the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-8 Climate Change Proposition 84 IRWMP Guidelines (October 2012). These vulnerabilities were also discussed with the climate change Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) formed for the Bay Area IRWMP. 16.3.1 Vulnerable Watershed Characteristics Identification of watershed characteristics that could potentially be vulnerable to future climate change is the first step in assessing vulnerabilities of water resources in the Region. In the context of this analysis, vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system is exposed to, susceptible to, and able to cope with or adjust to, the adverse effects of climate change, consistent with the definition in the recently issued Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. Table 16-3 provides a summary list of water-related resources that are considered important in the Region and that are potentially vulnerable to future climate change. The summary table provides the main water planning categories applicable to the Region and a general overview of the qualitative assessment of each category with respect to anticipated climate change impacts. The main categories follow the climate change vulnerability checklist assessment as defined in the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. These categories also reflect a combination of the IRWMP requirements and are consistent with Proposition 84 requirements. Table 16-3 also provides a qualitative description of the anticipated climate change impacts on these identified resources. It should be noted that only those water-related resources likely to be vulnerable to climate change are considered in the analysis provided in the following subsections. 16.3.2 Vulnerability Sector Assessment There has been extensive scientific research on climate change impacts and findings have been published in a vast collection of peer-reviewed technical literature. However, there is relatively little information that presents specific tools for how to apply impacts in the context of addressing climate change impacts on water resources. In addition, far less information is available on subregional or local geographic areas because the spatial resolution of the existing climate change models is still quite low. One additional challenge is that precipitation projections cannot be easily converted directly into surface runoff and groundwater recharge to connect changes with local water resources planning activities. This section presents the vulnerability of each characteristic identified in Table 16-3 with respect to climate change projections given the existing tools and available data. This is an initial attempt using projections specific to the Region for the vulnerability assessment in support of the IRWMP. The outcome of this initial assessment is intended to help understand the potential impacts, to integrate climate change into long-term planning, and to improve understanding of the uncertainties associated with climate change effects. The vulnerability analysis considers projections for mid-21st century (2050); consistent with available modeling approaches to climate change. Projections through the end of the 21st century are included for perspective only. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-9 Climate Change Table 16-3: Summary of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Water Demand Urban and Agricultural Water Demand – Changes to hydrology in the Region as a result of climate change could lead to changes in total water demand and use patterns will change, both in quantities and patterns. Increased irrigation (outdoor landscape or agricultural) is anticipated to occur with temperature rise, increased evaporative losses due to warmer temperature, and a longer growing season. Water treatment and distribution systems are most vulnerable to increases in maximum day demand. Water Supply Imported Water – Imported water derived from the Sierra Nevada sources and Delta diversions provide 66% of the water resources available to the Region. Potential impacts on the availability of these sources resulting from climate change directly affect the amount of imported water supply delivered to the Region. Regional Surface Water - Although future projections suggest that small changes in total annual precipitation over the Region will not change much, there may be changes in timing with reductions in the spring and more intense rainfall in the winter. Regional Groundwater – Changes in local hydrology could affect natural recharge to the local groundwater aquifers and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped sustainably over the long-term in some areas. Decreased inflow from more flashy or more intense runoff, increased evaporative losses and warmer and shorter winter seasons can alter natural recharge of groundwater. Salinity intrusion into coastal groundwater aquifers due to sea-level rise could interfere with local groundwater uses. Furthermore, additional reductions in imported water supplies would lead to less imported water available for managed recharge of local groundwater basins and potentially more groundwater pumping in lieu of imported water availability. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-10 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Water Quality Imported Water – For sources derived from the Delta, sea-level rise could result in increases in chloride and bromide (a disinfection by-product (DBP) precursor that is also a component of sea water), potentially requiring changes in treatment for drinking water. Increased temperature could result in an increase in algal blooms, taste and odor events, and a general increase in DBP formation Regional Surface Water – Increased temperature could result in lower dissolved oxygen in streams, and prolong thermocline stratification in lakes and reservoirs forming anoxic bottom conditions and algal blooms. Decrease in annual precipitation could result in higher concentrations of contaminants in streams during droughts or in association with flushing rain events. Increased wildfire risk and flashier or more intense storms could increase turbidity loads for water treatment. Regional Groundwater – sea-level rise could result in increases in chlorides and bromide for some coastal groundwater basins in the Region. Water quality changes in imported water used for recharge could also impact groundwater quality. Sea-Level Rise Sea-level rise is additive to tidal range, storm surges, stream flows, and wind waves, which together will increase the potential for higher total water levels, overtopping, and erosion. Much of the bay shoreline is comprised of low-lying diked baylands which are already vulnerable to flooding. In addition to rising mean sea level, continued subsidence due to tectonic activity will increase the rate of relative sea-level rise. As sea-level rise increases, both the frequency and consequences of coastal storm events, and the cost of damage to the built and natural environment, will increase. Existing coastal armoring (including levees, breakwaters, and other structures) is likely to be insufficient to protect against projected sea-level rise. Crest elevations of structures will have to be raised or structures relocated to reduce hazards from higher total water levels and larger waves. Flooding Climate change projections are not sensitive enough to assess localized flooding, but the general expectation is that more intense storms would occur thereby leading to more frequent, longer and deeper flooding. Changes to precipitation regimes may increase flooding. Elevated Bay elevations due to sea-level rise will increase backwater effects exacerbating the effect of fluvial floods and storm drain backwater flooding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-11 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Ecosystem and Habitat Changes in the seasonal patterns of temperature, precipitation, and fire due to climate change can dramatically alter ecosystems that provide habitats for California’s native species. These impacts can result in species loss, increased invasive species ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, and changes in vegetation growing ranges. Reduced rain and changes in the seasonal distribution of rainfall may alter timing of low flows in streams and rivers, which in turn would have consequences for aquatic ecosystems. Changes in rainfall patterns and air temperature may affect water temperatures, potentially affecting cold- water aquatic species. Bay Area ecosystems and habitat provide important ecosystem services, such as: carbon storage, enhanced water supply and quality, flood protection, food and fiber production. Climate change is expected to substantially change several of these services. The region provides substantial aquatic and habitat-related recreational opportunities, including: fishing, wildlife viewing, and wine industry tourism (a significant asset to the region) that may be at risk due to climate change effects. Hydropower Currently, several agencies in the Region produce or rely on hydropower produced outside of the Region for a portion of their power needs. As the hydropower is produced in the Sierra, there may be changes in the future in the timing and amount of energy produced due to changes in the timing and amount of runoff as a result of climate change. Some hydropower is also produced within the region and could also be affected by changes in the timing and amount of runoff. 16.3.3 Water Demand Increasing air temperature due to climate change will result in increased evaporation leading to drier soils, increased plant evapotranspiration (ET), and a longer growing season. All of these factors generally increase water demand. In addition, increased salinity due to sea-level rise, as well as increased temperature, could influence the quantity of water needed for industrial and power plant cooling (higher salinity deceases the cycles of concentration achieved in cooling towers) in some subregions. Temperature increases are expected to be higher in the dry months than in the wet months and higher in dry water years. Total water use can vary more than 50 percent seasonally, indicating a significant monthly and seasonal variation in water use with weather conditions. Historically, extreme warm temperatures in the Bay Area have occurred in July and August, but warming due to climate change may extend this period from June through September (Ekstrom and Moser 2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-12 Climate Change Figure 16-5 provides an example of projected increases in extreme temperature days in the East Bay for the B1 and A2 emission scenarios. This graph shows the number of days (n), from April to October, when the maximum temperature (tmax) exceeds the 98th percentile historical (1961–1990) level of 28oC (82.4oF) for the East Bay grid cell from four bias-corrected or constructed analogs downscaled GCMs. The brown carrots and red dots represent the B1 and A2 emission scenarios, respectively. The thick brown (B1) and red (A2) lines show the median value from the four simulations. Figure 16-5: Number of Days Max Temperature Exceeds the 98th Percentile (April – October) in the East Bay Source: From Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012 CEC-500-2012-042) Discussions with the TAC indicated that maximum daily temperatures were more relevant to water demand than average monthly temperatures. A land use demand study by EBMUD (2009) used average temperatures with peaking factors to account for temperature extremes. Agricultural and outdoor landscape demands are likely to be affected by changing weather conditions. Higher temperature generally increases ET rates; but some research studies also suggest higher CO2 levels and higher temperature increase rates of plant growth, and can shorten the time to plant maturity (Hanak and Lund, 2008). This would reduce the overall plant water uptake, partially compensating for potential reductions in agricultural water supply. Thus, the net effect on agricultural crops is still uncertain (Kiparsky and Gleick, 2005) and remains an important area of on-going research. Qualitatively, the ET projections with climate change suggest water demand for agriculture in the Region is anticipated to increase during months where ET is high and decrease in months where ET is low. As a result of increased ET, urban water demand is anticipated to increase because of greater outdoor water use for landscape irrigation. B1 A2 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-13 Climate Change Several agencies have seen peak factors (e.g., maximum day to average day demand) steadily dropping for a decade, mostly from drops in residential outdoor water use caused by the economy, rainfall patterns, and conservation measures. In addition, the Bay Area Region has effective demand control measures and water conservation public information programs in effect, which help explain the decoupling of temperature and demand. This has resulted in an across the board drop in per capita and total water consumption in the Region. 16.3.3.1 Subregional Impacts Water demand varies throughout the Region due to a number of factors including the variety of water uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural), regional micro climates, variable population densities, and changes in industrial water use. In general, ambient temperatures increase at locations more distant from the coast. Historical water use in the Region has remained rather steady even though the population has increased. Although there is significant residential water use in the Region, there are areas where other uses are important. Water demand tends to be lower in areas close to the Bay that are cooler and have more rainfall than inland areas. In recent years, industries with heavy water demands have left the Region, resulting in a decrease in regional demand. Many of the demands are seasonal, with significantly higher demands occurring in the dry months compared with wet months. North Subregion. The North Subregion is the least urbanized and will be particularly vulnerable to increased demands from agriculture in west Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. There are significant agricultural demands in these counties, primarily for wineries and forage crops. Increased urban water demands will be impacted primarily by outside watering and landscaping during the dry season. East Subregion. The East Subregion includes significant residential demands in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. West of the Oakland Hills, the residential demands are primarily indoors while east of the Hills outdoor landscaping demands are significant in the dry season. In addition, there is the potential for increased water demands for heavy industrial cooling for refineries and power plants in Contra Costa County, and for agriculture demands in eastern Alameda County. South Subregion. The South Subregion includes Santa Clara County, which has become highly residential, with decreasing agricultural activity but increasing commercial demands. A warming climate could result in increased irrigation demand for most crops and overall outdoor water use in this subregion. West Subregion. The West Subregion includes San Mateo County, which has primarily suburban residential and commercial water demands with some agricultural activities in the southern part, and highly urbanized San Francisco County that includes predominantly residential, commercial, municipal, and some industrial uses. The subregion is primarily vulnerable to increases in outdoor landscaping demands in San Mateo County. 16.3.4 Water Supply Coping with interannual variability has always been a challenge for long-term water supply planning in the Bay Area, and climate change may intensify variability in coming decades. With 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-14 Climate Change potential additional changes imposed by climate change, there will be a heightened need to evaluate and respond to increased water supply variability. 16.3.4.1 Water Supply Portfolio of the Region In an average year, imported water delivery to the Region comprises about 66 percent of total existing water supplies projected through 2050 in the Region in normal/average years. The imported sources include 13 percent from the State Water Project (SWP), 15 percent from the Central Valley Project (CVP), 19 percent from the Tuolumne River, and 19 percent from the Mokelumne River. These imported sources derive from snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and are subject to climate variability outside the Bay Area Region. Local surface water and groundwater pumping from local aquifers and additional sources from groundwater banking activities make up the remaining major water sources used to meet the Region’s municipal and agricultural water demand. Recycled water is currently a small portion of water supply, but is projected to increase over time. 16.3.4.2 Vulnerability to Potential Climate Change Impacts Climate change is expected to affect Regional imported water supplies (66%) as follows:  Total precipitation is expected to decrease in the Sierra Nevada sources.  Snow pack projected to decrease from less storage in the mountains.  Precipitation projected to shift toward more rain and less snow.  Timing of runoff is expected to shift to earlier in the year, affecting reservoir storage and hydropower generation, especially in the spring and summer months.  Sea-level rise may impact Delta water deliveries. Climate change is expected to affect Regional surface and groundwater supplies (31%) as follows:  Total precipitation is not projected to change significantly, although there may be less precipitation in the spring.  Variability in annual precipitation is expected to continue, with vulnerability to droughts.  More intense storms anticipated that may affect surface water runoff and storage and groundwater recharge. Because the Region relies heavily on imported supplies, any reduction or change in the timing or availability of those supplies could have negative impacts on the Region. Reductions in imported water supplies would lead to increased reliance on local groundwater, recycled water, desalination, or other sources of supplies if demand was not reduced. Changes in local hydrology could affect surface storage of water and natural recharge to the local groundwater and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped in a sustainable manner. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-15 Climate Change DWR studies provide an example of how climate change may affect water deliveries from imported water supplies. Specifically, DWR developed projections of SWP exports by water year type (wet, above normal, average, below normal, dry, and critical for the period) that illustrate how water availability could be influenced by climate change (2009 and 2011 DWR Reliability Reports). Table 16-4 shows estimated SWP “Table A” deliveries (these are the contractual deliveries to SWP contractors) by water year type under future conditions with and without climate change. The estimated SWP 2050 exports in Table 16-4 reported by DWR are based on 82 years of hydrologic data (water years 1922 to 2003) averaged according to water year type. This representation shows how the average estimated SWP exports would vary by hydrologic year types with and without climate change projections. Overall, the future conditions with climate change forecast lower deliveries under all water year types, with the largest difference for dry years. Deliveries, under future conditions with and without climate change respectively, decrease by as little as 51 thousand acre-feet (TAF) (5%) during critical years to as much as 371 TAF (20%) during dry years. Table 16-4: Estimated SWP Exports By Water Year Type – Future Conditions With and Without Climate Change Water Year Type Future Conditions (2050) with Climate Change (TAF) Future Conditions (2050) without Climate Change (TAF) Difference, Future with and without Climate Change (TAF) (%) Wet 2,998 3,240 -242 -8 Above Normal 2,706 2,857 -152 -6 Below Normal 2,634 2,802 -168 -6 Dry 1,817 2,188 -371 -20 Critical 1,132 1,183 -51 -5 Average of all Water Years 2,363 2,574 -211 -9 Source: Estimated SWP exports are based on the 82 years of hydrologic data (water years 1922-2003) from Draft Technical Addendum to the State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2011, Table 12 SWP Table A Deliveries for Future Conditions. Hydrologic data were averaged according to water year types based on DWR’s Sacramento Valley water year index (http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/WSIHIST). Discussions with the TAC indicate that water agencies in the Bay Area rely on reservoirs for storing water to address annual variability in precipitation and droughts and to provide flood control. Addressing climate change is another factor that is being incorporated into reservoir management. There are other operational factors such as seismic conditions of dams and environmental releases that also influence reservoir operations. 16.3.4.3 Subregional Impacts North Subregion. The North Subregion relies on surface water from local watersheds, the Russian River, the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA, part of the SWP), and local groundwater. This subregion is the most dependent on local water sources for its supply and will be vulnerable to extended droughts and more intense rainfall events, which impact storage requirements. For example, Marin County is dependent on precipitation within its watersheds stored in local reservoirs and withdrawals from the Russian River supply by Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Some of the Russian River water is diverted to groundwater recharge and these operations are vulnerable to changes in the timing of runoff due to more intense storm events. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-16 Climate Change Agencies using imported NBA aqueduct water will be subject to reductions in SWP deliveries, especially in dry water years. East Subregion. This subregion relies primarily on water derived directly from the Delta (CCWD), imported SWP water through the South Bay Aqueduct (Zone 7 and ACWD), imported Mokelumne River and American River water (EBMUD), as well as local watershed runoff around storage reservoirs and some local groundwater. The surface water sources are vulnerable to climate change impacts outside the Region including reduction in the snowpack storage and changes in timing of the runoff from the Sierra Nevada watersheds, as well as potential contractual restrictions on water deliveries. The subregion is also particularly vulnerable to reduced water deliveries from the Delta that could result from sea-level rise (e.g., increased salinity) and/or from failure of Delta levees . This could trigger the need for additional water treatment (desalination) or for obtaining other supplies such as purchase of agricultural water (water transfers) and increased use of recycled water (Sicke et al. 2012). Interties between neighboring water agencies are not used at present to transfer water among Bay Area water agencies but several agencies are in the process of developing inter-agency agreements so that water can be shared among agencies using existing infrastructure in the near future. South Subregion. About 55 percent of Santa Clara County’s water supply is imported, with about 40 percent coming from sources conveyed through the Delta (CVP and SWP) and about 15 percent coming from SFPUC sources. Most of the remaining water supply is local surface water and natural groundwater recharge. Thus, the Subregion is particularly vulnerable to reductions in the snowpack in the Sierras, failure of Delta levees, and changes in the timing of runoff from the Sierra Nevada watershed. West Subregion. In this subregion the SFPUC receives 85 percent of its supply from water imported from the Tuolumne River, with the remainder from local storage reservoirs in Alameda and San Mateo counties. BAWSCA members in the West Subregion augment their SFPUC supplies with local groundwater, local surface water, and recycled water. The SFPUC system is vulnerable to climate change impacts outside the Region including reduction in the snowpack storage and changes in timing of the runoff from the Sierra Nevada watersheds. 16.3.5 Water Quality Improving water quality is a Plan objective that may be impacted by climate change. Studies of potential climate change impacts on water quality exist, but few trends in relationships between hydroclimate (hydrology and weather variables) have been quantified. Key climate vulnerabilities potentially important to the Region include: increasing temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea-level rise. Increased wildfire risk and expansion of invasive species are other potential factors that could affect water quality in the Region. Sea-level rise in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is expected to impact water quality of imported SWP and CVP water and may impact some tidal sources within the Region. Key water quality issues for the Region include (see Section 2.5):  Microbes  Total organic carbon (TOC), bromide, disinfection by-products (DBPs) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-17 Climate Change  Total dissolved solids (TDS)  Nuisance algae  Toxic pollutants  Lead  Urban runoff  Trash control  Grazing and agriculture Surface waters in the Region are expected to be more directly vulnerable to water quality impacts of climate change, while water quality impacts to groundwater sources would be indirect. Key surface water sources include imported and local water stored in local reservoirs and flowing water in several rivers and their tributaries. 16.3.5.1 Imported Water Imported water used in the Region include snowmelt delivered from Sierra Nevada watersheds by pipeline aqueducts (Mokelumne and Tuolumne watersheds), SWP (SBA and NBA), and CVP (San Luis Reservoir and CCWD intakes). SWP and CVP water is vulnerable to potential effects of climate change at the source in the Delta and in storage in Regional reservoirs. Sea-level rise will increase the intrusion of salinity into the Delta and its exported water. This will increase chloride and bromide (a DBP precursor that is also a component of sea water) concentrations in the SWP and CVP imported water. In addition, decreased freshwater flows into the Delta could increase the concentration of organic matter, which contribute to potentially higher DBP formation concentrations, in the SWP and CVP water. Imported water stored in Regional reservoirs will also be vulnerable to climate change. A prior study of potential climate change impacts on the water quality of Lake Cachuma near Santa Barbara found that water quality parameters related to rainfall runoff (turbidity and apparent color) during the wet season, winter, and/or spring could be evaluated by looking at total precipitation. Water quality parameters related to taste and odor (increasing water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), threshold odor number (TON), pH, and percent DO saturation) during the dry season, spring, and summer could be evaluated by looking at air temperature parameters and/or evaporation (Drago and Brekke 2005). Extreme storm events, although rare, may be more intense due to climate change and may present treatment challenges for source water because of increased turbidity. In the past, high turbidity events in reservoirs have required modification of the treatment processes (primarily additional chemical usage) for extended periods. In addition, an intense winter rainfall event after a wildfire in a watershed that burned the prior year can result in extremely high turbidities (peak over 80 NTU) and fine organic matter in the lake water. Although most treatment plants in the region are able to treat these waters, the additional sludge production can overwhelm the solids handling equipment and require plants to be shut down or reduce their capacities for brief periods of time, or make capital investment to enlarge solids handling facilities. This combination of more intense rainfall events and increased wildfire risk is more likely under projected climate change conditions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-18 Climate Change The warmer temperatures could also lead to increased taste and odor events triggered by algal blooms; which are characterized by water quality changes during the spring and summer such as increases in DO and DO saturation, pH, fluorescence, and TON. Many of the surface water treatment plants in the Region are designed to address taste and odor events through pre- ozonation. Although use of higher ozone dosages to control taste and odor events must also consider the need to control bromate formation (from the oxidation of bromide), which could increase due to greater bromide levels in the imported SWP and CVP water affected by climate change. 16.3.5.2 Regional Surface Waters There are several Regional surface water supplies. Water quality impacts to surface waters due to climate change include increased temperature, more frequent heavy rainfall events, and longer periods of low natural stream flow due to decreased annual precipitation. A prior study of 43 rivers found that surface water temperatures increased 0.4 to 0.6F for each 1F rise in air temperature (Morrill, Bales, and Conklin 2005). Increased water temperature generally reduces dissolved oxygen and can promote algal blooms if nutrients are available in the source. The storm events can transport sediments and other pollutants along the river, while long periods of low flow can increase concentrations of pollutants from wastewater plant and non-point discharges. Increased wildfires that contribute to high erosion rates in subsequent storms may also contribute to the turbidity events. Extreme storms and flooding may exacerbate water quality problems because urban and agricultural runoff and trash may collect in streams. 16.3.5.3 Regional Groundwater Any water quality impacts to groundwater sources due to climate change are expected to be indirect, and primarily due to decreased natural recharge from lower precipitation and increased use of groundwater to make up loss of imported water. Decreased recharge and increased groundwater pumping may allow concentrations of groundwater contaminants such as perchlorate and volatile organic compounds to increase, in some areas of Santa Clara County, which may trigger additional treatment requirements and increase groundwater treatment costs. In addition, groundwater quality could be affected as a result of managed recharge with imported and local surface water supplies that have been impacted by climate change. 16.3.5.4 Subregional Impacts Most of the water quality impacts discussed above will apply across all four subregions. However, there are some impacts that will be more important in individual subregions that are discussed below. North Subregion. This subregion is heavily dependent on local water sources. Water quality will be impacted by more frequent intense storms, which can result in high turbidity that can result in water treatment plant operational challenges and in sediment transport issues in surface streams. Water stored in subregional reservoirs is vulnerable to increased taste and odor events in dry seasons due to increased temperature. Agencies depending on the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) water may also experience increased issues with DBPs because of increased TOC in the source water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-19 Climate Change East Subregion. This subregion contains sources that draw directly from the Delta and will be vulnerable to increased salinity as well as increased turbidity events and DBP issues. The imported EBMUD surface water sources would not be subject to the salinity increases, but are vulnerable to high turbidity events and DBP issues. Extended drought periods could increase the use of local groundwater, some of which has higher TDS than surface water and sources near the Bay in Alameda County could be influenced by future sea-level rise. Water stored in subregional reservoirs is vulnerable to increased taste and odor events due to increased temperature. South Subregion. This subregion relies heavily on water sources that are conveyed through the Delta and are potentially vulnerable to increased salinity, DBP precursors, and turbidity. Water stored in Subregional reservoirs is vulnerable to increased algae blooms and turbidity. Changes in surface water quality can result in water treatment plant operational challenges and in sediment transport issues in surface streams. The subregion also relies on groundwater that is recharged with imported and local surface water that could be of lower quality due to climate change. West Subregion. This subregion depends heavily on imported water provided through the SFPUC Hetch-Hetchy system. This system is an unfiltered water supply and could be vulnerable to increased turbidity resulting from changes in the timing of runoff and from more frequent intense storms and to other water quality issues due to higher temperatures (e.g., increased occurrence of microbial or nitrification issues in the SFPUC distribution systems). Extended drought periods may lead to increased groundwater use, which may lead to changes in aesthetic water quality (e.g., taste and odors, hardness, staining). Use of local surface water in San Mateo County during high turbidity events can result in water treatment plant operational challenges and in sediment transport issues in surface streams. Water stored in subregional reservoirs is vulnerable increased taste and odor events in dry seasons due to increased temperature. 16.3.6 Sea-Level Rise 16.3.6.1 Impacts Sea-level rise will increase tidal water surface elevation throughout the San Francisco Bay. High tides maxima will become higher, so the extent of the Bay that is regularly inundated will increase. At the same time, the low tide elevation will also increase, resulting in an upward shift of the tidal frame so that some areas that do not now experience daily tidal inundation will in the future. Changes in the water surface elevation will also increase the depth and frequency of inundation of areas already subjected to tidal inundation, and will cause some areas to become permanently subtidal. Higher-mean water levels in the Bay may result in higher waves at the shoreline during storms if tidal marshes and flats do not keep up with sea level rise. When these higher waves reach a levee they will run up the face of the levee further and may overtop the crest, allowing water to wash over into the protected area behind the levee. The still water level is also increased by wave setup due to the transfer of wave momentum to the surf zone as waves break. At the same time these breaking waves bring more energy to the shore; and they can stir up the sediment increasing erosion of the mudflats, erosion of marsh edges and damage to structures. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-20 Climate Change In addition to wave setup increasing the still water level, low barometric pressure associated with storms will further increase water surface elevations; the combination of these effects being generally referred to as a storm surge. In addition to these storm surges, there will also be elevated water levels associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) events. The additive effect of storm surge and ENSO/PDO events can be clearly seen in the historic tide gauge record from the Presidio in Figure 16-6, and such variability will continue to be seen into the future. Figure 16-6: Monthly Mean Sea Level at the Presidio Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Levels Online, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 There are significant potential impacts from increases in the mean and extreme water levels. Flood risk management, wastewater discharge or stormwater conveyance structures, are generally designed for specific total water levels that have included substantially lower estimates of future sea level rise. Buildings and other infrastructure built behind levees assume that flooding will occur irregularly, if at all, and so may not be flood-proofed. They also may be sensitive to salt, and suffer from damaging corrosion if exposed to Bay waters. Structures that are not adequately protected, elevated, flood-proofed, or made corrosion resistant may be destroyed or damaged by the impacts of sea level rise. This will impact Bay Area communities due to loss of performance, need for clean up after flooding events, and increased operation and maintenance costs. Specific Bay Area infrastructure impacted is discussed in Heberger, et al. (2012), and will include both private assets and critical public infrastructure and also critical facilities such as water treatment plants, energy production and transmission facilities, public transit, hospitals, and schools. These are discussed in more detail in the vulnerability section below. Low lying neighborhoods will be heavily impacted in the Bay Area; and low income communities in those areas will bear a relatively higher financial burden when having to reinforce structures, relocate, or pay additional costs related to flooding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-21 Climate Change There will be significant impacts on Bay habitats due to sea-level rise. Tidal wetland habitats that cannot accrete rapidly enough or migrate inland may convert from marsh to mudflats. Important ecosystem services such as wave attenuation, fish and wildlife habitat, and flood protection benefits may be lost, requiring the strengthening of hard defenses at significant cost. In addition, the loss of trails, marshes, vistas and shoreline recreation areas may impact public access to the shoreline over time. Higher Bay water levels may also lead to saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater aquifers, and the mobilization of pollutants from landfills and contaminated sites adjacent to the Bay. Higher groundwater elevations could lead to decreased seismic stability and impacts on below- grade infrastructure such as transit tunnels, cables and pipelines depending on the aquifer depths. Historic abandoned groundwater wells can act as vertical conduits for saltwater contamination into groundwater if inundated by sea-level rise. Changes in the Bay are expected to lead to a deeper, warmer, more stratified Bay that may have significant impacts on the water column, bay water quality, and bayshore habitats. Responding to these impacts will place greater demands on agencies. There will be a greater need to plan for, and to manage, infrastructure and resources, building codes and land use zoning will have to be updated, and governance structures involving multiple jurisdictions will have to be established to plan and finance adaptation strategies to be implemented at local, regional, and statewide scales. 16.3.6.2 Vulnerability Heberger, et al. (2012), estimated that the population vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood will increase from about 145,000 today to about 175,000 by 2050, to about 225,000 by 2080 and to about 280,000 by 2100. This includes both population along the Pacific Coast, of which the vulnerable population will increase by 30 percent by 2100, and population along the Bay, of which the vulnerable population will double. Tables 16-5 and 16-6 show this increase of vulnerable population by county for coastal flooding along the Pacific Coast and along the San Francisco Bay, respectively. Table 16-5: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with 55 inch Sea-Level Rise Marin 530 630 San Francisco 4,800 6,500 San Mateo 4,700 5,900 Sonoma 580 700 Regional Total 10,610 13,730 Source: Heberger, et al. 2009, Table 8; No estimates were made for 2050. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-22 Climate Change Table 16-6: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea- Level Rise 2050 2080 2100 Alameda 12,000 22,000 43,000 66,000 Contra Costa 840 1,600 3,400 5,800 Marin 25,000 29,000 34,000 39,000 Napa 760 830 970 1,500 San Francisco 190 600 1,600 3,800 San Mateo 80,000 88,000 99,000 110,000 Santa Clara 13,000 17,000 24,000 31,000 Solano 3,700 5,500 8,800 12,000 Sonoma 250 300 420 540 Total 135,740 164,830 215,190 269,640 Source: Heberger, et al. 2012, Table 3. Heberger et al. (2012) also noted the vulnerability of wastewater treatment and power generation much of whose infrastructure are located at the toe of watersheds, in low lying lands close to the Bay. There are 10 wastewater treatment plants representing almost 350 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as 11 power plants representing about 1,700 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood by 2100 (see Figure 16-7).47 This vulnerable 1,700 MW accounts for 18 percent of all installed electricity generation capacity region-wide (CEC, 2012a). Threats to the electrical grid increase the vulnerability of water and wastewater treatment plants and other types of water infrastructure that require electrical power to function. Many facilities have backup or emergency power supplies on-site that could be vulnerable to inundation by sea-level rise-induced flooding and to damage from storm surges. The Heberger et al. report (2012) estimates that the combined replacement value of buildings and their contents at risk from flooding along the Pacific coast and San Francisco Bay shoreline by 2050 in the nine Bay Area counties is about $36 billion compared to the current value of at- risk assets of $29 billion. Of this $36 billion, $18 billion is in San Mateo County alone. Alameda, Marin and Santa Clara Counties all have replacement values at risk of about $5 billion. 16.3.6.3 Subregional Impacts North Subregion. The North Subregion will experience effects along both the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay. As shown in Table 16-7, a sea-level rise of by 2050 will increase the population vulnerable to a 100-year flood by 5400 people region-wide, with the greatest at-risk population in Marin County, and the greatest percentage increase in Solano County. 47 The Hunters Point Power Plant, shown in Figure 16-7, closed in 2006 and is not considered in the analysis by Heberger et al. (2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-23 Climate Change Table 16-7: North Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea- Level Rise 2050 Marin 25,530 29,000 Napa 760 830 Sonoma 830 880 Solano 3,700 5,500 Subregional Total 30,820 36,210 Also in the North Subregion, there are six wastewater treatment plants representing 31 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as two power plants representing just 3.15 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7 below). The vulnerable power plants account for less than 0.2 percent of all capacity in the North Subregion (California Energy Commission, 2012a). Other vulnerable infrastructure may include one or more substations along the San Francisco Bay shore, such as the Sausalito Substation (CEC, 2012b). East Subregion. The counties of the Eastern Subregion have no coastal shoreline, only the Bay water elevation poses a risk to near-shore populations, as summarized in Table 16-8. In both counties, the increase in vulnerable population due to sea-level rise is four to five times the population currently at risk. Table 16-8: East Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea-Level Rise Alameda 12,000 66,000 Contra Costa 840 5,800 Subregional Total 12,840 71,800 The East Subregion has six wastewater treatment plants representing 118 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as five power plants representing 1615 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7). The vulnerable power plants account for over 80 percent of the vulnerable power plant capacity region-wide, and 27 percent of all capacity in the East Subregion (CEC, 2012a). PG&E and other owners have numerous electrical substations in the Pittsburg, Martinez, Hayward, and Newark areas that could be at risk of flooding with 55-inch sea-level rise and could introduce vulnerability to the local transmission grid (CEC, 2012b). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-24 Climate Change South Subregion. The South Subregion consists of Santa Clara County alone, which has no coastal shoreline. As shown in Table 16-6 above, the increase in population vulnerable to a 100-year flood along the San Francisco Bay would be 4000 people by 2050. The South Subregion has three wastewater treatment plants representing 155 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as three power plants representing 60 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7). The vulnerable power plants account for just 5 percent of all capacity in the South Subregion, though the wastewater treatment plants account for 100 percent of the subregion’s wastewater treatment capacity. Some, but not many electrical substations in South Region could be at risk of flooding with 55-inch sea-level rise and could introduce vulnerability to the local transmission grid (CEC, 2012b). West Subregion. As shown in Table 16-9, San Mateo County has the largest population in the Region vulnerable to flooding along the Bay shore, both currently and under each sea-level rise scenario shown, and will experience a 10 percent increase in vulnerable population by 2050. Table 16-9: West Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 San Mateo 84,700 92,700 San Francisco 4,990 5,400 Subregional Total 89,690 98,100 The West Subregion has six wastewater treatment plants representing 58 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as one power plant representing 31 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7). The single vulnerable power plant accounts for half of all electricity generation capacity in the West Subregion (CEC 2012). Several electrical substations in Millbrae, Foster City, Redwood Shores, and the Ravenswood areas may currently be at risk of flooding and would see greater risk with 55-inch sea-level rise that could introduce vulnerability to the local transmission grid (CEC, 2012b). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-25 Climate Change Figure 16-7: Wastewater Treatment Plants and Power Plants on the San Francisco Bay Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood by 2050 Source: Heberger et al. (2012) (Chart modified). Note: The Hunters Point Power Plant closed permanently in 2006. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District plant which has an outfall near Martinez and has a capacity of 54 MGD, and the.16.5 MGD Delta Diablo Sanitation District plant in Antioch but is in the process of expanding to 22 MGD, are not included in Figure 16-7. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-26 Climate Change Figure 16-8: Electrical Transmission and Transmission Infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay Area Source: Sathaye et al, 2012. Additional coastal and shoreline infrastructure that would be vulnerable to a 100-year flood with sea-level rise include major transportation corridors, schools, healthcare facilities, fire stations and training facilities, and police stations. Several of these facilities are currently at risk from a 100-year flood, but their numbers are expected to double by 2050 (Heberger, et al. 2012, Tables 8 and 9). Table 16-10 lists the highway, road, and railway miles by county that are vulnerable to coastal flooding currently and in 2050. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-27 Climate Change Table 16-10: Miles of Roads and Railways Vulnerable To a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific and San Francisco Bay Coasts - 2050 County Highways (miles) Roads (miles) Railways (miles) Current Risk Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 Current Risk Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 Current Risk Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 Alameda 1.1 4.8 76 160 9.1 17 Contra Costa 2.4 2.7 20 42 10 17 Marin 16 20 110 150 12 15 Napa 0.7 0.7 7.0 9.0 6.0 7.0 San Francisco 0.3 0.6 3.4 11 0.26 0.56 San Mateo 27 49 300 360 3.7 5.2 Santa Clara 9.4 12 110 150 5.9 7.2 Solano 5.7 14 53 78 9.3 12 Sonoma 11 12 53 57 11 14 Regional Total 72 120 810 1,000 68 94 Source: Heberger, et al. 2012, Table 8 and 9. Also at risk are sites containing hazardous materials, which if flooded could result in the release of hazardous materials from the site. The report found 94 such sites in Bay Area counties that are currently at risk from a 100-year flood; an additional 47 sites throughout the region would become vulnerable by 2050. Most of these sites are located in San Mateo County (Heberger, et al. 2012, Table 7). Heberger, et al. (2009) estimated the capital costs of coastal armoring to protect against coastal flooding by 2100 to be approximately $5.27 billion (in year 2000 dollars) throughout the region. Table 16-11 shows the estimated lengths of armoring types needed and cost by county. Table 16-11: Estimated Length and Capital Cost of Coastal Armoring in Bay Area Counties County Raised Levee (miles) New Levee (miles) New Sea Wall (miles) Total (miles) Capital Cost ($million, 2000 dollars) Operation and Maintenance Costs ($million/yr, 2000 dollars) Alameda 45 49 16 110 950 95 Contra Costa 26 29 8 63 520 52 Marin 43 77 7.7 130 930 93 Napa 2.8 62 0 64 490 49 San Francisco 0 10 21 31 680 68 San Mateo 35 29 9.2 73 580 58 Santa Clara 47 4.0 0 51 160 16 Solano 2.7 63 8 73 720 72 Sonoma 30 15 1.3 47 240 24 Regional Total 231.5 338 71.2 642 5,270 527 Source: Heberger, et al. 2009, Table 23. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-28 Climate Change 16.3.7 Flooding Flooding can be an extremely costly and destructive natural disaster; the California’s Flood Future Highlights identifies structures valued at $130 billion that are located within a 500-year floodplain in the Bay Area. Additionally, over one million Bay Area residents live within a 500- year floodplain, and these numbers are likely to increase due to expected growth in population and development in the Region (DWR, 2012b). Thus, a change in flood risk is a potential significant effect of climate change that could have great implications for the Region. Flood risks along creeks from storm events may increase due to the more frequent extreme high sea level events leading to backwater effects along flood-prone areas. During extreme water level events the head of tide will move further inland up the creeks and, during storm events, the higher tidal levels will reduce flow capacity in the creeks and increase the risk of flooding. The gravity systems that drain stormwater from urban areas will also become less effective as bay water levels rise. Stormwater discharges and pipes may allow backflow and serve as conduits for flood water. Flap gates that prevent the back flow of flood waters will remain closed for longer, resulting in ponding of water in local drainage systems. The potential impacts are great if flood conveyance channels and storm drains are overwhelmed, as this which will lead to the increased of flooding in low-lying areas. In addition, the duration of flooding events is likely to increase as extreme Bay water levels increase and if precipitation and storm surge events become more intense. More intense storms would produce higher peak flows in urbanized areas, resulting in increased in-channel erosion as sediment is scoured and vegetation washed out. Increased frequency of landslides and sediment erosion into flood control channels and creeks may be expected. The projections of increased wildfire during the extended dry periods may also increase erosion potential that further reduces channel capacity. Increased storm intensity may also increase landslides and sediment transport into creeks. The increased bay elevations and reduction in capacity of flood channels suggest that pumping and dredging costs to maintain flow conveyance will increase. New pumping systems may have to be installed to drain areas that previously relied on gravity. In addition, existing pumps may have to be run for longer periods. As the head of the tide moves up the creeks piping and pumping systems will be exposed to more saline water which requires different standards of materials. Damage from flooding is expected to increase in the same way as described in the section above on sea-level rise. DWR found that region-wide, 119 flood management projects are proposed, but not completed, and many may not currently have a funding source (DWR, 2012b). Of these, many are necessary to maintain the functionality of existing flood control systems, and may not be sufficient, even if built, to protect against increased flood risk due to climate change. More frequent flooding may disrupt key services and facilities, and could impact areas beyond the immediate flood zone such as would be caused by contamination from sewage distribution and treatment systems which may adversely affect human health in different areas. More frequent flooding would have economic impacts from lost wages and lower productivity in the aftermath of floods. In the longer term there would be more losses, claims and higher insurance rates due to greater risks. Deeper and longer duration flooding would increase the cost of repair after flood event and disrupt access to goods and services for longer. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-29 Climate Change It would also increase shoreline erosion, damage to flood risk management levees, and increase the risk of releasing legacy contaminants. The combination of increased flood flows and higher water levels will result in raising levees and flood walls in many places. This may increase the risk to communities and infrastructure as they become lower relative to the crest of the flood protection structure. If the structure does fail then the depth of water, and the consequent damage, may be greater. Changes may also be made higher up in the watershed to alleviate some of the combined flooding issues that may occur more frequently. For instance, flood-plain restoration and reconnection, off-line detention higher up in the system and the increased use of pumping may alleviate some of these issues, all approaches which will require increased coordination between different jurisdictions. In some ways, risk of flood from climate change could be more problematic than for water supply. Water supply issues usually arise over a period of months to years, allowing time to respond to changes. In contrast, while large floods are relatively rare, they are swift and devastating if preparations are insufficient. There is no window to prepare for a flood once the flood waters arrive; floods must be addressed through advance preparation and quick response in the course of an event. Greater flood risk should be considered when evaluating new development in the floodplain. 16.3.8 Ecological Health and Habitat The Bay Area is a biodiversity hotspot of national significance, serves as a major stop over on the pacific flyway, and sustains some of the state’s most important fisheries; ecosystem health and habitat protection are key to the Region’s economy and quality of life. Increased temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, shifts in species distributions, and increased wildfire risk projected for potential climate change scenarios are potential stressors to ecosystems and habitat in the Region. 16.3.8.1 Bay Area Ecosystem Assets Bay Area water resources include freshwater streams, tidelands, marshlands, and rivers, providing diverse habitat types including riparian, lacustrine, and wetland habitats. There are approximately 400 square miles of coastal wetlands in the region (Heberger, et al. 2009, see Figure 26). Terrestrial habitat types generally consist of coniferous forests, oak woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. The Bay Area is home to over 25 major native vegetation types, 3,000 native plant taxa, and 50 locally unique species (Ackerly et al. 2012). San Francisco Bay Area Region Description (Table 2-2 in Section 2), lists threatened and endangered species in the Bay Area. Of these, 279 species occur within a 500-year floodplain within the Region. Ackerly et al. (2012) describes the 32 Critical Coastal Areas (CCAs) and lists the nine Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Bay Area (Tables 2-3, 2-4). Additionally, the Bay and its Delta connections form a part of one of the Endangered Species Coalitions’ “Top 10 Places to Save for Endangered Species in a Warming World” (2011). 16.3.8.2 Recent Studies and Findings Ackerly et al. (2012) summarizes existing research on the relationship between climate and biodiversity and how changes in climate historically have and will in the future impact habitat. In terrestrial systems, the impacts of rising temperature and changing precipitation patterns have 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-30 Climate Change the largest effect and that in estuarine and intertidal areas, sea-level rise results in the most important direct impact. These habitats may be affected directly by habitat loss through erosion, or indirectly via human responses such as coastal armoring (e.g., construction of sea walls) and other infrastructural changes. Bay Area habitat are highly specific to climate gradients and the biodiversity of the region will be highly susceptible to climate change because shifts in climate could make existing habitats unsuitable for native species and restrict the possibility of re-establishment elsewhere (Ackerly et al. 2012). In addition, existing urban development and habitat fragmentation are constraints to species’ ability to move (The Conservation Lands Network, 2011). Cornwell et al. (2012) modeled climate change impacts on vegetation in the Bay Area and found that change is likely to occur in “small patches” throughout the region, dominated by a change from forest to shrub vegetation types. The model results showed that over 50% of the forecast transitions in vegetation type that will require about half a mile of movement for the newly establishing vegetation, because transitions will favor vegetation types that are already established nearby. Areas populated by vegetation communities that are stabilized by positive feedback mechanisms (such as redwoods collecting fog and depositing moisture onto the soils below) could transition rapidly to different habitat types if these mechanisms are disrupted by changes in climate, and re-establishment would be difficult because in the absence of this feedback, soil moisture and other necessary conditions could change significantly (Cornwell et al. 2012). Vegetation habitat in open space watersheds provides ecosystem services by improving the watershed’s ability to store and filter runoff. Changes in watershed habitat could reduce this ability, creating the need for greater manmade storage, groundwater recharge, and treatment options to achieve conditions similar to what currently exists. Climate change-related effects on the quantity, timing, duration, and frequency of precipitation events and freshwater flows will affect species’ ranges. Changes in freshwater flows will restrict riverine habitat, both in flow volumes and water temperatures, potentially making the passage of fish from the Pacific to up-river spawning grounds more difficult. Increases in temperature due to climate change are likely to reduce soil moisture levels due to increased evapotranspiration, resulting in shifting vegetation types. Tidal marshes provide numerous important services, including: flood control, water filtration, air cooling effects, carbon sequestration, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. Later century sea- level rise is expected to inundate some tidal marshes more quickly than they can re-establish, or where coastal infrastructure may prevent the movement of marshes, except perhaps in those areas with higher suspended sediment concentrations. These projected habitat changes to a more dynamic landscape may well create tensions with the historic static view of the landscape that has formed a lot of thinking up to now. For example, maintaining artificial habitats that formed around water infrastructure may hinder natural habitat formation and maintenance. Changes to habitat provided by mitigation lands and the need to fulfill ongoing mitigation obligations will create future challenges for regulatory agencies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-31 Climate Change 16.3.9 Hydropower Several water agencies in the Region produce or receive power produced in high elevation hydropower plants in the Sierra Nevada range and locally. In general, the reservoirs associated with projects are relatively small and have little operational flexibility and are thus vulnerable to reduced snowpack and timing of runoff. This is expected to result in reduced hydropower production, especially in the summer months when peak electric power demands occur (Guegan, Madani and Uvo, 2012). This vulnerability was discussed with climate change TAC participants who indicated that projected hydropower reductions represented less than 10 percent of their electric power revenues, and that while lost revenues from hydropower generation would need to be offset; they believed that adequate electric power resources would be available. DWR’s climate change modeling analysis indicates increased temperature, decreased water availability with reduced Sierra Nevada snowpack, early snow melt, and a rise in sea level (DWR 2012a). 16.4 Vulnerability Prioritization This section discusses a list of prioritized vulnerability areas based on the vulnerability assessment presented in the earlier subsections. The main categories follow the climate change vulnerability checklist assessment as defined in the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. The watershed vulnerability assessment identifies the vulnerability areas for each sector most vulnerable to potential climate change projections. These sector vulnerabilities were discussed with the Climate Change TAC to help develop adaptive strategies that respond to potential climate change impacts. Based on a survey of the TAC members, the prioritization of vulnerability areas is as follows: 1. Sea-Level Rise 2. Flooding 3. Water Supply and Hydropower 4. Water Quality 5. Ecosystem and Habitat 6. Water Demand Table 16-12: Climate Change Vulnerability Prioritization Vulnerability Area High Medium Low Total Score Sea-Level Rise 11 2 0 37 Flooding 8 5 0 34 Water Supply & Hydropower 5 7 1 30 Water Quality 5 4 4 27 Ecosystem & Habitat 3 6 4 25 Water Demand 0 10 3 23 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-32 Climate Change Table 16-12 summarizes the climate change vulnerability area rankings based on the results of the vulnerability area TAC survey. Each first place vote was multiplied by 3, each second place vote multiplied by 2, and each third place vote was multiplied by one to derive the Total Score. The vulnerability assessment and prioritization was conducted based on data currently available and inputs from the TAC involved in the preparation of this study for the Region. This assessment can be improved in the future with further data gathering and analyzing of the prioritized vulnerabilities. The vulnerability prioritization is intended to identify the high priority vulnerability areas (sea- level rise and flooding), medium priority areas (water supply & hydropower), and low priority areas (water quality, ecosystem & habitat, and water demand). The prioritization is used to order the following discussion about adaptation strategies. 16.5 Addressing Prioritized Climate Change Vulnerabilities There are two main strategies to deal with climate change – mitigation strategies and adaptation strategies. Mitigation strategies combat climate change by directly reducing GHG emissions or minimize increases in GHG emissions; while adaptation strategies generally refer to efforts that deal with the impacts of climate change. The Bay Area Region and the Coordinating Committee have several ways in which the prioritized climate change vulnerabilities discussed above can be addressed, including statewide mitigation and adaptation strategies, resource management strategies (RMS), and regional adaptation strategies. Each of these options, including how they can address the prioritized climate change vulnerabilities, are discussed in more detail below. 16.5.1 Statewide Mitigation Strategies Typically mitigation or GHG reductions measures are accomplished by implementing specific energy efficiency programs or projects, developing renewable energy projects, implementing waste-to- energy projects at wastewater treatment plants, promoting carbon sequestration, and conducting water efficiency and demand reduction programs. All of these measures either directly create carbon-free energy or reduce the need for generation of electricity from fossil fuel-fired electric plants. The AB 32 Scoping Plan (2008) contains the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change. The scoping plan has a range of GHG reduction actions that include: direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-33 Climate Change Section 17 of the Scoping Plan discusses the mitigation measures or strategies for the Water sector. The table below shows the five areas from which specific GHG reduction measures will be identified and implemented. Table 16-13: AB 32 Scoping Plan Water Sector Mitigation Measures Measure Description GHG Reduction by 2020 (MMTCO2) Water Use Efficiency 1.4 Water Recycling 0.3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9 Total GHG Reductions 4.8 Energy and GHG Master Plans by individual water and wastewater agencies are a good way of identifying a specific portfolio of projects that reduce energy use and GHG emissions, while lowering the agencies operating cost. 16.5.2 Statewide Adaptation Strategies for the Water Sector The goal of adaptation is to minimize risks associated with anticipated impacts and take advantage of beneficial opportunities that may arise from climate change. Adaptation strategies are developed in conjunction with GHG mitigation strategies, which may overlap. For example, promoting water and energy efficiency are both GHG mitigation and climate change adaptation strategies. Adaptation strategies discussed in this section provide the Region with guidance related to projects that will enhance the Region’s preparedness to plan and react to these potential impacts. In 2009, California adopted a statewide Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS) that summarizes climate change impacts and recommends adaptation strategies across seven sectors: Public Health, Biodiversity and Habitat, Oceans and Coastal Resources, Water, Agriculture, Forestry, and Transportation and Energy. The 2009 CAS was the first of its kind in the usage of downscaled climate models to more accurately assess statewide climate impacts as a basis for providing guidance for establishing actions that prepare, prevent, and respond to the effects of climate change. http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/docs/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf Specific adaptive water management strategies for the water sector were developed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR is addressing climate change impacts through mitigation and adaptation measures to ensure that Californians have an adequate water supply, reliable flood control, and healthy ecosystems now and in the future. In 2008 DWR adopted the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-34 Climate Change DWR developed the following 10 statewide adaptation strategies for the Water Management Sector: Strategy 1: Provide sustainable funding for statewide and integrated regional water management Strategy 2: Fully develop the potential of integrated regional water management Strategy 3: Aggressively increase water use efficiency Strategy 4: Practice and promote integrated flood management Strategy 5: Enhance and sustain ecosystems Strategy 6: Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources Strategy 7: Fix Delta water supply, quality, and ecosystem conditions Strategy 8: Preserve, upgrade and increase monitoring, data analysis and management Strategy 9: Plan for, and adapt to, sea-level rise Strategy 10: Identify and fund focused climate change impacts and adaptation research and analysis These statewide strategies provide guidance specifically aimed at addressing the impacts of climate change. Some of DWR’s strategies can be directly applied to Regional Management Strategies, while others are supportive of Regional efforts that are discussed in the following section. 16.5.3 Resource Management Strategies Discussed in detail in Chapter 4, resource management strategies (RMS) are projects, programs, or policies that help local agencies manage their water and related resources. Implementing RMS is one way that the Region can address priority climate change vulnerabilities. The RMS relevant to the Region can help address these regional climate change vulnerabilities as indicated in Table 16-14. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-35 Climate Change Table 16-14: Addressing Regional Climate Change Vulnerabilities with Resource Management Strategies Resource Management Strategies Bay Area IRWM Region Climate Change Vulnerabilities Sea Level Rise Flooding Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem & Habitat Water Demand Hydropower Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Improve Operational Efficiencies and Transfers Conveyance – Delta ✓ ✓ ✓ Conveyance – Regional/Local ✓ ✓ ✓ System Reoperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Transfers ✓ Imported Water ✓ Infrastructure Reliability ✓ ✓ ✓ Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Desalination ✓ Water Recycling ✓ Surface Storage – CALFED ✓ ✓ Surface Storage – Regional/Local ✓ ✓ ✓ Stormwater Capture and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-36 Climate Change Resource Management Strategies Bay Area IRWM Region Climate Change Vulnerabilities Sea Level Rise Flooding Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem & Habitat Water Demand Hydropower Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution ✓ ✓ Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation ✓ ✓ Matching Quality to Use ✓ ✓ ✓ Pollution Prevention ✓ ✓ ✓ Salt and Salinity Management ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Stormwater Runoff Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Quality Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Monitoring and Modeling ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Wastewater Treatment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Practice Resource Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ecosystem Restoration ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Land Use Planning and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recharge Areas Protection ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Sediment Management ✓ ✓ ✓ Watershed Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ People and Water 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-37 Climate Change Resource Management Strategies Bay Area IRWM Region Climate Change Vulnerabilities Sea Level Rise Flooding Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem & Habitat Water Demand Hydropower Economic Incentives (Loan, Grants, and Water Pricing) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Outreach and Engagement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water and Culture ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water-Dependent Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Cooperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation and Public Access ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-38 Climate Change 16.5.4 Regional Adaptation Strategies The 2012 California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) provides guidance to support regional and local communities in proactively addressing the unavoidable consequences of climate change. The APG provides a step-by-step process for local and regional climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategy development. http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/local_government/adaptation_policy_guide.html The Bay Area Joint Policy Committee (JPC) supports climate change adaptation efforts for the Region such as the Bay Area Climate and Energy Resilience Project. Additional information can be found at: http://www.cakex.org/directory/organizations/bay-area-joint-policy-committee In the following analysis, potential adaptation strategies have been identified for each watershed characteristic, starting with the highest priorities developed in the climate change vulnerability area analysis. This list of potential strategies will allow the Regional Management Coordinating Committee and other stakeholders to incorporate climate change adaptation in projects developed and evaluated as part of the IRWMP process. The applicable IRWM objectives from Chapter 3 are listed in parentheses following each strategy. 16.5.4.1 General  Large water and wastewater agencies should conduct Energy and GHG Master Plans to assess their energy and carbon footprints, and create an Action Plan of strategies for greater energy efficiency and GHG emission reductions. Fully exploring the Water- Energy-Carbon nexus can identify opportunities for energy savings and GHG emission reductions through water operations, programs, and projects. A good example is investigation and efforts by the Sonoma County Water Agency’s in developing its Carbon Free Water program (IRWM Objective 1.4).  Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects (IRWM Objective 1.3, 1.5).  Establish a climate change adaptation public outreach and education program (IRWM Objective 1.8).  Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation strategy development and regional approaches (IRWM Objective 1.1, 1.2).  Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness (IRWM Objectives 1.9, 1.10). 16.5.4.2 Sea-Level Rise Climate change projections suggest sea-level rise from a low estimate of 5 inches to a high estimate of 24 inches by 2050 (Table 16-2). Regional adaptation strategies to address potential impacts from sea-level rise include the following: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-39 Climate Change  Evaluate the differences around the Bay with regard to the natural shore and habitats, urban development and likely future bayland evolution. Use existing frameworks (e.g., Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Update) to support this evaluation and to develop strategies appropriate for distinct natural regions within the Bay (IRWM Objectives 1.3, 1.5).  Develop an implementation framework that considers the amount of sea-level rise that is expected as well as a temporal planning horizon. As strategies are likely to have a limited life in terms of the amount of sea-level rise they can accommodate it is likely that over time different strategies will have to be implemented (IRWM Objectives 1.3, 1.5).  Consider relocating critical infrastructure out of the hazard zone (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Increase the resiliency of existing infrastructure by retrofitting with waterproof or corrosion resistant materials, elevating sensitive components. CCWD’s Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project will remove aging earthen embankments of the unlined portion of the Contra Costa Canal that are prone to failure during extreme storm and rain events (IRWM Objective 4.2).  Support policies that prevent inappropriate development in areas likely to be inundated (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Bolster existing coastal armoring (i.e., levees, seawalls, breakwaters, and other structures) in locations that are appropriate, (e.g., along urban areas where mudflats and marshes are no longer present (IRWM Objective 4.3)). Where marshes and mudflats are present, ‘holding the line’ against sea-level rise by using such structures may result in their loss as they are squeezed against the fixed structures as they attempt to move landward in response to sea-level rise. Modifications could be made to existing levees, such as grading flatter slopes to allow marshes space to migrate landward. In the long term, realignment of fixed structures may prove to be most economic. An example of a study that is considering a combination of improved coastal armoring and improvements to marsh land is the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Feasibility Study. The study is being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the California State Coastal Conservancy. The goal of the study is to find cost-effective ways to reduce coastal flood risk in the South San Francisco Bay, which will be made worse by sea-level rise, and to identify opportunities to improve the environment by creating tidal marsh and other habitats.  Consider ways to enhance existing wetlands to allow them to accommodate higher rates of sea-level rise (IRWM Objectives 3.1, 3.4, 4.3, 5.1). For example, providing more space for lateral migration, and increasing the local sediment supply to allow marshes and mudflats to accrete more rapidly and keep up with accelerated sea level rise. Consider ways to reuse fine sediment dredged from navigation and storm water channels to create gentle upland slopes landward of tidal marshes. Methods for placing fine material on marshes and mudflats in such a way to emulate natural accretion processes and rates should be investigated. Sediment recharge should be focused in areas where natural processes will rework sediment and allow it to be deposited on marshes. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-40 Climate Change  Consider the use of coarser sediment, particularly in the creation of beaches, to protect areas from erosion. The Aramburu beach project in Marin County (built in 2011/2012) is an example of using coarse-grained sediment in a constructed beach to combat wind- wave erosion and sea-level rise.  Develop sediment management plans that link regular dredging activities to local sites on a programmatic basis so that the sediment size, frequency and volume of placement can be matched to that generated by dredging. Where possible look for ecosystem- based adaptation strategies that allow the ecological values of the Baylands to be maintained while continuing to provide ecosystem services such as wave attenuation (IRWM Objectives 3.1, 4.3). For example, support multifunctional “green infrastructure” or “living shorelines” which take advantage of wetlands and mudflats along the bayshore and rivers to absorb floods, slow erosion, increase infiltration, slow runoff, improve water quality and storage, and provide habitat (e.g., the Oro Loma Ecotone Project – horizontal levee).  Prioritize low-impact development (LID) stormwater practices in areas where storm sewers may be impaired by high water due to sea-level rise or flood waters (IRWM Objective 4.2).  Support DWR strategies that minimize the impact of sea-level rise on salinity intrusion into the Delta, and protect levees in the Delta from the potential effects of projected sea- level rise (IRWM Objective 1.5). 16.5.4.3 Flooding Climate change projections are not precise enough to indicate the likely location of extreme downpours that lead to flooding. However, it is projected that such intense storms will occur more frequently in the future, leading to more frequent and deeper flooding that may last longer if drainage is impaired. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential increases in flood risk include:  Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans in anticipation of potential increases in extreme events.  Practice and promote coordinated and integrated flood management among water and flood management agencies (IRWM Objective 4.3). For example, flood management should be integrated with watershed management on open space, agricultural, wildlife areas, and other low-density lands to better utilize natural floodplain processes.  Encourage policies that promote low impact development (LID) to maintain or restore historical hydrological characteristics (IRWM Objective 4.2).  Consider policies or incentives to relocate infrastructure that is damaged or destroyed due to flooding to low-risk areas (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Develop coordinated multi-agency/multi-jurisdiction plans to mitigate future risks of flooding, landslide, and related impacts through concurrent adoption of updated plans and policies (IRWM Objective 4.1). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-41 Climate Change  Implement National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) activities to minimize and avoid new infrastructure or capital improvements in flood hazard areas (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Restore, maintain and improve existing flood control and riparian corridors (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Implement plans and policies aimed at restricting development in floodplains and landslide hazard areas (IRWM Objective 4.1). 16.5.4.4 Water Supply Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate in the Sierra Nevada Mountains by mid-century. The overall impact will include reductions in imported water from the SWP, the CVP, Tuolumne River, and Mokelumne River and greater reliance on local supplies, recycled water, water conservation, and possibly desalination. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential reductions in water supply (not in priority order) include the following:  Continue aggressive water conservation and efficiency programs, including pooling regional resources where appropriate (IRWM Objective 2.4).  Increase the use of recycled water for appropriate uses as a drought-proof water supply (IRWM Objective 2.5).  Coordinate public outreach efforts to increase public acceptance of recycled water (IRWM Objective 1.8).  Maximize conjunctive use, the coordinated management of surface water and groundwater supplies (IRWM Objectives 2.6 and 2.7).  Integrate water supply and floodplain management (IRWM Objectives 2.6 and 4.3).  Use conservative estimates of sea level rise in the Delta as design criteria whenever possible.  Enhance the development and use of other local water sources, such as desalination, graywater, and rainwater/stormwater (when available) (IRWMP Objective 2.1).  Develop local supplies (IRWM Objective 2.1)  Reduce reliance on imported water, which depends on the Sierra snowpack for water supply (IRWM Objective 2.1).  Consider implementation of regional desalination project(s) to improve water supply reliability (IRWM Objective 2.1).  Enhance practices of water exchanges and water banking outside the Region to supplement water supply during dry years (IRWM Objective 2.1). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-42 Climate Change  Consider evaluation of existing intertie structural and policy constraints to improve potential movement of water supplies among neighboring agencies during periods of extreme water shortage (IRWM Objective 2.1).  Increase “above-the-dam” regional natural water storage systems (WM 9) (IRWM Objective 2.6).  Expand available water storage including both surface and groundwater storage projects (e.g., Contra Costa Water District’s Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion). (IRWM Objective 2.6).  Encourage local agencies to develop and implement Groundwater Management Plans, where appropriate, as a fundamental component of the IRWM plan (IRWM Objective 2.7).  Adopt land use ordinances that protect natural functioning of groundwater recharge areas (IRWM Objectives 2.7 and 2.8). 16.5.4.5 Water Quality Climate change projections suggest increased temperature and continued highly variable annual precipitation with a slightly drier climate by mid-century that could degrade water quality. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential water quality impacts include the following:  Support DWR and Reclamation strategies that protect or enhance the water quality of delivered by Delta-conveyed sources (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Consider coordination with stakeholders to improve water quality in storage reservoirs through lake aeration practices where appropriate (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Continue to control nutrient inputs to reservoirs from grazing, agriculture, septic systems, and runoff (IRWM Objectives 2.2 and 3.3);  Work with Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and ranchers to minimize grazing impacts around reservoirs and watersheds, such as fencing and alternative livestock water supplies.  Discourage residential and commercial development around drinking water reservoirs and watersheds;  Promote regional and local ordinances to protect drinking water reservoirs and watersheds with low impact land use and protective buffers;  Educate people on existing septic system regulations, system construction, maintenance, and replacement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-43 Climate Change  Promote low risk land use practices such as open space, forest land parks, conservation easements, and land trusts around drinking water reservoirs and in watersheds and groundwater recharge areas (IRWM Objective 3.2).  Consider potential water quality improvements associated with water transfers and water banking on Regional water supply (IRWM Objectives 2.1 and 2.2).  Consider riparian forest projects that provide cooling for habitat (see Ecosystem and Habitat) (IRWM Objective 3.2).  Evaluate capability of surface water treatment plants within the region to respond to increased turbidity from extreme storm events and increased risk of wildfires that affect source water quality (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Evaluate surface water treatment plant technology and processes that may be required in the future to reduce DBPs, as well as taste and odor problems associated with increased algal blooms (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Increase capacity for recharging groundwater with high quality water  Encourage projects that clean up and improve the water quality of contaminated groundwater sources (IRWM Objective 2.8).  Increase implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques to improve stormwater management (IRWM Objective 3.3).  Continue to comply with NPDES permits to ensure water quality protection (IRWM Objectives 3.3 and 3.7).  Control sediment loading and erosion with BMPs (IRWM Objective 3.4).  Work with CalFire, FireSafe Councils, landowners, and stakeholders to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plan with actions to minimize risk and impact of wildfires and that include post fire actions to control erosion and runoff, and revegetation. Such as the Lexington Hills Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Santa Clara County FireSafe Council (IRWMP Objectives 2.2, 3.2, and 3.3). 16.5.4.6 Ecosystem and Habitat Climate change projections of increasing average, minimum and maximum temperature suggest potential environmental stressors that may affect the sustainability of existing ecosystems and habitat. Regional adaptation strategies to address potential Ecosystem Health and Habitat impacts include the following:  Provide or enhance connected “migration corridors” and linkages between undeveloped areas for animals and plants to promote increased biodiversity, and allow the plants and animals to migration and move to more suitable habitats to avoid serious impacts (IRWM Objectives 5.1 and 5.2).  Improve passage and habitat for anadromous fish (IRWM Objective 5.3). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-44 Climate Change  Promote water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services and the resiliency or adaptability of the habitats to climatic shifts (IRWM Objectives 3.1 and 3.2).  Use purchase of development (PDR) or conservation easements to protect climate- vulnerable habitats (IRWM Objectives 5.1,and 5.2).  Re-establish natural hydrologic connectivity between rivers and floodplains (IRWM Objective 3.5).  Consider projects that provide seasonal aquatic habitat in streams and support corridors of native riparian forests that create shaded riverine and terrestrial habitat (IRW M Objective 5.1).  Promote floodplain corridor vegetation projects (IRWM Objective 3.1).  Identify and strategically prioritize for protection lands at the boundaries of the Bay that will provide the habitat range for tidal wetlands to adapt to sea-level rise (IRWM Objectives 5.1 and 5.2) such as the Shoreline Study which is being planned in San Jose which is integrated with the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Program.  Consider action to protect, enhance and restore upper watershed forests and meadow systems that act as natural water and snowpack storage (IRWM Objective 3.1).  Support development of a Regional Sediment Management Plan for the Bay that will help to restore, protect and enhance tidal wetlands (IRWM Objective 3.1). 16.5.4.7 Water Demand Climate change projections suggest increases in average annual air temperature as well as maximum and minimum daily temperatures by 2050 and increased evaporative losses are expected to increase outdoor urban, industrial cooling, and agricultural water demands. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential increases in water demand include the following:  Aggressively increase water use efficiency by encouraging water conservation beyond use efficiency and 20x2020 goals (IRWM Objective 2.4).  Encourage agricultural and landscape water users to adopt all feasible Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs). (IRWM Objective 2.4)  Support advancement and use of alternative irrigation techniques (e.g., subsurface drip irrigation) to reduce water use (IRWM Objectives 2.1 and 2.4).  Implement tiered pricing to reduce water consumption and demand (IRWM Objectives 2.1 and 2.4). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-45 Climate Change 16.5.4.8 Hydropower Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate by mid-century, affecting hydropower generation. Strategies to address potential reductions in hydropower generated by the SWP and other Sierra Nevada hydropower projects that agencies participate in include the following:  Support DWR, Bureau of Reclamation, and other hydropower project strategies to maximize hydropower in SWP, CVP, and other stakeholder facilities (IRWM Objective 1.4).  Consider expanding available water storage at existing hydropower facilities (IRWM Objectives 1.4 and 2.1).  Encourage reoperations that maintain water supply reliability and hydropower generation Table 16-14 summarizes the vulnerabilities of each Watershed Characteristic, suggests an appropriate level of response to the vulnerabilities, and identifies future performance metrics that should be developed. Table 16-15: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Responses and Performance Metrics Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 1. Sea-Level Rise Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Low lying baylands will become increasingly vulnerable to more frequent, longer and deeper flooding. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Existing coastal armoring (including levees, breakwaters, and other structures) is likely to be insufficient to protect against projected sea-level rise. Crest elevations of structures will have to be raised and armoring of structures increased to account for higher total water levels and larger waves. More use should be made of multifunctional green infrastructure along rivers and the bayshore. Consideration needs to be given to removing critical infrastructure out of the hazard zone. In the meanwhile, upgrade existing infrastructure to be water and salt resistant. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #1: Promote Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability. #2: Improve water supply reliability and quality, #3: Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality, #4: Improve regional flood management, and #5: Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Performance Metric Development – Based on reduction in population, and type and value of vulnerable infrastructure in the in hazard zone. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-46 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 2. Flooding Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections are not sensitive enough to assess short-term extreme events such as flooding; but the general expectation is that more intense storms would occur leading to more frequent, longer and deeper flooding. This could present larger areas susceptible to flooding and increase the risk of direct flood damage in the Region. There is the potential for increased river flooding due to rising sea level in the Bay. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans in anticipation of potential increases in extreme events. Practice and promote integrated flood management among water and flood management agencies, e.g., with watershed management on open space, agricultural, wildlife areas, and other low-density lands to better utilize natural floodplain processes. Agencies should implement plans and policies that decrease flood risk, and avoid significant new infrastructure or capital investment in areas that cannot be adequately protected from flooding. Encourage policies that promote or use low impact development LID practices to maintain or restore historical hydrological characteristics. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #4: Improve Regional Flood Management. Performance Metric Development – Reduction in critical infrastructure within the 500 year (or 200 year, if defined) floodplain. Reduction in value of vulnerable infrastructure in hazard zone. Number of local governments with plans, policies or programs to promote LID/Green Infrastructure and/or to otherwise decrease flood risk. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-47 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 3a. Water Supply Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with a slightly drier climate by mid-century. The overall impact on imported surface waters and groundwater supplies could be significant and could affect water supply availability. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Imported Water - Agencies relying on imported water sources will need to address shifts in runoff due more precipitation occurring as rain, decreasing Sierra Nevada snowpack, and less water availability due to droughts and reduced allocations from SWP and CVP deliveries. Future planned projects need to address changes in storage to accommodate changes in the timing and availability of these supplies. In addition, consider (or support efforts by DWR and federal agencies) investing in improving source water supplies through watershed improvements (e.g., meadow restoration and fuel management) and infrastructure improvements like system reoperation, delta conveyance, and (brackish) drought-resistant supplies such as recycled water. Local Water Sources – Some agencies rely on local watersheds and groundwater subbasins for their supply and are adversely affected by droughts. Future planned projects need to meet the water demand to accommodate the effects of climate change on water demand and water supplies. Consider improving groundwater recharge, , increasing local storage capacity, increasing the development and use of other water sources such as recycled water, graywater, rainwater/stormwater, desalination, as well as water use efficiency (WUE) measures. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #2: Improve Water Supply Reliability and Quality. Performance Metric Development – Based on State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley project (CVP) deliveries, runoff patterns from Sierra Nevada snowpack, groundwater operation range limitations, quantities of drought- resistant new supply development (recycled water, water banking, desalination, etc.), and reliance on imported water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-48 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 3b. Hydropower Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate by mid-century, potentially changing the timing and amount of generation. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning - Several water agencies in the Region depend on hydropower produced outside the Region. Any decreases in hydropower production could result in higher energy costs to the Region. Consider reoperations, diversifying energy portfolios, Water Usage Efficiency programs, and conservation measures to reduce energy usage. IRWMP Goal Potentially Impacted – #1: Promote Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability. Performance Metric Development – Based on energy charges incurred by water agencies relying on hydropower, and possibly a reduction in GHG emissions from energy portfolios. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-49 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 4. Water Quality Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate and increased sea level rise in the delta by mid-century. There will be potential vulnerability for increased salinity in delta supplies, increased potential for algae and turbidity in imported and local water, and concentrated runoff in rivers and creeks. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Imported Water – Alternatives for managing imported water quality challenges include reoperations to change the timing of imported water deliveries or to blend imported supplies with other higher quality supplies, additional storage to provide time for natural processes to improve water quality (e.g., turbidity reduction) or facilitate reoperations, additional treatment, and treatment process modifications. Regional Surface Water – Opportunities to respond to water quality in regional surface water include fuel management to reduce wildfire risk, fire recovery plans to rehabilitate burn areas and reduce runoff, and habitat restoration for temperature moderation and for natural filtering. Additional surface water storage can also provide time for natural processes to improve water quality and facilitate reoperations. Additional treatment and treatment process modification may also response to water quality vulnerabilities, including turbidity excursions from extreme flooding events. Regional Groundwater – Responses to groundwater quality vulnerabilities include: increasing groundwater recharge capacity so that high quality water can be recharged when it is available, groundwater cleanup projects, developing local drought-resistant supplies to maintain groundwater levels, and avoid sea water intrusion. IRWMP Goals Impacted – #2: Improve Water Supply Reliability and Quality, and #3: Protect and Improve Watershed Health and Function and Bay Water Quality. Performance Metric Development – Based on source water quality exceedances (e.g., consecutive days with turbidity exceeding a trigger value, frequency of algal blooms, salinity and nitrate concentrations). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-50 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 5. Ecosystem and Habitat Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Changes in the seasonal patterns of temperature, precipitation, and fire due to climate change can dramatically alter ecosystems that provide habitats for California’s native species Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning - Climate change may result in species loss, increased invasive species’ ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, and changes in growing ranges for vegetation. Other ideas may include habitat restoration and multi-benefit projects that incorporate ecosystem components (i.e., in supply, water treatment, and flood management projects). Increase the space available for habitats to adapt in a more dynamic landscape. Creation of habitat linkages, restoration design and planning responsive to climate vulnerabilities. Restoration of energy, water and sediment pathways in the landscape. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #5: Create, Protect, Enhance, and Maintain Environmental Resources and Habitats. Performance Metric Development – Amount of habitat created and/or maintained, habitat linkages species stability or recovery, acreage of invasive plant removal, and sediment accumulation (are wetlands keeping pace). 6. Water Demand Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Projected increase in average annual air temperature by mid-century and increased evaporative losses are expected to increase both urban and agricultural water demand. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Urban Water Demand – To respond to increases in irrigation demands, water managers should aggressively implement water conservation programs to achieve water savings beyond 20X2020 goals. Water conservation landscape programs include comparing site-specific irrigation budgets to actual water use as well as providing incentives for landscape conversion and upgrading to efficient irrigation equipment. Agricultural Water Demand – Water managers can support agricultural water conservation by supporting the improvements in irrigation efficiency through equipment and operations, as well as provide technical tools and data to support improvements. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #2: Improve Water Supply Reliability and Quality. Performance Metric Development – It is unclear that sufficient information is available to develop performance metrics unless a correlation between air temperature and water demand for the Region can be developed. One metric could be per capita water use. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-51 Climate Change 16.6 Next Steps 16.6.1 Updates on Climate Change Research Research on the climate change impacts on water resources is ongoing and continues to evolve with further analysis and more refined methodologies. During the preparation of this Plan update, key literature resources on climate change have been reviewed. New scientific findings should be reviewed periodically and incorporated into the climate change vulnerability assessment, especially the findings pertinent to the sectors most vulnerable to climate change in the Region. Consideration should be given to forming a Regional user’s forum to facilitate networking among water resources planners to exchange ideas on how to incorporate latest tools or science into local planning. 16.6.2 Climate Change Models and Scenarios The Climate Change Center of the California Energy Commission prepares periodic reports on climate model simulations for California and some specific Regions such as the San Francisco Bay Area. It also maintains the Cal-Adapt site and updates the modeling tools as new climate change modeling results, based on more refined data, become available from the IPCC. In addition, some agencies in the Region have prepared their own climate change analyses for their watersheds and have used these studies to develop scenarios for vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Agencies within the Region should explore ways where existing and updated climate models, and other available climate change tools and projections for the Region, can be used for future vulnerability assessments updated in future versions of the Plan. 16.6.3 Vulnerability Assessment Update The intent of future data gathering is to address gaps in the current vulnerability assessment, to improve the understanding of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities, and to enable more quantitative analyses. Future data gathering efforts should include data that facilitate more quantitative analysis of the vulnerability, as described in the following sections. Data gathering efforts should be also be considered in the context of the current and proposed projects and funding available. Consideration should be given to coordinated multi-agency funding of more localized modeling, projections, and more rigorous vulnerability analysis of the more critical areas. 16.6.3.1 Sea-Level Rise New projections of sea-level rise are being developed; each increasingly sophisticated and with higher resolution. These new projections should be incorporated into State guidance in a practical and systematic manner that allows resource managers to incorporate them into projects in a consistent manner. While the new projections will include decadal estimates and include greater regional variations, there will always be range of projections based upon future GHG emissions and guidance on how to incorporate this uncertainty should be made clear. Future data gathering efforts to address the potential climate change effects on sea-level rise include the following: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-52 Climate Change  Create data packages that provide resource managers all the information they need in one place (e.g., tidal data, storm surge and waves, sea-level rise projections, vertical land movement, topography, and bathymetry).  Develop guidance for the inclusion of vertical land movement at a project site; for example, sources of vertical land movement information that can be used to calculate relative sea-level rise.  Regional monitoring of the geomorphological and ecological response of marshes and mudflats to observed sea-level rise.  Develop regional adaptation strategies that incorporate both evolution of the natural shorelines and the protection of the built environment.  Identify opportunities for the realignment of existing flood risk management levees that would create more resilient shorelines.  Develop demonstration projects of shorelines that incorporate “green infrastructure” or “living shorelines” principles. 16.6.3.2 Flooding A quantitative assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on flooding cannot be performed as climate projections are not detailed enough to project short-term extreme events such as flooding (flooding from sea level rise can be looked at more quantitatively). Rather, the 100-year and 500-year floodplains were used to define flooding risk zones that should be considered in location of water infrastructure. Future data gathering efforts to address the potential climate change effects on flooding include the following:  Perform an inventory of runoff monitoring stations in the Region to see if a more robust runoff record can be developed. Those data may allow an analysis of historical storm events correlated with precipitation events as well as annual precipitation to provide a better understanding of conditions that may lead to more extreme flooding conditions. This could also support a more robust flood warning system.  Future work should focus on gathering the 200-year floodplain maps for the Region after DWR develops them. Currently, the 100-year and 500-year floodplain maps are available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  Promote better understanding of value of open space, riparian corridor, wetlands or natural habitats among land use decision makers.  Coordinate with the Region stakeholders for advanced flood preparation and quick response and document the protocol(s).  Perform an inventory of critical infrastructure located in floodplains and level of vulnerability to flooding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-53 Climate Change  Update the projections of runoff with climate change as updates from the California Climate Change Center and the ICCC become available.  Work with local flood plain managers and/or equivalent to determine areas of concern. 16.6.3.3 Water Supply Future data gathering efforts to quantify the climate change effects on water supply include the following:  Continue to monitor updates on surface water supply projections from the SWP and CVP to assess the effects of future climate change on Regional water supply.  Update information on projections of changes in surface water runoff to Regional local water storage facilities for future climate change scenarios.  Update available groundwater supply projections for each basin and sub-basin. Groundwater production in a given year varies depending on hydrologic conditions; pumping fluctuations due to demands and reductions on other sources, and changes in local hydrology and natural and artificial recharge are anticipated to have a direct impact on available groundwater storage and may affect current safe operating ranges to prevent overdrafts. Updates on trends in groundwater safe operating ranges will be needed when further assessments of water supply vulnerability to climate change are performed for future Plan updates.  Evaluate the effects of reduction in precipitation from climate change on natural groundwater recharge. Further analysis is suggested to refine and to quantify the potential reduction in groundwater supply due to potential reduction in precipitation from climate change. 16.6.3.4 Water Quality The assessment of the vulnerability of water quality to potential climate change impacts is qualitative due to the limited Regional monthly and seasonal weather information related to air temperature and precipitation over long time periods and limited access to long-term water quality data. The vulnerability assessment instead relied on California Climate Change Center model outputs for annual air temperature increases and precipitation changes and prior studies of how water quality in the Region may be affected by these climate change impacts. Key water quality changes identified for the Region include potential increases in the salinity of imported water, taste and odor events due to increased likelihood of algal blooms, and short-term high turbidity events due to storms, especially following wildfires. Collection of historical water quality data within the Region would greatly improve the understanding of Regional water quality and how it may be impacted by climate change. Future data gathering efforts to quantify the climate change effects on water quality include:  Monitor and collect historical water quality data within each sub-region during storm events. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-54 Climate Change  Collect long-term weather records associated with air temperature, precipitation, and ET to assess potential correlations with seasonal water quality.  Continue to monitor groundwater levels and groundwater storage. Changes in groundwater recharge and/or pumping as a result of climate change could lead to overdraft and subsidence if they are not managed. 16.6.3.5 Ecosystem & Habitat Adaptive management strategies need to be developed that can accommodate changing climatic conditions. This may require new management goals as it may not be possible to restore historical systems. Water resource managers are subject to regulatory requirements based on certain hydrology and other species related criteria (i.e. temperature). With climate change it may become more difficult for agencies to abide by the regulatory requirements they have committed to and more importantly, be able to achieve the ecosystem mitigations and enhancements that they are trying to accomplish. There needs to be an adaptive component to the regulatory requirements to acknowledge that the natural environment will be altered as a result of climate change. The efforts taken through projects, operations and mitigations may not be able to fully achieve their intended environmental outcomes, through no fault of their own, with respect to improvements in the natural environment. Goals may have to be set based on anticipated future conditions. Future data gathering efforts to address the potential climate change effects on ecosystem and habitat include the following:  Regional monitoring of the geomorphological and ecological response of marshes and mudflats to observed sea-level rise.  Regional monitoring of the geographic range shifts of plants and animals to inform discussions on potential managed relocation.  Vulnerability analysis of how climate change may affect specific habitats and inform future open space or buffer acquisition programs.  Identify open space or buffer that would be critical to allow existing systems to evolve.  Identify optimal genotypes for future conditions either by modeling future climates and patterns of adaptive variation across the range of a species or by experimental plantings and observing natural selection. 16.6.3.6 Water Demand Future data gathering efforts to quantify the climate change effects on municipal and agricultural water demand include the following (note these efforts will require coordination among water purveyors who use different data collection systems):  Collect and analyze historical monthly records of water demand data and weather (e.g., air temperature, ET, and precipitation) for each sub-region to quantify the weather effects on water use and seasonal variations in response to changes in historical temperature. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-55 Climate Change  Collect and analyze historical monthly records of water demand data for each purveyor in each sub-region to demonstrate purveyor-specific patterns in response to changes in climate.  Based on the water demand and temperature data, develop regression analyses correlating water demand to temperature on a maximum day, monthly, and seasonal bases for each sub-region and each purveyor. The historical responses can be used to infer future response with the projected changes in temperature with climate change.  Characterize the variations in indoor and outdoor water use, both for each sub-region and each purveyor. Future data gathering should focus on the seasonal and monthly patterns both in indoor and outdoor usage to evaluate the effects of weather conditions on each use category.  Collect and analyze historical agricultural water demand to quantity the weather effects on water use and seasonal variations in response to changes in historical temperature.  Identify the major industries in the Region that require cooling and/or process water. As water temperature increases, cooling water needs may also increase. 16.6.3.7 Hydropower The Region relies on hydropower produced outside the Region, as well as locally, as a portion of its energy portfolio. Future data gathering or assessment efforts to quantify the potential impacts of climate change on hydropower include:  Agencies relying on hydropower for a portion of their energy supply may need to consider how reductions in hydropower availability can be replaced by other energy sources and how those sources impact their GHG footprints.  Agencies that operate their own hydropower facilities should consider opportunities to modify their reservoir operations to optimize both water supply and hydropower production under future climate change scenarios.  Agencies that are stakeholders in hydropower facilities operated by others should support efforts to modify reservoir operations to optimize both water supply and hydropower production. 16.6.4 Create a GHG Baseline Each agency involved in the IRWMP should create an agency-specific comprehensive GHG inventory. A comprehensive inventory would use a well established protocol to calculate all of the GHG emissions created by each agency. It is recommended that each agency eventually conduct a GHG inventory, and numerous agencies in the Region have already done GHG inventories. However, in the absence of agency specific GHG inventories, gross GHG emissions can be calculated by developing agency-specific GHG intensity factors. An agency- specific GHG intensity factor calculates the estimated metric tons of CO2 per acre foot of water delivered or million gallons of wastewater treated by the agency (MT CO2/AF). Knowing this will 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-56 Climate Change enable an estimation of the GHG emission baseline for a particular agency and the Region. It will also allow for the estimation of the GHG emission reductions associated with an individual project or strategy that reduces water demand. For each of the RWMGCC water or wastewater entities data will need to be collected for actual annual electricity, natural and fleet fuel used, as well as the amount of imported water from DWR and other suppliers. Using known GHG intensity factors for DWR water supplies, electrical supplies, natural gas and fleet fuel and applying these factors to the amount an agency uses, GHG emissions (MT CO2/year) can be estimated for each agency. By dividing the total emissions by the total AF of water delivered or the million gallons of wastewater treated, agency-specific GHG intensity factors (MT CO2/AF) can be developed. The calculation should use data from the same year. While not as precise and accurate as a comprehensive GHG inventory, a GHG intensity factor will create an estimated baseline of GHG emissions for each agency and the Region. 16.6.5 Quantify Adaption and Mitigation Strategies at the Project Level In developing the project review process The PUT developed a scoring methodology that reflects the criteria of the 2012 Guidelines as well as the Bay Area IRWMP Goals and Objectives. The scoring criteria now consider and awards points for “Climate Change Adaptation” and “Reducing GHG Emissions” (Section 6.3.3). the climate change impacts of specific projects proposed for implementation are being considered by a rough qualitative assessment of whether or not certain adaptation strategies apply or if a project reduces GHG emissions. No quantitative performance measurements are used to score the projects. Future Plan updates may have the data available to further quantify climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies and apply them at the project level. For each proposed project it may be desirable to identify GHG emissions and to identify and evaluate GHG reduction amounts. Proposed projects could be evaluated against the project GHG Baseline and evaluated for their ability to reduce agency-specific GHG intensity factors. 16.6.6 Develop Performance Metrics As discussed in Section 3 Goals and Objectives, suggested measures (performance metrics) have been developed for individual IRWM objectives (see Table 3-2), The Region should develop climate change performance metrics specific to all projects and climate change (see Table 16-14 for examples). Proposed IRWMP projects would be evaluated against these metrics and these metrics would provide a measure of Plan performance. 16.7 References Ackerly, D.D., et al. 2010The Geography of Climate Change: Implications for Conservation Biogeography. Diversity and Distributions (2010) 16, 476-487 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. A Framework for Change. California Emergency Management Agency and California Natural Resources Agency, 2012. California Adaptation Planning Guide. California Energy Commission, 2012a. California Operational Power Plants, 1MW and above - November 6, 2012. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/powerplants/Power_Plants.xlsx. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-57 Climate Change California Energy Commission, 2012b. Local Reliability Areas for 2013 Enlargement Maps. http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/3P_Enlg.pdf. California Natural Resources Agency, 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Cayon, Tyree, and Iacobellis, 2012. “Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region.” California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-2012-042. Cornwell et al 2012. Climate Change Impacts on California Vegetation, Physiology, Life History, and Ecosystem Change. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-2022- 023. Department of Water Resources, 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future. Climate Change Adaptation for California’s Water. Department of Water Resources 2010. The State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2009. Department of Water Resources 2012a. The State Water Project Draft Delivery Reliability Report 2011. Department of Water Resources, 2012b. California’s Flood Future Highlights. http://www.water.ca.gov/sfmp/docs/Highlights_CAFloodFuture.pdf Drago, J.A. and L. Brekke 2005. Assessment Tool to Evaluate Climate Change on the Source water Quality of Lake Cachuma, California. Prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants under subcontract to the Goleta Water District for the USEPA Global Change Research Program, Cooperative Agreement Number R-82980601. Final Report. July 2005. Ekstrom, J.A. and S.C. Moser 2012. Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area. A Synthesis of PIER Program Reports and Other Relevant Research. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500=2012-070. Knowles, N, 2010. Potential Inundation Due to Rising Sea Levels in the San Francisco Bay Region. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(1). Guegan, M., K. Madani, and C.B. Uvo 2012. Climate Change Effects on the High-Elevation Hydropower System with Consideration of Warming Impacts on Electricity Demand and Pricing. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-020. Hanak, E. and J. Lund 2005. Adapting California’s Water Management to Climate Change. Public Policy Institute of California. Herberger et al 2012. The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the San Francisco Bay. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-2012-014. Kiparsky, M. and P.H. Gleick 2005. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey of the Literature. California Energy Commission Publication No.CEC-500-04-073. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-58 Climate Change Kriebel, 2011. The Need for a Tidal Flood Stage to Define Existing and Future Sea Level Hazards. Proc. USACE 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, Anchorage , Alaska, June 25-29 , 2011. Morrill, J., Bales, R., and Conklin, M. 2005. ”Estimating Stream Temperature from Air Temperature: Implications for Future Water Quality.” J. Environ. Eng., 131(1), 139–146. National Research Council, 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 OPC 2013. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document. Developed by the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT). Sathaye, J., L. Dale, P. Larsen, G. Fitts, K. Koy, S. Lewis, and A. Lucena. 2012. Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure from Projected Climate Change. California Energy Commission. Public Interest Energy Research. CEC-500-2012-057. Schwartz, A. et al 2011. Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Water Resources. Sicke et al. 2012 “Climate Change Adaptations for Local Water Management in the San Francisco Bay Area”. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-036. Vermeer, M. and S. Rahmstorf 2009. “Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 21532. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan A-1-1 IRWMP Coordinating Committee Chair and Vice Chair Roles Appendix A-1: IRWMP Coordinating Committee Chair and Vice Chair Roles (June 4, 2007) Recommended roles and responsibilities for a Chair and Vice Chair for the IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) are listed below. These were crafted with the understanding that the CC will be evaluating a new governance structure over this next year and the selected Chair and Vice Chair will preside over the existing CC governance structure in the interim. 1. The IRWMP CC will have a Chair and Vice Chair. The Vice Chair assumes duties of the Chair when Chair is unavailable. In the event that the Chair and Vice Chair are not available to assume responsibility for a particular duty, they will jointly designate an acting Chair. 2. The Term for Chair and Vice Chair is two years. If a new governance structure is not in place within one year, the existing Chair and Vice Chair will continue to serve, or the positions will be rotated, as determined by consensus, or vote if necessary, of the Coordinating Committee. 3. The Chair and Vice Chair will be from different functional areas to ensure the most diverse representation. One should be from the Water or Wastewater functional areas and one from the Flood Control or Watershed functional areas. 4. The Chair and Vice Chair will be non-voting members of the CC. Other CC members from their agency or district shall retain the right to vote as a representative of their respective functional area. 5. The Chair and Vice Chair will represent all four functional areas and will work together to bring consensus among them. 6. The Chair will work with the Vice Chair to share the workload, including but not limited to:  Set monthly meeting agendas and associated administrative matters;  Facilitate meetings and discussions, work to address issues in-between meetings in consultation with representatives of the four functional areas;  Represent the CC to outside agencies and outside the CC meetings as necessary. This representation is limited to that authorized in advance by consensus (or vote) of the IRWMP-CC;  Meet with other regional agencies as needed to assure coordination with other regional planning and infrastructure programs; and  Identify significant decision points regarding IRWMP issues and matters which demand a manager or greater level of authority and involvement, and communicate this need to the CC. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan A-2-1 Coordinating Committee Voting Principles Appendix A-2: Coordinating Committee Voting Principles Coordinating Committee decisions do not supersede individual agency decisions regarding project scopes and schedules, and IRWMP participating agencies are consulted on over- arching policy issues. Through their adoption of the IRWM Plan, the governing bodies of the 24 participating organizations approve this IRWMP management structure:  Decisions requiring voting shall be agendized.  Agendas should be developed to communicate the desired outcome of the agenda item. All action items should be located in a separate action section, with the responsible lead person identified next to the action item. Every agenda item should begin with a verb, such as approve, report, discuss, etc. Information and discussion items should also be placed in a separate section on the agenda.  Agendas should be prepared and emailed to the CC at least one week in advance, but no less than 72 hours in advance of the vote.  If a functional area (FA), as a group, is not prepared to vote on the item, the vote can be postponed by a majority of all (from all 4 functional areas) of the FA representatives present (for example, if there were 10 FA reps in attendance, it would take an affirmative vote of 6 FA reps to postpone), but the Chair shall identify the timing of that postponed vote at that meeting.  Ideally, votes will occur at regularly scheduled CC meetings, but special meetings or conference calls can be called and noticed by the Chair if necessary to facilitate timely decisions. If neither of those options (special meeting or conference call) is available, voting by email is a possible method to be employed by the Chair, but would need to be agreed upon by a majority of all of the FA representatives present.  Voting outside of regular meetings, whether by email or phone call or special meeting, should have the same noticing requirements as a regular meeting. For example, a vote could not occur without 72 hours advance notice of the item and a description of the vote to be taken circulated to all Coordinating Committee members.  As outlined above, there will be 3 appointed representatives per functional area. The minimum quorum should be at least one primary or alternate member from each functional area, for either voting or consensus decisions.  Each of the 3 representatives within each FA has an individual vote (they do not need to vote in blocks), if they are in attendance at the meeting (or conference call) where and when the vote takes place. Proxy votes from an individual FA representative will only be allowed when the FA representative has so designated such a proxy to the Chair (or her/his designee) ahead of the meeting when the vote is scheduled to take place.  A tie vote would result in a non vote. A tie vote would require the Coordinating Committee to work with the functional areas more to develop more alignment and work more towards a consensus. The Chair and Vice-Chair would not be allowed to break a 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan A-2-2 Coordinating Committee Voting Principles tie vote. If an item before the Coordinating Committee is so divisive that it is an even vote, then members need to consider and deliberate more collectively to come to a decision. Meeting notes are generated from each monthly meeting in order to capture and memorialize these decisions, agreements and action items. Draft and final CC meeting notes are distributed to attendees and are posted on the SF Bay Area IRWMP web site. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan July 2012 i South Westside Basin GWMP South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan i South Westside Basin GWMP TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ I TABLE OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................III TABLE OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................VI ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... VII 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Management Plan ......................................................... 1-1 1.2 Description of the Groundwater Basin and Plan Area ............................................... 1-1 1.3 Overview of Water Requirements and Supplies ......................................................... 1-5 1.4 Legislation Related to Groundwater Management Plans .......................................... 1-8 1.5 Prior and Current Water Management Planning Efforts ........................................... 1-9 1.6 Public Process in Developing the Groundwater Management Plan ...................... 1-18 1.7 South Westside basin GWMP Advisory Committee ................................................ 1-20 1.8 Groundwater Manangement Plan and Consistency with California Water Code ................................................................................................................................. 1-24 2 WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Surface Water .................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.4 Imported Water .............................................................................................................. 2-42 2.5 Recycled Water ............................................................................................................... 2-44 3 WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES ......................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Current and Historical Water Requirements and Supplies ....................................... 3-1 3.2 Current Water Budget ................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3 Projected Water Requirements and Supplies ............................................................. 3-14 3.4 Projected Water Budget ................................................................................................. 3-22 3.5 Basin Yield ....................................................................................................................... 3-22 4 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE BASIN ........................................................................ 4-1 4.1 South Westside Basin Goal ............................................................................................. 4-1 Table of Contents ii South Westside Basin GWMP 4.2 Basin Management Objective Components ................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Basin Management Objectives ....................................................................................... 4-3 5 ELEMENTS OF THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................... 5-1 5.1 Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................................................ 5-3 5.2 Monitoring and Management ........................................................................................ 5-3 5.3 Groundwater Storage ...................................................................................................... 5-8 5.4 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................... 5-11 5.5 Construction and operation by the local agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects ................................................................................................... 5-14 5.6 Coordinated Planning ................................................................................................... 5-15 5.7 Reporting and Updating ............................................................................................... 5-17 6 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Governance ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Dispute Resolution ........................................................................................................... 6-4 6.3 Financing and Budget ...................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 6-5 7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 APPENDIX A – PUBLIC PROCESS APPENDIX B – CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS APPENDIX C – MONITORING PROTOCOLS APPENDIX D – BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE HYDROGRAPHS APPENDIX E – SEAWATER INTRUSION INDICATORS iii South Westside Basin GWMP TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Plan Area Figure 1.2 Municipalities Figure 1.3 Water Agencies Figure 1.4a Current Land Use Summary Figure 1.4b Current Land Use Figure 1.5 Groundwater Production by Entity, 2010 Figure 1.6 Areas with Groundwater Management Plans Figure 1.7 Banked Groundwater in In-Lieu Pilot Study Figure 2.1 Rainfall and Streamflow Stations Figure 2.2 Historical Annual Precipitation and Cumulative Departure from Mean Precipitation Figure 2.3 Average Monthly Precipitation Figure 2.4 Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation Figure 2.5 Watersheds and Surface Water Features Figure 2.6a Average Monthly Colma Creek Streamflow, 1963-1996 Figure 2.6b Daily Colma Creek Streamflow Exceedance, 1963-1996 Figure 2.7 Major Faults Figure 2.8 Bedrock Elevation Figure 2.9 General Soil Classification Figure 2.10 Estimated Recharge Figure 2.11 Historical Population Growth in the South Westside Basin Figure 2.12 Historical Municipal Groundwater Production, South Westside Basin Figure 2.13a Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-8 Figure 2.13b Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-1 Figure 2.13c Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-20 Figure 2.13d Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-02 Figure 2.13e Historical Groundwater Elevation, SB 12 Table of Figures iv South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.14 Location of Selected Wells Figure 2.15 Groundwater Elevation Contours, Primary Production Aquifer, Fall 2010 Figure 2.16 Piper Diagram of General Groundwater Chemistry for Wells Operated by Daly City, CalWater, and San Bruno Figure 2.17 Iron Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.18 Manganese Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.19a Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.19b Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.19c Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, SB-15 Figure 2.20 Nitrate Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.21a Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.21b Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.21c Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, SB-15 Figure 2.22 TDS Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.23 Contaminated Sites Figure 2.24 Susceptibility to Liquefaction Figure 3.1 Average Monthly Distribution of Annual Supply Figure 3.2 Historical Annual Water Supply, Burlingame Figure 3.3a Current Water Supply Sources, CalWater Figure 3.3b Historical Annual Water Supply, CalWater Figure 3.4a Current Water Supply Sources, Daly City Figure 3.4b Historical Annual Water Supply, Daly City Figure 3.5 Historical Annual Water Supply, Millbrae Figure 3.6a Current Water Supply Sources, San Bruno Figure 3.6b Historical Annual Water Supply, San Bruno Figure 3.7 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, Private Producers Figure 3.8 Current Water Supply Sources, South Westside Basin Figure 3.9 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production by Entity Table of Figures v South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.10 Groundwater Production by Well Figure 3.11 Projected Water Supplies in the South Westside Basin, by Agency Figure 3.12 Historical and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Supply Figure 3.13 Projected Water Supply for Burlingame Figure 3.14 Projected Water Supply for CalWater Figure 3.15 Projected Water Supply for Daly City Figure 3.16 Projected Water Supply for Millbrae Figure 3.17 Projected Water Supply for San Bruno Figure 3.18 Comparison of Basin Yield Estimate and Historical Groundwater Production Figure 4.1 Wells Monitored for Compliance with Groundwater Levels BMO Figure 4.2 Wells Monitored for Compliance with Groundwater Quality BMO Figure 5.1 Wells Monitored for Groundwater Levels Figure 5.2 Wells Monitored for Groundwater vi South Westside Basin GWMP TABLE OF TABLES Table 1.1 Basin Plan Beneficial Uses for Groundwater Table 1.2 Individual Supply Guarantee Table 1.3 Advisory Committee Members Table 1.4 Westside Basin GWMP Components Table 2.1 Average Monthly Temperature and Reference Evapotranspiration Table 2.2 Location and Data Availability of Selected USGS Stream Gages Table 2.3 Characteristics of Hydrologic Soil Groups Table 2.4 Open Contaminated Sites Potentially Impacting the Aquifer Used for Drinking Water Supply Table 3.1 Summary of Water Supply Sources (2010) Table 3.2 Summary of 2010 Private Groundwater Production Table 3.3 2010 Groundwater Production by Entity as a Percent of Total Water Supply Table 3.4 Estimated Average Annual South Westside Basin Water Balance Table 3.5a Current and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Production Table 3.5b Projected Change in South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, from 2008 Use Table 4.1 Groundwater Level BMO Triggers Table 4.2 Seawater Intrusion BMO Chloride Thresholds (mg/l) Table 4.3 Groundwater Quality BMO Triggers Table 5.1 Summary of Goal, Objective, and Elements vii South Westside Basin GWMP ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1999 Plan proposed Westside Basin AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan AB Assembly Bill Advisory Committee South Westside Basin GWMP Advisory Committee AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year Basin Plan San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan BMO Basin Management Objective CalWater California Water Service Company cfs cubic feet per second DPH California Department of Public Health DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft feet GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment gpm gallons per minute GPS global positioning satellites Groundwater Task Force South Westside Basin Groundwater Task Force GSR Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project GWMP groundwater management plan Groundwater Model Westside Basin Groundwater Flow Model ILPS In-Lieu Pilot Study InSAR interferometric synthetic aperture radar IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan JPA joint powers agreement MCL maximum contaminant level Acronyms and Abbreviations viii South Westside Basin GWMP mgd million gallons per day µg/L micrograms per liter mg/L milligrams per liter MOU Memorandum of Understanding N nitrogen NAWQA National Ambient Water Quality Assessment NCCWD North Coast County Water District NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSMCSD North San Mateo County Sanitation District PCE Tetrachloroethylene Plan Area area covered by South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan ppm parts per million psi pounds per square inch RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region SB Senate Bill SFIA San Francisco International Airport SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds TCE Trichloroethylene TDS total dissolved solids USGS United States Geological Survey USDA-NRCS United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board Westside Basin Westside Groundwater Subbasin Wholesale Water Water Supply Agreement between The City And County of Supply Agreement San Francisco And Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County, And Santa Clara County 1-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The purpose of the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP), including development of the plan and the plan document itself, is to provide a framework for regional groundwater management in the South Westside Basin that sustains the beneficial use of the groundwater resource. This includes: Informing the public of the importance of groundwater and of the challenges and opportunities presented by groundwater supplies; Developing consensus among stakeholders on issues and solutions related to groundwater; Building relationships among stakeholders within the basin and between state and federal agencies; and Defining actions to ensure the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources in the South Westside Basin. This GWMP provides recommendations that, when implemented, are intended to maintain or enhance long-term groundwater levels and quality and minimize land subsidence. The goal of the GWMP is to ensure a sustainable, high-quality, reliable water supply at a fair price for beneficial uses achieved through local groundwater management. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE GROUNDWATER BASIN AND PLAN AREA The South Westside Basin GWMP area (Plan Area) is the portion of the Westside Groundwater Subbasin (Westside Basin), Basin 2-35, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), within the boundaries of San Mateo County. The Plan Area is shown in Figure 1.1. Areas within the northern portion of the DWR-defined Westside Basin, in the City and County of San Francisco, are described in the draft North Westside Basin Groundwater Basin Management Plan (SFPUC, 2005). Overlying municipalities, shown in Figure 1.2, include Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame. Water agencies serving the Plan Area are shown in Figure 1.3 and include Daly City, California Water Service Company (CalWater) – South San Francisco District, San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame. Additionally, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) provides retail water service to the Golden Gate National Cemetery in San Bruno and wholesale water to the retail agencies. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 1.1Plan Area 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Groundwater Basin: DWR, 2003 ² Legend Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area South Westside Basin NorthWestsideBasin §¨¦80 F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.1 Plan Area.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Pacifica San Francisco Daly City South San Francisco San Bruno Millbrae Burlingame Colma Hillsborough San Mateo Hillsborough Brisbane §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 1.2Municipalities 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend Highways Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.2 Municipalities.mxd, March 21 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal WaterMid Peninsula DistrictSan Mateo System SFPUC Cal WaterSouth San Francisco District San Bruno Burlingame North Coast County Water District CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. Daly City Millbrae Westborough Water District §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 1.3Water Agencies²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.3 Water Agencies.mxd, March 21, 20110 1 20.5 Miles Legend Highways Plan Area Introduction and Background 1-5 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.3 OVERVIEW OF WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES Located on the San Francisco Peninsula, the South Westside Basin underlies approximately 25 square miles and provides groundwater to Colma, Daly City, San Bruno, South San Francisco, unincorporated areas, cemeteries, golf courses, and several smaller users. The Plan Area is considered built-out, with very little undeveloped land available for development. Future growth will occur through infill, including increased density on existing developed parcels. Land use in the basin is approximately 80 percent urban; 15 percent irrigated parks, golf courses, and cemeteries; and 5 percent unirrigated open space, as shown in Figures 1.4a and 1.4b. Urban areas include large portions of the cities of Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame, as well as urbanized unincorporated areas. The total 2010 water demand for the area was approximately 29,000 acre-feet (AF) (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency [BAWSCA] 2011; SFPUC, 2011). Figure1.4a Current Land Use Summary Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l £¤101 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 UV82 UV35 Figure 1.4bCurrent Land Use 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Land Use - Based on ABAG, 2006 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Planned Land Use Urban Parks, Cemeteries, Golf Courses Open or Vacant Land F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.4b Current Land Use, March 21, 2011 Introduction and Background 1-7 South Westside Basin GWMP In the South Westside Basin, groundwater plays a critical role, providing up to 50 percent of some localities’ water supplies, making it an important resource for the future prosp erity and sustainability of the region. Approximately 8,600 AF of groundwater was produced from the South Westside Basin in 2010 (SFPUC, 2011) including 2,200 AF of groundwater banked through in-lieu recharge under the In-Lieu Pilot Study (see Section 1.5.3). Figure 1.5 shows the breakdown of groundwater production by producer for 2010. Imported water from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system, along with small quantities of recycled water, provides the remaining supply. * Value includes 2,204 AF of banked in-lieu recharge water Figure 1.5 Groundwater Production by Entity, 2010 While the Plan Area and surrounding region are largely built-out, additional growth through infill is expected, along with associated increases in water demands. As demands for imported water supplies continue to rise, groundwater will continue to play a key role in delivering a cost-effective and reliable water supply to the South Westside Basin. Introduction and Background 1-8 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.4 LEGISLATION RELATED TO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS Groundwater is a resource shared by numerous users; it does not recognize or adhere to jurisdictional lines and cannot be tagged for use by certain users. Groundwater rights have evolved through case law since the late 1800s. Currently, three basic methods are available for managing groundwater resources in California: o Local agency management under authority granted by the California Water Code or other applicable state statutes (such as through a GWMP); o Local government groundwater ordinances or joint powers agreements (JPA); and o Court adjudications. No law requires that any of these forms be applied within a basin. As such, management is often instituted after local agencies or landowners recognize specific issues in groundwater conditions. The level of groundwater management in any basin or subbasin is often dependent on water availability and demand, as well as groundwater quality. In an effort to standardize groundwater management, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 255 (Stats. 1991, Ch. 903) in 1991. This legislation authorized local agencies overlying basins subject to critical overdraft conditions, as defined in DWR’s Bulletin 118-80 (DWR, 1980), to establish programs for groundwater management within their service areas. Water Code § 10750 et seq. provided these agencies with the powers of a water replenishment district to raise revenue for facilities to manage the basin for the purposes of extraction, recharge, conveyance, and water quality management. Seven local agencies adopted plans under this authority. The South Westside Basin has never been defined by DWR as being critically overdrafted, as such it was not subject to AB 255. The provisions of AB 255 were repealed in 1992 with the passage of AB 3030 (Stats. 1992, Ch. 947). This legislation greatly increased the number of local agencies authorized to develop a GWMP and set forth a common management framework for local agencies throughout California. AB 3030, codified in Water Code § 10750 et seq., provides a systematic procedure to develop a groundwater management plan by local agencies overlying the groundwater basins defined by DWR’s Bulletin 118 (DWR, 1975) and updates (DWR, 1980, 2003). Upon adoption of a plan, these agencies could possess the same authority as a water replenishment district to “fix and collect fees and assessments for groundwater management” (Water Code, § 10754). However, the authority to fix and collect these fees and assessments is contingent on receiving a majority of votes in favor of the proposal in a local election (Water Code, § 10754.3). Introduction and Background 1-9 South Westside Basin GWMP By 2003, more than 200 agencies (shown in Figure 1.6) had adopted an AB 3030 GWMP (DWR, 2003). None of these agencies is known to have exercised the authority of a water replenishment district. Water Code § 10755.2 expands groundwater management opportunities by encouraging coordinated plans and authorizing public agencies to enter into a JPA or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with public or private entities providing water service. At least 20 coordinated plans have been prepared to date involving nearly 120 agencies, including cities and private water companies. In 2002, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1938 (Stats. 2002, ch. 603), which provides local agencies with incentives for improved groundwater management. While not providing a new vehicle for groundwater management, SB 1938 modified the Water Code by requiring specific elements be included in a GWMP for an agency to be eligible for certain funding administered by DWR for groundwater projects. Through AB 3030 and SB 1938, local agencies can now develop GWMPs that guide the sustainable use of the groundwater resource while also providing access to certain DWR funding sources. 1.5 PRIOR AND CURRENT WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING EFFORTS The South Westside Basin has an extensive history of management of groundwater and surface water resources. This document builds upon those efforts, described below. 1.5.1 DRAFT WESTSIDE BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN In 1999, cities and water purveyors overlying much of the Westside Basin (Daly City, CalWater, San Bruno, and SFPUC) cooperatively developed a proposed Westside Basin AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan (1999 Plan; Bookman-Edmonston, 1999), pursuant to the guidelines in AB 3030. Although not adopted by the cities due to data gaps and other concerns Figure 1.6. Location of areas with groundwater management plans Source: DWR, 2010 Introduction and Background 1-10 South Westside Basin GWMP at the time, the four cities and water purveyors have voluntarily implemented much of the recommendations and other aspects of the 1999 Plan. The 1999 Plan established a goal of protecting water quality and enhancing water supply reliability in the Westside Basin. This goal was supported by five plan elements: o Groundwater Storage and Quality Monitoring – development of a basin-wide monitoring program o Saline Water Intrusion – use of monitoring data to indicate any occurrence of saltwater intrusion and to provide technical information needed to develop appropriate management responses if intrusion occurs o Conjunctive Use – development of a multi-agency conjunctive use program, including monitoring o Recycled Water – development of a recycled water program for landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses o Source Water and Wellhead Protection – protection of groundwater from contamination from methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and other contaminants through source water assessment methodologies 1.5.2 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT The proposed Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) Project is designed to balance the use of both groundwater and surface water to increase water supply reliability during dry years or in emergencies. Located in the South Westside Basin, the proposed project is sponsored by SFPUC in coordination with partner agencies: CalWater, Daly City, and San Bruno. The partner agencies currently purchase wholesale surface water from SFPUC and also independently operate groundwater production wells for drinking water and irrigation. The project would consist of installing up to 16 new recovery well facilities in the South Westside Basin to pump stored groundwater during a drought. During years of normal or above normal precipitation, the proposed project would provide surface water to the partner agencies to reduce the amount of groundwater pumped. The reduced pumping is estimated to result in the storage of approximately 61,000 AF of water in the long-term. This is estimated to allow recovery of stored water at a rate of up to 7.2 million gallons per day (mgd) for a 7.5-year drought period, if the full 61,000 AF is stored prior to the drought period (MWH, 2007). The storage of water in the basin was analyzed through the In-Lieu Pilot Study (ILPS), which is described in the following section. The GSR Project is in the design and environmental review phases and is envisioned to coordinate management of groundwater supplies through an Operating Committee. The development of the GSR Project includes extensive study of the hydrogeology of the South Introduction and Background 1-11 South Westside Basin GWMP Westside Basin and was documented in the Alternatives Analysis Report (MWH, 2007) and in reports documenting monitoring well installation (Kennedy/Jenks, 2009 and 2010). The parties are working to develop an operating agreement in connection with the proposed GSR Project. To-date, the SFPUC has installed ten multi-level monitoring wells in the South Westside Basin (each consisting of 4 nested monitoring wells). The Proposed Project Draft EIR is scheduled to be circulated in 2012. 1.5.3 IN-LIEU PILOT STUDY Beginning in 2002, SFPUC delivered surface water in-lieu of groundwater through the ILPS to Daly City, San Bruno and CalWater - South San Francisco District. The ILPS demonstrated that SFPUC system water can be stored in the Basin through the delivery of in-lieu water to replace groundwater that Daly City, San Bruno, and CalWater refrained from pumping (Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers [LSCE], 2005). During the ILPS, significant quantities of water were banked as shown in Figure 1.7 and discussed below: o Daly City - Through May 7, 2007, SFPUC delivered 13,077 AF of in-lieu water to Daly City. Beginning in May 2009, SFPUC resumed delivery of in-lieu water to Daly City, resulting in additional banking of water. In 2009 and 2010, 1,921 AF and 2,204 AF of water was banked by Daly City, respectively. o CalWater – South San Francisco District - Between February 1, 2003 and November 1, 2003, SFPUC delivered 802 AF of in-lieu water to CalWater – South San Francisco District. When the ILPS restarted on April 1, 2004, CalWater did not participate and did not resume pumping, but continued to rely on wholesale water for all of its water needs in its South San Francisco service area. This resulted in an increase in basin water levels as if CalWater had continued to participate in the ILPS, and a corresponding increase in stored water of 930 AF between April 1, 2004 and March 1, 2005. o San Bruno – From January 28, 2003 through March 1, 2005, SFPUC delivered 3,915 AF of in-lieu water to San Bruno. Introduction and Background 1-12 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 1.7 Banked Groundwater in In-Lieu Pilot Study 1.5.4 SAN FRANCISCO BAY BASIN WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region [RWQCB], 2010) was developed by the RWQCB to provide positive and firm direction for future water quality control. The Basin Plan fulfills the following needs: o Requirements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for such a plan to allocate federal grants to cities and districts for construction of wastewater treatment facilities. o A basis for establishing priorities for disbursing both state and federal grants for constructing and upgrading wastewater treatment facilities. o Requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act that call for water quality control plans in California. o A basis for the RWQCB to establish or revise waste discharge requirements and for the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) to establish or revise water rights permits. o Conditions (discharge prohibitions) that must be met at all times. o Water quality standards applicable to waters of the Region, as required by the federal Clean Water Act. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Oct-02Mar-03Aug-03Jan-04Jun-04Nov-04Apr-05Sep-05Feb-06Jul-06Dec-06May-07Oct-07Mar-08Aug-08Jan-09Jun-09Nov-09Banked Water (AF/Month) Month Daly City Cal Water San Bruno Introduction and Background 1-13 South Westside Basin GWMP o Water quality attainment strategies, including total maximum daily loads required by the Clean Water Act, for pollutants and water bodies where water quality standards are not currently met. While the Basin Plan has a definite focus on surface water resources, groundwater quality is included as well, particularly through the watershed management approach. This approach includes groundwater as well as surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and the surrounding landscape) in an effort to develop unique, integrated solutions for individual watersheds through a stakeholder process. As with surface water, the Basin Plan establishes beneficial uses for groundwater throughout the San Francisco Bay Region. For the South Westside Basin, the Basin Plan identifies two areas: Westside C (2-35C), extending from the San Francisco County line to the City of South San Francisco, and Westside D (2-35D), extending from South San Francisco to the southern extent of the South Westside Basin. The designated beneficial uses for groundwater within these areas, and within areas in the North Westside Basin, are shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Basin Plan Beneficial Uses for Groundwater Basin Plan Basin Location Beneficial Uses Municipal and Domestic Water Supply Industrial Process Water Supply Industrial Service Water Supply Agricultural Water Supply Westside C South Westside Basin Existing Potential Potential Existing Westside D South Westside Basin Existing Existing Existing Potential Westside A North Westside Basin Existing Potential Potential Existing Westside B North Westside Basin Potential Potential Potential Existing The Basin Plan sets objectives for groundwater, with maintenance of existing high-quality of groundwater being the primary objective. In addition, at a minimum, groundwater shall not contain concentrations of bacteria, chemical constituents, radioactivity, or substances producing taste and odor in excess of the objectives unless naturally occurring background concentrations Introduction and Background 1-14 South Westside Basin GWMP are greater. Under existing law, the Water Board regulates waste discharges to land that could affect water quality, including both groundwater and surface water quality. Waste discharges that reach groundwater are regulated to protect both groundwater and any surface water in continuity with groundwater. Waste discharges that affect groundwater in continuity with surface water cannot cause violations of any applicable surface water standards. For implementation, the RWQCB focuses on 28 groundwater basins and 7 sub-basins in the Bay Area that serve, or could serve, as sources of high quality drinking water. The Westside Basin is one of these basins. The Basin Plan establishes the following groundwater protection and management goals for the Bay Area region: o Identify and update beneficial uses and water quality objectives for each groundwater basin. o Regulate activities that impact or have the potential to impact the beneficial uses of groundwater of the region. o Prevent future impacts to the groundwater resource through local and regional planning, management, education, and monitoring. 1.5.5 SAN FRANCISCO AND NORTHERN SAN MATEO COUNTY PILOT BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION PROJECT RWQCB staff, with contributions from local agencies, evaluated existing groundwater protection programs and beneficial uses of groundwater in San Francisco and northern San Mateo County (RWQCB, 1996). Extensive research was conducted and numerous references were compiled to complete the project. The project included the following goals: o Describe the hydrogeology and groundwater uses for the groundwater basins o Identify major threats to groundwater and groundwater protection programs o Identify locations where groundwater is vulnerable to contamination o Identify locations where groundwater monitoring is needed o Use GIS to compile complex data sets to use as a decision-making tool for groundwater protection o Refine beneficial use designations for some groundwater basins o Identify inactive well locations o Describe groundwater extraction for municipal, agricultural, and industrial water supply o Summarize statewide initiatives for groundwater protection and data sharing Introduction and Background 1-15 South Westside Basin GWMP o Evaluate special problem areas not typically addressed by groundwater protection programs The results of the project identified the Westside Basin as a valuable resource deserving of full protection and restoration, including aggressive remediation of contaminated groundwater, enhanced source control and groundwater protection to prevent additional pollution, and groundwater basin management to prevent overdraft. 1.5.6 GROUNDWATER AMBIENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: SAN FRANCISCO BAY STUDY UNIT The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program is a comprehensive assessment of statewide groundwater quality implemented by the Water Board in coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The program is designed to help better understand and identify risks to groundwater resources. The South Westside Basin was included in the study through the investigation of the San Francisco Bay study unit, which includes portions of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties, with sampling from April through June 2007. Groundwater was sampled from 79 wells within the San Francisco Bay study unit to characterize its constituents and identify trends in groundwater quality through a spatially unbiased assessment of raw groundwater quality. Four grid cell wells (SF-03, SF-04, SF-05, and SF-06) and seven understanding wells (SFM-A1, SFM-A2, SFM-A3 SFM-A4, SFM-B1, SFM-B2, and SFU-01) are located in or near the South Westside Basin. The focus on raw water quality rather than treated water quality and the spatially unbiased nature of the program set it apart from other sampling programs that typically use available data from existing wells that are biased toward better water quality and have data intended to meet regulatory requirements for drinking water supplies. The test results provide information to address a variety of issues ranging in scale from local water supply to statewide resource management. Full analysis of the results will be included in a future USGS report. 1.5.7 BAY AREA INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) (RMC and Jones & Stokes, 2006) was developed through a Letter of Mutual Understanding by San Francisco Bay Area water, wastewater, flood protection, and stormwater management agencies; cities and counties represented by the Association of Bay Area Governments; and watershed management interests represented by the California Coastal Conservancy and non-governmental environmental organizations. The IRWMP outlines the region’s water resource management needs and objectives, and presents innovative strategies and a detailed implementation plan to Introduction and Background 1-16 South Westside Basin GWMP achieve these objectives, contributing to sustainable water resources management in the Bay Area. The following are the overall objectives of the Bay Area IRWMP: 1) Foster coordination, collaboration and communication among Bay Area agencies responsible for water and habitat-related issues. 2) Achieve greater efficiencies and build public support for vital projects. 3) Improve regional competitiveness for project funding. The Bay Area IRWMP identifies regional priority projects, including two in the South Westside Basin: the Lomita Canal / Cupid Row Canal Upgrades at San Francisco International Airport and SFPUC Groundwater Projects (including Lake Merced Project, Local Groundwater Projects, and the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project). The Bay Area IRWMP will be going through an update during 2011 – 2012 to ensure that the IRWMP is in compliance with Proposition 84 requirements, including a climate change impact assessment and integrated flood management. 1.5.8 WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY The Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County (Wholesale Water Supply Agreement) (July, 2009) defines the agreement for San Francisco to deliver, up to a defined quantity (Supply Assurance), water to the wholesale customers, including the water agencies in the South Westside Basin. The Supply Assurance includes the wholesale customers as a group, while Individual Supply Guarantees are defined for each agency (Table 1.2). These quantities are expressed in terms of daily deliveries on an annual average basis, although San Francisco agrees to operate the system to meet peak requirements to the extent possible without adversely impacting the ability to meet peak demands of retail customers. The Wholesale Water Supply Agreement includes details on allocation, service areas, permanent transfers, resale, conservation, other supplies, water quality, maintenance, operation, shortages, wheeling, new customers, metering, the proposed conjunctive use program for the South Westside Basin, implementation of interim supply limitations, wholesale revenues, accounting, and other agreements. Introduction and Background 1-17 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 1.2 Individual Supply Guarantees Wholesale Customer Individual Supply Guarantee (mgd) Water Purchases Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (mgd)* California Water Services Company 35.68 (includes South San Francisco and areas outside the South Westside Basin) 32.6 (7.2 mgd for South San Francisco District) City of Burlingame 5.234 3.9 City of Daly City 4.292 3.2** City of Millbrae 3.152 2.2 City of San Bruno 3.246 1.5 Town of Hillsborough 4.090 3.0 * BAWSCA, 2011 ** Amount shown does not include 1.9 mgd of in-lieu water purchases 1.5.9 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS Urban water management plans (UWMP) include descriptions and evaluations of historical, current, and future sources of water supply; efficient uses of water; demand management measures; implementation strategies and schedules; and other information as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act. They are important components for the planning process of each agency and values from these plans are used extensively in Section 3, Water Requirements and Supplies, of this GWMP. A UWMP is required for water agencies with more than 3,000 customers or that provide over 3,000 AF of water annually. Within the South Westside Basin, UWMPs have been developed and adopted by Burlingame, Daly City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Bruno, and CalWater. In the North Westside Basin, SFPUC has developed a UWMP. Introduction and Background 1-18 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.6 PUBLIC PROCESS IN DEVELOPING THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The development of any GWMP is a collaborative process involving all interested stakeholders. Public input is critical to the success of the South Westside Basin GWMP and was a key component of its development. The public was informed and encouraged to provide input and participate in the development of the GWMP in the following ways: o GWMP web site: www.southwestsideplan.com provided information to the public regarding the GWMP. Details about groundwater management in general and specific to the South Westside Basin were provided. Meeting dates, locations, and materials were posted along with details of the South Westside Basin GWMP Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) and contact information. o Newspaper advertisements in the San Mateo County Times gave notice of public hearings. o Public hearings provided opportunities for personal communications captured in the public record on specific topics, including resolution of intent to draft a GWMP and resolution of adoption of the GWMP. o Public meetings provided details on the GWMP process and solicited input. o Advisory Committee meetings provided detailed technical information on the GWMP and solicited input. o Direct communication by telephone, email, and mail was encouraged at meetings and on the web site. Comments could be sent to the City of San Bruno project manager, local water agency staff, or the consultant project manager. 1.6.1 JUNE 2009 PRESENTATION TO IRRIGATION PUMPERS IN THE SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN A presentation on the South Westside Basin GWMP was given on June 25, 2009 to cemetery and golf course interests as part of a SFPUC meeting on the proposed GSR and its potential impacts and benefits for cemeteries and golf courses. The meeting was held at 10:30 a.m. at the Colma Town Hall. The presentation gave an overview of groundwater planning, the proposed GWMP, and the process of developing the GWMP. Attendees were invited to provide contact information and to continue to provide guidance as the GWMP is developed and implemented. Copies of the presentation were provided to interested parties via email. Attendees included representatives from the following: o Holy Cross Cemetery o Lake Merced area golf courses o Town of Colma Introduction and Background 1-19 South Westside Basin GWMP o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC 1.6.2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.6.2.1 Intent to Adopt A public hearing of Intent to Adopt a Groundwater Management Plan was held at the regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council at 7 p.m. on August 24, 2010 at the San Bruno Senior Center. The hearing was advertised in the San Mateo Times, on August 10, 2010 and August 17, 2010. A resolution was adopted by the City Council and subsequently was published in the San Mateo Times on September 8, 2010 and September 15, 2010. The advertisements and the resolution are included in Appendix A. 1.6.2.2 Adoption A public hearing to adopt the Groundwater Management Plan was held at the regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council at 7 p.m. on July 10, 2012 at the San Bruno Senior Center. The hearing was advertised in the San Mateo Times twice prior to the hearing. The advertisements and the resolution are included in Appendix A. 1.6.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS A total of five public meetings were held to inform the public on the development of the groundwater management plan. 1.6.3.1 Background, Components, and Process Three public meetings were held at locations across the South Westside Basin to provide information on the importance of groundwater as a water supply, the need for management of the groundwater resource, the role of a GWMP, the role of the public in the development and implementation of the GWMP, and the preliminary goals, objectives, and elements of the groundwater management plan. 1.6.3.1.1 San Bruno Presentation The presentation in the southern portion of the South Westside Basin was given at San Bruno City Hall on Thursday September 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm. The meeting was advertised on San Bruno’s cable television station, noticed at City Hall, and advertised in the San Mateo Times on September 4, 2010. Introduction and Background 1-20 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.6.3.1.2 Daly City Presentation A presentation in the northern portion of the South Westside Basin at was given at Daly City City Hall on Thursday September 23, 2010 at 7:00 pm. The meeting was noticed at City Hall, on the city’s web page, and on the city’s cable television station. Interviews were provided to a student from San Francisco State University for airing on the campus radio station, KSFS. 1.6.3.1.3 Colma Presentation The presentation in the central portion of the South Westside Basin was given at Colma Town Hall on Thursday October 13, 2010 at 11:30 am. The meeting was noticed at Town Hall. Extensive personal outreach was conducted to inform the numerous cemeteries that utilize private groundwater wells for their irrigation supply. 1.6.3.2 Draft Plan Presentation The fourth public meeting was held at Colma Town Hall on May 24, 2011 at 11:30am. The meeting was noticed at Town Hall and outreach was performed to inform the cemeteries. The draft Groundwater Management Plan was presented and stakeholders were provided an opportunity to discuss the draft Plan and provide comments either in person or at a later date. 1.6.3.3 Distribution of Draft GWMP The draft text of the GWMP was distributed to the public for comment on May 10, 2012. The comment period extended until June 9, 2012. One email was received with comments, which were addressed. 1.6.3.4 Final Draft Plan Presentation The fifth public meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall on May 23, 2012 at 5:30 pm. The meeting was noticed at City Hall and advertised in the San Mateo Times on May 20, 2012. The final draft Groundwater Management Plan and the activities moving forward were discussed. 1.7 SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN GWMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Advisory Committee was organized to solicit input and direct the development of the GWMP. Agencies and key stakeholders were provided written invitations to send to their representatives to invite them to participate in the Advisory Committee. Other stakeholders were invited to join through the public notification process, hearings, the web site, and public meetings. Table 1.3 lists the Advisory Committee members and their affiliations. Meetings were held from 2009 through 2011 to coordinate stakeholder input and incrementally build the GWMP. Agendas and minutes are included in Appendix A. Introduction and Background 1-21 South Westside Basin GWMP During implementation of the GWMP, it is anticipated that most of the members of the Advisory Committee will join the Groundwater Task Force. The Groundwater Task Force will guide the implementation of the GWMP and is described in more detail in Section 6.1. Table 1.3 Advisory Committee Members Entity Representative Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Anona Dutton City of Brisbane Randy L. Breault City of Burlingame Phil Monaghan California Water Services Company Tom Salzano DWR Mark Nordberg Cemeteries Roger Appleby Town of Colma Brad Donohue City of Daly City Patrick Sweetland RWQCB Kevin D. Brown City of San Bruno Will Anderson SFPUC Greg Bartow City of South San Francisco Terry White Interested citizens Robert Riechel 1.7.1 DECEMBER 18, 2009 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 1 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on December 18, 2009 to coordinate the Advisory Committee, develop a common understanding of basin conditions and groundwater management plans, and to develop a goal or goals for the basin. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was well attended, including representatives of the following: o California Water Services Company o City of Brisbane o City of Burlingame o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o RWQCB o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Private citizens o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. Introduction and Background 1-22 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.7.2 MARCH 11, 2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 2 The second Advisory Committee meeting was held on March 11, 2010 to discuss Basin Management Objectives (BMOs), both in general and specific to the South Westside Basin. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of the following: o Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o RWQCB o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.3 JUNE 24, 2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 3 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on June 24, 2010 to discuss comments received on the BMOs and to discuss the Elements of the Plan. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC o Town of Colma The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.4 AUGUST 16, 2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 4 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on August 16, 2010 to discuss basin governance and financing of the implementation of the groundwater management plan. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o RWQCB o SFPUC Introduction and Background 1-23 South Westside Basin GWMP o Town of Colma The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.5 FEBRUARY 3, 2011 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 5 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on February 3, 2011 to discuss the recent completion of a revision to the Westside Basin Groundwater Flow Model and the utility of the model in the development of the GWMP. The discussion included using the model to estimate the basin yield. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.6 APRIL 28, 2011 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 6 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on April 28, 2011 to update the current status of the Groundwater Management Plan to provide information to focus the review to be performed by the Advisory Committee. Progress toward participation in the CASGEM program was also discussed. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.7 APRIL 15, 2011 DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT GWMP The draft text of the GWMP was distributed to the Advisory Committee for comment on April 15, 2011. Comments were received from BAWSCA, CalWater, San Bruno, SFPUC, and Steve Lawrence and incorporated into the text as appropriate. Introduction and Background 1-24 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.8 GROUNDWATER MANANGEMENT PLAN AND CONSISTENCY WITH CALIFORNIA WATER CODE Groundwater management is the planned and coordinated local effort of sustaining the groundwater basin in order to meet future water supply needs. With the passage of AB 3030 in 1992, local water agencies were provided a systematic way of formulating GWMPs (California Water Code, § 10750 et. seq.). SB 1938, passed in 2002, further emphasizes the need for groundwater management in California. SB 1938 requires AB 3030 GWMPs to contain specific plan components in order to receive state funding for water projects. The South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan is prepared consistent with the provisions of California Water Code § 10750 et seq. as amended January 1, 2003. The South Westside Basin GWMP includes the seven components that are required to be eligible for DWR funds for the construction of groundwater projects or groundwater quality projects. The GWMP also addresses the 12 specific technical issues identified in the Water Code along with the seven recommended components identified in DWR Bulletin 118-03 (DWR, 2003). Table 1.4 lists the required and recommended components and identifies the specific section of this GWMP in which the components are discussed. Introduction and Background 1-25 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 1.4 South Westside Basin GWMP Components Component GWMP Section(s) SB 1938 Mandatory 1. Documentation of public involvement 1.6, 1.7, App. A 2. BMOs 4.3 3. Monitoring and management of groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, inelastic land subsidence, and changes in surface water flows and quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality 5.2 4. Plan to involve other agencies located in the groundwater basin 5.1 5. Adoption of monitoring protocols 5.2, App. C 6. Map of groundwater basin boundary, as delineated by DWR Bulletin 118, with boundaries of agencies subject to the GWMP Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 7. For agencies not overlying groundwater basins, GWMP prepared using appropriate geologic and hydrogeologic principles n/a AB 3030 and SB 1938 Voluntary 1. Control of saline water intrusion 5.4.1 2. Identification and management of well protection and recharge areas 5.4.2 3. Regulation of the migration of contaminated groundwater 5.4.3 4. Administration of well abandonment and destruction program 5.4.4 5. Control and mitigation of groundwater overdraft 5.3.1 6. Replenishment of groundwater 5.3.2 7. Monitoring of groundwater levels 5.2.1, App. C 8. Development and operation of conjunctive use projects 5.3.3 9. Identification of well construction policies 5.4.5 10. Construction and operation of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects 5.5 11. Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies 5.6.1 12. Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create reasonable risk of groundwater contamination 5.6.3 DWR Bulletin 118 Recommended 1. Management with guidance of advisory committee 1.7, 5.1 2. Description of area to be managed under GWMP 1.1, Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 3. Links between BMOs and goals and actions of GWMP 4, 6 4. Description of GWMP monitoring programs 5.2, App. C 5. Description of integrated water management planning efforts 1.5, 5.6.2 6. Report of implementation of GWMP 5.7 7. Periodic evaluation of GWMP 5.7 2-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 2 WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS 2.1 CLIMATE The South Westside Basin’s location in a valley between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay gives it a variable, but mild, marine climate. Winters are mild and moderately wet and summers are cool and dry (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009). The valley serves as a gap in the coast range, allowing cool, moist marine air into the central Bay Area. Generally, areas closer to the Pacific Ocean or closer to the valley experience the most marine effects, notably lower summer temperatures and lower evapotranspiration, while those areas in the south of the basin, such as Burlingame, experience less marine influence and have more sunshine, higher summer temperatures, and higher evapotranspiration rates. This climate, along with limited outdoor water use, contributes to water demand that is only somewhat higher in the summer than in the winter. Average monthly temperature and reference evapotranspiration data are shown in Table 2.1. Temperature data are from San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), within the Plan Area; however, the closest reference evapotranspiration data is from Woodside, south of the Plan Area. Temperature, evapotranspiration, and rainfall are variable in the basin and are driven by proximity to the Pacific Ocean and local topography. Areas closer to the ocean are cooler and cloudier, with lower evapotranspiration. Higher elevation areas have more rainfall. Table 2.1 Average Monthly Temperature and Reference Evapotranspiration Parameter Month Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average maximum temperature (F)* 55.8 59.1 61.2 63.8 66.8 70.0 71.4 72.1 73.5 70.1 62.9 56.4 65.3 Average minimum temperature (F)* 42.5 45.0 46.2 47.7 50.3 52.7 54.1 55.0 54.9 51.9 47.4 43.2 49.2 Precipitation (inches)** 4.4 3.6 2.8 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.3 3.7 20.0 Average reference evapotranspiration (inches)*** 1.83 2.21 3.42 4.84 5.61 6.26 6.47 6.22 4.84 3.66 2.36 1.83 49.54 * Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2011. San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769). Period of record 7/1948 – 9/2010. ** Source: NOAA-NCDC, 2007, 2009, 2011 *** Source: California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), 2009. 96 Woodside. Period of record 10/1990 – 1/1994 Water Resources Conditions 2-2 South Westside Basin GWMP The National Weather Service through its Cooperative Network collects rainfall data at SFIA: Coop ID #047769 (see Figure 2.1). Data are available from May 1928 through present. The historical record of annual rainfall and the cumulative departure from annual mean at SFIA are shown in Figure 2.2. The long-term average annual precipitation for the period from 1949 to 2010 is 20 inches. Figure 2.3 shows the long-term average monthly precipitation at SFIA. Most precipitation occurs as rainfall during the mild winters, from November through April. A map of the spatial distribution of precipitation by HydroFocus (2011) is shown in Figure 2.4. Across the basin, annual precipitation ranges from less than 20 inches along San Francisco Bay near SFIA and along the Pacific Ocean in Daly City to approximately 24 inches in the center of the valley near Colma and South San Francisco to approximately 30 inches in the hills above the valley. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Colma Creek SFIA §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.1Rainfall and StreamflowGages 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area NOAA Precipitation Gage USGS Streamflow Gage F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.1 Rainfall and Streamflow Gages.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.2 Historical Annual Precipitation and Cumulative Departure from Mean Precipitation Figure 2.3 Average Monthly Precipitation Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l 212220 23 242 5 26 1927 1828 20.521 . 52121.5§¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 2.4Distribution of AverageAnnual Precipitation 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Precipitation - HydroFocus, 2011 ² Legend Precipitation (in) Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.4 Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-6 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.2 SURFACE WATER Major watersheds and surface water features are shown in Figure 2.5. The largest watersheds are Colma Creek Watershed and Vista Grande Watershed. Colma Creek is a small creek draining much of South San Francisco and the surrounding area before entering into San Francisco Bay just north of SFIA and the eastern terminus of Interstate 380. Within the valley portion of the watershed, Colma Creek is an open engineered channel from the bay to near the Colma/South San Francisco city line. Much of the area upstream of South San Francisco and some small tributaries within South San Francisco drains through underground storm drains. Some of the uppermost reaches of the creek are natural channels, particularly on the slopes of San Bruno Mountain (Oakland Museum of California, 2011). The only USGS streamflow gage in the South Westside Basin was located on Colma Creek (Figure 2.1). No longer active, the gage has recorded data from 1963 until 1996. Average monthly flows from the gage are presented on Figure 2.6a and the percent exceedance of daily streamflow is shown in Figure 2.6b. Average monthly streamflow is low, less than 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the summer and less than 20 cfs in the winter. High flow conditions are typically below 200 cfs. Work has been performed on the stream channel to reduce flooding in the area, particularly near Holy Cross Cemetery. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Colma Creek Sanchez CreekMills CreekS a n Ma t e o Cr e e k San Pedro Creek Eas to n C reekPila r citos CreekMartini Cre e k San Mateo Cre e k §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.5Watersheds and Surface Water Features 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: NHD database and USGS ² Legend Creeks/Streams Highways Watersheds Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.5 Watersheds and Surface Water Features.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-8 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.6a Average Monthly Colma Creek Streamflow, 1963-1996 Figure 2.6b Daily Colma Creek Streamflow Exceedance, 1963-1996 The Vista Grande Watershed historically drained into Lake Merced, but has since been altered to flow to the Pacific Ocean. The 2.5 square mile watershed includes portions of Daly City as well as portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. Stormwater flows through the Vista Grande Canal for about 3,500 feet before flowing into the Vista Grande Outfall Tunnel. The tunnel discharges to the Pacific Ocean through an outfall beach structure below Fort Funston in Golden Gate National Recreation Area. (RMC, 2006) Other creeks in the South Westside Basin include: o San Bruno Creek in San Bruno o Millbrae Creek in Millbrae o Mills Creek in Burlingame o Sanchez Creek in Burlingame Water Resources Conditions 2-9 South Westside Basin GWMP o San Mateo Creek, just south of the South Westside Basin in San Mateo The major water features in the North Westside Basin are Lake Merced and several smaller lakes. These features, as they relate to groundwater, are discussed in the draft North Westside Basin GWMP. 2.3 GROUNDWATER 2.3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The South Westside Basin is a structural basin within the Coast Ranges province of California. The Coast Ranges are dominated by northwest oriented mountain ranges and valleys. The mountains are steep but modest in elevation. Locally, the Santa Cruz Mountains and the valley that makes up the South Westside Basin are part of these features. Highest elevations include the following: o Scarpet Peak southwest of the basin, 1,944 feet (ft) o San Bruno Mountain northeast of the basin, 1,316 ft o Mount Davidson in San Francisco, 927 ft The northwest trend is a result of tectonics, with major northwest trending faults in the vicinity of the South Westside Basin: San Andreas Fault, Serra Fault, and the Hillside Fault (Figure 2.7) The Franciscan Formation forms the basement underlying the unconsolidated sediments that are the primary sources of groundwater for the area and forms most of the mountains surrounding the South Westside Basin (Burns & McDonnell and ERM-West, 2006; Bonilla 1998). A map of bedrock elevation is presented on Figure 2.8 based on HydroFocus (2003). The Mesozoic-age formation is highly deformed and comprised of a unique mix of rocks related to tectonic subduction. This subduction resulted in materials from the oceanic plate being scraped off and accreted onto the continental materials as well as low-temperature, high-pressure metamorphism. The scraping results in the presence of deep-ocean materials such as chert, while metamorphism results in rocks such as serpentine and blueshist. The most common materials are greywacke (a poorly sorted sandstone containing angular clasts) and shale, resulting from deep ocean deposition in a method similar to a landslide. Composition of the Franciscan Formation is variable; locally the Franciscan has significant greywacke and shale in what is known as the San Bruno Mountain terrane to the northeast of the South Westside Basin and pillow basalts, minor chert, limestone, and greywacke in what is known as the Permanente terrane to the southwest (Sloan, 2006). The Merced Formation and the Colma Formation are the major unconsolidated units in the South Westside Basin and are the primary sources of groundwater. These formations were Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l 0 Ser ra Hill s i d e Pilar c i t o s f a u l t S a n A n d r e a s f a u l t z o n e , P e n i n s u l a s e c t i o n §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.7Major Faults 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: USGS ² Legend Highways Plan Area Faults F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.7 Major Faults.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l 0 -3 0 0 100 20 0 -6 0 0 -7 0 0 - 8 0 0 - 9 0 0 -1 5 0 - 2 0 0 -400 -250 -500 -100 -4 0 0 -10 0 -300- 1 0 0 -200-100-2 0 0 -200 -5 0 0 -300 -2 0 0 -100-10 0 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.8Bedrock Elevation 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Bedrock Elevation - Phillips et al., 1993 and Hensolt and Brabb, 1990 as cited in HydroFocus, 2003 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Bedrock Elevation (ft)F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.8 Bedrock Elevation.mxd, January 20, 2012 Water Resources Conditions 2-12 South Westside Basin GWMP deposited on top of the Franciscan. During recent geologic history, the South Westside Basin alternated between being submerged below the Pacific Ocean and being above sea level, the result of tectonic subsidence, changes in sea level due to global climatic conditions, and tectonic uplift. At least 30 episodes of transgression and regression are recorded in the Merced and Colma Formations near Daly City (Clifton and Hunter, 1987, 1991) as changes from shallow marine to non-marine sediments. These episodes resulted in the layers of clays and sands seen in the subsurface today. The Merced Formation contains several major beds of sands and clays. The lower portion of the formation contains locally derived materials from the Coast Ranges, while the upper portion contains sediment from the Sierra Nevada and Cascades identifying the movement of the outlet of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers near their current outlet at the Golden Gate. Beds in the vicinity of coastal Daly City dip to the northeast at 45 to 70 degrees in the lower 4,000 ft; 25 to 45 degrees in the middle 600 ft; and 5 to 20 degrees in the upper 500 ft (LSCE, 2004). The Merced Formation dips more than 40 degrees to the northeast in the portion of the South Westside Basin from San Bruno to Daly City (Fio and Leighton, 1995). From San Bruno into Millbrae and between the Serra and San Andreas faults, the Merced dips to the southwest and to the northeast, depending on location, due to faulting and folding (Rogge, 2003). East of the Serra Fault, the Merced appears to dip to the northeast based on observations by Rogge. The Colma Formation has a very similar mineral composition to the underlying Merced Formation. The Colma Formation is younger (Pleistocene-age) than the Merced and was deposited on top of the tilted Merced Formation. The layering in the Colma Formation remains primarily horizontal (Sloan, 2006). Bay Muds are also present along the margins of San Francisco Bay at ground surface or below artificial fill. These recently deposited materials are fine-grained clays and silts with organic matter and minor sand lenses that were deposited in still waters and accumulated as sea levels rose (Lee and Praszker, 1969). 2.3.2 WATER-BEARING FORMATIONS Groundwater used for water supply within the South Westside Basin is found in the Merced and Colma formations discussed above. Water is produced from the coarse-grained layers within these complex, layered formations. Grain size typically decreases from the northwest to the southeast. The elevation of the bedrock surface is shown in Figure 2.8; the deepest portions of the basin is in the northwest, becoming thin in Millbrae and south into Burlingame. Water bearing formations are also thin near San Francisco Bay due to a bedrock ridge extending in a north- Water Resources Conditions 2-13 South Westside Basin GWMP south orientation near SFIA, which, together with surficial deposits of Bay muds in these areas, reduces the potential for seawater intrusion in this area (WRIME, 2007). The “W” clay is a major aquitard in the Daly City area , with municipal production occurring below the “W” clay. The “W” clay is not present south of Daly City, but a fine grained unit at 300 ft below mean sea level is present in the South San Francisco area (LSCE, 2004) and several clay units are in the upper portion of the aquifer in the San Bruno area. Perched aquifer conditions occur throughout the Plan Area. Numerous shallow wells installed for remediation or monitoring of contaminants nearly always encounter the water table within 30 feet of ground surface (HydroFocus, 2003). The characteristics of the water bearing formations have been studied through several aquifer tests outlined in the Alternatives Analysis Report (MWH, 2007) and are summarized below. These tests provide estimates of transmissivity, a measure of the ability of an aquifer to transmit groundwater. For the South Westside Basin as a whole, previous studies have shown a range of transmissivities of 668 to 4,100 ft2/day (CH2M HILL, 1997 as referenced in MWH, 2007). More specifically, transmissivities have been estimated for the following: o Daly City area at the Jefferson Well as 2,190 ft2/day o CalWater wellfield area as 1,000 to 20,000 ft2/day o San Bruno area at SB-16 as 1,890 ft2/day (LSCE, 2004; MWH, 2007) 2.3.3 PARTIAL BARRIERS TO SEAWATER INTRUSION The lack of historical seawater intrusion despite historical data of groundwater levels below sea level near both the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay is likely due to natural hydrogeologic conditions that act as partial barriers and inhibit the flow of water from these saltwater bodies into the freshwater aquifer. 2.3.3.1 Pacific Ocean Significant faulting and folding of the Merced Formation near the Pacific Ocean has been shown to be a barrier to seawater intrusion from the Pacific Ocean. It has been concluded that groundwater extraction within the South Westside Basin largely occurs within sequences with no direct connection with the Pacific Ocean (LSCE, 2010). Monitoring wells at Thornton Beach and Fort Funston exhibit groundwater levels above sea level. The potential for seawater intrusion is more likely to the north of Fort Funston, in the vicinity of LMMW-6D, where the faulted and folded conditions do not exist and there is a potential pathway into the South Westside Basin from the northwest. This area, however, is farther from the influence of active production wells and water levels are thus higher than elsewhere in the South Westside Basin. A network of monitoring wells are used to collect groundwater data along the Pacific Ocean: at Water Resources Conditions 2-14 South Westside Basin GWMP the Old Great Highway, the northwestern part of Golden Gate Park, the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plan, the San Francisco Zoo, Fort Funston, and Thornton Beach. 2.3.3.2 San Francisco Bay Relatively thick Bay Mud deposits and a buried bedrock ridge within 50 to 300 ft of the land surface provide some protection to the southern portion of the South Westside Basin from seawater intrusion from San Francisco Bay. Previous efforts have identified areas where the depth to bedrock is deepest and installed monitoring well clusters in the two most likely locations for seawater intrusion. These wells (SFO-S, SFO-D, Burlingame-S, Burlingame-M, and Burlingame-D) provide water level and water quality data. While this barrier has been historically effective, hydraulic connections between the main pumping aquifer and shallower wells closer to the Bay have been shown through water level impacts when San Bruno groundwater production wells are turned on (impacts at SFIA monitoring wells; ERM (2005)) and through depressed water levels near the bayshore (including SFO-S, SFO-D, Burlingame-S, Burlingame-M, and Burlingame-D). While not a completely understood pathway from San Francisco Bay into the main pumping aquifer, this hydraulic connection indicates that there is some potential for seawater intrusion in the future in this area. Risks of seawater intrusion increase with greater gradients between depressed groundwater levels in the drinking water aquifer and sea level at San Francisco Bay. Such risks can be reduced through increasing groundwater levels by increased recharge or decreased groundwater production. 2.3.4 SOILS Surface soils impact the amount of water that infiltrates to groundwater rather than contributing to surface runoff. The characteristics of surface soils thus play a role in groundwater recharge. Due to the urban nature of the area, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) does not have a comprehensive classification of these soils according to their infiltration capacity. However, USDA-NRCS does summarize the general soils for the area (Figure 2.9). Generally, soils in the northwest (Daly City and Colma) are well drained soils associated with former sand dunes (categorized as “Urban land-Orthents, smoothed”). Soils in the southeast (San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame) have variable drainage properties in the low elevations near and to the east of El Camino Real (categorized as “Urban land -Orthents, reclaimed” and “Urban land -Orthents”) and are well drained in the uplands to the west of El Camino (categorized as “Urban land - Orthents, cut and fill”). Water Resources Conditions 2-15 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.5 RECHARGE Additional water is added to the aquifer system through recharge, the percolation of water downward from the ground surface through unsaturated sediments into the aquifer. The amount of recharge is controlled by Climate, including precipitation and evapotranspiration The slope of the ground surface, which impacts whether water seeps into the ground or becomes runoff into surface drainages Land use, including the amount of impervious surfaces, plant types, and usage of irrigation Leakage from water and sewer pipes Soil characteristics Subsurface characteristics Estimates of recharge for the South Westside Basin were developed for the Groundwater Model (HydroFocus, 2011) and are summarized in Figure 2.10. The recharge estimates show that groundwater recharge is highest in the northwestern portions of the basin, corresponding to areas of sandy soils, and in areas with significant unpaved, irrigated land, such as golf courses and cemeteries. Recharge is lowest along the margins of San Francisco Bay, corresponding to areas with Bay Muds, and along the steep slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.9General Soil Classification 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Soils - USDA - SCS, 1991 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Soil Types Urban Land-Sirdrak Urban Land-Orthents, smoothed Alambique-McGarvey Scarper-Miramar Barnabe-Candlestick-Buriburi Fagan-Obispo Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill Alambique-Zeni-Zeni Variant Novato-Reyes Urban Land-Orthents, reclaimed Urban Land-Orthents F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.9 General Soil Classification.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.10Estimated Recharge 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Recharge - HydroFocus, 2011 ²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.10 Recharge.mxd, September 30, 2011Legend Highways Recharge (inches per year) 0 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 12 12 - 16 Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-18 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.6 EARLY DEVELOPMENT AND GROUNDWATER USAGE Early development in the South Westside Basin was primarily agricultural, with dairy cattle operations serving the nearby cities. Development of the type seen today began around the turn of the 20th century. Burials within the City of San Francisco were prohibited in 1900 and existing cemeteries were evicted in 1937. These events resulted in the establishment of the cemeteries in Colma. The 1906 earthquake resulted in the migration of people out of the damaged cities and into the undeveloped and newly developed areas in the South Westside Basin, particularly along the streetcar line that extended from San Francisco south through Daly City, San Bruno and beyond, as far as San Mateo by the late 1890s (Gillespie and Gillespie, 2009). San Francisco International Airport began operating in 1927, further driving urban growth. The most significant urban growth occurred during World War II as numerous industrial facilities operated out of South San Francisco, resulting in demand for area housing and commercial space. This growth continued until the area approached build-out. Historical population growth for the cities in the South Westside Basin (right axis), as well as for San Francisco (left axis), is shown in Figure 2.11. Figure 2.11. Historical Population Growth in the South Westside Basin Water Resources Conditions 2-19 South Westside Basin GWMP Historical groundwater use increased with development of the South Westside Basin through the 1960s. Beginning in the 1960s, groundwater use by municipal users began to decline (Figure 2.12), a result of conservation by customers as well as operational decisions as the water agencies have access to both groundwater and imported water through SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system. Since the early 1960s, municipal groundwater use in the South Westside Basin has declined by approximately 25 percent, while imported water use has increased by approximately 40 percent. Figure 2.12. Historical Municipal Groundwater Production, South Westside Basin 2.3.7 GROUNDWATER LEVELS There are little data on groundwater levels from the early development period of the South Westside Basin. Before groundwater production began, groundwater levels were likely close to the surface within the valley, draining to the Pacific Ocean in the west and to Colma Creek, San Francisco Bay, and other drainages to the east. A report from 1914 (Bartell, 1914) noted that San Bruno produced water from three artesian wells, which, when turned off, overflowed approximately 1 inch above the top of casing. Artesian flow was noted as being maintained through the previous two dry seasons. The same report noted pumping water levels in South San Francisco’s nine wells of 55 to 60 ft below ground surface. Through the early 1940s, groundwater levels remained above sea level in the Daly City area, although in the South San Francisco area groundwater levels were already 100 ft below sea level by that time (Kirker, Chapman & Associates, 1972). Groundwater levels remained relatively stable throughout the basin from the 1970s until the implementation of the ILPS in late 2002, which resulted in rising groundwater levels. Hydrographs present historical groundwater levels on Figures 2.13a-e (locations are presented on Figure 2.14). Current groundwater level conditions are shown in Figure 2.15. Water Resources Conditions 2-20 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.13a. Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-8 Figure 2.13b. Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-1 Figure 2.13c. Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-20 Water Resources Conditions 2-21 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.13d. Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-02 Figure 2.13e. Historical Groundwater Elevation, SB 12 !!! ! !! ! !Skyline BlvdE l C am i n o R e a l £¤101 San Mateo SB-15 SB-12 DC-8DC-1 Vale SS 1-20 SS 1-15 SS 1-02§¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.14Location of Selected Wells 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !Selected Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.13 Location of Selected Wells.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C am i n o R e a l San Mateo 0 -160-140-120-50 -70-20 -10 -100 -180-200-50 -70 -140-20 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.15Groundwater Elevation ContoursPrimary Production Aquifer, Fall 2010 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Groundwater Levels: SFPUC, 2011 ²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.14 Groundwater Contours 2010.mxd, March 31, 2011Legend Groundwater Elevation Contour (ft)(dashed where inferred)Highways Groundwater Basin Water Resources Conditions 2-24 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.8 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Groundwater used for water supply in the South Westside Basin is generally good and delivered water meets all state and federal regulations. However, the quality of untreated groundwater in the basin is variable. Lower quality groundwater increases the cost of treatment for use as a drinking water source. Poor quality groundwater may not be economically, technically, or politically feasible for use as a water supply source. 2.3.8.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality Ambient groundwater quality reflects the general groundwater quality on a regional scale. Most water quality data is available from existing municipal production wells, whose operators maintain a testing schedule to meet the requirements of the California Department of Public Health (DPH). Analysis of ambient water quality was performed based on raw groundwater quality data in a DPH database (2010). Differences in the general chemistry of groundwater across the basin are shown through the Piper diagram on Figure 2.16. This diagram plots the relative concentrations of cations and anions. Similar waters will plot close to each other; different waters will plot farther apart. The close proximity of the plotted points shows the similarity of water across the South Westside Basin, however, there are noticeable differences between the water of the three agencies. Water Resources Conditions 2-25 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.16. Piper Diagram of General Groundwater Chemistry for Wells Operated by Daly City (open blue), CalWater (filled blue), and San Bruno (filled green) Analysis of the most prominent ambient water quality concerns, iron, manganese, nitrate, and total dissolved solids (TDS), was also performed based on raw groundwater quality data contained in the DPH database (2010). While these data are presented along with regulatory standards, it must be noted that a single detection of a contaminant may not indicate contamination. DPH would not consider a single detection of a contaminant, if unconfirmed with a follow-up detection, to be an actual finding. As another example, the presence of a contaminant in raw water does not necessarily mean that the water (and contaminant) was served by the water system to its customers, or, if served, that the contaminant was present at that concentration. Water systems may choose not use certain sources or may treat or blend them prior to service (DPH, 2010). While water containing higher concentrations of iron, manganese, nitrate, and TDS can be used following treatment, it is more economical to use water that does not require treatment. Iron and manganese do not pose a risk to human health, but are an aesthetic concern for water users. High concentrations of iron and manganese can result in poor tasting water or water that stains fixtures. The source of iron and manganese in groundwater is typically naturally occurring soils and rocks containing iron and manganese. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL) are enforceable standards established by DPH based on consumer acceptance, Water Resources Conditions 2-26 South Westside Basin GWMP rather than health risk. The SMCL is 300 micrograms per liter (µg/L) for iron and 50 µg/L for manganese. Figures 2.17 and 2.18 show the distribution of iron and manganese, respectively, over the Plan Area based on average 2005-2010 data from DPH. Generally, concentrations of iron and manganese are variable even within short distances. Figures 2.19a-c present historical trends in iron and manganese concentration for selected wells with locations shown in Figure 2.14. These figures show generally stable iron and manganese concentrations. The apparent increase in concentrations in the Vale Well is the result of higher detection limits for the later measurements and does not necessarily indicate increasing concentrations. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.17Iron Concentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ² Legend Concentration (ug/L) Iron (SMCL = 300) 0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\2.16 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.16 Iron Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16 SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.18Manganese Concentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ²F:\2.17 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.16 Manganese Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011Legend Concentration (ug/L)Manganese (SMCL = 50) 1 - 5 5.01 - 10 10.01 - 20 20.01 - 50 50.01 - 100 100+ Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-29 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.19a. Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.19b. Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.19c. Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, SB-15 Water Resources Conditions 2-30 South Westside Basin GWMP Nitrate in groundwater poses a health risk if concentrations are too high and the water is not properly treated. Low levels of nitrate are naturally occurring, but higher levels are almost always the result of human activity, such as inorganic fertilizer, animal manure, septic systems, and deposition of airborne compounds from industry and automobiles. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) are enforceable standards established by EPA and DPH to set the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close as feasible to the level below which there is no known or expected health risk using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration (EPA, 2009). The MCL for nitrate is 45 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (as NO3). Figure 2.20 shows the distribution of nitrate over the Plan Area based on average 2005-2010 data from DPH. Generally, nitrate concentrations are highest in the central portion of the Plan Area, South San Francisco, and lowest in the southern portion of the South Westside Basin, San Bruno. Some of this trend is due to the depth of the wells as the wells in South San Francisco are generally shallower than the other municipal wells in the basin and thus are more likely to show influences of contaminating activities at the surface. Figures 2.21a-c present historical trends in nitrate concentrations for selected wells with locations shown in Figure 2.14. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 §¨¦380 Figure 2.20Nitrate as NO3Concentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ²F:\2.19 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.16 No3 Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011Legend Concentration (mg/L) NO3 (MCL = 45) 0.1 - 1.5 1.6 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 45 46 - 80 Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-32 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.21a. Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.21b. Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.21c. Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, SB-15 Water Resources Conditions 2-33 South Westside Basin GWMP TDS do not pose a risk to health, but are an aesthetic concern for water users. High concentrations of TDS can cause scale buildup or hard water that is poor tasting. As TDS is a combined measurement of all dissolved compounds in the water, there are many naturally occurring sources as well as sources resulting from human activities. Irrigation often increases TDS as irrigation water collects salts that contribute to TDS as they percolate to the groundwater. This groundwater may be pumped back to the surface and used for irrigation again, further increasing TDS. Allowing water to leave the system or treating the water at the surface can break this cycle. Seawater intrusion can rapidly increase TDS in an aquifer. TDS has the following three SMCLs: o Recommended: 500 mg/L. Constituent concentrations lower than the recommended contaminant level are desirable for a higher degree of consumer acceptance. o Upper: 1000 mg/L. Constituent concentrations ranging to the upper contaminant level are acceptable if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable water. o Short term: 1500 mg/L. Constituent concentrations ranging to the short term contaminant level are acceptable only for existing community water systems on a temporary basis pending construction of treatment facilities or development of acceptable new water sources. (DPH, 2009) Figure 2.22 shows the distribution of TDS over the Plan Area based on average 2005-2010 data from DPH. Generally, TDS concentrations are highest in the central portion of the Plan Area, South San Francisco, and lowest in the northern portion of the South Westside Basin, Daly City. Some of this trend is due to the depth of the wells as the wells in South San Francisco are generally shallower than the other municipal wells in the basin and thus are more likely to show influences of contaminating activities at the surface. Figure 2.21a-c presents historical trends in TDS concentrations for selected wells with locations presented on Figure 2.14. 2.3.8.2 Point Source Contamination In addition to ambient water quality concerns, contaminated groundwater from point sources can quickly remove wells from service and thus requires close coordination with regulatory agencies such as EPA, RWQCB, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and local oversight programs, including San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program. Based on a search of DTSC’s Envirostor database and the Water Board’s GeoTracker database, the sites summarized on Table 2.4 have been identified as federal, state, or voluntary cleanup sites potentially affecting the aquifer used for drinking water supply. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 §¨¦380 Figure 2.22TDSConcentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ²F:\2.19 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.21 TDS Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011Legend Concentration (mg/L) TDS (SMCL = 500/1000/1500) 301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 600 + Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area 250 - 300 Water Resources Conditions 2-35 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 2.4 Open Contaminated Sites Potentially Impacting the Aquifer Used for Drinking Water Supply Name Address ID Potential Contaminants of Concern Lead Agency ARCO #0465 151 Southgate Avenue, Daly City T0608100027 Benzene, Toluene, Xylene, Fuel Oxygenates, Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency Chevron 9-6982 892 John Daly Blvd, Daly City T0608100148 Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency Agbayani Construction 88 Dixon Ct., Daly City T10000002674 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), Vinyl chloride County of San Mateo Health Services Agency Gas & Wash Partners 247 87th St., Daly City T10000003031 Benzene, Toluene, Xylene, Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency United Airlines Maintenance Center San Francisco International Airport, South San Francisco SL0608106162 Solvents RWQCB Chevron 9-5584, former 1770 El Camino Real, San Bruno T0608179897 Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency 1245 Montgomery Ave 1245 Montgomery Ave., San Bruno SL0608187730 Benzene, Other Solvent or Non- Petroleum Hydrocarbon, TCE RWQCB Water Resources Conditions 2-36 South Westside Basin GWMP As with all urban areas in the state, numerous Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks and Spills Leaks Investigation and Cleanup sites are present in the South Westside Basin and are being monitored and/or remediated under the regulatory lead of the RWQCB or the local oversight program. Leaking underground fuel tanks are typically at gas stations, while spills leaks investigation and cleanup sites have a variety of sources, but all involve hazardous wastes that have impacted soil and/or groundwater. Many, but not all, of these point-source contaminants occur at the surface and tend to remain near the surface due to the chemical properties of the contaminants and the geologic conditions that slow the migration of these contaminants into the deep aquifer used by municipal groundwater producers in the basin and most private producers. Detailed coordination is required to ensure that corrective action on point sources is sufficient to protect groundwater quality. A map of known, active contaminated sites that have affected or could potentially affect groundwater, soils, or other environmental media is shown in Figure 2.23, as detailed by the Water Board’s GeoTracker database system. Sites on Figure 2.23 are classified as follows: Drinking Water Aquifer: Sites listed on GeoTracker as Potentially Affecting Aquifer Used for Drinking Water Supply or Potentially Affecting Well Used for Drinking Water Supply Shallow Groundwater: Sites listed on GeoTracker as Potentially Affecting Other Groundwater (Uses Other Than Drinking Water) Other Impact: Sites listed on GeoTracker as Potentially Affecting Indoor Air, Sediments, Soils, Soil Vapor, Surface Water, or Under Investigation Note that, in the South Westside Basin, only the United Airlines Maintenance Facility is listed as Potentially Affecting Well Used for Drinking Water Supply, and this site, like many others, is extensively monitored and actively undergoing remediation activities. Groundwater here includes shallow, perched groundwater not directly used for water supply (Other Groundwater). The distinction between shallow, perched groundwater not directly used for water supply and groundwater used for drinking water supply is to some degree based on professional judgment by the preparers of the GeoTracker system; Section 5.4.3 contains recommendations for coordination with regulatory agencies to improve the accuracy and usefulness of these classifications for regional planning and public outreach. 2.3.9 DESALTER INFRASTRUCTURE There is currently no desalination infrastructure in the South Westside Basin. !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(Skyline BlvdEl C a m i n o R e a l £¤101 Pacifica San Francisco ¬«35 UV35 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 2.23Contaminated Sites²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.23 Contaminated Sites.mxd, June 4, 20120 1 20.5 Miles Source: Water Board, 2010 Legend Contaminated Sites byPotential Impact !(Drinking Water Aquifer !(Shallow Groundwater !(Other Impact Highways Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-38 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.10 GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER INTERACTION Interaction between groundwater and surface water in the Plan Area is limited due to the significant depth to groundwater used for water supply, numerous clay layers that slow vertical migration of water through the subsurface, and the presence of only minor surface water features, such as Colma Creek, which are often channelized. The perched water table above the upper clay units interacts with local surface water courses, such as Colma Creek and smaller creeks. Groundwater tends to seep into the surface water courses near the Bay and the surface water recharges the groundwater at higher elevations. The perched aquifer, which is not used as a water supply, slowly recharges the deeper aquifer through the clay layers. Lake Merced is an important surface water feature just north of the Plan Area. The draft North Westside Basin GWMP addresses issues with groundwater interaction with Lake Merced. 2.3.11 SUBSIDENCE AND LIQUEFACTION Subsidence and liquefaction are both influenced by changes in groundwater levels. Low groundwater levels can contribute to subsidence while high groundwater levels can contribute to liquefaction. Land subsidence here refers to the lowering of the ground surface as a result of groundwater level changes, not tectonic changes. Aquifers, particularly the fine-grained materials within or between the aquifers, are compressible. If groundwater levels decrease as a result of pumping or other causes, water may be released from beds of clay or silt around the coarser materials that are the primary source of water in the aquifer. The release of water from the beds of clay and silt reduces the water pressure, resulting in a loss of support for the clay and silt beds. Because these beds are compressible, they compact (become thinner), and the effects are seen as a lowering of the land surface (Leake, 2004). Whether or not subsidence through compression occurs in an area depends on groundwater levels (groundwater levels must decline) and on materials (sufficient compressible clays and silts must be present). There are no available records of historical subsidence in the South Westside Basin. Significant studies have been performed to the south in the Santa Clara Valley, due to extensive subsidence in that area. Those studies show that the extent of subsidence in the area is focused on Santa Clara, where land subsided 8 ft from 1934 to 1967. To the north, subsidence is more limited, with less than 1 foot of subsidence in the Palo Alto area and approximately an inch of subsidence in the Redwood City area (Poland and Ireland, 1988). Studies have not been performed farther north, likely due to a lack of evidence of active subsidence. The Plan Area has potential for liquefaction, where earthquake-induced shaking can cause a loss of soil strength, resulting in the inability of soils to support structures. This can occur in saturated soils where the shaking causes an increase in water pressure to the point where the soil particles can move easily within the soil-water matrix. Areas along San Francisco Bay have Water Resources Conditions 2-39 South Westside Basin GWMP been rated as having “very high” susceptibility to liquefaction by the USGS (Figure 2.24; Witter et al., 2006). These areas are underlain by artificial fill over Bay Mud. While only covering the bayshore area, artificial fill over Bay Mud accounted for 50 percent of all historical liquefaction occurrences in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area and about 80 percent of those liquefaction occurrences resulted from the Loma Prieta earthquake (Witter et al., 2006). In the South Westside Basin, these units have a perched water table that is not influenced by groundwater production. Areas with high to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction include areas along current or former creeks, particularly Colma Creek. Other areas have low or very low susceptibility to liquefaction. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.24Liquefaction Suceptability 0 1 20.5 Miles Sources:• Liquefaction Susceptability - Witten et al, 2006 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Liquefaction Very High High Moderate Low F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.23 Liquefaction Suceptability.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-41 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.12 GROUNDWATER MONITORING Current South Westside Basin-wide groundwater monitoring is coordinated through the agencies throughout the Plan Area and is presented in annual groundwater monitoring reports prepared by SFPUC since 2005. The reports include details on semi-annual monitoring of groundwater production, level, and quality data as well as data on Lake Merced water levels. Prior to that date, San Mateo County maintained a semiannual groundwater monitoring program that included static water level and water quality monitoring. San Mateo County’s reports covered the period from 2000 through 2003. The individual agencies also maintain long-term records of production, water levels, and water quality for their facilities. 2.3.12.1 Groundwater Level Monitoring Groundwater level monitoring for use in the regional annual groundwater reports includes both dedicated monitoring wells and inactive production wells. Dedicated monitoring wells include wells installed as part of seawater intrusion monitoring, groundwater/surface water interaction monitoring, and as part of the GSR. Measurements are taken manually on a quarterly or semiannual basis in some wells, and daily through the use of electronic pressure transducers in other wells (SFPUC, 2010a). Monitoring wells measured in the South Westside Basin include the following: o Daly City Area o LMMW-6D o Thornton Beach MW 225, 360, 670 o DC-1 (Westlake 1) o Park Plaza MW460, 620 o DC-8 o CUP 10A MW160, 250, 500, 710 o Colma Area o CUP 18 MW230, 425, 490, 660 o CUP 19 MW180, 475, 600, 690 o CUP 23 MW230, 440, 515, 600 o South San Francisco Area o CUP 22A MW140, 290, 440, 545 o SS 1-02 o SS 1-20 o CUP 36 MW160, 270, 455, 585 o SSFLP MW120, 220, 440, 520 o San Bruno Area o CUP 44-1 MW190, 300, 460, 580 o SB-12 (Elm Ave) Water Resources Conditions 2-42 South Westside Basin GWMP o UAL-13C, 13D o SFO-S, -D o Millbrae Area o CUP-M-1 o Burlingame Area o Burlingame-S, -M, -D Additionally, groundwater levels are also monitored by the individual agencies, and include measurements of static or dynamic water levels, depending on the operational status of the well. 2.3.12.2 Groundwater Production Monitoring Groundwater production data are summarized for the water agencies and for metered users of r ecycled water in SFPUC’s annual reports. Other irrigation production is estimated and also presented in the report. 2.3.12.3 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Groundwater quality is monitored for both regional analysis in SFPUC annual reports and to meet the DPH’s requirements specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Individual agencies test the water quality in the active municipal productions wells on a schedule to meet DPH requirements and to ensure safe drinking water for their customers. Water quality data are collected for use in SFPUC’s annual reports, either specifically for the program or as part of the testing for DPH requirements or other programs such as seawater intrusion monitoring or monitoring for use in the proposed GSR. 2.4 IMPORTED WATER Imported water in the South Westside Basin is supplied by SFPUC, which operates the Hetch Hetchy system. Details of the system are provided in the following two paragraphs, based on SFPUC’s Annual Water Quality Report (SFPUC, 2010b). The Annual Water Quality Report is included in Appendix B and contains more detailed information on chemical constituents in the water supply. The major sources of imported water are from the SFPUC and include Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the local watersheds. Hetch Hetchy is located in the well-protected Sierra region and meets all federal and state criteria for watershed protection. Based on SFPUC’s disinfection treatment practice, extensive bacteriological quality monitoring, and high operational standards, the state has granted the Hetch Hetchy water source a filtration exemption. In other words, the source is so clean and protected that SFPUC is not required to filter water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Water Resources Conditions 2-43 South Westside Basin GWMP Hetch Hetchy Reservoir water is provided by SFPUC to Daly City, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, and to the Golden Gate National Cemetery. SFPUC provides water to CalWater from sources in accordance with the Raker Act. Hetch Hetchy water is supplemented with surface water from two local watersheds. Rainfall and runoff collected from the Alameda Watershed, which spans more than 35,000 acres in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, are collected in the Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs. Prior to distribution, the water from these reservoirs is treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant. Treatment processes include coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. Fluoridation, chloramination, and corrosion control treatment are provided for the combined Hetch Hetchy and Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant water at the Sunol Chloramination and Fluoridation Facilities. Rainfall and runoff captured in the 23,000-acre Peninsula Watershed in San Mateo County are stored in reservoirs, including Crystal Springs (Lower and Upper), San Andreas, and Pilarcitos. The water from these reservoirs is treated at Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant, where treatment processes include ozonation, coagulation, flocculation, filtration, disinfection, fluoridation, corrosion control treatment, and chloramination. Daly City has 10 SFPUC pipeline connections called turnouts. They are connected to the Sunset, San Andreas #2, and Crystal Springs #2 pipelines and can supply approximately 30.89 mgd at a rate of approximately 21,400 gallons per minute (Daly City, 2005). CalWater - South San Francisco District receives water from 12 connections at 11 SFPUC turnouts and groundwater from eight wells. Portions of CalWater’s distribution system rely solely on SFPUC imported surface water, while others use groundwater from CalWater’s wellfield for all or a portion of their water supply (MWH, 2007). San Bruno has four connections to SFPUC’s water supply system and one connection to North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). During normal conditions, water from SFPUC is transported through the San Andreas Pipeline from the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant near Crystal Springs Reservoir and delivered to three of San Bruno’s turnouts. San Bruno also has a connection to SFPUC’s 60-inch diameter Sunset Supply Pipeline, which was recently fitted with a pressure reducing valve, and is currently used only for fireflow and other emergency situations. The Sunset Supply Pipeline can deliver water directly from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy System. San Bruno’s connection from the NCCWD extends from SFPUC’s Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant to Crystal Springs Terrace. San Bruno purchases treated water from the NCCWD to serve the Crystal Springs Terrace area. This connection is equipped with a pressure reducing valve at Regulating Station 1 (EKI, 2007; Brown and Caldwell, 2001). Millbrae receives water from five SFPUC turnouts. The Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant supplies filtered water in the higher elevations, while the Crystal Springs #2 and #3 pipelines deliver water to the lower elevations (BAWSCA, 2009). Water Resources Conditions 2-44 South Westside Basin GWMP Burlingame receives water from six metered turnouts connected to SFPUC’s Sunset Supply Pipeline and Crystal Springs Pipelines #2 and #3 (EKI, 2005). 2.5 RECYCLED WATER Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal performed by the local agencies is described in the following sections. Of these agencies, the North San Mateo County Sanitation District also includes treatment and distribution of recycled water as part of its wastewater activities. 2.5.1 TREATMENT PLANTS Wastewater treatment plants in the South Westside Basin include: o North San Mateo County Sanitation District’s (NSMCSD) treatment plant, which includes a recycled water facility permitted to distribute 2.77 mgd of tertiary recycled water. o San Bruno and South San Francisco’s South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant o Burlingame’s Wastewater Treatment Facility o City of Millbrae’s Water Pollution Control Plant 2.5.1.1 North San Mateo County Sanitation District Treatment Plant The NSMCSD is a subsidiary of the City of Daly City and owns and operates a treatment plant at the southern end of Westlake Park in Daly City. The plant was expanded in 1989 to a capacity of 10.3 mgd. The NSMCSD provides collection, treatment and disposal for the majority of the residents of Daly City, along with Broadmoor Village, a portion of Colma, the Westborough County Water District in South San Francisco, and the San Francisco County Jail in San Bruno (Daly City, 2009). In 2003, NSMCSD constructed facilities at its wastewater treatment plant to produce recycled water. The plant has the capacity and permits for production of approximately 2.77 mgd of tertiary-treated recycled water (SFPUC, 2008) and began delivery in 2004 to irrigation users. 2.5.1.2 South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant The South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The sewage of both cities is treated, as is wastewater from a portion of Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. The Westborough Water District coordinates sewage treatment for the Westborough portion of South San Francisco under contract with Daly City. Water Resources Conditions 2-45 South Westside Basin GWMP The current design capacity of the treatment plant is 13 mgd with an actual capacity of 9 mgd average dry weather flow. A plant expansion, begun in the fall of 1998, increased the dry- weather operational capacity to 13 mgd. The expansion added three new primary clarifiers, additional secondary clarifiers, and removed obsolete equipment (South San Francisco, 2009). 2.5.1.3 City of Millbrae Water Pollution Control Plant The City of Millbrae provides wastewater service to approximately 5,928 residential and 495 commercial customers. The City’s Sanitation System has two components: collection and treatment/disposal. Wastewater is collected via a network of about 57 miles of sewer pipelines and two wastewater pumping stations, and then transported to the City’s Water Pol lution Control Plant for treatment and disposal (Millbrae, 2009a). In October 2009, Millbrae began a refurbishment of the Water Pollution Control Plant to improve treatment capabilities and minimize sanitary sewer overflows that can occur during stormy weather. This project will add a 1.2 million gallon flow equalization tank to retain the extra water that flows into the treatment plant during storms (Millbrae, 2009b). 2.5.1.4 Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Facility The wastewater treatment facility at 1103 Airport Boulevard became operational during 1935- 36. The facility has a designed capacity to treat 5.5 mgd of wastewater and 16 mgd during wet weather (Burlingame, 2009). 2.5.2 RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND USERS Existing recycled water infrastructure and users are in the Daly City / Lake Merced area. Recycled water for non-potable (non-drinkable) uses such as irrigation is encouraged to conserve drinking water supplies. Installation of recycled water pipelines in the NSMCSD began in the mid-1980s when water or sewer projects were constructed. As discussed in Section 2.5.1.1, NSMCSD’s treatment plant has the capacity and permits for production of 2.77 mgd of recycled water. Today, the system is used to irrigate landscaped medians in the Westlake area and golf courses at Olympic Club, Lake Merced Golf Club, and San Francisco Golf Club. These customers use an average of less than 1 mgd of recycled water. Construction is underway to expand the recycled water infrastructure and user base to include irrigation of Harding Park and Fleming golf courses. Plainly marked purple pipelines, completely separate from drinking water systems, deliver the water to user sites. Water recycling is a safe and proven practice. For many years, recycled water has been safely used for landscape irrigation purposes throughout California and the world saving precious potable water for other uses (Daly City, 2009). Water Resources Conditions 2-46 South Westside Basin GWMP Studies have been performed to investigate recycled water opportunities based on production at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (Carollo, 2008, 2009). These documents analyzed irrigation demands and infrastructure needs. Demand analysis showed a Phase I average annual recycled water demand of 0.60 mgd and a Phase II average annual recycled water demand of 0.94 mgd. The estimated project costs are $44 million for Phase I and $43.8 million for Phase II. Such projects may be pursued in the future should costs become better aligned with the benefits of the additional reliable supply. 2.5.3 RECYCLED WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY Throughout the year, NSMCSD monitors water quality to maintain compliance with Title 22 for unrestricted use. Monitoring is performed for the following: flow rate, total coliform, contact time, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, dissolved sulfides, and applicable standard observations. NSMCSD additionally monitors pH, electrical conductivity, TDS, boron, chloride, sodium, sodium adsorption ratio, adjusted sodium adsorption ratio, and bicarbonate (ESA, 2009). 3-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 3 WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES 3.1 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES South Westside Basin groundwater, imported water from the SFPUC, and small quantities of recycled water are used to meet water demands in the South Westside Basin as summarized in Table 3.1. All annual values represent calendar years. Details by agency are provided in Section 3.1.2. Table 3.1 Summary of Current Water Supply Sources (2010) Entity Supply (AFY) South Westside Basin Groundwater1 Imported Water2 Recycled Water1 Total Burlingame 0 4,389 0 4,389 CalWater 453 8,075 0 8,528 Daly City3 1,743 / 3,947 5,524 / 3,320 0 7,267 Millbrae 0 2,482 0 2,482 San Bruno 2,364 1,637 0 4,001 Irrigators4 1,800 0 412 2,212 Total5 8,564 19,903 412 28,879 1 – SFPUC, 2011. Since Olympic Club and San Francisco Golf Club overlie both the North Westside Basin and South Westside Basin, the irrigation use assumes the following: Olympic Club – 50 percent of total recycled water use in the North Westside Basin and 50 percent use in the South Westside Basin; and San Francisco Golf Club – 90 percent of total recycled water use in the North Westside Basin and 10 percent use in the South Westside Basin. 2 – BAWSCA, 2011 3 - Daly City banked 2,204 AF of water in a conjunctive use arrangement with SFPUC, resulting in lower than normal groundwater production and higher than normal imported water purchases in 2010. The first value listed is the actual groundwater production and imported water purchase. The second value listed is the adjusted value. 4 –For the irrigators, all groundwater production within the South Westside Basin is listed, including estimated production in Millbrae and Burlingame. For comparison to the basin yield estimate (which does not include the Millbrae and Burlingame area; see Section 3.5.2), a total irrigation production of 1,139 and a total South Westside Basin groundwater production of 5,700 AF (7,904 AF when including banked Daly City production) should be used. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-2 South Westside Basin GWMP 5 – Totals utilize Daly City values adjusted for conjunctive use. Water demand in the Plan Area is somewhat higher in the summer months than in the winter months, primarily due to outdoor use and irrigation demands. The current water supply facilities are capable of meeting demands throughout the year, including summer days with high water use. The typical average monthly water supply distribution is shown in Figure 3.1, based on monthly data from the South Westside Basin municipal water purveyors. Figure 3.1 Average Monthly Distribution of Annual Municipal Supply, South Westside Basin 3.1.1 WHOLESALE WATER AGENCIES Imported water is brought into the Plan Area by SFPUC, a wholesaler of imported water in the South Westside Basin and a retailer in the North Westside Basin. The City and County of San Francisco, through SFPUC, own and operate a regional water system extending from the Sierra Nevada to San Francisco and serves retail and wholesale customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Tuolumne counties. The regional water system consists of water conveyance, treatment, and distribution facilities, and delivers water to retail and wholesale customers. The existing regional system includes more than 280 miles of pipelines, more than 60 miles of tunnels, 11 reservoirs, 5 pump stations, and 2 water treatment plants. The SFPUC currently delivers an annual average of approximately 265 mgd of water to its customers. The water supply source is a combination of local supplies from streamflow and runoff in the Alameda Creek Watershed and in the San Mateo and Pilarcitos creeks watersheds (referred to together as the Peninsula Watersheds), augmented with imported supplies from the Tuolumne River Watershed. Local watersheds provide about 15 percent of total supplies and the Tuolumne River provides the remaining 85 percent (ESA, 2009). The SFPUC serves approximately one-third of its water supplies directly to retail customers, primarily in San Francisco, and about two-thirds of its water supplies to wholesale customers Water Requirements and Supplies 3-3 South Westside Basin GWMP by contractual agreement. One retail customer, the Golden Gate National Cemetery in San Bruno, is located within the South Westside Basin. The wholesale customers are largely represented by BAWSCA, which consists of 27 total customers. Some of these wholesale customers have other sources of water in addition to what they receive from the SFPUC regional system, while others rely completely on SFPUC for supply (ESA, 2009). 3.1.2 RETAIL AGENCY WATER USE Details on water use by the retail agencies are presented in the following sections. Data are available from metered agency records, agency UWMPs, South Westside Basin annual groundwater reports, and BAWSCA’s annual reports. From these data sources the following can be summarized: supply sources, quantification of the current supply mix, and quantification of historical groundwater production. 3.1.2.1 City of Burlingame The City of Burlingame covers 4.3 square miles and has a population of approximately 28,000 people. Details of the Burlingame water supply system are summarized below based on the city’s UWMP (EKI, 2005). Burlingame owns, operates, and maintains the potable water distribution system that serves drinking water to residential, commercial, and industrial establishments. The water supply is imported water purchased from SFPUC. Burlingame’s distribution system consists of six pumping stations, five water storage tanks, and buried pipes of varying compositions, ages, and sizes. The distribution system provides water to eight pressure zones within the city’s water service area. Approximately 80 percent of all service connections are located in the Aqueduct Zone, which contains most of Burlingame’s commercial, industrial, and multi-family residence units. Water is transferred between pressure zones through a system of pipes and pumping stations. The pumping stations currently operated by the city are referred to as: 1. Donnelly 2. Easton 3. Skyview 4. Trousdale 5. Hillside 6. Sisters of Mercy (fire flow only) Five of the pumping stations transfer water from the lower elevations of the city to the higher elevations, while the Sisters of Mercy station provides fire flow to the Sisters of Mercy property. The sizes of the pumps range between 7.5 and 75 horsepower. The city’s five water storage tanks provide aggregate water storage for 2.94 million gallons. The largest water storage facility is the Hillside Tank, which holds 1.5 million gallons. The smallest Water Requirements and Supplies 3-4 South Westside Basin GWMP water storage facilities are the individual tanks at the Alcazar and Donnelly sites. There are two tanks at each site and each tank holds 0.05 million gallons. The total water supply, all from SFPUC purchases, has averaged 5,100 AF over the past 14 years and has shown a slight declining trend over that time period (Figure 3.2). In 2010, the total water supply for Burlingame was 4,389 AF. Figure 3.2 Historical Annual Water Supply, Burlingame 3.1.2.2 California Water Service Company –South San Francisco District CalWater – South San Francisco District provides water to approximately 56,950 people in a service area of approximately 11 square miles. The service area includes South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo County known as Broadmoor, which lies between Colma and Daly City. The South San Francisco system includes 144 miles of pipeline, 12 storage tanks, one collecting tank, and 20 booster pumps. CalWater uses groundwater and imported surface water from SFPUC to meet demands. CalWater’s Individual Supply Guarantee with Figure 3.3a Current (2010) Water Supply Sources, CalWater – South San Francisco District Water Requirements and Supplies 3-5 South Westside Basin GWMP SFPUC is 35.68 mgd (or approximately 39,967 AFY) and also supplies CalWater’s other Bay Area Districts: Bear Gulch and Mid-Peninsula. Imported surface water has been used to a greater extent recently due to reduced groundwater production, as discussed in the following paragraph. In 2010, imported surface water accounted for 95 percent of CalWater’s supply, while the remaining 5 percent was supplied by groundwater (Figure 3.3a). The South San Francisco District has seven wells with a total design capacity of 1,365 gallons per minute (gpm). If operated full-time, these wells could produce 1.97 mgd (2,207 AFY). This production capacity represents approximately 20 to 25 percent of the annual demand in the district. While production in the 1950s and 1960s averaged 2,031 AFY, a maximum of 1,524 AFY has been pumped in calendar years since 1970. From 1998 to 2002, production averaged 1,212 AFY. However, recent years have seen little groundwater production due to participation in the ILPS and unforeseen issues with the wells. There was no groundwater production from 2003-2007; groundwater production steadily increased from when the wells were returned to service in 2008 to where CalWater produced 453 AF of groundwater in 2010. Historical water supplies by year are shown in Figure 3.3b. The district plans to return to earlier levels of production (1,535 AFY) in the future (CalWater, 2011). Figure 3.3b Historical Annual Water Supply, CalWater – South San Francisco District 3.1.2.3 City of Daly City Daly City is in the northern part of San Mateo County, adjacent to the southern boundary of the City and County of San Francisco. Water service is provided by the Daly City Department of Water and Wastewater Resources. The city has an estimated 2009 population of 102,165, including small areas served by CalWater. Daly City has three water sources: groundwater, water purchased from SFPUC, and recycled water. Daly City’s purchases of water from SFPUC are based on an Individual Supply Guarantee of 4.292 mgd (4,808 AFY) (Daly City, 2005) and are provided through 10 SFPUC turnouts. The Water Requirements and Supplies 3-6 South Westside Basin GWMP turnouts can supply approximately 30.89 mgd at a rate of about 21,400 gpm (Daly City, 2005). During 2010, Daly City’s water supply was provided by 76 percent impor ted surface water from SFPUC and 24 percent from local groundwater (see Figure 3.4a). The 76 percent includes participation in the ILPS. If the in-lieu water were accounted for as groundwater, the percentages would be 46 percent imported surface water and 54 percent groundwater. During normal well operation, SFPUC provides approximately 55 percent of the city’s annual water supply . Daly City has been involved in the ILPS for much of the period since 2002 and purchases from SFPUC have contributed up to 92 percent of the city's annual water supply (Figure 3.4b). Daly City has six active groundwater wells with a combined capacity of 4.25 mgd (4,760 AFY). During conjunctive use in an emergency or drought scenario, well water can contribute approximately 50 percent of the Daly City water supply (Daly City, 2005). For the purposes of this document, recycled water produced by Daly City is accounted for under the user of the supply, Private Groundwater Producers in Section 3.1.3. Figure 3.4b Historical Annual Water Supply, Daly City Figure 3.4a Current (2010) Water Supply Sources, Daly City * Includes 2204 AF of in-lieu recharge water Water Requirements and Supplies 3-7 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.1.2.4 City of Millbrae Millbrae provides water to approximately 21,800 residents within a service area of 3.2 square miles (Figure 1.3). The City of Millbrae owns and operates approximately 70 miles of domestic water mains, 450 fire hydrants, 1,500 valves, 11 pressure reducing stations, 6 water storage tanks, 2 water pump stations, and approximately 6,500 service connections (Millbrae, 2005). Millbrae purchases its water from SFPUC and has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 3,531 AFY. Total water supplies averaged 2,790 AFY over the 1997-2010 period, and was 2,482 AF in 2010, as shown in Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5 Historical Annual Water Supply, Millbrae 3.1.2.5 City of San Bruno San Bruno owns, operates, and maintains the potable water distribution system that serves drinking water to residential, commercial, institutional, and limited industrial establishments within San Bruno’s service area. The City of San Bruno covers 5.5 square miles and has a population of approximately 41,120 people. San Bruno’s water system consists of five groundwater supply wells, eleven pressure zones maintained with eight booster pump stations, eight water storage tanks, one filtering plant, 900 fire hydrants, 9,000 valves, more than 100 miles of water mains ranging from 2 inches to 16 inches in Figure 3.6a Current (2010) Water Supply Sources, San Bruno Water Requirements and Supplies 3-8 South Westside Basin GWMP diameter, and 12,415 metered service connections. San Bruno has four connections to the SFPUC water supply system and one connection to the NCCWD water supply system. San Bruno’s water system can deliver water at a pressure of at least 30 pounds per square inch (psi) during peak-hour demand and 20 psi during maximum-day demand coincident with a fire flow (EKI, 2007). Water supplied through the city’s distribution system is a combination of groundwater pumped at San Bruno’s five groundwater supply wells, and water purchased from SFPUC and NCCWD. Purchases from SFPUC are based on an Individual Supply Guarantee of 3.25 mgd (or approximately 3,600 AFY) (EKI, 2007). Note that one of San Bruno’s five wells, SB-15, is not currently operational; a replacement well is in the process of sited and designed. In 2010, groundwater wells provided 2,364 AF of water, or 59 percent of the total supply, while imported water provided the remaining 1,637 AF, as shown in Figure 3.6a. During the 1997 – 2010 period, not including the 2003-2004 In-Lieu Pilot Study, groundwater provided approximately 2,120 AFY, or 46 percent of the total supply, as shown in Figure 3.6b. Figure 3.6b Historical Annual Water Supply, San Bruno 3.1.3 PRIVATE GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS Private groundwater producers in the Plan Area pump groundwater primarily for irrigation of golf courses, cemeteries, and landscaping. There is some domestic production, particularly in the Hillsborough area. These users typically do not meter the volume of water produced, therefore these volumes must be estimated to present a complete picture of water use. Historical use of South Westside Basin groundwater by private groundwater producers has been estimated by HydroFocus (2011), to support the development of the Westside Basin Groundwater Flow Model (Groundwater Model), using land use, soils, and hydrologic data. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-9 South Westside Basin GWMP Additional data on private groundwater use is available in annual reports (SFPUC, 2011). Estimates of production are approximately 1,800 AFY based on current (2010) conditions in the basin. The 2010 estimate includes the users summarized in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Summary of 2010 Private Groundwater Production Entity 2010 Production Source Notes Lake Merced Golf Course 33 AF metered (SFPUC, 2011) Olympic Golf Club 10 AF metered (SFPUC, 2011) California Golf Club of San Francisco 237 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Other estimate (Carollo, 2008) is 206 AF Cemeteries 859 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Other estimate (Carollo, 2008) is 787 AF Subtotal, Daly City to San Bruno 1,139 AF Hillsborough area domestic wells** 326 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Green Hills and Burlingame Country Clubs** 335 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Subtotal, Millbrae to Burlingame** 661 AF Total** 1,800 AF *Estimates from HydroFocus (2011) are based on the average production using the 2008 No Project Baseline over the full 1959-2009 hydrology. **These estimates include the Millbrae and Burlingame area production (Burlingame domestic wells, Green Hills Country Club and Burlingame Country Club). Without the Millbrae and Burlingame area, the private production is 1,139 AF. The without- Millbrae and Burlingame value is more appropriate for comparisons with the results of HydroFocus (2011) as that document summarized the private production in the Westside Basin only as far south as San Bruno. Minor differences between the average annual private production estimated by that document (1,122 AFY) and the without-Burlingame values presented here are a result of usage of calendar years in this document versus water years in the HydroFocus document, minor differences in developing the average value, and the incorporation of newly available metered data in this document. Recycled water produced by NSMCSD is used by private groundwater producers. Much of this use is along the boundary with the North Westside Basin. For accounting purposes, recycled Water Requirements and Supplies 3-10 South Westside Basin GWMP water use in the South Westside Basin includes use in Daly City medians, at Lake Merced Golf Club, and at the Olympic Golf Club, but not at the San Francisco Golf Club, which otherwise would use a groundwater well within the North Westside Basin. Based on this assumption, approximately 410 AF of recycled water was used in the South Westside Basin. Figure 3.7 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, Private Groundwater Producers 3.1.4 TOTAL SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN Current and historical water demands in the South Westside Basin have been met with purchases of imported surface water from SFPUC, local groundwater, and a smaller quantity of recycled water, as shown in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.8 Current Water Supply Sources, South Westside Basin Water Requirements and Supplies 3-11 South Westside Basin GWMP South Westside Basin groundwater is an important component of the supply mix; Table 3.3 shows the percentage of the total water supply provided by groundwater in 2010 for the entities in the basin. Table 3.3 2010 Groundwater Production by Entity as a Percent of Total Water Supply Entity Groundwater as Percent of Total Water Supply Burlingame 0% CalWater – South San Francisco District 5% Daly City 24%* Millbrae 0% San Bruno 59% private groundwater producer 81% *54% if including in-lieu recharge Figure 3.9 shows total annual groundwater production by major producer. In 2010, total groundwater production from the South Westside Basin was approximately 8,600 AF, including approximately 2,200 AF of banked groundwater under the ILRP to be potentially extracted at a later date. Figure 3.10 shows the distribution of groundwater production throughout the South Westside Basin, based on 2008 production data. Figure 3.9 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production by Entity Harding Park §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 3.10Groundwater Production by Well 0 1 20.5 Miles Groundwater Production Sources:CalWater, personal communication, 2009City of Daly City, personal communicaiton, 2009City of San Bruno, pers. comm., 2009Hydrofocus, 2009SFPUC, 2009 ² Legend Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area 2008 Production (af) 1 - 100 100 - 250 250 - 500 > 500 F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 3.10 Groundwater Production by Well.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Requirements and Supplies 3-13 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.2 CURRENT WATER BUDGET A more thorough understanding of the groundwater conditions can be obtained through analysis of the water budget, which estimates the different inflows and outflows of the aquifer. There are several different components of inflows and outflows. A South Westside Basin water budget was estimated below based on the results of the Groundwater Model, which is described in Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model: Updated Model and 2008 No-Project Simulation Results. (HydroFocus, 2011). The simplified version of the water budget equation for a basin is: Inflow – Outflow = Storage Change (1) Inflow, outflow, and storage consist of the following more detailed subcomponents:.  Inflow o Applied water components  Agricultural water use  Landscape and outdoor irrigation o Recharge from precipitation o Boundary flow from Coast Range and San Bruno Mountain o Underflow from  North Westside Basin  Pacific Ocean  San Francisco Bay  Outflow o Groundwater production o Underflow to  Pacific Ocean  San Francisco Bay o Evapotranspiration  Groundwater storage change Water budget estimates were based on HydroFocus’s (2011) basin-wide groundwater modeling effort. That document included the development of the 2008 No Project Scenario, which simulates a 47-year continuation of anticipated land and water use conditions as of May 2008. It assumes no new projects are implemented, but includes new supply wells, planned operational changes to the magnitude and spatial distribution of pumpage, and existing recycled water projects in place as of May 2008. The 2008 No Project Baseline simulation results were averaged over the full 1959-2009 hydrology to develop an average annual water budget for the central portion of the South Westside Basin (Daly City southeast to San Bruno). The average annual water budget for the South Westside Basin is presented in Table 3.4. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-14 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 3.4 Estimated Average Annual* South Westside Basin Water Balance Water Budget Component Average Annual Volume (AFY) Groundwater Production 8,756 Underflow to the Bayshore area 460 Underflow to Millbrae 429 Underflow to North Westside Basin 71 Total Outflow 9,716 Recharge, all sources 4,517 Underflow from the Bayshore area 762 Underflow from Millbrae 967 Underflow from North Westside Basin 2,167 Underflow across Serra Fault 1,109 Total Inflow 9,522 Change in Storage -194 *Average of 1959-2009 Hydrology The change in storage is less than zero, showing a reduction in groundwater in storage over time. However, this value is small and within the errors associated with the data and the model. For example, the 194 AFY is just 17% of the simulated unmetered groundwater production in the basin (1,122 AFY). There are significant unknowns in the volume of unmetered groundwater pumped by private groundwater producers as well as in other modeling parameters including future precipitation, recharge, and aquifer parameters. Given the uncertainties, the small change in storage, with outflows exceeding inflows by approximately 2 percent, should be considered as showing the basin essentially in balance. 3.3 PROJECTED WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES Projected water use is an important component of determining the ability of a basin to meet future demands. Figure 3.11 illustrates the projected water supplies and demands through 2035 Water Requirements and Supplies 3-15 South Westside Basin GWMP by the primary retail water agencies in the South Westside Basin using projections discussed in Section 3.3.1. Private groundwater producers are also included with the assumption of a continuation of current levels of production. The water served by the retail water agencies includes groundwater from the South Westside Basin, imported surface water purchased from SFPUC, and recycled water. Figure 3.11 Projected Water Supplies in the South Westside Basin, by Agency Table 3.5a presents current and projected South Westside Basin groundwater production through 2030. Table 3.5b presents the projected increase in South Westside Basin groundwater production compared to 2010 production. While these projections represent the best available information from the agencies, they are subject to uncertainties related to climatic conditions, availability of water supplies, maintenance issues, and policy changes. Additionally, no projections are available for the private groundwater producers, whose production is assumed to remain at current levels, which themselves are largely estimated. Even with these uncertainties, the existing projections provide a good baseline for anticipated future use and for determining how the basin would respond to future use and management. These projections are not intended to set limits for the production by individual agencies; such limits may be established by the agencies in the future, but would likely be developed based on a wide range of demand and supply information, as discussed in Section 5.3.1, Action F5. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-16 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 3.5a Current and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Production (AFY) Agency 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Burlingame 0 0 0 0 0 0 CalWater – South San Francisco 453 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Daly City 1,743* 3,947* 3,349 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Bruno 2,364 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** Private Producers*** 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Total**** 8,564 9,048 9,541 9,541 9,541 9,541 * Daly City’s 2010 production was 1,743 AF, but does not include 2,204 AF of groundwater stored as a result of in-lieu water deliveries under the ILPS. For accounting purposes, this pumping may be included in 2010. ** San Bruno projects future groundwater production at its current rate. However, it is evaluating whether it can increase its production of groundwater to a rate of 3,026 AFY (2.7 mgd), which is consistent with a historical maximum annual production rate. San Bruno will coordinate with other basin users to ensure the groundwater basin is managed sustainably and in a manner consistent with the consensus driven basin yield analysis based on the modeling of HydroFocus, Inc. *** Values for Private Producers include production outside of the area defined for the basin yield. See Section 3.5. **** Totals utilize the Daly City values based on effective long-term pumping and San Bruno at its 2010 rate. Sources: Daly City projected production: Brown and Caldwell, 2011; San Bruno projected production: EKI, 2011; CalWater projected production: CalWater, 2011 Water Requirements and Supplies 3-17 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 3.5b Projected Change in South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, from 2010 Production (AFY) Agency 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Burlingame 0 0 0 0 0 CalWater – South San Francisco 1,082 1,082 1,082 1,082 1,082 Daly City 1,606* -598* 2,099* -105* 2,099* -105* 2,099* -105* 2,099* -105* Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 San Bruno 662** 0** 662** 0** 662** 0** 662** 0** 662** 0** Private Producers 0 0 0 0 0 Total*** 484 977 977 977 977 * When compared to Daly City’s actual 2010 production (1,743 AF), future Daly City groundwater production will increase by 2,099 AFY. However, Daly City’s actual 2010 production does not include 2,204 AF of groundwater stored as a result of in-lieu water deliveries under the ILPS. For accounting purposes, this pumping may be included in 2010. Compared to the pumping value that includes the stored water, future Daly City groundwater production will decrease by 105 AFY. ** San Bruno projects future groundwater production at its current rate 2,354 AFY (2.1 mgd), but is evaluating its ability to increase its production of groundwater to a rate to 3,026 AFY (2.7 mgd). There is no change from the current rate, while the increase to the higher rate would be 662 AFY. *** Totals utilize the Daly City values based on effective long-term pumping and San Bruno at its current rate. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-18 South Westside Basin GWMP The projected South Westside Basin supplies are shown in Figure 3.12 with the historical production discussed in Section 3.1. Projected demand in the South Westside Basin is within 300 AFY of projected supply. Figure 3.12 Historical and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Supply 3.3.1 AGENCY WATER PROJECTIONS Detailed water supply projections for each retail water agency, as well as private irrigators, are provided in the following sections. 3.3.1.1 City of Burlingame Water demands for the City of Burlingame are projected to increase from 4,389 AFY in 2010 to 5,852 AFY in 2035 (Burlingame, 2011), as shown in Figure 3.13. The projected supply meets the projected demand. No groundwater use is projected and imported water use is projected to stay within the city’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 5,867 AFY. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-19 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.13 Projected Water Supply for Burlingame 3.3.1.2 California Water Service Company – South San Francisco District Water demands for CalWater’s South San Francisco District service area are projected to increase from 8,527 AFY in 2010 to 9,494 AFY in 2035. These demands will be met through: o Approximately 1,100 AFY of additional South Westside Basin groundwater supplies as CalWater returns its wellfield to producing 1,535 AFY o Reduction of surface water purchases by approximately 200 AFY (CalWater, 2011) CalWater’s projected supplies are shown in Figure 3.14. The projected supply meets the projected demand. Figure 3.14 Projected Water Supply for CalWater Water Requirements and Supplies 3-20 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.3.1.3 City of Daly City Water demands for Daly City are projected to increase from 7,267 AFY in 2010 to 10,552 AFY in 2035. These demands will be partially met through: o A decrease of approximately 100 AFY of South Westside Basin groundwater supplies o An increase in surface water purchases by approximately 2,700 AFY (Brown and Caldwell, 2011) These values are compared to 2010 supplies with in-lieu surface water deliveries accounted for as South Westside Basin groundwater. Total projected supplies in 2035 are 9,858 AFY and are less than the projected demand of 10,552 AFY. Daly City’s projected supplies are shown in Figure 3.15. Imported water use is projected to exceed Daly City’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 4,808 AFY, with a projected surface water supply of 6,016 AFY by 2035 (Daly City, 2011). Figure 3.15 Projected Water Supply for Daly City 3.3.1.4 City of Millbrae Water demands for Millbrae are projected to increase from 2,482 AFY in 2010 to 3,379 AFY in 2035. By 2035, total surface water supplies are projected to total 3,558 AFY (Millbrae, 2011), as shown in Figure 3.16. No groundwater use is projected and imported water use is projected to slightly exceed the city’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 3,533 AFY. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-21 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.16 Projected Water Supply for Millbrae 3.3.1.5 City of San Bruno Water demands for San Bruno are projected to increase from 4,001 AFY in 2010 to 5,751 AFY in 2035. These demands will be met through: o Continued South Westside Basin groundwater production at 2,364 AFY o Increase in surface water purchases from SFPUC and NCCWD from 1,637 AFY to 3,699 AFY o Potential additional future groundwater production of 673 AFY. San Bruno will evaluate its ability to increase its groundwater production to 2.7 MGD, which is consistent with its historical maximum production rate. (EKI, 2011) San Bruno’s projected supplies are shown in Figure 3.17. Projected imported water purchases would be within San Bruno’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 3,643 AFY. Figure 3.17 Projected Water Supply for San Bruno Water Requirements and Supplies 3-22 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.3.2 PRIVATE GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS No projections of private groundwater use are available. Modeling results show an average demand of approximately 1,800 AFY (see Section 3.1.3). Future use is assumed to continue at this level. Of the 1,800 AFY, 1,139 AFY is produced from the area used to estimate basin yield, as described in Section 3.5 3.4 PROJECTED WATER BUDGET The projected changes in South Westside Basin groundwater production indicated in agency projections in Section 3.3, show an increase in groundwater production of 977 AFY (Table 3.5b), from 8,564 AFY in 2010 to a projected 9,541 AFY in 2035. The historical water budget analysis in Section 3.2 showed a basin only slightly out of balance under modeled conditions (8,756 AFY of groundwater production), with a change in storage of approximately -200 AFY. Groundwater production within the central portion of the South Westside Basin (Daly City southeast to San Bruno (an area consistent with the area analyzed in the historical water budget) is projected to increase from 7,904 AFY in 2010 to 8,881 AFY in 2035. This represents only a small increase in groundwater production of 124 AFY over the conditions analyzed in the historical water budget, leaving the basin nearly in balance. The goals, objectives, elements, and implementation plan presented in the following sections seek to maintain this balance, accounting for increased competition for imported supplies and measures to improve the quantity of groundwater available to the stakeholders in the South Westside Basin. 3.5 BASIN YIELD 3.5.1 BASIN YIELD DEFINITION Basin yield is defined in this document as the maximum average annual groundwater production that could be maintained for a long-term time period and that would result in stable groundwater levels. This value does not explicitly take into consideration water quality, surface water resources, or environmental or socio-economic consequences. The basin yield is intended to be used along other data to guide groundwater management. Any use of groundwater has an impact; the aim of the basin yield is to assist in understanding the balances between the use of the groundwater and the impacts caused by that use. The balances in the Westside Basin are based on the following: o There is a desire to maintain a sustainable groundwater reservoir by not pumping at levels that result in long-term declines in groundwater levels. Avoiding these declines will also avoid increased pumping costs and the need to deepen wells. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-23 South Westside Basin GWMP o There is a desire to maintain groundwater levels at elevations that prevent or slow the migration of poor quality groundwater. Poor quality groundwater includes the point- source and non-point source contaminants discussed in Section 2.3.8 as well as seawater intrusion discussed in Section 2.3.3. o As there is little interaction between groundwater and surface water resources in the area, impacts to surface water resources are not directly considered. o The basin yield estimate will change over time in response to changing hydrology, groundwater production infrastructure, and the built environment. As such, the basin yield definition and estimate is intended to be reviewed and updated at regular intervals. 3.5.2 BASIN YIELD ESTIMATE A variety of methods may be used to estimate basin yield. These include: Analysis of historical production and groundwater levels, identifying periods with stable water levels (if any) and the associated level of groundwater production. Development of a water budget to estimate inflow and outflows from the basin. Yield is then estimated as the sum of the change in storage and the volume of groundwater production. Development of a numerical groundwater model and simulations to estimate the yield. The estimate of basin yield is developed through the use of the Groundwater Model, which incorporates the best available knowledge of the basin and was developed in a cooperative manner with extensive input. Basin yield is estimated as a level to maintain current groundwater levels. To reduce risk of seawater intrusion, groundwater levels need to be raised through increased recharge or decreased production. Higher groundwater levels would also reduce pumping costs and could help control migration of lower quality groundwater. Addressing seawater intrusion through the basin yield estimate may be revisited during implementation of the GWMP. The basin yield estimate is based on work performed by HydroFocus (2011) to determine sensitivity to pumping and the level of municipal pumping that results in zero change in storage. The estimate does not include the southern portion of the South Westside Basin, including the Millbrae and Burlingame areas, due to limited groundwater use and higher model uncertainty due to limited data. In that groundwater modeling exercise, the near-term anticipated groundwater production was modeled over historical hydrology and recent land use. Recent groundwater elevations were used as initial conditions. Municipal groundwater production was then adjusted based on calculated uniform percentages for each water purveyor to determine a level of production that results in zero long-term change in storage. Production Water Requirements and Supplies 3-24 South Westside Basin GWMP by private producers was left unchanged. The level of groundwater production with no long- term change in storage estimated by this scenario is approximately 10,600 AFY for the entire Westside Basin and approximately 8,600 AFY for the South Westside Basin. This value is consistent with the historical water budget analysis shown in Table 3.4, which showed a decline in storage of 194 AFY with a production of 8,756 AFY. These basin yield estimates are based on the current operating conditions in the basin; changes to the operating conditions in the basin may increase the yield (such as through capturing outflow to the Pacific Ocean through increased production or through increased recharge to the basin) or decrease the yield (such as by increasing outflows to the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay through higher groundwater levels). Simulations indicated that groundwater production could be increased in one portion of the basin if production in adjacent areas is reduced. This is a result of the connectivity of the South Westside Basin aquifer and highlights that the aquifer is a shared resource among all groundwater producers. Due to the connectivity of the aquifer throughout the basin, the basin yield estimate is presented at the scale of the South Westside Basin. Additional work was performed to estimate the variability of basin yield with respect to hydrology. Historical hydrology during the 1959-2009 time period simulated in the Groundwater Model was analyzed, and it was estimated that wet periods experienced approximately 30 percent more precipitation and dry periods experienced approximately 30 percent less precipitation than the overall average precipitation. Two additional model scenarios were developed, one with precipitation increased 30 percent across the full modeling period and one with precipitation decreased 30 percent across the full modeling period. The same methodology was applied to determine basin yield under these wetter and drier conditions. The estimated wetter period yield is 9,700 AFY and the estimated drier period yield is 7,200 AFY. Given the uncertainty in future hydrology, these values provide a range of yields to be used with the overall estimated basin yield of 8,600 AFY, which is based on historical hydrology. Figure 3.18 compares the range of basin yield estimates to historical and projected groundwater production, showing that recent production is within the basin yield, although historical production exceeded the basin yield. The production shown in Figure 3.18 includes only production within the area defined for the basin yield estimate (i.e., does not include production in Burlingame and Hillsborough). Water Requirements and Supplies 3-25 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.18 Comparison of Basin Yield Estimate and Historical Groundwater Production Projected future production for 2020-2035 is 8,881 AFY, slightly above the average basin yield of 8,600 AFY, but within the range of yield. These estimates are subject to uncertainty inherent in any groundwater model. Regular monitoring of static groundwater levels will assist in determining if groundwater levels are responding as anticipated over the long term. 3.5.3 BASIN YIELD USE The Basin Management Objectives described later in this document are based upon groundwater levels rather than production volumes. As groundwater production is the most significant component of outflow from the basin, an understanding of the basin yield can assist in policy decisions on production which will directly impact groundwater levels in the basin. However, careful consideration must be given before using the basin yield to drive policy decisions. First, basin yield is a long-term average annual value. Dry years or other operational needs may require production above the basin yield; this can be acceptable if previous or subsequent years balance production with reduced pumping. Second, options to bring the basin into balance with the basin yield include increasing the volume recharged to the aquifer in addition to reducing groundwater production. Third, the basin yield is not a static value. Changes in the understanding of the groundwater basin, climate, land use, and location and quantity of groundwater production can all alter the estimate of basin yield. For example, decreasing production may bring production closer to the basin yield, but it will also reduce the basin yield Water Requirements and Supplies 3-26 South Westside Basin GWMP through reduced capture of additional recharge (less recharge due to higher groundwater levels) and increased natural discharge (more discharge to surface water due to higher groundwater levels). The availability and cost of alternate water supplies or development of recharge projects can also require revisions of the basin yield as this changes the socioeconomic impact of changes in groundwater production. Finally, benefits may be seen by approaching the basin yield value, even if the value itself is not met. Additional benefits can also be accrued by pumping significantly below the basin yield, through increasing groundwater levels resulting in increased groundwater in storage, decreased risk of seawater intrusion, and decreased energy costs for groundwater production. 4-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 4 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE BASIN 4.1 SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN GOAL The goal of the GWMP is to ensure a sustainable, high-quality, reliable water supply at a fair price for beneficial uses achieved through local groundwater management. Sustainable is defined for this GWMP as being able to continue groundwater production over the next 50 years or more with a similar real cost, quantity, and end-user quality as today. Beneficial uses include water supplies for municipal use, irrigation use, private wells, and environmental purposes. Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) are required by SB 1938 , which amended Section 10753.7of the Water Code to state that groundwater management plans must include BMOs, including components relating to the monitoring and management of groundwater levels within the groundwater basin, groundwater quality degradation, inelastic land surface subsidence, and changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping in the basin. The following five BMOs are defined to support this goal: 1) Maintain Acceptable Groundwater Levels 2) Maintain or Improve Groundwater Quality 3) Limit the Impact of Point Source Contamination 4) Explore Need for Land Subsidence Monitoring 5) Manage the Interaction of Surface Water and Groundwater for the Benefit of Groundwater and Surface Water Quantity and Quality In turn, elements needed to meet the BMOs are presented in Section 5 (Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan), and an implementation plan is presented in Section 6 (Implementation) to support the objectives and elements. Together the goal, BMOs, elements, and implementation plan function as the overall groundwater strategy for the South Westside Basin. The BMOs are intended solely for these uses. 4.2 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS Basin management objectives, are adaptable, quantifiable objectives with prescribed monitoring and defined reporting and responses. These are the accomplishments that need to occur to meet the overall basin goal stated above. BMOs are defined through: Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-2 South Westside Basin GWMP o Management areas and sub-areas o Public input o Monitoring o Adaptive management o Enforcement 4.2.1 MANAGEMENT AREAS AND SUB-AREAS The management area is the entire Plan Area, as described in Section 1.2 and shown in Figure 1.1. Sub-areas are not needed and not defined because of the continuous nature of the aquifer system. Changes in aquifer characteristics across the South Westside Basin are gradual and are not conducive to defining sub-areas based on physical properties. Future efforts should evaluate incorporating the North Westside Basin and its associated Sub- Areas and BMOs into a Groundwater Management Plan for the entire Westside Basin. The North Westside Basin is separated from the South Westside Basin only by a jurisdictional boundary (the county line). 4.2.2 PUBLIC INPUT Public input is important in establishing BMOs. Local knowledge is needed to develop appropriate objectives and local acceptance is necessary to ensure implementation. Public input for the BMOs was gathered through Advisory Committee meetings and public meetings, as described in Sections 1.6 and 1.7. 4.2.3 MONITORING Accurate, consistent, and accepted monitoring is necessary to ensure the BMOs are being met. This monitoring will show if objectives, which are quantitative to the extent possible, are being met and will trigger actions if defined thresholds are crossed. The monitoring must allow for quick and easy data sharing among all stakeholders to gain acceptability and to allow for action, if needed, in a timely fashion. Monitoring protocols are described under each BMO, in Section 2.3.12, and in Appendix C. 4.2.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Every year brings new data and new conditions to the groundwater aquifer. As such, the BMOs are intended to be flexible and adaptive, allowing for changes due new physical, hydrologic, or operational conditions or new understanding of the physical system. Adjustments to BMOs are discussed in Section 5.7, Reporting and Updating. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-3 South Westside Basin GWMP 4.2.5 ENFORCEMENT In its current form, the GWMP does not have enforcement mechanisms for the BMOs. The BMOs are guidelines to be monitored and reported on for the benefit of all South Westside Basin users. As the BMOs are defined to meet a common goal, the Advisory Committee believes that enforcement will not be necessary. However, future plan revisions may implement enforcement mechanisms if deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force. 4.3 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The BMOs include definitions of acceptable groundwater levels, groundwater quality, land subsidence, and surface water/groundwater interaction, along with actions to be taken if defined triggers are met. 4.3.1 MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE GROUNDWATER LEVELS The BMO for groundwater levels is designed to maintain operationally acceptable groundwater levels. Operational acceptability is based on avoiding the following infrastructure impacts: o Water levels below the top of the existing well screens. Water levels that are below the top of the screen can negatively impact efficiency of wells through higher incrustation rates, cascading water, and reduced hydraulic efficiency. Several municipal production wells have pumping water levels below the top of the screen under current conditions. Additional lowering of water levels beyond current and historical water levels may adversely impact the ability and cost to pump groundwater, on a case-by-case basis. o Water levels below existing pump intakes or bottoms of well screens. These situations should be avoided whenever possible, as under such conditions groundwater cannot enter the well or cannot be pumped to the surface. These BMOs are set to maintain conditions for operational purposes; however, they are not currently designed to fully meet the goal of sustainability. Current water levels and water levels meeting the above criteria can remain well below sea level, posing a risk for seawater intrusion. Geologic barriers appear to have thus far prevented seawater from intruding along the Pacific Coast or San Francisco Bay (see Section 2.3.3), but no barrier is perfect and the best way to prevent seawater from migrating into the aquifer is to maintain groundwater levels at or above sea level. Future revisions to this GWMP may seek to raise groundwater level targets to provide a more sustainable water level or may investigate alternate methods of preventing seawater intrusion, such as injection barriers. Such revisions to the GWMP will need to be developed in a manner that can meet the overall goal and will need to function within any then- existing conjunctive use agreements that may require availability of subsurface storage space. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Until then, this BMO will serve as a first step toward managing groundwater levels in the South Westside Basin. Groundwater level monitoring, triggers, and actions are initially defined below for each well with available data. Note that these items are part of adaptive management of the basin and are thus subject to change as additional data are collected and more information is learned about the basin. This is particularly true for wells with short periods of record, notably the “CUP” wells. The static water level monitoring will monitor progress toward meeting BMOs. Monitoring includes static groundwater level measurements from April (spring) and October (fall) of each year from the designated wells. See details on static water level monitoring protocols are provided in Appendix C 4.3.1.1 Triggers Groundwater level measurements will be adjusted to reflect conditions without any stored water, determined by modeling results that include conjunctive use projects. Trigger thresholds are developed based on historical water levels as these levels have been considered operationally acceptable by the groundwater producers in the South Westside Basin. The triggers are defined as follows: o Trigger 1: Groundwater elevations below the historical minimum elevation (more details provided later in this section) o Trigger 2: Groundwater elevations 10 ft below the historical minimum elevation Adjustments to water level measurements are needed to account for water stored in the aquifer as part of a conjunctive use study and not part of the native groundwater supply. As this BMO addresses native groundwater, stored GSR Project and ILPS water, which is intended to be recovered, should not be included in BMO monitoring. The adjustment will be made based on differences seen in the Groundwater Model (HydroFocus, 2011) comparing water levels with conjunctive use and without conjunctive use, as shown in the equation below. where GWSE = groundwater surface elevation As modeling is required to analyze water levels without the conjunctive use project, reporting will only occur when the Groundwater Model is updated to extend the hydrologic period. It is anticipated that this will occur annually, although biennial updates may be sufficient and may be adopted during implementation. The method of adjustment may be altered if a more accurate and consistent method is identified and accepted by the Groundwater Task Force. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-5 South Westside Basin GWMP Groundwater level BMO triggers are shown in Table 4.1 based on the hydrographs included in Appendix D. The data presented uses the Groundwater Model to remove the impacts of the In- Lieu Pilot Study (see Section 1.5.3) initiated in 2002 between San Bruno, CalWater, Daly City, and SFPUC. These adjustments are intended solely for the use of BMO development. Trigger 1 for the BMOs is based on the historical low water level without the effects of the ILPS. For wells designated for seawater intrusion monitoring, Trigger 1 is the historical low minus two feet, rounded down. For other wells, Trigger 1 is the historical low minus five feet, rounded down to the nearest five. Trigger 2 is 10 feet below Trigger 1 for all wells. Well locations are shown in Figure 4.1. 4.3.1.2 Actions If Trigger 1 is met, the Groundwater Task Force will meet to discuss the situation, including confirming the result, an analysis of trends, potential impacts to groundwater producers or the environment, and the most appropriate actions, both immediate and upon Trigger 2 (if met). Actions will be based on plan elements defined in Section 5 (Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan). These actions may include: o Continued operation o Conservation measures o Increased monitoring o Decreased production, potentially including assignment of pumping thresholds for individual entities o Accelerated development of artificial or in-lieu recharge projects o Substitution of alternate supplies o Reoperation of existing wells or construction of new wells to move production to other parts of the basin If Trigger 2 is met, the actions defined for Trigger 1, and any additional measures, actions, or mechanisms deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force, will be implemented. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-6 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 4.1 Groundwater Level BMO Triggers BMO Wells Well Owner Trigger 1 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) Trigger 2 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) SSF 1-02 CalWater -130 -140 SSF 1-14 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-15 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-17 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-18 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-19 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-20 CalWater -220 -230 SSF 1-21 CalWater n/a n/a DC-1 (Westlake) Daly City -130 -140 DC-3 Daly City n/a n/a DC-8 Daly City -165 -175 DC-9 Daly City n/a n/a A Street Well Daly City n/a n/a Jefferson Well Daly City n/a n/a Vale Well Daly City n/a n/a Westlake 1 Daly City n/a n/a Westlake 2 Daly City n/a n/a Burlingame-S* San Bruno -1 -14 Burlingame-M* San Bruno -4 -17 Burlingame-D* San Bruno -7 -20 SB-12 San Bruno -225 -235 SB-15 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-16 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-17 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-18 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-20 San Bruno n/a n/a SFO-S* San Bruno -2 -15 SFO-D* San Bruno -39 -51 13C* UAL -45 -57 13D* UAL -4 -16 Fort Funston-S* USGS 2 -11 Fort Funston-M* USGS 8 -5 Thornton Beach MW 225* Daly City 75 60 Thornton Beach MW 360* Daly City 11 -2 Thornton Beach MW 670* Daly City 9 -4 LMMW-6D* SFPUC -50 -60 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-7 South Westside Basin GWMP BMO Wells Well Owner Trigger 1 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) Trigger 2 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) Park Plaza MW 460* SFPUC -120 -130 Park Plaza MW 620* SFPUC -220 -230 MW-CUP-10A-160* SFPUC 55 45 MW-CUP-10A-250* SFPUC 40 25 MW-CUP-18-230* SFPUC -70 -85 MW-CUP-18-425* SFPUC -80 -95 MW-CUP-18-490* SFPUC -135 -150 MW-CUP-18-660* SFPUC -180 -195 MW-CUP-19-180* SFPUC Dry Well Dry Well MW-CUP-19-475* SFPUC -150 -160 MW-CUP-19-600* SFPUC -185 -200 MW-CUP-19-690* SFPUC -185 -200 MW-CUP-22A-140* SFPUC Dry Well Dry Well MW-CUP-22A-290* SFPUC -120 -130 MW-CUP-22A-440* SFPUC -145 -160 MW-CUP-22A-545* SFPUC -190 -200 MW-CUP-23-230* SFPUC -115 -130 MW-CUP-23-440* SFPUC -150 -165 MW-CUP-23-515* SFPUC -195 -210 MW-CUP-23-600* SFPUC -190 -205 MW-CUP-36-160* SFPUC -545 -60 MW-CUP-36-270* SFPUC -95 -105 MW-CUP-36-455* SFPUC -195 -210 MW-CUP-36-585* SFPUC -210 -220 SSFLP-MW120* SFPUC -30 -40 SSFLP-MW220* SFPUC -45 -55 SSFLP-MW440* SFPUC -205 -220 SSFLP-MW520* SFPUC -210 -225 MW-CUP-44-1-190* SFPUC -25 -35 MW-CUP-44-1-300* SFPUC -40 -55 MW-CUP-44-1-460* SFPUC -225 -235 MW-CUP-44-1-580* SFPUC -225 -235 MW-CUP-M-1* SFPUC n/a n/a Notes: Wells with thresholds defined as a seawater intrusion monitoring well are shown in bold: n/a: Not available. Triggers are to be developed at a later date for wells with limited data * Dedicated Monitoring Well !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D CUP-23 -230,440, 515, 600 LMMW-6D DC-3DC-1 SB-12 13C, 13D SSFLP-120, 240, 440, 520 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 Daly City (Vale) Park Plaza 460, 620 JeffersonDC-8,9 Calif. Water Service No. 02,14,15,17,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 MW-CUP-44-1 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 4.1Wells Monitoredfor Compliance withGroundwaterLevels BMO 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\5.1 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 5.1 Compliance Wells GW Levels BMO.mxd, March 23, 2011 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-9 South Westside Basin GWMP 4.3.2 MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE GROUNDWATER QUALITY Maintenance of groundwater quality includes management actions to prevent seawater intrusion as well as impacts of elevated nitrate levels. 4.3.2.1 Seawater Intrusion While there has been no identified seawater intrusion in the production aquifer to date, the South Westside Basin is at risk for seawater intrusion as groundwater levels throughout the basin are below sea level. Monitoring wells have been installed and are being monitored for seawater intrusion indicators along the Pacific Ocean and along San Francisco Bay. As the monitoring network is not capable of monitoring for all potential seawater intrusion pathways, it is reasonable to expand the seawater intrusion monitoring to include production wells and other monitoring wells. Seawater intrusion indicators include chloride, a conservative constituent in seawater, as well as several ratios of ions that are impacted by ion exchange, dolomitization, adsorption, and other chemical processes as seawater first contacts aquifer materials in equilibrium with fresh water. The indicators include the following: o Chloride: Chloride concentrations are the most common indicator of seawater intrusion. Chloride concentrations can increase rapidly as high-chloride seawater intrudes into low chloride water in the aquifer and are often the first indicator of seawater intrusion. Chloride can also be of other sources, such as sewage, agricultural return, or water in the soil from the time of formation. o Chloride/Bromide Ratio: The chloride/bromide ratio can be used to distinguish seawater sources (ratio of approximately 297) from sewage (higher ratio), agriculture (lower ratio), and other sources. o Sodium/Chloride Ratio: The sodium/chloride ratio can be used as an early indicator of seawater intrusion. Low ratios, lower than seawater (<0.56 weight ratio), can indicate seawater intrusion prior to significant increases in chloride concentrations. This is a result of cation exchange, as sodium replaces calcium on aquifer sediments. If seawater intrusion is in the early stages of progressing, the sodium/chloride ratio should decrease, with a resulting increase in the ratio of both calcium and magnesium to chloride. o Calcium/Magnesium Ratio and Calcium/(Bicarbonate and Sulfate) Ratio: These ratios can also provide an early indication of seawater intrusion. Ratios greater than 1 can be an early indicator of seawater intrusion. This is a result of dolomitization, which increases calcium concentrations and reduces magnesium concentrations as calcium carbonate (e.g., calcite, limestone) transforms into calcium magnesium carbonate (e.g., dolomite) (Jones et al., 1999). Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-10 South Westside Basin GWMP The approach is based on the level of available data. These ratios are used in other basins to study seawater intrusion, along with other ratios and stable isotope analyses. In the Central and West Coast Basins of Los Angeles County, chloride and TDS concentrations; ratios of chloride to bromide, iodide, and boron; isotopic data; age dating; and borehole data are used to assess saline groundwater (Land, et al., 2004). Seawater intrusion analysis in the Seaside Basin of Monterey County utilizes chloride concentrations, sodium/chloride ratios, other cation/anion ratios, geophysical logs, and analysis of groundwater levels (HydroMetrics, 2011). In the San Leandro and San Lorenzo areas of Alameda County, ratios of chloride to bromide, iodide, barium, and boron are used along with chloride concentrations, noble gasses and isotopic data to study seawater intrusion (Izbicki et al, 2003). Annual monitoring will include pumping and static water level measurements and sampling for the following analytes: Alkalinity Ortho-phosphate Calcium Conductivity Bromide Sulfate Magnesium pH Chloride Total Dissolved Solids Potassium Total Bicarbonate Nitrate Boron Sodium Iron and Manganese 4.3.2.1.1 Triggers With the exception of chloride, thresholds are not set for each indicator as the magnitude and timing of each requires analysis prior to making decisions on the status of the South Westside Basin. Chloride thresholds are necessary as the first signs of seawater intrusion need to be recognized rapidly to protect the overall water quality. Thresholds are set at approximately 10 percent above the historical maximum concentration over the past twenty years of sampling (1991 – 2010, with probable outliers removed). This allows for variability inherent in sampling and analytical testing, but will signal potential issues should concentrations increase. Additional information on seawater intrusion parameters for a selection of these wells is presented in Appendix E. Chloride thresholds for each well are presented in Table 4.2. Note that these thresholds are part of adaptive management of the basin and are thus subject to change as additional data are collected and more information is learned about the basin. This is particularly true for wells with short periods of record, notably the “CUP” wells. The well locations are shown in Figure 4.2. The SMCL for chloride is 250 mg/l (recommended), 500 mg/l (upper) and 600 mg/l (short-term). Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-11 South Westside Basin GWMP Regular analysis of water quality and water level data will allow for identification of data gaps that may require installation of new monitoring wells at new locations and/or new depth intervals, geophysical testing, or more rigorous chemical and isotope analysis. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-12 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 4.2 Seawater Intrusion BMO Chloride Thresholds (mg/l) Well Chloride Threshold Recent Result 1991-2010 Maximum Burlingame-S 570 430 518 Burlingame-M 90 63 79 Burlingame-D 55 41 47 SB-15 160 110 145 SB-16 170 110 154 SB-17 65 58 58 SB-18 80 70 72.5 SB-20 100 84 88 SSF 1-14 145 123 129 SSF 1-15 150 110 135 SSF 1-17 115 103 103 SSF 1-18 100 65 91 SSF 1-19 135 120 122 SSF 1-20 185 140 167 SSF 1-21 215 180 196 MW-CUP-M1 60 51 51 MW-CUP-10A-160 145 128 128 MW-CUP-10A-250 145 128 128 MW-CUP-18-230 100 90 90 MW-CUP-18-425 100 91 91 MW-CUP-18-490 100 90 90 MW-CUP-18-660 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-19-180 n/a n/a n/a Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-13 South Westside Basin GWMP MW-CUP-19-475 110 99 99 MW-CUP-19-600 105 95 95 MW-CUP-19-690 180 160 160 MW-CUP-22A-140 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-22A-290 120 106 106 MW-CUP-22A-440 80 71 71 MW-CUP-22A-545 120 106 106 MW-CUP-23-230 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-23-440 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-23-515 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-23-600 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-36-160 125 110 110 MW-CUP-36-270 130 118 118 MW-CUP-36-455 90 81 81 MW-CUP-36-585 205 186 186 MW-CUP-44-1-190 80 69 69 MW-CUP-44-1-300 95 84 84 MW-CUP-44-1-460 150 134 134 MW-CUP-44-1-600 95 85 85 SSFLP-MW120 200 173 180 SSFLP-MW220 115 100 104 SSFLP-MW440 75 61 65 SSFLP-MW520* 125 107 110 Park Plaza MW 620* 175 143 155 Park Plaza MW 460 n/a n/a n/a LMMW-6D n/a n/a n/a Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-14 South Westside Basin GWMP Thornton Beach MW 225 n/a n/a n/a Thornton Beach MW 360 n/a n/a n/a Thornton Beach MW 670 n/a n/a n/a A-Street 165 88 150 Jefferson 135 58 120 Junipero Serra 55 50 50 Vale 80 67 71 No. 4 Citrus 85 61 76 Westlake 200 99 180 SFO-S 13,600 10,000 12,400 SFO-D 605 550 550 Note: n/a: Not available; triggers are to be developed at a later date for wells with limited data !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D CUP-23 -230 LMMW-6D Park Plaza 460, 620 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 SSFLP - 120, 240, 440, 520 13C, 13D CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -180,475, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 DC-4 Daly City (Vale) Jefferson Junipero Serra Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,17,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 CUP-44 -190, 300, 580, 460 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 4.2Wells Monitoredfor Compliance withGroundwater QualityBMO 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\5.1 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 5.1 Compliance Wells WQ BMO.mxd, March 21, 2011 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-16 South Westside Basin GWMP 4.3.2.1.2 Actions If the trigger threshold is met, the Groundwater Task Force will meet to discuss the situation, including confirming the result, an analysis of trends, analysis of other seawater intrusion indicators including analytical results and water level measurements, potential impacts to groundwater users or the environment, and the most appropriate actions. If confirmed, analysis should be initiated to determine if the elevated value is likely the result of seawater intrusion, upconing of deep saline water, or other sources. Actions will be based on plan elements defined in Section 5, Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan. These actions may include: o Continued operation o Increased monitoring o Studies of sources of chloride (seawater intrusion or upconing from deeper sediments) and additional options to manage water quality o Reoperation or new wells to move production to other parts of the basin or different depths o Decreased production to reduce seawater intrusion or upwelling o Substitution of alternate supplies 4.3.2.2 Nitrate Elevated nitrate levels in portions of the basin have become an increasing concern over the past several years. Although concentrations have largely remained below MCLs, individual wells have shown sudden increases and trends suggest possible issues in the future. The source of nitrate in the basin has not been studied, but historical and current land use point to either previous agricultural land uses, including extensive cattle operations, or current urban and turf- grass uses. If trends continue, work may be needed to identify the source and to determine how the region could keep nitrate levels within desired levels, potentially through development of a salt and nutrient management plan or through other studies. . 4.3.2.2.1 Triggers This section defines nitrate monitoring, triggers, and actions on a well-by-well basis. Monitoring is based on existing DPH data collection efforts and local sampling of monitoring wells. Trigger 1 is based on 80 percent of the MCL, 36 mg/l, and Trigger 2 is based on 90 percent of the MCL, 41 mg/l. It should be noted that data presented in this section is representative of raw water quality. Raw water quality is different from the water served to customers, as water purveyors pump Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-17 South Westside Basin GWMP selectively from wells based on quality and provide blended water from both groundwater and surface water sources to maintain a safe water supply in compliance with state and federal regulations. Future nitrate monitoring should proceed annually, unless trends or levels indicate a need for more frequent measurements. 4.3.2.2.2 Actions If Trigger 1 is met for one or more wells, the Groundwater Task Force will meet to discuss the situation, including confirming the result, an analysis of trends, potential impacts to groundwater users or the environment, and the most appropriate actions, both immediate and upon Trigger 2 (if met). The Groundwater Task Force will consider the status of all wells, including the wells below the trigger threshold, the quantity and quality of other supply sources for blending, and will also consider water level data and other environmental and operational factors that could contribute to increases in nitrate concentrations. Actions will be based on the plan elements and programs defined in Section 5, Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan. If Trigger 2 is met, the actions defined for Trigger 1 and any additional measures, actions, or mechanisms deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force will be implemented. Historical estimates of nitrate concentrations and current groundwater quality BMO trigger status are shown in Table 4.3. Note that the triggers are part of adaptive management of the basin and are thus subject to change as additional data are collected and more information is learned about the basin. This is particularly true for wells with short periods of record, notably the “CUP” wells. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-18 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 4.3 Groundwater Quality BMO Triggers Well 1991-2010 Maximum Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Recent Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Trigger Status Burlingame-S < 1 ND Burlingame-M ND ND Burlingame-D 1 1 SB-15 15 5 SB-16 8 ND SB-17 6 5 SB-18 7 7 SB-20 7 1 01-14 82 76 Trigger 2 01-15 32 18 01-17 222 219 Trigger 2 01-18 85 76 Trigger 2 01-19 60 35 01-20 104 4 01-21 3 ND MW-CUP-M1 12 12 MW-CUP-10A-160 35 35 MW-CUP-10A-250 48 48 Trigger 2 MW-CUP-10A-500 36 36 Trigger 1 MW-CUP-10A-710 MW-CUP-18-230 7 7 MW-CUP-18-425 8 8 MW-CUP-18-490 2 2 MW-CUP-18-660 MW-CUP-19-180 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-19 South Westside Basin GWMP Well 1991-2010 Maximum Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Recent Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Trigger Status MW-CUP-19-475 1 1 MW-CUP-19-600 ND ND MW-CUP-19-690 ND ND MW-CUP-22A-140 MW-CUP-22A-290 33 33 MW-CUP-22A-440 1 1 MW-CUP-22A-545 24 24 MW-CUP-23-230 MW-CUP-23-440 MW-CUP-23-515 MW-CUP-23-600 MW-CUP-36-160 26 26 MW-CUP-36-270 8 8 MW-CUP-36-455 ND ND MW-CUP-36-585 ND ND MW-CUP-44-1-190 35 35 MW-CUP-44-1-300 37 37 Trigger 1 MW-CUP-44-1-460 2 2 MW-CUP-44-1-600 ND ND SSFLP-MW120 ND ND SSFLP-MW220 1 1 SSFLP-MW440 ND ND SSFLP-MW520* ND ND Park Plaza MW 620* 1 < 1 Park Plaza MW 460* LMMW-6D Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-20 South Westside Basin GWMP Well 1991-2010 Maximum Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Recent Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Trigger Status A-Street 170 98 Trigger 2 Jefferson 31 10 Vale 46 35 No. 4 Citrus 71 63 Trigger 2 Westlake 61 33 Junipero Serra 47 34 SFO-S 8 ND SFO-D ND ND Note: Blanks: Triggers are to be developed at a later date for wells with limited data 4.3.3 LIMIT THE IMPACT OF POINT SOURCE CONTAMINATION Point source contamination can also threaten water supplies in the South Westside Basin. Loss of a portion of the water supply due to point source contamination would require use of alternate supplies, which are limited. The point source contamination BMO seeks to coordinate with regulatory agencies to ensure potential impacts to water supplies and environmental receptors are fully incorporated into remedial actions and monitoring programs at contaminated sites. The BMO recognizes that clay layers only slow the migration of contaminants and that these contaminants, if not properly remediated, may reach the primary production aquifer at some concentration at some point in the future. No quantitative thresholds are set for this BMO as there are numerous potential contaminants; however, a qualitative objective of limiting the impact of point source contamination is defined through identifying and protecting areas of basin recharge, ensuring rapid response to new detections of contaminants at any well, and fully cleaning up contaminated sites, including perched aquifer systems that eventually recharge the deeper aquifer used for water supplies. Full cleanup may be through remediation programs or natural processes. The following are actions to achieve this BMO: o Use basin understanding and the existing Groundwater Model to identify important areas of basin recharge. Identify appropriate measures to protect those areas. o Actively engage with regulatory agencies and potentially responsible parties on existing sites. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-21 South Westside Basin GWMP o Notify regulators of contamination issues in wells, even for low-level detections, to ensure discovery of new problems as quickly as possible. o Coordinate with land use planners to ensure land uses are suitable for land overlying the aquifer. 4.3.4 EXPLORE NEED FOR LAND SUBSIDENCE MONITORING The land subsidence BMO focuses on increased understanding of the possible problem through potential additional monitoring activities. There has been no evidence of historical land subsidence, even though water levels have declined significantly from pre-development levels. Land subsidence is most rapid immediately after the initial dewatering of sediments. Thus, land subsidence is not anticipated from sediments that have been historically dewatered. Should water levels decline in the future, it is unlikely that subsidence would occur as these materials are similar to those historically dewatered and would likely exhibit similar limited compressibility. However, without any previous studies of subsidence, there is a potential that land subsidence may have occurred unnoticed or that deeper materials may behave differently. As such, there is a need to perform a subsidence study to assess the status of the subsidence in the South Westside Basin. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) studies are included in the implementation of the plan. The results of the InSAR study may confirm that no land subsidence is occurring in the South Westside Basin, or could show the need for more formalized monitoring and development of quantitative BMOs, which may be established under the reporting and updating element contained in Section 5.7, Reporting and Updating. 4.3.5 MANAGE THE INTERACTION OF SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER FOR THE BENEFIT OF GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY This BMO seeks to manage changes in surface flow and surface water quality and quantity that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater production in the basin. As discussed in Section 2.3.10, there is little interaction between surface water and groundwater in the South Westside Basin. Colma Creek is the largest surface water feature, but it is relatively small and lined for most reaches. Other creeks are very small and drain local watersheds. No quantitative thresholds are set for this BMO, however, the following qualitative objectives of maintaining or improving the interaction of surface water and groundwater are set: o Maintain natural watercourses and investigate potential benefits of removing lining from watercourses where feasible. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-22 South Westside Basin GWMP o Maintain baseflow in creeks. o Monitor groundwater levels to assist in water level studies at Lake Merced in San Francisco County in the North Westside Basin. 5-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 5 ELEMENTS OF THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN California Water Code section 10753.8 states that a GWMP may include components relating to all of the following: o Control of saline water intrusion o Identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas o Regulation of migration of contaminated groundwater o Administration of a well abandonment and well destruction program o Mitigation of overdraft conditions o Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers o Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage o Facilitation of conjunctive use operations o Identification of well construction policies o Construction and operation by the local agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects o Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies o Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination These items are grouped and related back to the South Westside Basin GWMP goal and objectives in Table 5.1 and discussed in the following sections. Some of the items below call for consideration, evaluation, and the potential implementation of measures to address conditions in the groundwater basin. These items are intended to address goals and objectives of the GWMP, but do not propose specific actions or projects that might be developed on a case-by- case basis, as needed. Such specific actions or projects are not fully known at this time and may be subject to evaluation, including but not limited to environmental review, when and if proposed for implementation, and may require approval by regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed action following completion of any required environmental review. 5-2 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 5.1 Summary of GWMP Objectives and Elements Item BMOs Maintain Acceptable Groundwater Levels Maintain or Improve Groundwater Quality Limit the Impact of Point Source Contamination Explore the Need for Land Subsidence Monitoring Manage Interaction of Surface Water And Groundwater Stakeholder Involvement      Monitoring and Management Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage    Monitoring of groundwater quality    Monitoring of inelastic land subsidence  Monitoring of surface water/groundwater interaction    Groundwater Storage Mitigation of overdraft conditions    Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers    Facilitation of conjunctive use operations    Groundwater Quality Control of saline water intrusion    Identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas      Regulation of migration of contaminated groundwater     Administration of a well abandonment and well destruction program     Identification of well construction policies     Construction and operation by the local agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects      Coordinated Planning Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies      Coordination with IRWMP efforts      Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination     Reporting and Updating      5-3 South Westside Basin GWMP 5.1 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Ongoing stakeholder involvement is critical to successful implementation of the GWMP. Interested parties include agencies within and near the South Westside Basin, environmental interests, and individuals and companies that rely on the groundwater basin for water supply. Coordination with these groups is necessary to ensure that goals and objectives continue to be consistent with the desires of the community; that a full range of alternatives are considered along with potential adverse impacts; and that progress can be made toward meeting the goal and objectives. Actions A1. Distribute the GWMP in an electronic format to all parties that have expressed interest in the plan, including all agencies within and bordering the basin. A2. Hold Groundwater Task Force (see Section 6.1) meetings on a semi-annual basis to discuss ongoing groundwater management issues and activities. These discussions will include other agencies, thus enabling cooperation between public entities whose service areas or boundaries overlie the groundwater basin. Meetings will focus on progress towards meeting BMOs, implementation of projects in this plan, new or updated status on the condition of the groundwater basin, and new or updated plans or strategies. A3. Continue outreach to private groundwater producers, notably cemeteries, to involve these stakeholders in the ongoing groundwater management process. A4. Reorient the GWMP web site from its current plan-development focus to an implementation focus, highlighting implementation activities and soliciting public input. A5. Present actions implemented by the agencies at public meetings of the respective councils. A6. Provide public notice for any revisions to the GWMP. 5.2 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT Elements pertaining to Monitoring and Management of the South Westside Basin relate to groundwater levels and storage; groundwater quality; inelastic land subsidence; and changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping. 5.2.1 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND STORAGE The South Westside Basin needs additional groundwater level and quality monitoring to meet the objectives of this plan and the needs of the individual water agencies. Monitoring protocols Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-4 South Westside Basin GWMP are included in Appendix C. Coordination among the agencies is necessary to make existing and future monitoring as complete as possible with respects to spatial distribution and timing. Figure 5.1 shows all wells in the South Westside Basin with static water level measured at least once in 2009. Water level data are taken regularly by the water agencies, but typically static water levels are only taken when pumps are not operating due to maintenance activities. There is no existing basin-wide static groundwater level monitoring program. To the extent possible, groundwater level monitoring should continue at all wells that are currently or have recently been measured, as shown in Figure 5.1. Water levels should be measured minimally in the spring (April) and fall (October). Datalogging pressure transducers should be installed in selected wells to determine variability between readings, which may refine future timing of groundwater level measurements. Measurements should be taken when the well and, to the extent possible, nearby wells are not pumping, to represent static water levels. In addition to the measurement, the pumping status at the well and nearby wells should be noted and preserved in the database. Additional monitoring details are provided in Appendix C. Groundwater level monitoring should be coordinated with the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program, a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program that is intended to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. Daly City, CalWater, and San Bruno, through the South Westside Basin Voluntary Cooperative Groundwater Monitoring Association, are the monitoring entities for the portion of the South Westside Basin within their service area. Coordination with CASGEM should include consistent monitoring protocols between data provided to the CASGEM program and other data collected in the basin. A key element of monitoring and management of groundwater levels and storage is the Groundwater Model. The Groundwater Model is used primarily to improve the understanding of the groundwater system, but also is useful for the following: o Aggregating, organizing, and analyzing existing data o Identifying data gaps o Simulating impacts on groundwater levels and storage of various projects and of continuation of existing operations The Groundwater Model is available for use by all interested stakeholders from Daly City. Output from the model may be used in GWMP implementation to ensure that projects are designed to meet the stated goal and objectives. These activities result in a significant amount of data. Usage of a data management system, such as the existing HydroDMS, can assist in storing, accessing, and analyzing data across multiple agencies. !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D CUP-23 -230,440, 515, 600 LMMW-6D DC-1,3 SB-12 13C, 13D SSFLP-120, 240, 440, 520 CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -180,475, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 Daly City (Vale) Park Plaza460, 620 Jefferson DC-8, 9 Calif. Water Service No. 02,14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 CUP-44 -190, 300, 580, 460 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 5.1Wells Monitoredfor GroundwaterLevels 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\6.1 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 6.1 CFigure 6.1 Mon Wells GW Levels.mxd, March 21, 2011 Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-6 South Westside Basin GWMP Actions B1. Implement a basin-wide semi-annual static water level measurement program that builds upon existing monitoring. The program should include the wells belonging to the retail water agencies. Other wells may be included if feasible. B2. Use existing database structures with data from these databases imported into a central Data Management System (such as the existing HydroDMS) to facilitate data sharing between agencies. B3. Coordinate among agencies to ensure that wells continue to be monitored to provide long-term records of water levels at specific locations, and to ensure a consistent and, to the extent feasible, complete dataset. B4. Participate in the CASGEM program. 5.2.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Water quality monitoring is performed for Title 22 compliance by the water agencies. Figure 5.2 shows the locations of wells monitored for water quality at least once in the most recent 5-year period with available data from DPH (2006 – 2010) or other local monitoring activity. Monitoring protocols are contained in Appendix C. Additional water quality monitoring is needed to ensure sufficient data to define nitrate concentrations for use by the water quality BMOs in this GWMP. Actions C1. Continue groundwater quality monitoring as needed to meet Title 22 requirements. C2. Standardize data collection protocols and timing through coordination among agencies. C3. Continue to use existing database structures, with data from these databases imported into a central Data Management System (such as the existing HydroDMS). C4. Fill gaps in the water quality monitoring network through sampling additional existing or newly constructed monitoring wells. C5. Coordinate with the USGS on its National Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program and GAMA program to potentially integrate its efforts with local monitoring efforts. C6. Consider development of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan to assist in permitting of future recycled water projects. !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D 13C, 13D CUP-23 -230,440, 515, 600 LMMW-6D Park Plaza460, 620 SFO - S,D CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 SSFLP-120, 240, 440, 520 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -180,475, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 DC-4 Daly City (Vale) Jefferson Junipero Serra Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,17,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 §¨¦380 Figure 5.2Wells Monitoredfor GroundwaterQuality 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\6.2 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 6.1 CFigure 6.1 Mon Wells WQ Levels.mxd, March 21, 2011 Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-8 South Westside Basin GWMP 5.2.3 INELASTIC LAND SUBSIDENCE Monitoring land subsidence in the South Westside Basin is limited by the cost of traditional surveys and extensometer compared to the limited historical impact of subsidence in the basin. If land subsidence is reported in the area, or if water levels drop below historical lows, additional land subsidence monitoring will be considered. Relatively new technology, InSAR, allows for more cost-effective, regional scale land subsidence monitoring. Over time, these technologies are becoming more powerful and less expensive. Lower costs and opportunities to partner with others such as USGS may allow for land subsidence monitoring in the future. Actions D1. Collect evidence, if any, of active inelastic land subsidence and assess the risk. D2. Develop a land subsidence monitoring program, if needed, using InSAR or traditional surveying and extensometer methods. D3. Partner with the USGS or nearby agencies to implement any needed monitoring. 5.2.4 CHANGES IN SURFACE FLOW AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT GROUNDWATER LEVELS OR QUALITY OR ARE CAUSED BY GROUNDWATER PUMPING Surface flow within the South Westside Basin is minimal, primarily Colma Creek and other small creeks, as discussed in Section 2. However, Lake Merced is a significant water body with recreational uses to the north in the North Westside Basin. This GWMP intends to support the actions developed under the North Westside Basin GWMP through coordination with that plan during development and updates. The action listed below are reflective of the actions of the North Westside GWMP. Action E1. Continue groundwater monitoring near Lake Merced to support ongoing studies. 5.3 GROUNDWATER STORAGE 5.3.1 MITIGATION OF OVERDRAFT CONDITIONS The South Westside Basin is currently considered not to be in a state of overdraft. Current pumping is estimated to be approximately at the basin yield, as estimated by the Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model (Hydrofocus, 2011). However, historical groundwater production has at times exceeded the basin yield, which has resulted in groundwater levels well below sea level. The groundwater level BMO is intended to serve as a prevention, coordination, and warning device. Currently, the decisions and plans on groundwater production are made independently by each agency based on each agency’s individual needs in coordination with the respective surface Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-9 South Westside Basin GWMP water supplies from the SFPUC. Under current basin management, there is little or no coordination among the agencies on the individual agency or total production from the basin. To manage the basin in a more robust and sustainable manner, there is a need to coordinate groundwater production among the agencies, along with appropriate level of monitoring and reporting of groundwater production, levels, and quality. This information can be used in several aspects of basin management, including: o Keeping the Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model updated and using the model to evaluate the impact of collective production in comparison to the basin yield. In addition to investigating basin-wide conditions, the model can also provide details on the impact of the geographic distribution of production throughout the basin, so as to assist in managing the basin in a more sustainable manner. While more detailed analyses typically have higher uncertainties than regional analyses, they can provide information on estimated changes in the basin operations that can assist in groundwater management strategies. o Updating the basin yield estimates over time as better data becomes available, and as operation of the basin evolves into a more coordinated manner. As a result, and in order to address any potential basin yield issues, there may be a need in the future to evaluate additional recharge opportunities or apportion production to each agency through voluntary agreements to assist in meeting groundwater level BMOs. Appropriate monitoring and robust modeling tools will assist in evaluating basin management options and safe yield should that become necessary in the future. Actions F1. Should groundwater levels decline, analyze conditions to determine if the South Westside Basin is in overdraft or if conditions are due to short-term climatic variability or other factors. Analysis will include the use of the most up-to-date groundwater model. F2. Should overdraft conditions occur, actions may include demand reduction through alternate supplies or conservation programs and increased recharge activities through in-lieu or direct recharge. F3. Implement a voluntary groundwater pumping metering program for private wells, such as at golf courses or cemeteries, to improve overall basin understanding. F4. Utilize the groundwater model to simulate the collective impacts of current, near-term, and long- term projected groundwater production F5. If current or future production is considered beyond the basin yield and is anticipated to result in not meeting the Groundwater Level BMO, voluntarily apportionment of pumping to each agency may be performed to provide certainty on future levels of production. The apportionment will be determined by the water agencies at that time, but should consider historical production, access to Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-10 South Westside Basin GWMP alternate sources, status of existing infrastructure, water quality considerations, and projected needs. 5.3.2 REPLENISHMENT OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTED BY WATER PRODUCERS Groundwater replenishment may take place to cost effectively increase stored water in the aquifer for normal and drought periods or to support regional water supply goals. As long as the South Westside Basin remains in a hydrologically balanced condition, replenishment will occur on a voluntary basis, as economically feasible projects and water sources become available. Actions Study the feasibility of and potential for implementing the following replenishment activities: G1. Direct recharge of storm water and other surface water, selecting replenishment water to best manage the quality of recharge waters and receiving waters G2. Substitution of other water supplies such as recycled water or imported water for groundwater G3. Conservation efforts G4. Study the suitability of near surface conditions for improved recharge from low impact development techniques such as permeable pavement, swales, and others. Study should include subsurface materials and perched groundwater conditions. G5. Should the basin become overdrafted for extended periods of time, appropriate actions for replenishment should be taken with proper governance structures. 5.3.3 FACILITATION OF CONJUNCTIVE USE OPERATIONS Conjunctive use operations can assist groundwater basin management as the agencies have access to both groundwater and surface water supplies. Conjunctive use in the South Westside Basin in the form of large-scale direct recharge through spreading basins may not be cost- effective due to high land costs and clay layers in the upper aquifer system, but potential options should be studied if identified. Conjunctive use could more likely take the form of in- lieu recharge, in which other supply sources, such as imports or recycled water, may replace groundwater, thus offsetting future groundwater pumping during times of reduced imported water supplies. Injection of water into the aquifer may also be considered. Consideration should be given to water quality changes that may occur due to recharge activities and the increase in groundwater levels, particularly with the potential mobilization of nitrate in the subsurface. Actions H1. Consider the development, implementation, and maintenance of programs and projects to recharge aquifers. Programs may be local or regional in scope. These may use imported water, recycled Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-11 South Westside Basin GWMP water, and other waters to offset existing and future groundwater pumping, except in the following situations: o Groundwater quality would be reduced, unless lower water quality provides maximum benefit o Available groundwater aquifers are full o Rising water tables threaten the stability of existing structures H2. Support regional groundwater banking operations that are beneficial to the South Westside Basin and the region and support the goals of this GWMP. 5.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 5.4.1 CONTROL OF SEAWATER INTRUSION The threat of seawater intrusion in the South Westside Basin includes the potential migration of seawater from the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. Control of this migration includes monitoring groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and groundwater production. Should monitoring indicate increased risk of seawater intrusion, actions should be evaluated that would raise groundwater levels through increased recharge or decreased extraction. Actions I1. Continue monitoring for seawater intrusion at the margins of the basin. Study the need for additional monitoring locations or inclusion of additional indicators or triggers. I2. Combine seawater intrusion monitoring results with monitoring of basin-wide groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and production to fully determine risk of seawater intrusion. I3. Evaluate the reduction of the gradient between sea level and groundwater levels through increased recharge or decreased production in the affected area. 5.4.2 IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS AND RECHARGE AREAS The entire South Westside Basin is a source of recharge and requires protection to ensure high quality recharge and to maintain or enhance existing recharge quantities. Pervious areas such as open spaces and the numerous parks, cemeteries, and golf courses allow water to percolate into the soil and recharge the aquifer. No significant land use changes are anticipated in the built-out South Westside Basin, and these pervious areas are unlikely to be paved or otherwise developed. However, if such actions are considered in the future, the impact to the groundwater basin should be studied. Additionally, opportunities to increase pervious areas should be explored. Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-12 South Westside Basin GWMP Drinking water source assessments produced by the groundwater agencies have identified uses that threaten groundwater quality in the South Westside Basin along with delineation of capture zones around wells. Uses that threaten some wells in the basin include: o Automobile repair shops o Automobile gas stations o Dry cleaners o Military installations o Sewer collection systems o Underground storage tanks - confirmed leaking tanks o Utility stations - maintenance areas Actions J1. Preserve and protect, to the extent possible, aquifer recharge areas. J2. Implement public outreach efforts. J3. Design recharge facilities to minimize pollutant discharge into storm drainage systems, natural drainage, and aquifers. J4. Decrease storm water runoff, where feasible, by reducing paving in development areas, and by using d esign practices such as permeable parking bays and porous parking lots with beamed storage areas for rainwater detention. Exercise caution to avoid contamination from oil, gas, and other surface chemicals. J5. Manage streams with natural approaches, to the maximum extent possible, where groundwater recharge is likely to occur. J6. Identify prime recharge areas and consider offering incentives to landowners in exchange for limiting their ability to develop their property due to its retention as a natural groundwater recharge area. These incentives will encourage the preservation of natural water courses without creating undue hardship on the property owners, and might include density transfer functions. J7. Submit the map of recharge areas (Figure 2.10) to local planning agencies and notify DWR and other interested persons when the map is submitted to those local planning agencies, as required by AB359 (Huffman) 5.4.3 REGULATION OF THE MIGRATION OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER It is important to regulate contaminated groundwater migration both for protecting existing sources of groundwater and for developing new sources of groundwater. Coordination with regulatory agencies and potentially responsible parties will give water managers input into the cleanup and containment of contaminated sites and will improve long-term planning efforts based on the predicted impact of those hazards. Additionally, new, improved, and more cost- Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-13 South Westside Basin GWMP effective treatment technologies can potentially result in additional potable or non-potable supplies from groundwater that was previously considered unavailable for use. Action K1. Coordinate with local regulatory agencies to share information about contaminated sites and about the South Westside Basin groundwater system and wells. Treatment systems will be investigated as new non-potable supply sources. K2. Coordinate with the SWRCB to verify the classification of contaminated media at sites within the basin in their GeoTracker website. 5.4.4 ADMINISTRATION OF A WELL ABANDONMENT AND WELL DESTRUCTION PROGRAM Abandoned or poorly constructed wells should be properly destroyed to prevent migration of contaminants down well bores from the surface to the aquifer or across clay layers within the aquifer. Well destruction in the basin is administered by San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program (GPP). Destruction of wells is performed in accordance with the procedures set forth in DWR’s California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90 (1990). Actions L1. Survey abandoned wells in the South Westside Basin both physically and from county records. L2. Coordinate with San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program on destruction standards and procedures, as well as on logging of status of abandoned and destroyed wells. L3. Encourage and, if feasible, provide funding for the destruction of abandoned wells. 5.4.5 IDENTIFICATION OF WELL CONSTRUCTION POLICIES Well construction in the South Westside Basin also is administered by San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program. San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program issues permits for the construction or abandonment of all water wells including, but not limited to driven wells, monitoring wells, cathodic wells, extraction wells, agricultural wells, and community water supply wells. The wells are inspected during different stages of construction to verify standards are met. All drinking water wells are evaluated once installation is complete to ensure compliance with California Well Standards set forth in DWR’s California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90 (1990) and minimum drinking water standards. Actions M1. Coordinate with San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program staff to ensure all parties are aware of local and regional contamination plumes. Increased caution or restrictions may be necessary near these plumes. Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-14 South Westside Basin GWMP 5.5 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION BY THE LOCAL AGENCY OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CLEANUP, RECHARGE, STORAGE, CONSERVATION, WATER RECYCLING, AND EXTRACTION PROJECTS Properly designed, constructed, and operated projects can cost-effectively move the South Westside Basin towards meeting water quantity, water quality, and subsidence objectives. These projects could include: o Groundwater contamination cleanup Actions N1. Remediate basin groundwater from point-source (e.g., TCE, fuels) and non-point-source (e.g., nitrate) contamination, in a cost-effective manner. Point-source cleanup activities will include interfacing with regulatory agencies, potentially responsible parties, and other nearby agencies and municipalities. These actions will seek to return the contaminated area, to the extent possible, to a water supply source. Cleanup activities will be performed by the potentially responsible parties, and the regulatory agencies. Payment for impacts to the water system, if any, will be sought from the potentially responsible parties. o Recharge Actions N2. Evaluate and consider the construction and operation of projects to recharge good-quality surplus water to the groundwater basin. Recharge water may include storm water, surface water, recycled water, or imported water and will be captured through existing pumping facilities. Recharge water would be selected to mutually benefit groundwater quantity and quality. It is not anticipated that additional facilities will be needed to extract stored water. Facilities are anticipated to be small in scale, rather than large spreading basins that are not cost-effective in the urbanized South Westside Basin. o Storage – Additional surface storage, while beneficial, is not anticipated in the area beyond small scale water harvesting and detention basins. o Conservation – Conservation is a key part of water demand management in the South Westside Basin, exhibited by already low per-capita water use. CalWater and Millbrae are signatories to the MOU of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and participate in demand-side management measures. These agencies have committed to implementing best management practices to reduce water demand. Actions Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-15 South Westside Basin GWMP N3. Agencies should work to build upon already successful conservation efforts by considering signing the MOU and participating in the California Urban Water Conservation Council, or implementing equivalent local efforts. N4. Encourage installation of water-conserving systems such as dry wells and gray water systems where feasible, especially in new construction. Also encourage installation of rain gardens, cisterns, or infiltrators to capture rainwater from roofs for irrigation in the dry season and flood control during heavy storms. N5. Support outreach programs to promote water conservation and widespread use of water saving technologies. N6. Encourage continued outdoor irrigation water conservation. o Water recycling – Recycled water is available from Daly City’s tertiary treatment plant. Other treatment plants could potentially provide recycled water in the future. Actions N7. Evaluate and consider the expansion of existing recycled water programs, including efforts to utilize effluent from other treatment plants in the basin. Significant opportunities are available for usage of tertiary recycled water at the cemeteries, if appropriate funding mechanisms can be developed. o Extraction – Continued groundwater extraction will likely be necessary to meet future demand. Actions N8. Perform groundwater modeling during the planning stages to ensure there are no significant impacts from new wells. 5.6 COORDINATED PLANNING 5.6.1 DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES Federal and state regulatory agencies to develop of relationships with include the following: o Federal o EPA – contaminated sites o USGS – aquifer and watershed conditions, groundwater and surface water monitoring o State o DPH – drinking water quality and vulnerability o DTSC – contaminated sites o DWR – aquifer conditions Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-16 South Westside Basin GWMP o RWQCB – surface water quality and groundwater quality, permitting o Water Board – groundwater monitoring (GAMA) Actions O1. Coordinate with these federal and state agencies on issues related to monitoring and contaminated sites as well as on opportunities for grant funding. 5.6.2 COORDINATION WITH IRWMP EFFORTS As noted in Section 1, Introduction and Background, the Plan Area is part of the Bay Area IRWMP. Coordination during implementation of the GWMP with these IRWMP efforts is important to ensure that local efforts help meet regional goals and vice-versa. Action P1. Ensure that at least one member of the Groundwater Task Force is actively involved in the coordination of both the IRWMP and the GWMP. This member will provide dialogue between the two efforts. 5.6.3 REVIEW OF LAND USE PLANS AND COORDINATION WITH LAND USE PLANNING AGENCIES TO ASSESS ACTIVITIES THAT CREATE A REASONABLE RISK OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION As discussed in Section 5.4.2, Identification and Management of Wellhead Protection Areas and Recharge Areas, certain land uses and activities can potentially impact groundwater quality. Avoiding these uses in recharge areas and near wells is a better strategy than mitigation once the land uses are already in place. Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-17 South Westside Basin GWMP Actions Q1. Coordinate between stakeholders and land use planning agencies to encourage protection of the groundwater resource by limiting activities that create an unreasonable risk to groundwater. Maps of well locations with soil properties will be provided to assist land use planning agencies in their decision process. Q2. Monitor environmental impact reports and comment on such reports to ensure the water resources are protected. Q3. Involve water agencies through water supply assessments as required under SB 610. The water supply assessment documents water supply sufficiency by identifying sources of water supply, quantifying water demands, evaluating drought impacts, and providing a comparison of water supply and demand. 5.7 REPORTING AND UPDATING Reporting on the status of the GWMP implementation is important for the fulfillment of the actions and projects listed in the plan. Updating the plan is important to reflect changing conditions and understanding of the basin. Actions R1. Report on the GWMP’s implementation progress every 2 years; include details on monitoring activities, trigger status of BMOs, project implementation, and new or unresolved issues. Post reports and status tables or maps for BMOs on the Internet. R2. Update the GWMP every 5 years, unless changes in conditions in the basin warrant updates on a different frequency. Updates will be limited to those sections that require updating. Notify the public of the update and develop the update with input from the public and the Groundwater Task Force. 6-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 6 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 GOVERNANCE The current governance of the South Westside Basin is based on the individual interest model. Under the individual interest model, stakeholders govern and develop water resource projects individually. The individual interest model will be retained with representatives from each stakeholder eligible for participation in the Groundwater Task Force. Individual development of projects will be designed and implemented following the common goal, objectives, and elements described in this GWMP, and will be presented to the Task Force for informational and coordination purposes. Additionally, coordination between stakeholders will allow for easier implementation of projects spanning multiple jurisdictions or benefitting multiple jurisdictions. As a potential next step, the governance structure may be defined in a MOU, which may be developed and signed after the adoption of this GWMP. The primary feature of the governance of the South Westside Basin would be the South Westside Basin Groundwater Task Force (Groundwater Task Force), which would lead the implementation of this GWMP. 6.1.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Groundwater Task Force will Guide the implementation of the GWMP o Discuss and advance regional and local groundwater projects such as  Conjunctive use  Stormwater capture  Alternate supplies, such as recycled water o Coordinate on monitoring and CASGEM compliance o Coordinate on groundwater modeling and data management o Coordinate with larger regional efforts such as the Bay Area IRWMP o Coordinate on grant and loan opportunities o Develop reporting for GWMP implementation Share hydrogeological and operational information with others, such as o Groundwater levels o Groundwater quality o Well performance Provide a forum for public interaction on groundwater issues Provide a basis for future governance, if needed Implementation 6-2 South Westside Basin GWMP 6.1.2 MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION Membership in the Groundwater Task Force is anticipated to include representatives from San Bruno, Daly City, California Water Service Company, and SFPUC as well as other major stakeholders, as follows in alphabetical order: o Agricultural representative o BAWSCA o California Water Service Company o Cemetery representative o Town of Colma o City of Daly City o Environmental representative o Golf Course representative o Public representative o Representative for cities not using groundwater (Millbrae and Burlingame) o City of San Bruno o San Francisco Public Utilities Commission o San Mateo County Changes to the composition of the Groundwater Task Force may be made with unanimous consent of the signatories to the potential MOU and a majority of all members attending the meeting. Other entities are also encouraged to attend the meetings, including City of South San Francisco, RWQCB, United Airlines, and other interested groups or individuals. Participation by these groups in the meetings should be encouraged to allow for transfer of knowledge and a unified implementation of groundwater management. 6.1.3 ADMINISTRATION A Groundwater Task Force administrator is needed to provide leadership to maintain progress and meet the implementation goals of the GWMP. The potential MOU may establish the initial administrator and a procedure to change the administrator from time-to-time. The administrator must have adopted this GWMP. Responsibilities of the administrator include: o Scheduling regular meetings o Providing agendas and minutes o Monitoring or directing the monitoring of progress towards meeting implementation goals o Developing or directing the development of annual reports o Updating the GWMP as necessary Implementation 6-3 South Westside Basin GWMP 6.1.4 MEETINGS Groundwater Task Force meetings would provide a forum for representatives from stakeholder groups to discuss and resolve regional groundwater issues. The meetings would be at least twice a year and open to the public. The meetings would be intended to allow for the sharing of information as well as for the development of programs or projects needed to implement the GWMP. Information sharing may include changes to water supply infrastructure, new monitoring data, or new problems or opportunities. New programs and projects may be developed and implemented by individual stakeholders, by groups of stakeholders, or by all stakeholders. The ultimate project-making authority remains within the entity sponsoring the project. 6.1.5 VOTING The representatives on the Groundwater Task Force would coordinate on matters relevant to groundwater management in the South Westside Basin, using the goal, objectives, and elements of this GWMP to guide their decisions. Some occasions may require a formal vote by the Groundwater Task Force, specifically for the following: o Changing of the composition of the Groundwater Task Force o Changes to the MOU Decisions to change the composition of the group would require unanimous support among the signatories to the potential MOU and would require majority support among all members attending the meeting to move forward. Decisions of the group to change the MOU must be unanimous among the MOU signatories to move forward. Projects may move forward with the support of a subset of the group, but would do so outside of the auspices of the Groundwater Task Force. 6.1.6 POTENTIAL FUTURE GOVERNANCE If deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force, a MOU may be signed to create a more formalized governance structure. It is not anticipated at this time that future needs would require a more structured management system through a JPA. Advantages to the individual interest approach in this Plan and through the potential MOU include the following: o Agencies can focus their resources on projects specific to their needs o No loss of management control by local groundwater resources o Ease of implementation because it is a continuation of the current approach to groundwater management in the region. Implementation 6-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Moving to a mutual interest model based on a JPA could provide the following: o Ease pursuing regional projects that would benefit the entire South Westside Basin o Define who coordinates projects and what role each agency plays during regional project planning, construction, operation, and maintenance o Generate economies of scale for large projects o Increase likelihood of state funding for projects benefiting multiple entities o Prevent individual stakeholders from undertaking actions not complementary to the BMOs. o Improved framework for resolution of conflicts. Any potential future need to develop a MOU or JPA would be discussed through the Groundwater Task Force. 6.2 DISPUTE RESOLUTION Disputes relating to implementation of the GWMP will be resolved by the Groundwater Task Force. In the event that the Groundwater Task Force cannot resolve the dispute, an outside neutral third party will assist the parties in working towards a satisfactory resolution, with completion of all procedures within 60 to 90 days, unless the parties to the dispute agree to a longer timeframe. Costs incurred, if any, in this process will be equally shared by the involved parties. 6.3 FINANCING AND BUDGET Financing of projects will be on a project-by-project basis and will be the responsibility of the sponsoring agency or group, unless other agreements are made. Financing for the reporting and updating of the GWMP will be shared among the GWMP participants, with details to be mutually agreed upon. It is anticipated that SFPUC will, at their discretion, continue providing for the development of annual reports for the entire South Westside Basin, with support from the GWMP participants for data and review. Additional items not currently included in SFPUC’s annual reports but required by this GWMP may require a funding agreement from the water agencies adopting and agreeing to this GWMP. Implementation 6-5 South Westside Basin GWMP 6.4 SCHEDULE The following schedule highlights the key milestones for implementation of the Groundwater Management Plan. Item Reference Section Initial Completion Recurrence Meet with stakeholders to define and consider adoption of a governance structure 6.1 2 years n/a Implement basinwide semiannual static groundwater level monitoring 4.3.1, 5.2.1, App. C 1 year n/a Add additional pressure transducers to existing groundwater level monitoring network 5.2.1 App. C 2 year n/a Implement a voluntary groundwater level monitoring program for private groundwater producers App. C 2 years n/a Develop program to survey and destroy abandoned wells 5.4.4 3 years n/a Implement a voluntary groundwater production monitoring program for private groundwater producers App. C 3 years n/a Identify recharge strategies to increase yield 2.3.5, 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.5 5.6.3 2 years As needed Update Groundwater Model 4.3.1 1 years 1 year Complete subsidence analysis using InSAR 4.3.4 5 years As needed Continue public outreach and education 5.1 2 years Ongoing Report on GWMP 5.7 2 years 1 year Update GWMP 5.7 5 year 5 years 7-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 7 REFERENCES Alley, W. M., T. E. Reilly, and. O. E. Franke, 1999. Sustainability of Groundwater Resources. USGS Circular 1186, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1186. Bartell, M.J. 1914. Field Examinations. Prepared for M.M. O'Shaughnessy, City Engineer, City of San Francisco, Department of Public Works. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). 2009. BAWSCA Annual Survey – FY 2007-08. January. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). 2011. Spreadsheets of Monthly/Seasonal SFPUC Purchases Among BAWSCA Members. January. Bonilla, M.G.. 1998. Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South 7.5' quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5' quadrangle, San Francisco Bay area, California: A digital database. USGS Open-File Report 98-354 Brown and Caldwell. 2001. Water System Master Plan Update. July. Brown and Caldwell. 2011. City of Daly City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Burlingame, City of. 2009. Waste Water Treatment Plant. http://www.burlingame.org/Index.aspx?page=82. Accessed on July 13. Burns & McDonnell and ERM-West. 2006. Building 84 Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan, United Airlines San Francisco Maintenance Center, San Francisco International Airport. May 15. California Department of Public Health (DPH). 2010. California Drinking Water Data. December 1. California Department of Public Health (DPH). 2009. California Regulations Related to Drinking Water. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Lawbook/dwregulati ons-08-13-2009.pdf. Accessed on August 25. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1975. California's Ground Water. Bulletin 118. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1980. Ground Water Basins in California. Bulletin 118-80. California Department of Water Resource (DWR). 1990. California Well Standards. Bulletin 74- 90. References 7-2 South Westside Basin GWMP California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. California’s Groundwater . Bulletin 118- 03. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2010. IWRIS: Integrated Water Resources Information System. http://app1.iwris.water.ca.gov/IWRIS. Accessed on February 4. California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS). 2009. Climatic data http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/monthlyEToReport.do. Accessed on March 23. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). 1996. San Francisco and Northern San Mateo County Beneficial Use Evaluation. April. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). 2007. San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan. January. California Water Service Company. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan South San Francisco District. June. Carollo. 2008. Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, Brisbane in coordination with Cal Water and SFPUC. Carollo. 2009. Recycled Water Facility Plan. Clifton, H.E., and Hunter, R.E., 1987, The Merced Formation and related beds; a mile-thick succession of late Cenozoic coastal and shelf deposits in the seacliffs of San Francisco, CA, in Hill, M.L., ed., Centennial field guide: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, v. 1, p. 257–262. Clifton, H.E., and Hunter, R.E., 1991, Depositional and other features of the Merced Formation in sea cliff exposures south of San Francisco, CA, in Sloan, Doris, and Wagner, D.L., eds., 1991, Geologic excursions in northern California; San Francisco to the Sierra Nevada: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 109, p. 35–44. Daly City, City of. 2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. December. Daly City, City of. 2009. Recycling/Reusing Treatment Plant By-product. http://www.dalycity.org/city_services/depts/wwr/waste_treatment.htm#5. Accessed on July 28. EKI. 2005. City of Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan. November. EKI. 2007. City of San Bruno Urban Water Management Plan. January. EKI. 2011. City of San Bruno Urban Water Management Plan. June. References 7-3 South Westside Basin GWMP ERM. 2005. Fourth Quarter 2004 Ground Water Monitoring Report United Airlines Building 84 FS/RAP San Francisco Maintenance Center. ESA. 2009. Harding Park Recycled Water Project Draft EIR. Fio, J.L., and Leighton, D.A., 1995, Geohydrologic framework, Historical Development of the ground- water system, and general hydrologic and water-quality conditions in 1990, south San Francisco Bay and Peninsula area, California: U.S. Geologic Survey Open-File Report 94- 357, 46 p. Gillespie, K. and B. Gillespie. 2009. An Overview of Daly City History. http://www.dalycityhistory.org/overview.htm. Accessed on September 1. Harden, D.R., 1998. California Geology. Hensolt, W. H. and Brabb, E.E.. 1990. Maps showing elevation of bedrock and implications for design of engineered structures to withstand earthquake shaking in San Mateo County, California. Open-File Report 90-496. U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. HydroFocus. 2003. Westside Basin Unified Groundwater Model. May 14. HydroFocus. 2011. Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model: Updated Model and 2008 No- Project Simulation Results. May. HydroMetrics. 2011. Water Year 2011, Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report, Seaside Basin, Monterey County, California. Prepared for Seaside Basin Watermaster. November. Izbicki, J.A., Borchers, J.W., Leighton, D.A., Kulongoski, J, Fields, L., Galloway, D.L., and Michel, R.L. 2003. Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4259, 71 p. Jones, B.F., A. Vengosh, E. Rosenthal, and Y. Yechieli. 1999. “Geochemical Investigations.” Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers: Concepts, Methods, and Practices. Jacob Bear, Saul Sorek, Driss Ouazar, Eds. Kennedy/Jenks. 2009. Monitoring Well Installation Technical Memorandum South Westside Basin Conjunctive Use Project (CS 879C). April 9. Kennedy/Jenks. 2010. Phase 2 Monitoring Well Installation Technical Memorandum. Kirker, Chapman & Associates. 1972. Daly City ground water investigation. San Francisco, CA, 159 pp., 1972. Land, M., Reichard, E.G., Crawford, S.M., Everett, R.R., Newhouse, M.W., and Williams, C.F. 2004. Ground-Water Quality of Coastal Aquifer Systems in the West Coast Basin, Los References 7-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Angeles County, California, 1999–2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5067, 80 p. Leake, S.A. 2004. Land Subsidence from Ground-Water Pumping. U.S. Geological Survey. Lee, C.H. and M. Praszker. 1969. “Bay Mud Developments and Related Structural Foundations.” Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill . California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 97. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). 2004. Update on the Conceptualization of the Lake-Aquifer System Westside Ground-Water Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. April. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). 2005. Results of In-Lieu Recharge Demonstration, Fall 2002 through Spring 2005, Westside Basin Conjunctive Use Pilot Project. October 13. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). 2010. Final Task 8B. Technical Memorandum No. 1, Hydrologic Setting of the Westside Basin. May 5. MWH. 2007. Alternatives Analysis Report for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Project, Groundwater Conjunctive Use Project. October. Millbrae, City of. 2005. City of Millbrae 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. December. Millbrae, City of. 2009a. Water Pollution Control Plant. http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=98. Accessed on September 1. Millbrae, City of. 2009b. Ground Breaking Ceremony for the Water Pollution Control Plant Renovation Project. http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=24&recordid=116&returnURL=%2fi ndex.aspx%3fpage%3d93. Accessed on October 9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. NCDC Weather Station - San Francisco International Airport. Accessed online at http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/dly/DLY?randomnum=64485550W115507. Accessed on February 1. Oakland Museum of California. 2011. Guide to San Francisco Bay Area Creeks. Accessed online at http://museumca.org/creeks/1590-RescColma.html# on February 9, 2011. Phillips, S. P., Hamlin, S. N. and Yates, E.B.. 1993. Geohydrology, water quality, and estimation of ground-water recharge in San Francisco, California, 1987-92. Water- Resources Investigations Report 93-4019. U. S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA. Poland, J. F., And Ireland, R. L., 1988, Land Subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley, California as of 1982, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 497-F, 61 p. References 7-5 South Westside Basin GWMP RMC and Jones & Stokes. 2006. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). November. RMC. 2006. Vista Grand Watershed Study. Prepared for the City of Daly City and SFPUC. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region [RWQCB]. 2010. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan. December. Rogge, Erdmann. 2003. Dimensions of the Westside Groundwater Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. MS Thesis, San Francisco State University. May. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2005. Final Draft North Westside Basin Groundwater Basin Management Plan. April. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2008. Proposed Harding Park Recycled Water Project. Spring. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2010a. 2009 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Westside Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. May. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2010b. Annual Water Quality Report… San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2011. 2011 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Westside Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. Sloan, D. 2006. Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region, California Natural History Guide Series No. 79, Berkeley, University of California Press, 318p. South San Francisco. 2009. General Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Drinking Water Contaminants. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html Accessed on August 25. Waltham, T. 2002. Foundations of Engineering Geology, 2nd Edition. Western Regional Climate Center. 2011. Climatic data. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7769 Accessed on March 1. Witter, R.C., Knudsen, K.L, Sowers, J.M., Wentworth, C.M., Koehler, R.D., Randolph, C.E., Brooks, S.K., and Gans, K.D. 2006. Maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility in the central San Francisco Bay region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/). References 7-6 South Westside Basin GWMP WRIME. 2007. San Bruno Groundwater Monitoring Wells: Installation and Monitoring, An AB303 Project Report. April. South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX A – PUBLIC PROCESS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX B – CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX C – MONITORING PROTOCOLS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX D – BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE HYDROGRAPHS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX E – SEAWATER INTRUSION INDICATORS Policy 7.05 EFFECTIVE 27 NOV 12 SUSTAINABILITY SUPERSEDES 14 SEP 10 IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO: Provide reliable, high-quality drinking water and wastewater service through sustainable operations, maintenance, planning, design, and construction activities that avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to the economy, environment, employees, and the public. Objective The District will strive to balance environmental, social, and economic objectives into its decision-making, policies, programs, and work practices. In doing so, the District will: • promote an environmental stewardship ethic in its staff and among other drinking water and wastewater treatment agencies; • adhere to principles of sustainability and environmental justice; • comply with environmental laws and regulations; • look for opportunities for continuous improvement of environmental performance including pollution prevention and resource conservation; • promote the purchase and use of recycled and recyclable products; • move towards zero waste and seek ways to recycle materials that cannot be used in its operations and activities; • establish a framework for setting and reviewing environmental objectives; and • foster communication with employees, contractors, other water and wastewater agencies, regulators, cities and counties, and the public about the environmental significance of the District’s current and future operations and activities. Sustainability Sustainability means using resources (economic, environmental, and human) in a responsible manner to meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet the needs of tomorrow. This approach applies a holistic view and strives to minimize waste; conserve water, energy, and natural resources; promote long-term economic viability; support safety and well-being for employees, communities, and customers; and be beneficial to society. Responsibilities To promote environmental stewardship and facilitate compliance with laws and regulations, the District will conduct compliance audits, administer staff training, and assist in the development and implementation of management and operational practices that support environmental, social, and economic considerations and ensure compliance. The District will maintain strong working relationships with local regulatory agencies, industry and public interest organizations, including exchanging information on District plans and procedures that support the development of sustainable environmental guidelines for the water and wastewater industry at large. To advance environmental leadership and awareness, the District will participate in water and wastewater organizations and associations, and work cooperatively with and solicit input from employees, the environmental community, and the public on District operations and activities. SUSTAINABILITY NUMBER PAGE NO.: EFFECTIVE DATE 7.05 2 27 NOV 12 To promote the use of recycled and recyclable products, the District has a preference for purchasing materials that include recycled and/or recyclable content without compromising the product’s fitness, quality, price, and availability. The District will establish a framework for setting, reviewing, and reporting on long- term sustainability performance objectives and outcomes. Staff will periodically report to the Board of Directors, management, and staff on the status of the District’s sustainability efforts which include regulatory compliance, environmental impacts, resource use, stewardship activities, waste reduction, etc. Environmental Justice The District will accord the highest respect and value to every individual and community, by developing and conducting business in a manner that promotes equity and affords fair treatment, accessibility, and protection for all people, regardless of race, age, culture, income, or geographic location. Authority Resolution No. 32881-94, September 13, 1994 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33120-98, September 22, 1998 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33684-08, September 10, 2008 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33780-10, September 14, 2010 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33904-12, November 27, 2012 Reference Policy 3.02 - California Environmental Quality Act Implementation Policy 4.12 – Purchasing and Materials Management Policy 7.07 – Renewable Energy Policy 7.09 – Workplace Safety and Health Policy 9.05 – Non-Potable Water Policy 8.02 – Biosolids Management Policy 9.04 – Watershed Management and Use Policy 9.06 – Bay/Delta Protection Procedure 900 – Water Supply Accounting and Reporting MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD POLICY NO.: 49 DATE: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Multi-Benefits/Integrated Water Management Projects Policy POLICY STATEMENT It is the policy of the Marin Municipal Water District to achieve multiple benefits in the planning and implementation of its water management projects, where appropriate, and to coordinate these projects with other agencies, to realize the maximum number of benefits from a project. It is the intent of this policy to encourage collaboration within and among MMWD and other agencies to conduct integrated water management planning and achieve multiple benefits on water management projects that provide appropriate opportunities. These may be water supply, stormwater management, flood control, public access, recreation, watershed resource management, and/or waste water management projects, where more than one benefit may be achieved. BACKGROUND The Marin Municipal Water District is a member agency of the North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA). The NBWA is a collaboration of City, County and public utility agencies and non-governmental organizations in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa Counties. All of the NBWA member agencies develop and implement projects to fulfill their respective duties. Population growth, environmental constraints, climate change, integrated land use planning, funding mechanisms, and other forces are driving a fundamental change in water management. State and Federal agencies are tying substantial water management funding to the development of Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs), such as State bond propositions 50 & 84 and other sources. These programs emphasize and give priority to integrated, multi-benefit projects and strategies. The NBWA member agencies encourage informal collaboration for future integrated, multi-benefit projects. DESCRIPTION OF MULTI-BENEFIT/INTEGRATED PROJECTS An integrated or multi-benefit project is one that is planned, designed, implemented, and maintained with the intended purpose of providing two or more benefits or of meeting two or more objectives. There is no limit on the number of combined benefits that a project can have, but it must have at least two intended benefits to be considered an integrated or multi-benefit project. The benefits from the project must also be intended and purposely planned into the project goals and objectives; they should not simply be mitigations for impacts from a single-purpose project. However, at the same time, BOARD POLICY NO. 49 (DATE: MAY 3, 2012) Page 2 incorporating project elements that add benefits can effectively minimize the potential impacts from other project elements. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY One of the goals of this policy is for water management projects within the MMWD sphere of influence and NBWA region to be eligible and competitive for State and Federal grant programs that fund integrated, multi-benefit projects. These programs prioritize integrated multiple benefit projects that: • protect communities from drought; improve water supply reliability and security; • support water conservation and water use efficiency; • protect and improve water quality; • improve storm water capture, storage, and treatment; • remove invasive plant species; • create and enhance wetland habitats; • acquire and protect open space and watershed lands; • improve recreation and access to public lands; • reduce and control non-point source pollution; • implement groundwater recharge, desalinization, reclamation, and other supply, treatment, and conveyance technologies; • encourage water banking and water exchange; • provide multipurpose flood control that protects property and protects or improves wildlife habitat; • restore and protect fisheries and ecosystem functions; • include watershed management planning and implementation; and • develop new drinking water treatment and distribution methods. The legislation and guidelines for these State and Federal grant programs stipulate that projects must be planned and implemented through an integrated approach in order to be eligible for funding. By coordinating projects with other agencies, multiple partnerships can be built around a project and conflicts with other projects and benefits can be avoided. This can reduce costs for the agency and may help minimize environmental impacts. Multi-benefit projects can achieve long-term goals in a single project, rather than over a series of projects. They can effectively resolve significant water-related conflicts within a region. It is most often in the public interest to develop integrated, multi-benefit projects. IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY The approach to implementing multi-benefit/integrated projects will be incorporated into all phases of a project, beginning with project conception and carried through the planning, permitting, design, construction, and monitoring phases. BOARD POLICY NO. 49 (DATE: MAY 3, 2012) Page 3 It is recognized that some projects, particularly maintenance of existing facilities, may not readily lend themselves to being able to have multiple benefits. However, this is not to exclude those projects from being considered to be multi-benefit projects. Multiple benefits should be considered and pursued in all appropriate instances, where more than one benefit might feasibly be achieved. It is also recognized that providing multiple objectives can add complexity and, in some instances, significantly increase the cost of a project. However, the cost-benefit analysis may still be acceptable when considering benefits of a project over a long time period. Therefore, cost-benefit analysis for a multi-benefit project will take a broad view of benefits over time and will consider the time period appropriate to all benefits that could be achieved. Also, the cost-benefit analysis will consider the costs that would be incurred by comparing the multi-benefit project with sum of the costs of several single- benefit projects that might be achieved individually. All possible benefits will be quantified in any cost-benefit analysis of a project. Coordination and communication about multiple benefits, amongst staff and between agencies, is necessary through all phases of the project. When a project is first developed, agencies will investigate where partnerships can help achieve a multi-benefit project. In some cases, informal collaboration may be sufficient for an integrated, multi- benefit project to be developed. In other cases, a more formal agreement between agencies may be necessary. Project planning will begin with a project team meeting to brainstorm and discuss potential multi-benefits of the project and to determine the feasible benefits to be included in the plan. The project team will consist of engineers, planners, and biologists/natural resource managers, or some comparable multidisciplinary group of personnel within the agency. The team meeting will include a discussion of the scope and timeline of a project and the time period in which benefits from a project can be realized to help evaluate costs and benefits. Staff training will be encouraged to foster communication and build expertise in the multi-benefit project approach. The training can focus on the approaches for determining, describing, prioritizing, and implementing projects that include multiple benefits. The training will help to solidify an institutional process for developing and implementing multi-benefit projects. F:\Bay_Area_IRWMP_2012\Final drafts\ready for final formatting\App B-3\NMWD integrated multi benefit projects .docx NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT POLICY: Integrated / Multi-Benefit Water Resource Projects POLICY NUMBER: 44 Effective Date: 11/4/2008 Background: The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) is a group of 15 regional and local public agencies (including North Marin Water District) located throughout Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties. The NBWA was created to help regulated local and regional public agencies work cooperatively on water resources issues that impact areas beyond traditional boundaries in order to promote stewardship of the North Bay watershed. Agencies participate in the NBWA in order to discuss issues of common interest, explore ways to work collaboratively on water resources projects of regional concern and share information about projects, regulations and technical issues. NBWA has endorsed and encouraged member agencies to adopt a policy on Integrated / Multi-Benefit Water Resource Projects. Policy: It is the intent of North Marin Water District to plan and implement water resource projects to have multiple benefits where reasonably feasible and to coordinate said projects with other agencies (including NBWA members) to achieve greater benefit in the affected watersheds when possible. Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region Prepared by: Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District August 2013 August 2013 2 of 10 Table of Contents Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization ......................................................................................................... 3 Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area .......................................................................... 3 Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders .................................................................................................................... 4 Task 1.3 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives ................................................................ 4 Task 1.4 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data ........................................ 4 Task 1.5 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization .................................................................. 5 Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water .......................................................................................... 6 Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities .................................................... 6 Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals ................................................................... 6 Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources .................................................................. 6 Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin ............................................................................................... 6 Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity ........................................................................................... 7 Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools .................................................................................... 7 Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information ........................................................................................ 7 Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures ................................................................... 8 Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon ........................................................................................................ 8 Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads ................................................................................ 8 Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality .................................................................................................. 8 Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies ............................. 9 Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures .... 9 Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 10 Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination ......................................................... 10 August 2013 3 of 10 Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region August 2013 This Guidance Document was developed as a result of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) preparation effort. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, along with the Zone 7 Water Agency and Santa Clara Valley Water District are developing SNMPs in three priority groundwater basins (as identified by the Regional Water Board) for the San Francisco Bay Region. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The California state-wide Recycled Water Policy, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2009, indicates that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) are to be developed for groundwater basins in California, to address the potential for increased salt and nutrient loading from increased recycled water use and other sources. It is anticipated that SNMPs will contain the following components to be responsive to both the Recycled Water Policy requirements and the Basin Planning Amendment process undertaken by the Regional Water Board: ▪ General groundwater basin information and characteristics ▪ Beneficial use designation ▪ Goals for water recycling and stormwater recharge/use (as applicable); ▪ Salt and nutrient source identification; ▪ Water quality objectives (both narrative and numeric) ▪ Salt and nutrient source loading and assimilative capacity estimates; ▪ Implementation measures and management strategies; ▪ Antidegradation analysis, as needed; ▪ Development of a basin-wide monitoring plan; and ▪ A provision for monitoring Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) in recycled water used for groundwater recharge reuse. ▪ A statement regarding Plan limitations The purpose of this document is to describe the common steps that may be undertaken by Bay Area groups in preparing an SNMP. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is expected to consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. It may be appropriate to meet with Regional Water Board staff early in the process of developing an SNMP, to ensure common expectations before resources are expended. Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area ▪ Delineate the study area for salt and nutrient management planning. August 2013 4 of 10 ▪ Identify the areal extent of the groundwater basin, including if known, the watershed area tributary to the aquifer, known source loads or impacts within the watershed, the location of existing or proposed recycled water use areas, and/or jurisdictional boundaries. o In developing SNMPs, it is recognized that the SNMP may wish to address study areas using a sub-basin approach. o SNMPs interested in focusing on groundwater supply development may define the study area to encompass anticipated project sites other than recycled water, or source control needs such as control of pollutants from a dairy operation. Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders ▪ Develop a preliminary list of stakeholders (including potential interest, contact person, and contact information). Key stakeholders include local agencies involved in groundwater management, owners and operators of recharge facilities, water purveyors, water districts, wastewater agencies, known salt and nutrient contributing dischargers, and the general public. ▪ Perform outreach and obtain stakeholder feedback for planning process (now or near future). Task 1.3 Establish Communication with the Regional Water Board ▪ Identify a point of contact at the Regional Water Board with whom to coordinate the preparation of your SNMP. Task 1.4 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives ▪ Identify designated beneficial uses of the groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2). ▪ Identify water quality objectives for groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, starting on page 2-8). Task 1.5 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data ▪ Collect and review readily available and applicable regional groundwater and salt/nutrient management studies and data. Studies with data on groundwater quality, use, supply development, and salt and nutrient loading may be useful. The types of studies and data that may be useful include the following: o Planning documents, including Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and Groundwater Management Plans o Groundwater supply, storage, or conjunctive use studies; o Groundwater aquifer hydrogeologic investigations; o Groundwater quality studies or groundwater protection studies; o Groundwater models o Recycled water compliance, assimilative capacity, and Basin Plan studies; August 2013 5 of 10 o Pollutant modeling and transport studies; o Watershed studies; and o Source assessment evaluations. ▪ Collect and review readily available and applicable well data and information, as follows: o Existing and planned municipal supply wells or projects within the basin. o Private groundwater wells or private well areas within the basin. ▪ Contact organizations engaged in ongoing groundwater monitoring to determine if the collected data can be made available for use in the SNMP. Task 1.6 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization ▪ Review prior reference studies and data (collected as part of Task 1.5) and assess the reliability and specificity of the groundwater quality data, depth-to-water data, and estimates for hydrogeologic parameters, as applicable. ▪ Identify the parameters of interest for the plan which should include salts and nutrients but could include other parameters of interest that adversely affect groundwater quality. These parameters should be based on collected groundwater quality information and stakeholder input. ▪ Identify whether readily available data and information is sufficient to complete a baseline analysis to determine if the groundwater basin is currently meeting water quality objectives. If not, develop a plan for collecting data, collect the data, and then return to next step. ▪ If data are sufficient, review data to determine whether (1) water quality objectives are being exceeded, and (2) any trends that show an increase in salt or nutrient management concentrations. ▪ Select and justify preliminary planning horizon to look into the future (such as 20 years – similar to a UWMP planning horizon), depending on expected changes in the future such Potential Off-Ramp #1 Evaluate the potential feasibility of water uses for beneficial use consistent with land use within the region. If groundwater is not considered suitable for use as a municipal or domestic water supply by meeting an exception listed in State Board Resolution No. 88-63 - The Sources of Drinking Water Policy, then at a minimum, Best Management Practices can be documented along with the basin characterization and comprise the SNMP in lieu of the standard required elements listed in the Recycled Water Policy. Depending on stakeholder input, other elements, such as a simplified groundwater monitoring plan could also be included. If groundwater is used as a public water supply in the basin, proceed to next bullet. August 2013 6 of 10 as growth, land use changes, water supply changes and increases in recycled water application. ▪ Evaluate historical trends and anticipated projects that would contribute salt or nutrients to the groundwater, and estimate whether an exceedance of water quality objectives is anticipated within the planning horizon (document the evaluation and results). Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities ▪ Collect available data and information about current and predicted recycled water and recharge water (including stormwater or imported water)/use. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) can be used as an initial data source. Recycled water producers will also have information about recycled water and potential plans for future expanded use. Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals ▪ Identify the goals of the recycled water studies, and stormwater and other recharge water studies related to the basin. Goals should be consistent with the goals within the Recycled Water Policy to increase recycled water use and stormwater recharge. Gather data about the future quantitative goals for these projects. Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin ▪ Identify general land uses within the basin. ▪ Identify known sources of salt/nutrient loads within the basin, to supplement work from Task 1.4. Sources may include: o Applied Water (groundwater) Potential Off-Ramp #2 If there is a sound basis that water quality objectives will not be exceeded, this basin is a No Threat basin. Document the basin characterization, evaluation and results, including Best Management Practices. This documentation will comprise the SNMP unless stakeholders determine collaboratively that other elements suggested by the Recycled Water Policy (i.e. a groundwater monitoring plan) should be included. If it is estimated that water quality objectives would be exceeded, or if there is uncertainty regarding whether water quality objectives would be exceeded, proceed to next section (Step 2). August 2013 7 of 10 o Applied Water (surface water) o Recycled Water Application o Artificial Recharge of Stormwater Runoff o Artificial Recharge with Imported Water Supplies o Atmospheric Deposition o Biosolids Application o Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Facilities o Creek Recharge o Agriculture, including applied fertilizer and soil amendments o Dairy Operations o Mines o Natural Geologic Sources o Natural Soil Conditions o Point Source Wastewater Discharges o Rainfall o Seawater Intrusion o Septic Tank Discharges o Storage Ponds o Streamflow Infiltration o Subsurface Inflow (including upstream inflow and seawater intrusion) o Urban Runoff ▪ Identify the locations where source loads are impacting the basin. Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity ▪ Using water quality data gathered under Task 1, establish the baseline water quality. Calculation of constituent concentrations can be performed with a spatial averaging approach. ▪ Compare these values to the Basin Plan water quality objectives, taking dilution into account if appropriate, to determine the assimilative capacity of the basin. The assimilative capacity is the difference between the water quality objectives and the existing water quality, taking into account dilution if appropriate. If the basin has either an existing or potential beneficial use of municipal and domestic supply (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2), compliance with the water quality objectives for municipal supply should be assessed (see Basin Plan, Table 3-5). Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools ▪ Develop tools for assessing salt and nutrient loading, as well as fate and transport, of salts and nutrients. Examples of tools include geographical information system (GIS) relational models, groundwater flow/transport models (complex basins) or spreadsheet- based mass balance computations. Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information ▪ Gather information about the fate and transport of salts and nutrients in the basin. Reviewing California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 can be a starting point for this process. ▪ Additional tasks that may be useful are as follows: August 2013 8 of 10 o On the basis of available hydrogeological, water quality, or geologic studies, determine fault lines, bedrock constrictions, or vertical stratification that may affect transport and groundwater quality. o Identify known hydrogeologic parameters for the basin (e.g. hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, etc.) and the bases on which these parameters were estimated. o Assess the geographic completeness of existing groundwater quality data, depth- to-water data, and hydrogeologic parameters and determine if any data gaps exist that prevent geographic, seasonal, or depth-dependent characterization of groundwater quality, occurrence or transport. o Assess the geographic distribution of water quality concentrations for the salt/nutrient parameters of interest, and assess the depth-dependent distribution of water quality. Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon ▪ Determine an appropriate planning horizon (the number of years to look into the future), and justify the selection. A longer timeframe may be useful, such as the one established in the region's UWMPs (e.g., 25 years), especially if the region expects limited growth. If the region expects significant land use changes or projects with expected impacts to salt and nutrient loadings (such as recharge projects with stormwater or recycled water), a shorter time frame (e.g., 10 years) is recommended. Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads ▪ Prepare estimates for future recharge flow to the basin from surface and subsurface sources, discharge/withdrawal (flow) from the basin, and salt and nutrient loading from the sources identified in Task 3.1. Land use data may provide valuable information for estimating source loads. ▪ Building on the baseline calculations performed in Task 3.2, use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to compute predicted concentration estimates that are representative of the basin for the identified constituents of interest. Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality ▪ Develop a mixing model on an annual time step for the selected planning horizon to mix the load concentrations developed within the basin. A spreadsheet model is typically adequate for the mixing analysis. Available data from other basin models (e.g. existing USGS or other models) such as hydrogeology characteristics (depth of mixing), water balance and water quality concentration information may be extracted and used within the mixing model. Comment on limitations and sensitivities within the mixing model (i.e. mixing depth, timing of future land use or land management changes, etc). ▪ Determine the degree to which the basin will be exceeding applicable water quality objectives for the identified salt and nutrient parameters within the planning horizon. August 2013 9 of 10 ▪ Determine the impact of recycled water on the assimilative capacity of the basin. ▪ Assess the general level of effort for managing salts and nutrients in the basin. Consider the basin’s characteristics and uses in this assessment. Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies ▪ Identify the basin's existing implementation measures and strategies to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin. If future water quality trends are flat, BPOs are not being exceeded or projected to be exceeded, and recycled water project utilize less than 10% assimilative capacity (or 20% for multiple projects); existing management measures may be sufficient for managing salts and nutrients within the basin. ▪ If salt and/or nutrient concentrations are increasing, additional implementation measures may be necessary. In a collaborative manner with Plan participants, develop (as applicable) a list of additional, appropriate implementation measures and management strategies (additional measures) to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin on a sustainable basis. Examples of best management practices (BMPs) include: o Irrigation at agronomic rates o Configuration of irrigation and drainage facilities in land application fields to reasonably minimize runoff of applied animal waste o Fertilizer use workshops o Industrial discharge controls (local pretreatment limits, high strength surcharge for nutrients and/or salts) o Irrigation workshops o Land use policy modification o Recharge program adoption or modification (stormwater, recycled water, imported water) o Recycled water application limitations or quality guidelines o Septic system BMPs o Source load diversion/control Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures ▪ If additional measures are being considered, it may be of interest to evaluate the ability of the additional measures to achieve load reduction or groundwater quality improvement. Use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to assess the ranges of potential load reduction and water quality improvement effects associated with additional measures, if appropriate. ▪ Evaluate and compare the additional implementation measures and select the preferred measure(s) for implementation. It may be appropriate to consult among stakeholders to inform the process of making decisions about implementation measures. Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis ▪ Conduct an antidegradation analysis to demonstrate that implementation measures, including identified projects, included within the SNMP will collectively comply with the requirements of Resolution No. 68-16. August 2013 10 of 10 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan ▪ Identify existing monitoring wells and select appropriately located wells to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. Focus on water quality near water supply wells, but also consider wells near large water recycling projects and groundwater recharge projects. Consider a range of well depths to monitor shallow or deep zones, as appropriate. ▪ Propose additional (new) monitoring wells if appropriate. ▪ Determine appropriate salt and nutrient parameters and monitoring frequencies that are reasonable and cost-effective that may help determine whether the Basin Plan water quality objectives for salts and nutrients are being, or are threatening to be, exceeded. Monitoring data should be evaluated to understand the effectiveness of the BMPs developed as part of Task 4.4. Refer to the amended Recycled Water Policy (April 2013) for guidance on CEC monitoring requirements. ▪ Identify stakeholders responsible for maintaining, assessing, and storing the monitoring data. Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination ▪ Compile analyses in a Plan document. ▪ Coordinate with the Regional Water Board on next steps regarding Plan submittal and support of their Basin Plan Amendment and California Environmental Quality Act compliance process. Appendix A - Existing and Future Groundwater Quality Technical Memorandum August 2013 1 Technical Memorandum Todd Engineers Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Existing and Future Groundwater Quality Prepared For: Marcus Trotta, SVCSD Prepared by: Sally McCraven and Edwin Lin, Todd Engineers Reviewed by: Christy Kennedy, RMC Date: 8/22/13 Reference: 0047-008 Executive Summary The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin is located in southern Sonoma County, California abutting San Pablo Bay. Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is divided into a Baylands Area (containing the historical brackish groundwater) and an Inland Area for assessment of groundwater quality. Sonoma Creek is the main surface water feature draining the valley. The Sonoma Valley relies on groundwater, imported surface water, and recycled water to meet domestic, agricultural and urban demands. Recycled water is used for agricultural irrigation in the southern part of the subbasin to offset groundwater pumping and mitigate the potential for saline water intrusion from the bay related to groundwater pumping depressions within the Inland Area. Increased use of recycled water is planned in the future. The State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy encourages increased reliance on local water supplies such as recycled water and stormwater. Due to water quality concerns associated with recycled water, the Recycled Water Policy requires completion of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan that assesses the water quality impacts of recycled water (and all other salt and nutrient sources) in terms of the use of the groundwater basin available assimilative capacity by recycled water projects. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients assessed for this study. Assimilative capacity is the difference between average TDS and nitrate concentrations in the subbasin and the respective basin plan objectives. Generally, relatively low TDS and nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the Inland Area of the subbasin and water quality concentration trends over time are flat or stable. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Inland Area are below basin plan objectives, and there is available assimilative capacity. The use of the available assimilative capacity by recycled water projects in the subbasin for the future planning period through 2035 was estimated for this study. The Recycled Water Policy established an impacts evaluation criteria, such that a single recycled water project may use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity (and multiple recycled water projects may use less than 20% of the available assimilative capacity) until such time as a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan is adopted. If these criteria are satisfied, the associated anti-degradation analysis would only need to document the projected future assimilative capacity use. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 2 The analysis presented in this Technical Memorandum demonstrates that the recycled water irrigation projects planned for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin through 2035 use less than 10% of the available TDS and nitrate assimilative capacity. 1 Introduction This Technical Memorandum (TM) was prepared by Todd Engineers on behalf of the stakeholders of Sonoma Valley, including the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD), for the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP). The key components of this TM include:  Description of hydrogeologic conceptual model  Characterization of the existing average salt and nutrient (S/N) groundwater quality  Calculation of the existing available assimilative capacity for S/Ns  Description of the baseline period (1997 to 2006) basin water and S/N balances and loading calibration  Estimation of the water and S/N balances for the future planning period (2014 to 2035)  Prediction of future S/N groundwater quality  Calculation of the use of the available assimilative capacity by recycled water projects 2 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Much of the hydrogeologic conceptual model discussion below is based on data and analysis presented in the “Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground-Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California” prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2006). 2.1 Study Area Figure 2-1 shows the Sonoma Valley Subbasin (No. 2-2.02), or Study Area, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Bulletin 118-4 (DWR, 2003). The Sonoma Creek Watershed, which includes part of the Kenwood Valley Groundwater Basin located northwest of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, is also shown on Figure 2-1 and encompasses an area of 166 square miles (106,680 acres). Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to and northwest of San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is divided into a Baylands Area and an Inland Area as shown in Figure 2-1. The Baylands Area is defined for this study as the area beneath the tidal sloughs adjacent to San Pablo Bay generally containing groundwater with greater than 750 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS). The Sonoma Valley Subbasin, also referred to as Sonoma Valley, is located in southeastern Sonoma County. The Sonoma Valley is a northwest trending, elongated depression. Geologic units dipping toward the center of the valley are bounded on the southwest by the Sonoma Mountains and on the northeast by the Mayacamas Mountains (Figure 2-1). The uppermost part of the valley is relatively flat and stretches from Kenwood to near Glen Ellen. The middle part of the valley is narrower than the upper part and has a hilly topography. This portion is sometimes referred to as the Valley of the Moon and extends southward to near Boyes Hot Springs and includes the Glen Ellen area. The remainder of the valley slopes gently southward to San Pablo Bay, has flat topography, and extends to a maximum width of about 5 miles. Sonoma Creek is the main surface water feature draining the valley. The creek originates in the Mayacamas Mountains in the northeastern area of the watershed. The creek flows into the Kenwood Valley Basin before flowing south into the Sonoma Valley Subbasin and ultimately discharging into San Pablo Bay. Other smaller tributary creeks flow into Sonoma Creek from the east and west. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 3 Figure 2-1: Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 4 The watershed area comprises large tracks of native vegetation, as well as lands used for agriculture, primarily vineyards. Urban, residential, commercial, and industrial development constitutes a relatively small percentage of the watershed area and is primarily located in the valley areas. Sonoma is the largest city in the Study Area. Other cities and unincorporated areas in the valley include Kenwood, Glen Ellen, Boyes Hot Springs, El Verano, and Schellville (Figure 2-1). 2.2 Water Use The Sonoma Valley relies on groundwater, imported surface water, and recycled water to meet domestic, agricultural and urban demands. Based on the USGS study (2006), more than half of the water demand in 2000 was met with groundwater (57%). The remaining demand was met with imported water (36%), recycled water (7%), and local surface water (<1%). The largest use of groundwater in the Sonoma Valley in 2000 was irrigation (72%), followed by rural domestic use (19%), and urban demand (9%). In 2000, total water use in the Sonoma Valley (including groundwater and imported surface water) was estimated at 14,018 acre-feet (AF), of which 48% was used for irrigation, 41% for urban use, and the remaining 11% for rural domestic use. Groundwater serves approximately 25% of the Sonoma Valley population and is the primary source of drinking water supply for rural domestic and other unincorporated areas not being served by urban suppliers. Rural domestic demand is predominantly met by groundwater through privately owned and operated water wells. There are also mutual water companies in the Sonoma Valley that supply multiple households predominantly with groundwater although some companies also provide imported water. Agricultural water demands are largely met by groundwater supplies. It was estimated that as of 2000 the Sonoma Creek Watershed contained approximately 2,000 domestic, agricultural, and public supply wells (USGS, 2006). Imported surface water represents the primary source of drinking water to meet urban demands, which serves approximately 75% of the Sonoma Valley population. These imported water supplies are sourced from the Russian River and are provided via aqueduct by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to the Valley of the Moon Water District (VOMWD) and the City of Sonoma (City) who, in turn, provide water directly to their urban customers. The imported water is supplemented with local groundwater from the City and VOMWD public supply wells. The City and VOMWD boundaries are shown in Figure 2-1. The SCWA manages and operates the wastewater treatment facility owned by the SVCSD. During dry weather months from May through October, the SVCSD provides 1,000 to 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for vineyards, dairies, and pasturelands in the southern part of Sonoma Valley. As of 2007, recycled water accounted for approximately 7% of the total estimated water use in Sonoma Valley (SCWA, December 2007). The current and future areas of recycled water use for irrigation are shown in Figure 2-1. Recycled water irrigation areas are located in southern Inland Area and northern Baylands Area. 2.3 Groundwater Levels and Flow Groundwater levels in the Sonoma Valley are monitored and reported as part of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (GMP) (SCWA, 2011). The majority of wells monitored in the program are voluntary private wells, with a smaller but significant number of publicly-owned water supply wells. As of 2010, there were a total of 141 wells in the water level monitoring program with monitoring conducted generally twice per year in the spring (April) and fall (October/November). Groundwater elevation contour maps are prepared by the Agency for the shallow zone (less than 200-feet deep) and the deep zone (greater than 200-feet deep). Groundwater elevation contour maps for spring 2010 in the shallow and deep zones are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. There is a Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 5 Figure 2-2: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Shallow Zone, Spring 2010 Modified from: SCWA, 2011 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 6 Figure 2-3: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Deep Zone, Spring 2010 Modified from: SCWA, 2011 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 7 groundwater divide within the Kenwood Valley Basin, with groundwater in the northern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a northwestward direction toward Santa Rosa and groundwater in the southern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a southeasterly direction toward the Sonoma Valley Subbasin in both the shallow and deep zones. In general, groundwater in the mountains surrounding the Sonoma Valley flows towards lower elevations and follows the dips of the geologic units toward the center of the valley. Comparison of the shallow and deeper groundwater elevation contour maps indicates that groundwater elevations in the deep zone 1) are similar to groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in northern Sonoma Valley, and 2) are up to 100 feet lower than groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in southern Sonoma Valley, indicating a downward vertical gradient in southern Sonoma Valley. Two groundwater pumping depressions are apparent in the deep zone groundwater elevation contour map (Figure 2-3) southeast of the City of Sonoma and in the El Verano area. Measured groundwater levels are as low as 94 feet below mean sea level (-94 feet msl) southeast of the City and 63 feet below sea level (-63 feet msl) in deep zone wells southwest of El Verano. There is only one groundwater elevation monitoring well between the pumping depression southeast of the City and the area of saline groundwater. Groundwater elevations in this area are uncertain as shown with the dashed and queried zero elevation contour line. As a result, the potential for the pumping depression to draw brackish groundwater further north into the subbasin is not well characterized. This potential brackish water intrusion is being addressed through replacement of pumped groundwater with recycled water for irrigation in and north of the Baylands Area. Continued monitoring and assessment of groundwater levels and groundwater quality will be conducted to assess inland movement of the brackish water. This monitoring and assessment will be included in the triennial SNMP report. Faults can act barriers to groundwater flow. It has been proposed that the Eastside Fault shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-3 may restrict groundwater movement in the deep zone (USGS, 2006); however, no effects on groundwater levels are apparent in Figure 2-3. 2.3.1 Aquifer Parameters The most important sources of groundwater in the Study Area are the Quaternary alluvial deposits, the Glen Ellen Formation, the Huichica Formation, and the Sonoma Volcanics. These geologic units are widely distributed and contain zones of high porosity and permeability. Where the units contain a large fraction of silt and clay sized materials, permeability is greatly reduced. The alluvial units, where sufficiently thick and saturated, are the highest yielding materials in the valley. Most wells, except those near the valley axis, that were drilled in the past few decades are screened in both the alluvial units and deeper formations and volcanics (USGS, 2006). Bay Mud deposits crop out over a large area between Schellville and San Pablo Bay and are underlain by the Huichica and Glen Ellen formations. The Bay Mud exhibits low permeability and contains brackish groundwater. Figure 2-4 shows the surficial geology of the Sonoma Creek Watershed. Figure 2-5 is a cross section along the axis of the valley, and Figure 2-6 is a cross section perpendicular to the valley axis near the southern end of the subbasin (USGS, 2006). The cross sections show that alluvial deposits are at the surface in the northern two-thirds of the valley with Bay Muds at the surface in the southern portion of the valley near San Pablo Bay. In the northern two-thirds of the valley, alluvial deposits are underlain by the Glen Ellen Formation, which overlies the Huichica Formation, which overlies Sonoma Volcanics. In the southern portion of the valley, the Bay Muds are underlain by the Huichica Formation, which overlies the Sonoma Volcanics. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 8 Figure 2-4a: Geology of Sonoma Creek Watershed From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 9 Figure 2-4b: Explanation for Geology of Sonoma Creek Watershed From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 10 Figure 2-5: Cross Section A-A’ From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 11 Figure 2-6: Cross Section D-D’ From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 12 Groundwater in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin occurs under both confined and unconfined conditions. Generally unconfined conditions prevail at depths less than 200 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs). Groundwater is more commonly confined in deeper aquifers found in the Sonoma Volcanics and Huichica and Glen Ellen formations. An unconfined aquifer is saturated with water, and the surface of the water is at atmosphere pressure. The groundwater in a confined aquifer is under pressure. When a well penetrates a relatively impermeable layer (aquitard) that confines the aquifer, the water will rise above the confining layer in the well to the potentiometric (pressure) surface of the confined aquifer. In terms of fate and transport, unconfined aquifers are more vulnerable to releases at the land surface, while for deeper confined aquifers, the confining units provide some protection by limiting downward migration of contaminants. However, improperly constructed and abandoned wells can provide conduits for downward migration of contaminants into confined layers along improperly sealed well casings. In most parts of the valley and watershed, groundwater is obtained from wells that are less than 700 feet deep. 2.3.2 Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction Sonoma Valley is drained by Sonoma Creek, which discharges to San Pablo Bay. Seepage testing conducted by the USGS in 2003 showed Sonoma Creek to be a gaining (groundwater discharging to the creek) creek through most of the valley with the exception of a short reach in the northern part of the watershed where the creek enters the Kenwood Valley Basin from the Mayacamas Mountains crossing the alluvial fan between the mountain front and Highway 12 (USGS, 2006). Based on an average annual rainfall of 29.8 inches per year from 1953 through 2000 measured at the City, the USGS estimated that the Sonoma Creek watershed receives on average 269,000 AFY of precipitation. The mean annual runoff of surface water outflowing from the valley into San Pablo Bay is estimated to be approximately 101,000 AF (USGS, 2006). 3 Existing Groundwater Quality 3.1 Indicator Parameters of Salts and Nutrients Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients selected for the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Total salinity is commonly expressed in terms of TDS in mg/L. TDS (and electrical conductivity data that can be converted to TDS) are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. While TDS can be an indicator of anthropogenic impacts such as infiltration of runoff, soil leaching, and land use, there is also a natural background TDS concentration in groundwater. The background TDS concentration in groundwater can vary considerably based on purity and crystal size of the formation minerals, rock texture and porosity, the regional structure, origin of sediments, the age of the groundwater, and many other factors (Hem, 1989). Nitrate is a widespread contaminant in California groundwater. High levels of nitrate in groundwater are associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facility discharges. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. Nitrate data are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. Natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low, with concentrations typically less than 10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrate (nitrate-NO3) or 2 to 3 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N). Nitrate is commonly reported as either nitrate nitrate-NO3 or nitrate-N; and one can be converted to the other. Nitrate-N is the form of nitrate selected for assessment for this SNMP. 3.2 Water Quality Objectives Water quality objectives provide a reference for assessing groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin. The California Department of Public Health (DPH) has adopted a Secondary Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 13 Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for TDS. SMCLs address aesthetic issues related to taste, odor, or appearance of the water and are not related to health effects, although elevated TDS concentrations in water can damage crops, affect plant growth, and damage municipal and industrial equipment. The recommended SMCL for TDS is 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with an upper limit of 1,000 mg/L. It has a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) has established a basin plan objective (BPO) of 500 mg/L for TDS for municipal and domestic supply in their Basin Plan (December 2010). They have also established a limit for livestock watering at 10,000 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has also established a BPO for EC at 900 micromhos per centimeter (mmhos/cm). The primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate-NO3 is 45 mg/L based on a health concern due to methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby syndrome,” which affects infants, ruminant animals (such as cows and sheep) and infant monogastrics (such as baby pigs and chickens). Elevated levels may also be unhealthy for pregnant women (SWRCB, August 2010). The MCL for nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen (as N) is 10 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has established the BPOs at the MCLs for these constituents. Table 3-1 lists numeric BPOs for groundwater with municipal and domestic water supply and agricultural water supply beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay Region. Table 3-1: Basin Plan Objectives Constituent Units Municipal Concentration Agricultural Concentration TDS mg/L 500 10,000 EC mmhos/cm 900 Nitrate (as NO3) mg/L 45 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) mg/L 10 mg/L - milligrams per liter EC – electrical conductivity mmhos/cm – micromhos per centimeter 3.3 TDS and Nitrate Fate and Transport Salt and nutrient (S/N) fate and transport describes the way salts and nutrients move through an environment or media. In groundwater, it is determined by groundwater flow directions and rate, the characteristics of individual salts and nutrients, and the characteristics of the aquifer media. The S/N loading and unloading from the groundwater subbasin inflows and outflows are discussed below in Sections 4 and 5. Aquifer characteristics, groundwater flow directions and gradients, and surface water/groundwater interaction were discussed above in Section 2. Water has the ability to naturally dissolve salts and nutrients along its journey in the hydrologic cycle. The types and quantity of salts and nutrients present determine whether the water is of suitable quality for its intended uses. Salts and nutrients present in natural water result from many different sources including atmospheric gases and aerosols, weathering and erosion of soil and rocks, and from dissolution of existing minerals below the ground surface. Additional changes in concentrations can result due to ion exchange, precipitation of minerals previously dissolved, and reactions resulting in conversion of some solutes from one form to another such as the conversion of nitrate to gaseous nitrogen. In addition to naturally occurring salts and nutrients, anthropogenic activities can add salts and nutrients. TDS and nitrate are contained in the source water that recharges the Sonoma Valley. Addition of new water supply sources, either through intentional or unintentional recharge, can change the groundwater quality either for the worse by introducing contamination or for the better by diluting some existing contaminants in the aquifer. Another important influence on S/Ns in groundwater is unintentional recharge, which can occur, for example, when irrigation water exceeds evaporation and plant needs and Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 14 infiltrates into the aquifer (i.e., irrigation return flow). Irrigation return flows can carry fertilizers high in nitrogen and soil amendments high in salts from the yard or field into the aquifer. Similarly, recycled water used for irrigation also introduces salts and nutrients. TDS is considered conservative in that it does not readily attenuate in the environment. In contrast, processes that affect the fate and transport of nitrogen compounds are complex, with transformation, attenuation, uptake, and leaching in various environments. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. It is soluble in water and can easily pass through soil to the groundwater table. 3.4 Monitoring Programs Groundwater quality in the Study Area has historically been monitored under different monitoring programs including:  California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Monitoring  California DPH Required Monitoring  Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program Monitoring  USGS Special Studies These monitoring programs are described in more detail in the SNMP Monitoring Program TM. All available groundwater quality data have been compiled by the Agency. All available TDS, EC, and nitrate data were used to evaluate S/N groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin for this SNMP. 3.5 Analysis Methodologies 3.5.1 Lateral and Vertical Discretization Initially, the available groundwater quality data and well completion information were assessed to determine if the subbasin groundwater quality characterization could be divided into subareas and layers to assess differences in groundwater quality laterally and vertically. Unfortunately, well completion information for many of the monitored wells is unavailable, and the available data are considered insufficient to differentiate groundwater quality in the shallow and deep zones. The Baylands Area shown in Figure 2-1 is defined as the area with median TDS concentrations greater than 750 mg/L. This general area was recognized by Kunkel and Upson (1960) and the USGS (2006) as an area of historical saline groundwater. Due to the elevated salt in this area, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. Accordingly, this area is considered separately from the remainder of the subbasin referred to as the Inland Area. Figure 3-1 shows that there were a limited number of wells in the Baylands Area based on DWR well logs acquired for the USGS study (2006). Many of the wells in the Baylands Area have been destroyed and agricultural land use in the area is limited to non-irrigated crops such as hay. Available monitoring data do not indicate clear differences between groundwater quality in the northern and southern portion of the Inland Area. Therefore average groundwater quality in the subbasin is characterized for the Inland Area, the Baylands Area, and the combined Inland and Baylands areas as one aquifer. This approach was presented and approved by the Regional Water Board at the January 2013 project meeting (RMC, January 2013). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 15 Figure 3-1: Wells in Study Area From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 16 3.5.2 Groundwater Quality Averaging Period In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Recycled Water Policy, the available assimilative capacity shall be calculated by comparing the BPOs with the average ambient S/N concentrations in the subbasin over the most recent five years of available data (2007 to 2012) or a time period approved by the Regional Water Board. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2 show the number of wells sampled over the history of sampling in the subbasin. As shown in the figure and table, a significant number of wells were sampled in the 2000 to 2006 time period, predominantly as part of the work conducted by the USGS (2006). In order to provide a more robust dataset, data collected during the 12 year period from 2000 to 2012 are used to assess the average groundwater quality in the subbasin. This approach was presented and approved by the Regional Water Board at the January 2013 project meeting (RMC, January 2013). Evaluation of concentration trends finds overall relatively stable or flat trends for TDS and nitrate in most wells in the subbasin, which also supports use of a longer averaging period. Table 3-2: Summary of Available Water Quality Data Period EC TDS Nitrate 1940-1949 1 4 2 1950-1959 48 23 20 1960-1969 7 9 9 1970-1979 6 7 7 1980-1989 4 7 5 1990-1999 5 20 1 2000-2006 56 28 10 2007-2012 23 51 41 EC – electrical conductivity TDS – total dissolved solids Figure 3-2: Summary of Available Water Quality Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 17 3.5.3 Calculation of Existing Ambient Groundwater Quality and Assimilative Capacity The median groundwater concentration for samples collected from individual wells over the 12-year averaging period for TDS and nitrate are plotted on maps with different size and color circles representing median concentrations (dots maps). Well median concentrations were selected over arithmetic average concentrations to represent the ambient groundwater quality in each well. The median statistic is recommended over averages, because the median: 1) does not assume a normal distribution of data, 2) minimizes the effect of potential and/or actual data outliers without removing them from consideration, and 3) can be reliably calculated for datasets with a mix of censored (non-detect) and non-censored values, which is often important for nitrate datasets. The TDS and nitrate dots maps are then used to develop concentration contour maps for TDS and nitrate. The concentration contour maps were developed by first manually contouring the 2000-2012 median concentrations to address concentration variability in data-dense areas and to control the interpretation in data-poor areas. In some areas, older (pre-2000) water quality data were used to guide contouring (i.e. Baylands Area). Following manual contouring, the contours were used to generate interpolated surfaces representing the concentation of TDS and nitrate using the GIS Spatial Analyst “Topo to Raster” tool. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations in each area were directly extracted from the interpolated surfaces using the GIS Spatial Analyst “Zonal Statistics” tool. To calculate a volume-weighted average concentration for the combined Inland and Baylands Areas, the average concentration in each area is weighted by the representative volume of water in storage in each area. A uniform saturated aquifer thickness of 400 feet is assumed. Groundwater in storage is calculated by multiplying the constant saturated thickness (400 feet) by a constant effective porosity of 0.1. The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for each area (Inland and Baylands) and for the entire subbasin are compared to the BPOs to determine the current available assimilative capacity. Assimilative capacity is simply the difference between the average subbasin concentration and the BPO. 3.5.4 Time-Concentration Plots and Trends Time-concentration plots are prepared and evaluated to assess whether TDS and nitrate groundwater concentrations across the subbasin have been historically increasing, decreasing, or showing no significant change. The trend analysis facilitates the comparison of observed concentration trends in individual wells with simulated average groundwater concentration trends from the mixing model over the baseline period, from water year (WY) 1996-97 (WY 1997) through WY 2005-06 (WY 2006), for calibration purposes. A water year is from October 1 to September 30 of the following year and is commonly used for hydrogeologic analysis in North America. 3.5.5 Simulation of Baseline and Future Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality concentrations for TDS and nitrate are simulated for the baseline period and future planning period using a mixing model. Concentration estimates are based on water and S/N inflows and outflows (balances) mixed with the volume of water in the aquifer and the average ambient groundwater quality. The baseline period is from WY 1997 to 2006. This baseline period was selected based on the period for which water balances were available from the USGS (2006) groundwater flow model and updated groundwater model (Bauer, 2008). The future planning period is from WY 2014 to WY 2035 based on the planning horizon in supporting planning documents. The baseline period water balances estimate all groundwater inflows and outflows for the baseline period and the associated change in storage based on estimates provided in the groundwater model and updated model. Not all components of inflow important to the SNMP are specifically quantified by the model. For example, quantified model inflows include areal recharge from precipitation, stream recharge, and Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 18 mountain front recharge. Mountain front recharge includes both subsurface inflow and stream recharge at the base of the mountains. Other recharge sources such as irrigation return flows and septic system recharge are important sources of S/Ns, but are not specifically quantified in the model water balances. Accordingly these flows are quantified as part of the SNMP analysis as components of other model- defined inflows, while honoring the total modeled water balance flows. For the future planning period, the average of the baseline period water balance is used for each year of the future planning period and any changes in inflows suggested in the area planning documents are superimposed on top of the baseline averages. Future changes simulated include increased use of recycled water for irrigation and managed stormwater capture. TDS and nitrate concentrations are associated with each water balance inflow and outflow component. The TDS and nitrate concentrations of the various inflow components were estimated as described in Section 4. In order to simulate the effect of current and future S/N loading on groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, the spreadsheet mixing model mixes the volume and quality of each inflow and outflow with the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and tracks the annual change in groundwater storage and S/N mass for the baseline and future planning period. The existing volume of water in the groundwater basin is calculated based on the subbasin or subarea (Inland and Baylands) surface areas, a uniform saturated thickness of 400 feet and a porosity of 0.1. The mixing model produces an average TDS and nitrate concentration for each year of the baseline and future planning period. The baseline period mixing model simulation is conducted in order to calibrate the loading factors. The simulated baseline period annual concentrations and trends are compared with the predominant observed groundwater quality concentrations and trends. If the observed and simulated concentrations and trends are not in reasonable agreement, loading factors can be adjusted to achieve a more reasonable match. All loading factor assumptions generated from the baseline calibration process are applied to the future loading analysis. Similar to the water balance assumption, for the future planning period, the average of the baseline period S/N balance is used for each year of the future planning period, and any changes in S/N loading are superimposed on top of the baseline averages. As mentioned above, future changes simulated include increased use of recycled water for irrigation and managed stormwater capture. 3.5.6 Use of Assimilative Capacity by Recycled Water Projects In accordance with the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy, a recycled water irrigation project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a SNMP is being prepared, may be approved by the local RWQCB by demonstrating through a S/N mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity (or multiple projects use less than 20% of available assimilative capacity). Accordingly, the recycled water irrigation projects in place and planned for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are assessed in terms of their use of available assimilative capacity. 3.6 TDS in Groundwater Figure 3-3 shows the median TDS concentrations in wells sampled between 2000 and 2012. EC data were also used for the analysis. For wells with only EC data, EC was converted to TDS. The conversion factor was estimated from the EC/TDS relationship in wells that had both TDS and EC data. The upper chart on Figure 3-4 shows the strong relationship between TDS and EC. The bottom chart on Figure 3-4 shows ratio between the two measurements used to convert EC to TDS. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 19 Figure 3-3: Median Well Concentrations (2000 to 2012) Total Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 20 Figure 3-4: Total Dissolved Solids/Electrical Conductivity Relationship TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter EC – electrical conductivity μS/cm – microsiemens per centimeter Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 21 Generally, relatively low TDS concentrations (less than 500 mg/L) are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The BPO for TDS is 500 mg/L. A few wells with elevated concentrations (above 750 mg/L) are seen in the southeastern portion of the subbasin. The southeastern portion of the subbasin is an area of historical brackish groundwater. Kunkel and Upson (1960) mapped the zero groundwater elevation contour and stated that generally, salty water was found south of this contour line in the shallow zone. The area south of the historical zero groundwater elevation contour is shown in the hatched area in Figure 3-3. A TDS concentration contour map was generated based on the Figure 3-3 well median data plus some available older data in the area near San Pablo Bay. Figure 3-5 is a TDS concentration contour map. Again, relatively low (less than 500 mg/L) TDS concentrations are seen in most of the subbasin. As discussed above, the Baylands Area is defined as the area beneath the tidal sloughs adjacent to San Pablo Bay generally containing groundwater with TDS concentrations above 750 mg/L. This area along with the historical brackish groundwater area are illustrated on Figure 3-5. The area of very high TDS near San Pablo Bay with TDS greater than 1,500 mg/L is based on older well sampling conducted between 1954 and 1973 by DWR. Use of these older data is conservative in that their use results in higher average concentrations in the Baylands Area and there are no more recent data available for this area. The average TDS concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6. The average Inland Area TDS concentration is 372 mg/L, well below the BPO of 500 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 128 mg/L. As expected the average TDS concentration in the Baylands Area is high, with an average concentration of 1,220 mg/L, resulting in no available capacity. The average TDS concentration for the combined subbasin including both the Inland and Baylands Areas is 635 mg/L, also resulting in no available assimilative capacity. The analysis indicates the importance of preventing additional saline intrusion into the Inland Area. The USGS (2006) evaluated the change in EC in the southeastern area over time. Figure 3-7 shows the Kunkel and Upson area of historical brackish groundwater based on the zero groundwater elevation contour and EC contours mapped by the USGS based on September 2003 water quality data. The more recent USGS mapping shows both the 1,000 μS/cm and 500 μS/cm EC contours. USGS stated that the generalized contour lines suggest that the area affected by brackish groundwater in the southern part of the Sonoma Valley shifted between 1949–52 and 2003. The northern edge of the brackish area may have advanced as much as 1 mi north of Highway 12/121. This apparent movement of brackish groundwater may have been in response to groundwater pumping and the resulting depression of hydraulic heads southeast of the City (Figure 2-3). In contrast, the northwestern part of the 1949–52 area of brackish groundwater, near the intersections of Highways 12 and 121 and Sonoma Creek, may have diminished between 1949-52 and 2003. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 22 Figure 3-5: Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 23 Table 3-3: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 635 372 1,220 BPO 500 500 500 Available Assimilative Capacity -135 128 -720 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Figure 3-6: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity BPO = 500 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands AreaAverage TDS (mg/L)Total  Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 24 Figure 3-7: Comparison of Saline Area 1949-52 and EC Data 2003 From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 25 The USGS report (2006) further concludes that conductivity measurements from September 2003 indicate that significant spatial variability in water quality exists with depth in the vicinity of the saline groundwater area. The vertical variability in conductivity may be illustrated by comparing the values from samples of two adjacent wells of different depths. For example, the conductivities of water from wells 5N/5W-29R6 (less than 200 feet deep) and -29R7 (greater than 500 feet deep), were 720 and 1,560 μS/cm, respectively (Figure 3-7). The variation of conductivity with depth may be indicative of different sources of salinity in the southern part of the Sonoma Valley. The primary source of salinity to shallow wells may be modern saltwater that has intruded the Bay Mud deposits along the tidal sloughs that extend northward from San Pablo Bay. High evaporation rates in the marshlands also could increase salinity in the shallow groundwater in or near the marshes. The source of salinity to intermediate and deep wells may be connate water incorporated into the sediments during deposition or modern saltwater in areas where abandoned or improperly constructed wells may act as conduits for the downward movement of surface water or shallow groundwater. The Baylands brackish groundwater area is a S/N concern in the Sonoma Valley. One of the objectives of developing and increasing the use of recycled water for irrigation is to reduce groundwater pumping in the southern Sonoma Valley, prevent additional saline intrusion, and potentially reduce the existing inland extent of brackish groundwater. Irrigation with recycled water began in 1992 and is projected to increase in the future. To date, the data are insufficient to determine if the replacement of groundwater with recycled water has reduced the areal extent of brackish groundwater. However, continued monitoring of this area is a key component of the ongoing GMP and SNMP. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show time-concentration plots for TDS and EC, respectively along with the applicable BPO. The well dot and charts are shaded to indicate the wells depths with red wells and charts indicating wells less than 200 feet deep, yellow wells and charts indicating wells between 200 and 500 feet deep, and green wells and charts indicating wells greater than 500 feet deep. Wells and charts shaded gray indicated wells with unknown completion depths. Both figures show relatively flat TDS and EC trends in the subbasin indicating generally stable conditions. However, Wells 5N/5W-28R1 and 5N/5W- 28N1 located in the southern portion of the subbasin near the Baylands Area show modest increasing concentration trends, which could be attributed increasing saline intrusion as well as other sources. One well is an intermediate zone well (200 to 500 feet deep) and the other is a shallow zone well (less than 200 feet deep). The shallow well (5N/5W-28N1) is owned by a dairy, and this well also shows increasing nitrate concentrations as discussed in the next section. Therefore, it is possible that the increasing TDS/EC concentrations could be associated with local surface sources rather than saline intrusion. The other intermediate well with increasing TDS/EC does not have a similar increasing nitrate trend. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 26 Figure 3-8: Time-Concentration Plots Total Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 27 Figure 3-9: Time-Concentration Plots Electrical Conductivity Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 28 3.7 Nitrate in Groundwater Figure 3-10 shows the median nitrate-N concentrations in wells sampled between 2000 and 2012. Generally low nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The nitrate-N BPO is 10 mg/L. While median nitrate-N concentrations are below the BPO in all wells, median nitrate concentrations in a few wells are between 5 and 10 mg/L. A nitrate concentration contour map (Figure 3-11) was generated based on the median well data shown on Figure 3-10 plus available older (pre-2000) data in the southern Baylands Area. Again, relatively low (less than 1.0 mg/L) nitrate-N concentrations are seen in most of the subbasin. The area of nitrate between 2.6 and 5.0 mg/L near the San Pablo Bay is based on older well sampling conducted by the DWR between 1954 and 1973. The average nitrate concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-12. The average Inland Area nitrate concentration is 0.06 mg/L, well below the BPO of 10 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 9.94 mg/L. The average nitrate concentration in the Baylands Area is 0.07 mg/L, resulting in 9.93 mg/L of available assimilative capacity. The average nitrate concentration for the combined subbasin including both the Inland and Baylands areas is 0.06 mg/L, resulting in 9.94 mg/L of assimilative capacity. Table 3-4: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 0.06 0.06 0.07 BPO 10.00 10.00 10.00 Available Assimilative Capacity 9.94 9.94 9.93 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Figure 3-13 show time-concentration plots for nitrate-N along with the applicable BPO. As discussed above, the wells and charts are shaded to indicate relative well depth. Generally flat concentrations are observed in most wells in the subbasin, typically well below the BPO of 10 mg/L. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 29 Figure 3-10: Median Well Concentrations (2000 to 2012) Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 30 Figure 3-11: Nitrate as N Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 31 Figure 3-12: Average Nitrate Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity BPO = 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands AreaAverage Nitrate as N (mg/L)Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 32 Figure 3-13: Time-Concentration Plots Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 33 4 Baseline Period Analysis The baseline period water balance tracks groundwater inflows and outflows and storage changes from WY 1996-97 through WY 2005-06. This period represents a recent time period characterized by average climatic conditions. The primary source of information used to develop the water balance is the Sonoma Valley groundwater flow model. The flow model was originally developed by the USGS (2006) and later updated by Bauer (2008). Annual water balances in the flow model were developed from WY 1974-75 through WY 2005-06 (historical flow model period). Groundwater recharge from natural precipitation in the flow model for the baseline period represented 94% of the natural recharge over the historical flow model period. Major inflows accounted for in the baseline water balance include:  deep percolation of precipitation and mountain front recharge,  natural stream recharge,  agricultural irrigation water return flow,  domestic/municipal irrigation water (including recycled water) return flow,  septic system return flow, and  subsurface groundwater inflow (from Baylands Area) Major outflows accounted for in the water balance include:  groundwater pumping,  groundwater discharge to streams, and  subsurface groundwater outflow (to Baylands Area) Areal anthropogenic recharge sources (return flows from agricultural and municipal irrigation and septic systems) are not independently considered in the flow model but instead subsumed within the model areal recharge rates. Model areal recharge rates were apportioned into natural sources (precipitation) and anthropogenic sources (return flows) based on the results of the S/N loading evaluation conducted for the SNMP (RMC, 2013). 4.1 Baseline Water Balance Table 4-1 summarizes the baseline water balance for the Inland Area of the subbasin. Figure 4-1 graphically illustrates the water balance. Inflows are stacked on top of one another above the zero line in the figure, while outflows are stacked below the zero line. The cumulative change in groundwater storage over the baseline period is depicted by the red line in the figure.   Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 34 Table 4-1: Baseline Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) AF – acre-feet Mtn. – mountain WY – water year     1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AverageINFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 117,453 50,265 41,773 1,081 66,655 20,883 17,009 69,074 58,101 56,852 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 5,350 5,596 6,017 6,891 6,662 6,737 7,266 6,675 6,256 6,180 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074Septic System Return 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 54 56 54 49 48 49 47 48 51 52 51TOTAL INFLOWS 126,335 59,396 51,322 11,500 76,844 31,147 27,801 79,276 67,887 66,563 59,807OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,204 -8,281 -8,411 -8,466 -8,484 -8,476 -8,472 -8,654 -8,832 -8,576 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -75,270 -50,379 -40,834 -25,375 -38,768 -27,899 -23,797 -39,308 -40,798 -41,599 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -14,599 -12,864 -11,375 -8,737 -10,071 -9,186 -8,154 -9,955 -10,668 -10,821 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,667 -3,562 -3,218 -2,656 -2,802 -2,738 -2,481 -2,811 -3,070 -3,111 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -101,739 -75,086 -63,838 -45,234 -60,125 -48,298 -42,905 -60,727 -63,368 -64,108 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)24,596 -15,690 -12,515 -33,734 16,719 -17,151 -15,104 18,549 4,520 2,456 -2,736CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)24,596 8,906 -3,609 -37,343 -20,625 -37,776 -52,880 -34,331 -29,812 -27,356All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 35 Figure 4-1: Baseline Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) ‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,000‐150,000‐100,000‐50,000050,000100,000150,0001996‐971997‐981998‐991999‐002000‐012001‐022002‐032003‐042004‐052005‐06Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricutural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Storage Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 36 4.1.1 Inflows As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1, total annual subbasin inflows over the baseline period ranged from 11,500 AF in WY 2000 up to 126,335 AF in WY 1997, averaging 59,807 AFY. The large variability in annual inflows is dependent primarily on the volume of natural recharge derived from areal precipitation and mountain front recharge, which averaged 49,915 AFY (or 83% of total inflows). It is noted that mountain front recharge is simulated using the recharge package in the flow model and, while concentrated along the basin margins, is not separated from areal precipitation recharge. Sonoma Creek leakage is the second largest source of recharge (6,363 AFY on average; or 11% of total inflows). Return flows from agricultural irrigation (1,415 AFY), municipal irrigation (1,074 AFY), and septic systems (899 AFY) collectively contribute about 6% of total inflows. Agricultural recycled water return flows (91 AFY) and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area (51 AFY) represent minor inflows. 4.1.2 Outflows As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1, total annual subbasin outflows over the baseline period averaged -62,543 AFY. The largest subbasin outflow is represented by groundwater discharge to streams. The model differentiates between groundwater discharge to tributary streams of Sonoma Creek (-40,403 AFY on average; 65% of total outflows) and groundwater discharge to Sonoma Creek (-10,643 AFY on average; 17% of total outflows). The next largest outflow is groundwater pumping (-8,486 AFY on average, 14% of total outflows) followed by subsurface outflow to the southern Baylands Area (-3,011 AFY; 5% of total outflows). While net subsurface flow is from the Inland area to the Baylands Area, a small portion of groundwater flows from the Baylands area to the Inland area (51 AFY). 4.1.3 Change in Storage Over the baseline period, a total of -27,356 AF was lost from groundwater storage, equivalent to -2,736 AFY on average. 4.2 Water Quality of Inflows and Outflows Initial and adjusted TDS and nitrate concentration estimates for subbasin inflows and outflows in the water balance are described below followed by a discussion of the baseline mixing model calibration and results. 4.2.1 Sonoma Creek Leakage TDS and nitrate data from available surface water quality monitoring stations in the watershed were assessed to characterize the water quality of stream leakage from Sonoma Creek, the second largest subbasin inflow. Figure 4-2 shows the locations of DWR and USGS surface water quality monitoring stations along Sonoma Creek and its tributaries. As shown in the figure, there are two USGS and fourteen DWR surface water monitoring stations with water quality data. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 37 Figure 4-2: Surface Water Monitoring Locations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 38 USGS stations USGS Sonoma Creek station 11458433 – Since October 2008, daily EC has been measured for this station located in the northern portion of the subbasin. From October 2008 through March 2013, daily TDS concentrations (estimated from EC data using the regression equation on Figure 3-3) ranged from 95 to 238 mg/L, averaging 191 mg/L. No nitrate data are available. USGS Sonoma Creek station 11458500 – While continuous EC data are not available for this station located in the central portion of the subbasin, discrete water quality data are available for two sampling events in 2002 and 2003:  TDS concentrations were 248 and 210 mg/l in November 2002 and June 2003, respectively.  Nitrate concentrations were non-detect (<0.06 mg/L) and 0.25 mg/L in November 2002 and June 2003, respectively. DWR stations Water quality sampling was conducted in May and November 2010 at fourteen DWR surface water monitoring stations shown on Figure 4-2. Table 4-2 summarizes the TDS and nitrate results. TDS concentrations for the fourteen DWR stations range from 140 to 301 mg/L. On average, TDS concentrations for the May 2010 samples (191 mg/L) were slightly lower than for the November 2010 samples (229 mg/L). This difference is expected given that the flow rate in Sonoma Creek (measured at USGS station 11458500) was much higher on May 4 and 5 (above 30 cubic feet per second [cfs]) (i.e. comprised predominantly of storm runoff versus groundwater discharge), compared to approximately 8 cfs on average from November 1 through 16. Average TDS concentrations of Sonoma Creek samples were only slightly higher (216 mg/L) compared to those collected from the other four tributary creeks (190 mg/L). The overall average TDS concentration for the fourteen DWR stations was 209 mg/L. For the SNMP, a constant TDS concentration of 210 mg/L was applied to Sonoma Creek leakage for the baseline period of WY 1996-97 to WY 2005-06. Nitrate concentrations for the fourteen DWR stations range from 0.01 to 1.2 mg/L. There is no significant difference in nitrate concentrations between the May and November samples. Average nitrate concentrations of samples collected from Sonoma Creek were lower (0.19 mg/L) compared to those collected from the other four tributary creeks (0.40 mg/L). The average nitrate concentration for the fourteen DWR stations was 0.24 mg/L. For the SNMP, a constant nitrate-N concentration of 0.19 mg/L was applied to Sonoma Creek leakage for the baseline period of WY 1996-97 to WY 2005-06. 4.2.2 Deep Percolation of Areal Precipitation and Mountain Front Recharge Recharge from deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge represents 65% of total subbasin inflows and is the primary controlling S/N load factor. Generally, precipitation contains minimal salts and nutrients. However, due to its low solute content, precipitation also dissolves (or leaches) salts and nutrients along its subsurface flow path from near-surface soils through the vadose zone sediments and saturated zone sediments. The degree of leaching is dependent on numerous site-specific factors and is difficult to predict reliably. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 39 Table 4-2: 2010 DWR Surface Water Quality Monitoring Results Station ID Stream Sampling Date TDS (mg/L) Nitrate-N (mg/L) SVGW-1 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 198 0.07 11/01/10 214 0.16 SVGW-2 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 213 0.05 11/15/10 301 SVGW-3 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 225 0.02 11/01/10 231 0.14 11/15/10 0.20 SVGW-4 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 218 0.02 11/01/10 230 0.32 11/16/10 0.01 SVGW-5 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 204 0.36 11/16/10 234 0.09 SVGW-6 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 186 0.32 11/01/10 196 0.20 SVGW-7 Nathanson Creek 05/05/10 202 1.20 11/02/10 235 0.97 SVGW-8 Carriger Creek 05/05/10 171 0.07 SVGW-9 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 204 0.27 11/01/10 231 0.27 SVGW-10 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 194 0.25 11/02/10 222 0.23 SVGW-11 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 187 0.27 11/01/10 221 0.20 SVGW-12 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 189 0.32 11/01/10 214 0.23 SVGW-13 Calabazas Creek 05/05/10 140 0.27 11/01/10 213 0.23 SVGW-14 Yulupa Creek 05/05/10 140 0.05 11/01/10 230 0.02 Average  May 2010 Samples 191 0.25 November 2010 Samples 229 0.25 Sonoma Creek Samples Only 216 0.19 All Samples 209 0.24 TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter Conf. – confluence Hwy - Highway Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 40 TDS concentrations for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge were estimated from available groundwater quality of wells located in the watershed outside of the subbasin. Figure 4-3 shows the median TDS concentrations (from 2000 to 2012) of 43 wells in the watershed outside of the subbasin. Median TDS concentrations for these wells ranged from 160 to 580 mg/L with an average of 245 mg/L. Based on these data, an initial constant concentration of 245 mg/L TDS was applied to deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge for the loading estimate. Based on the mixing model calibration, a final adjusted TDS concentration of 250 mg/L for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge was applied. The basis for this TDS adjustment is discussed in Section 4.3. The process by which airborne pollutants are deposited on the ground surface is known as dry deposition. Nitrogen is one of the pollutants commonly associated with dry deposition. Additionally, nitrogen leaching from dry deposition can occur. Nitrate concentrations for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge could not be estimated in the same manner as TDS, because there are no nitrate data for wells in the watershed outside of the subbasin. The USEPA manages the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), a national air quality monitoring network that provides data to assess trends in atmospheric deposition, among other purposes. The closest CASTNET monitoring station to the Sonoma Valley is in Hopland, California (CASTNET ID CA45) approximately 60 miles to the northwest of the valley. Annual data for the Hopland station show that precipitation nitrate concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.04 mg/L over the baseline period, with an average of 0.02 mg/L. Available nitrate deposition maps indicate that precipitation nitrate concentrations increase slightly to the south of the station toward Sonoma Valley. For the loading estimate, a constant nitrate concentration of 0.06 mg/L, equivalent to the ambient average nitrate concentration in the subbasin, was applied to deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge. 4.2.3 Return Flows – Agricultural (Groundwater and Recycled Water), Municipal, and Septic System Source water used for irrigation includes imported water, groundwater, and recycled water. In order to determine the quality of irrigation return flows that percolate to groundwater, the S/N concentrations for each source water used for irrigation was characterized. In addition to the S/N concentrations of the source water, S/Ns are added through use and concentrated by evapotranspiration, added through fertilizer use, and removed by plant uptake and attenuation processes in the root zone. Nutrient plant uptake is the process by which plants absorb nutrients from applied water and surrounding soil. For the loading estimate, TDS and nitrogen mass loads for agricultural (groundwater and recycled water source water) and municipal (groundwater and imported water source water) irrigation and septic system return flows were estimated. Documentation of the loading estimates for these return flows are provided in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013) included in Appendix C. Salt and nutrient loading for the return flows were extracted from the RMC loading model based on the land use category, irrigation source water, and presence of septic systems. Loading from agricultural return flows include grasslands, irrigated and non-irrigated agricultural lands, farmsteads, concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs) and dairies. Municipal return flows include paved areas, urban, commercial, and industrial sources. For the mixing model, the TDS and nitrogen mass load for each return flow component was mixed with its respective annual return flow volume to obtain a concentration. For the loading estimate, it was conservatively assumed that all nitrogen mass is converted to nitrate. Based on initial simulation results for the baseline period, nitrate loading from return flows was reduced by 15% to account for attenuation processes beneath the soil root zone and septic system, in order to provide a better match between simulated average concentrations and observed regional trends. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 41 Figure 4-3: Median TDS Concentration (2000 to 2012) Watershed Area Wells Outside Subbasin Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 42 Table 4-3 shows the initial calculated and adjusted (during calibration) TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations for each return flow component. The adjusted concentrations are applied as a constant concentration over the baseline period. Table 4-3: Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Mass and Concentrations for Baseline Period Analysis Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFYmg/Lmg/Lmg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Return 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Return 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted during calibration. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter As shown in Table 4-3, the initial and final adjusted TDS concentration of agricultural return flow (groundwater and recycled water source water) at about 4,300 mg/L is the highest of the return flow components. Differences between agricultural return flow concentrations/mass for groundwater and recycled water are attributable to differences in source water quality. The TDS concentration of municipal return flow (1,182 mg/L) is lower than for agricultural return flows. Septic system return flows have the lowest TDS concentration (572 mg/L) compared to the agricultural and municipal return flows. Overall, the volume weighted-average TDS concentration of the agricultural, municipal, and septic system return flows is 2,552 mg/L. Initial nitrate concentrations in the table represent the concentration of return flows at the base of the soil root zone or at the septic system. Based on the mixing model calibration, the nitrate concentration for each individual return flow component was adjusted downward by 15% in the mixing model to account for additional nitrate attenuation by soil bacteria below the root zone/septic system. The basis for this adjustment is described in more detail in Section 4.3. For nitrate, initial and adjusted agricultural return flow (groundwater and recycled water source water) have the same concentrations (28.0 mg/L and 23.8 mg/L, respectively). Similar to TDS, the initial and adjusted nitrate concentration of municipal return flow (23.9 mg/L and 20.3, respectively) are lower than for agricultural returns. Septic system return flows have a higher initial and adjusted nitrate concentrations (30.0 mg/L and 25.5 mg/L, respectively) compared to the agricultural and municipal return flows. Overall, the volume weighted-average initial and adjusted nitrate concentrations of the agricultural, municipal, and septic system return flows are 27.0 mg/L and 23.0 mg/L, respectively. 4.2.4 Subsurface Inflows from Baylands Area While groundwater levels and the flow model-based water balance indicate that subsurface groundwater flows generally from the Inlands area to the Baylands Area, there is a small component of subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area. This is likely caused by groundwater pumping, which has created a pumping depression in the southern portion of the subbasin. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 43 The concentrations applied to subsurface inflows from the Baylands Area were assumed to be the current average concentration in the Baylands Area (1,220 mg/L for TDS and 0.07 mg/L for nitrate-N). 4.3 Mixing Model Calibration and Salt and Nutrient Balance In order to simulate the effect of current S/N loading on groundwater quality in the Inland Area of the subbasin, a spreadsheet mixing model was developed. As discussed in Section 3.5.5, the simulated baseline period concentrations and trends are compared to the predominant pattern of observed concentrations and trends. Loading factors may be adjusted (calibrated) to achieve a better match between simulated and observed concentrations and trends. Based on initial baseline simulations, the estimated concentration for one TDS loading factor was adjusted. For the final calibration, the TDS concentration for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge was adjusted upwards from 245 mg/L to 250 mg/L. This adjustment resulted in a more reasonable match between simulated and observed TDS trends. With respect to nitrate, preliminary mixing model results indicated that initial nitrate loading to groundwater was likely overestimated, resulting in the average concentration of nitrate in the Inland Area to increase measurably over the baseline period. For the final calibration, nitrate loading from return flows was reduced by 15% in the mixing model to account for additional attenuation by soil bacteria below the root zone and septic system, which was not considered in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). No other inflow loading estimates were adjusted for the baseline period calibration. Figure 4-4 shows the final simulated average subbasin TDS and nitrate concentrations over the 10-year baseline period (WY 1996 represents the hypothetical initial water quality condition equivalent to the current ambient condition). Figure 4-4: Final Simulated Baseline Average Groundwater Concentrations for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 300 320 340 360 380 400 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Nitrate as N (mg/L)TDS (mg/L)Water Year Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 44 As shown in the figure, simulated average subbasin TDS concentrations vary slightly from year to year, but exhibit no change over the 10-year baseline period. This flat trend compares well to observed flat trends in wells across the subbasin over the baseline period, as indicated in TDS and EC time- concentration plots shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively. In contrast to the TDS trend, simulated average nitrate-N concentrations increase by about 0.5 mg/L over the baseline period, despite nitrate loading from return flows being reduced by 15% to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system. Observed nitrate concentrations in monitoring wells across the subbasin (see Figure 3-13) are not increasing regionally, but instead show overall flat or stable concentrations over time. The discrepancy between simulated and observed trends may be caused by an overestimate of the nitrate load due to one or more of the following: 1. assumption that 100% of nitrogen is converted to nitrate; 2. potential underestimation of ambient average groundwater nitrate concentrations due to limited spatial distribution of wells with recent nitrate data; 3. Application of all nitrate loading associated with recycled water use within the Inlands area in the mixing model, despite portions of existing (and proposed future) recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2-1), 4. Underestimation of nitrate attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model For the reasons mentioned above, simulated nitrate concentrations generated from the calibrated mixing model are likely conservative and overestimated for both baseline and future nitrogen loading. While application of higher nitrate attenuation rate was considered, given the limited distribution of monitoring wells with long-term nitrate trend data in the subbasin, a 15% attenuation rate was maintained. Table 4-4 and Figure 4-5 show the baseline period TDS mass balance for the Inland Area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The mass balance is based on the annual volumetric flows and final calibrated TDS concentrations applied to each S/N loading factor. As shown in table and figure, the largest TDS load is from deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge, which represents 57% of the overall TDS loading to the subbasin. Agricultural (groundwater source water) return is the second largest TDS load (28% of total loading), followed by Sonoma Creek leakage (6%) and municipal return (6%). Septic system return, agricultural (recycled water) return, and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area each represent less than 2% of the total TDS loading in the subbasin. The annual change in TDS mass varies annually from about -9,000 tons to +5,600 tons. Over the baseline period, TDS mass decreased by about 15,300 tons. It is noted that the direction (positive or negative) of the change in mass does not necessarily correlate to a change in average TDS concentration in the same direction (increase or decrease). This is best explained by an example: in WY 2000-01, TDS mass in the subbasin increased by 5,400 tons. However, the average subbasin TDS concentration decreased by 1.8 mg/L that year, because groundwater storage gains outweighed the positive change in TDS mass that year due to the large influx of low-TDS areal precipitation and mountain front recharge. This example demonstrates the importance of evaluating the mass balance within the context of the water balance. Table 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show the nitrate mass balance for the baseline period for the Inland area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. As shown in table and figure, the largest nitrate load is agricultural (groundwater source water) return, which represents approximately 43% of the overall nitrate loading to the subbasin. Municipal return is the second largest TDS load (28% of total loading), followed by septic system return (20%), deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge (4%) and agricultural (recycled water source water) return (3%). Sonoma Creek leakage and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area represent minor nitrate loading factors in the subbasin. The change in nitrate mass varies annually from about +60 tons to +101 tons. Over the baseline period, nitrate mass increased by about 807 tons. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 45 Table 4-4: Baseline TDS Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AverageINFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 39,988 17,113 14,222 368 22,694 7,110 5,791 23,517 19,781 19,356 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,527 1,598 1,718 1,968 1,902 1,924 2,075 1,906 1,786 1,765 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538Municipal Irrigation Return 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inlow from Baylands 89 93 89 82 79 81 77 79 85 86 84TOTAL INFLOWS 52,714 29,913 27,138 13,526 35,783 20,223 19,051 36,611 32,761 32,315 30,003OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,149 -4,116 -4,184 -4,223 -4,289 -4,264 -4,296 -4,425 -4,488 -4,347 -4,278Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -38,072 -25,039 -20,313 -12,658 -19,597 -14,036 -12,066 -20,100 -20,733 -21,085 -20,370Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -7,384 -6,393 -5,658 -4,359 -5,091 -4,621 -4,134 -5,091 -5,421 -5,485 -5,364Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,855 -1,770 -1,601 -1,325 -1,416 -1,377 -1,258 -1,437 -1,560 -1,577 -1,518TOTAL OUTFLOWS -51,460 -37,319 -31,755 -22,565 -30,393 -24,298 -21,754 -31,053 -32,203 -32,493 -31,529Annual TDS Mass Change1,254 -7,406 -4,618 -9,040 5,390 -4,076 -2,702 5,558 558 -178 -1,526Cumulative TDS Mass Change1,254 -6,152 -10,769 -19,809 -14,419 -18,495 -21,197 -15,639 -15,081 -15,259All values in tons Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 46 Figure 4-5: Baseline TDS Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) ‐90,000‐60,000‐30,000030,00060,00090,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,000Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inlow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 47 Table 4-5: Baseline Nitrate-N Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AverageINFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 9.6 4.1 3.4 0.1 5.4 1.7 1.4 5.6 4.7 4.6 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow to Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 110.9 105.5 104.9 101.9 107.1 103.4 103.2 107.3 106.3 106.2 105.7OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.4 -2.1 -2.8 -3.5 -4.0 -4.6 -5.4 -5.9 -6.2 -3.7Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -7.2 -8.8 -10.2 -8.3 -15.8 -13.1 -13.0 -24.4 -27.3 -29.9 -15.8Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.4 -2.2 -2.9 -2.8 -4.1 -4.3 -4.4 -6.2 -7.1 -7.8 -4.3Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -0.3 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 -1.7 -2.1 -2.2 -1.2TOTAL OUTFLOWS -9.7 -13.1 -16.0 -14.7 -24.5 -22.7 -23.4 -37.7 -42.4 -46.2 -25.0Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change101.3 92.5 88.9 87.1 82.6 80.7 79.9 69.7 63.9 60.1 80.7Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change101.3 193.7 282.7 369.8 452.4 533.1 612.9 682.6 746.6 806.6All values in tons Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 48 Figure 4-6: Baseline Nitrate-N Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) ‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐100‐50050100150Cumulative Nitrate as N  Mass Change (tons)Nitrate as N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inlow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundawter Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 49 5 Future Planning Period Water Quality The Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013) identified future projections for imported water use, and increased recycled water use through the future planning period. These projections define the future projects simulated in this TM. Future project changes are superimposed over average water balance conditions during the 10-year baseline period to simulate future groundwater quality. The spreadsheet mixing model developed for the baseline analysis was modified to evaluate the effects of planned future S/N loading on overall groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin for the future planning period (WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). The mixing model methodology is described in Sections 3.5.5. Baseline conditions for the Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin between WY 1996-97 through WY 2005-06 were simulated with the mixing model. Comparison of simulated and actual observed water quality concentrations and trends during the baseline period were used to adjust key loading factors. The calibrated loading factors are then applied to the future loading assumptions. The mixing model is used to predict future water quality, water quality trends, and the percentage of the existing available assimilative capacity used by recycled water projects in the subbasin during the future planning period. The mixing model is designed to incorporate the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and track the annual change in groundwater storage and S/N mass for the subbasin as a whole. A No-Project scenario was simulated to evaluate the impacts of future recycled water projects. For the No-Project scenario, average water balance conditions (WY 1996-97 through WY 2013-14) over the baseline conditions were reproduced for each year of the future planning period. Future projected changes included the following:  Increased use of recycled water for agricultural irrigation (replacing groundwater). Two future scenarios were simulated: o Planned recycled water use by 2035 (Scenario 1) o Planned recycled water use by 2035 plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (Scenario 2) While recycled water use is projected to ramp up gradually over time, the maximum 2035 recycled water use conditions were applied beginning in WY 2013-14 and applied over the entire future planning period (from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). Additionally, while portions of existing and proposed future recycled water use areas are located south of the Inlands Area in the Baylands Area (see Figure 2-1), all S/N loading associated with recycled water use was applied in the Inlands Area. Thus, the simulated groundwater quality impacts from recycled water projects are considered highly conservative. Also, while future conditions within the Baylands Area were not explicitly simulated, it is expected that replacing groundwater with recycled water for irrigation will lower TDS levels in groundwater because recycled water has lower TDS concentrations than the average groundwater in the Baylands Area. Although future stormwater capture and recharge is planned for the area (approximately 50 AFY), to maintain a conservative projection, this recharge source water was not applied to the model. 5.1 Scenarios Three future scenarios were simulated:  Future Scenario 0 (No-Project): Assumes average baseline water balance conditions and no additional enhanced stormwater capture and recharge is applied. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 50  Future Scenario 1: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use of about 4,100 AFY (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35)  Future Scenario 2: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). 5.2 Water Balances The water balance for Scenario 0 (No-Project) is shown in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1. The water balance for Future Scenario 1 is shown in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-2. The water balance for Future Scenario 2 is shown in Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3. The table and figure shows that for all three future scenarios a total of 66,299 AF is lost from groundwater storage over the 22-year future planning horizon, corresponding to an average annual loss of 3,014 AFY. Agricultural (recycled water) irrigation return flows increase from No-Project (91 AFY) to Scenario 1 (508 AFY) to Scenario 2 (1,132 AFY), while agricultural (groundwater) irrigation return flows decrease from No-Project (1,415 AFY) to Scenario 1 (998 AFY) to Scenario 2 (374 AFY). 5.3 Water Quality The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for the baseline period were applied to all future scenarios for the following inflows:  deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge  leakage from Sonoma Creek  subsurface inflow from Baylands area Concentrations for future return flow components are described below. 5.3.1 Return Flows – Agricultural and Municipal Irrigation and Septic System The same methodology used to estimate TDS and nitrogen loading from return flows over the baseline period was used to estimate future return flow loading. Documentation of future loading estimates for return flows is provided in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). For the mixing model, mass loads for each return flow component were mixed with respective annual return flow volumes to obtain a concentration. Similar to the baseline period analysis, 100% of the nitrogen mass is assumed to convert to nitrate. To account for attenuation below the root zone, the same 15% reduction in nitrate loading from return flows applied in the baseline calibration was also applied in future simulations. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 51 Table 5-1: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain AF – acre-feet WY – water year Figure 5-1: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,0741,074 1,074Septic System Return 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51TOTAL INFLOWS 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,52959,529 59,529 59,529OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486-8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -6,027 -9,041 -12,054 -15,068 -18,081 -21,095 -24,109 -27,122 -30,136 -33,149 -36,163 -39,176 -42,190 -45,204 -48,217 -51,231 -54,244 -57,258 -60,271 -63,285 -66,299All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 52 Table 5-2: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain AF – acre-feet WY – water year Figure 5-2: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,0741,074 1,074Septic System Return 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621Subsurface Inflow from Baylands51515151515151515151515151515151515151515151TOTAL INFLOWS 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,52959,529 59,529 59,529OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486-8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -6,027 -9,041 -12,054 -15,068 -18,081 -21,095 -24,109 -27,122 -30,136 -33,149 -36,163 -39,176 -42,190 -45,204 -48,217 -51,231 -54,244 -57,258 -60,271 -63,285 -66,299All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 53 Table 5-3: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain AF – acre-feet WY – water year Figure 5-3: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,1321,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,0741,074 1,074Septic System Return 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621Subsurface Inflow from Baylands51515151515151515151515151515151515151515151TOTAL INFLOWS 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,52959,529 59,529 59,529OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486-8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -6,027 -9,041 -12,054 -15,068 -18,081 -21,095 -24,109 -27,122 -30,136 -33,149 -36,163 -39,176 -42,190 -45,204 -48,217 -51,231 -54,244 -57,258 -60,271 -63,285 -66,299All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 54 Tables 5-4 through 5-6 show the calculated TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations of each return flow for Scenario 0 (No-Project), Scenario 1, and Scenario 2, respectively. The adjusted values are applied as a constant concentration over the entire future planning period. For both TDS and nitrate, the total cumulative mass and weighted-average concentration of return flows increases slightly from Scenario 0 (No-Project) to Scenario 1 to Scenario 2. Table 5-4: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Concentrations 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter Table 5-5: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Concentrations 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agircultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 998 4,481 29.3 24.9 Agircultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 508 4,479 29.3 24.9 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,615 27.6 23.5 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 55 Table 5-6: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Concentrations 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter 5.4 Future Salt and Nutrient Mass Balances 5.4.1 TDS Mass Balances Table 5-7 through 5-9 show the TDS mass balances for the three future scenarios. The mass balances are also depicted in Figures 5-4 through 5-6. The tables and figures show that the cumulative change in TDS mass from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35 is negative for all three scenarios. For Scenario 0 (No- Project), the cumulative change in TDS mass is -34,941 tons. The negative cumulative change in TDS mass is slightly smaller for Scenario 1 (-31,315 tons) and even smaller for Scenario 2 (-25,213 tons). For Scenario 0 (No-Project), TDS mass loading factors presented from largest to smallest are as follows: 1) areal precipitation and mountain front recharge 2) agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return 3) Sonoma Creek leakage 4) municipal irrigation return 5) agricultural (recycled water source water) return 6) septic system return 7) subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area For Scenario 1, TDS mass loading from agricultural (recycled water source water) irrigation return flow increases and represents the third largest TDS loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return flow decreases but remains the second largest TDS mass loading factor. All other factors have the same TDS mass loading as in the No-Project scenario. For Scenario 2, TDS mass loading from agricultural (recycled water source water) irrigation return increases and replaces agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return as the second largest TDS loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return decreases and represents the third largest TDS mass loading factor. All other factors have the same TDS mass loading as in the No- Project scenario. Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 374 4,706 31.6 26.8 Agircultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 1,132 4,706 31.6 26.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,722 28.7 24.4 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 56 Table 5-7: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year Figure 5-4: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538Municipal Irrigation Return 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,1821,182 1,182Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inflow from Baylands84848484848484848484848484848484848484848484TOTAL INFLOWS 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,00330,003 30,003 30,003OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,292 -4,290 -4,288 -4,286 -4,284 -4,282 -4,281 -4,279 -4,278 -4,276 -4,275 -4,274 -4,272 -4,271 -4,270 -4,269 -4,268 -4,267-4,266 -4,265 -4,264 -4,263Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -20,436 -20,426 -20,416 -20,407 -20,398 -20,390 -20,382 -20,374 -20,367 -20,360 -20,354 -20,348 -20,342 -20,336 -20,331 -20,326 -20,321 -20,316 -20,312 -20,308 -20,304 -20,300Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -5,383 -5,381 -5,378 -5,376 -5,373 -5,371 -5,369 -5,367 -5,365 -5,363 -5,362 -5,360 -5,358 -5,357 -5,356-5,354 -5,353 -5,352 -5,351 -5,349 -5,348 -5,347Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,523 -1,522 -1,522 -1,521 -1,520 -1,520 -1,519 -1,519 -1,518 -1,518 -1,517 -1,517 -1,516 -1,516 -1,515 -1,515 -1,515 -1,514 -1,514 -1,514 -1,513 -1,513TOTAL OUTFLOWS -31,634 -31,629 -31,624 -31,619 -31,614 -31,610 -31,605 -31,601 -31,597 -31,594 -31,590 -31,587 -31,583 -31,580 -31,578 -31,575 -31,572 -31,570 -31,567 -31,565 -31,563 -31,561Annual TDS Mass Change-1,631 -1,625 -1,620 -1,615 -1,611 -1,606 -1,602 -1,598 -1,594 -1,590 -1,587 -1,583 -1,580 -1,577 -1,574 -1,571 -1,569 -1,566 -1,564 -1,562 -1,559 -1,557Cumulative TDS Mass Change-1,631 -3,256 -4,876 -6,492 -8,102 -9,708 -11,310 -12,908 -14,502 -16,092 -17,678 -19,262 -20,842 -22,419 -23,993 -25,564 -27,133 -28,699 -30,263 -31,824 -33,383 -34,941All values in tons‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000‐40,000‐30,000‐20,000‐10,000010,00020,00030,00040,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 57 Table 5-8: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year Figure 5-5: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,0943,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094Municipal Irrigation Return 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,7261,726 1,726Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inflow from Baylands84848484848484848484848484848484848484848484TOTAL INFLOWS 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,27830,278 30,278 30,278OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,292 -4,293 -4,294 -4,295 -4,296 -4,297 -4,298 -4,299 -4,300 -4,301 -4,302 -4,302 -4,303 -4,304 -4,304 -4,305 -4,305 -4,306-4,306 -4,307 -4,307 -4,317Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -20,436 -20,441 -20,447 -20,452 -20,456 -20,461 -20,465 -20,469 -20,473 -20,477 -20,481 -20,484 -20,487 -20,491 -20,494 -20,496 -20,499 -20,502 -20,504 -20,506 -20,509 -20,555Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -5,383 -5,385 -5,386 -5,387 -5,389 -5,390 -5,391 -5,392 -5,393 -5,394 -5,395 -5,396 -5,397 -5,398 -5,398-5,399 -5,400 -5,401 -5,401 -5,402 -5,402 -5,415Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,523 -1,524 -1,524 -1,524 -1,525 -1,525 -1,525 -1,526 -1,526 -1,526 -1,527 -1,527 -1,527 -1,527 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,529 -1,532TOTAL OUTFLOWS -31,634 -31,643 -31,651 -31,659 -31,666 -31,673 -31,680 -31,686 -31,692 -31,698 -31,704 -31,709 -31,714 -31,719 -31,724 -31,728 -31,732 -31,736 -31,740 -31,743 -31,747 -31,818Annual TDS Mass Change-1,356 -1,365 -1,373 -1,381 -1,388 -1,395 -1,402 -1,408 -1,415 -1,420 -1,426 -1,431 -1,436 -1,441 -1,446 -1,450 -1,454 -1,458 -1,462 -1,466 -1,469 -1,472Cumulative TDS Mass Change-1,356 -2,721 -4,094 -5,475 -6,863 -8,258 -9,660 -11,069 -12,483 -13,904 -15,330 -16,761 -18,197 -19,638 -21,084 -22,534 -23,988 -25,446 -26,908 -28,374 -29,843 -31,315All values in tons‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000‐40,000‐30,000‐20,000‐10,000010,00020,00030,00040,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 58 Table 5-9: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year Figure 5-6: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,2447,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244Municipal Irrigation Return 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,7261,726 1,726Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inflow from Baylands84848484848484848484848484848484848484848484TOTAL INFLOWS 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,74030,740 30,740 30,740OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,292 -4,296 -4,301 -4,305 -4,308 -4,312 -4,315 -4,319 -4,322 -4,325 -4,328 -4,330 -4,333 -4,335 -4,338 -4,340 -4,342 -4,344-4,346 -4,348 -4,349 -4,351Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -20,436 -20,456 -20,476 -20,495 -20,513 -20,530 -20,547 -20,562 -20,577 -20,591 -20,605 -20,617 -20,630 -20,641 -20,652 -20,663 -20,673 -20,683 -20,692 -20,700 -20,709 -20,717Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -5,383 -5,389 -5,394 -5,399 -5,404 -5,408 -5,412 -5,416 -5,420 -5,424 -5,428 -5,431 -5,434 -5,437 -5,440-5,443 -5,446 -5,448 -5,451 -5,453 -5,455 -5,457Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,523 -1,525 -1,526 -1,528 -1,529 -1,530 -1,531 -1,533 -1,534 -1,535 -1,536 -1,537 -1,538 -1,539 -1,539 -1,540 -1,541 -1,542 -1,542 -1,543 -1,544 -1,544TOTAL OUTFLOWS -31,634 -31,666 -31,697 -31,726 -31,754 -31,780 -31,806 -31,830 -31,853 -31,875 -31,896 -31,915 -31,934 -31,952 -31,970 -31,986 -32,002 -32,016 -32,031 -32,044 -32,057 -32,069Annual TDS Mass Change-894 -926 -957 -986 -1,014 -1,040 -1,066 -1,090 -1,113 -1,135 -1,156 -1,175 -1,194 -1,212 -1,230 -1,246 -1,262 -1,276 -1,291 -1,304 -1,317 -1,329Cumulative TDS Mass Change-894 -1,821 -2,778 -3,764 -4,778 -5,818 -6,884 -7,973 -9,086 -10,221 -11,376 -12,552 -13,746 -14,959 -16,188 -17,434 -18,696 -19,973 -21,263 -22,567 -23,884 -25,213All values in tons‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000‐40,000‐30,000‐20,000‐10,000010,00020,00030,00040,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 59 5.4.2 Nitrate-N Mass Balances Table 5-10 through 5-12 show the nitrate-N mass balances for the three future scenarios. The mass balances are also depicted in Figures 5-7 through 5-9. The tables and figures show that the cumulative change in nitrate-N mass from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35 is positive for all three scenarios. For Scenario 0 (No-Project), the cumulative change in nitrate-N mass is +1,410 tons. The cumulative change in nitrate-N mass is slightly higher for Scenario 1 (+1,440 tons) and even higher for Scenario 2 (+1,491 tons). For Scenario 0 (No-Project), nitrate mass loading factors presented from largest to smallest are as follows: 1) agricultural (groundwater) return 2) municipal return 3) septic system return 4) areal precipitation and mountain front recharge 5) agricultural (recycled water) return 6) Sonoma Creek leakage 7) subsurface inflow from Baylands For Scenario 1, nitrate mass loading from agricultural (recycled water) return increases and represents the fourth largest nitrate loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater) return decreases but remains the largest nitrate mass loading factor. All other factors have the same nitrate mass loading as in the No-Project scenario. For Scenario 2, nitrate mass loading from agricultural (recycled water) return increases and replaces agricultural (groundwater) return as the largest nitrate loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater) return decreases and represents the fourth largest nitrate mass loading factor, behind municipal and septic system return. All other factors have the same nitrate mass loading as in the No-Project scenario. 5.5 Assimilative Capacity and Use by Recycled Water Projects 5.5.1 Future TDS Groundwater Concentrations Figure 5-10 shows the simulated future TDS concentrations from the calibrated mixing model for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Also shown on the chart is the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Values depicted in the chart are tabulated in Table 5-13. The cumulative concentration change is translated into assimilative capacity use at the bottom of the table. The table also shows the difference between each of future Scenarios 1 and 2 and the Scenario 0 (No-Project). This difference represents the water quality and assimilative capacity impact of just the future project(s) with the background impacts of the No Project conditions removed. As depicted in Figure 5-10 and shown in Table 5-13, the following conclusions can be made:  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin are projected to decrease from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 0.9 mg/L for Scenario 0 (No-Project).  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin are projected to increase from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 1.4 mg/L for Scenario 1 and by 3.5 mg/L for Scenario 2. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 60 Table 5-10: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year Figure 5-7: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.5 -2.2 -2.8 -3.4 -4.0 -4.5 -5.0 -5.5 -6.0 -6.4 -6.9 -7.3 -7.7 -8.0 -8.4 -8.7 -9.0 -9.3 -9.6 -9.9 -10.2Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -3.8 -7.1 -10.3 -13.3 -16.1 -18.8 -21.4 -23.9 -26.3 -28.5 -30.6 -32.7 -34.6 -36.5 -38.2 -39.9 -41.5 -43.0 -44.5 -45.9 -47.2 -48.4Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.0 -1.9 -2.7 -3.5 -4.2 -5.0 -5.6 -6.3 -6.9 -7.5 -8.1 -8.6 -9.1 -9.6 -10.1 -10.5 -10.9 -11.3 -11.7 -12.1 -12.4 -12.8Subsurface Outflow to Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL OUTFLOWS -6.0 -11.0 -15.9 -20.5 -24.9 -29.2 -33.2 -37.0 -40.6 -44.1 -47.4 -50.6 -53.6 -56.5 -59.2 -61.8 -64.3 -66.6 -68.9 -71.0 -73.1 -75.0Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change99.7 94.7 89.8 85.2 80.8 76.5 72.5 68.7 65.1 61.6 58.3 55.1 52.1 49.2 46.5 43.9 41.4 39.1 36.8 34.7 32.6 30.7Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change99.7 194.4 284.2 369.4 450.1 526.7 599.2 667.9 732.9 794.5 852.8 907.9 960.0 1,009.2 1,055.7 1,099.6 1,141.0 1,180.1 1,216.9 1,251.6 1,284.2 1,314.9All values in tons‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐120‐90‐60‐3003060901201502013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change (tons)Nitrate‐N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 61 Table 5-11: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year Figure 5-8: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.217.2 17.2Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.5 -2.2 -2.8 -3.4 -4.0 -4.6 -5.1 -5.6 -6.1 -6.6 -7.0 -7.4 -7.8 -8.2 -8.6 -8.9 -9.2 -9.5 -9.8 -10.1 -10.4Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -3.8 -7.2 -10.4 -13.5 -16.4 -19.2 -21.8 -24.4 -26.8 -29.1 -31.3 -33.3 -35.3 -37.2 -39.0 -40.8 -42.4 -43.9 -45.4 -46.8 -48.2 -49.5Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.0 -1.9 -2.7 -3.6 -4.3 -5.1 -5.8 -6.4 -7.1 -7.7 -8.2 -8.8 -9.3 -9.8 -10.3 -10.7 -11.2 -11.6 -12.0 -12.3 -12.7 -13.0Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -0.3 -0.5 -0.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2.0 -2.2 -2.3 -2.5 -2.6 -2.8 -2.9 -3.0 -3.2 -3.3 -3.4 -3.5 -3.6 -3.7TOTAL OUTFLOWS -6.0 -11.2 -16.1 -20.9 -25.4 -29.7 -33.8 -37.7 -41.4 -45.0 -48.4 -51.6 -54.7 -57.6 -60.4 -63.1 -65.6 -68.0 -70.3 -72.5 -74.6 -76.6Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change102.0 96.8 91.9 87.1 82.6 78.3 74.2 70.3 66.5 63.0 59.6 56.4 53.3 50.4 47.6 44.9 42.4 40.0 37.7 35.5 33.4 31.4Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change102.0 198.9 290.7 377.9 460.5 538.8 613.0 683.2 749.8 812.8 872.4 928.7 982.0 1,032.4 1,080.0 1,124.9 1,167.2 1,207.2 1,244.9 1,280.4 1,313.8 1,345.2All values in tons‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐120‐90‐60‐3003060901201502013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change (tons)Nitrate‐N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 62 Table 5-12: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year Figure 5-9: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.341.3 41.3Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.5 -2.2 -2.9 -3.5 -4.1 -4.7 -5.3 -5.8 -6.3 -6.8 -7.2 -7.7 -8.1 -8.5 -8.9 -9.2 -9.5 -9.9 -10.2 -10.5 -10.7Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -3.8 -7.3 -10.7 -13.8 -16.9 -19.8 -22.5 -25.1 -27.6 -30.0 -32.3 -34.5 -36.5 -38.5 -40.4 -42.1 -43.8 -45.5 -47.0 -48.5 -49.9 -51.2Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.0 -1.9 -2.8 -3.6 -4.4 -5.2 -5.9 -6.6 -7.3 -7.9 -8.5 -9.1 -9.6 -10.1 -10.6 -11.1 -11.5 -12.0 -12.4 -12.8 -13.1 -13.5Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -0.3 -0.5 -0.8 -1.0 -1.3 -1.5 -1.7 -1.9 -2.1 -2.2 -2.4 -2.6 -2.7 -2.9 -3.0 -3.1 -3.3 -3.4 -3.5 -3.6 -3.7 -3.8TOTAL OUTFLOWS -6.0 -11.4 -16.5 -21.4 -26.1 -30.6 -34.8 -38.9 -42.8 -46.5 -50.0 -53.3 -56.5 -59.6 -62.5 -65.2 -67.9 -70.4 -72.7 -75.0 -77.2 -79.2Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change105.9 100.5 95.3 90.4 85.7 81.3 77.0 72.9 69.1 65.4 61.9 58.5 55.3 52.3 49.4 46.6 44.0 41.5 39.1 36.8 34.7 32.6Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change105.9 206.4 301.7 392.1 477.9 559.2 636.2 709.1 778.2 843.5 905.4 963.9 1,019.2 1,071.5 1,120.8 1,167.5 1,211.4 1,252.9 1,292.0 1,328.9 1,363.5 1,396.1All values in tons‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐120‐90‐60‐3003060901201502013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change (tons)Nitrate‐N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 63 Figure 5-10: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations 340 360 380 400 420 2010201520202025203020352040TDS (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 64 Table 5-13: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity Use TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter AFY – acre-feet per year RW – recycled water WY – water year AC – assimilative capacity Future Scenario 0      (No‐Project)           Future  Scenario 1      (2035 Recycled  Water                 Conditions) Future Scenario 2.     (2035 RW Conditions  + 5,000 AFY RW) 2013 372.0 372.0 372.0 2014 371.9 372.1 372.4 2015 371.9 372.2 372.7 2016 371.8 372.3 373.1 2017 371.8 372.4 373.4 2018 371.7 372.5 373.7 2019 371.7 372.5 374.0 2020 371.6 372.6 374.3 2021 371.6 372.7 374.6 2022 371.5 372.8 374.8 2023 371.5 372.8 375.1 2024 371.4 372.9 375.3 2025 371.4 372.9 375.5 2026 371.4 373.0 375.7 2027 371.3 373.1 375.9 2028 371.3 373.1 376.1 2029 371.3 373.2 376.3 2030 371.2 373.2 376.5 2031 371.2 373.2 376.7 2032 371.2 373.3 376.8 2033 371.2 373.3 377.0 2034 371.1 373.4 377.1 2035 371.1 373.4 377.2 Basin Plan Objective Average Ambient TDS Concentration (mg/L) Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) 10% AC concentration  change  (mg/L) 10% AC concentration (mg/L) WY 2035 concentration (mg/L)371.1                             373.4                             377.2                              WY 2013 to WY 2035 change  (mg/L)(0.9)                                1.4                                  5.2                                   WY 2013 to WY 2035 (% AC Used) 0%1.1%4.1% Difference compared to No‐Project (mg/L)2.3                                  6.1                                   Difference compared to No‐Project (% AC)1.8%4.8% Water Year TDS (mg/L) 128.0 12.8 384.8 500.0 372.0 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 65  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected TDS concentrations remain well below the BPO of 500 mg/L. When considering the differences between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 1.8% (2.3 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity, while Scenario 2 use 4.8% (6.1 mg/L) of the assimilative capacity. 5.5.2 Nitrate-N Groundwater Concentrations Figure 5-11 shows the simulated results of the calibrated mixing model for nitrate for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The chart shows the simulated concentration trends for each scenario and the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Table 5-14 shows the mixing model simulated nitrate concentration change over the future planning period for each scenario in mg/L. The cumulative concentration change is translated into assimilative capacity use at the bottom of the table. The table also shows the difference between each of future Scenarios 1 and 2 and the Scenario 0 (No-Project). This difference represents the water quality and assimilative capacity impact of just the future project(s) with the background impacts of the No Project conditions removed. As depicted in Figure 5-11 and shown in Table 5-14, the following conclusions can be made:  Average nitrate concentrations in the subbasin are projected to increase similarly for all three scenarios from WY 2013 to WY 2035 (between 0.83 and 0.88 mg/L).  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected nitrate concentrations remain well below the BPO of 10 mg/L. When considering the difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 0.2% (0.02 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity (9.93 mg/L), while Scenario 2 uses 0.5% (0.05 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity. It is noted that projected increases in nitrate concentrations in the Inland area of the subbasin are considered conservative given the assumptions incorporated in the calibration of the mixing model for nitrate (see discussion in Section 4.3). Additionally, despite portions of existing and proposed future recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2- 1), all TDS and nitrate loading associated with recycled water use was applied within the Inlands area in the mixing model and S/N balance. Average groundwater nitrate concentrations are predicted to increase asymptotically toward the volume-weighted average nitrate concentration of basin inflows for each scenario (1.31 mg/L for Scenario 0, 1.33 mg/L for Scenario 1, and 1.38 mg/L for Scenario 2). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 66 Figure 5-11: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2010201520202025203020352040Nitrate-N (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 67 Table 5-14: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity Use Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter AFY – acre-feet per year RW – recycled water WY – water year AC – assimilative capacity Future Scenario 0      (No‐Project)           Future  Scenario 1      (2035 Recycled  Water                 Conditions) Future Scenario 2      (2035 RW Conditions  + 5,000 AFY RW) 2013 0.07 0.07 0.07 2014 0.13 0.13 0.13 2015 0.19 0.19 0.19 2016 0.24 0.25 0.25 2017 0.29 0.30 0.31 2018 0.34 0.35 0.36 2019 0.39 0.40 0.41 2020 0.44 0.44 0.46 2021 0.48 0.49 0.50 2022 0.52 0.53 0.55 2023 0.56 0.57 0.59 2024 0.60 0.61 0.63 2025 0.63 0.64 0.66 2026 0.66 0.68 0.70 2027 0.70 0.71 0.73 2028 0.73 0.74 0.77 2029 0.76 0.77 0.80 2030 0.78 0.80 0.83 2031 0.81 0.83 0.86 2032 0.84 0.85 0.88 2033 0.86 0.88 0.91 2034 0.88 0.90 0.93 2035 0.90 0.92 0.95 Basin Plan Objective Average Ambient TDS Concentration (mg/L) Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) 10% AC concentration change  (mg/L) 10% AC concentration  (mg/L) WY 2035 concentration  (mg/L)0.90                                0.92                                0.95                                 WY 2013 to WY 2035 change  (mg/L)0.83                                0.85                                0.88                                 WY 2013 to WY 2035 (% AC Used)8.4%8.6%8.9% Difference compared to No‐Project (mg/L)0.02                                0.05                                 Difference compared to No‐Project (% AC)0.2%0.5% Water Year 0.99 1.06 Nitrate‐N (mg/L) 10.00 0.07 9.93 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 68 6 References Bauer, Jacob P., December 2008, “Update to Regional Groundwater Flow Model simulation of Sonoma Valley Including a New Model for Recharge and Three Future Scenarios”, A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences and the committee on graduate studies at Stanford University City of Sonoma, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Hem, J.D., 1989, “Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water (third edition)”, U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254 RMC, January 10, 2013, “Meeting Notes, Sonoma Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan, Meeting with SF Bay Region RWQCB” RMC Water and Environment, May 2013, “Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), 2010, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program: 2010 Annual Report” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 2007, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan” San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), December 31, 2010, “San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)” RMC, January 10, 2013, “Meeting Notes, Sonoma Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan, Meeting with SF Bay Region RWQCB” State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), May 2009 Draft, amended September 2012, October 2012, and January 2013, approved January 2013, “Recycled Water Policy” State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), revised August 2010, “Groundwater Information Sheet Nitrate” United States Geological Survey, 2006, “Geohydrologic Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground- Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California”, Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5092. Valley of the Moon Water District, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Appendix B - Meeting Summaries for Regional Water Quality Control Board Meetings January 2013 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Minutes Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Meeting with SF Bay Region RWQCB Prepared For: Sonoma County Water Agency Attendees: Ralph Lambert, Alec Naugle, Barbara Baginska (RWQCB); Marcus Trotta, Kevin Booker (SCWA); Dave Richardson, Christy Kennedy (RMC); Tim Parker (Parker Groundwater); Sally McCraven (Todd Engineers) Prepared By: Christy Kennedy Date/Time: January 10, 2013: 2-3pm Location: SFRWQCB Office, Oakland Project Number: 0047-008.00 1. Purpose of Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to communicate process and progress of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), and to confirm the approach to the analysis. 2. Discussion Summary The Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) and RMC provided an overview of the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin, the Groundwater Management Plan and the Salt and Nutrient Plan process and progress to date. The Water Agency manages and operates the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (CSD), which is the primary purveyor of recycled water within the basin, and is leading development of the SNMP for Sonoma Valley. Handouts were provided and attached that highlight the key discussion items below. 2.1 Groundwater Management in Sonoma Valley 1. The Water Agency described the current groundwater basin setting and water management in Sonoma Valley. Currently, there is not a robust system of dedicated groundwater monitoring wells, and the Water Agency does not operate supply wells in the basin. 2. There are around 1,800 rural/domestic wells and 60% of the water use in the basin is groundwater, 40% is imported Russian River water for urban supplies. 3. The basin has an AB303 Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) and groundwater management group, which is a voluntary and non-regulatory program. 4. The Water Agency is the lead agency for the AB303 GMP, but does not have regulatory powers related to groundwater within the basin. 2.2 SNMP Approach 1. The approach to developing the SNMP collaboratively in Sonoma Valley is to hold a series of stakeholder workshops at key milestones within the technical analysis process. The workshops are held in conjunction with the Technical Advisory Committee and the Basin Advisory Panel for the Groundwater Management Plan. The next workshop being held on January 17, 2013 was discussed and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was invited to attend. Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes January 2013 Page 2 of 3 2.3 Baseline Groundwater Quality 1. Data sources include the Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), United States Geological Survey (USGS), State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program, and the Water Agency. While the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy recommends using the most recent five years of data to establish average groundwater quality for the basin, significant data from older studies will be used to provide a more robust data set. Specifically, the SNMP proposes using the 2003-2006 data from the USGS Study to supplement the data set in order to calculate basin averages. RWQCB staff agreed that it is reasonable to use the 2000-2012 period for establishing current basin averages. 2. Historic total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate concentration trends in shallow and deep aquifer zones are fairly flat across the period of record. 3. The areal distribution of water quality data and depth-discrete data were analyzed with the intent of developing local area and depth-discrete salt and nutrient averages and assimilative capacity estimates; however, it was determined that the data are too limited to support such an analysis. Accordingly, the proposed approach for establishing average TDS and nitrate and available assimilative capacity, is to average across the basin and all depth intervals to estimate one average TDS and nitrate concentration for the entire basin. a. RWQCB staff (BB) asked that shallow and deep zones be taken into account in the monitoring plan and potential implementation measures. While a depth discrete analysis of the assimilative capacity is preferred, the consultant team stated that it was not possible for this basin with the available data. b. Areas exceeding Basin Plan Objectives (BPOs) for TDS or nitrate would be considered when developing implementation measures, however, the source of elevated concentration may not be able to be determined based on available data. 4. Overall the basin has good water quality with very low nitrate levels and mostly flat trends for TDS. The southwestern portion of the basin (called “Baylands” area) is an area with historical saline groundwater due to the proximity of and possible intrusion from San Pablo Bay. The area is a marshy tidally-influenced wetland adjacent to the Bay. There are no active public water supply wells in the area and available water quality data is limited to data collected from seven wells prior to 1973 and three former public water supply wells prior to 1988 located at the former Skaggs Island Naval Communication Center which was decommissioned in 1993 (note: details on dates and number of wells added to minutes for reader clarification after the meeting with RWQCB). All historical water quality samples collected from these wells (between 1954 and 1988) exhibit TDS concentrations exceeding the BPO for TDS of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l), ranging from 520 to 2,740 mg/l. The Sonoma Valley SNMP approach is to develop an assimilative capacity estimate for the inland portion of the valley excluding this historically intruded area. RWQCB staff agreed that it made sense to break out the two areas (Inland and Baylands). There is available assimilative capacity for both TDS and nitrate in the Sonoma Valley basin when the historically saline groundwater from the Baylands area is excluded from the average calculations. 2.4 Loading Model 1. A GIS model is being used for the loading analysis, which looks at loading of TDS and nitrate to the groundwater basin. Key model assumptions and preliminary loading estimates for land cover categories with similar salt and nutrient characteristics were shared with the group. Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes January 2013 Page 3 of 3 2.5 Water Recycling and Stormwater Recharge Goals 1. For goal setting, the approach is to use the recycling water use goals from Urban Water Management Plans developed by the City of Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District, and for stormwater recharge, numeric goals will not be set for the SNMP. The SNMP will reference stormwater recharge efforts within the Valley and indicate that updates to the SNMP will be made when stormwater recharge projects are further developed. The RWQCB staff agreed with our proposed approach for goal setting. 2.6 SNMP Template for the Bay Area Region 1. The Sonoma Valley SNMP is being funded through a Prop. 84 Planning Grant, and as part of that grant the team will develop SNMP template. The template will be available to other agencies within the region to use as a guide when preparing their own SNMP. Specific direction was not provided for template development but RWQCB staff noted these templates could be useful, and that they had done outreach to Napa and the Westside basin along the San Francisco Peninsula. 2.7 Basin Plan Amendment 1. RWQCB staff (BB) requested that the SNMP Executive Summary (or other similar section) include text that could be readily used for the Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) description of the SNMP, should a BPA be required for the basin (note: there is still ongoing discussion of this requirement internally within RWQCB). The summary should include goals, why the plan was developed, where the region/basin is located, major components of the SNMP and should be a short summary of what was done as part of the SNMP process and how. 2. The group discussed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) needs for the SNMP. While some basins with extensive implementation measures (example: Zone 7) will require a CEQA analysis to amend the Basin Plan, it is unclear at this time if CEQA is necessary for the Sonoma Valley plan where implementation measures beyond what is currently being done in the basin. The Sonoma Valley team is not intending to complete a CEQA analysis on the SNMP at this time. RWQCB staff will be discussing this item with their management and will follow-up with the Sonoma Valley team. May 2013 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Minutes Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Coordination Meeting with SF Bay RWQCB Prepared For: Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Attendees: Alec Naugle, Barbara Baginska, Ben Livsey (RWQCB); Marcus Trotta, Kevin Booker, Jay Jasperse (SCWA); Dave Richardson, Christy Kennedy (RMC); Edwin Lin (Todd Engineers) Prepared By: Christy Kennedy Date/Time: May 14, 2013: 1:30-3:30pm Location: SFBRWQCB Office, Oakland Project Number: 0047-008.00 1. Purpose of Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to communicate progress of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), convey the technical analysis findings, obtain input on approach to management measures and monitoring plan, and understand what is needed for plan finalization and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control (RWQCB). 2. Discussion Summary The Sonoma Valley team (SCWA/SVCSD, RMC and Todd Engineers) provided an overview of the Sonoma Valley SNMP process and progress to date. Handouts (amended in the attached version to include the dairy loading table) were provided and attached that highlight the key discussion items below. 2.1 Introduction Around the table introduction were made and Christy Kennedy, RMC, gave an overview of the SNMP progress to-date. The SNMP is being conducted in a collaborative manner utilizing the stakeholder infrastructure developed through the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) process. This consists of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which meets monthly and Basin Advisory Panel (BAP) that meets quarterly. Stakeholders include a wide cross-section of municipal agencies, non-profit organizations, environmental groups, private well owners, dairy owners, and various vineyard and agricultural groups that represent those with interest in groundwater management and salt and nutrient impacts within the basin. 2.2 Existing Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity 1. Edwin Lin, Todd Engineers, gave an overview of the existing water quality within the basin, utilizing a baseline period dataset from 2000-2012. The basin is divided into the Inland and Baylands areas at a dividing line of 750 mg/L TDS. The average concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate-N in the Inland area is 372 mg/L and 0.07 mg/L, respectively. Both constituents are well below the Basin Plan Objectives (BPOs) of 500 mg/L for TDS, and 10 mg/L for nitrate-N. Trends for TDS and nitrate are generally flat across the full data set representing up to about 50 years of data. 2. RWQCB staff (BB) asked if hotspots were present around dense septic areas. Edwin responded that no hotspots are visible within the existing dataset however the data is fairly limited and well completion reports are not available for all of the wells to denote their depth (shallow or deep). 3. Edwin gave an overview of the water balance and answered calibration questions, then described the mixing model. The mixing model was developed as one-layer or box for the Inland Area, and mixes over a reasonable depth of the basin (limited to a saturated depth of 400 feet for operating volume). Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes May 2013 Page 2 of 3 4. Christy described the loading model and gave an overview of loading parameters. It was noted that the TDS and nitrate-N values for septic system return are currently being refined (increased) but were not expected to change the findings. 2.3 Future Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity 1. Edwin gave an overview of the future water quality assessment. Three scenarios were run, 1- No project, 2 – Future recycled water estimates of 4,069 AFY, and 3 – Future recycled water estimates plus an additional 5,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water. Scenarios showed that recycled water projects will use <10% of the available assimilative capacity and average concentrations stay below BPOs for both TDS and nitrate. 2. Marcus Trotta, Sonoma County Water Agency, noted that recycled water programs are in place to help alleviate a pumping depression in the deeper aquifer zones by offsetting groundwater pumping through deliveries of recycled water for irrigation. Increasing the use of recycled water can reduce the potential for saline water intrusion into the groundwater basin. 2.4 Implementation Measures 1. The results of the technical analysis show good water quality with relatively flat trends through 2035, therefore, no implementation measures beyond continuing existing programs are recommended. RWQCB staff acknowledged that the approach to not recommend new implementation measures might be appropriate. Further consideration of this issue will be given once the draft SNMP is submitted for final review by RWQCB staff. 2. The voluntary Groundwater Management Program will be identified as a process that the SNMP will support, but programs and activities covered by the Groundwater Management Program will not be considered “implementation measures” for the SNMP. Other management measures that should continue but do not constitute “implementation measures” are recycled water permit requirement BMPs, agricultural BMPs, onsite wastewater treatment system (septic) BMPs and municipal wastewater treatment plant source control programs. 3. The Water Agency is also evaluating the feasibility of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) utilizing wintertime Russian River drinking water. The recycled water, stormwater recharge and ASR programs and studies are being conducted as voluntary programs to help manage water supply reliability within the basin and are not considered implementation measures within this SNMP. 4. The future expansion of the recycled water application in Sonoma Valley is already covered under existing CEQA/NEPA documents, and any GMP programs resulting in infrastructure projects like groundwater banking or stormwater recharge would be covered under a separate environment compliance process. 2.5 Groundwater Monitoring Program 1. The recommended groundwater monitoring program consists of existing wells monitored by CDPH, DWR and SVGMP. 2. The Groundwater Monitoring Plan will be submitted as a stand-alone document that is an appendix of the SNMP so that if modification of the monitoring plan is required it can be done without a complete SNMP update. 3. SCWA recently obtained outside funding through an AB303 grant to install additional monitoring wells within the basin. There is a data gap area around the Baylands-Inland area transition and future funding will be pursued to expand the monitoring network. 4. The monitoring program reporting should be uploaded in the RWQCB’s Geotracker online data system. This will be completed on a three-year interval. Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes May 2013 Page 3 of 3 2.6 Basin Plan Amendment and CEQA Process 1. The Sonoma Valley team asked for direction for RWQCB approval of the final SNMP. 2. The Final SNMP will likely go the SCWA Board of Directors as an informational item only and not be submitted for formal approval or adoption. After this action has been completed, the Final SNMP (including an Executive Summary for the RWQCB’s use in their BPA process) will be submitted to the RWQCB. 3. RWQCB staff is obtaining direction from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on the Basin Plan Amendment process. The SWRCB is considering whether the scientific peer review of the SNMP and/or BPA would be needed.. It is not known at this time if the Sonoma Valley SNMP which has no new implementation measures recommended, would need to go through this peer review process. The peer review process could add four+ months to the schedule. 4. If a peer review is required for the Sonoma Valley SNMP, RWQCB staff will request help from the Sonoma Valley team in providing responses to peer review comments. If necessary, the SNMP may require revisions from peer review findings. 5. It has not been determined at this time if CEQA for the Sonoma Valley SNMP is required. RWQCB staff may need to develop a “Substitute CEQA Document” but it is not clear if that is necessary if the Sonoma Valley SNMP is approved as a “non-regulatory” Basin Plan Amendment. RWQCB staff concurred that moving forward as a “non-regulatory” document for inclusion in the Basin Plan Amendment is an option, and is reasonable since no new implementation measures are recommended and no discretionary items are incorporated in the SNMP that require CEQA documentation. More information about the CEQA process will be forth coming in the June, CEQA specific meeting to be hosted by the RWQCB for the region (see bullet # 2 under Next Steps). The Sonoma Valley team requested that the Sonoma Valley basin be considered as a special case that may not require the same Basin Plan Amendment and CEQA actions that other basins with poorer water quality, increasing quality trends, and implementation measures may be subject to. 6. If a CEQA process is determined to be needed for the Sonoma Valley SNMP the RWQCB staff have requested assistance in the following areas: a. Developing CEQA alternatives - likely alternatives will be the “no-project” alternative, and Scenario 1 describing future recycling project implementation b. Scoping meeting coordination, noticing, and presentation of findings 2.7 Next Steps 1. The Sonoma Valley SNMP is being funded through a Prop. 84 Planning Grant, and as part of that grant the team will develop SNMP template. The template will be available to other agencies within the region to use as a guide when preparing their own SNMP. The template is being drafted and will be discussed and reviewed by the Bay Area agencies at the June 3rd Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) Coordinating Committee Meeting. After comments are incorporated into the template, it will be submitted to the RWQCB for review. 2. RWQCB staff (BB) noted they are planning to convene an all-agency meeting to go through the CEQA process requirements for SNMPs, and asked input on the benefits of this proposed meeting. The Sonoma Valley team agreed this meeting would be useful. This meeting will likely be scheduled in mid June. RWQCB will send out a list of questions in advance of the meeting and allow each agency up to 15 minutes to provide an overview of their basin and response to the submitted questions. 3. RWQCB staff (BL) is planning on attending the July 17, 2013 Sonoma Valley stakeholder workshop presenting the Draft SNMP. Appendix C - Guidance Document for SNMPs for the San Francisco Bay Region Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region Prepared by: Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District August 2013 August 2013 2 of 10 Table of Contents Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization ......................................................................................................... 3 Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area .......................................................................... 3 Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders .................................................................................................................... 4 Task 1.3 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives ................................................................ 4 Task 1.4 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data ........................................ 4 Task 1.5 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization .................................................................. 5 Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water .......................................................................................... 6 Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities .................................................... 6 Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals ................................................................... 6 Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources .................................................................. 6 Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin ............................................................................................... 6 Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity ........................................................................................... 7 Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools .................................................................................... 7 Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information ........................................................................................ 7 Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures ................................................................... 8 Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon ........................................................................................................ 8 Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads ................................................................................ 8 Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality .................................................................................................. 8 Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies ............................. 9 Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures .... 9 Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 10 Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination ......................................................... 10 August 2013 3 of 10 Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region August 2013 This Guidance Document was developed as a result of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) preparation effort. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, along with the Zone 7 Water Agency and Santa Clara Valley Water District are developing SNMPs in three priority groundwater basins (as identified by the Regional Water Board) for the San Francisco Bay Region. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The California state-wide Recycled Water Policy, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2009, indicates that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) are to be developed for groundwater basins in California, to address the potential for increased salt and nutrient loading from increased recycled water use and other sources. It is anticipated that SNMPs will contain the following components to be responsive to both the Recycled Water Policy requirements and the Basin Planning Amendment process undertaken by the Regional Water Board:  General groundwater basin information and characteristics  Beneficial use designation  Goals for water recycling and stormwater recharge/use (as applicable);  Salt and nutrient source identification;  Water quality objectives (both narrative and numeric)  Salt and nutrient source loading and assimilative capacity estimates;  Implementation measures and management strategies;  Antidegradation analysis, as needed;  Development of a basin-wide monitoring plan; and  A provision for monitoring Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) in recycled water used for groundwater recharge reuse.  A statement regarding Plan limitations The purpose of this document is to describe the common steps that may be undertaken by Bay Area groups in preparing an SNMP. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is expected to consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. It may be appropriate to meet with Regional Water Board staff early in the process of developing an SNMP, to ensure common expectations before resources are expended. Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area  Delineate the study area for salt and nutrient management planning. August 2013 4 of 10  Identify the areal extent of the groundwater basin, including if known, the watershed area tributary to the aquifer, known source loads or impacts within the watershed, the location of existing or proposed recycled water use areas, and/or jurisdictional boundaries. o In developing SNMPs, it is recognized that the SNMP may wish to address study areas using a sub-basin approach. o SNMPs interested in focusing on groundwater supply development may define the study area to encompass anticipated project sites other than recycled water, or source control needs such as control of pollutants from a dairy operation. Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders  Develop a preliminary list of stakeholders (including potential interest, contact person, and contact information). Key stakeholders include local agencies involved in groundwater management, owners and operators of recharge facilities, water purveyors, water districts, wastewater agencies, known salt and nutrient contributing dischargers, and the general public.  Perform outreach and obtain stakeholder feedback for planning process (now or near future). Task 1.3 Establish Communication with the Regional Water Board  Identify a point of contact at the Regional Water Board with whom to coordinate the preparation of your SNMP. Task 1.4 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives  Identify designated beneficial uses of the groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2).  Identify water quality objectives for groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, starting on page 2-8). Task 1.5 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data  Collect and review readily available and applicable regional groundwater and salt/nutrient management studies and data. Studies with data on groundwater quality, use, supply development, and salt and nutrient loading may be useful. The types of studies and data that may be useful include the following: o Planning documents, including Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and Groundwater Management Plans o Groundwater supply, storage, or conjunctive use studies; o Groundwater aquifer hydrogeologic investigations; o Groundwater quality studies or groundwater protection studies; o Groundwater models o Recycled water compliance, assimilative capacity, and Basin Plan studies; August 2013 5 of 10 o Pollutant modeling and transport studies; o Watershed studies; and o Source assessment evaluations.  Collect and review readily available and applicable well data and information, as follows: o Existing and planned municipal supply wells or projects within the basin. o Private groundwater wells or private well areas within the basin.  Contact organizations engaged in ongoing groundwater monitoring to determine if the collected data can be made available for use in the SNMP. Task 1.6 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization  Review prior reference studies and data (collected as part of Task 1.5) and assess the reliability and specificity of the groundwater quality data, depth-to-water data, and estimates for hydrogeologic parameters, as applicable.  Identify the parameters of interest for the plan which should include salts and nutrients but could include other parameters of interest that adversely affect groundwater quality. These parameters should be based on collected groundwater quality information and stakeholder input.  Identify whether readily available data and information is sufficient to complete a baseline analysis to determine if the groundwater basin is currently meeting water quality objectives. If not, develop a plan for collecting data, collect the data, and then return to next step.  If data are sufficient, review data to determine whether (1) water quality objectives are being exceeded, and (2) any trends that show an increase in salt or nutrient management concentrations.  Select and justify preliminary planning horizon to look into the future (such as 20 years – similar to a UWMP planning horizon), depending on expected changes in the future such Potential Off-Ramp #1 Evaluate the potential feasibility of water uses for beneficial use consistent with land use within the region. If groundwater is not considered suitable for use as a municipal or domestic water supply by meeting an exception listed in State Board Resolution No. 88-63 - The Sources of Drinking Water Policy, then at a minimum, Best Management Practices can be documented along with the basin characterization and comprise the SNMP in lieu of the standard required elements listed in the Recycled Water Policy. Depending on stakeholder input, other elements, such as a simplified groundwater monitoring plan could also be included. If groundwater is used as a public water supply in the basin, proceed to next bullet. August 2013 6 of 10 as growth, land use changes, water supply changes and increases in recycled water application.  Evaluate historical trends and anticipated projects that would contribute salt or nutrients to the groundwater, and estimate whether an exceedance of water quality objectives is anticipated within the planning horizon (document the evaluation and results). Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities  Collect available data and information about current and predicted recycled water and recharge water (including stormwater or imported water)/use. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) can be used as an initial data source. Recycled water producers will also have information about recycled water and potential plans for future expanded use. Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals  Identify the goals of the recycled water studies, and stormwater and other recharge water studies related to the basin. Goals should be consistent with the goals within the Recycled Water Policy to increase recycled water use and stormwater recharge. Gather data about the future quantitative goals for these projects. Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin  Identify general land uses within the basin.  Identify known sources of salt/nutrient loads within the basin, to supplement work from Task 1.4. Sources may include: o Applied Water (groundwater) Potential Off-Ramp #2 If there is a sound basis that water quality objectives will not be exceeded, this basin is a No Threat basin. Document the basin characterization, evaluation and results, including Best Management Practices. This documentation will comprise the SNMP unless stakeholders determine collaboratively that other elements suggested by the Recycled Water Policy (i.e. a groundwater monitoring plan) should be included. If it is estimated that water quality objectives would be exceeded, or if there is uncertainty regarding whether water quality objectives would be exceeded, proceed to next section (Step 2). August 2013 7 of 10 o Applied Water (surface water) o Recycled Water Application o Artificial Recharge of Stormwater Runoff o Artificial Recharge with Imported Water Supplies o Atmospheric Deposition o Biosolids Application o Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Facilities o Creek Recharge o Agriculture, including applied fertilizer and soil amendments o Dairy Operations o Mines o Natural Geologic Sources o Natural Soil Conditions o Point Source Wastewater Discharges o Rainfall o Seawater Intrusion o Septic Tank Discharges o Storage Ponds o Streamflow Infiltration o Subsurface Inflow (including upstream inflow and seawater intrusion) o Urban Runoff  Identify the locations where source loads are impacting the basin. Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity  Using water quality data gathered under Task 1, establish the baseline water quality. Calculation of constituent concentrations can be performed with a spatial averaging approach.  Compare these values to the Basin Plan water quality objectives, taking dilution into account if appropriate, to determine the assimilative capacity of the basin. The assimilative capacity is the difference between the water quality objectives and the existing water quality, taking into account dilution if appropriate. If the basin has either an existing or potential beneficial use of municipal and domestic supply (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2), compliance with the water quality objectives for municipal supply should be assessed (see Basin Plan, Table 3-5). Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools  Develop tools for assessing salt and nutrient loading, as well as fate and transport, of salts and nutrients. Examples of tools include geographical information system (GIS) relational models, groundwater flow/transport models (complex basins) or spreadsheet- based mass balance computations. Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information  Gather information about the fate and transport of salts and nutrients in the basin. Reviewing California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 can be a starting point for this process.  Additional tasks that may be useful are as follows: August 2013 8 of 10 o On the basis of available hydrogeological, water quality, or geologic studies, determine fault lines, bedrock constrictions, or vertical stratification that may affect transport and groundwater quality. o Identify known hydrogeologic parameters for the basin (e.g. hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, etc.) and the bases on which these parameters were estimated. o Assess the geographic completeness of existing groundwater quality data, depth- to-water data, and hydrogeologic parameters and determine if any data gaps exist that prevent geographic, seasonal, or depth-dependent characterization of groundwater quality, occurrence or transport. o Assess the geographic distribution of water quality concentrations for the salt/nutrient parameters of interest, and assess the depth-dependent distribution of water quality. Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon  Determine an appropriate planning horizon (the number of years to look into the future), and justify the selection. A longer timeframe may be useful, such as the one established in the region's UWMPs (e.g., 25 years), especially if the region expects limited growth. If the region expects significant land use changes or projects with expected impacts to salt and nutrient loadings (such as recharge projects with stormwater or recycled water), a shorter time frame (e.g., 10 years) is recommended. Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads  Prepare estimates for future recharge flow to the basin from surface and subsurface sources, discharge/withdrawal (flow) from the basin, and salt and nutrient loading from the sources identified in Task 3.1. Land use data may provide valuable information for estimating source loads.  Building on the baseline calculations performed in Task 3.2, use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to compute predicted concentration estimates that are representative of the basin for the identified constituents of interest. Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality  Develop a mixing model on an annual time step for the selected planning horizon to mix the load concentrations developed within the basin. A spreadsheet model is typically adequate for the mixing analysis. Available data from other basin models (e.g. existing USGS or other models) such as hydrogeology characteristics (depth of mixing), water balance and water quality concentration information may be extracted and used within the mixing model. Comment on limitations and sensitivities within the mixing model (i.e. mixing depth, timing of future land use or land management changes, etc).  Determine the degree to which the basin will be exceeding applicable water quality objectives for the identified salt and nutrient parameters within the planning horizon. August 2013 9 of 10  Determine the impact of recycled water on the assimilative capacity of the basin.  Assess the general level of effort for managing salts and nutrients in the basin. Consider the basin’s characteristics and uses in this assessment. Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies  Identify the basin's existing implementation measures and strategies to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin. If future water quality trends are flat, BPOs are not being exceeded or projected to be exceeded, and recycled water project utilize less than 10% assimilative capacity (or 20% for multiple projects); existing management measures may be sufficient for managing salts and nutrients within the basin.  If salt and/or nutrient concentrations are increasing, additional implementation measures may be necessary. In a collaborative manner with Plan participants, develop (as applicable) a list of additional, appropriate implementation measures and management strategies (additional measures) to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin on a sustainable basis. Examples of best management practices (BMPs) include: o Irrigation at agronomic rates o Configuration of irrigation and drainage facilities in land application fields to reasonably minimize runoff of applied animal waste o Fertilizer use workshops o Industrial discharge controls (local pretreatment limits, high strength surcharge for nutrients and/or salts) o Irrigation workshops o Land use policy modification o Recharge program adoption or modification (stormwater, recycled water, imported water) o Recycled water application limitations or quality guidelines o Septic system BMPs o Source load diversion/control Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures  If additional measures are being considered, it may be of interest to evaluate the ability of the additional measures to achieve load reduction or groundwater quality improvement. Use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to assess the ranges of potential load reduction and water quality improvement effects associated with additional measures, if appropriate.  Evaluate and compare the additional implementation measures and select the preferred measure(s) for implementation. It may be appropriate to consult among stakeholders to inform the process of making decisions about implementation measures. Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis  Conduct an antidegradation analysis to demonstrate that implementation measures, including identified projects, included within the SNMP will collectively comply with the requirements of Resolution No. 68-16. August 2013 10 of 10 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan  Identify existing monitoring wells and select appropriately located wells to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. Focus on water quality near water supply wells, but also consider wells near large water recycling projects and groundwater recharge projects. Consider a range of well depths to monitor shallow or deep zones, as appropriate.  Propose additional (new) monitoring wells if appropriate.  Determine appropriate salt and nutrient parameters and monitoring frequencies that are reasonable and cost-effective that may help determine whether the Basin Plan water quality objectives for salts and nutrients are being, or are threatening to be, exceeded. Monitoring data should be evaluated to understand the effectiveness of the BMPs developed as part of Task 4.4. Refer to the amended Recycled Water Policy (April 2013) for guidance on CEC monitoring requirements.  Identify stakeholders responsible for maintaining, assessing, and storing the monitoring data. Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination  Compile analyses in a Plan document.  Coordinate with the Regional Water Board on next steps regarding Plan submittal and support of their Basin Plan Amendment and California Environmental Quality Act compliance process. Appendix D - Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading Technical Memorandum May 2013 1 Technical Memorandum Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading Prepared For: Marcus Trotta, SVCSD Prepared by: Chris van Lienden, RMC Reviewed by: Christy Kennedy, RMC, John Dickey, PlanTierra Date: 28 June 2013 Reference: 0047-008 1 Introduction An analysis of salt and nutrient loading occurring due to surface activities is presented to identify sources of salt and nutrients, evaluate their linkage with the groundwater system, and estimate the mass of salts and nutrients loaded to the Sonoma Valley groundwater subbasin associated with those sources. Salt and nutrient loading from surface activities to the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin are due to various sources, including:  Irrigation water (potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water)  Agricultural inputs (fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Residential inputs (septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Animal waste (dairy manure land application) Most of these sources, or “inputs”, are associated with rural and agricultural areas. Urban area salt and nutrient loads (e.g. due to indoor water use) are assumed to be primarily routed to the municipal wastewater system for recycling or discharge rather than to groundwater, except for landscape irrigation. Other surface inputs of salts and nutrients, such as atmospheric loading, are not considered a significant net contributing source of salts and nutrients and are not captured in the loading analysis. In addition to surface salinity inputs, potential subsurface inputs of high salinity waters from San Pablo Bay, thermal water upwelling and connate groundwater exists within the basin. These potential subsurface inputs are discussed in this Technical Memorandum (TM) and are further described along with other subsurface inputs in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM. The purpose of this TM is to document the inputs of salts and nutrients in the Sonoma Valley, along with the methodology used to estimate the effect of those inputs on water quality in the groundwater basin. 2 Methodology To support the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) and to better understand the significance of various loading factors, a GIS-based loading model was developed. The loading model is a simple, spatially based mass balance tool that represents total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrogen loading on an annual-average basis. Calibration of the model was limited to focusing on comparing recent historical trends to changes in concentrations estimated through incorporating the loading model results into the mixing model. In addition to the limited calibration activities, extensive stakeholder coordination was performed to refine the parameters in the loading model, including land use, applied water, TDS and N application (in applied water, as fertilizers and amendments, and in land applied manure), irrigation water source quality, and sewer service areas (to determine septic loads). Given these activities, the model is considered suitable for this analysis of basin conditions. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 2 Primary inputs to the model are land use, irrigation water source and quality, recycled water storage pond locations and percolation, septic system areas and loading, and soil characteristics. These datasets are described in the following sections. The general process used to arrive at the salt and nutrient loads was:  Identify the analysis units to be used in the model. In the case of Sonoma Valley, parcels from the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office are the analysis units.  Categorize land use categories into discrete groups. These land use groups represent land uses that have similar water demand as well as salt and nutrient loading and uptake characteristics.  Apply the land use group characteristics to the analysis units.  Apply the irrigation water source to the analysis units. Each water source is assigned concentrations of TDS and nitrogen.  Apply the septic system assumption to the analysis units.  Apply the soil texture characteristics to the analysis units.  Estimate the water demand for the parcel based on the irrigated area of the parcel and the land use group.  Estimate the TDS load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure load. The loading model makes the conservative assumption that no salt is removed from the system once it enters the system. Other transport mechanisms (such as runoff draining to creeks exiting the basin) likely reduce the total quantity of salt in the basin.  Estimate the nitrogen load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure (e.g. wastewater ponds) load. The loading model assumes that a portion of the applied nitrogen is taken up by plants and (in some cases) removed from the system (through harvest of plant material). Additional nitrogen is converted to gaseous forms and lost to the atmosphere. Remaining nitrogen is assumed to convert to nitrate and to be subject to leaching. Soil texture is used to estimate and account for mobility of leaching water and the efficiency of nitrate transport through the root zone. 3 Data Inputs Data inputs to the model include the spatial distribution of land uses (with associated loading factors), irrigation water sources (with associated water quality), septic inputs, wastewater infrastructure loads, and soil textures. These inputs are discussed below. 3.1 Land Use Land use data are obtained from the 2012 Sonoma County Assessor’s Office parcel dataset. This dataset contains several hundred discrete land use categories. These categories are consolidated into the following land use groups for the Sonoma Valley basin area:  Flowers and nursery  Pasture  Vines  Other row crops  Dairies  Other confined animal feeding operations  Non-irrigated vines  Non-irrigated field crops  Non-irrigated orchard  Shrub/Scrub  Grassland/ Herbaceous  Barren land  Farmsteads  Urban commercial and industrial  Urban commercial and industrial, low impervious surface (e.g. maintenance yards, schools)  Urban landscape  Urban residential  Paved areas (roads and parking lots) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 3 Local stakeholders and Plan partners confirmed that the land use is substantially unchanged since the 2012 dataset, within the accuracy requirements of this type of analysis. The spatial distribution of land uses is shown in Figure 3-1. Upon review of the land use dataset, stakeholders provided updates to the dairies and grassland/herbaceous categories in the October 10, 2012 SNMP Workshop with the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program’s (SVGMP’s) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Because there are so many distinct categories, a discrete color for each type could not be assigned. Therefore, land use categories with similar characteristics (i.e. urban categories, non- irrigated agriculture categories, irrigated agriculture categories) are shown combined into a color category. Each land use group is assigned characteristics including:  Applied water  Percent irrigated  Applied nitrogen  Used nitrogen  Leachable nitrogen  Applied TDS Leachable nitrogen is assumed to be the applied nitrogen less 10 percent of the applied nitrogen for gaseous loss, less nitrogen removal in harvested plant material. Table 3-1 consists of a matrix of values for the land use categories and characteristics. These values were also presented to the stakeholder group and refined based on their input. Refinements included adjustments to vineyards, farmsteads/rural residential, and non-irrigated field crops. For vineyards, coordination with stakeholders included modification to applied TDS and irrigation volume to reflect practices in the area. For farmsteads/rural residential, modifications were made to applied TDS, applied N, and irrigation volume based on improved understanding of land uses on these diverse parcels. Finally, non-irrigated field crops were given the non-irrigated designation based on stakeholder input on the farming practices of what are generally small-grain hay crops in the southern portion of the basin. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 4 Figure 3-1: Land Use Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 5 Table 3-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent Cultivated1 Applied Water2 (in/yr) Applied Nitrogen3 (lbs/acre- year) Nitrogen Uptake4 (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen5 (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS6 (lbs/acre- year) Paved Areas 28 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Non-irrigated vines 284 80% 0 18 16 0 84 Non-irrigated Orchard 41 80% 0 75 60 8 292 Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 80% 0 34 22 8 170 Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 5% 48.5 92 60 23 657 Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 30% 48.5 92 60 23 438 Farmsteads/Rural- Residential7 5,608 10% 28.7 60 42 13 303 Urban Residential 2,238 15% 51.1 92 60 23 438 Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 75% 48.5 92 60 23 584 Pasture 2,266 40% 51.1 110 90 14 584 Vines8 13,075 100% 6.3 29 23 3 168 Other CAFOs 102 10% 0.0 84 -75 730 Dairy9 769 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: 1 Percent of land area assumed to be cultivated within each class is estimated is based review of aerial photography and agricultural scientist professional judgment of a reasonable, broad average for each class. 2 Applied water values and other climatic data are taken from Department of Water Resources (DWR) land and water use data (http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/anlwuest.cfm). On this website, four years of data are available. Climatic data averages, based on these four years of data, was compared to the 21-year average of available CIMIS climatic data for the Sonoma Valley area. As the two data sets correspond well, the average DWR applied water values were used, with some adjustment using crop coefficients for the Sonoma Valley area to fit the study land use classes. 3 Applied nitrogen estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied nitrogen was then calculated for total acreage and checked against fertilizer sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records, and adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region. 4 Uptake of nitrogen was estimated from available literature by multiplying reported yield figures by reported nitrogen concentrations for harvested plant parts. Balances between uptake and application were checked to ensure that nitrogen use efficiencies were in the reported ranges, adjusted for professional knowledge of irrigation and fertilization practice in each land cover class. 5 Maximum nitrogen leaching calculations for each land cover unit were calculated based on the balance between application, gaseous loss (volatilization and denitrification), and uptake. The maximum was then reduced based on soil conditions mapped for the area. 6 Applied TDS estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied TDS was then calculated for total acreage and checked against amendment sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records. Amendment application rates were adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region.Farmstead irrigated areas are assumed to be a mix of turf grasses and vineyards. 7 Assumes that irrigated vines have a larger percent cultivation due to increased production efficiency from irrigation and a conservative value of 100% cultivation was used. An additional assumption for vines is that vines irrigated with recycled water utilize the same fertilizer and amendment application rates as those irrigated with groundwater (conservative estimate). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 6 8 See discussion on dairy parcels below. Due to the importance of dairies, some additional consideration is applied to dairy parcels. To better reflect land use practices, the applied, used, and leachable nitrogen characteristics and the applied TDS characteristic are further subdivided into production areas, ponds, and land application areas. Leachable nitrogen is calculated the same way as for the other land use groups except that gaseous loss is assumed to be 20 percent, as opposed to the 10 percent assumed loss for other land use groups, mainly due to the regular timing and highly organic nature of applied nitrigen. Table 3-2 summarizes the assumed dairy characteristics. Table 3-2: Assumed Characteristic Dairy Values for the Loading Model Dairy Subdivision Designation Percent of Total Parcel Area Used Per Designation Applied Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Used Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS (lbs/acre- year) Production Area 6% 20 0 8 82 Ponds 1% 141 0 113 933 Land Application Area 93% 367 352 30 1,280 3.2 Irrigation Water Source The irrigation water source data input is the result of a compilation of several different data sets. Potable water service areas were used as the initial layer. Those areas not served by a potable municipal water source are then assumed to obtain irrigation water from local groundwater wells. The spatial extent of these water sources is determined by city water service limits, recycled water studies, local knowledge, and stakeholder input. Stakeholder input was specifically utilized to refine irrigation and frost protection volumes for vineyards; water supply sources for the Temelec area; irrigation volumes on pasture, grazing land, field crops, and farmsteads; and the percentage of irrigated land at the Sonoma Developmental Center. Parcels in a recycled water service area are assumed to use recycled water for irrigation. Based on recycled water use rates and estimated demands, it has been assumed that vineyards were receiving recycled water blended with groundwater (~60% recycled water) to irrigate. Based on imagery of the area receiving recycled water, it has also been assumed that pastures receiving recycled water only irrigate 10% of their total area. For irrigation water source from Valley of the Moon Water District and the City of Sonoma, TDS and nitrogen concentrations were obtained from annual water quality reports. The values assumed for groundwater are based on a basin-wide average calculated from groundwater samples collected from various public supply wells between the years 2000 to 2012 (the baseline period for the SNMP). More information on the existing groundwater quality can be found in the Existing and Future Water Quality TM. The values assumed for recycled water were estimated from effluent sampling conducted in 2012. Table 3-3 summarizes the water quality inputs used for each irrigation water source. The spatial distribution of water sources is shown in Figure 3-2. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 7 Table 3-3: Water Quality Parameters for Loading Model Water Sources Source TDS (mg/L) Nitrate (as N) (mg/L) Valley of the Moon Water District 162 0.2 City of Sonoma 172 0.4 Groundwater 372 0.1 Recycled Water 440 5.2 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 8 Figure 3-2: Water Sources Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 9 3.3 Septic Systems A dataset documenting which parcels have septic systems was not available. It has been assumed that parcels outside of the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Service Area use a septic system. Of those parcels, septic systems are assumed where a residence is identified in the land use dataset. Each parcel with a septic system is assumed to produce 263 gallons per day (gpd), based on 75 gpd/person with 3.5 people per system. The 75 gpd/person estimate is based domestic use quantity estimates per California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 697. An estimate of 3.5 persons per household is a conservative estimate which assumes that household size for homes with septic is larger than that that of homes within the City (per the census bureau, persons per household for 2007-2011 is 2.54 in Sonoma County, with the City at only 2.07 people per household, therefore the outlying areas must be greater than 2.54 persons per household). The septic waste is assumed to have TDS concentrations of 572 mg/L, based on typical groundwater concentrations plus an assumed household contribution of 200 mg/L (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). N concentrations were assumed to be 30 mg/L, based on typical wastewater concentrations for medium strength wastewater (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) of 40 mg/L minus an assumed volatization rate of 25 percent within the septic system. The areas within the basin that could potentially have septic systems are shown in Figure 3-3. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 10 Figure 3-3: Septic Systems Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 11 3.4 Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District operates five recycled water ponds within the groundwater basin; these are indicated in Attachment 1. Two of the ponds use clay liners, while the other three ponds use plastic liners. Due to the liners, it is assumed that no significant loading occurs at pond locations. It is also assumed that leakage from wastewater (sanitary sewer) and recycled water pipelines is not likely to be a significant source of salt and nutrient loading. An effort was also undertaken to quantify potential salt and nutrient loading from winery wastewater ponds. These ponds are often lined with plastic or clay and contain rinsewater with salt and TDS concentrations similar to the source water (likely groundwater) because no additional salts and nutrients are added in the winemaking process. This effort showed that salt and nutrient loading from these ponds were likely negligible, with biological oxygen demand (BOD) the primary concern. These loads were not included in the model, beyond the loads already included through irrigation of the vineyards. 3.5 Soil Textures Soil textures (NRCS, 2013) were obtained from the the Soil Survey of Sonoma County (SCS, 1972). Soil textures were assigned a hydraulic conductivity (NRCS, 1993). Hydraulic conductivity was used to develop an adjustment factor through linearly scaling the estimated conductivities from 0.1 (lowest) to 1.00 (highest). The adjustment factor is used to represent the proportion of nitrate that will migrate to the aquifer, relative to the other textural classes. Where conductivity is slower, it is reasoned (and observed) that nitrogen resides longer in the soil, increasing the proportion that is either taken up or lost through conversion to gaseous species. Similar logic is not applied to TDS as salts are mostly not subject to conversion to gaseous forms, and rapidly saturate soil capacity to adsorb and retain them. Table 3-4 summarizes soil textures within the basin boundaries and how those textures are represented in the loading model. The spatial distribution of textures is shown in Figure 3-4. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 12 Table 3-4: Loading Parameters for Surface Textures Surface SoilTexture Textural Class of Soil Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) Adjustment Factor1 Unweathered bedrock - 0 0 Clay Clay 0.03 0.1 Clay loam Clay loam 0.18 0.13 Cobbly clay loam Clay loam 0.18 0.13 Gravelly clay loam Clay loam 0.18 0.13 Silty clay loam Silty clay loam 0.23 0.14 Variable Variable 0.48 0.19 Gravelly silt loam Silty loam 0.48 0.19 Silt loam Silty loam 0.48 0.19 Gravelly loam Loam 0.73 0.24 Loam Loam 0.73 0.24 Very gravelly loam Loam 0.73 0.24 Fine sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Gravelly sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Very gravelly sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Gravelly sand Sand 4.49 1 Very gravelly sand Sand 4.49 1 Notes: 1 Adjustment factors are based on hydraulic conductivity. The factor linearly scales estimated conductivity from 0.1 (lowest) to 1.00 (highest). The adjustment factor is used to represent how likely the nitrogen is to migrate to the aquifer, relative to the other textural classes. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 13 Figure 3-4: Soil Surface Textures Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 14 4 Loading Model Results Based on the loading parameters and methodology described above, the loading model is used to develop TDS and nitrogen loading rates across the basin. Table 4-1 summarizes the overall contribution of each land use group to total TDS and nitrogen loading. The spatial distribution of TDS and nitrogen loading rates are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2, respectively. The loading analysis estimates somewhat higher loading of TDS in the rural and agricultural areas of the basin, while nitrate loading is higher in the urban areas largely due to the low nitrogen application rates on vineyards. These results areutilized in the Existing and Future Water Quality TM. Table 4-1: TDS and Nitrate Loading Results Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent of Total Area Percentage of Total TDS Loading Percentage of Nitrogen Loading Paved Areas 28 0% 0% 0% Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 17% 0% 0% Non-irrigated vines 284 1% 0% 0% Non-irrigated Orchard 41 0% 0% 0% Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 20% 5% 6% Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 2% 1% 8% Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 2% 5% 7% Farmsteads/Rural- Residential 5,608 13% 11% 37% Urban Residential 2,238 5% 6% 22% Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 1% 5% 1% Pasture 2,266 5% 17% 10% Vines 13,075 31% 42% 3% Other CAFOs 102 0% 0% 0% Dairy 769 2% 7% 5% The relative proportion of the land uses by area, nitrogen loading, and TDS loading are shown in Figure 4-3, Figure 4-4, and Figure 4-5, respectively. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 15 Figure 4-1: Estimated TDS Loading Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 16 Figure 4-2: Estimated Nitrate Loading Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 17 Figure 4-3 Percentage of Land Use in Study Area Grasslands/Barren/  Herbaceous 17%Non‐irrigated vines 1% Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 20% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 2%Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 2% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 13% Urban Residential 5% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 5% Vines 30% Dairy 2% Other 2% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of land area: paved areas, non‐irrigated orchards, other CAFOs Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 18 Figure 4-4 Percentage of TDS Loading in Study Area, by Land Use Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 5% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 1% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 5% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 11% Urban Residential 6% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 5%Pasture 17% Vines 43% Dairy 7% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of TDS loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated vines, non‐ irrigated orchards, other CAFOs Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 19 Figure 4-5 Percentage of Nitrogen Loading in Study Area, by Land Use 5 Brackish Groundwater Kunkel and Upson (1960) originally identified an area of historical brackish groundwater (conductivity greater than 1,000 uS/cm) located primarily beneath the marshlands south of Highway 12/121. In 2006, The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed new estimates of the extent of brackish water using conductivity measurements from 44 wells (USGS, 2006). The report found that intrusion had advanced as much as one mile north of Highway 121 in one area, and indicated the advancement may be attributed to increased groundwater pumping southeast of the City of Sonoma. In other areas (e.g., west of Highway 12), salinity levels diminished. Other potential subsurface inputs of salinity to the groundwater basin include upwelling of high-TDS thermal groundwater along fault zones and inflow connate groundwater. The occurrence and trends related to brackish groundwater in southern Sonoma Valley are further discussed in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM (Todd, 2013). Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 6%Urban Commercial  and Industrial 8% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 7% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 37% Urban Residential 22% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 10% Vines 3% Dairy 5% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of nitrogen loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated  vines, non‐irrigated orchards, other CAFOs Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 20 Figure 5-1: Groundwater Specific Conductance (SCWA, 2010) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 21 6 References California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 697 Census Data, 2007-2011; Sonoma County and City of Sonoma City of Sonoma, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Kunkel, F. and J.E. Upson, 1960. Geology and ground water in Napa and Sonoma Valleys, Napa and Sonoma Counties, California. USGS Water Supply Paper: 1495 Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill Natural Resource Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture (NRCS). 1993. Soil Survey Manual - Chapter Three; Guidelines for Ksat Class Placement. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html NRCS. 2013. Soil texture calculator. 20http://soils.usda.gov/technical/aids/investigations/texture/ SCWA, 2011, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program: 2010 Annual Report” Soil Conservation Service (SCS; now NRCS). 1972. Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California, as contained in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. USGS, 2006, “Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground-Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California” Valley of the Moon Water District, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 22 Attachment 1 – Current and Future Recycled Water Users "<M"<M "<M"<M"<M "<M "<M "<M"<M"<M"<M"<M"<M "<M "<M"<M "<M "<M "<M "<M "<M "<M "<M"<M "<M"<M"<M 3N 3N "M 3N 3N3N 3N 3N 3N3N 3N 3N "M 3N 3N "M "M 3N 3N "M 3N "M 3N "M "M "M Sonoma Valley Treatment Plant FM-B2A FM-B2C R4 inlet R4-Pump1R4-Pump2R4-Pump3 Ring Strom R4 Ground water Hudemen Slough G1T1 FM-E3FM-E1 RECYCLED WATER FEEDSTHROUGH MAHONEY BV LEVERONI DOMAINE DONUMRICCI HAIRE BV - 226 ACRES MULAS - 700 ACRES MULAS - 285 ACRES MANZONI - 300 ACRES SILVERADO SONOMA VINEYARDS MAHONEY MULAS CEJA FERGUSON MANZONI NO RW IRRIGATION HAL BAERG - 120 ACRES IRRIGATED BY MULAS LARSON ROMBAUER - NO RW IRRIGATION GONZALES DOUGLAS MATZ CALIFORNIA STATE OF CONSTELATIONS - 271 ACRES M AND H VINEYARDS INC BARTOLUCCI ANDREA AND SUSAN J TR UNKNOWN OWNERS ETAL CALIFORNIA STATE OF Napa County So n o m a C r e e k Schell CreekSecond Napa Slough Third N a p a S l o u g h Napa SloughHudeman Sl o u g h Hyde Creek Schell SloughHollran Creek Steamboat SloughChina S l o u g h Railroad Slough F ow l e r C r e e k Rainb o w S l o u g hArroyo Seco CreekAkers CreekBonil l a C r e e k Rodge r s C r e e k China S l o u g h Rainbow SloughNapa SloughBonilla CreekFM-D1 FM-Z5FM-Z4 FM-Z1 FM-C81FM-C83 FM-B2B R3 FM-F1 FM - B1A Larson (FM-Z2) Manzoni (FM-J2) ·|}þ121 ·|}þ12 ·|}þ121 8th StNapa R d Ramal Rd Duhig RdS k a g g s I s l a n d R dMillerick RdNoble RdPoehlman RdCentral AvBurndale RdRedding RdThiodo ro Rd Las Amigas Rd Dale Av Acacia Av Maf fe i Rd Westach Wy Bentley Wharf RdMill e r i c k L n Imperial Dr Knob Hill Rd Moffei Rd Haire L n Wagner Rd Lawler Rd Neunschwander Rd \\sd-data\proj\sanitation\sonoma valley csd\recycled water\3244_02\Recycled_Parcels_Users_2009.mxd SEPTEMBER 22, 2009-0 2,700 5,400 Feet WELLS TYPE "M POTABLE 3N NON-POTABLE DISCLAIMER This map document and associated data are distributed for informational purposes only “AS-IS”at the published scale and provided without warranty of any kind expressed or implied. Thepositional accuracy of the data is approximate and not intended to represent survey map accuracy.The Sonoma County Water Agency assumes no responsibility arising from use of this information. SVCSD Recycled Water Users and Parcels Sonoma County, California Appendix E - SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan August 2013 1 Technical Memorandum Todd Engineers Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program Prepared For: Marcus Trotta, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Prepared by: Sally McCraven, Todd Engineers Reviewed by: Christy Kennedy, RMC Water and Environment Date: August 26, 2013 1 Introduction This technical memorandum (TM) describes a proposed Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) Groundwater Quality Monitoring Plan for the Sonoma Valley. In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Resolution No. 2009-0011, which established a statewide Recycled Water Policy. Draft amendments to the Recycled Water Policy were released in May 2012, September 2012, October 2012 (SWRCB hearing change sheets), and January 2013. The Recycled Water Policy Amendment was adopted by the SWRCB on January 22, 2013. With respect to monitoring, the Recycled Water Policy states that the SNMP should include a monitoring program that consists of a network of monitoring locations “. . . adequate to provide a reasonable, cost- effective means of determining whether the concentrations of salts, nutrients, and other constituents of concern as identified in the salt and nutrient plans are consistent with applicable water quality objectives.” Additionally, the SNMP “. . . must focus on basin water quality near water supply wells and areas proximate to large water recycling projects, particularly groundwater recharge projects. Also, monitoring locations shall, where appropriate, target groundwater and surface waters where groundwater has connectivity with the adjacent surface waters.” The preferred approach is to “. . . collect samples from existing wells if feasible as long as the existing wells are located appropriately to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. The monitoring plan shall identify those stakeholders responsible for conducting, sampling, and reporting the monitoring data. The data shall be reported to the Regional Water Board at least every three years.” With regards to constituents of emerging concern (CECs), the Recycled Water Policy Attachment A states that “Monitoring of health-based CECs or performance indicator CECs is not required for recycled water used for landscape irrigation due to the low risk for ingestion of the water.” While the policy does not discuss agricultural irrigation application uses, the conclusion of low risk for ingestion of the water applies to agricultural irrigation uses as well. In 2006, the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) coordinated development of a voluntary, non-regulatory Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) in compliance with the 1992 Assembly Bill 3030 (AB3030) and the 2002 Senate Bill 1938 (SB1938) with the participation and collaboration of a broad range of local stakeholders who served as a Basin Advisory Panel. As part of the GMP, the Water Agency and stakeholders have identified implementation of a long-term water quality monitoring program as a funding-dependent component of the GMP (SCWA, 2007). The SNMP monitoring program incorporates the GMP monitoring program. Data gaps in the existing monitoring program are identified. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 2 The purpose of this TM is to describe the SNMP Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program for Sonoma Valley including groundwater sampling locations, sampling frequency, constituents monitored, sampling protocols and associated quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures, data analysis and evaluation criteria, and reporting. The entities responsible for monitoring and reporting will also be described. 2 SNMP Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program 2.1 Monitored Parameters Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients (S/Ns) selected for the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Total salinity is commonly expressed in terms of TDS in milligrams per liter (mg/L). TDS (and electrical [EC] conductivity data that can be converted to TDS) are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. While TDS can be an indicator of anthropogenic impacts such as infiltration of runoff, soil leaching, and land use, there is also a natural background TDS concentration in groundwater. The background TDS concentration in groundwater can vary considerably based on purity and crystal size of the formation minerals, rock texture and porosity, the regional structure, origin of sediments, the age of the groundwater, and many other factors (Hem, 1989). Nitrate is a widespread contaminant in California groundwater. High levels of nitrate in groundwater are associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facility discharges. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. Nitrate data are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. Natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low (typically less than 2 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N). Nitrate is commonly reported as either nitrate-NO3 or nitrate-N; and one can be converted to the other. Nitrate-N is the form of nitrate selected for assessment for this SNMP. The SNMP monitoring program focused on TDS, nitrate, and EC as S/N indicator chemicals. 2.2 Basin Groundwater Quality and S/N Loading As discussed in Chapter 5 of the SNMP, generally, relatively low TDS and nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the Inland Area of the subbasin and water quality concentration trends over time are flat or stable. The subbasin was divided into Inland and Baylands areas as shown in Figure 2-1. The Baylands Area is an area of historically elevated TDS concentrations due to proximity to San Pablo Bay. Due to the elevated salt in this area, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. Average TDS and nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N) groundwater quality were calculated for the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Inland/Baylands area. The average TDS concentrations of the Inland, Baylands, and combined areas are 372, 1,220, and 635 mg/L respectively. The average nitrate-N concentrations of the Inland, Baylands, and combined areas are 0.06, 0.07, and 0.06 mg/L, respectively. As discussed in Appendix A of the SNMP, TDS and nitrate loading to the subbasin is a function of the volume of water recharged and the concentration of that water. The largest TDS load to the subbasin is from deep percolation of aerial precipitation and mountain front recharge, which are the represent the largest volumes of recharge. These two sources represents 57% of the overall TDS loading to the subbasin. However, the TDS concentration of recharge from these source waters is low; 250 mg/L for both precipitation infiltration and mountain front recharge. So while these two sources add TDS load, they act to improve overall groundwater quality with respect to TDS because their TDS concentration is lower than the ambient average groundwater quality (372 mg/L in the Inland Area. Agricultural (groundwater source water) return flow is the second largest TDS load (28% of total loading). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 3 Figure 2-1: DWR Monitoring Wells August 2013 4 The TDS concentration of agricultural return flow is high (4,347 mg/L). As such, agricultural return flows add mass and reduce TDS groundwater quality. Sonoma Creek leakage (6% of total loading at a concentration of 21 mg/L) and municipal return (6% of total loading at a concentration of 1,182 mg/L) contribute the next highest mass of TDS to the subbasin. Septic system return flows (572 mg/L), agricultural (recycled water) return flow (4,344 mg/L), and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area (1,220 mg/L) combined represent less than 2% of the TDS loading to the subbasin. The largest nitrate load is agricultural (groundwater source water) return flow (at a concentration of 24 mg/L), which represents approximately 43% of the total nitrate loading to the subbasin. Municipal return flow (20 mg/L) is the second largest nitrate load (28% of total loading), followed by septic system return flow (20% at a concentration of 26 mg/L), deep percolation of aerial precipitation and mountain front recharge (4% at a concentration of 0.06 mg/) and agricultural (recycled water source water) return flow (3% at 24 mg/L). Sonoma Creek leakage (0.2 mg/L) and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area (0.07 mg/L) represent minor nitrate loading factors in the subbasin. 2.3 Monitoring Programs Groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley has been monitored since 1949. Most data represent one-time samples for short-term studies or individual well-specific assessments. The GMP monitoring program and the proposed SNMP monitoring program rely on three existing ongoing programs:  California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Monitoring  California Department of Public Health (DPH) Required Monitoring  Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) Monitoring The SNMP monitoring program will also collect and consider data from any other special studies conducted in the subbasin, such as studies conducted through the GMP to evaluate salinity sources in southern Sonoma Valley and studies conducted under the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. Each program is described in the following sections. 2.4 DWR Monitoring Beginning in the 1950s, DWR initiated the longest sustained water quality monitoring effort in the Sonoma Valley. Since the late 1950s the DWR has sampled and analyzed groundwater for major ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, chloride and sulfate), boron, nitrate, TDS, total alkalinity, specific conductance or electrical conductance, pH, and water temperature. DWR has monitored 12 private volunteer water supply wells in Sonoma Valley on a regular basis since 2004. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the current DWR monitoring wells. Table 2-1 lists the wells and provides approximate location; construction information (if available); and the period of data available for EC, TDS, and nitrate. Total well depths are available for all wells and screened interval information is available for seven of the 12 wells. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 5 Table 2-1: Current Wells Monitored by DWR Well No. DPH Well No. Latitude LongitudeDepth Drilled (feet)Depth Cased (feet)Depth of Top Perf. (feet)Depth of Bottom of Perf. (feet)Land Surface Elevation (ft-msl)EC TDS Nitrate5N/5W-8P238.2896 -122.4387250 245 170 240 100 1974–2002 1974–2002 1974–20105N/5W-18D238.2839 -122.460875 75 — — — 1958–2004 1958–2004 1958–20105N/5W-20R138.2611 -122.4297504 449 — — 32 1969–20101958 - 2010 1958 - 20105N/5W-28N138.2453 -122.4268130 110 — — 11 1951–2002 1951–2002 1951–20105N/5W-28R138.2472 -122.4103280 280 80 270 70 1971–2004 1971–2004 1971–20105N/6W-2N238.3038 -122.4983171 171 150 167 135 1972–2010 1972–2010 1972–20105N/6W-12F138.2950 -122.4747113 113 — — 80 1958–2004 1958–2004 1958–20105N/6W-12M138.2914 -122.479460 58 49 57 80 1972 - 2010 1972 - 2010 1972 - 20105N/6W-25P238.2440 -122.4760640 640 175 640 37 1968–20031970 - 2002 1970 - 20106N/6W-10M238.3791 -122.5172228 224 84 224 320 1975–20041985 - 20041975–20106N/6W-26E138.3382 -122.4982304 241 — — 180 1958 -2010 1958 - 2010 1958 - 20107N/6W-29P138.3381 -122.4981112 112 —6370 1957 - 2010 1957 - 2010 1957 - 2007EC - electrical conductivityTDS - total dissolved solidsPerf. - perforationPeriod of Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 6 One half of the wells are typically sampled in odd numbered years and the remaining half in even numbered years, so that wells are sampled once every two years. DWR has confirmed that funding is available to continue this regular monitoring program (Nordberg, 2013). Currently analyzed water quality parameters are listed in Table 2-2. Indicator S/Ns to be included in the SNMP monitoring program are highlighted in orange. Water quality data collected by DWR are provided to the Agency and incorporated into the GMP water quality database. Selected water quality data are analyzed and periodically reported in the GMP annual report (SCWA, 2011). The GMP reports are available online at the Agency website. Table 2-2: Constituents Monitored by DWR List of Constituents Monitored by DWR  pH  Specific conductance or electrical conductivity (EC) (field & lab)  Temperature  Hardness  Calcium  Magnesium  Potassium  Sodium  Alkalinity  Bicarbonate  Nitrate  Total dissolved solids (TDS)  Chloride  Sulfate  Boron  Bromide  Barium  Iron  Manganese  Arsenic  Stable Isotopes of Oxygen and Hydrogen 2.5 DPH Monitoring The DPH regulates public drinking water systems. A public drinking water system means a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Private domestic wells and irrigation wells are not regulated by the DPH. The DPH regulates all public water systems in the State to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water from these systems. The DPH establishes the monitoring requirements for drinking water wells and all the data collected must be reported to DPH by the well owner. Production wells that supply drinking water are regulated under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 22 also establishes the regulatory limits for volatile organic compounds, non-volatile synthetic organic compounds, inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, disinfection byproducts, and other general physical constituents. Public groundwater purveyors are obligated to collect groundwater samples to determine compliance with maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in accordance with monitoring schedules developed by DPH based on the size of the water system. Purveyors are required to submit data directly to DPH via electronic transfer. The constituents monitored and the frequency of monitoring varies based on the well, size of the water system, and history of water quality monitoring results. DPH provides drinking water quality monitoring notification documents to water systems that identify upcoming required contaminant testing. These are updated periodically and vary for each water system. Sonoma’s (District 18) monitoring schedule for small water systems can be found at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Monitoringschedule/DistrictReports- Monitoring%20Page/SonomaDistrict18.pdf Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 7 There are currently 26 wells with recent data (2000 to 2012) for at least one of the S/Ns; EC, TDS, and nitrate. The well data reported to the DPH may change in the future as wells are put on standby or abandoned and as new wells are drilled and operated. Accordingly, the DPH data included in the SNMP may change over time. However, the general geographic distribution and sampling frequency is not anticipated to vary significantly. Figure 2-2 shows the approximate locations of wells in the DPH monitoring network. Table 2-3 provides information on the wells. The table lists 39 wells including several City of Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District wells that have not been sampled recently for EC, TDS, or nitrate. Well depth and screened interval information is available for 12 of the 39 wells. Water quality data reported to the DPH is incorporated by the Agency into the GMP water quality database. Selected water quality data are analyzed and periodically reported in the GMP annual report (SCWA, 2011). The GMP reports are posted on the Agency website. 2.6 SCWA Monitoring In 2011, the Agency and GMP stakeholders installed two nested monitoring wells with drilling and construction funded through a Local Groundwater Assistance (LGA) grant. Figure 2-3 shows the locations of the wells. Well depth and screened interval information is available for all the wells (Table 2-4). At SVMW-1, four target zones were selected and a nested groundwater monitoring well was constructed comprising four individual nested 3-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casings within a single borehole. At SVMW-2, five target zones were selected and a nested groundwater monitoring well was constructed comprising four individual nested 3-inch diameter PVC well casings within a single borehole and a separate shallow-zone groundwater monitoring well was constructed within a separate borehole adjacent to the nested well. Parameters analyzed by the Agency are shown in Table 2-5. Indicator S/Ns to be monitored for the SNMP monitoring program are highlighted in orange. The wells have been sampled twice since their installation in November 2011 and September 2012. The Agency and GMP stakeholders intend to sample the wells a minimum of once per year. The water quality data will be analyzed and periodically reported in the GMP annual report and the report will be posted on the Agency website. 2.7 Special Studies The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has also sampled and analyzed both surface and groundwater in Sonoma Valley for special studies. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, wells were sampled by USGS for the “Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground-Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California” (USGS, 2006). That report also incorporated sampling conducted under the (GAMA) Program for the North San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region (USGS, 2004). Special studies associated with the GAMA program have also been conducted in Sonoma Valley, including “Interpretation of Isotopic Data in Sonoma Valley, California” (Moran, et al., 2010 and a Shallow Aquifer Assessment Program (USGS, in preparation). Data from these special studies have been incorporated into the GMP water quality database. These and any future special studies that conduct S/N monitoring will be incorporated and reported through the SNMP monitoring program. 2.8 Monitoring Locations and Frequency Figure 2-4 shows the monitoring locations that will be included in the SNMP monitoring program. The sampling points, frequency, and monitored parameters are described in Table 2-6. As mentioned previously, the DPH required monitoring frequency and constituents monitored are variable based on the well and DPH requirements. All available DPH S/N data will be incorporated in the SNMP monitoring program and described in monitoring reports. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 8 Figure 2-2: DPH Monitoring Wells Note: Well locations are approximate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 9 Table 2-3: Wells Monitored for DPH State Well No.DPH Well No. Latitude Longitude Depth Drilled (feet) Depth Cased (feet) Depth of Top Perf. (feet) Depth of Bottom of Perf. (feet) Land Surface Elevation (ft-msl) EC TDS Nitrate 6N/6W-36M2 4910013-003 38.3020 -122.4940 214?214? 140 214?230 1989 - 2011 1989 - 2011 1989 - 2011 5N/6W-8B1 4900973-002 38.2770 -122.5140 380 380 90 380 968 1998 - 2012 1998 - 2012 1998 - 2012 5N/6W-12C1 4910012-005 38.2980 -122.4740 730 730 530 730 95 1982 - 2011 1982 - 2011 1982 - 2011 4910012-001 38.2960 -122.4540 405 395 100 395 98 1988 - 2002 5N/5W-7G1 4910012-002 38.2950 -122.4550 221 75 - -95 2008 5N/5W-7F1 4910012-003 38.2960 -122.4580 263 165 - -95 2008 5N/5W-7A2 4910012-004 38.2980 -122.4490 500 210 - -140 2008 5N/5W-7C2 4910012-006 38.2990 -122.4560 250 266 140 236 120 2008 5N/5W-17E1 4910012-013 38.2808 122.4409 861 666 473 646 69 2008 6N/6W-35A1 4910013-001 38.3260 -122.4860 - - - - - 2008 5N/6W-1J3 4910013-002 38.3040 -122.4660 460 440 140 440 125 2008 5N/6W-2P2 4910013-004 38.3200 -122.4780 425 360 60 350 118 2008 4910013-005 38.3240 -122.4830 - - - - - 2008 6N/6W-9A1 4910013-006 38.3850 -122.5200 265 258 41 258 320 1979 - 2001 1979 - 2001 1979 - 2001 4910013-019 38.3850 -122.5200 - - - - - 2009 4900533-001 38.3940 -122.5510 -----2000 - 2009 2000 - 2009 2000 - 2011 4900561-002 38.2480 -122.4740 -----1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 4900561-003 38.2480 -122.4740 -----1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 4900845-001 38.3060 -122.4740 -----1994 - 2009 1994 - 2009 1994 - 2009 4900909-002 38.2480 -122.4740 - - - --2010 -2010 2000 - 2011 4900918-001 38.3060 -122.4740 -----1992 - 2010 1992 - 2010 1992 - 2010 4900921-001 38.3640 -122.5140 - - - --1997 - 2011 4900924-001 38.2480 -122.4350 - - - --1997 - 2011 4900945-001 38.2770 -122.4740 - - - --2001 - 2010 4901061-001 38.2480 -122.4350 -----2010 - 2011 2010 -2010 2003 - 2011 4901069-001 38.2770 -122.4740 - - - --1997 - 2012 4901083-002 38.2770 -122.4350 - - - --2000 - 2011 4901193-001 38.2480 -122.4350 - - - --2000 - 2010 4901218-001 38.2710 -122.4370 -----2000 - 2000 2000 - 2000 2000 - 2012 4901225-001 38.2480 -122.4350 - - - --1998 - 1998 1998 - 1998 1998 - 2010 4901231-001 38.3640 -122.5140 -----1996 - 1996 1996 - 1996 1996 - 2012 4901234-001 38.2770 -122.4740 - - - --1998 - 1998 1998 - 1998 1998 - 2011 4901247-001 38.2480 -122.4350 -----2010 - 2011 2010 - 2010 1999 - 2011 4901258-001 38.2770 -122.4740 -----2000 - 2000 2000 - 2000 2000 - 2011 4901258-002 38.2770 -122.4740 -----2000 - 2000 2000 - 2000 2000 - 2011 4901273-001 38.2480 -122.4440 -----2002 - 2002 2002 - 2002 2002 - 2011 4901275-001 38.2190 -122.4740 - - - --2004 - 2011 4901278-001 38.2190 -122.4740 -----2010 - 2010 2010 - 2010 2010 - 2012 4901294-001 38.2480 -122.4350 -----2008 - 2011 2009 - 2011 2004 - 2012 EC - electrical conductivity TDS - total dissolved solids Perf. - perforation Period of Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 10 Figure 2-3: Agency Monitoring Wells Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 11 Table 2-4: Wells Monitored by the Agency Well No. DPH Well No. Latitude LongitudeDepth Drilled (feet)Depth Cased (feet)Depth of Top Perf. (feet)Depth of Bottom of Perf. (feet)Land Surface Elevation (ft-msl)Owner Well NameEC TDS NitrateSVMW-1-9538.2554 -122.4422 470 105 85 95 2.8712011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW1-23338.2554 -122.4422 470 243 223 233 22.8312011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW1-36538.2554 -122.4422 470 374 355 365 22.8512011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW1-45538.2554 -122.4422 470 465 440 455 22.8312011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW2-52 38.2655 -122.4685 485 32 52 45.212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-10038.2655 -122.4685 485 110 80 100 45.4312011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-22038.2655 -122.4685 485 230 200 220 45.4212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-40938.2655 -122.4685 485 419 374 384 45.4212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-48038.2655 -122.4685 485 490 460 480 45.4212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2EC - electrical conductivityTDS - total dissolved solidsPerf. - perforation1 - Top of casing elevationPeriod of Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 12 Table 2-5: Constituents Monitored by Agency List of Constituents Monitored by Agency  Temperature (field)  pH (field and lab)  Electrical conductivity (field and lab)  Aluminum  Antimony  Arsenic  Barium  Beryllium  Boron  Bromide  Cadmium  Calcium  Chloride  Chromium  Cobalt  Copper  Iron  Lead  Magnesium  Manganese  Mercury  Molybdenum  Nickel  Potassium  Selenium  Silver  Sodium  Strontium  Sulfate  Titanium  Vanadium  Zinc Bicarbonate  Carbonate  Hardness  Total Alkalinity  Total Dissolved Solids  Hydroxide  Iodide  Nitrate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 13 Figure 2-4: SNMP Monitoring Program Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 14 Table 2-6: SNMP Monitoring Program Program No. of Wells Monitoring Frequency Constituents DWR 12 Every 2 years EC, TDS, and nitrate DPH 26 1 Typically every 3 years EC, TDS, or nitrate Agency 9 Once per year EC, TDS, and nitrate DWR – California Department of Water Resources DPH – California Department of Public Health Agency – Sonoma County Water Agency EC – Electrical Conductivity TDS – total dissolved solids 1 – Number of wells sampled may vary 2.9 Adequacy of Proposed Monitoring Program and Recommendations for Additional Data In general, the proposed SNMP monitoring program described above is deemed adequate to monitor the spatial variability and transient change in S/N groundwater quality as required by the Recycled Water Policy. Specifically, the proposed monitoring program focuses on monitoring “basin water quality near water supply wells” and a number of wells are located within or proximate to areas of recycled water use. Additionally, shallow wells 5N/6W-12F1, 5N/6W-12M1 and SVMW2-52 are located in areas with connectivity with adjacent surface waters (i.e., Sonoma Creek). Nonetheless, three areas where additional data would benefit the SNMP monitoring program have been identified. These include:  Characterization of well completions for wells in the monitoring program  Additional monitoring well(s) immediately north of the Baylands Area  Collection of TDS, EC, and nitrate from all DPH monitored wells Well completion information for some wells is not available as shown in Tables 2-1, 2-3, and 2-4. More well completion information would allow better characterization of the vertical distribution of S/Ns in the subbasin. If a funding mechanism were available, the following is recommended for wells without well completion information:  Contact the DPH and well owners to ask for available well completion information  Review available DWR well logs for completion information on wells in the monitoring network Figure 2-4 shows an area just north of the Baylands Area where additional monitoring would be desirable to monitor potential changes in the area of saline intrusion, if a funding mechanism was available. The additional monitoring point or points could include existing production wells, ideally with completion information, or new nested monitoring wells. TDS, EC, and nitrate data are not available for all DPH monitored wells. It would be helpful if both TDS and nitrate were collected for all wells. The well owners could be asked to voluntarily provide both analyses to DPH, if not currently doing so. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 15 2.10 Data Analysis and Reporting Responsible Party The monitoring data described above will be collected by the Water Agency. The data will be analyzed and reported to the RWQCB every three years by the SVCSD. The SNMP report will include the following:  Discussion of TDS and EC water quality including o Water quality summary tables (TDS and specific conductance) o Water quality concentration maps (TDS and specific conductance) o Time-concentration plots (specific conductance) to assess trends o Comparison of detections with BPOs  Status of recycled water use and stormwater capture projects and implementation measures The SNMP monitoring program will be reviewed every three years as part of the triennial SNMP reporting. Nitrate As discussed in the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, nitrate concentrations are typically low and well below the basin plan objective (BPO) and time-concentration plots indicate generally stable trends. Only one well (28N1) in the monitoring program shows an increasing nitrate trend. Accordingly, nitrate has not been a focus of analysis for the triennial GMP water quality report. For future SNMP reporting it is recommended that nitrate data be presented in summary tables, any concentrations approaching the BPO or increasing trends should be noted, and a time-concentration plot for 28N1 should be included to track future trends in this well. Water quality concentration maps are not recommended unless increasing nitrate concentrations are observed in the future. Specific Conductance and TDS It is recommended that the TDS and specific conductance maps and specific conductance time- concentration plots continue to be presented in the future SNMP report. TDS and specific conductance are equivalent and it is not necessary to present time concentrations plots for both. In addition, specific conductance is more frequently monitored. It is recommended that the BPO be plotted for reference on the time-concentration charts. Evaluation Criteria The criteria or performance measures to evaluate groundwater quality are the TDS/specific conductance and nitrate trends and concentrations. The BPOs are the primary evaluation criteria used to evaluate S/N groundwater quality. Accordingly, the monitoring report should discuss whether S/N concentration trends are generally consistent with the patterns described and predicted in SNMP. TDS, specific conductance, and nitrate groundwater quality should be compared with BPOs to determine if overall basins groundwater quality meets basin plan objectives and will continue to meet BPOs in the future. Other The monitoring reports should also discuss the status of recycled water and stormwater recharge projects and S/N implementation measures. 3 Sampling Protocols and QA/QC Groundwater sampling is conducted by trained professionals from the Agency, DWR, USGS, and water providers (for DPH required monitoring). The DWR, USGS, DPH, and Agency sampling follows established industry standards. A formal sampling protocol and QA/QC program for the recently Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 16 installed Agency nested monitoring wells has not yet been established. Accordingly, this TM describes the recommended sampling protocol and QA/QC program for the Agency nested well sampling. Sampling protocols and QA/QC procedures for each of these four programs are described below. 3.1 DWR Sampling Procedures The DWR does not have formalized sampling procedures, but follows standard industry protocols (Nordberg, 2013). DWR typically samples a well from an outside water hose tap. Water is allowed to run through a flow-through cell until field parameters including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and TDS stabilize. Then, the sample is collected in prepared bottles provided by the laboratory. Samples are placed in coolers with ice packs and transported to an in-house laboratory called Bryte Labs following standard chain-of-custody procedures. Bryte Labs QA/QC procedures follow United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) policy guidelines outlined in the Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans, QAMS-005/80 and also meet the DPH, Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. QA/QC may include equipment, field, and trip blanks for field sampling; and duplicates, method and instrument blanks for laboratory checks. These blanks and duplicates monitor:  contamination from the collection, transport, and storage of the samples  contamination that originates in the lab or exists in the analytical procedure  repeatability or precision of the analytical method. The types of blanks and duplicates collected depend upon the constituents being analyzed. Trip blanks are typically only needed if volatile organic compounds are being analyzed. 3.2 DPH Sampling Procedures The DPH (formally California Department of Health Services (DHS)) has established formal sampling procedures Water Sampling Manual (DHS, 2006). Water suppliers are to send samples to State-certified laboratories and follow the sampling and QA/QC requirements of those laboratories. Samples are to be taken before the check valve on the wellhead and collected after the well has been pumped sufficiently to ensure that the sample represents the groundwater source (DPH, 2013). Laboratories are to meet various requirements available on DPH’s website: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Labinfo.aspx QA/QC may include the analysis of duplicates and equipment, field, trip, method, and instrument blanks. 3.3 SCWA Sampling Procedures The two nested monitoring wells will be sampled by the Water Agency. Purging and sampling of each of the nine intervals (four in SVMW-1 and five in SVMW-2) will follow standard monitoring well sampling guidelines such as those presented in the National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, 2010) http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/chapter4/html/Ch4_contents.html. These procedures are described in the following sections. 3.3.1 Purging and Sampling Generally, the nested wells may be purged prior to sample collection. Purging is conducted until field instruments indicate that water quality parameters (pH, ORP, specific conductance, and temperature) have stabilized and turbidity measurements are below five Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTUs). Industry- accepted purge methods include purging a standard three casing volumes as well as no-purge and low- flow purge methods. Any of these methods, as well as new industry- and regulatory-accepted sampling technologies, may be used. The method used will demonstrate that the sample collected is representative of formation water and not stagnant water in the well casing or well filter pack. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 17 All groundwater samples are collected in laboratory supplied pre-labeled containers and include prescribed preservatives. 3.3.2 Record Keeping and Sample Transport All field measurements will be recorded in a field logbook or worksheets and the sample containers will be labeled correctly and recorded on the chain-of-custody form. The applicable chain-of-custody sections will be completed and forwarded with the samples to the laboratory. Upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory, laboratory personnel will complete the chain-of-custody. Samples will be shipped to the laboratory in sealed insulated shipping containers (ice chests) to maintain the samples at approximately 4°C. 3.3.3 QA/QC Field QA/QC QA/QC assessment of field sampling will include field blanks and duplicates as described below. Field Blank - Field blanks identify sample contamination that is associated with the field environment and sample handling. These samples will be prepared in the field by filling the appropriate sample containers with the distilled water used for cleaning and decontamination of all field equipment. One field blank per sampling will be collected. Duplicates - Duplicates document the precision of the sampling and analytical process. A duplicate is a second sample collected concurrently with the primary sample using the exact same method and analysis. Duplicates will not be identified as to their primary sample source to the laboratory. One duplicate per sampling will be collected. Laboratory QA/QC Samples will be sent to a State-certified laboratory that has in place a documented analytical QA/QC program that includes procedures to reduce variability and errors, identify and correct measurement problems, and provide a statistical measure of data quality. The laboratory will conduct all QA/QC procedures in accordance with its QA/QC program. All QA/QC data shall be reported in the laboratory analytical report, including: the method, equipment, and analytical detection limits, the recovery rates, an explanation for any recovery rate that is less than 80 percent, the results of equipment and method blanks, the results of spiked and surrogate samples, the frequency of quality control analysis, and the name of the person(s) performing the analyses. Sample results shall be reported unadjusted for blank results or spike recovery. 3.4 USGS Special Studies USGS sampling is conducted in compliance with standard monitoring well sampling guidelines presented in the National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, 2010) http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 18 4 References California Department of Health Services (DHS) Drinking Water and Environmental Management Division, Sanitation and Radiation Laboratories Branch, Microbial Disease Laboratory Branch, January 06, 2006, “Water Sampling Manual” California Department of Public Health (DPH) Sonoma and Mendocino Field Office, April 24, 2013, “Personal Communication” California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), April 2012, “Bryte Chemical Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Assurance Technical Document 8” Nordberg, Mark, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), April 2013, “Verbal communications” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 2007, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 30, 2011, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan 2010 annual Report” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), July 2012, “Well Completion Technical Memorandum for Nested Groundwater Monitoring Wells SVMW-1 & SVMW-2, Sonoma Valley” State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), May 2009, “Draft Recycled Water Policy”, amended September 2012, October 2012, and January 2013, approved January 2013 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Revised January 19, 2012, “Low Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure for the Collection of Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells” United States Geological Survey, 2004, “Ground-Water Quality Data in the North San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Provinces, California, 2004: results from the California Ground-Water Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program”, Data Series 167 United States Geological Survey, 2006, “Geohydrologic Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground- Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California”, Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5092 United States Geological Survey (USGS), (variously dated) Compiled 2012, “National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 9 Chaps. A1- A9”, http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A Appendix F - Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Planning Template DRAFT Attachment A to Resolution No. __________ [NO THREAT BASIN EXAMPLE] Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – [Region] to Incorporate the Groundwater Quality Management Plan for the [Basin(s)] Adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, [Region] on [Date]. This groundwater quality management plan satisfies the Recycled Water Policy requirement for salt/nutrient management plans. This groundwater quality management plan applies to groundwater basin(s) considered a low threat for impairment of groundwater quality. Amendments: Table of Contents Chapter X. Groundwater Quality Management Plans <This would potentially be a new chapter to the Basin Plan> X-X Groundwater Quality Management Plan for Low Threat to Groundwater Quality Basins [List…] List of Figures, Tables and Inserts Chapter X. Groundwater Quality Management Plans Tables X-X [Basin(s)] Salt/Nutrient Management and Related Effects X-X.1 [Basin(s)] Salt/Nutrient Management and Related Effects: Elements X-X.2 [Basin(s)] Salt/Nutrient Management and Related Effects: Implementation Schedule Chapter X. Groundwater Quality Management Plan [Basin(s)] Groundwater Quality Management Plan This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was adopted by: The Regional Water Quality Control Board on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was approved by: The State Water Resources Control Board on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was approved by: The Office of Administrative Law on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was approved by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan is effective on [Date]. The following tables include the elements of this Groundwater Quality Management Plan. DRAFT Attachment A to Resolution No. __________ Table X-X.1. [Basin] Groundwater Quality Management Plan and Related Effects: Elements Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions Purpose Statement Is the groundwater basin impaired or threatened to be impaired by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]? Overall, water quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is very good and the subbasin is not impaired. Generally, TDS is less than Basin Plan Objectives (BPOs) of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) through most of the basin, with concentrations reaching above 500 mg/L in the southeastern portion of the basin that borders San Pablo Bay due to brackish water intrusion. These elevated concentrations are consistent with historical brackish groundwater reported in that area of the basin. This southeastern portion of the basin (delineated as “Baylands Area” in the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan [SNMP]) is impaired (brackish), and further brackish water intrusion is a concern in the basin. Nitrate levels are generally very low with a basin average of roughly 0.06 mg/L, well below the BPO of 10 mg/L, therefore the basin is not impaired or threatened to be impaired by nutrients. What are the effects of increased levels of [nutrients, salts, and other constituents] on the beneficial uses of groundwater and surface water? What detrimental effects are attributed to [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]? Concerns involving taste and odor, toxicity, human health, crop yields, etc. Increased TDS levels from brackish water intrusion affect the municipal and agricultural beneficial uses of the groundwater subbasin in the Baylands Area. Highly saline water becomes non-potable (due to taste), and from an agricultural perspective, there exists the potential for crop damage and stunted plant growth. While TDS levels within the subbasin are not high enough to warrant a health threat to humans, levels above 1,000 mg/L may have an objectionable taste and odor. Increased levels of nutrients could also affect the beneficial uses of the groundwater subbasin; however, basin- wide average nitrate levels are far below the BPO and nitrate contamination is not a concern. Are surface water and/or groundwater affected by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]? Groundwater is affected by brackish water intrusion in the southeastern portion of the subbasin, which borders San Pablo Bay, but is not affected by salts and nutrients in the Inland Area due to the few sources and high amount of flushing from precipitation and mountain front recharge. Surface water is affected by excess sediment, Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions pathogens and nutrients and there are existing total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs in place for these constituents. Is groundwater quality affected by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents] in surface water; and vise versa? Because both groundwater and surface water quality (for TDS and nitrate) are good and below BPOs, water quality impacts from one on the other are minimal. A small percentage of inflow (11% or about 6,400 acre-feet per year [AFY]) into the groundwater subbasin is from surface waters, which have a low estimated average TDS concentration of 210 mg/L and average nitrate concentration of 0.19 mg/L. Average Inland Area (excluding the Baylands Area) groundwater quality is 372 mg/L for TDS and 0.07 mg/L for nitrate. Therefore, surface water leakage to groundwater adds TDS and nitrate load, but improves TDS groundwater quality (i.e., average TDS in surface water is lower than in groundwater) and degrades nitrate groundwater quality very slightly (i.e., average nitrate in surface water is higher than in groundwater). Groundwater discharge to surface water is about 51,000 AFY. Groundwater discharge to surface water adds TDS and nitrate load; degrades TDS surface water quality slightly (i.e., average TDS in groundwater is higher than in surface water) and improves nitrate surface water quality slightly (i.e., average nitrate in groundwater is lower than in surface water). What are the beneficial uses (i.e., MUN, AGR, IND, FRSH, AQUA, etc.) of groundwater in the [Basin(s)]? The Sonoma Valley Subbasin has both MUN and AGR as existing beneficial uses. IND and PROC are listed as potential beneficial uses. What regulatory provisions are there to protect beneficial uses related to impacts by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]; such as, Resolution No. 68-16 (Antidegradation Policy), etc.? Resolution No. 68-16 protects the beneficial uses of water bodies related to impacts associated with increased nutrients, salts, and other constituents. The Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District provides recycled water to the area under a Recycled Water Permit (Order 92-067), which includes stringent guidelines to ensure proper application to minimize runoff. The SNMP finds that the use of recycled water can be increased while still protecting groundwater quality. Narrative and Numeric Water Quality Objectives (Interpretation of the narrative and numeric water What are the bases for narrative and numeric Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for the Groundwater Quality Management Plan? The Water Quality Objective (WQO) for TDS is based on the California Department of Public Health’s Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions quality objective, used to calculate the load allocations) (CDPHs) adoption of a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for TDS. SMCLs address aesthetic concerns like odor, taste, and color and are not related to health concerns. The BPO for TDS is 500 mg/L, following the SMCL adopted by the CDPH. The objective for TDS allows an upper limit of 1,000 mg/L with a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L. For nitrates, the BPO is set at the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L. What are the narrative and numeric WQOs? Narrative: Bacteria, Organic and Inorganic Chemical Constituents, Radioactivity, and Taste and Odor Relevant numeric WQOs for Municipal and Agricultural Supply: TDS = 500 mg/L (municipal), 10,000 mg/L (agricultural) Nitrate-N = 10 mg/L (municipal), 22.22 mg/L (agricultural) Source Analysis Point sources and non-point sources: <Explain and identify sources and loads from sources. Sources should be inventoried.> Most of the constituent sources are associated with point sources from agricultural and rural areas. These sources include irrigation water, agricultural inputs, residential inputs, and animal waste. 1. Irrigation water. This includes potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water. 2. Agricultural inputs. This includes fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water. 3. Residential, commercial and industrial inputs. This includes septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water. 4. Animal waste. This includes dairy manure land application. Urban loads are assumed to be routed to municipal wastewater systems for recycling or discharge rather than to the groundwater, with the exception of landscape irrigation. Non- point sources, like atmospheric deposition, are not considered to be a main source of the constituents of concern. Potential subsurface inputs of high salinity include San Pablo Bay, thermal water upwelling, and existing connate groundwater within the basin. Explain factors that contribute to the basin not being impaired or threatened to be impaired (e.g., high precipitation, few and low-volume sources, etc.). The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values resulting from a combination Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions of factors including the high percentage of mountain front and precipitation recharge with very low TDS and nitrate concentrations, the low amount of loading from the few sources identified, and the low volume and high quality of recycled water used for irrigation. Basin Water Quality Is groundwater quality being maintained? What is the mass balance of constituents within the basin? Current groundwater quality within the basin is being maintained. Both TDS and nitrate have relatively stable concentrations from the period of record, which are predicted into the future through 2035. What is the basin-wide average concentration for constituents? TDS: Inland Area = 372 mg/L; Baylands Area = 1,220 mg/L Nitrate-N: Inland Area = 0.06 mg/L; Baylands Area = 0.07 mg/L Provide maps showing basin characteristics: locations of wells, water quality, contour maps of TDS, nitrogen and other contaminants. Groundwater subbasin, drainages, recycled water use areas: Figure 2-1 Groundwater elevation map: Figure 2-2 Location of wells: Figures 5-3, 5-5, 9-1 Water quality: Figures 5-3 (TDS), 5-5 (Nitrate) Contour map of TDS: Figure 5-2 Contour map of nitrate: Figure 5-4 Land use: Figure 6-1 Potential for Impairment Acknowledge types of activities or land uses that have the potential to degrade groundwater (fertilizer use, manure spreading, recycled water application etc.). Land uses that have the most potential to degrade groundwater quality are vineyards, pasture land, urban residential areas, and farmsteads or rural-residential areas. Other land uses which contribute to the TDS and nitrate loading of the basin are dairy operations, urban landscape or golfing areas, non-irrigated field crops, and urban commercial and industrial areas. Each of these land uses was a designated loading factor for nitrogen and TDS, as well as applied water and percent irrigated. Recycled Water Projects List recycled water projects/uses. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the SNMP, planned future recycled water projects include expanding agricultural irrigation within the Valley; serving irrigation water to large, urban landscape areas (i.e. Sonoma Valley High School, The Plaza, Sonoma Mission Inn Golf Course, etc); and environmental enhancement through the Napa-Sonoma Salt Marsh Restoration Project. Provide general information, categories and/or specific Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions discharges. The volume of recycled water currently used within the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is approximately 1,110 AFY; and is expected to increase to around 4,100 AFY by 2035. The majority of recycled water application is for irrigation and therefore, it is most typically applied in the summer and fall months. Recycled water application follows stringent guidelines within the Recycled Water Permit (Order 92-067). These guidelines include irrigating at agronomic rates and other best management practices (BMPs) which target minimizing irrigation runoff. Limitations Describe limitations and uncertainties associated with the development of the Plan. Spatially, while historical information from the Baylands brackish area was available, no known wells currently exist in the Baylands Area and therefore no current groundwater quality information was available. Vertically within the aquifer, many wells lack well construction information rendering the depth of many wells unknown. Without sufficient depth-specific well screen information, water quality for shallow and deep zones could not be distinguished. Therefore, the simplicity of the mixing model is a limitation, because it simulates two big “buckets” (Inland and Baylands areas with movement between) and mixing is instantaneous. Additionally, verification of assumptions/estimates for individual anthropogenic loading sources during the calibration process was limited by the sensitivity of groundwater quality to and dominance of natural inflows (precipitation and stream recharge) in Sonoma Valley. Data collected as part of the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program will help to determine if relatively flat trends predicted by the SNMP are verified in the future. Information used to derive future conditions was obtained from planning documents such as Urban Water Management Plans; however, this information is projected on a 20-year planning horizon and can change. For instance recycled water expansion is planned to serve additional agricultural irrigation customers and the urban area of the City of Sonoma; however, exact sites and demands may shift as projects are implemented in the future. To address this, the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan will assess changes in recycled water use on a triennial basis. Monitoring Plan Monitoring Plan: What are the types of monitoring is required (i.e., ambient, site specific, groundwater, surface water, discharges, recycled water, effectiveness of the Implementation Plan, etc.)? What is the goal or need of the monitoring program(s)? The Plan requires groundwater monitoring, with the ultimate goal of determining if the salt and nutrient concentrations remain below BPOs and future trends are consistent with those outlined in the SNMP. Who is responsible for implementing the monitoring Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions program(s)? Because the SNMP monitoring program relies on three existing programs, those responsible for implementing the existing programs will also be responsible for implementing the SNMP monitoring program. Those entities are the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (SVGMP). What shall be analyzed and the frequency? Electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), and nitrate are analyzed. Because the monitoring plan relies on the current monitoring conducted by DWR, CDPH, and SVGMP, the frequency will follow those monitoring schedules. Namely, DWR wells will be monitored every 2 years, CDPH wells will be monitored between one and three years, and SVGMP wells will be monitored annually. Where are the monitoring locations? The 47 monitoring locations are spread throughout Sonoma Valley, with the majority clustered in the northern portion of the subbasin. What are the reporting requirements? Monitoring results will be reported through the Geotracker database system to the Regional Water Board every three years and will include an SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Review period and reopener: The basin monitoring plan will be reviewed on a _3_ year basis. Implementation Schedule, Table X-X.2 Implementation Plan Describe any actions resulting from the plan. There are no new implementation measures resulting from the SNMP, the SNMP only endorses current groundwater supply and quality management measures underway within the subbasin and these are not considered actions resulting from the Plan. Special Studies (What special studies are needed and why? The schedule for the special studies [Implementation Schedule, Table X-X.2]? No special studies are recommended to be undertaken as part of this SNMP. Include goals and objectives for recycled water and stormwater recharge/use. The overall goal for both recycled water and stormwater recharge/use is to increase water supplies and supply reliability within the groundwater subbasin, and decrease the amount of pumping and strain on groundwater supplies. For the SNMP, recycled water goals and objectives are based on information provided in 2010 UWMPs and 2012 recycled water usage data. Recycled water goals were set based on 2010 UWMP recycled water use projections. No quantitative goals were set for stormwater recharge/use in this SNMP because planning efforts and specific projects for Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions stormwater recharge in the basin are now underway which would establish these objectives. Environmental Considerations   Because the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan does not recommend or require any new  implementation measures, it does not fit the definition of a “project” under CEQA, and thus does not  require the completion of a CEQA document.  According to Section 21065 of CEQA:     “Project” means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a  reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment     As described in further detail in the table on the following pages, the SNMP does not include  implementation of any new actions that would have potential to affect any environmental resources.       Resource Categories Potential Impacts Significance  Aesthetics  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no aesthetic impacts  are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Agriculture and  Forest Resources  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no agriculture and  forest resources impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Air Quality  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no air quality impacts  are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Biological Resources  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no biological resource  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Cultural Resources  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no cultural resource  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval.  No impact  Geology and Soils  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no geology and soil  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Greenhouse Gas  Emissions  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no greenhouse gas  emissions are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Hazards and  Hazardous Materials  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no hazard and  hazardous material impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Hydrology and Water  Quality  No negative impacts.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no negative  hydrology and water quality impacts are anticipated as part  of Plan approval.  Plan approval does result in beneficial  water quality outcomes by formalizing a groundwater  monitoring program and through a number of projects in  which the Plan promotes.  No negative  impact/  Beneficial  impact  Land Use and  Planning  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no negative land use  and planning impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Mineral Resources  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no negative mineral  resource impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact    Resource Categories Potential Impacts Significance  Noise  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no noise impacts are  anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Population and  Housing  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no population and  housing impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Public Services  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no public service  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Recreation  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no recreation impacts  are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Transportation/Traffic  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no  transportation/traffic impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Utilities and Service  Systems  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no utilities and  service system impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Mandatory Findings  of Significance  While the SNMP does not recommend new implementation  measures, the projects and activities it endorses provide a  net benefit to the region.  Beneficial  impact  Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Prepared for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District September 2013 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Final Report Prepared by: In Association with: Todd Engineers PlanTierra, Inc. Prepared for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District September 2013 September 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i  ES-1 Recycled Water Policy Background and Salt and Nutrient Plan Requirement ... i  ES-2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin ............................................... i  ES-3 Developing a Plan Collaboratively .......................................................................... i  ES-4 Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals ................................................................. ii  ES-5 Existing Groundwater Quality ................................................................................. ii  ES-6 Source Identification and Loading ........................................................................ iii  ES-7 Future Groundwater Quality .................................................................................. iii  ES-8 Implementation Measures ...................................................................................... iv  ES-9 Groundwater Monitoring Program ........................................................................ iv  ES-10 Antidegradation Analysis ....................................................................................... iv  ES-11 Plan Finalization Process ....................................................................................... iv  ES-12 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... iv  Chapter 1 Introduction and Background .............................................................................. 1-1  1.1 Plan Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-1  1.2 Plan Organization .................................................................................................... 1-1  1.3 Plan Limitations ....................................................................................................... 1-2  Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin ........................................... 2-1  2.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 2-1  2.2 Groundwater Levels and Flow ................................................................................ 2-3  2.2.1 Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction ............................................................... 2-5  2.3 Water Use ............................................................................................................... 2-5  2.3.1 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 2-5  2.3.2 Imported Surface Water .......................................................................................... 2-5  2.3.3 Recycled Water ....................................................................................................... 2-5  2.4 Groundwater Management Program ....................................................................... 2-6  Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach ....................................................... 3-1  3.1 Stakeholder Group .................................................................................................. 3-1  3.2 Workshop Process .................................................................................................. 3-1  3.3 Regulatory Coordination ......................................................................................... 3-3  3.4 Coordination with the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ..... 3-3  Chapter 4 Goals ...................................................................................................................... 4-1  4.1 Recycled Water Goals ............................................................................................ 4-1  4.2 Stormwater Recharge Goals ................................................................................... 4-1  Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis .............................................................. 5-3  5.1 Existing Groundwater Quality .................................................................................. 5-3  5.1.1 Indicator Parameters of Salts and Nutrients ........................................................... 5-3  5.1.2 Water Quality Objectives ......................................................................................... 5-3  5.1.3 TDS and Nitrate Fate and Transport ....................................................................... 5-3  5.1.4 Analysis Methodologies .......................................................................................... 5-4  5.1.5 TDS in Groundwater ............................................................................................... 5-5  5.1.6 Nitrate in Groundwater ............................................................................................ 5-9  Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis ...................................................... 6-1  6.1 Methodology for Loading Model .............................................................................. 6-1  6.2 Data Inputs .............................................................................................................. 6-2  6.2.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 6-2  6.2.2 Irrigation Water Source ........................................................................................... 6-6  6.2.3 Septic Systems ....................................................................................................... 6-6  September 2013 6.2.4 Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure ............................................................. 6-7  6.2.5 Soil Textures ........................................................................................................... 6-7  6.3 Loading Model Results ............................................................................................ 6-7  Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis ................................................................. 7-1  7.1 Simulation of Baseline and Future Groundwater Quality ........................................ 7-1  7.2 Use of Assimilative Capacity by Recycled Water Projects ...................................... 7-1  7.3 Baseline Period Analysis ......................................................................................... 7-1  7.3.1 Water Quality of Inflows and Outflows .................................................................... 7-2  7.3.2 Mixing Model Calibration and Salt and Nutrient Balance ........................................ 7-3  7.4 Future Planning Period Water Quality ..................................................................... 7-4  7.4.1 Future Scenarios ..................................................................................................... 7-5  7.4.2 Future Water Quality Results .................................................................................. 7-6  Chapter 8 Implementation Measures .................................................................................... 8-1  8.1 Existing Implementation Measures and Ongoing Management Programs ............. 8-1  8.2 Agricultural BMPs .................................................................................................... 8-1  8.2.1 Vineyard .................................................................................................................. 8-1  8.2.2 Dairy ........................................................................................................................ 8-1  8.2.3 Other Agriculture ..................................................................................................... 8-2  8.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs ............................................................................. 8-2  8.4 Groundwater Management Plan – Ongoing Programs ........................................... 8-2  8.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Management ............................................. 8-3  8.6 Municipal Wastewater Management ....................................................................... 8-3  Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 9-1  9.1 Existing Monitoring Programs ................................................................................. 9-1  9.2 SNMP-Specific Groundwater Monitoring Program .................................................. 9-1  9.3 Data Gaps ............................................................................................................... 9-2  Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment ............................................................................ 10-1  10.1 Recycled Water Irrigation Projects ........................................................................ 10-1  10.2 SWRCB Recycled Water Policy Criteria ............................................................... 10-1  10.3 Assessment ........................................................................................................... 10-1  Chapter 11 Plan Approval Process ....................................................................................... 11-1  Chapter 12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 12-1  References .............................................................................................................................. 13-1  List of Tables Table 1-1: Document Organization and Chapter Summary ................................................. 1-2  Table 4-1: Current Use and Future Goals for Recycled Water............................................. 4-1  Table 4-2: Basin Water Management Studies and Timeline ................................................ 4-2  Table 5-1: Basin Plan Objectives ............................................................................................ 5-3  Table 5-2: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity ................. 5-6  Table 5-3: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity ......... 5-9  Table 6-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors ...................................................................... 6-5  Table 6-2: Assumed Characteristic Dairy Values for the Loading Model ........................... 6-6  Table 6-3: Water Quality Parameters for Loading Model Water Sources ........................... 6-6  Table 6-4: TDS and Nitrate Loading Results ....................................................................... 6-10  Table 7-1: Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Mass and Concentrations for Baseline Period Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7-3  Table 7-2: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) ............................................................................. 7-5  Table 7-3: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) .......................................... 7-6  September 2013 Table 7-4: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) ................................................................................................................................. 7-6  Table 9-1: SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program ............................................................ 9-2  Table 10-1: Antidegradation Assessment ........................................................................... 10-2  List of Figures Figure 2-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................. 2-2  Figure 2-2: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Deep Zone, Spring 2010 . 2-4  Figure 3-1: Collaborative Plan Development Process .......................................................... 3-1  Figure 5-1: Summary of Available Water Quality Data ......................................................... 5-5  Figure 5-2: Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) ...................... 5-7  Figure 5-3: Time-Concentration Plots Total Dissolved Solids ............................................. 5-8  Figure 5-4: Nitrate as N Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012)....................................... 5-10  Figure 5-5: Time-Concentration Plots Nitrate as N ............................................................. 5-11  Figure 6-1: Land Use ............................................................................................................... 6-4  Figure 6-2: TDS Loading in Study Area ................................................................................. 6-8  Figure 6-3: Nitrate Loading in Study Area ............................................................................. 6-9  Figure 6-4: Percentage of Land Use in Study Area ............................................................ 6-11  Figure 6-5: Percentage of TDS Loading in Study Area, by Land Use ............................... 6-12  Figure 6-6: Percentage of Nitrogen Loading in Study Area, by Land Use ........................ 6-13  Figure 7-1: Final Simulated Baseline Average Groundwater Concentrations ................... 7-4  Figure 7-2: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations ....................................... 7-6  Figure 7-3: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations ............................... 7-7  Figure 9-1: SNMP Monitoring Program .................................................................................. 9-3  Appendices Appendix A – Existing and Future Groundwater Quality Technical Memorandum Appendix B – Meeting Summaries for Regional Water Quality Control Board Meetings Appendix C – Draft Guidance Document for SNMPs for the San Francisco Bay Region Appendix D – Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading Technical Memorandum Appendix E – SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan Appendix F – Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Planning Template List of Acronyms AF Acre-Feet AFY Acre-Feet per Year BAP Basin Advisory Panel BMPs Best Management Practices BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BPO Basin Plan Objective CDPH California Department of Public Health CEC Constituents of Emerging Concern DWR Department of Water Resources EC Electrical Conductivity GMP Groundwater Management Plan IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management LID Low Impact Development September 2013 MCL Maximum Contaminant Level OWTS Onsite Wastewater Treatment System SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan SVCSD Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District SVGMP Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDS Total Dissolved Solids USGS United States Geological Survey UWMPs Urban Water Management Plans VOMWD Valley of the Moon Water District Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 i Executive Summary ES-1 Recycled Water Policy Background and Salt and Nutrient Plan Requirement In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board established a statewide Recycled Water Policy to encourage the use of recycled water and local stormwater capture. The Recycled Water Policy also required local water and wastewater entities, together with local salt and nutrient contributing stakeholders to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for each groundwater basin or subbasin in California. In addition to promoting reliance on local, sustainable water sources such as recycled water and stormwater, the SNMP’s purpose is to manage salts and nutrients from all sources to ensure water quality objectives are met and sustained, and beneficial uses of the groundwater basin are protected. The information in this SNMP is limited to the available data for the subbasin. ES-2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin This SNMP was developed for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, defined as basin number 2-2.02 in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118-4 (DWR, 2003). The Sonoma Valley Subbasin encompasses an area of approximately 70 square miles and is located within the larger 166 square mile Sonoma Creek Watershed. Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to and northwest of San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin was divided into a Baylands Area (containing the historical brackish groundwater) and an Inland Area for the analyses within this SNMP. There are distinct shallow and deeper groundwater zones with the subbasin, and two groundwater pumping depressions are apparent in the deep zone southeast of the City of Sonoma (City) and in the El Verano area. Groundwater serves approximately 25% of the Sonoma Valley population and is the primary source of drinking water supply for rural domestic and other unincorporated areas not being served by urban suppliers. More than half of the water demand in 2000 was met with groundwater and the remaining demand was met with imported water (36%), recycled water (7%), and local surface water (<1%). The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) manages and operates the wastewater treatment facility owned by the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD). During dry weather months from May through October, the SVCSD provides 1,000 to 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for vineyards, dairies, and pasturelands in the southern part of Sonoma Valley. In 2006, a collaborative group of over twenty stakeholders began development of a non-regulatory Groundwater Management Plan (GMP). The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (SVGMP) arising from the GMP locally manages groundwater resources for all beneficial uses. ES-3 Developing a Plan Collaboratively The SNMP was coordinated through the efforts of the SVGMP’s existing stakeholder groups, the Basin Advisory Panel (BAP) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Development of the SNMP was a collaborative effort that utilized a series of six workshops at key milestones in the plan development and technical analysis. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), has also been heavily involved in the Plan development and progress through two inter-regional regulatory meetings, and three Sonoma Valley SNMP-specific meetings. These meetings were held to share findings and obtain concurrence on critical elements of the technical analysis and the development approach for the SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 ii The Sonoma Valley SNMP received partial funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for the SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans for the San Francisco Bay Region was developed as a result, and is included as Appendix B. ES-4 Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals The goals for use of recycled water and stormwater recharge in the subasin were developed based on stakeholder input and on the information contained in UWMPs and other planning documents. Currently, approximately 1,100 AFY of recycled water is utilized within the subbasin for agricultural irrigation. Future planned use, and hence the recycled water goal for the subbasin is 4,100 AFY for irrigation of urban areas and agricultural, and environmental enhancement. Agencies and stakeholders in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are actively working to increase the ability to put stormwater to beneficial use. However, the benefit of recharging stormwater (which is likely to be low in TDS) is not included in the groundwater quality analyses in this Plan due to uncertainties in the projected quantity and volumes of stormwater recharge at this time. ES-5 Existing Groundwater Quality TDS and nitrate were utilized as indicator parameters within this SNMP. A period of 2000-2012 was utilized to establish baseline groundwater quality conditions. Generally, relatively low TDS concentrations (less than 500 mg/L) are observed throughout most of the subbasin. A few wells with elevated concentrations (above 750 mg/L) are seen in the southeastern portion of the subbasin in an area of historical brackish groundwater (Baylands Area). This Baylands Area has been recognized for decades as an area of historical brackish groundwater (Kunkel and Upson, 1960; USGS, 2006). Due to the elevated salt in this area and land cover which is primarily tidal marshlands, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. Accordingly, this area is considered separately from the remainder of the subbasin referred to as the Inland Area to assess average groundwater quality. Average groundwater quality in the subbasin is characterized for the Inland Area, the Baylands Area, and the combined Inland and Baylands areas as one aquifer. The average TDS concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table ES-1. The average Inland Area TDS concentration is 372 mg/L, well below the BPO of 500 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 128 mg/L. Table ES-1: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 635 372 1,220 BPO 500 500 500 Available Assimilative Capacity -135 128 -720 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 iii Generally low nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The average nitrate concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table ES-2. Table ES-2: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 0.06 0.06 0.07 BPO 10.00 10.00 10.00 Available Assimilative Capacity 9.94 9.94 9.93 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter ES-6 Source Identification and Loading Salt and nutrient loading from surface activities to the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are due to various sources, including:  Irrigation water (potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water)  Agricultural inputs (fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Residential inputs (septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Animal waste (dairy manure land application) To better understand the significance of various loading factors for the SNMP analysis, a GIS-based loading model was developed. Data inputs to the model include the spatial distribution of land uses (with associated loading factors), irrigation water sources (with associated water quality), septic inputs, wastewater infrastructure loads, and soil textures. The loading analysis found somewhat higher loading of TDS in the rural and agricultural areas of the subbasin, while nitrate loading was higher in the urban areas largely due to the low nitrogen application rates on vineyards. Loading model outputs were utilized to determine future water quality conditions. ES-7 Future Groundwater Quality A mixing model was used to predict future water quality, water quality trends, and the percentage of the existing available assimilative capacity used by recycled water projects in the subbasin during the future planning period (through 2035). Three future scenarios were simulated:  Future Scenario 0 (No-Project): Assumes average baseline water balance conditions and no additional enhanced stormwater capture and recharge is applied.  Future Scenario 1: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use of 4,100 AFY (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35)  Future Scenario 2: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity for both TDS and nitrate, and projected concentrations remain well below the BPO of 500 mg/L for TDS and 10 mg/L for nitrate. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 iv ES-8 Implementation Measures The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values, well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) indicates good water quality and stable trends. Therefore, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time; however, it is recommended that existing measures or practices to manage groundwater quality in the basin continue. ES-9 Groundwater Monitoring Program A Groundwater Monitoring Plan is a required element of all SNMPs. For the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program, 47 wells that are currently monitored by DWR, CDPH, and SVGMP will be included in the monitoring program. Wells will be monitored on the same schedule as their current monitoring, and results will be reported through the Geotracker database system to the Regional Water Board every three years in an SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Parameters to be monitored include EC, TDS and nitrate. ES-10 Antidegradation Analysis Recycled water project(s) in the Sonoma Valley include existing (agricultural irrigation) and projected increased use of recycled water for irrigation and environmental enhancement through the end of the future planning period in 2035. Irrigation with recycled water contributes only very minor salt and nutrient loading to the subbasin and recycled water projects do not use more that 10 % of the available assimilative capacity. In addition to the minimal negative water quality impacts associated with recycled water irrigation project(s) in the Subbasin, the Recycled Water Policy and other state-wide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. The SNMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting and improving groundwater quality for beneficial uses. ES-11 Plan Finalization Process Following the presentation of the Draft SNMP at the July 18, 2013 public workshop, public comments on the Draft SNMP Report were considered and incorporated into this Final SNMP Report. This SNMP is being submitted to the Regional Water Board (in September 2013) for their review and incorporation to their Basin Planning process and subsequent environmental documentation process. The Final SNMP Report has been posted online at the following web address: www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/ ES-12 Conclusion The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values (well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs), resulting from a combination of factors including the high percentage of mountain front recharge with very low TDS and nitrate concentrations, the low amount of loading from the few sources identified, and the low volume and high quality of recycled water used. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) also indicates good water quality and stable trends. In conclusion, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 1 Introduction and Background September 2013 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction and Background In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Resolution No. 2009- 0011, which established a statewide Recycled Water Policy. The policy encourages increased use of recycled water and local stormwater capture. It also requires local water and wastewater entities, together with local salt and nutrient contributing stakeholders to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for each groundwater basin or subbasin in California. The Sonoma Valley SNMP was developed through a collaborative process over an 18-month period starting in January 2012. This SNMP was prepared for the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin in Sonoma County, California. The community overlying the groundwater subbasin includes urban areas as well as a significant amount of rural and agricultural land. Groundwater is an important resource to the area. Recycled water is currently used for agricultural irrigation and there are plans for expanded use of recycled water to augment or offset existing water supplies. As the primary local distributor of recycled water, the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD) is leading the development of this SNMP. 1.1 Plan Purpose The purpose of this SNMP is to:  Promote reliance on local sustainable water sources such as recycled water and stormwater  Manage salts and nutrients from all sources on a sustainable basis to ensure attainment of water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses 1.2 Plan Organization This SNMP is a comprehensive summary document of both the technical and planning work that went into development of the SNMP. The body of the report provides a high-level overview of the work completed in developing of the SNMP. The detailed technical analysis and assumptions for the groundwater quality trend and assimilative capacity analysis, loading and antidegradation analysis, and groundwater monitoring plan are contained within a series of technical memoranda attached as appendices to this SNMP. This document first describes the groundwater basin characteristics and existing conditions, the collaborative process undertaken to develop this SNMP, existing groundwater quality, salt and nutrient loading analysis, future groundwater quality, goals, implementation measures, groundwater monitoring plan, and how this plan will be used. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 1 Introduction and Background September 2013 1-2 Table 1-1: Document Organization and Chapter Summary Chapter No. Chapter Title Chapter Overview 1 Introduction and Background Plan purpose, recycled water policy requirement overview, and summary of document organization 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin Groundwater subbasin characterization, water uses, groundwater levels, and water budget 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach Description of the collaborative process undertaken to develop the SNMP including stakeholders, meetings, and regulatory coordination 4 Goals Documentation of recycled water and stormwater recharge goals within the Sonoma Valley Subbasin 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis Approach, methodology, and existing groundwater quality 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis Characterization of salt and nutrient sources, methodology for loading analysis, and findings 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis Approach, methodology, and future groundwater quality 8 Implementation Measures Documentation of groundwater management measures and volunteer efforts underway within the groundwater subbasin 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan Overview of SNMP groundwater monitoring plan and reporting 10 Antidegradation Assessment Description of the antidegradation assessment 11 Plan Approval Process Plan approval process and future updating criteria 12 Conclusion A summary of findings from the SNMP process 1.3 Plan Limitations Limitations and uncertainties associated with the development of this SNMP are mainly data related. Spatially, while historical information from the Baylands brackish area was available, no known wells currently exist in the Baylands and therefore no current groundwater quality information was available. Vertically within the aquifer, many well locations were lacking well construction detail information rendering the depth of the well unknown. Without depth-specific well screen information, water quality for shallow and deep zones was unable to be distinguished. Therefore the simplicity of the mixing model is a limitation because it simulates two big “buckets” (Inland and Baylands with movement between) and mixing is instantaneous. Additionally, verification of assumptions/estimates for individual anthropogenic loading sources during the calibration process was limited by the sensitivity of groundwater quality to and dominance of natural inflows (precipitation and stream recharge) in Sonoma Valley. Data collected as part of the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program will help in determining if flat trends predicted by the SNMP are verified. Information used to derive future conditions was obtained from planning documents such as Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs); however this information is projected on a 20-year planning horizon and can change. For instance recycled water expansion is planned to serve additional agricultural irrigation customers and the urban area of the City of Sonoma however exact sites and demands may shift as projects are implemented in the future. To address this, the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan will assess changes in recycled water use on a triennial basis. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-1 Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin This chapter provides an overview of the hydrogeologic conceptual model of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin located in Sonoma County, the subbasin for which this SNMP was developed. 2.1 Study Area Per the Policy, SNMPs are to be developed for all groundwater basins in California. This SNMP was developed for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, defined as basin number 2-2.02 in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118-4 (DWR, 2003). The Sonoma Valley Subbasin encompasses an area of approximately 70 square miles and is located within the larger 166 square mile Sonoma Creek Watershed, which also includes part of the Kenwood Valley Groundwater Basin, located northwest of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to and northwest of San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin was divided into a Baylands Area (containing the historical brackish groundwater) and an Inland Area as shown in Figure 2-1 for this SNMP. The Baylands Area is defined for this study as the area beneath the tidal sloughs adjacent to San Pablo Bay generally containing groundwater with greater than 750 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS). The Sonoma Valley is a northwest trending, elongated depression. Geologic units generally dipping toward the center of the valley are bound on the southwest by the Sonoma Mountains and on the northeast by the Mayacamas Mountains (Figure 2-1). The uppermost part of the valley is relatively flat and stretches from Kenwood to near Glen Ellen. The middle part of the valley is narrower than the upper part and has a hilly topography. This portion is sometimes referred to as the Valley of the Moon and extends southward to near Boyes Hot Springs and includes the Glen Ellen area. The remainder of the valley slopes gently southward to San Pablo Bay, has flat topography, and extends to a maximum width of about 5 miles. Sonoma Creek is the main surface water feature draining the valley. The creek originates in the Mayacamas Mountains in the northeastern area of the watershed. The creek flows into the Kenwood Valley Basin before flowing south into the Sonoma Valley Subbasin and ultimately discharging into San Pablo Bay. Other smaller tributary creeks flow into Sonoma Creek from the east and west. The watershed area comprises large tracks of native vegetation, as well as lands used for agriculture, primarily vineyards. Urban, residential, commercial, and industrial development constitutes a relatively small percentage of the watershed area and is primarily located in the valley areas. Sonoma is the largest city in the Study Area. Other cities and unincorporated areas in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin include Glen Ellen, Boyes Hot Springs, El Verano, and Schellville (Figure 2-1). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-2 Figure 2-1: Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-3 2.2 Groundwater Levels and Flow Groundwater levels in the Sonoma Valley are monitored and reported as part of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) (SCWA, 2011). There is a groundwater divide within the Kenwood Valley Basin, with groundwater in the northern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a northwestward direction toward Santa Rosa and groundwater in the southern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a southeasterly direction toward the Sonoma Valley Subbasin in both the shallow and deep zones Comparison of the shallow and deeper groundwater elevation contour maps (see Appendix A) indicates that groundwater elevations in the deep zone 1) are similar to groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in northern Sonoma Valley, and 2) are up to 100 feet lower than groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in southern Sonoma Valley, indicating a downward vertical gradient in southern Sonoma Valley. As shown in Figure 2-2, two groundwater pumping depressions are apparent in the deep zone groundwater elevation contour map southeast of the City of Sonoma (City) and in the El Verano area. The pumping depression southeast of the City of Sonoma has the potential to induce intrusion of brackish water from the Baylands Area. This potential brackish water intrusion is being addressed through replacement of pumped groundwater with recycled water for irrigation in and north of the Baylands Area. Continued monitoring and assessment of groundwater levels and groundwater quality will be conducted to assess inland movement of the brackish water. This monitoring and assessment will be included in the triennial SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-4 Figure 2-2: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Deep Zone, Spring 2010 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-5 2.2.1 Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction Sonoma Valley is drained by Sonoma Creek, which discharges to San Pablo Bay. Seepage testing conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2003 showed Sonoma Creek to be a gaining (groundwater discharging to the creek) creek through most of the valley with the exception of a short reach in the northern part of the watershed where the creek enters the Kenwood Valley Basin from the Mayacamas Mountains crossing the alluvial fan between the mountain front and Highway 12 (USGS, 2006). 2.3 Water Use The Sonoma Valley relies on groundwater, imported surface water, and recycled water to meet domestic, agricultural and urban demands. Based on the USGS study (2006), more than half of the water demand in 2000 was met with groundwater and the remaining demand was met with imported water (36%), recycled water (7%), and local surface water (<1%). The largest use of groundwater in the Sonoma Valley in 2000 was irrigation (72%), followed by rural domestic use (19%), and urban demand (9%). In 2000, total water use in the Sonoma Valley (including groundwater and imported surface water) was estimated at 14,018 acre-feet (AF), of which 48% was used for irrigation, 41% for urban use, and the remaining 11% for rural domestic use. 2.3.1 Groundwater Groundwater serves approximately 25% of the Sonoma Valley population and is the primary source of drinking water supply for rural domestic and other unincorporated areas not being served by urban suppliers. Rural domestic demand is predominantly met by groundwater through privately owned and operated water wells. There are also mutual water companies in the Sonoma Valley that supply multiple households predominantly with groundwater although some companies also provide imported water. Agricultural water demands are largely met by groundwater supplies. It was estimated that as of 2000 the Sonoma Creek Watershed contained approximately 2,000 domestic, agricultural, and public supply wells (USGS, 2006). 2.3.2 Imported Surface Water Imported surface water represents the primary source of drinking water to meet urban demands, which serves approximately 75% of the Sonoma Valley population. These imported water supplies are sourced from the Russian River and are provided via aqueduct by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to the Valley of the Moon Water District (VOMWD) and the City who, in turn, provide water directly to their urban customers. The imported water is supplemented with local groundwater from the City and VOMWD public supply wells. The City and VOMWD boundaries are shown in Figure 2-1. 2.3.3 Recycled Water SCWA manages and operates the wastewater treatment facility owned by the SVCSD. During dry weather months from May through October, the SVCSD provides 1,000 to 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for vineyards, dairies, and pasturelands in the southern part of Sonoma Valley. As of 2007, recycled water accounted for approximately 7% of the total estimated water use in Sonoma Valley (SCWA, December 2007). The current and future areas of recycled water use for irrigation exist in both the Inland and Baylands Areas and are shown in Figure 2-1. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-6 2.4 Groundwater Management Program In recognition of the increasing demands and challenges facing the Sonoma Valley groundwater subbasin, a collaborative group of over twenty stakeholders began development of a non-regulatory Groundwater Management Plan in 2006. This group, called the Basin Advisory Panel (BAP) represents varied groundwater interests including local agriculture, dairies, government, local water purveyors, business, and environmental interests. The BAP, assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), developed the non-regulatory Groundwater Management Plan, which was adopted by SCWA, the City, VOMWD, and SVCSD in late 2007. The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (SVGMP) identifies a range of voluntary management actions to maintain the health of the groundwater basin including increasing recycled water use and enhancing groundwater recharge. The SVGMP goal is to locally manage, protect, and enhance groundwater resources for all beneficial uses, in a sustainable, environmentally sound, economical, and equitable manner for generations to come. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-1 Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach The SNMP was developed in a collaborative setting with input from a wide array of stakeholders and interested parties. The SNMP was able to utilize the existing stakeholder infrastructure set up by the SVGMP to hold meetings and obtain input on technical analysis and direction of the Plan. The stakeholder group make-up, workshop process and regulatory coordination elements of the process are outlined below. 3.1 Stakeholder Group The SNMP was coordinated through the efforts of the SVGMP’s existing stakeholder groups, the BAP and the TAC. Stakeholders that also participated in the SNMP process include:  Municipal agencies: SCWA, SVCSD, VOMWD, the City  Resource groups: Sonoma Resource Conservation District  Agricultural interests: members of the North Bay Agricultural Alliance and Sonoma Valley Vintners & Growers Alliance, Sonoma County Winegrape Commission, Mulas Dairy, and individual vineyard owners  Others: Sonoma Ecology Center, private well owners  Regulatory/Government Agencies: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality (Regional Water Board), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), DWR, USGS 3.2 Workshop Process Development of the SNMP was a collaborative effort that utilized workshops at key milestones. As the technical analysis progressed, additional meetings were held with the TAC and other specific stakeholders to help develop and refine land use practices, water use information and loading parameter input. A total of six workshops were held through-out the 18-month SNMP development process. In addition to the six workshops, as part of data collection and regional coordination, the following meetings were held:  Four meetings were held with the TAC (2012: November; 2013: January, April, July)  Two conference calls were held with the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission (November 2013, January 2013)  Four meetings were held with the Regional Water Board (2012: January; 2013: January, May, June)  One meeting was held with the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Coordinating Committee (April 22, 2013) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management PlanChapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development ApproachSeptember 2013 3-1 Implementation Measures Integration into Bay Area RWMP Anti‐degradation Analysis Potential Source Identification Land Use Verification Draft GW Monitoring Plan RW & Stormwater Goals & Objectives Assimilative Capacity, Fate & Transport Salt & Nutrient Plan Compilation Final Plan & BAIRWMP Document Workshop 4Workshop 6Workshop 5Workshop 5 with Bay Area Coordinating Committee – June 2013 Loading Results Nov 2012, Jan 2013 TACs May, June 2013RWQCB June 2012 TAC Baseline WQ Assessment Preliminary Loading Workshop 2Oct 2012 TAC Work shop 1 Jan 2013 BAP Workshop 3Apr 2013 TAC/BAP Jan 2013 RWQCB Coordination Figure 3-1: Collaborative Plan Development Process Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-1 Workshops were structured to present the technical analysis methodology and findings, and to obtain input and direction on assumptions and key elements of the plan moving forward. Each of the six workshops along with the major topics of discussion and outcomes are shown below. Workshop 1 - June 13, 2012 (held with TAC)  Discussion Topics o Recycled Water Policy Requirements o Sonoma Valley Planned Approach o Input on Land Cover Changes o Constituents to Address in the Plan o Schedule  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder agreement on SNMP Plan development process o Refinements to land use and land cover (updated dairy areas, future recycled water areas) o Agreement on constituents to address in SNMP Workshop 2 - October 10, 2012 (held with TAC)  Discussion Topics o Existing Groundwater Water Quality Analysis and Findings o Salt and Nutrient Loading Model and Mixing Model Approach o Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder understanding of existing water quality o Confirmation of recycled water and stormwater recharge goals for the basin Workshop 3 - January 17, 2013 (held as a public workshop following the BAP meeting)  Discussion Topics o Background Recycled Water Policy and SNMP Requirements o Existing Groundwater Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity o Salt and Nutrient Loading Analysis and Findings o Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals o Mixing Model Approach o Bay Area IRWM Guidance Document Development  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder understanding of existing water quality and assimilative capacity Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-2 o Confirmation of technical approach o Input on land management practices for dairy operations Workshop 4 - April 18, 2013 (held with BAP)  Discussion Topics o Future Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity o Existing Implementation Measures o SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program o Next Steps for SNMP Finalization  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder understanding of technical analysis o Agreement with approach of utilizing existing implementation measures o Confirmation of plan for Groundwater Monitoring Workshop 5 - June 3, 2013 (held with Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee)  Discussion Topics o Proposition 84 Planning Grant SNMP Element o Key Steps in Preparing an SNMP o Review of Draft Guidance Document for SNMPs for the Bay Area Region and Off-Ramp Language within Document o Incorporation of Guidance Document into IRWM Plan Update  Meeting Outcomes o Confirmation of approach o Modification of title wording and revisions to introductory text Workshop 6 - July 18, 2013 (held as a public workshop following the BAP meeting)  Discussion Topics o Background on Recycled Water Policy and SNMP Requirements o Review SNMP Process and Findings o Process for Providing Input on Draft SNMP Report o Regulatory Coordination and SNMP Finalization  Meeting Outcomes o Informed public of SNMP Process o Received clarifying questions Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-3 3.3 Regulatory Coordination Sonoma Valley is one of three groundwater basins in the Bay Area Region that is nearing completion of its SNMP. The Regional Water Board has been part of the SNMP development processes over the last 18- months through a series of meetings and region-wide workshops. Two Bay Area Region-wide SNMP coordination meetings have been held with the Regional Water Board, SVCSD, Zone 7 Water Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the first in January 2012, and the second in June 2013. The inter-regional coordination meetings provided a forum to share SNMP develop approaches and progress; and to understand and provide feedback on the Regional Water Board’s planning process. In addition to the two inter-regional regulatory meetings, three Sonoma Valley SNMP-specific meetings have been held with the Regional Water Board to share findings and obtain concurrence on critical elements of the technical analysis and the development approach for the SNMP. These coordination meetings were held at critical points in the technical analysis to obtain feedback on preliminary findings so that modifications and new approaches could be accounted for. Meeting minutes from the January and May meetings which pertained directly to the Sonoma Valley SNMP are included as Appendix B. The first meeting was held in January 2013, in which the SNMP plan development process, collaboration and stakeholder make-up, existing water quality and assimilative capacity findings, goal setting, and the approach for the loading analysis and future water quality analysis was shared. The Regional Water Board staff agreed with the SNMP’s approach for using the 2000-2012 period for establishing current basin averages, and agreed with the goal setting (utilizing recycled water use goals from the 2010 UWMPs, and not including numeric goals for stormwater recharge until recharge projects in Sonoma Valley are further developed). Additionally, Regional Water Board staff agreed that it made sense to continue to distinguish between the Inland and Baylands area for the assimilative capacity assessment. There was significant discussion regarding the proposed approach for establishing average TDS and nitrate and assimilative capacity, which was to average across the basin and across all depth intervals to estimate one TDS and one nitrate concentration for the entire subbasin. While Regional Water Board staff preferred a depth discrete analysis of the assimilative capacity, this was not possible given the limited data set. Moving forward, a reasonable mixing depth was assumed for the basin in the mixing analysis (approximately 400 feet), and the shallow and deep zones are accounted for in the monitoring plan. The second meeting held in May 2013 shared the methodology and findings from the loading and future water quality analysis, future assimilative capacity, existing implementation measures, and planned SNMP groundwater monitoring program. The results of the technical analysis showing good water quality with relatively flat trends through 2035 were shared. A third meeting with the Regional Water Board was held on June, 24 2013 to present and discuss the Draft Guidance Document for SNMP for the Bay Area Region (Appendix C). 3.4 Coordination with the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan The Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans for the San Francisco Bay Region was developed as a result of the Sonoma Valley SNMP preparation effort. The SVCSD, along with the Zone 7 Water Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are leading SNMP development efforts in three groundwater basins for the San Francisco Bay Region. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received partial funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for the SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The purpose of the Guidance Document (included as Appendix C) is to describe the common steps that may be undertaken by Bay Area groups in preparing an SNMP. The Regional Water Board is expected to Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-4 consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 4 Goals September 2013 4-1 Chapter 4 Goals This chapter presents the goals for using recycled water and stormwater in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The goals were developed based on stakeholder input and on the information contained in UWMPs and other planning documents. The UWMPs are developed by the individual water purveyors (SCWA, VOMWD, and the City), so the information contained in those UWMPs was summarized and merged together to meet the needs of this Plan. Additionally, water conservation programs provide a useful basis for understanding and assessing recycling activities. The agencies within the basin implement extensive water conservation programs, ranging from residential, commercial, industrial and municipal to agricultural programs. More information on individual agency conservation programs can be found in each individual agency’s UWMP. 4.1 Recycled Water Goals Recycled water goals are based on information provided in 2010 UWMPs and 2012 recycled water usage data. Recycled water goals were set based on 2010 UWMP recycled water use projections. Existing recycled water use is presented in Table 4-1, and is based on 2012 recycled water usage data provided by SVCSD. These values represent recycled water use within the Subbasin, which is currently used for agricultural irrigation. Future expansion of the recycled water system is planned to provide recycled water to urban areas in the City, environmental enhancement, and more water for agricultural customers. Table 4-1 also presents the projected 2035 recycled water use in the basin. These future estimates represent the recycled water goals for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Table 4-1: Current Use and Future Goals for Recycled Water Provider 2012 Use (AFY) 2035 Use (AFY) SVCSD 1,100 4,100 Increase over 2012 usage n/a 2,750 4.2 Stormwater Recharge Goals Agencies and stakeholders in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are actively working to increase the ability to put stormwater to beneficial use. For example in 2012, SCWA completed a watershed scoping study for a stormwater management/groundwater recharge project in the Sonoma Valley and performed similar studies for other area watersheds. The goal of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing multi-benefit projects that will provide stormwater detention and groundwater recharge, while maximizing opportunities for flood control, water quality enhancement, and potential open space benefits. Additionally, there is a trend towards requiring implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) features in development and redevelopment that increase recharge of stormwater. The Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District recently published the “Slow It, Spread It, Sink It” LID Guidance Document for Sonoma Valley. Water management planning efforts related to stormwater and their corresponding implementation schedules are shown in Table 4-2. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 4 Goals September 2013 4-2 Table 4-2: Basin Water Management Studies and Timeline Study/Project General Scope Implementing and Cooperating Agencies Schedule Stormwater LID Technical Design Manual Provide design guidance to mitigate water quality impacts due to development and encourage infiltration of storm water.a. City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, County of Sonoma Completed in 2011 Groundwater Banking Feasibility Study Evaluate feasibility of using excess wintertime water from Russian River drinking water facilities for storage and subsequent recovery in the Santa Rosa Plain and/or Sonoma Valley groundwater basins during dry weather conditions or emergency situations. Sonoma County Water Agency, Cities of Cotati, Rohnert Park and Sonoma, Town of Windsor, Valley of the Moon Water District Complete by Winter 2013 Sonoma Valley Stormwater Management and Groundwater Recharge Scoping Study Assess potential projects in the watershed that can provide both flood control and groundwater recharge. Sonoma County Water Agency Scoping Study Completed Spring 2012 a. SCWA is also developing a “WaterSmart Manual” to promote water smart practices including conservation, recycling and low impact development. The WaterSmart Manual is scheduled to be completed in Winter 2013. While these efforts and others are continuing in the subbasin, the benefit of recharging stormwater (which is likely to be low in TDS) is not included in the groundwater quality analyses in this Plan due to uncertainties in the projected quantity and volumes of stormwater recharge at this time. Not including stormwater in the future water quality analysis at this point is a conservative approach as stormwater would likely decrease TDS and nitrate concentrations in the subbasin. Future updates to the Plan will consider these efforts as they continue to be developed and implemented. Future updates to the Plan could also include quantitative goals for stormwater recharge as they are established through these planned efforts. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 0 September 2013 5-3 Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis Determining the existing groundwater quality is a critical step in SNMP technical analysis. A summary of the existing groundwater quality is presented below with additional detail contained in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM (Todd, 2013) attached as Appendix A. 5.1 Existing Groundwater Quality 5.1.1 Indicator Parameters of Salts and Nutrients TDS and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients selected for the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Total salinity is commonly expressed in terms of TDS in mg/L. TDS (and electrical conductivity data that can be converted to TDS) are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. While TDS can be an indicator of anthropogenic impacts such as infiltration of runoff, soil leaching, and land use, there is also a natural background TDS concentration in groundwater. Nitrate is a widespread contaminant in California groundwater. High levels of nitrate in groundwater are generally associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facility discharges. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. Natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low, with concentrations typically less than 10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrate (nitrate-NO3) or 2 to 3 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N). Nitrate is commonly reported as either nitrate-NO3 or nitrate-N; and one can be converted to the other. Nitrate-N is selected for the assessment in this SNMP. 5.1.2 Water Quality Objectives Water quality objectives provide a reference for assessing groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The CDPH has adopted a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for TDS. SMCLs address aesthetic issues related to taste, odor, or appearance of the water and are not related to health effects, although elevated TDS concentrations in water can damage crops, affect plant growth, and damage municipal and industrial equipment. The recommended SMCL for TDS is 500 mg/L with an upper limit of 1,000 mg/L. It has a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has established a basin plan objective (BPO) of 500 mg/L for TDS for municipal and domestic supply in their Basin Plan (December 2010). The MCL for nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen (as N) is 10 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has established the BPOs at the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for these constituents. Table 5-1 lists numeric BPOs for groundwater with municipal and domestic water supply and agricultural water supply beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay Region. Table 5-1: Basin Plan Objectives Constituent Units BPOs TDS mg/L 500 Nitrate-N mg/L 10 5.1.3 TDS and Nitrate Fate and Transport Salt and nutrient fate and transport describes the way salts and nutrients move and change through an environment or media. In groundwater, it is determined by groundwater flow directions and rate, the characteristics of individual salts and nutrients, and the characteristics of the aquifer media. Water has the ability to naturally dissolve salts and nutrients along its journey in the hydrologic cycle. The types and quantity of salts and nutrients present determine whether the water is of suitable quality for its intended uses. Salts and nutrients present in natural water result from many different sources including Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-4 atmospheric gases and aerosols, weathering and erosion of soil and rocks, and from dissolution of existing minerals below the ground surface. Additional changes in concentrations can result due to ion exchange, precipitation of minerals previously dissolved, and reactions resulting in conversion of some solutes from one form to another such as the conversion of nitrate to gaseous nitrogen. In addition to naturally occurring salts and nutrients, anthropogenic activities can add salts and nutrients. TDS and nitrate are contained in the source water that recharges the Sonoma Valley. Addition of new water supply sources, either through intentional or unintentional recharge, can change the groundwater quality either for the worse by introducing contamination or for the better by diluting some existing contaminants in the aquifer. Another important influence on salts and nutrients in groundwater is unintentional recharge, which can occur, for example, when irrigation water exceeds evaporation and plant needs and infiltrates into the aquifer (i.e., irrigation return flow). Irrigation return flows can carry fertilizers high in nitrogen and soil amendments high in salts from the yard or field into the aquifer. Similarly, recycled water used for irrigation also introduces salts and nutrients. TDS is considered conservative in that it does not readily attenuate in the environment. In contrast, processes that affect the fate and transport of nitrogen compounds are complex, with transformation, attenuation, uptake, and leaching in various environments. Nitrogen is relatively stable once in the saturated groundwater zone and nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. It is soluble in water and can easily pass through soil to the groundwater table. 5.1.4 Analysis Methodologies Lateral and Vertical Segmentation Initially, the available groundwater quality data and well completion information were assessed to determine if the subbasin groundwater quality characterization could be divided into subareas (north and south) and layers (shallow and deep) to assess differences in groundwater quality laterally and vertically. Unfortunately, well completion information for many of the monitored wells is unavailable, and the available data are considered insufficient to reliably differentiate groundwater quality in the shallow and deep zones. The Baylands Area shown in Figure 2-1 is defined as the area with median TDS concentrations greater than 750 mg/L. This general area has been recognized for decades as an area of historical brackish groundwater (Kunkel and Upson, 1960; USGS, 2006). Due to the elevated salt in this area and land cover which is primarily tidal marshlands, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. There are a limited number of wells in the Baylands Area based on DWR well logs acquired for the USGS study (2006). Many of the wells in the Baylands Area have been destroyed and agricultural land use in the area is primarily limited to non- irrigated crops such as hay. Accordingly, this area is considered separately from the remainder of the subbasin referred to as the Inland Area. Available monitoring data do not indicate clear differences between groundwater quality in the northern and southern portion of the Inland Area. Therefore average groundwater quality in the subbasin is characterized for the Inland Area, the Baylands Area, and the combined Inland and Baylands areas as one aquifer. This approach was shared with the Regional Water Board in January 2013. Groundwater Quality Averaging Period In accordance with the Policy, the available assimilative capacity shall be calculated by comparing the BPOs with the average ambient salt and nutrient concentrations in the subbasin over the most recent five years of available data (2007 to 2012) or a time period approved by the Regional Water Board. Figure 5-1 shows the number of wells sampled over the history of sampling in the subbasin. As shown in the figure, a significant number of wells were sampled in the 2000 to 2006 time period, predominantly as part of the work conducted by the USGS (2006). In order to provide a more robust dataset, data collected during the 12 year period from 2000 to 2012 are used to assess the average groundwater quality in the subbasin. The Regional Water Board approved this baseline period duration in the January 2013 regulatory coordination meeting. Evaluation of concentration trends finds overall relatively stable or flat Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-5 trends for TDS and nitrate in most wells in the subbasin, which also supports use of a longer averaging period. Figure 5-1: Summary of Available Water Quality Data Calculation of Existing Ambient Groundwater Quality and Assimilative Capacity The median groundwater concentration for samples collected from individual wells over the 12-year averaging period for TDS and nitrate are plotted on maps with different size and color circles representing median concentrations (dots maps). The TDS and nitrate dots maps are then used to develop concentration contour maps for TDS and nitrate. The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for each area (Inland and Baylands) and for the entire subbasin are compared to the BPOs to determine the current available assimilative capacity. Time-Concentration Plots and Trends Time-concentration plots are prepared and evaluated to assess whether TDS and nitrate groundwater concentrations across the subbasin have been historically increasing, decreasing, or showing no significant change. The trend analysis facilitates the comparison of observed concentration trends in individual wells with simulated average groundwater concentration trends from the mixing model over the baseline period, from 1996-97 (water year 1997) through 2005-06 (WY 2006), for calibration purposes. A water year is from October 1 to September 30 of the following year and is commonly used for hydrogeologic analysis. 5.1.5 TDS in Groundwater Figure 5-2 shows TDS concentration contours in the subbasin. Generally, relatively low TDS concentrations (less than 500 mg/L) are observed throughout most of the subbasin. A few wells with elevated concentrations (above 750 mg/L) are seen in the southeastern portion of the subbasin. The southeastern portion of the subbasin is an area of historical brackish groundwater. The area of very high TDS near San Pablo Bay with TDS greater than 1,500 mg/L is based on older well sampling conducted between 1954 and 1973 by DWR. Use of these older data is conservative in that their use results in higher average concentrations in the Baylands Area and there are no more recent data available for this area. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-6 The average TDS concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 5-2. The average Inland Area TDS concentration is 372 mg/L, well below the BPO of 500 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 128 mg/L. As expected the average TDS concentration in the Baylands Area is high, with an average concentration of 1,220 mg/L, resulting in no available assimilative capacity. The average TDS concentration for the combined subbasin including both the Inland and Baylands Areas is 635 mg/L, also resulting in no available assimilative capacity. Table 5-2: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 635 372 1,220 BPO 500 500 500 Available Assimilative Capacity -135 128 -720 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter TDS Trends Figure 5-3 shows time-concentration plots for TDS, along with the applicable BPO. The well dots and charts are shaded to indicate the wells depths with red wells and charts indicating wells less than 200 feet deep, yellow wells and charts indicating wells between 200 and 500 feet deep and green wells and charts indicating wells greater than 500 feet deep. Wells and charts shaded gray indicated wells with unknown completion depths. The figure shows relatively flat TDS trends in the subbasin indicating generally stable conditions. However, Wells 5N/5W-28R1 and 5N/5W-28N1 located in the southern portion of the subbasin near the Baylands Area show modest increasing concentration trends, which could be attributed increasing saline intrusion as well as other sources. One well is an intermediate zone well (200 to 500 feet deep) and the other is a shallow zone well (less than 200 feet deep). The shallow well (5N/5W- 28N1) is owned by a dairy, and this well also shows increasing nitrate concentrations as discussed in the next section. Therefore, it is possible that the increasing TDS concentrations could be associated with local surface sources rather than saline intrusion. The other intermediate well with increasing TDS does not have a similar increasing nitrate trend. The analysis indicates the importance of preventing additional saline intrusion into the Inland Area. The Baylands brackish groundwater area is a concern in the Sonoma Valley. One of the objectives of developing and increasing the use of recycled water for irrigation is to reduce groundwater pumping in the southern Sonoma Valley, prevent additional saline intrusion, and potentially reduce the existing inland extent of brackish groundwater. Irrigation with recycled water began in 1992 and is projected to increase in the future. To date, the data are insufficient to determine if the replacement of groundwater with recycled water has reduced the areal extent of brackish groundwater. However, continued monitoring of this area is a key component of the ongoing SVGMP and SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-7 Figure 5-2: Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-8 Figure 5-3: Time-Concentration Plots Total Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-9 5.1.6 Nitrate in Groundwater A nitrate concentration contour map is shown in Figure 5-4. Generally low nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The nitrate-N BPO is 10 mg/L. The area of nitrate between 2.6 and 5.0 mg/L near the San Pablo Bay is based on older well sampling conducted by the DWR between 1954 and 1973. The average nitrate concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 0.06 0.06 0.07 BPO 10.00 10.00 10.00 Available Assimilative Capacity 9.94 9.94 9.93 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Nitrate Trends Figure 5-5 shows time-concentration plots for nitrate-N along with the applicable BPO. As discussed above, the wells and charts are shaded to indicate relative well depth. Generally flat concentrations are observed in most wells in the subbasin, typically well below the BPO of 10 mg/L. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-10 Figure 5-4: Nitrate as N Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-11 Figure 5-5: Time-Concentration Plots Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-1 Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis An analysis of salt and nutrient loading occurring due to surface activities is presented to identify sources of salt and nutrients, evaluate their linkage with the groundwater system, and estimate the mass of salts and nutrients loaded to the Sonoma Valley groundwater subbasin associated with those sources. Salt and nutrient loading from surface activities to the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin are due to various sources, including:  Irrigation water (potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water)  Agricultural inputs (fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Residential, commercial, and industrial inputs (septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Animal waste (dairy manure land application) Most of these sources, or “inputs”, are associated with rural and agricultural areas except for turf irrigation in commercial and industrial areas. Urban area salt and nutrient loads (e.g. due to indoor water use) are assumed to be primarily routed to the municipal wastewater system for recycling or discharge rather than to groundwater, except for landscape irrigation. Other surface inputs of salts and nutrients, such as atmospheric loading, are not considered a significant net contributing source of salts and nutrients and are not captured in the loading analysis. In addition to surface salinity inputs, potential subsurface inputs of high salinity waters from San Pablo Bay, thermal water upwelling and connate groundwater exists within the basin. 6.1 Methodology for Loading Model To support the Sonoma Valley SNMP and to better understand the significance of various loading factors, a GIS-based loading model was developed. The loading model is a simple, spatially based mass balance tool that represents TDS and nitrogen loading on an annual-average basis. Calibration of the model was limited to focusing on comparing recent historical trends to changes in concentrations estimated through incorporating the loading model results into the mixing model. In addition to the limited calibration activities, extensive stakeholder coordination was performed to refine the parameters in the loading model, including land use, applied water, TDS and nitrogen application (in applied water, as fertilizers and amendments, and in land applied manure), irrigation water source quality, and sewer service areas (to determine septic loads). Given these activities, the model is considered suitable for this analysis of basin conditions. Primary inputs to the model are land use, irrigation water source and quality, recycled water storage pond locations and percolation, septic system areas and loading, and soil characteristics. These datasets are described in the following sections. The general process used to arrive at the salt and nutrient loads was:  Identify the analysis units to be used in the model. In the case of Sonoma Valley, parcels from the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office are the analysis units.  Categorize land use into discrete groups. These land use groups represent land uses that have similar water demand as well as salt and nutrient loading and uptake characteristics.  Apply the land use group characteristics to the analysis units.  Apply the irrigation water source to the analysis units. Each water source is assigned concentrations of TDS and nitrogen.  Apply the septic system assumption to the analysis units.  Apply the soil texture characteristics to the analysis units.  Estimate the water demand for the parcel based on the irrigated area of the parcel and the land use group. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-2  Estimate the TDS load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure load. The loading model makes the conservative assumption that no salt is removed from the system once it enters the system. Other transport mechanisms (such as runoff draining to creeks exiting the basin) likely reduce the total quantity of salt in the subbasin.  Estimate the nitrogen load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure (e.g. wastewater ponds) load. The loading model assumes that a portion of the applied nitrogen is taken up by plants and (in some cases) removed from the system (through harvest of plant material). Additional nitrogen is converted to gaseous forms and lost to the atmosphere. Remaining nitrogen is assumed to convert to nitrate and to be subject to leaching. Soil texture is used to estimate and account for mobility of leaching water and the efficiency of nitrate transport through the root zone. 6.2 Data Inputs Data inputs to the model include the spatial distribution of land uses (with associated loading factors), irrigation water sources (with associated water quality), septic inputs, wastewater infrastructure loads, and soil textures. These inputs are summarized below, and are further described in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). 6.2.1 Land Use Land use data were obtained from the 2012 Sonoma County Assessor’s Office parcel dataset. This dataset contains several hundred discrete land use categories. These categories are consolidated into the following land use groups for the Sonoma Valley subbasin area:  Flowers and nursery  Pasture  Vines  Other row crops  Dairy production areas  Other livestock operations  Non-irrigated vines  Non-irrigated field crops  Non-irrigated orchard  Shrub/Scrub  Grassland/ Herbaceous  Barren land  Farmsteads  Urban commercial and industrial  Urban commercial and industrial, low impervious surface (e.g. maintenance yards, schools)  Urban landscape/golf course  Urban residential  Paved areas (roads and parking lots) Local stakeholders and SNMP partners confirmed that the land use is substantially unchanged since the 2012 dataset, within the accuracy requirements of this type of analysis. The spatial distribution of land uses is shown in Figure 6-1. Upon review of the land use dataset, stakeholders provided updates to the dairies and grassland/herbaceous categories in the October 10, 2012 SNMP Workshop with the SVGMP’s TAC. Because there are so many distinct categories, a discrete color for each type could not be assigned. Therefore, land use categories with similar characteristics (i.e. urban, non- irrigated agriculture, irrigated agriculture) are shown combined into a color category. Each land use group is assigned characteristics including:  Applied water  Percent irrigated  Applied nitrogen Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-3  Used nitrogen  Leachable nitrogen  Applied TDS Leachable nitrogen is assumed to be the applied nitrogen less 10 percent of the applied nitrogen for gaseous loss, less nitrogen removal in harvested plant material. Table 6-1 consists of a matrix of values for the land use categories and characteristics. These values were also presented to the stakeholder group and refined based on their input. Refinements included adjustments to vineyards, farmsteads/rural residential, and non-irrigated field crops. For vineyards, coordination with stakeholders included modification to applied TDS and irrigation volume to reflect practices in the area. For farmsteads/rural residential, modifications were made to applied TDS, applied N, and irrigation volume based on improved understanding of land uses on these diverse parcels. Finally, non-irrigated field crops were given the non-irrigated designation based on stakeholder input on the farming practices of what are generally small-grain hay crops in the southern portion of the basin. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-4 Figure 6-1: Land Use Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-5 Table 6-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent Cultivated1 Applied Water2 (in/yr) Applied Nitrogen3 (lbs/acre- year) Nitrogen Uptake4 (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen5 (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS6 (lbs/acre- year) Paved Areas (roads and parking lots) 28 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Non-irrigated vines 284 80% 0 18 16 0 84 Non-irrigated Orchard 41 80% 0 75 60 8 292 Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 80% 0 34 22 8 170 Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 5% 48.5 92 60 23 657 Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 30% 48.5 92 60 23 438 Farmsteads/Rural- Residential7 5,608 10% 28.7 60 42 13 303 Urban Residential 2,238 15% 51.1 92 60 23 438 Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 75% 48.5 92 60 23 584 Pasture 2,266 40% 51.1 110 90 14 584 Vines8 13,075 100% 6.3 29 23 3 168 Other Livestock Operations 102 10% 0.0 84 -75 730 Dairy9 769 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: 1 Percent of land area assumed to be cultivated within each class is estimated is based review of aerial photography and agricultural scientist professional judgment of a reasonable, broad average for each class. 2 Applied water values and other climatic data are taken from Department of Water Resources (DWR) land and water use data (http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/anlwuest.cfm). On this website, four years of data are available. Climatic data averages, based on these four years of data, was compared to the 21-year average of available CIMIS climatic data for the Sonoma Valley area. As the two data sets correspond well, the average DWR applied water values were used, with some adjustment using crop coefficients for the Sonoma Valley area to fit the study land use classes. 3 Applied nitrogen estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied nitrogen was then calculated for total acreage and checked against fertilizer sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records, and adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region. 4 Uptake of nitrogen was estimated from available literature by multiplying reported yield figures by reported nitrogen concentrations for harvested plant parts. Balances between uptake and application were checked to ensure that nitrogen use efficiencies were in the reported ranges, adjusted for professional knowledge of irrigation and fertilization practice in each land cover class. 5 Maximum nitrogen leaching calculations for each land cover unit were calculated based on the balance between application, gaseous loss (volatilization and denitrification), and uptake. The maximum was then reduced based on soil conditions mapped for the area. 6 Applied TDS estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied TDS was then calculated for total acreage and checked against amendment sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records. Amendment application rates were adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-6 7 Farmstead irrigated areas are assumed to be a mix of turf grasses and vineyards. 8 Assumes that irrigated vines have a larger percent cultivation due to increased production efficiency from irrigation and a conservative value of 100% cultivation was used. An additional assumption for vines is that vines irrigated with recycled water utilize the same fertilizer and amendment application rates as those irrigated with groundwater (conservative estimate). 9 See discussion on dairy parcels below. Due to the importance of dairies, some additional consideration is applied to dairy parcels. To better reflect land use practices, the applied, used, and leachable nitrogen characteristics and the applied TDS characteristic are further subdivided into production areas, ponds, and land application areas. Leachable nitrogen is calculated the same way as for the other land use groups except that gaseous loss is assumed to be 20 percent, as opposed to the 10 percent assumed loss for other land use groups, mainly due to the regular timing and highly organic nature of applied nitrogen. Table 6-2: Assumed Characteristic Dairy Values for the Loading Model Dairy Subdivision Designation Percent of Total Parcel Area Used Per Designation Applied Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Used Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS (lbs/acre- year) Production Area 6% 20 0 8 82 Ponds 1% 141 0 113 933 Land Application Area 93% 367 352 30 1,280 6.2.2 Irrigation Water Source The irrigation water source forms the basis to determine the TDS and nitrate loads that result from irrigation of the land uses described above. Source water quality for any given parcel was identified based on the location of the parcel relative the water retailers in the area. Parcels not supplied by potable municipal water sources or recycled water are assumed to obtain irrigation water from local groundwater wells. Table 6-3 summarizes the water quality inputs used for each irrigation water source. Table 6-3: Water Quality Parameters for Loading Model Water Sources Source TDS (mg/L) Nitrate (as N) (mg/L) Valley of the Moon Water District 162 0.2 City of Sonoma 172 0.4 Groundwater 372 0.1 Recycled Water 440 5.2 6.2.3 Septic Systems Salt and nutrient loads due to septic systems were estimated based on typical wastewater production and TDS and nitrate concentrations. It has been assumed that parcels outside of the SVCSD Service Area use a septic system or multiple systems. Of those parcels, septic systems are assumed where a residence is identified in the land use dataset. Each parcel with a septic system is assumed to produce 263 gallons per day (gpd), based on 75 gpd/person with 3.5 people per system. The 75 gpd/person estimate is based domestic use quantity estimates per California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 697. An estimate of 3.5 persons per household is a conservative estimate which assumes that household size for homes with septic is larger than that that of homes within the City (per the census bureau, persons per household for Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-7 2007-2011 is 2.54 in Sonoma County, with the City at only 2.07 people per household, therefore the outlying areas must be greater than 2.54 persons per household).The septic waste is assumed to have TDS concentrations of 572 mg/L, based on typical groundwater concentrations plus an assumed household contribution of 200 mg/L (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003 Table 3-7). Nitrate-N concentrations were assumed to be 30 mg/L, based on typical wastewater concentrations for medium strength wastewater (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) of 40 mg/L minus an assumed volatization rate of 25% within the septic system. 6.2.4 Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure SVCSD operates five recycled water ponds within the groundwater basin; these are indicated in Attachment 1 of Appendix D. Two of the ponds use clay liners, while the other three ponds use plastic liners. Due to the liners, it is assumed that no significant loading occurs at pond locations. It is also assumed that leakage from wastewater (sanitary sewer) and recycled water pipelines is not likely to be a significant source of salt and nutrient loading. An effort was also undertaken to quantify potential salt and nutrient loading from winery wastewater ponds. These ponds are often lined with plastic or clay and contain rinsewater with salt and TDS concentrations similar to the source water (likely groundwater), because no additional salts and nutrients are added in the winemaking process. This effort showed that salt and nutrient loading from these ponds were likely negligible, with biological oxygen demand (BOD) the primary concern. These loads were not included in the model, beyond the loads already included through irrigation of the vineyards. 6.2.5 Soil Textures Soil textures (NRCS, 2013) were obtained from the Soil Survey of Sonoma County (SCS, 1972). Soil textures were assigned a hydraulic conductivity (NRCS, 1993). Hydraulic conductivity was used to develop an adjustment factor through linearly scaling the estimated conductivities from 0.1 (lowest) to 1.00 (highest). The adjustment factor is used to represent the proportion of nitrate that will migrate to the aquifer, relative to the other textural classes. Where conductivity is lower, it is reasoned (and observed) that nitrogen resides longer in the soil, increasing the proportion that is either taken up or lost through conversion to gaseous species. Similar logic is not applied to TDS as salts are mostly not subject to conversion to gaseous forms, and rapidly saturate soil capacity to absorb and retain them. 6.3 Loading Model Results Based on the loading parameters and methodology described above, the loading model is used to develop TDS and nitrogen loading rates across the subbasin. Table 6-4 summarizes the overall contribution of each land use group to total TDS and nitrogen loading. The spatial distribution of TDS and nitrogen loading rates are shown in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3, respectively. The loading analysis estimates somewhat higher loading of TDS in the rural and agricultural areas of the subbasin, while nitrate loading is higher in the urban areas largely due to the low nitrogen application rates on vineyards. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-8 Figure 6-2: TDS Loading in Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-9 Figure 6-3: Nitrate Loading in Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-10 Table 6-4: TDS and Nitrate Loading Results Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent of Total Area Percentage of Total TDS Loading Percentage of Nitrogen Loading Paved Areas (roads and parking lots) 28 0% 0% 0% Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 17% 0% 0% Non-irrigated vines 284 1% 0% 0% Non-irrigated Orchard 41 0% 0% 0% Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 20% 5% 6% Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 2% 1% 8% Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 2% 5% 7% Farmsteads/Rural- Residential 5,608 13% 11% 37% Urban Residential 2,238 5% 6% 22% Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 1% 5% 1% Pasture 2,266 5% 17% 10% Vines 13,075 31% 42% 3% Other livestock operations 102 0% 0% 0% Dairy 769 2% 7% 5% The relative proportion of the land uses by area, nitrogen loading, and TDS loading are shown in Figure 6-4, Figure 6-5, and Figure 6-6, respectively. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-11 Figure 6-4: Percentage of Land Use in Study Area Grasslands/Barren/  Herbaceous 17%Non‐irrigated vines 1% Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 20% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 2%Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 2% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 13% Urban Residential 5% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 5% Vines 30% Dairy 2% Other 2% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of land area: paved areas, non‐irrigated orchards, livestock  operations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-12 Figure 6-5: Percentage of TDS Loading in Study Area, by Land Use Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 5% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 1% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 5% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 11% Urban Residential 6% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 5%Pasture 17% Vines 43% Dairy 7% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of TDS loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated vines, non‐ irrigated orchards, livestock operations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-13 Figure 6-6: Percentage of Nitrogen Loading in Study Area, by Land Use Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 6%Urban Commercial  and Industrial 8% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 7% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 37% Urban Residential 22% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 10% Vines 3% Dairy 5% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of nitrogen loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated  vines, non‐irrigated orchards, livestock operations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-1 Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis This chapter describes the development and results from the future groundwater quality analysis. The future groundwater quality analysis is described in more detail in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM (Todd, 2013) included as Appendix A. 7.1 Simulation of Baseline and Future Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality concentrations for TDS and nitrate are simulated for the baseline period and future planning period using a mixing model. Concentration estimates are based on water and mass inflows and outflows (balances) mixed with the volume of water in the aquifer and the average ambient groundwater quality. The baseline period is from WY 1997 to 2006. This baseline period was selected based on the period for which water balances were available from the USGS (2006) groundwater flow model and updated groundwater model (Bauer, 2008). The future planning period is from WY 2014 to WY 2035 based on the planning horizon in supporting planning documents. The baseline period water balances estimate all groundwater inflows and outflows for the baseline period and the associated change in storage based on estimates provided in the groundwater model and updated model. Future changes simulated include increased use of recycled water for irrigation. TDS and nitrate concentrations are associated with each water balance inflow and outflow component. In order to simulate the effect of current and future salt and nutrient loading on groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, the spreadsheet mixing model mixes the volume and quality of each inflow and outflow with the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and tracks the annual change in groundwater storage and salt and nutrient mass for the baseline and future planning period. The existing volume of water in the groundwater basin is calculated based on the subbasin or subarea (Inland and Baylands) surface areas, a uniform saturated thickness of 400 feet and a porosity of 0.1. The mixing model produces an average TDS and nitrate concentration for each year of the baseline and future planning period. 7.2 Use of Assimilative Capacity by Recycled Water Projects In accordance with the Policy, a recycled water irrigation project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a SNMP is being prepared, may be approved by the Regional Water Board by demonstrating through a salt and nutrient mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity (or multiple projects use less than 20% of available assimilative capacity). Accordingly, the recycled water irrigation projects in place and planned for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are assessed in terms of their use of available assimilative capacity. 7.3 Baseline Period Analysis The baseline period water balance tracks groundwater inflows and outflows and storage changes from WY 1996-97 through WY 2005-06. This period represents a recent time period characterized by average climatic conditions. The primary source of information used to develop the water balance is the Sonoma Valley groundwater flow model. The flow model was originally developed by the USGS (2006) and later updated by Bauer (2008). Groundwater recharge from natural precipitation in the flow model for the baseline period represented 94% of the natural recharge over the historical flow model period. Major inflows accounted for in the baseline water balance include:  deep percolation of precipitation and mountain front recharge,  natural stream recharge,  agricultural irrigation water return flow,  domestic/municipal irrigation water (including recycled water) return flow, Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-2  septic system return flow, and  subsurface groundwater inflow (from Baylands Area) Major outflows accounted for in the water balance include:  groundwater pumping,  groundwater discharge to streams, and  subsurface groundwater outflow (to Baylands Area) Areal anthropogenic recharge sources (return flows from agricultural and municipal irrigation and septic systems) are not independently considered in the flow model but instead subsumed within the model aerial recharge rates. Model areal recharge rates were apportioned into natural sources (precipitation) and anthropogenic sources (return flows) based on the results of the salt and nutrient loading evaluation conducted for the SNMP (RMC, 2013). 7.3.1 Water Quality of Inflows and Outflows Initial and adjusted TDS and nitrate concentration estimates for subbasin inflows and outflows in the water balance are described below followed by a discussion of the baseline mixing model calibration and results. Sonoma Creek Leakage TDS and nitrate data from available surface water quality monitoring stations in the watershed were assessed to characterize the water quality of stream leakage from Sonoma Creek, the second largest subbasin inflow. Based on recent water quality sampling a constant TDS concentration of 210 mg/L and constant nitrate-N concentration of 0.19 mg/L was applied to Sonoma Creek leakage for the baseline period. Deep Percolation of Areal Precipitation and Mountain Front Recharge Recharge from deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge represents 65% of total subbasin inflows and is the primary controlling salt and nutrient load factor. Generally, precipitation contains minimal salts and nutrients. However, due to its low solute content, precipitation also dissolves (or leaches) salts and nutrients along its subsurface flow path from near-surface soils through the vadose zone sediments and saturated zone sediments. The degree of leaching is dependent on numerous site- specific factors and is difficult to predict reliably. Based on available groundwater quality wells located in the watershed, nitrate deposition information, and mixing model calibration, a constant concentration of 250 mg/L TDS and 0.06 mg/L nitrate-N was applied to deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge was applied. Return Flows – Agricultural (Groundwater and Recycled Water), Municipal, and Septic System Salt and nutrient loads from agricultural, municipal, and septic sources are described in Chapter 6 - Source Identification and Loading Analysis. For the mixing model, the TDS and nitrogen mass load for each return flow component was mixed with its respective annual return flow volume to obtain a concentration. For the loading estimate, it was conservatively assumed that all nitrogen mass is converted to nitrate. Based on initial simulation results for the baseline period, nitrate loading from return flows was reduced by 15% to account for attenuation processes beneath the soil root zone and septic system, in order to provide a better match between simulated average concentrations and observed regional trends. Table 7-1 shows the initial calculated and adjusted (during calibration) TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations for each return flow component. The adjusted concentrations are applied as a constant concentration over the baseline period. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-3 Table 7-1: Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Mass and Concentrations for Baseline Period Analysis 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted during calibration. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. As shown in Table 7-1, the initial and final adjusted TDS concentration of agricultural irrigation water (groundwater and recycled water source water) at about 4,300 mg/L is the highest of the return flow components. Differences between agricultural return flow concentrations/mass for groundwater and recycled water are attributable to differences in source water quality. The TDS concentration of municipal irrigation water (1,182 mg/L) is lower than for agricultural irrigation. Septic system return flows have the lowest TDS concentration (572 mg/L) compared to the irrigation return flows. Overall, the volume weighted-average TDS concentration of the irrigation and septic system return flows is 2,552 mg/L. Subsurface Inflows from Baylands Area While groundwater levels and the flow model-based water balance indicate that subsurface groundwater flows generally from the Inlands area to the Baylands Area, there is a small component of subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area. This is likely caused by groundwater pumping, which has created a pumping depression in the southern portion of the subbasin. The concentrations applied to subsurface inflows from the Baylands Area were assumed to be the current average concentration in the Baylands Area (1,220 mg/L for TDS and 0.07 mg/L for nitrate-N). 7.3.2 Mixing Model Calibration and Salt and Nutrient Balance In order to simulate the effect of current salt and nutrient loading on groundwater quality in the Inland Area of the subbasin, a spreadsheet mixing model was developed. In the mixing model, the simulated baseline period concentrations and trends were compared to the predominant pattern of observed concentrations and trends. From this comparison, loading factors were adjusted (calibrated) to achieve a better match between simulated and observed concentrations and trends. Figure 7-1 shows the final simulated average subbasin TDS and nitrate concentrations over the 10-year baseline period (WY 1996 represents the hypothetical initial water quality condition equivalent to the current ambient condition). Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-4 Figure 7-1: Final Simulated Baseline Average Groundwater Concentrations for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) As shown in the figure, simulated average subbasin TDS concentrations vary slightly from year to year, but exhibit no change over the 10-year baseline period. This flat trend compares well to observed flat trends in wells across the subbasin over the baseline period. In contrast to the TDS trend, simulated average nitrate-N concentrations increase by about 0.5 mg/L over the baseline period, despite nitrate loading from return flows being reduced by 15% to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system. Observed nitrate concentrations in monitoring wells across the subbasin are not increasing regionally, but instead show overall flat or stable concentrations over time. The discrepancy between simulated and observed trends may be caused by an overestimate of the nitrate load due to one or more of the following: 1. Assumption that 100% of nitrogen is converted to nitrate 2. Potential underestimation of ambient average groundwater nitrate concentrations due to limited spatial distribution of wells with recent nitrate data 3. Application of all nitrate loading associated with recycled water use within the Inland Area in the mixing model, despite portions of existing (and proposed future) recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2-1) 4. Underestimation of nitrate attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model For the reasons mentioned above, simulated nitrate concentrations generated from the calibrated mixing model are likely conservative and overestimated for both baseline and future nitrogen loading. While application of higher nitrate attenuation rate was considered, given the limited distribution of monitoring wells with long-term nitrate trend data in the subbasin, a 15% attenuation rate was maintained. 7.4 Future Planning Period Water Quality The spreadsheet mixing model developed for the baseline analysis was modified to evaluate the effects of planned future salt and nutrient loading on overall groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin for the future planning period (WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). Future project changes are superimposed over average water balance conditions during the 10-year baseline period (described above) to simulate future groundwater quality. 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 300 320 340 360 380 400 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Nitrate as N (mg/L)TDS (mg/L)Water Year Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-5 The mixing model is used to predict future water quality, water quality trends, and the percentage of the existing available assimilative capacity used by recycled water projects in the subbasin during the future planning period. The mixing model is designed to incorporate the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and track the annual change in groundwater storage and salt and nutrient mass for the subbasin as a whole. Three future scenarios were simulated:  Future Scenario 0 (No-Project): Assumes average baseline water balance conditions and no additional enhanced stormwater capture and recharge is applied.  Future Scenario 1: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use of 4,100 AFY (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35)  Future Scenario 2: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). 7.4.1 Future Scenarios The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for the baseline period were applied to all future scenarios for the following inflows:  Deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge  Leakage from Sonoma Creek  Subsurface inflow from Baylands area Concentrations for future return flow components are described below. Return Flows – Agricultural, Municipal Irrigation and Septic System The same methodology used to estimate TDS and nitrogen loading from return flows over the baseline period was used to estimate future return flow loading. Table 7-2 through Table 7-4 show the estimated TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations of each return flow for Scenario 0 (No-Project), Scenario 1, and Scenario 2, respectively. The adjusted values are applied as a constant concentration over the entire future planning period. For both TDS and nitrate, the total cumulative mass and weighted-average concentration of return flows increases slightly from Scenario 0 (No-Project) to Scenario 1 to Scenario 2. Table 7-2: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) 1Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-6 Table 7-3: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) 1Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. Table 7-4: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) 1Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. 7.4.2 Future Water Quality Results TDS Groundwater Concentrations Figure 7-2 shows the simulated future TDS concentrations from the calibrated mixing model for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland Area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Also shown on the chart is the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Figure 7-2: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations The following conclusions can be made for future TDS groundwater concentrations: Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 998 4,481 29.3 24.9 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 508 4,479 29.3 24.9 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,615 27.6 23.5 Volumetric Rate Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 374 4,706 31.6 26.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 1,132 4,706 31.6 26.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,722 28.7 24.4 Volumetric Rate 340 360 380 400 420 2010201520202025203020352040TDS (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-7  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin Inland Area are projected to decrease from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 0.9 mg/L for Scenario 0 (No-Project).  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin Inland Area are projected to increase from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 1.4 mg/L for Scenario 1 and by 3.5 mg/L for Scenario 2.  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected TDS concentrations remain well below the BPO of 500 mg/L. When considering the differences between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 1.8% (2.3 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity, while Scenario 2 use 4.8% (6.1 mg/L) of the assimilative capacity. Nitrate-N Groundwater Concentrations Figure 7-3 shows the simulated results of the calibrated mixing model for nitrate for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland Area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The chart shows the simulated concentration trends for each scenario and the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Figure 7-3: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations The following conclusions can be made for future nitrate-N groundwater concentrations:  Average nitrate concentrations in the subbasin Inland Area are projected to increase similarly for all three scenarios from WY 2013 to WY 2035 (between 0.83 and 0.88 mg/L).  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected nitrate concentrations remain well below the BPO of 10 mg/L.  When considering the difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 0.2 % (0.02 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity (9.93 mg/L), while Scenario 2 uses 0.5 % (0.05 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity. It is noted that projected increases in nitrate concentrations in the Inland area of the subbasin are considered conservative given the assumptions incorporated in the calibration of the mixing model for nitrate. Additionally, despite portions of existing and proposed future recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2-1), all TDS and nitrate loading associated with recycled water use was applied within the Inlands area in the mixing model and salt and 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2010201520202025203020352040Nitrate-N (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-8 nutrient balance. Average groundwater nitrate concentrations are predicted to increase asymptotically toward the volume-weighted average nitrate concentration of basin inflows for each scenario (1.31 mg/L for Scenario 0, 1.33 mg/L for Scenario 1, and 1.38 mg/L for Scenario 2). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 8 Implementation Measures September 2013 8-1 Chapter 8 Implementation Measures The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values, well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) indicates good water quality and stable trends. Therefore, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time; however, the SNMP would like to endorse existing measures or practices already in place to manage groundwater quality in the basin and see that they continue. 8.1 Existing Implementation Measures and Ongoing Management Programs Given that future groundwater quality concentration estimates are not expected to exceed BPOs for TDS and nitrate, and recycled water projects do not use more than 10% of the basin’s assimilative capacity, no new implementation measures are recommended to manage salts and nutrients within the basin. Several programs are already underway in the basin, which help manage groundwater supplies and quality. These programs fall under five categories, as follows:  Agricultural  Recycled Water Irrigation  Groundwater Management  Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Management  Municipal Wastewater Management Implementation measures that are underway in the basin within these broad categories are described below. 8.2 Agricultural BMPs Agricultural best management practices (BMPs) are categorized for vineyard, dairy or other agriculture below. 8.2.1 Vineyard Land management practices within vineyards include various on-going BMPs. Several practices are listed below:  Drip irrigation – water application is minimized by focusing the amount and area applied.  Soil and petiole testing – it is common practice for vineyard managers to conduct annual soil testing to understand soil characteristics for grape production and flavor. Soil testing includes review of TDS and nitrate. Vineyard managers also typically test petioles to further refine vine nutrient needs.  Focused application of fertilizer and soil amendments – application of salts and nutrients is limited to the area at the point of the irrigation drip emitter, rather than broadcast across a large area. 8.2.2 Dairy Land management practices at dairy operations include various on-going BMPs. Several practices are listed below:  Pavement and cover (roofing) in intensive manure areas to control runoff Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 8 Implementation Measures September 2013 8-2  Spreading liquid manure at agronomic rates  Manure application (solids) on vegetated fields – spreading on vegetated areas allows for greater uptake of nutrients by plants  Organic dairies utilize larger land base for grazing area, allowing for greater uptake of nutrients. 8.2.3 Other Agriculture In Sonoma Valley, the bulk of agriculture that is non-viticulture occurs mainly over the brackish groundwater area (referred to as “Baylands” area in the SNMP) and was not a focus for cataloging implementation measures. 8.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs The implementation of recycled water is regulated by the Title 22 California Code of Regulations (Title 22). Numerous BMPs and operating procedures are required to be followed when using recycled water for irrigation to ensure safety. The following BMPs are implemented in recycled water operations:  Water quality monitoring at the treatment plant to ensure regulatory compliance with Title 22, and meet monitoring requirements for indicator emerging contaminants as part of the Recycled Water Policy.  Irrigation at agronomic rates – irrigation is applied at a rate that does not exceed the demand of the plants and does not exceed the field capacity of the soil.  Site Supervisor – a site supervisor who is responsible for the system and for providing surveillance at all times to ensure compliance with regulations and Permit requirements is designated for each site. The Site Supervisor is trained to understand recycled water, and supervision duties. In addition to monitoring the recycled water system, the Site Supervisor must also conduct an annual self-inspection of the system.  Minimize runoff of recycled water from irrigation –Irrigation is not allowed to occur at any time when uncontrolled runoff may occur, such as during times of rainfall or very low evapotranspiration; and any overspray must be controlled. 8.4 Groundwater Management Plan – Ongoing Programs The SVGMP set forth a management structure and process for conducting projects to maintain the health of the groundwater basin. The SVCSD will continue to participate with the SVGMP. Programs underway as part of the SVGMP, include the following:  Basin-wide groundwater level monitoring  Groundwater quality monitoring  Installation and monitoring of two new multi-level groundwater wells  Plans for additional monitoring well installation and development of grants to fund installation  Groundwater banking study and pilot-project  Stormwater management-groundwater recharge study and pilot-project  Encouraging LID to increase stormwater recharge and limit nutrient loading to runoff. The County of Sonoma has an LID Design Manual which requires capture and treatment requirements for runoff at new construction of a certain size, and the Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District developed a “Slow It, Spread It, Sink It” guidance manual for stormwater management. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 8 Implementation Measures September 2013 8-3  Offstream infiltration study and project  Water recycling projects to offset groundwater pumping  Public Outreach Plan  Seepage runs to understand basin water balance inflow and outflows  Development of a rainfall monitoring program  Study to develop seawater intrusion mitigation measures  Encouraging conservation and BMPs for viticulture and non-viticulture agriculture  Update to land cover maps, and groundwater flow model 8.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Management A large percentage of the groundwater basin is overlain by ranchettes and farmsteads with houses and structures that manage waste through individual onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), also known as septic systems. Individual property owners are responsible for managing their own system and employ a variety of BMPs such as monitoring and frequent pumping to manage the operation of the system. In June of 2012, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. The intent of the Policy is “to allow the continued use of OWTS, while protecting water quality and public health”. BMPs required in the Policy include site evaluations, setbacks, and percolation tests for new systems. 8.6 Municipal Wastewater Management SVCSD owns and operates the only large-scale wastewater treatment plant within the groundwater basin. SVCSD implements source control programs including industrial waste management measures (i.e. educational outreach, coordination with wineries, and I/I programs) to control salinity and nutrients in influent waters, which ultimately improves the quality of recycled water. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan September 2013 9-1 Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan A Groundwater Monitoring Plan is a required element of all SNMPs. A comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Plan has been developed for the Sonoma Valley SNMP and is included as Appendix E. The Recycled Water Policy states that the SNMP should include a monitoring program that consists of a network of monitoring locations “. . . adequate to provide a reasonable, cost-effective means of determining whether the concentrations of salts, nutrients, and other constituents of concern as identified in the salt and nutrient plans are consistent with applicable water quality objectives.” Additionally, the SNMP “. . . must focus on basin water quality near water supply wells and areas proximate to large water recycling projects, particularly groundwater recharge projects. Also, monitoring locations shall, where appropriate, target groundwater and surface waters where groundwater has connectivity with the adjacent surface waters.” The preferred approach is to “. . . collect samples from existing wells if feasible as long as the existing wells are located appropriately to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. The monitoring plan shall identify those stakeholders responsible for conducting, sampling, and reporting the monitoring data. The data shall be reported to the Regional Water Board at least every three years.” With regards to constituents of emerging concern (CECs), the Recycled Water Policy Attachment A states that “Monitoring of health-based CECs or performance indicator CECs is not required for recycled water used for landscape irrigation due to the low risk for ingestion of the water.” 9.1 Existing Monitoring Programs Groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley has been monitored since 1949. Most data represent one-time samples for short-term studies or individual well-specific assessments. The SVGMP monitoring program and the proposed SNMP monitoring program rely on three existing ongoing programs:  DWR Monitoring  CDPH Required Monitoring  SVGMP Monitoring The SNMP monitoring program will also collect and consider data from any other special studies conducted in the subbasin, such as studies conducted through the GMP to evaluate salinity sources in southern Sonoma Valley and studies conducted under the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. 9.2 SNMP-Specific Groundwater Monitoring Program For the SNMP Monitoring Program, 47 wells that are currently monitored by DWR, CDPH, and SVGMP will be included in the monitoring program (Table 9-1 and Figure 9-1). Wells will be monitored on the same schedule as their current monitoring, and results will be reported through the Geotracker database system to the Regional Water Board every three years in an SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Parameters to be monitored include electrical conductivity (EC), TDS and nitrate. The SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report will include the following:  Discussion of TDS and EC water quality including o Water quality summary tables (TDS and specific conductance) o Water quality concentration maps (TDS and specific conductance) o Time-concentration plots (specific conductance) to assess trends o Comparison of detections with BPOs  Status of recycled water use and stormwater capture projects and implementation measures Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan September 2013 9-2  Review of future planned use of recycled water and any changes in planned use (which may trigger CEC monitoring requirements) The SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program will be reviewed and assessed every three years as part of the triennial SNMP groundwater monitoring reporting. Table 9-1: SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Program No. of Wells Monitoring Frequency Constituents DWR 12 Every 2 years EC, TDS, and nitrate CDPH 26 (varies) Between 1-3 years EC, TDS, or nitrate SVGMP 9 Once per year EC, TDS, and nitrate 9.3 Data Gaps Additional monitoring data in the area where the Baylands zone transitions to the Inland area would be useful in the future to better understand if there is movement in the salinity intrusion area. When additional funding becomes available for the installation of additional monitoring wells, this will be the target area. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan September 2013 9-3 Figure 9-1: SNMP Monitoring Program Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment September 2013 10-1 Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment 10.1 Recycled Water Irrigation Projects Recycled water project(s) in the Sonoma Valley include existing and projected increased use of recycled water for irrigation through the end of the future planning period in the WY 2035. 10.2 SWRCB Recycled Water Policy Criteria Section 9 Anti-Degradation of the SWRCB’s Recycled Water Policy states, in part: a. The State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 68-16 as a policy statement to implement the Legislature’s intent that waters of the state shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. b. Activities involving the disposal of waste that could impact high quality waters are required to implement best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to ensure that pollution or nuisance will not occur, and the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained….. d. Landscape irrigation with recycled water in accordance with this Policy is to the benefit of the people of the State of California. Nonetheless, the State Water Board finds that the use of water for irrigation may, regardless of its source, collectively affect groundwater quality over time. The State Water Board intends to address these impacts in part through the development of salt/nutrient management plans described in paragraph 6. (1) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is in place may be approved without further antidegradation analysis, provided that the project is consistent with that plan. (2) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is being prepared may be approved by the Regional Water Board by demonstrating through a salt/nutrient mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub- basin (or multiple projects using less than 20 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub-basin). 10.3 Assessment The average TDS and nitrate concentrations and the available assimilative capacities for baseline conditions and the future planning period with the recycled water irrigation project(s) were discussed in Section 7. Irrigation with recycled water contributes only very minor salt and nutrient loading to the subbasin and recycled water projects do not use more that 10 % of the available assimilative capacity. In addition to the minimal negative water quality impacts associated with recycled water irrigation project(s) in the Subbasin, the Recycled Water Policy and other state-wide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. As stated in the Recycled Water Policy “The collapse of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, climate change, and continuing population growth have combined with a severe drought on the Colorado River and failing levees in the Delta to create a new reality that challenges California’s ability to provide the clean water needed for a healthy environment, a healthy population and a healthy economy, both now and in the future. …….We strongly encourage local and regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local water for California by emphasizing appropriate water recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment September 2013 10-2 infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of supply are drought-proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long-term.” Clearly, the benefits in terms of sustainability and reliability of recycled water use cannot be overstated. Another benefit of recycled water use for irrigation is that it reduces groundwater pumping in the southern part of the subbasin in the vicinity of a pumping depression helping to mitigate saline water intrusion from the Baylands Areas. The SNMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting and improving groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Table 10-1 provides an explanation of why proposed future recycled projects are in compliance with SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. Table 10-1: Antidegradation Assessment SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 Component Anti-Degradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State.  The irrigation projects will not use more than 10% of the available AC  Recycled water irrigation project(s) will not cause groundwater quality to exceed applicable BPOs  Use of recycled water for irrigation reduces groundwater pumping and helps mitigate saline water intrusion from the Baylands Area The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State.  Concentrations of TDS and nitrate in recycled water produced by SVCSD are 440 mg/L and 5.2 mg/L, respectively. Concentrations are well below BPOs of 500 mg/L and 10 mg/L. The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development.  The recycled water projects are an integral part of Subbasins UWMPs Implementation measures are being or will be implemented to help achieve BPOs in the future.  Various measures, as described in Chapter 8 have been or will be implemented in the subbasin to address salts and nutrients   Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 11 Plan Approval Process September 2013 11-1 Chapter 11 Plan Approval Process Following the presentation of the Draft SNMP at the July 18, 2013 public workshop, public comments on the Draft SNMP Report were considered and incorporated into this Final SNMP Report. This SNMP is being submitted to the Regional Water Board (in September 2013) for their review and incorporation to their Basin Planning process and subsequent environmental documentation process. The Regional Water Board template to be utilized for incorporating this SNMP into their Basin Planning Process has been filled in and is included as Appendix F along with environmental considerations. The Final SNMP Report has been posted online at the following web address: www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/ It is anticipated that this SNMP will be updated in the future. The timing of an SNMP update is not tied to a scheduled reoccurrence interval, however, an update could be triggered by the following:  Major changes in land use or land management practices  New information from the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program  Changes in basin management (e.g. recharge projects) Any future SNMP updates would be conducted utilizing a similar collaborative process as was utilized for development of this SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 12 Conclusion September 2013 12-1 Chapter 12 Conclusion The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values (well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs), resulting from a combination of factors including the high percentage of mountain front recharge with very low TDS and nitrate concentrations, the low amount of loading from the few sources identified, and the low volume and high quality of recycled water used. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) also indicates good water quality and stable trends. In conclusion, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time. The SNMP would like to endorse existing measures or practices already in place to manage groundwater supplies and quality in the basin and see that they continue. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan References September 2013 References Bauer, Jacob P., December 2008, “Update to Regional Groundwater Flow Model simulation of Sonoma Valley Including a New Model for Recharge and Three Future Scenarios”, A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences and the committee on graduate studies at Stanford University City of Sonoma, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Hem, J.D., 1989, “Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water (third edition)”, U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254 Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), 2010, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program: 2010 Annual Report” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 2007, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan” San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), December 31, 2010, “San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), May 2009 Draft, amended September 2012, October 2012, and January 2013, approved January 2013, “Recycled Water Policy” United States Geological Survey, 2006, “Geohydrologic Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground- Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California”, Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5092. Valley of the Moon Water District, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” S anta Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan NOVEMBER 2014 This page is intentionally left blank REVISED FINAL SALT AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN: SANTA CLARA SUBBASIN Originally posted online in November, 2014; Revised in June 2016 to add San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board comments and Santa Clara Valley Water District responses ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREPARED BY: Thomas Mohr, P.G., H.G. Senior Hydrogeologist UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: James Fielder Chief Operating Officer, Water Utility Enterprise Garth Hall Deputy Operating Officer Water Supply Division Behzad Ahmadi Unit Manager,Groundwater (retired) CONTRIBUTORS: Chanie Abuye, Civil Engineer Randy Behrens, Geologist Ellen Fostersmith, Geologist (retired) Ardy Ghoreishi, Engineering Technician Robert Siegfried, Soil Scientist (retired) Miguel Silva, Associate Civil Engineer Xiaoyong Zhan, Civil Engineer GRAPHICS DESIGN: Benjamin Apollo BOARD OF DIRECTORS: John L. Varela, District 1 Barbara Keegan, District 2 (Chair) Richard Santos, District 3 Linda J. LeZotte, District 4 Nai Hsueh, District 5 Tony Estremera, District 6 Gary Kremen, District 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan i ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................. 5 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5 1.2 State Water Resources Control Board 2009 Recycled Water Policy ......................... 5 1.3 Stakeholder Participation .......................................................................................... 7 1.4 Related Plans and Policies ....................................................................................... 8 1.4.1 Anti-Degradation Policy....................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Plan ................................................................... 8 1.4.2.1 Beneficial Uses ............................................................................................. 8 1.4.2.2 Water Quality Objectives ............................................................................... 8 1.4.3 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Objectives ................................... 9 1.4.4 District Board Ends Policies ...............................................................................10 1.4.5 Groundwater Management Plan Basin Management Objectives ........................10 1.5 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................11 1.5.1 Waste Discharge Permitting Program ................................................................11 1.5.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads ...............................................................................13 1.5.3 Local Regulations ..............................................................................................13 1.5.4 Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water and Stormwater ................................14 CHAPTER 2: GROUNDWATER SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION ..................................... 15 2.1 Groundwater Basin ..................................................................................................16 2.1.1 Santa Clara Plain Hydrogeology ........................................................................16 2.1.2 Santa Clara Plain Pumping and Recharge .........................................................17 2.1.3 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Elevation Trends ..............................................24 2.1.4 Santa Clara Plain Storage Capacity ...................................................................24 2.1.5 Santa Clara Plain Water Budget ........................................................................24 2.1.6 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Quality ..............................................................25 2.2 Coyote Valley Hydrogeology ....................................................................................27 2.2.1 Coyote Valley Pumping ......................................................................................28 2.2.2 Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping Trends ....................................................28 2.2.3 Coyote Valley Storage Capacity .........................................................................29 2.2.4 Coyote Valley Water Budget ..............................................................................29 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ii 2.2.5 Coyote Valley Groundwater Elevation Trends ....................................................30 2.2.6 Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality ...................................................................31 2.3 Sources of Supply....................................................................................................31 2.4 Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Water Budget ..................................................31 2.5 Groundwater Quality – Salts and Nutrients ..............................................................33 2.5.1 Total Dissolved Solids ........................................................................................33 2.5.2 Nitrate ................................................................................................................34 2.5.3 Trends in TDS and Nitrate .................................................................................35 2.5.4 TDS Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 ................................................36 2.5.5 Nitrate Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 .............................................36 CHAPTER 3: ESTIMATING CURRENT AND FUTURE SALT AND NUTRIENT LOADING AND ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY ................................................................ 39 3.1 Sources of Salts and Nutrients.................................................................................39 3.2 Fate and Transport of Salts and Nutrients ...............................................................40 3.3 Methodology for Estimating Salt and Nutrient Loading and Removal .......................42 3.3.1 Wet Loading Categories.....................................................................................43 3.3.1.1 Rainfall Recharge .........................................................................................43 3.3.1.2 Mountain-front Recharge ..............................................................................44 3.3.1.3 Basin Inflow and Saline Intrusion .................................................................46 3.3.1.4 Managed Recharge in Streams ....................................................................49 3.3.1.5 Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds ....................................................50 3.3.1.6 Agricultural Irrigation ....................................................................................50 3.3.1.7 Landscape Irrigation – Municipal and Domestic Water Sources ...................51 3.3.1.8 Landscape Irrigation – Recycled Water ........................................................53 3.3.1.9 Conveyance Losses .....................................................................................54 3.3.1.10 Drainage Losses ..........................................................................................55 3.3.2 Dry Loading .......................................................................................................57 3.3.2.1 Agricultural Fertilizer and Lawn Fertilizer ......................................................57 3.3.2.2 Atmospheric Deposition ...............................................................................59 3.3.3 Salt and Nutrient Removal .................................................................................60 3.3.3.1 Groundwater Pumping .................................................................................60 3.3.3.2 Basin Outflow ...............................................................................................61 3.3.3.3 Gaining Reaches of Streams........................................................................61 3.3.3.4 Groundwater Infiltration into Sewer Lines and Storm Drains ........................61 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan iii 3.3.3.5 Storm Drain Infiltration..................................................................................61 3.3.4 Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance ........................................................................62 3.4 Assimilative Capacity ...............................................................................................64 3.4.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality ............................................................................64 3.4.2 Volume-Weighted Average Basin Concentrations ..............................................67 3.4.3 Estimated Basin Assimilative Capacity ...............................................................68 3.4.4 Projecting Future Assimilative Capacity .............................................................68 3.4.4.1 Assumptions for Future Loading ...................................................................68 3.4.4.2 Methodology and Assumptions for Mixing Calculation ..................................71 3.4.5 Future Assimilative Capacity Projections ...........................................................72 3.4.5.1 Future Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation ..........................73 3.4.5.2 Future Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge ..................................75 3.4.5.3 Future Loading from Recycled Water ...........................................................78 3.4.5.4 Future Loading from Conveyance and Drainage Losses ..............................80 3.4.5.5 Future Loading from Dry Loading Sources ...................................................82 3.4.5.6 Salt and Nitrate Removal Projections ...........................................................82 3.4.5.7 Net Loading/Removal and Assimilative Capacity..........................................83 3.4.5.8 Allocation of Future Assimilative Capacity ....................................................86 CHAPTER 4: SALT AND NUTRIENT MONITORING PLANT ........................................... 88 CHAPTER 5: ANTI-DEGRADATION ANALYSIS .............................................................. 89 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 91 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 92 SNMP GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 97 APPENDIX 1 – Recycled Water Policy ............................................................................... A1-1 APPENDIX 2 – Groundwater Management Plan ................................................................ A2 -1 APPENDIX 3 – Groundwater Monitoring Plan ................................................................... A3 -1 APPENDIX 4 – Groundwater Quality Management ........................................................... A4 -1 APPENDIX 5 – Groundwater Infiltration to Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains ............. A5 -1 APPENDIX 6 – San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Comments and District Responses to Comments ............................................................................... A6 -1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan iv TABLES Table 1 – Net Loading of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Subbasin ............................................ 2 Table 2 – Projected Salt and Nutrient Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity ................................ 3 Table 3 – Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP Stakeholders and Stakeholder Meetings ........ 7 Table 4 – Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives ............................................................................................ 9 Table 5 – San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6 – San Francisco Bay RWQCB General Orders for Discharges that Could Contribute Salt and Nutrients to Groundwater....................................................................................................................... 13 Table 7– Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Water Budget (2002 to 2011) ........................................... 23 Table 8 – Santa Clara Plain Shallow Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics ........ 26 Table 9 – Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics ....... 26 Table 10 – Coyote Valley Water Budget (2002 to 2011)............................................................................. 30 Table 11 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics ..................................................... 31 Table 12 – 2012 TDS Testing Results ........................................................................................................... 34 Table 13 – 2012 Nitrogen Constituent Testing Results ............................................................................. 35 Table 14 – 15-year TDS and Nitrate Concentration Trend Analysis Results (1998-2012) ................... 35 Table 15 – Sources and Removal of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin .... 39 Table 16 – Nitrate Attenuation Factor Assumptions by Loading Category* ......................................... 43 Table 17 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Rainfall Infiltration ............................................... 44 Table 18– Santa Clara Plain Model Mountain-Front Recharge Estimates ............................................. 45 Table 19 – Estimated Salt and Nutrient Loading from Mountain-Front Recharge ............................... 46 Table 20 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Basin Inflow to the Santa Clara Plain ............... 46 Table 21 – Estimated 10-year Median Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Streams .. 49 Table 22 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds ...... 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan v Table 23 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Irrigation .......................................... 51 Table 24 – Indoor-Outdoor Water Use Estimates by Water Use Category ............................................ 52 Table 25 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation† ........... 52 Table 26 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water ................................................................................................................................................ 53 Table 27 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses ............................. 55 Table 28 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Drainage Losses ................................... 56 Table 29 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Fertilizer .......................................... 58 Table 30 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Lawn Fertilizer ...................................................... 58 Table 31 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Atmospheric Deposition .................................... 60 Table 32 – Salt and Nutrient Removal .......................................................................................................... 62 Table 33 – Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance ................................................................................................ 63 Table 34– Factors Used to Determine Volume-Weighted Average Concentrations ........................... 67 Table 35 – Assimilative Capacity in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ...................................... 68 Table 36 – Basis of Future Loading Projections by Category ................................................................. 70 Table 37 – Retailer Demand Projections after Conservation Savings(1) (AF/year) .............................. 73 Table 38 – Schedule and Capacity of Recharge Capital Improvement Projects .................................. 76 Table 39 – Schedule and Capacity of Indirect Potable Reuse Recharge Projects ............................... 76 Table 40 – Recycled Water Master Plans: Expansion and Water Quality Improvements ................. 78 Table 41 – Factors Used to Project Future Sewer Line Losses ............................................................... 80 Table 42 – Annual Consumption of TDS Assimilative Capacity (AC) by Loading Categories .......... 87 Table 43 – Anti-Degradation Assessment ................................................................................................... 90 Table 44 – Example City Requirements for Stormwater Pollution Prevention ................................. A4 -3 Table 45 – Compost and Mulch Programs in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin .................. A4 -8 Table 46 – Potentially Contaminating Activities Contributing Salt and Nitrate to Groundwater A4-11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan vi Table 47 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in SJ-SC WPCP Tributary Area .................... A4-16 Table 48 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in Tributary Areas for All 3 POTWs ............. A4-17 Table 49 – Changes to Assimilative Capacity for the 50:50 Blend IPR Scenario .......................... A4-19 Table 50 – Comparison of Qualitative Changes to Future Assimilative Capacity from Unquantified Potential Changes to Future TDS Loading .......................................................................................... A4-24 Table 51 – Comparison of 3 Different Methods to Estimate Groundwater Infiltration to Sewers .. A5-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan vii FIGURES Figure 1 – Locations of Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley .................................................................. 15 Figure 2 – Generalized Geologic Cross-Section of the Santa Clara Plain ............................................. 19 Figure 3 – Santa Clara Plain Index Well Hydrograph ................................................................................ 20 Figure 4 – Santa Clara Plain 2010 Groundwater Use ................................................................................ 21 Figure 5 – 2010 Groundwater Pumping in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin ........................... 22 Figure 6 – Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge ................................... 23 Figure 7 – Historical Water Levels, Land Subsidence, and Groundwater Recharge Milestones ...... 25 Figure 8 – Coyote Valley Generalized Cross Section ................................................................................ 27 Figure 9 – Coyote Valley 2010 Groundwater Use ...................................................................................... 28 Figure 10 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge ........................................ 29 Figure 11 – Groundwater Elevation in Coyote Valley Well 09S02E02J002 ........................................... 30 Figure 12 – 2002–2011 Average Groundwater Budget for the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ..... 32 Figure 13 – 15-year TDS Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) .................. 37 Figure 14 – 15-year Nitrate as NO3 Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) 38 Figure 15 – Relationship of Salt and Nutrient Sources to Groundwater ................................................ 40 Figure 16 – Mountain-front Recharge Zones in Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Flow Model ........... 45 Figure 17 – Zone of Saline Intrusion into the Shallow Aquifer, Santa Clara Plain ................................ 48 Figure 18 – Locations of Current and Proposed Recycled Water Irrigation as of 2012 ...................... 54 Figure 19– Locations of Areas Served by Septic Tanks ........................................................................... 57 Figure 20 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ........................................................ 65 Figure 21 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Nitrate as NO3 in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ...................................................................... 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan viii Figure 22 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain ........ 74 Figure 23 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain ... 74 Figure 24 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley .............. 75 Figure 25 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley ......... 75 Figure 26 – Salt Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain .................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 27 – Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain ...................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 28 – Salt Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley ........................ 77 Figure 29 – Nitrate Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley ................... 78 Figure 30 – Salt Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain ............................................... 79 Figure 31 – Nitrate Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain .......................................... 79 Figure 32 – TDS and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses in the Santa Clara Plain, tons per year .................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 33 – TDS Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain ............................................ 81 Figure 34 – Nitrate as NO3 Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain .......................... 81 Figure 35 – TDS Removal in the Santa Clara Plain .................................................................................... 82 Figure 36 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Santa Clara Plain.................................................................. 82 Figure 37 – TDS Removal in the Coyote Valley .......................................................................................... 83 Figure 38 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Coyote Valley ........................................................................ 83 Figure 39 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain .... 84 Figure 40 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain ......................................................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 41 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Coyote Valley .... 85 Figure 42 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Coyote Valley ................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 43 – District Board Policy Framework ......................................................................................... A2-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ix Figure 44 – Relation Between District Policy and 2012 GWMP ........................................................... A2-3 Figure 45 – Relation Between Basin Management Objectives, Strategies, and Programs ............ A2-8 Figure 46 – Interpretation of Continuous Wastewater TDS Monitoring Data (RMC, 2011) .......... A4-16 Figure 47 – 2013 Water Supply............................................................................................................... A4-22 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan x ACRONYMS LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments AF Acre-feet AF/yr Acre-feet per year (about 326,000 gallons) AGR agricultural water supply AWWA American Water Works Association BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BMO basin management objectives (defined in the Groundwater Management Plan) CASTNET Clean Air Status and Trends Network CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CDPH California Department of Public Health CECs Constituents of Emerging Concern CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement model CVMOD Coyote Valley Groundwater Flow Model CVP Central Valley Project DDW Division of Drinking Water (part of SWRCB, formerly part of CDPH) DPR direct potable reuse DSOD Division of Safety of Dams DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District GIS Geographic Information System gpad gallons per acre per day gpimd gallons per inch diameter per mile of sewer per day GWI groundwater infiltration GWMP Groundwater Management Plan ha hectare INAAP Infield Nutrient Assessment Assistance Program IND Industrial water supply IPR Indirect Potable Reuse (of recycled water) IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan LAMS LAMS = Large Area Mosaicing Software LID Low Impact Development MCL Maximum Contaminant Level M&I municipal and Industrial (pumping) MFR Mountain Front Recharge MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimate (a statistical method) MGD million gallons per day MODFLOW the USGS's three-dimensional, modular, finite-difference groundwater flow model used for simulating and predicting groundwater conditions and groundwater/surface-water interactions. MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium MRP Municipal Regional Permit (for Stormwater/NPDES) MUN Municipal and domestic water supply Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan xi NAPD National Atmospheric Data Program NO3 nitrate as nitrate NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OM Outcome Measures in the Groundwater Management Plan OWTS On-site Wastewater Treatment System OWTSO Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Ordinance PARWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant PCA Potentially Contaminating Activities PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls (a class of toxic and bioaccumulative chemicals used as dielectric coolant in transformers) PROC industrial process supply RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board ROWD Report of Waste Discharge RW Recycled Water SBWR South Bay Water Recycling SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (computer system for gathering and analyzing real time data) SDWA Safe Water Drinking Act SCPMOD Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Flow Model SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SJ-SC RWF San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SJWC San Jose Water Company SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level S/N salt and nutrient SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan SRWS Self Regenerating Water Softener SSO Sanitary System Operator SVAWPC Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center SVWPCP Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant SWID Stormwater Infiltration Device SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total Dissolved Solids TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TPY Tons Per Year USGS United States Geological Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe VWA Volume-weighted average WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements WSIMP Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the statewide Recycled Water Policy that encourages increased use of recycled water and local stormwater, together with enhanced water conservation. The Recycled Water Policy calls for basin-wide management of salts and nutrients from all sources with the goal of attaining water quality objectives (WQOs) and protecting beneficial uses of groundwater. Because recycled water can contribute salts and nutrients to groundwater, the Recycled Water Policy requires local entities to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) to support streamlined permitting of new recycled water projects while managing salts and nutrients basin-wide. This SNMP for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin was prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) with input from stakeholders, including the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara County, water retailers and recycled water producers, the farm bureau, and interested stakeholders such as environmental groups. The purpose of this SNMP is to comply with the SRWCB Recycled Water Policy by:  Evaluating all sources of salt and nutrient loading to the Santa Clara Subbasin,  Determining whether current and projected salt and nutrient concentrations are consistent with applicable WQOs  Developing recycled water and stormwater goals and objectives,  Providing a plan for long-term groundwater monitoring, and  Identifying sustainable measures to manage salt and nutrient loading to groundwater. An overview of the SNMP, including key findings, is provided below. Study Area The Study Area for this SNMP is the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin1 in northern Santa Clara County, including the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Groundwater typically provides about 45 percent of the water used in the Santa Clara Plain. Treated water provides the majority of the water used, with minor portions served by local surface water and recycled water. Tertiary-treated recycled water is used for irrigation and industrial purposes in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas. Advanced-treated recycled water from the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center is now blended into recycled water serving San Jose and Santa Clara. The Coyote Valley relies almost entirely on groundwater, with small amounts of surface water used. Water supply management of the Santa Clara Subbasin includes active groundwater replenishment operations conducted by the District. Significant volumes of imported water and surface water released from local reservoirs, along with local runoff are recharged in ponds and in-stream facilities. On average, the District’s Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) represents two- 1 The Santa Clara Subbasin is part of the Department of Water Resources-defined Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 2 thirds of the annual groundwater pumping in the Santa Clara Plain and 120% of pumping in the Coyote Valley. Existing Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality within the Santa Clara Subbasin is very good and is acceptable for all beneficial uses designated in the Basin Plan. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate (as NO3) are used as representative salt and nutrient indicators for this SNMP. The volume-weighted average for the Santa Clara Subbasin is 425 mg/L. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations were compared with the recommended secondary drinking water standard of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the primary drinking water standard of 45 mg/L, respectively. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations in all areas are well below their respective WQOs. Accordingly, there is available assimilative capacity. Trend analyses indicate nearly all wells analyzed show stable or decreasing trends for TDS and nitrate. Salt and Nutrient Sources Major current sources of TDS loading to the Santa Clara Plain include landscape irrigation and managed aquifer recharge, and in Coyote Valley, managed aquifer recharge and agricultural irrigation. Minor sources of TDS loading include recycled water, drainage and conveyance losses (leaks in storm drain, sewer, and water transmission pipes). The primary sources of nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain are landscape irrigation with potable and recycled water, and groundwater flowing into the Santa Clara Plain from Coyote Valley. In the Coyote Valley, agricultural fertilizer and irrigation, and septic systems are the primary sources of nitrate. All sources of groundwater recharge add salt and nutrient load to the subbasin. Recharge sources with lower TDS and nitrate than ambient groundwater will result in improved groundwater quality. Average concentrations of TDS and nitrate in all sources of groundwater recharge combined are much lower than average groundwater concentrations. Salts and nutrients are removed from the subbasin through groundwater pumping, basin outflow, gaining reaches of streams, and groundwater infiltration into storm drains and sewer mains. The difference between total salt and nutrient loading and removal determines whether there is currently net loading or net removal, as summarized in Table 1. Table 1 – Net Loading of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Subbasin Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin TDS Nitrate TDS Nitrate TDS Nitrate Total Loading, tons per year 89,600 1,130 7,850 226 97,450 1,356 Total Removal, tons per year 58,080 890 10,860 670 68,940 1,560 Net Loading, tons per year 31,520 240 - 3,010 - 444 28,510 - 204 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 3 Future Salt and Nutrient Loading and Assimilative Capacity Loading and removal categories were quantified to support a salt and nutrient mass balance. Fate and transport of salt and nutrients was estimated, and nitrate attenuation factors were developed. A ten-year baseline mass balance was developed for 2001-2010 to establish median loading rates by category. Forecasts were developed for future loading and removal, accounting for improvements to recycled water quality through advanced treatment, planned indirect potable reuse projects, water supply demand projections, and other factors. These forecasts were used to project future TDS and nitrate concentrations, compare those concentrations to applicable WQOs, and evaluate available assimilative capacity. For the SNMP planning horizon ending in 2035, TDS concentrations are projected to decrease in Coyote Valley and increase the Santa Clara Plain. Nitrate is projected to decrease in both the Coyote Valley and Santa Clara Plain. Under the future salt and loading forecast in this SNMP, it is projected that there will be available assimilative capacity for both TDS and nitrate as shown in Table 2, below. Table 2 – Projected Salt and Nutrient Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity Sub-Area/Aquifer Volume Weighted Average TDS, mg/L TDS Assimilative Capacity Volume Weighted Average Nitrate as NO3 NO3 Assimilative Capacity Basin Plan Objective 500 45 Santa Clara Plain – Shallow 528 -28 9.1 35.9 Santa Clara Plain – Principal 410 90 11.0 34.0 Santa Clara Subbasin 425 75 10.7 34.3 Coyote Valley 377 123 20.0 25.0 Assimilative capacity is the difference between the Basin Plan Objective and the average groundwater concentration. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 4 Anti-Degradation Analysis The SNMP analysis finds that current and planned recycled water use by 2035 causes only minor water quality changes to the subbasin with respect to salts and nutrients. Accordingly, recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State and can be increased while still protecting groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Salt and Nutrient Groundwater Quality Management Programs Projects and programs to manage salt and nutrient loading on a sustainable basis have been implemented by the District and subbasin stakeholders for many years. The SWRCB Recycled Water Policy states that within one year of the receipt of a proposed SNMP, the RWQCBs shall consider for adoption revised Basin Plans for groundwater basins where WQOs for salts and nutrients are being, or are threatening to be exceeded. Accordingly, the need for implementation measures to limit and reduce salt and nitrate concentrations is determined by comparing current average and simulated future groundwater quality with WQOs. Current and projected TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Santa Clara Subbasin do not exceed WQOs, so implementation measures are not required. Nonetheless, many groundwater quality management initiatives have been conducted in the Santa Clara Subbasin by the District and SNMP stakeholders, and may continue as deemed appropriate by their proponents. A summary of groundwater quality management initiatives is provided in Appendix 4. SNMP Monitoring Program For many years the District has conducted regular and comprehensive monitoring that includes TDS and nitrate, as well as other water quality parameters. The District also analyzes data from public water supply wells. The proposed SNMP Monitoring Program is the District’s voluntary subbasin monitoring and reporting for TDS and nitrate. The District prepares an annual groundwater report that documents monitoring results, provides trend analyses for TDS and nitrate, and compares detections with WQOs. District reports are available on the District website. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This chapter provides an overview of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, including related state and local policy. This chapter also summarizes the stakeholder process related to the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP. 1.1 Introduction This SNMP was developed through a stakeholder process led by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District), the manager of the Santa Clara groundwater Subbasin. The District was formed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act (District Act)2 for the primary purpose of providing comprehensive management for all beneficial water uses and protection from flooding within Santa Clara County. Per Sections 4 and 5 of the District Act, the District’s objectives and authority related to groundwater management are to recharge groundwater basins, conserve water, manage and store water for beneficial and useful purposes, increase water supply, protect surface and groundwater from contamination, prevent waste or diminution of the District's water supply, and do any and every lawful act necessary to ensure sufficient water is available for present and future beneficial uses. Sources of water for Santa Clara County include local reservoirs, groundwater, imported surface water from the State and Federal Water Projects (including water banking in Kern County), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission supplies, and recycled water. In addition, the District operates a highly successful water conservation program. As much as half the water used in the county is pumped from the ground with the proportion of water supplied by groundwater varying by city and by different water companies. Consequently, groundwater protection from salt and nitrate accumulation is critical to ensure long-term water supply reliability in Santa Clara County. Recycled water is a small but important and growing source of water in Santa Clara County. It is currently used for non-potable uses including irrigation, industrial applications (e.g., cooling), and agriculture. Using recycled water helps conserve drinking water supplies, provides a drought-proof, locally controlled water supply, and reduces dependency on imported water and groundwater. The District has established partnerships with the four recycled water producers in the county to expand recycled water use. Future recycled water plans include use of advanced treated recycled water for indirect potable reuse and possibly direct potable reuse. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) recognizes the importance of recycled water as a key element in local water supply portfolios and adopted the 2009 Recycled Water Policy to guide the preparation of SNMPs to support expanding recycled water uses. The purpose of this Santa Clara SNMP is to evaluate all sources of salts and nutrients (S/Ns) loading to groundwater in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, develop recycled water and stormwater goals and objectives, provide a plan for long term groundwater monitoring for S/Ns, and identify measures to manage S/N loading to groundwater on a sustainable basis. 1.2 State Water Resources Control Board 2009 Recycled Water Policy SWRCB Resolution, 2009-0011 adopted a policy for water quality control for recycled water (Recycled Water Policy). The Recycled Water Policy encourages increased use of recycled 2 Santa Clara Valley Water District Act, Water Code Appendix, Chapter 60. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 6 water and local stormwater to enhance drought-proof, reliable, and sustainable water supplies over the long-term. The intent of the Policy is to ensure that every groundwater basin/subbasin in California has a consistent SNMP. The SWRCB found that the appropriate way to address S/N issues is through the development of regional or sub-regional S/N management plans rather than through imposing requirements solely on individual recycled water projects. A full copy of the Recycled Water Policy is provided in Appendix 1. The key provisions of the Recycled Water Policy related to S/N planning are:  SNMPs will be developed for each groundwater basin/subbasin in California by local water and wastewater entities, together with local S/N contributing stakeholders, through a locally driven and controlled collaborative processes open to all stakeholders and with participation by the RWQCB staff;  The salt and nutrient management planning process should comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);  The SWRCB intends that stormwater use and recharge become a component within the SNMPs because this water is typically lower in nutrients and salts and can augment local water supplies, providing a long-term sustainable use of water in California;  SNMPs must address and implement provisions, as appropriate, for all sources of salts and nutrients to groundwater basins, including recycled water irrigation projects and groundwater recharge reuse projects; and  The policy requires that SNMPs be completed and proposed to the RWQCB by 2014. However, if the stakeholders can demonstrate substantial progress towards completion, a two-year extension may be granted. The Recycled Water Policy also specifies that each SNMP include the following components: • A subbasin wide monitoring plan that includes an appropriate network of monitoring locations; • A provision for annual monitoring of Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs), such as endocrine disruptors, personal care products, pharmaceuticals consistent with recommendations by the California Department of Public Health and any SWRCB action; • Water recycling and stormwater recharge/use goals; • S/N source identification, subbasin assimilative capacity, and loading estimates; • Implementation measures to manage S/N loading in the subbasin on a sustainable basis; and • An anti-degradation analysis demonstrating that the projects included within the plan will collectively satisfy the requirements of SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 7 1.3 Stakeholder Participation The District, as the groundwater management agency for the county, led the salt and nutrient management planning effort in collaboration with local water and wastewater entities, contributors of salts and nutrients, and stakeholders. Table 3 lists SNMP stakeholders, stakeholder meeting dates, and topics addressed. Table 3 – Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP Stakeholders and Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholders Meetings Topics California Water Services Company City of Milpitas City of Mountain View City of Palo Alto City of San Jose City of Santa Clara City of Sunnyvale San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Jose Water Company Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative Santa Clara County Farm Bureau South Bay Water Recycling Stanford University May 31, 2011 • Introduction to SNMPs • Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Overview • Approach to developing SNMP • Stakeholder Input October 12, 2011 • SNMP Process • S/N Source Identification • Approach to Loading Estimates • Stakeholder Input April 11, 2013 • Overview of SWRCB Recycled Water Policy Update • Recycled water and stormwater goals • Basin Water Balance • Loading Estimates • Assimilative Capacity June 20, 2013 • Review of SNMP Process • Loading analysis results • Forecasted Assimilative Capacity • Causes of trends • Implementation Measures • SNMP Monitoring Plan Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 8 1.4 Related Plans and Policies Several state, regional, and local water quality plans and policies are related to the SWRCB’s Recycled Water Policy and its provision for the development of SNMPs. These plans and policies are discussed below. 1.4.1 Anti-Degradation Policy The SWRCB adopted the Anti-Degradation Policy in 1968 (Resolution 68-16). This policy states that existing high water quality should be maintained and that dischargers should use best practicable treatment to avoid pollution. The policy provides for some degradation of water quality if such degradation is consistent with maximum benefits to the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water, and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in Regional Water Quality Control Plans. Projects that are included in the SNMP will need to satisfy the requirements of the Anti-Degradation Policy. 1.4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Plan Each RWQCB prepares a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for their region. The Basin Plans are designed to achieve the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. The San Francisco Bay Basin Plan designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for waters of the State, including surface waters and groundwater. The plan also includes implementation programs to achieve water quality objectives. The beneficial uses for northern Santa Clara County groundwater and associated water quality objectives related to salts and nutrients are discussed below. 1.4.2.1 Beneficial Uses Existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater in northern Santa Clara County are municipal and domestic water supply (MUN), industrial water supply (IND), industrial process supply (PROC), and agricultural water supply (AGR). Unless otherwise designated by the RWQCB, all groundwater is currently considered suitable, or potentially suitable, for municipal or domestic water supply. 1.4.2.2 Water Quality Objectives The Basin Plan identifies water quality objectives for groundwater throughout the region. The maintenance of existing high quality of groundwater (i.e., “background”) is the primary groundwater objective. At a minimum, groundwater may not contain concentrations of chemical constituents or substances producing taste and odor in excess of the objectives listed in Table 4. An exception is made when naturally occurring background concentrations are greater than the thresholds listed in Table 4. As explained in Section 2.3, the water quality parameters used as surrogates for salt and nitrate in this SNMP are Total Dissolved Solids and Nitrate as NO3. Table 4 lists numeric objectives for salt (as Total Dissolved Solids – TDS) and nutrients (as Nitrate) for municipal and domestic water supply (MUN) and agricultural water supply (AGR) beneficial uses. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 9 Table 4 – Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives Parameter Units MUN AGR TDS mg/L 500 10,000 Nitrate (as NO3) mg/L 45 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) mg/L 10 30 1.4.3 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Objectives Water, wastewater, flood protection, and stormwater management agencies, together with cities, counties, and environmental interests, have developed an Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. IRWM is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and, attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The Bay Area IRWM Plan specifies regional goals and objectives. Table 5 lists the regional goals and objectives that apply to salt and nutrient management planning for Santa Clara County groundwater: Table 5 – San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Goals and Objectives Regional Goal Objectives Promote Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability • Minimize health impacts associated with polluted water. • Develop policies, ordinances and programs that promote IRWM goals, and determine areas of integration among projects. • Promote community education involvement and stewardship. Contribute to improved supply reliability and quality • Provide adequate water supplies to meet demands. • Provide clean, safe, and reliable drinking water. • Implement water use efficiency to meet or exceed state and federal requirements. • Increase recycled water use of potable water replaced by non- potable supply. • Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater. • Provide for groundwater recharge while protecting groundwater resources from overdraft. • Protection of groundwater resources from contamination. Protect and improve watershed health and function • Minimize point-source and nonpoint-source pollution. • Improve infiltration capacity. • Control pollutants of concern (TMDLs, 303(d) etc.) • Manage floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 10 1.4.4 District Board Ends Policies The District Board has adopted Ends Policies that provide direction to staff on the intended results, organizational products, impacts, benefits, outcomes, recipients, and their relative worth. The following Ends Policies are related to salt and nutrient management planning: 1.1 An integrated and balanced approach in managing a sustainable water supply, effective natural flood protection, and healthy watersheds is essential to prepare for the future. 1.2 Effective public engagement in accomplishing the District mission is achieved through communication that involves the community and key stakeholder groups in a transparent and open manner. 2.1 Current and future water supply for municipalities, industries, agriculture and the environment is reliable. 2.1.1 Aggressively protect groundwater from the threat of contamination and maintain and develop groundwater to optimize reliability and to minimize land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. 2.1.2 Protect, maintain, and develop local surface water. 2.1.4 Protect, maintain, and develop recycled water. The CEO has adopted interpretations of the Board policy. The interpretations include strategies to increase recycled water use to ten percent of total water demands by 2025 in partnership with the community and agencies in the county, and maintaining contaminant concentrations below Basin Plan water quality objectives in wells. 1.4.5 Groundwater Management Plan Basin Management Objectives The purpose of the District’s Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) is to describe basin management objectives. Objectives include strategies, programs, and activities that support those objectives, and outcome measures to gauge performance (District, 2012b). A more detailed discussion of the GWMP, objectives, and outcome measures is provided in Appendix 2. The GWMP establishes the following basin management objectives (BMOs): • BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. • BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including saltwater intrusion. These BMOs describe the overall goals of the District’s groundwater management program. The basin management strategies are the methods that will be used to meet the BMOs. Many of these strategies have overlapping benefits to groundwater resources and act to improve water supply reliability, minimize subsidence, and protect or improve groundwater quality. The strategies are listed below: Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 11 a. Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize saltwater intrusion and land subsidence. b. Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. c. Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. d. Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. The District has developed the following outcome measures to gauge performance in meeting the basin management objectives: Projected end of year groundwater storage is greater than 278,000 AF in the Santa Clara Plain and 5,000 in Coyote Valley. a. Groundwater levels are above subsidence thresholds at the subsidence index wells. b. At least 95% of countywide water supply wells meet primary drinking water standards and at least 90% of South County wells meet Basin Plan agricultural objectives. c. At least 90% of wells in both the shallow and principal aquifer zones have stable or decreasing concentrations of nitrate, chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS). d. Programs and policies that achieve management of groundwater quality are described in Appendix 4. 1.5 Regulatory Framework This section describes how S/N discharges to groundwater are regulated and controlled by regional and local agencies. 1.5.1 Waste Discharge Permitting Program The RWQCB generally controls point source discharges to surface water through waste discharge requirements issued under the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Although the NPDES program was established by the federal Clean Water Act the permits are prepared and enforced by the RWQCB per California’s delegated authority for the act. Issued in five-year terms, a NPDES permit usually contains components such as discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and necessary specifications and provisions to ensure proper treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste. The permit often contains a monitoring program that establishes monitoring stations at effluent outfall and receiving waters. Under the state’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste within the region (except discharges into a community sewer system) that could affect the quality of the waters of the state is required to file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD). The RWQCB reviews the nature of the proposed discharge and adopts Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to protect the beneficial uses of waters of the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 12 state. WDRs are issued for discharges to land, including discharge of treated wastewater to land, landfills, agricultural activities, and water recycling programs. Waste discharge requirements could be adopted for an individual discharge, or a specific type of discharges, in the form of a general permit. The RWQCB may waive the requirements for filing a ROWD or issuing WDRs for a specific discharge where such a waiver is not against the public interest. NPDES requirements may not be waived. Acceptable control measures for point source discharges must ensure compliance with NPDES permit conditions, including discharge prohibitions and the effluent limitations specified in the Basin Plan. In addition, control measures must satisfy water quality objectives set forth in the Basin Plan unless the RWQCB judges that related economic, environmental, or social considerations merit a modification after a public hearing process has been conducted. Control measures employed must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate future changes in technology, population growth, land development, and legal requirements. Table 6 summarizes general permits that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has issued for discharges that could contribute salts and/or nutrients to groundwater. In addition, individual permits have been issued to the following types of operations: • Food processing wastewater treatment and disposal. • Alternative and large septic systems. • Package sanitary wastewater treatment systems. Individual orders are discussed further in Section 1.6 on potential S/N contributors and sources. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 13 Table 6 – San Francisco Bay RWQCB General Orders for Discharges that Could Contribute Salt and Nutrients to Groundwater Order Number Name Description 96-011 General Water Reuse Requirements for Municipal Wastewater and Water Agencies The Order serves as a General Water Reuse Order authorizing municipal wastewater reuse by producers, distributors, and users of non-potable recycled wastewater throughout the region. The intent of this Order is to streamline the permitting process and delegate the responsibility of administrating water reuse programs to local agencies to the fullest extent possible. The Order is intended to serve as a region-wide general permit for publicly owned wastewater and water agencies that recycle treated municipal wastewater. It is intended to replace individual reuse Orders. 97-10-DWQ Discharges to Land By Small Domestic Wastewater Systems SWRCB general WDRs. Revisions being considered consistent with AB 885. Basin Plan includes criteria for onsite wastewater systems. Small systems are typically regulated by the County of Santa Clara in accordance with the Basin Plan and through delegation of authority from the RWQCB. R2-2009-0074 Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES Permit for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems of the following jurisdictions and entities: the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. Included are the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara County, which have joined together to form the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (Santa Clara Permittees). 1.5.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are action plans to restore clean water. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that states identify water bodies -- bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas -- that do not meet water quality standards, and the pollutants that impair them. TMDLs examine the water quality problems, identify sources of pollutants, and specify actions that create solutions. These plans have been adopted by the RWQCB as amendments to the region's Basin Plan. Several water bodies within northern Santa Clara County do not meet water quality standards. The impairments that have been identified include mercury, PCBs, pesticides, sediment, and trash. None of these impairments are significant in terms of salt and nutrient management in groundwater. 1.5.3 Local Regulations Local land use agencies also play a role in managing S/N loading to groundwater. Specific examples are listed here and enumerated further in Appendix 4. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 14 • City and County General Plans provide policies and strategies for protecting water quality and maintaining water supply reliability. • County Septic Ordinance regulates the location, construction, and operation of smaller septic systems, which are potential sources of salts and nutrients. • County Design Guidelines for golf courses include guidelines related to water quality protection from fertilizers. • Urban Runoff Management programs are typically implemented to meet the Municipal Regional Stormwater permit requirements and include provisions to protect water quality. • Santa Clara Valley Water District Stormwater Infiltration Device Policy regulates the use of stormwater infiltration devices and is being updated to be consistent with Municipal Regional Stormwater permit requirements. 1.5.4 Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water and Stormwater The District has established the following goals and objectives for recycled water and stormwater: • Recycled Water:  Goal: Protect, maintain, and develop recycled water.  Objective: At least 10% of total annual county water demands are met with recycled water by 2025. • Stormwater:  Goal: Promote natural recharge and the infiltration of high quality stormwater.  Objective: Maintain facilities to recharge about 50,000 AF of stormwater each year and evaluate opportunities to expand recharge capacity. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 15 CHAPTER 2: GROUNDWATER SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION This chapter describes the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, which includes the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley areas (see Figure 1). Basin-wide groundwater attributes are described, including water balance, storage capacities, inflows and outflows for both the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley subareas. Trends in pumping, groundwater elevations, and groundwater quality are also included. The description of the subbasin provided in this chapter will aid in understanding the S/N source analysis that is presented in later chapters. Figure 1 – Locations of Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 16 2.1 Groundwater Basin The groundwater basins in Santa Clara County transmit, filter, and store water. Water enters the basin through recharge areas and undergoes natural filtration as it is transmitted into deeper aquifers. Groundwater recharge and basin inflow replaces water removed from the basin by basin-outflow and by groundwater pumping. The District’s managed aquifer recharge program maintains aquifer pressure, which helps avoid land subsidence. Storing surplus water in the groundwater basin enables part of the County’s supply to be carried over from wet years to dry years. Santa Clara County includes portions of two groundwater basins as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 Update 2003 – the Santa Clara Valley Basin (Basin 2-9) and the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Basin (Basin 3-3). The Santa Clara Valley Basin generally forms an elongated valley bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and Diablo Range to the east, and extends north into San Mateo and Alameda Counties. The boundary between the Santa Clara Valley and the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Groundwater Basins is the Coyote Creek alluvial fan in the Morgan Hill area. The alluvial fan comprises a topographic and hydrologic divide between the groundwater and surface water flowing to the San Francisco Bay and water flowing to the Monterey Bay. The groundwater divide is approximately located at Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill. The boundary moves as much as a mile to the north or south depending on local groundwater conditions. The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, which includes the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley subareas, is located in the Santa Clara Valley Basin. The Llagas Groundwater Subbasin is located within the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Groundwater Basin. A separate SNMP has been prepared for the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin (Todd Groundwater, 2014). While basin boundaries are primarily based on geologic and hydrologic information, subbasins are commonly based on institutional boundaries. DWR Bulletin 118 Update 2003 states that “subbasins are created for the purpose of collecting and analyzing data, managing water resources, and managing adjudicated basins.” The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, as defined by DWR, extends from the southern boundary of the Santa Clara Valley Basin in Morgan Hill north to the San Francisco Bay and the county boundaries. The subbasin includes two study areas – the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley. Although hydraulically connected to the Santa Clara Plain, the District refers to the Coyote Valley separately since it is largely an agricultural area and water supply is provided exclusively by municipal, domestic, and agricultural wells. The Santa Clara Plain portion of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is largely urban/suburban and primarily served by major water retailers using both groundwater and treated surface water. Some of the groundwater supplied to customers in the Santa Clara Plain is pumped in Coyote Valley. 2.1.1 Santa Clara Plain Hydrogeology The Santa Clara Plain is the northern area of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, which is the southern extension of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The Santa Clara Plain is 280 square miles, comprising a large trough-like depression filled with alluvium, or unconsolidated sediments such as gravel, sand, silt, and clay, that were deposited from the mountains by water and gravity into the valley. The alluvium comprises inter-fingering alluvial fans, stream deposits, and terrace deposits The thickness of the alluvium varies from a few feet Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 17 at the subbasin boundaries to over 1,500 feet in the basin interior.3 The alluvium thins towards the western and eastern edges of the Santa Clara Plain. The Santa Clara Plain is divided into confined and recharge (unconfined) areas (Figure 1). The recharge area includes the alluvial fan and deposits found along the edge of the groundwater subbasin where high lateral and vertical sediment allow surface water to infiltrate the aquifers. Surface water replenishes unconfined groundwater within the recharge area and contributes to the recharge of deep aquifers in the confined area through subsurface flow. As groundwater pumping exceeds natural recharge, the District operates managed groundwater recharge facilities within the recharge area to replenish groundwater storage. The confined area of the Santa Clara Plain is located in the northern and central portion of the subbasin. It is characterized by upper and lower aquifers, divided by laterally extensive, low- permeability clays and silts, which restrict the vertical flow of groundwater. The District refers to these aquifers as the shallow and principal aquifer zones. The shallow and principal aquifer zones are represented by wells primarily drawing water from depths less than and greater than 150 feet, respectively. The principal aquifer zone is less vulnerable to contamination than shallow aquifers since the confining layers also restrict the movement of contaminants that may be present in infiltrating water. The boundary between the confined and recharge areas is a simplification of the natural conditions in the subbasin and two prior versions of this boundary have been published by the USGS4 and State Water Resources Control Board.5 A generalized cross-section of the Santa Clara Plain is shown in Figure 2. Groundwater in the Santa Clara Plain is found at different depths in the unconfined aquifer and under artesian conditions in the confined aquifer. Groundwater movement generally follows surface water patterns, flowing to the northwest. Local groundwater also moves toward areas of intense pumping. Regional groundwater elevations in the Santa Clara Plain range from 60 to 90 feet below sea level in the middle of the subbasin, to 220 to 480 feet above mean sea level near the southern extent of the eastern and western hills of the Santa Clara Plain. There has been a significant recovery in groundwater levels since the District’s managed groundwater recharge program was started. As seen in the hydrograph (Figure 3) typical seasonal fluctuations are about 10 to 20 feet. 2.1.2 Santa Clara Plain Pumping and Recharge In 2010, groundwater pumping in the Santa Clara Plain was approximately 81,100 AF. As shown on Figure 4, 96% of the water pumped was for municipal and industrial uses, with minor amounts used for agriculture and domestic purposes. Figure 4 also shows the number of wells reporting groundwater pumped for each of these uses in 2010. It should be noted that a single well may be used for more than one purpose. Water retailer pumping accounted for nearly 90% of the groundwater pumped from the Santa Clara Plain in 2010. Although there is some variation from year to year, this represents typical recent pumping patterns for the Santa Clara Plain. Subbasin water levels reflect the amount of groundwater in storage and are strongly influenced by groundwater pumping. The distribution and pumping of these wells for 2010 indicate that the 3 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Standards for the Construction and Destruction of Wells and other Deep Excavations in Santa Clara County, June 1989. 4 USGS, Ground water in Santa Clara Valley, California, Water-Supply Paper 519, 1924. 5 California State Water Resources Control Board, Santa Clara Valley Investigation, Bulletin Number 7, 1955. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 18 greatest numbers of high production wells (500 to 4,000 AF per year) are in the central and southern portion of the Santa Clara Plain as shown in Figure 5. The annual groundwater production for the Santa Clara Plain is shown in Figure 2–6. For the time period shown, the maximum groundwater production of 181,000 AF in the Santa Clara Plain occurred in 1985. A sharp decrease in groundwater production in the Santa Clara Plain can be noted in 1989, the year that the District’s third and largest water treatment plant (Santa Teresa) came on-line to utilize water imported from the Central Valley Project. Prior to 1989, the average annual pumping in the Santa Clara Plain was 157,000 AF. After the Santa Teresa plant came on-line, average pumping dropped to 106,000 AF per year. Managed recharge provides the majority of water available for groundwater production, as shown in Table 7 and Figure 6. The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is actively managed by the District. On average, more than 76,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of local reservoir and imported water are percolated into Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin aquifers through the District’s Managed Aquifer Recharge programs. The addition of water through planned or incidental recharge sustains the groundwater supply, and can improve water quality by diluting existing contaminants in the aquifer, diminish water quality by introducing contaminants6, or induce geochemical changes in the aquifers. The District has been recharging local reservoir water into the aquifers since the 1930s and water imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta since the 1960s. The District’s managed recharge program is an important management tool that has contributed to aquifer storage recovery, cessation of unacceptable levels of inelastic land subsidence, and improved water quality in impacted areas. Another important influence on groundwater quality is infiltration from applied irrigation water or stormwater. Applied irrigation water from any source can contribute salt and other constituents. Recycled water has a higher concentration of S/Ns than groundwater or treated water. Salts and Nutrients are introduced to groundwater through landscape irrigation with tertiary treated recycled water. Recycled water producers are actively pursuing advanced treatment and other measures to reduce the salinity of recycled water. For example, the District constructed the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center that produces water with TDS that is about 5% of tertiary treated recycled water. The City of Palo Alto has achieved recycled water salinity reduction by repairing sections of submerged sewer lines subject to infiltration of saline groundwater near the Bay. 6 The District’s Recharge Water Quality Monitoring Program periodically confirms that only high quality water is used to recharge the subbasin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 19 Figure 2 – Generalized Geologic Cross-Section of the Santa Clara Plain PRINCIPAL AQUIFER SHALLOW AQUIFER The boundary between the shallow aquifer and the principal aquifer shown above is approximate; it is not a clear geologic divide that is present at all locations. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 20 Figure 3 – Santa Clara Plain Index Well Hydrograph -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water Elevation (feet msl) Year Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 21 Figure 4 – Santa Clara Plain 2010 Groundwater Use Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 22 Figure 5 – 2010 Groundwater Pumping in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 23 Table 7- Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Water Budget (2002 to 2011) Water Budget Component Acre-Feet Inflow Managed Recharge 64,000 Natural Recharge 30,000 Subsurface Inflow 8,000 Total Inflow 102,000 Outflow Groundwater Pumping 95,000 Subsurface Outflow 6,000 Total Outflow 101,000 Change in Storage 1,000 Notes: 1. Managed recharge represents direct replenishment by the District using local and imported water. 2. Natural recharge includes all uncontrolled recharge, including the deep percolation of rainfall, septic system and/or irrigation return flows, and natural seepage through creeks. 3. Subsurface inflow represents inflow from adjacent aquifer systems, including inflow from the Coyote Valley. 4. Groundwater pumping is based on pumping reported by water supply well owners. 5. Subsurface outflow represents outflow to adjacent aquifer systems, including outflows to San Francisco Bay. Figure 6 – Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 24 2.1.3 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Elevation Trends Groundwater elevations are affected by natural and managed recharge and groundwater extraction, and are an indicator of how much groundwater is in storage at a particular time. Both low and high elevations can cause adverse conditions. Low groundwater levels can lead to land subsidence or saltwater intrusion, and high water levels can lead to groundwater intrusion into basements, parking garages, elevator shafts, and other below-ground structures. Figure 7 depicts changes in groundwater elevations over the last hundred years for the Santa Clara Plain. Annual fluctuations reflect recharge in winter and spring and pumping in summer. The increase in groundwater elevations through the late 1930s and 1940s are attributed to the expansion of the District’s conjunctive use program. An increase in groundwater elevations are also attributed with the construction of the District’s local reservoirs and increased volumes of recharge utilizing reservoir releases. Downward trends beginning in 1940 are a result of increased agricultural pumping. Long term declines, starting in the late 1940s and later, reflect growing municipal and industrial demands in Silicon Valley that correlate with rapid population growth. The increase in groundwater elevations in the late 1960s and 1970s is due to the delivery of State Water Project water through the South Bay Aqueduct, and the completion of the District’s Rinconada and Penitencia Water Treatment Plants. Even with a significant drought from 1987 to 1992, groundwater elevations improved beginning in 1989 with the addition of federal Central Valley Project deliveries and the completion of the Santa Teresa Water Treatment Plant. 2.1.4 Santa Clara Plain Storage Capacity The operational storage capacity of the Santa Clara Plain has been estimated to be 350,000 AF.7 The operational storage capacity represents the volume of groundwater that can be stored while avoiding adverse impacts such as inelastic land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. The District is currently working to refine this estimate based on historically observed data. 2.1.5 Santa Clara Plain Water Budget A water budget for the Santa Clara Plain for calendar years 2002 through 2011 is shown in Table 7. The water budget is based on the District groundwater flow model8 for the Santa Clara Plain, and represents inflows and outflows for the principal aquifer. A majority of the inflow to the Santa Clara Plain is a result of managed recharge of local and imported supplies. Although the water budget can vary significantly from year to year, on average, there was a slight annual increase in storage for the Santa Clara Plain over this 10-year period. 7 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012 Groundwater Management Plan 8 The District uses MODFLOW to forecast groundwater supply and assess the annual water budget. Separate MODFLOW models are used for Santa Clara Plain, Coyote Valley, and the Llagas Subbasin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 25 Figure 7 – Historical Water Levels, Land Subsidence, and Groundwater Recharge Milestones 2.1.6 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Quality The Santa Clara Plain generally produces water of excellent quality for municipal, irrigation, and domestic supply. Within the Santa Clara Plain calcium and magnesium constitute the principal cations, and bicarbonate as the most prevalent anion. The total dissolved solids (TDS) content is typically 200 to 500 mg/L, with the exception of localized areas including the Evergreen area of San Jose, and all of Palo Alto (see Figure 17). The median TDS content for the principal aquifer zone is 400 mg/L. The median is the preferred statistic to represent water quality because it represents the middle of the data set and is less affected by outliers and skewed data. Some shallow aquifers adjacent to the San Francisco Bay have been affected by saltwater intrusion. High TDS is also noted in some wells close to the Bay. Very few wells sampled each year contain contaminants above primary MCLs.9 A summary of the shallow and principal aquifer water quality from 2002 to 2011 is presented in Tables 8 and 9. Groundwater quality is discussed in more detail in section 2.5. 9 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012 Groundwater Quality Report. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 26 Table 8 – Santa Clara Plain Shallow Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics Parameter2 2002 – 2011 Results3 Population Median4 MCL5 n6 25th Percentile 50th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile Lower Upper Primary Secondary Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) 0.30 1.4 6.4 0.60 3.3 45 NE 35 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 410 588 840 440 820 NE 500 31 Table 9 – Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics Parameter2 2002 – 2011 Results3 Population Median4 MCL5 n6 25th Percentile 50th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile Lower Upper Primary Secondary Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) 4.2 9.3 20.8 8.1 10.7 45 NE 288 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 337 400 490 384 410 NE 500 273 Notes: 1. The shallow aquifer zone is represented by wells primarily drawing water from depths less than 150 feet, while the principal aquifer zone is represented by wells primarily drawing water from depths greater than 150 feet. 2. mg/L = milligrams per liter (or parts per million) 3. The percentile is the value below, which a certain percent of observations fall (e.g., the 50th percentile, or median, is the value below which half of the observations fall). For parameters with results reported at multiple reporting limits, the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) method is used. 4. The lower and upper estimates of the population median are determined using a 95% confidence interval (alpha = 0.05). 5. Primary and secondary MCLs are from the California Code of Regulations. Primary MCLs are health-based drinking water standards, while secondary MCLs are aesthetic-based standards. For secondary MCLs with a range, the lower, recommended threshold is shown. NE= Not Established 6. n represents the number of wells tested. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 27 2.2 Coyote Valley Hydrogeology The Coyote Valley is the southern extension of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, covering a surface area of 17 square miles. The Coyote Valley is approximately 7 miles long, and ranges from 3 miles wide to about a half mile wide at the boundary with the Santa Clara Plain to the north. The alluvial sediments overlying the Santa Clara Formation vary in thickness from a few feet or less along the west side of the subbasin, to more than 400 feet along the east side. The alluvial sediments are mainly composed of thick sequences of alluvial sand and gravel with inter-bedded thin and discontinuous clays. The absence of a continuous horizon of clay limits the delineation of shallow and principal aquifers in Coyote Valley. Accordingly, the Coyote Valley alluvium is treated as a single unconfined aquifer. A generalized cross-section of the Coyote Valley is presented in Figure 8. Figure 8 – Coyote Valley Generalized Cross Section The Coyote Valley is generally unconfined and groundwater is typically encountered between 5 and 40 feet below ground surface. Groundwater movement follows surface water patterns, flowing to the northwest and draining into the Santa Clara Plain. Regional groundwater elevations in Coyote Valley range from 200 to 220 feet near the Coyote Narrows, to about 350 feet at Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill. Groundwater levels in the Coyote Valley respond rapidly to changes in hydrology and pumping. Local groundwater moves toward areas of intense pumping, especially at the southeastern and northern parts of the subbasin where retailer groundwater production wells are located. Groundwater recharge occurs along Coyote Creek due to the District managed recharge releases from Anderson Reservoir and stream seepage. The District does not have off-stream managed groundwater recharge facilities in the Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 28 2.2.1 Coyote Valley Pumping In 2010, groundwater pumping in the Coyote Valley was approximately 12,300 AF. As shown on Figure 9, 53% of groundwater pumped was for municipal and industrial uses (M&I), and 45% of groundwater pumped was used for agriculture. Only 2% of groundwater pumping was for domestic use. Pumping by water retailers accounted for over 60% of pumping in the Coyote Valley in 2010. Although there is some variation from year to year, this figure represents typical recent pumping patterns for the Coyote Valley. Figure 9 – Coyote Valley 2010 Groundwater Use 2.2.2 Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping Trends As shown in Figure 6, high production wells (500 to 4,000 AF/yr) are in the southern portion of the Coyote Valley. The District assumed management of the Coyote Valley and Llagas Subbasin in 1987; prior to that date, limited groundwater pumping data are available. Coyote Valley groundwater production remained fairly consistent until 2006, when new water retailer wells began pumping water to serve customers in the Santa Clara Plain. Managed recharge provides the majority of water available for groundwater production, as shown in Table 10 and Figure 10. Managed recharge in the Coyote Valley supports the maintenance of subsurface flows to the Santa Clara Plain. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 29 Figure 10 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge 2.2.3 Coyote Valley Storage Capacity The operational storage capacity of the Coyote Valley ranges between 23,000 and 33,000 AF.10 The District is currently working to refine the operational storage capacity estimate based on historically observed data. 2.2.4 Coyote Valley Water Budget Average Coyote Valley inflows and outflows for calendar years 2002 to 2011 are presented in Table 10. The Coyote Valley is dependent on Coyote Creek for its water supply, which is largely fed by releases from the Anderson-Coyote reservoir system. Imported water from the San Felipe Project can also be released to Coyote Creek. Natural recharge from rainfall and other sources typically account for less than 25% of the inflows to the Coyote Valley. Over the 10-year period evaluated, the Coyote Valley has seen a slight annual decrease in storage. 10 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Operational Storage Capacity of the Coyote and Llagas Groundwater Subbasins, April 2002. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 30 Table 10 – Coyote Valley Water Budget (2002 to 2011) Water Budget Component Acre-Feet Inflow Managed Recharge 12,000 Natural Recharge 2,500 Subsurface Inflow 0 Total Inflow 14,500 Outflow Groundwater Pumping 10,000 Subsurface Outflow 5,000 Total Outflow 15,000 Change in Storage - 500 Notes: 1. Managed recharge represents direct replenishment by the District using local and imported water. 2. Natural recharge includes all uncontrolled recharge, including rainfall, septic system and/or irrigation return flows, and natural seepage through creeks. 3. Subsurface inflow represents inflow from adjacent aquifer systems. 4. Groundwater pumping is based on pumping reported by water supply well owners. 5. Subsurface outflow represents outflow to adjacent aquifer systems. 2.2.5 Coyote Valley Groundwater Elevation Trends Groundwater elevations are affected by natural and managed recharge and groundwater extraction, and are an indicator of how much groundwater is in storage at a particular time. Groundwater elevations have been relatively stable since about 1970, although there has been a slight decreasing trend since the late 1990’s. A typical hydrograph is shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 – Groundwater Elevation in Coyote Valley Well 09S02E02J002 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Water Elevation (feet msl) Year Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 31 2.2.6 Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality The Coyote Valley produces water of good quality for municipal, irrigation, and domestic supply. The typical water type is dominated by calcium-magnesium and bicarbonate. The median TDS concentration is 368 mg/L, which is below the recommended secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. The median nitrate concentration is 15 mg/L, below the MCL of 45 mg/L. Typically, very few wells sampled each year contain contaminants above primary MCLs. A summary of Coyote Valley water quality data is presented in Table 11. Groundwater quality is discussed in more detail in section 2.5. Table 11 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics Parameter1 2002 – 2011 Results2 Population Median3 MCL4 n5 25th Percentile 50th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile Lower Upper Primary Secondary Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) 3.7 15.0 43.0 4.5 29.8 45 NE 39 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 320 368 414 328 405 NE 500 29 Notes: 1. mg/L= milligrams per liter (parts per million) 2. The percentile is the value below, which a certain percent of observations fall (e.g., the 5 0th percentile, or median, is the value below which half of the observations fall). For parameters with results reported at multiple reporting limits, the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) method is used . 3. The lower and upper estimates of the population median are determined using a 95% confidence interval (alpha = 0.05). 4. Primary and secondary MCLs are from the California Code of Regulations. Primary MCLs are health-based drinking water standards, while secondary MCLs are aesthetic-based standards. For secondary MCLs with a range, the lower, recommended threshold is shown. NE= Not Established 5. n represents the number of wells tested. 2.3 Sources of Supply A majority of the inflow to the Santa Clara Plain is a result of artificial recharge of local and imported supplies. Even with supplemental recharge, groundwater alone provides insufficient water supply to support this heavily developed area. Treated surface water deliveries have been critical to the area for half a century – first with SFPUC Hetch-Hetchy delivery to local water retailers, and later with District treated water deliveries. The Los Gatos, Westside, Penitencia, Guadalupe, and the Coyote Valley recharge systems are operated to actively recharge the Santa Clara Plain using imported and local reservoir water. The Coyote Valley is almost entirely dependent on Coyote Creek for its water supply, which is largely fed by releases from the Anderson-Coyote reservoir system. Imported water from the Federal Central Valley Project may also be released to Coyote Creek. 2.4 Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Water Budget The water budget for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is summarized in Figure 12. Long-term groundwater pumping for the Santa Clara Plain averages about 95,000 AF per year Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 32 based on data from 2002 to 2011. Historical pumping has been as high as 180,000 AF per year. The subsurface outflow from the Santa Clara Plain, which includes outflow to the San Francisco Bay, was 6,000 AF per year. Average recharge to the Santa Clara Plain is estimated to be 102,000 AF per year with sources including the District’s managed recharge of local and imported water, deep percolation of rainfall, natural seepage from creeks, and subsurface inflow from surrounding hills (mountain front recharge). Two-thirds of recharge to the Santa Clara Plain comes from the District’s managed recharge program. Subsurface inflow from adjacent aquifer systems is estimated to be 8,000 AF per year. The average annual change in groundwater storage between 2002 and 2011 is approximately 500 AF. Figure 12 – 2002–2011 Average Groundwater Budget for the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley The Coyote Valley water budget is based on the District groundwater flow model for the Coyote Valley, and represents general inflows and outflows. The natural recharge term used in the budget is the sum of mountain front recharge, stream seepage, rainfall, septic return, and agricultural and landscape return. The net subbasin outflow term represents the combination of subsurface outflow to the Santa Clara Plain aquifers gaining reaches of streams and evapotranspiration. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 33 2.5 Groundwater Quality – Salts and Nutrients The District monitors groundwater quality throughout Santa Clara County to evaluate groundwater quality with respect to the RWQCB’s Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives, and to provide data needed to support protection of the long-term reliability of the resource. Data on a variety of water quality constituents is collected and analyzed on an annual basis. The results of testing by the District and water suppliers are compared to drinking water standards and Basin Plan Agricultural Objectives. In addition, trends for key constituents are evaluated. This section focuses on water quality parameters pertinent to salt and nutrient management, including nitrate and total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin and is based on the District’s 2010 Groundwater Quality Report.11 2.5.1 Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is a measure of the combined content of all solutes in a water sample. It is a prime indicator of the general suitability of water, especially for domestic and municipal use. TDS is a comprehensive measure of all salts in groundwater, and is therefore used as the indicator parameter for salts in this SNMP. Tracking individual salts such as sodium, magnesium, or calcium is less informative for salt management because these solutes are subject to cationic exchange, which may decrease concentrations of one solute while increasing another. The relative proportions of calcium, sodium or magnesium may change from geochemical reactions, but the TDS stays relatively constant and is therefore a more robust measure of salts in groundwater. Limitations to TDS measurement accuracy can make comparison of TDS analyzed by different methods difficult. However, the consistent application of a single method employed for analysis of District samples makes TDS the best overall indicator of salt in groundwater. Dissolved solids in groundwater are related to the interaction of water with the atmosphere, soil, and rock, as well as the quality of water entering the aquifer by managed and incidental recharge. Although not considered a “primary” contaminant associated with health effects, it is used as an indication of the aesthetic characteristic of drinking water. TDS in groundwater can be artificially elevated due to runoff, soil leaching, land use, recharge with high salinity water, or intrusion of saltwater from in the tidal reaches of creeks near the bay. The Division of Drinking Water (DDW)12 has adopted a SMCL, 500 mg/L for TDS, which is also the RWQCB’s Basin Plan Objective. SMCLs address aesthetic issues related to taste, odor, or appearance of the water and are not related to health effects. The District compares concentrations of TDS to both the “recommended” and an “upper” SMCL as identified by DDW. Table 2–6 summarizes 2012 data for TDS in the principal aquifer zones of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. Thirty-two of 101 wells (31.7%) tested in the Santa Clara Plain were found to contain TDS in excess of the “recommended” SMCL of 500 mg/L. When wells in the zone of saline intrusion are excluded from the count of wells with TDS in excess of the SMCL (4 wells), there are 27 of 96 wells (28%) with TDS greater than 500 mg/L. Two of the wells tested in the Santa Clara Plain principal aquifer exceeded the “upper” SMCL of 1,000 mg/L for TDS. Both wells with TDS greater than 1,000 mg/L are deep monitoring wells located in the same 11 Additional information is available in the District’s most recent annual groundwater report at http://www.valleywater.org/services/Groundwater.aspx. 12 In July, 2014, the California Department of Public Health Division of Drinking Water was reorganized into the State Water Resources Control Board. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 34 cluster in Palo Alto, where marine sediments contribute to elevated TDS (Metzger and Fio, 1997). In the Coyote Valley, 2 of 20 wells (10%) tested contained TDS above the “recommended” SMCL. None of the wells tested in Coyote Valley exceeded the “upper” SMCL of 1,000 mg/L for TDS. Table 12 – 2012 TDS Testing Results Constituent Units SMCL1 Santa Clara Plain2 Coyote Valley Median Range Median Range Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 500 (1000) 395 174 – 2,5203 358 236 – 630 1. The lower recommended limit is listed and the upper limit is shown in parentheses. Source: 2012 Annual Groundwater Report. 2. Santa Clara Plain results are for the principal aquifer zone (wells with a total depth greater than 150 feet). 3. The well with elevated TDS is screened at 780 feet below ground in a zone of marine sediments (Metzger and Fio, 1997). 2.5.2 Nitrate Nitrate is regulated with a MCL due to acute health effects (methemoglobinemia)13 in infants exposed to elevated nitrate levels. Elevated nitrate concentrations have been an ongoing groundwater quality challenge in the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin in the southern part of the County.14 Groundwater in the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley is generally well below the nitrate MCL with a few localized exceptions. The primary sources of nitrate added to the Santa Clara Plain include irrigated groundwater, sewer system exfiltration, and recycled water. The area overlying the Santa Clara Plain consists mostly of urban and suburban development. Almost all areas are served by municipal wastewater systems, and the use of individual septic systems is limited to the southern end of the Almaden Valley. While once prevalent, today only a few pockets of agricultural land remain in the Santa Clara Plain. Moderately elevated nitrate in the western portion of the Santa Clara Plain is likely due to past agricultural legacy land uses. Land use in the northern portion of the Coyote Valley is predominantly agricultural, and the southern portion contains both agricultural land use and residential development. Septic systems are common in much of the Coyote Valley because no municipal wastewater collection system exists. The primary sources of nitrate are agricultural fertilizers and septic tank leach fields (SCVWD, 1994). Table 2–7 summarizes 2012 data for nitrate and other nitrogen constituents in the principal aquifer zones of the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley. One of 210 wells tested located in the Santa Clara Plain was found to contain nitrate in excess of the MCL (less than 1%). In Coyote Valley, 6 of 39 wells (15%) tested contained nitrate above the MCL. The Basin Plan Agricultural Objective of 5 mg/L for nitrate + nitrite (as N) was also exceeded in several wells in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. Thirty seven of 210 wells (18%) in the 13 Methemoglobinemia is the presence of methemoglobin in the blood due to conversion of part of the hemoglobin to this inactive form, and can be induced from consumption of excessive concentrations of nitrate in food or water. 14 See the Llagas Subbasin SNMP for further details on nitrate and TDS in the Llagas Subbasin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 35 principal aquifer zone of the Santa Clara Plain exceeded the agricultural objective, and 22 wells (56%) in the Coyote Valley exceeded the agricultural objective for nitrate + nitrite.15 Table 13 – 2012 Nitrogen Constituent Testing Results Constituent Units MCL Santa Clara Plain1 Coyote Valley Median Range Median Range Nitrate (as NO3) mg/L2 45 12.4 ND3 – 45.6 10.6 ND – 58 1. Santa Clara Plain results are for the principal aquifer zone or wells with a total depth greater than 150 feet. Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District 2010 Groundwater Quality Report. 2. mg/L = milligrams per liter (parts per million). 3. ND = Not detected at testing limit. 2.5.3 Trends in TDS and Nitrate Trends in TDS and nitrate were evaluated from 1998 to 2012, using the non-parametric, non–- seasonal Mann-Kendall trend test. This procedure was chosen due to its ability to handle non- detect data and ease of use. All trend tests were evaluated at the 95% confidence level (alpha = 0.05). Trends were tested at all wells having a minimum of 5 data points over the fifteen-year period. Table 14 provides a summary of nitrate and TDS trend results by area and aquifer zone. Maps showing the spatial distribution of TDS and nitrate concentration trends are shown in Figures 13 and 14. Table 14 – 15-year TDS and Nitrate Concentration Trend Analysis Results (1998-2012) Total Dissolved Solids Study Area Category # wells w/ upward trend # wells w/ downward trend # wells w/ no trend Total Range of Change upward rate of change (mg/L/yr) downward rate (mg/L/yr) Santa Clara Plain – principal zone 3 6 138 147 7.6–9.9 4.9–22.4 Santa Clara Plain – shallow zone 2 5 14 21 27.1–104.9 2.5–56.4 Coyote Valley 2 0 15 17 5.4–18 – Total 7 11 167 185 – – Nitrate as NO3 Santa Clara Plain – principal zone 10 48 171 229 0.2 – 0.7 0.03 – 1.68 Santa Clara Plain – shallow zone 1 2 18 21 0.51 1.05 – 1.63 15 Agricultural objective evaluated against nitrate data only, which are more abundant. If nitrate concentration exceeded agricultural objective, it was assumed that an analysis for nitrate + nitrate would also show exceedance of the agricultural objective. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 36 Coyote Valley 2 8 18 28 1.07 – 1.15 0.04 – 1.44 Total 13 58 207 278 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.5.4 TDS Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 In the Santa Clara Plain shallow aquifer, TDS trends were tested on 21 wells, with upward trends detected in 2 wells, downward trends in 5 wells, and no trend in 14 wells (67%). TDS trends were tested for 147 Santa Clara Plain principal aquifer wells. Upward trends were detected in 3 wells and downward trends were found in 6 wells. No trend was detected in the remaining 138 wells (94%). In the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, wells having a downward trend in TDS are primarily located along or near Coyote Creek. In the Coyote Valley, TDS was evaluated on 17 wells for 1998–2012. No trend was detected in 15 wells (88%) and an upward trend was detected in 2 wells (12%). 2.5.5 Nitrate Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 Nitrate trends were tested at 21 wells in the Santa Clara Plain shallow aquifer. An upward trend was detected in 1 well and downward trends were found in 2 wells, while no trends were detected in the remaining 18 wells (86%). In the Santa Clara Plain principal aquifer, trends were tested for 147 wells, with an upward trend found in 3 wells and downward trend in 6 wells, and the remaining 138 wells displayed no trend (94%). In the Coyote Valley, nitrate trends were tested on 28 wells. An upward trend was indicated in 2 wells and a downward trend in 8 wells, with 18 wells showing no trend (64%). Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 37 Figure 13 – 15-year TDS Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 38 Figure 14 – 15-year Nitrate as NO3 Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 39 CHAPTER 3: ESTIMATING CURRENT AND FUTURE SALT AND NUTRIENT LOADING AND ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY The SWRCB Recycled Water Policy specifies that SNMPs include S/N source identification, basin/sub-basin assimilative capacity and loading estimates, and the fate and transport of salts and nutrients. This chapter summarizes the attributes of S/N loading, and current and future assimilative capacity. 3.1 Sources of Salts and Nutrients Salts and nutrients are introduced to the subbasin by “wet loading” and “dry loading”. Wet loading includes the introduction of dissolved salts and nutrients through recharge from all sources of water, including rainfall, stream losses, irrigation, conveyance losses, drainage losses, basin inflow, mountain front recharge, and managed aquifer recharge. Dry loading includes dry fertilizer and soil amendments, and atmospheric deposition of particulate nitrogen, primarily from vehicle emissions. All known sources of salts and nutrients were reviewed and grouped to generate a comprehensive list of sources, summarized in Table 15. Avenues by which salts and nutrients are removed from the groundwater subbasin are also listed in Table 15. Table 15 – Sources and Removal of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Wet Sources Dry Sources Rainfall Fertilizer Basin In-flow and Saline Intrusion Soil Amendments Mountain Front Recharge Atmospheric Deposition Managed Recharge – Streams Managed Recharge – Ponds Removal Irrigation – Landscape/Municipal Supplies Groundwater Pumping Irrigation – Landscape/Recycled Water Gaining Reaches of Streams Irrigation – Landscape/Local Supply Wells Basin Outflow Irrigation – Agriculture Sewer Line and Storm Drain Infiltration Conveyance Losses – Pipeline Leaks Drainage Losses – Septic Tank Leach Fields Drainage Losses – Sewer Line Losses Drainage Losses – Storm Drain Losses Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 40 Figure 15 demonstrates the relationship between the S/N loading sources in Table 15 and groundwater. Figure 15 – Relationship of Salt and Nutrient Sources to Groundwater 3.2 Fate and Transport of Salts and Nutrients Solutes (dissolved minerals) in irrigation water and dissolved from fertilizer and soil amendments may undergo physical and biological processes that affect their concentration and rate of migration. These processes are known as “fate and transport” processes, and contribute to removal of salt and nitrate as water percolates through the unsaturated zone to groundwater. Nitrate is prone to transformation and translocation by plants and microbes and may undergo volatilization, ammonification, nitrification and denitrification, adsorption or desorption, and fixation (Canter, 1997). Consequently, only a portion of the nitrate originally present in irrigation water or applied fertilizer will arrive at the water table and impact groundwater quality. The occurrence and rates of these processes depend on geochemical conditions such as the presence of soil organic matter or dissolved oxygen, soil moisture content, and temperature, all of which are highly variable. Rather than attempt to represent the geographic and seasonal variation in nitrate transformation processes, this SNMP estimates the fate and transport of salts and nitrates with a universal value that approximates the degree to which salts and nitrate leach to groundwater. Mineral cations and anions excluding nitrate may also be involved in sorption and desorption and cationic exchange processes. A conservative assumption is made that salts in the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 41 unsaturated zone have attained steady-state, i.e., any salts added to the surface will produce an equivalent addition of salts to the water table. Uptake of salts in crops and other vegetation is considered to be negligible, but a salt uptake value is assigned to turf (see below). By contrast, nitrate can undergo substantial root uptake, volatilization, and denitrification. Therefore, attenuation factors are used to estimate nitrate loading to groundwater. To estimate an appropriate attenuation factor for nitrate, we reviewed the range of values reported in the literature and other SNMPs and settled upon 50% crop uptake, 15% denitrification and volatilization, and 35% leaching to groundwater. A few of the literature studies and agency reports reviewed are summarized here: • The Santa Rosa Plain draft SNMP (RMC, July, 2012) uses 25% applied nitrogen as leachable, 10% is off-gassed, and the balance is “used”. No technical citations are provided. • The District Llagas Nitrate Source Area Identification Study (1994) used 30% as the leaching factor for a typical crop of strawberries. • Malone et al., 2007, measured 29% of total applied nitrogen leaching to groundwater for fertilization of corn and soybeans. • Reports indicate NO3-N losses from crops amounting to 24 to 55% of the N applied at recommended rates. The apparent crop uptake of applied N is on the order of 40 to 80%, depending on the timing of fertilizer applications, crop type, irrigation management, and other factors (WDOE, 2000). • Typical N uptake efficiencies of major agronomic crops range from 30 to 70% (WDOE, 2000). • Observed range of nitrogen volatilization in applied fertilizer was 2 to 50% N-emissions for soil pH > 7 and 0 to 25% emissions for soil pH < 7. If the N source is mixed into an acid soil, the emissions are usually greatly reduced (0 to 4% lost) (Meisinger and Randall, 1991). Selecting a leaching factor of 35% for nitrate dissolved from crop fertilizer and in irrigated water may overestimate the degree of nitrate leaching to groundwater in some settings, while underestimating it in others. Underestimation can occur where double-cropping or macropore flow through root channels occurs (Sidle and Kardos, 1979), and from underestimating the amount of post-harvest leaching due to lack of over-winter cover crops (McCracken et al., 1994). Fertilizer applied to lawns has a considerably higher degree of nitrate attenuation due to the accumulation of thatch in the turf root zone. The following assumptions are made for nitrogen fertilizer applied to lawns: • All applied nitrogen (N) is converted to nitrate. • Total N application rate is 3.5 pounds per 1,000 ft² (~150 lbs N/acre) in 50% of the lawns per year (UCD, 2002). • 80% of applied nitrogen is taken up by turf. • 15% of applied nitrogen is volatilized. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 42 • 5% of applied nitrogen is converted to nitrate and leached to groundwater (based on Kopp and Guillard, 2005).16 To estimate salt loading from lawn fertilizer, the following assumptions were made: • Total fertilizer applied was taken as applied nitrogen divided by 33% to estimate salt loading. • Total salt loading from fertilizer application to turf is 161 lbs/acre, using the ratio salt leaching to N-uptake (111%) from 11 varieties of hay (NCCE, 2008). In the managed aquifer recharge setting, nitrate attenuation is assumed to be greater for in- stream recharge than for percolation ponds due to the greater presence of natural organic matter in stream sediments. Presence of readily available organic carbon and absence of oxygen are prerequisites for microbial denitrification of nitrate in recharge water (Canter, 1997). Percolation ponds are designed and maintained to optimize percolation rates and have less organic carbon and residence time in an anaerobic sediment zone than occurs in natural streams. Nitrate attenuation was assigned as 80% to in-stream recharge and 50% to percolation ponds (i.e., the amount of nitrate leached to groundwater is 20% and 50%, respectively). A summary of the nitrate attenuation factors assigned for the loading analysis in this SNMP is provided in Table 16. 3.3 Methodology for Estimating Salt and Nutrient Loading and Removal The approach for estimating S/N loading from wet sources involves obtaining measurements or estimates of the volumes of water in each wet loading category, and the S/N content of each wet source. The water quality parameters used to represent all salts and nutrients are total dissolved solids (TDS)17 and nitrate (NO3). The total annual loading is taken as the product of the estimated annual volume and average annual concentration of TDS or nitrate, and for nitrate, an attenuation factor: Volume/year  Concentration  Attenuation Factor = Mass Loading/year The attenuation factor represents the degree to which the nitrate concentration is reduced due to denitrification or other processes. For example, if 50% of nitrate is taken up by roots, and 15% is converted from nitrate to nitrogen gas by denitrification, then 35% of nitrate concentration leaches to groundwater, and the attenuation factor is 65%. Table 16 lists the nitrate attenuation factors assigned to each loading category. When groundwater is removed or leaves the basin, the nitrate in that groundwater is removed, i.e., there is no attenuation factor applied to groundwater removal. Dissolved salts, represented as TDS, are considered conservative solutes because their concentrations are not substantially attenuated by processes such as root uptake, geochemical 16 The UCD 2012 nitrate study recommends using 10 kg N/hectare leached to groundwater (39.5 lbs NO 3/acre). Using 3.5 lbs/1,000 ft² and 5% leaching (the figures shown above) produces an estimate of 34 lbs/acre NO3 /year for fertilized lawns. 17 Total Dissolved Solids is commonly measured as Total Filterable Residue by Standard Method 2540 or EPA Method 160.1. In some instances, where TDS measurements are not available but specific conductance has been measured, an estimated value of TDS is used based on the basin-specific conversion factor from specific conductance to TDS. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 43 conversion, sorption, or microbial processes. For most loading categories, TDS was assigned an attenuation factor of zero. For fertilizer applied to turf however, a larger amount of root uptake is assumed, as explained in Section 3.2. Because nitrate is a component of TDS, TDS loading from irrigation was adjusted to account for root uptake and denitrification of nitrate. Table 16 – Nitrate Attenuation Factor Assumptions by Loading Category* Loading Category Root Uptake Denitrification/ Volatilization Leached to Groundwater Crop Fertilizer 50% 15% 35% Lawn Fertilizer (Dry) 80% 15% 5% Irrigated Water 50% 15% 35% Rainfall 50% 15% 35% Conveyance Losses 0% 15% 85% Mountain Front Recharge 0% 15% 85% Drainage Losses 0% 15% 85% Recycled Water 50% 15% 35% Atmospheric Deposition 80% 15% 5% Managed Recharge – Ponds 0% 50% 50% Managed Recharge – Streams 0% 80% 20% *The basis for these assumptions is detailed in Section 3.2 3.3.1 Wet Loading Categories Volume estimates for wet loading categories were obtained primarily from the District’s groundwater flow models for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, i.e., the Santa Clara Plain model (“SCPMOD”), and the Coyote Valley Model (“CVMOD”), and adjusted as described below for the 2001-2010 baseline period. The water balances for each of these subareas of the Santa Clara Subbasin are described in Section 2.1.4 (see Tables 7 and 10). 3.3.1.1 Rainfall Recharge Rainfall contains only trace amounts of solutes and is allocated among three pathways relevant to the overall salt balance: runoff, infiltration with subsequent evapotranspiration, and infiltration with deep percolation. Only the water involved in deep percolation is added to groundwater, however, the salt and nitrate in rainfall remains in the soil profile. This salt will ultimately migrate to groundwater, whereas the nitrate added to soil from rainfall will be attenuated by root uptake and denitrification, with 35% assumed to migrate to groundwater. The volume of rainfall that ends up as percolation, or infiltration with subsequent evapotranspiration, cannot be measured directly and must therefore be estimated. Many factors determine the volume of rainfall that infiltrates such as soil type, vegetative cover, slope, etc. Assessing the variability of rainfall infiltration by accounting for all these factors is a time- consuming undertaking that is beyond the scope of this analysis. Rainfall contributes only a minor amount of salt and nitrate compared to other loading categories. Total estimated volumes of rainfall were obtained from the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley groundwater flow models. Estimated rainfall infiltration was taken as 22% of total rainfall, which is the 10-year median rainfall net of evaporation divided by 10-year median of total rainfall for the Los Gatos rain gauge station. Deep percolation was estimated using formulas applied to seven rainfall zones in the Santa Clara Plain model, and four rainfall zones in the Coyote Valley Model. Deep Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 44 percolation estimates range from 10 to 15% and are determined for each model cell based on empirical formulae applied to rainfall data from local rainfall gages. The estimated volumes of rainfall contributing salt and nitrate to groundwater through deep percolation and infiltration followed by evapotranspiration are 13,300 AF/yr in the Santa Clara Plain, and 5,000 AF/yr in the Coyote Valley. Appendix 4 provides details for the rainfall infiltration volume estimates. Rainfall quality is highly variable. For example, TDS in rainfall measured at the US Geological Survey offices in Menlo Park ranged from 8.2 to 38 mg/L (Hem, 1985). The estimates of salt and nitrate loading from rainfall, 10 mg/L and 1.2 mg/L, respectively, were selected from literature values as representative concentrations to be applied uniformly to rainfall infiltration in both the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley subareas (SWRCB, 2010; NADP, 2012). The total estimated salt and nitrate loading from rainfall is given in Table 17. Calculation details are provided in Appendix 4. Table 17 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Rainfall Infiltration Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Rainfall Infiltration, AF/yr 13,300 5,000 18,300 Salt Loading as TDS, tons/yr 180 29.9 210 Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr 8.2 1.4 9.6 3.3.1.2 Mountain-front Recharge Mountain-front recharge (MFR) accounts for subsurface inflows from bedrock in the hills surrounding the Santa Clara Plain, and for inflow from uncontrolled reaches of streams. The source for the MFR estimates is the Santa Clara Plain groundwater flow model (SCPMOD). For the Santa Clara Plain, a rainfall-runoff approach was used to estimate MFR (CH2M HILL, 1992), as shown in Table 18. The SCPMOD model distributes MFR for each mountain range across all model cells bordering the mountain range, in proportion to the length of cell perpendicular to the mountains, as shown in Figure 16. For SCPMOD, MFR is treated as a groundwater gain (11,855 AF/yr), regardless of weather conditions. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 45 Figure 16 – Mountain-front Recharge Zones in Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Flow Model Table 18- Santa Clara Plain Model Mountain-Front Recharge Estimates Mountain-front recharge Estimated recharge (inches/yr) Estimated recharge (AF/yr) Diablo Range  1 2,900 Silver Creek Ridge  .5 300 Santa Teresa Hills  1 400 Santa Cruz Mountains  1 8,255 Total 11,855 Recharge rates shown are for all years independent of hydrology. MFR is considered negligible and is excluded in the Coyote Valley groundwater flow model. For SNMP, salt and nitrate loading from the minor amount of MFR is also excluded. Salt and nitrate concentrations in groundwater in the bedrock hills are not monitored by the District. To estimate MFR water quality attributes, the values assigned to MFR are based on measured water quality in nearby streams and monitoring wells near the basin boundaries. The 1 2 3 4 Diablo Range Silver Creek Ridge Santa Teresa Hills Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 46 volume-weighted average of the TDS assigned to the four MFR zones is 286 mg/L, and for nitrate as NO3, 3.2 mg/L. The resulting loading estimates from MFR are listed in Table 19. Table 19 – Estimated Salt and Nutrient Loading from Mountain-Front Recharge Mountain-front recharge zone Representative Creeks Composite Creek & Groundwater TDS* Composite Creek & Groundwater NO3*  Diablo Range Penitencia Creek-Upper; Silver Creek, Flint Creek 366 2.4  Silver Creek Ridge Coyote Creek 301 3.7  Santa Teresa Hills Alamitos Creek 314 4.1  Santa Cruz Mountains Stevens Creek, Saratoga Creek 256 3.5 * Assumed creek/groundwater mix for composite values is 80/20. Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total MFR Volume, AF/yr 11,855 0 11,855 MFR Salt Loading, tons/yr 4,600 0 4,600 MFR Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr 44 0 44 3.3.1.3 Basin Inflow and Saline Intrusion As described in section 2.1.1 and Figure 1, groundwater from the Coyote Valley flows into the Santa Clara Plain area, which adds salt and nitrate. The Coyote Valley is bounded by bedrock on its eastern and western edges, and abuts the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin on its southern edge. The boundary between the Coyote Valley area and the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin is a topographic high that is considered a hydrologic divide. Accordingly, Coyote Valley does not have basin inflow from the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin. The basin inflow to the Santa Clara Plain from the Coyote Valley (8,200 AF/yr) is estimated using the groundwater flow models. Estimated loading from basin inflow is provided in Table 20. Table 20 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Basin Inflow to the Santa Clara Plain Volume, acre-feet/yr Coyote Valley TDS, mg/L Coyote Valley NO3, mg/L TDS loading to Santa Clara Plain, tons/yr NO3 loading to Santa Clara Plain, tons/yr 8,200 376 24.6 4,140 230 Groundwater in the northern end of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is prone to saline intrusion due to the incursion of saline water from the San Francisco Bay in the lower reaches of creeks. The extent of saline intrusion in the shallow aquifer is limited and located primarily above the confined aquifer, i.e., the principal aquifer is not impacted by saline intrusion from the San Francisco Bay. Figure 17 displays the extent of saline intrusion in the shallow aquifer defined as chloride concentrations of 100 mg/L or more. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 47 Saline intrusion is mapped from data obtained from annual groundwater sampling events. Net decrease in the chloride content is measured in wells monitored continuously over many years. The current mapped extent of saline intrusion is considerably smaller than the extent originally mapped in 1980. The decrease in the area impacted by saline intrusion may be due to a combination of reduced pumping near the bay, limited pumping in the shallow zone, and salt removal in gaining reaches of streams. Saline intrusion is considered to be limited to the shallow aquifer along the tidal reaches of streams and close to the bay or salt evaporation ponds. As detailed in Section 3.3, the Santa Clara Plain was not subdivided for analysis of S/N loading, therefore the salt load from saline intrusion was not included as a salt loading term because the areal extent of saline intrusion is limited and decreasing. The impact of saline intrusion on groundwater quality is incorporated into the determination of assimilative capacity (see Section 3.3). Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 48 Figure 17 – Zone of Saline Intrusion into the Shallow Aquifer, Santa Clara Plain Chloride contours: SCVWD, 2013; SE salinity zone: SCVWD, 1989; NW salinity zone: Metzger and Fio, 1997; see Section 3.4.1. Evergreen High Salinity Area Menlo Park/Palo Alto High Salinity Area Localized occurrence of elevated Total Dissolved Solids in Principal Aquifer Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 49 3.3.1.4 Managed Recharge in Streams The District’s recharge operations sustain groundwater supplies in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin by percolating imported water and surface water from local reservoirs. Recharge operations include managed recharge in streams, profiled in this section, and managed recharge in percolation ponds discussed in the next section. The quality of water used for managed aquifer recharge in streams is better than ambient groundwater with respect to TDS and nitrate. Managed recharge in streams results in the addition of TDS and nitrate to the aquifers. The volume of water in managed recharge in streams is tracked by stream gauging, by tracking the amount of water released at turnouts, and by periodic surface water balance. Managed recharge involves releasing water from upstream reservoirs or pipeline turnouts during summer and fall months. Natural recharge from rainfall runoff occurs during the winter and spring. The total volumes are given as ten-year medians in Table 21. The quality of water used in managed recharge in streams varies depending on water source (reservoirs or imported water), time of year, discharges, and runoff. Managed recharge in streams involve local reservoir and imported water sources, so blended water quality was calculated from each source. The overall range, median, and volume-weighted average (VWA) concentration values for TDS and nitrate of water used in managed recharge in streams are given in Table 21. While streams are used for managed recharge, they are natural features that host aquatic ecosystems. The sediments through which groundwater recharge occurs are rich in organic matter, which can create an anoxic environment conducive to denitrification. As shown in Table 16, a higher nitrate attenuation factor is assumed for streams, so only 20% of nitrate in stream water is assumed to migrate to groundwater. Table 21 – Estimated 10-year Median Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Streams Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Stream Recharge Volume 36,680 AF/yr 14,470 AF/yr 51,150 AF/yr TDS Concentration Statistics Range = 227 – 460 mg/L Range = 186 – 320 mg/L Median = 286 mg/L Median = 238 mg/L VWA = 135 mg/L VWA = 248 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Concentration Statistics Range = .84 – 7.2 mg/L Range = .5 – 1.9 mg/L Median = 1.22 mg/L Median = .84 mg/L VWA = .38 mg/L VWA = .96 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS 7,960 tons/year 4,680 tons/year 12,640. tons/year Nitrate as NO3 Loading 19 tons/year 3.3 tons/year 22.4 tons/year VWA = volume-weighted average Volumes are 10-year medians of 2001-2010. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 50 3.3.1.5 Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds Managed recharge in percolations ponds follows the same pattern as recharge in streams, except a greater degree of control is exerted over source water quality, as most facilities exclude runoff. Percolation ponds are also maintained to remove accumulated sediment. In addition, percolation ponds create aquatic ecosystems in which algae and plants contribute organic matter, enhancing denitrification. As listed in Table 16, percolation ponds are assigned an assumed nitrate attenuation factor of 50%. Because percolation rates far exceed evaporation rates by 20 to 110 times (summer vs. winter), evaporative concentration of salts and nitrate are considered negligible. As water quality samples from ponds used for this analysis reflect both dry season and wet season conditions, an evaporation factor was not included. The volume of water recharged through percolation ponds is measured by gauging pond depths and reading flow meters. Source water and pond water quality is also monitored by the District so the salt and nitrate loading can be estimated. Table 22 summarizes quantities, quality, and salt and nitrate loading from managed recharge in percolation ponds in the Santa Clara Plain. There are no percolation ponds in the Coyote Valley. Table 22 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds Santa Clara Plain Percolation Pond Recharge Volume 24,810 AF/yr TDS Concentration Statistics Range = 190 – 306 mg/L Median = 251 mg/L VWA = 497 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Concentration Statistics Range = .78 – 9.93 mg/L Median = .84 mg/L VWA = .96 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS 16,760 tons/yr Nitrate as NO3 Loading 20.3 tons/yr 3.3.1.6 Agricultural Irrigation Irrigation of landscaping and crops leads to the addition of salts to aquifers because most of the water is taken up by plants or evaporated. Root uptake of salts is minimal due to semi- permeable membranes in root hairs that regulate solutes. Most of the mineral salts in irrigation water are excluded, while half the nitrate is taken up by roots. Consequently, while only 20% of irrigated water may percolate through the unsaturated zone to groundwater, nearly all of the mineral salt present in irrigated water is assumed to remain in the soil profile and will ultimately migrate to groundwater. Because nitrate is a constituent of TDS, the TDS load from irrigation water was reduced by the amount of nitrate attenuation to account for root uptake and denitrification. Nitrate in irrigated water is needed by plants and is taken up by their roots. Rates of root uptake of nitrate in irrigation water will vary depending upon crop types, soil types, soil moisture, and many other factors. For the purposes of this plan, a single factor, 50% root uptake, is applied Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 51 for nitrate in irrigated water, and 15% denitrification is assumed, so that 35% of nitrate in irrigated water is presumed to migrate to groundwater. The volume of irrigated water is obtained from records of pumping which is classified as agricultural. A separate water rate for agricultural pumping facilitates an inventory of pumping for agricultural irrigation. Smaller agricultural water use, such as irrigating home orchards and gardens, is included in the assessment of outdoor irrigation loading from domestic wells and municipal water (Section 3.3.1.7). In the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, agricultural irrigation is concentrated in the Coyote Valley and supplied by locally pumped groundwater. The water quality for agricultural irrigation is assumed to be the volume-weighted average salt and nitrate concentration. Similarly, the minor amount of groundwater pumped from the wells classified as agricultural is assigned the volume-weighted average salt and nitrate concentration. Table 23 summarizes the volumes and quality of water used in irrigated agriculture in the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley and the resulting salt and nitrate loading. Table 23 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Irrigation Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Irrigation Water Volume, AF/yr* 660 AF/yr 4,300 AF/yr 4,960 AF/yr Volume-weighted TDS Concentration * 425 mg/L 375 mg/L Volume Weighted Nitrate as NO3 Concentration* 11 mg/L 25 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS, tons/yr* 320 tons 2,070 tons 2,390 tons Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr* 3 tons 49 tons 52 tons * Ten-year median 3.3.1.7 Landscape Irrigation – Municipal and Domestic Water Sources Outdoor water use for landscape irrigation comprises a large portion of water demand. A large amount of salt is included with this water use. Most of the water used for outdoor irrigation of residences, businesses, corporate, and municipal landscaping, is used by plants or evaporated. The majority of the salt carried by irrigation water is retained in the soil profile and ultimately leaches to groundwater. Nitrate in irrigation water is consumed by plants and subject to denitrification. For irrigated turf the nitrate attenuation factors in Table 16 apply i.e., 50% is taken up by roots, while 15% is lost to denitrification. Water retailers serve a wide range of water types, each having its own nitrate and TDS concentrations that vary from year to year. For example, a city may serve a combination of treated surface water, groundwater, and water from the Hetch-Hetchy system. To assess the salt and nitrate loading from landscape irrigation, each water retailer service area was broken out into sub-areas by water type and by areas located within the subbasin vs. outside the subbasin. Volumes of each type of water were determined for each sub-area, and the amount of indoor vs. outdoor use was estimated using figures provided in each water retailer’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The water use categories distinguish single-family homes from multi-family homes, and amounts of water used in applications that are mostly indoor (industrial) to mostly outdoor uses (municipal/parks). Estimates of the indoor/outdoor water use split for each water use category were obtained from the City of Santa Clara’s UWMP. Table 24 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 52 lists the indoor/outdoor splits used for all water retailers. The overall indoor/outdoor split for each retailer’s in-basin water use depends on the breakdown of water use categories. The indoor/outdoor split for the entire Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is 55.5%/44.5%, i.e., 44.5% of residential water use is outdoors. Table 24 – Indoor-Outdoor Water Use Estimates by Water Use Category Indoor vs. Outdoor (Landscape) Water Use Indoor Outdoor Single Family 50.5% 49.5% Multi Family 76.4% 23.6% Industrial 77.3% 22.7% Commercial 60.8% 39.2% Institutional 35.9% 64.1% Municipal 26.7% 73.3% Water quality data used to estimate salt and nitrate loading was obtained for each water type for each of the ten baseline years (2001–2010).18 Groundwater quality was taken as the ten-year median value of all the active wells within each water retailer service area. Loading was then determined by multiplying the salt and nitrate concentrations with the in-basin outdoor use volumes for each water type, for each year. The resulting median salt and nitrate loading estimates are summarized in Table 25. The majority of salt and nitrate loading summarized in Table 24 is from outdoor water use. Landscape irrigation is also supplied by sources such as domestic wells and wells that supply cemeteries, golf courses, and other water users. These sources make up less than 1% of outdoor irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain, but in the Coyote Valley, where most of the residences are supplied by domestic wells, they comprise 87% of the non-agricultural outdoor irrigation. Table 25 – Median Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation† Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total In-basin, Outdoor Irrigation Volume* 109,440 AF/yr 1,740 AF/yr 111,180 AF/yr TDS Concentration** 284 mg/L 375 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Concentration** 2 mg/L 17 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS* 42,270 tons 840 tons 43,110 tons Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 322 tons 18 tons 340 tons * Ten-year median ** Ten-year median of volume weighted averages for all water types. † Includes residential outdoor irrigation supplied by water retailers, domestic well landscape irrigation, and non-retailer pumping for landscape irrigation uses (parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.). 18 Water quality for SCVWD treated water and Hetch Hetchy water taken from retailer Consumer Confidence Reports and from District records. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 53 3.3.1.8 Landscape Irrigation – Recycled Water The three wastewater treatment plants operating in the Santa Clara Plain currently produce tertiary-treated recycled water used to irrigate parks, golf courses, street trees, and landscaping in corporate business parks, housing developments and industrial uses. Advanced treated recycled water is also produced at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. The advanced treated water is blended with tertiary treated recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling system. Blending advanced treated recycled water with tertiary treated recycled water results in lower TDS and nitrate concentrations than current tertiary-treated recycled water. In 2013, recycled water accounted for 5% of all water used in Santa Clara County. Locations of current and planned recycled water irrigation as of 2012 are shown in Figure 18. Recycled water used for irrigation contributes salt and nitrate to groundwater and has the potential to increase groundwater nitrate and TDS concentration because concentrations are higher in recycled water than in groundwater. The volume-weighted average TDS of recycled water from all three systems is 746 mg/L while the volume-weighted groundwater TDS concentration is 425 mg/L. Similarly, the volume weighted average nitrate (as NO3) content in recycled water listed in Table 1 is 45.9 mg/L while the median groundwater nitrate concentration in the Santa Clara Plain is 10.8 mg/L. Recycled water volumes and concentrations of TDS and nitrate were obtained from wastewater plant operators to estimate the total salt and nitrate loading. The nitrate attenuation factors, listed in Table 16, are the same as applied to irrigation (i.e., 50% root uptake, 15% denitrification, and 35% of nitrate leaches to groundwater). Table 26 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water Santa Clara Plain In-basin, Outdoor Recycled Water Irrigation Volume* 6,640 AF/yr TDS Recycled Water Concentration * 746 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Recycled Water Concentration* 46 mg/L Recycled Water Salt Loading as TDS* 6,725 tons/yr Recycled Water Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 141 tons/yr * Ten-year median concentrations are volume weighted for all three recycled water producers. Recycled water is not used for irrigation in Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 54 Figure 18 – Locations of Current and Proposed Recycled Water Irrigation as of 2012 3.3.1.9 Conveyance Losses Losses from regional raw and treated water pipelines and losses from water utility local distribution networks are grouped together as conveyance losses. Conveyance losses occur below the root zone, so all the water moves to groundwater and contributes salt and nitrate to groundwater. Water lost from pipelines is treated drinking water, groundwater, or raw water en route to treatment plants, and contains salt and nitrate which is included in the overall salt balance. An estimate of water utility distribution network loss rates was developed by taking the system losses reported by 9 water retailers as a percentage of total water supplied in the retailers Urban Water Management Plans. Based on data supplied by San Jose Water Company, we assumed half the system losses are “real” losses that result in salt and nitrate addition to groundwater, while the other half are losses attributable to hydrant testing, line flushing, and meter uncertainty. An assumed loss rate of 0.1% in regional raw water and treated water pipelines is based on the technical literature. District operators report that no losses are observed within the limits of measurement by flow meters. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 55 The concentrations of TDS and nitrate in losses from District raw and treated water pipelines are similar and low, while the ten-year median of volume-weighted average TDS and nitrate concentrations for losses from retailer distribution systems, which include groundwater sources, are higher. Because losses occur below the root zone only denitrification plays a role in nitrate attenuation for which a 15% nitrate attenuation rate is assigned (see Table 16). Table 27 lists the volumes, concentrations, and mass of salt and nitrate contributed by conveyance losses. There are no treated water pipelines in the Coyote Valley, and only a small area of residential development connected to the City of Morgan Hill water, so the volume of conveyance losses in the Coyote Valley is negligible. Table 27 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Combined Conveyance Loss Volume* 10,050 AF/yr 40 AF/yr 10,100 AF/yr Overall Conveyance Loss TDS Concentration * 256 mg/L 323 mg/L Overall Conveyance Loss Nitrate as NO3 Concentration* 4 mg/L 8 mg/L Combined Salt Loading as TDS* 3,500 tons 20 tons 3,520 tons Combined Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 58 tons 0.45 tons 58 tons * Ten-year median 3.3.1.10 Drainage Losses Losses from storm drains, sewer laterals, and sewer mains loading from septic tank leach fields are grouped together as drainage losses. Because the quality and volumes of drainage losses are not directly measured, estimates from the technical literature are used for loading from this source. Sanitary system operators were also contacted to gain their perspectives and estimates of drainage loss volumes. Exfiltration rates are considerably smaller than infiltration rates because wastewater causes soil clogging and sedimentation can plug sewer pipe defects (Karpf and Krebs, 2004). For most soil types, unsaturated soil transmits water less efficiently than the saturated conditions present during infiltration (i.e., unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is lower than saturated hydraulic conductivity). Leaks from sewers are self-sealing due to the rich organic content and microbial growth combining to form biofilms, called colmation layers which limit the volume of exfiltration (Ellis, J.B., 2001). However, colmation layers in sewers can be dislodged by flow surges caused by inflow during heavy rainfall events, sewer cleaning, or local increase in flow velocity following breakthrough of partial backup/blockages. It is therefore reasonable to assume some exfiltration and to assign S/N loading factors to exfiltration. The rate of sewer line exfiltration was estimated based on pipe diameter and assumes 100 gallons per inch of internal diameter per mile of sewer over 24-hours (adapted from ASTM C 969). This method was applied for all parts of the sewer systems within the Santa Clara Plain and outside the zone where depth to water is 10 feet or less, i.e., where groundwater intrusion Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 56 to sewer lines may occur. The resulting volume is about 1.8% of the average daily flow to all three wastewater treatment plants. This percentage is at the low end of the range of sewer system losses reported in the technical literature (Amick and Burgess, 2000). A low estimate of sewer line exfiltration is appropriate for SNMP based on two considerations. First, sewer system management plans published for the sewer systems in the Santa Clara Plain identify specific preventive maintenance measures and vigilant inspection programs. Second, sewer line defects are often self-sealing as described above. To estimate loading we used the volume-weighted average of the TDS and nitrate measured on the influent to all three wastewater plants serving the Santa Clara Plain, based on 10-year medians for each plant. Most of the Coyote Valley is not sewered. For this analysis, the residential section of Morgan Hill that is sewered and located within the Coyote Valley is ignored. The estimated average volume of septic effluent is 99,000 gallons per septic system per year, based on literature data for per capita wastewater generation. There are only about 70 septic tanks in the Santa Clara Plain, located at the southern end of the Almaden Valley, while the Coyote Valley has about 600 septic tanks. Locations of areas served by septic tanks are shown in Figure 19. The estimated volume of stormwater losses is based upon assumptions regarding the amount of rainfall that runs through storm drains to creeks, and an assumed exfiltration rate of 1.3%. The quality of water in the drainage loss term was determined from measurements and from literature values. Wastewater quality measurement of specific conductance (electrical conductivity) and ammonia were converted to TDS and nitrate to obtain volume-weighted averages for all three wastewater plants. The quality of septic effluent was estimated as the median of values presented in 18 literature studies that measured septic effluent quality.19 Stormwater quality is estimated based on creek samples reported by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). Table 28 summarizes estimated volumes, concentrations, and salt and nitrate loading from drainage losses. Table 28 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Drainage Losses Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Combined Drainage Loss Volume* 2,470 AF/yr 162 AF/yr 2,630 AF/yr Overall Drainage Loss TDS Concentration* 824 mg/L 575 mg/L Overall Drainage Loss Nitrate as NO3 Concentration* 33 mg/L 169 mg/L Combined Salt Loading as TDS* 2,770 tons/yr 127 tons/yr 2,900 tons/yr Combined Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 112 tons/yr 32 tons/yr 144 tons/yr * Ten-year median 19 Brown K.W., et al., 1978; Feth, J.H., 1966; Popkin, R.A., and Bendixen, T.W., 1968; Brown and Caldwell, 1981; Biggar, J. W., and Coney, R.B., 1969; Taylor, J., 2003; Zhan & Mackay, 1998 (citing Canter & Knox); Effert, D., et al., 1985; Dudley, J .G., and Stephenson, D.A., 1973; Otis R.J., et al., 1975; Metcalf & Eddy, 1972; Hansel, M.J., and Machmeier, R.E., 1980; Bicki, T.J., et al., 1984; Brooks J.L., et al., 1984; Lowe, K., et al., 2007 SCVWD, 1994; Alhajjar, et al., 1989; Canter, L.W., and Knox, R.C., 1985; Conn, K.E., and Siegrist, R.L., 2007; Panno, S.V., et al., 2005; Kaplan, O.B., 1991. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 57 Figure 19- Locations of Areas Served by Septic Tanks 3.3.2 Dry Loading Dry loading refers to the salt and nitrate loading from dry sources such as fertilizer, soil amendments, and atmospheric deposition. Salt and nitrate loading from dry sources is not directly measured, so estimates were developed from 2011 crop data and University of California Cooperative Extension guidance of fertilizer application rates, from literature on lawn fertilizer, and from published model results of regional atmospheric deposition rates for nitrogen. 3.3.2.1 Agricultural Fertilizer and Lawn Fertilizer Fertilizers applied to crops and turf at parks and on residential lawns contribute salt and nitrate to groundwater where conditions favor leaching. To estimate nitrate and salt loading from agricultural fertilizer use, 2011 cropping patterns were obtained from the County Agricultural Commissioner’s office. Crop fertilizer application rates by type were compiled from University of California Cooperative Extension agriculture technical literature. Rates of fertilizer application vary by crop type, and cropping patterns vary over time. For the purposes of this SNMP, the 2011 crop acreages are considered representative of a typical year, and loading rates Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 58 developed for 2011 were applied to 2001–2010. Fertilizer adds mineral salts in addition to nitrogen. The rate of salt loading from agricultural fertilizer application was estimated from the typical fertilizer application rates for the crops grown in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, and the common composition of each fertilizer type. The area of parks and residential lawns where fertilizers may be applied was estimated from the LAMS GIS raster.20 No local data on the frequency and rate of fertilizer application on residential lawns and municipal parks was available. To render an estimate, the assumption is made that half the lawns and parks apply fertilizer in a given year. The rate of application was taken as 3.5 lbs nitrogen per 1,000 square feet, i.e., about 150 lbs per acre (UCD, 2002). The rate of nitrate attenuation for dry lawn fertilizer, listed in Table 16 (95%), was determined from a review of the technical literature. Only 5% of nitrogen in lawn fertilizer is assumed to leach to groundwater as nitrate. Because nitrate is 4.43 times heavier than nitrogen, the effective leaching rate for nitrate to groundwater from lawn fertilizer is 34 lbs NO3/acre. Tables 29 and 30 list the estimated salt and nitrate loading rates from agricultural and lawn fertilizer. Table 29 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Fertilizer Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Acres fertilized 1,007 acres 1,273 acres 2,280 acres Average fertilizer nitrate leaching rate – per acre 155 lbs NO3 184 lbs NO3 171 lbs NO3 Fertilizer salt loading as TDS 40 tons/year 56 tons/year 96 tons/year Fertilizer Nitrate as NO3 Loading (leached to groundwater /year) 78 tons NO3 117 tons NO3 195 tons NO3 Table 30 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Lawn Fertilizer Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Acres fertilized/year* 4,475 acres 175 acres 4,650 acres Average application rate, pounds NO3 per acre (includes 95% attenuation) 34 lbs NO3 leached to groundwater per fertilized acre 34 lbs NO3 leached to groundwater per fertilized acre 34 lbs NO3 leached to groundwater per fertilized acre Average application rate, pounds salt per acre 161 lbs TDS per acre 160 lbs N per acre 160 lbs N/acre Fertilizer salt loading as TDS 360 tons/year 15 tons/year 375 tons/year Fertilizer Nitrate as NO3 Loading 76 tons/year 3 tons/year 79 tons/year *Assumes 50% of lawns and parks are fertilized in a given year. 20 LAMS = Large Area Mosaicing Software, a high-resolution infrared-band imagery coverage from which irrigated land uses can be differentiated. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 59 3.3.2.2 Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition refers to particles, aerosols, and gases that move from the atmosphere to ground surface.21 Dry deposition originates from a variety of natural and air pollution sources that contribute nitrate and salt to groundwater. Dry deposition is difficult to measure so estimates of dry deposition rely on models that combine measured concentrations of nitrogen species with calculated deposition velocities. Uncertainties in dry deposition estimates are between 30 to 50%. Dry deposition data were obtained from US EPA, which maps deposition patterns nationally, based on modeled interpolation of a sparse regional network of non-urban atmospheric deposition monitoring stations. The monitoring stations are located primarily in national parks. The nearest available dry deposition data for total nitrogen (Fremont) was obtained from the California Air Resources Board. An interpolated grid of nitrogen dry deposition model estimates was obtained from California Energy Commission reports and interpreted following the approach used in a local study by Weiss (1999). Applying a series of scaling factors based on relationships among air pollution factors, the estimated total N dry deposition rate for open grassland or cultivated areas in Coyote Valley is calculated to be on the order of 11 to 15 kg nitrogen/hectare/year (N/ha/yr) (Weiss, 1999). For this calculation, the low end of the range was used (11 kg N/ha/yr) for the Coyote Valley. For the Santa Clara Plain, the modeled estimates of atmospheric depositions range from 3.9 to 8.4 kg N/ha/yr (Tonnesen et al., 2007). Vehicle emissions represent the primary source of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in close proximity to high-traffic freeways and roads (Collins, 1998). Land within 100 meters of high- traffic corridors (freeways, highways, and expressways/arterial roads) was assigned a higher nitrogen flux value and added to the grid of modeled nitrogen loading to account for the Bay Area funnel effect that directs smog from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda counties into the Santa Clara Valley. Nitrogen deposition in Santa Clara County is dominated by dry deposition due to the pattern of long dry summers and winter rains, and often exceeds wet deposition by 10 to 30 times (Blanchard, et al., 1996). For land within 100 meters of high-traffic corridors, 11 kg N/ha yr was used. Traffic corridors in Coyote Valley are included with the 11 kg N/ha/yr estimate. The properties of the surfaces upon which nitrogen is deposited determine whether nitrate is added to the groundwater basin. Impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, and parking lots, transfer nitrogen of atmospheric origin to stormwater, and ultimately to the Bay. Land areas that are cultivated, landscaped, or undeveloped facilitate deep percolation of a portion of the atmospheric nitrogen to groundwater. Once deposited to vegetated ground surfaces, nitrogen of atmospheric origin may volatilize, be taken up by plants (through the root zone or through leaf stomata), or become dissolved in water, some of which will run off as surface water, and some of which will contribute to deep percolation of nitrate to underlying groundwater. Dissolved nitrate may further undergo denitrification in the subsurface. The following assumptions regarding nitrate fate and transport are made (as listed in Table 16): • 80% of the nitrogen is taken up by plants (primarily grasses). • 15% is volatilized or denitrified to gaseous nitrogen. • 5% is converted to nitrate and percolates to groundwater. 21 Atmospheric deposition also refers to wet precipitation (rain and snow), which also contribute salt and nitrate to groundwater, and are addressed in Section 3.3.1.1. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 60 Inspecting the LAMS image data and the MRLC22 cover imagery in GIS, the average ratio of irrigated and vegetated area to total area in the Santa Clara Plain area of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is 24%. Therefore, 76% of the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is likely removed by rainfall runoff. Table 31 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Atmospheric Deposition Category Total N kg/ha/yr Annual Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr 1 Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Subbasin Total Areal Deposition on Santa Clara Plain from CMAQ² modeled estimate 3.9–8.4 10 1.25 11.25 High-Traffic Corridors + Coyote Valley 11 11.5 0.3 11.8 Total Nitrate 21.5 1.55 23 Salt as Dry Deposition of TDS 4 5 yr range kg/ha/yr Santa Clara Plain 3 Coyote Valley Subbasin Total 0.22 – 1.29 30 1.8 32 1Total N-deposition converted to nitrate as NO3 (multiply by stoichiometric conversion factor 4.43) subject to deep percolation to groundwater (5%). 2 CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement model. See Tonneson et al, 2007. 3 On average 76% of Santa Clara Plain ground surface is impervious and assumed to facilitate removal of atmospheric salt and nitrate deposits to stormwater, which removes it from the groundwater subbasin. 4 TDS is taken as the sum of US EPA’s Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) data for sulfate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium. 3.3.3 Salt and Nutrient Removal Groundwater leaving the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin aquifers carries salt and nitrate and comprises a removal term in the overall salt balance. Groundwater removal occurs naturally through basin outflow and in gaining reaches of streams. Groundwater removal also occurs through groundwater pumping and through groundwater infiltration into sewer pipes and storm drains located beneath the water table. This section inventories the volumes of groundwater leaving the subbasin and the associated salt and nitrate removal. Table 32 summarizes salt and nitrate removal from all of these removal categories following their descriptions in the next sections. 3.3.3.1 Groundwater Pumping The District meters pumping from major production wells and uses reported production from other wells to account for a detailed and accurate inventory of groundwater pumping. Pumping categories include municipal and industrial, environmental, domestic, and agricultural wells. For each category, reported volumes were multiplied by groundwater concentrations of nitrate and salt. The largest volume of pumping is from municipal supply wells. S/N removal from municipal supply wells was calculated by multiplying metered volumes and S/N concentrations corresponding to the retailer service areas, using water quality data supplied by retailers to 22 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium – www.MRLC.gov Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 61 DDW . No attenuation is assigned for pumping, which removes S/N already dissolved in groundwater. For industrial, environmental, domestic, and agricultural wells, the groundwater basin average concentrations were used. Some of the salt and nitrate in groundwater is returned to the basin, which is accounted for in the wet loading terms described in Section 3.3.1. Table 32 summarizes S/N removal by groundwater pumping. 3.3.3.2 Basin Outflow The volume of groundwater leaving the subbasin by flowing into aquifers north of the Santa Clara Plain or from the Coyote Valley into the Santa Clara Plain is not measured directly. Groundwater flow models are used to estimate basin outflow volumes, which are multiplied by volume-weighted average concentrations for TDS and nitrate. Estimates of S/N removal attributable to basin outflow are provided in Table 32. 3.3.3.3 Gaining Reaches of Streams Where groundwater elevations are higher than the stream bottom23 groundwater may discharge into the stream. Groundwater discharge to streams generally occurs in sections of streams located near the Bay called gaining reaches of streams. Gaining reaches of streams also occur in Fisher and Coyote Creeks at the northern end of the Coyote Valley, where decreasing depth to bedrock causes a shallow groundwater condition. The volume of groundwater discharging to streams was estimated by stream gauging and calibration of groundwater flow models. The estimated removal of S/N from Coyote Valley that is attributable to gaining reaches of streams was obtained by multiplying this volume by the volume-weighted average concentrations of TDS and nitrate in Coyote Valley. The Santa Clara Plain groundwater flow model was calibrated without including a module for gaining reaches of streams, so an estimate of groundwater discharge to streams is not available. Stream gauging to estimate groundwater discharge to streams in the Santa Clara Plain is made difficult by tidal fluctuations in the lower reaches of streams. Table 32 summarizes S/N removal by gaining reaches of streams in Coyote Valley. 3.3.3.4 Groundwater Infiltration into Sewer Lines and Storm Drains Where sewer mains and storm drains are buried below the water table, groundwater may enter under hydrostatic pressure through defective joints, cracks, or other openings. A detailed review of Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) estimation methods and estimates of the mass of S/N removed by GWI is provided as Appendix 5. Results of these estimates are included in Table 32. 3.3.3.5 Storm Drain Infiltration Storm drains in both the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley may remove groundwater where they are submerged year-round or seasonally. In the lower reaches of the Guadalupe River, Coyote Creek, and other creeks, stormwater is discharged through flood control levees using stormwater pumps. The occasional operation of these pumps during the summer is due to storm drain conveyance of infiltrated groundwater. While the volumes pumped during summer are not measured, the discharges are regular and move a substantial volume of groundwater. To estimate the magnitude of groundwater infiltration into storm drains, an estimate of exfiltration was developed and the ten-fold infiltration estimation factor described in 23 The “stream bottom” is the thalweg, i.e., the deepest point in the stream channel cross-section – akin to the invert in an engineered channel. Discharge into the stream may be impeded by clay layers. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 62 3.3.1.10 was applied. The analysis of groundwater infiltration into storm drains is presented in Appendix 5, and results are included in Table 32. Table 32 – Salt and Nutrient Removal Category Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley 10-year Median Volume-weighted TDS concentration † Shallow: 536 mg/L Overall: 427 mg/L 376 mg/L 10-year Median Volume-weighted NO3 concentration † Shallow: 9 mg/L Overall: 11 mg/L 20 mg/L 1. Groundwater Pumping Volume 91,800 AF/yr 13,600 AF/yr Salt Removal 49,000 tons/yr 6,700 tons/yr Nitrate Removal 730 tons/yr 400 tons/yr 2. Basin Outflow Volume 6,000 AF/yr 4,870 AF/yr Salt Removal 3,360 tons/yr 2,490 tons/yr Nitrate Removal 90 tons/yr 160 tons/yr 3. Gaining Reaches of Streams Volume - 3,280 AF/yr Salt Removal - 1,670 tons/yr Nitrate Removal - 110 tons/yr 4. Infiltration into Sewer Lines Volume 2,930 AF/yr - Salt Removal 2,520 tons/yr - Nitrate Removal 28 tons/yr - 5. Infiltration to Storm Drains Volume 4,380 AF/yr - Salt Removal 3,200 tons/yr - Nitrate Removal 46 tons/yr - TOTALS Volume 105,100 AF/yr 21,750 AF/yr Salt Removal 58,080 tons/yr 10,860 tons/yr Nitrate Removal 890 tons/yr 670 tons/yr † In the Santa Clara Plain, shallow concentrations were applied for sewer line and storm drain infiltration, and total basin concentrations were applied to basin outflow and gaining reaches of streams . Shallow and deep aquifers are not differentiated in the Coyote Valley. 3.3.4 Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance The sum of all the individual salt and nitrate loading and removal categories provides the overall salt balance for the Santa Clara Plain and for the Coyote Valley. Table 33 provides the overall salt balance. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 63 Table 33 – Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance Salt and Nutrient Loading Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % Rainfall Recharge 180 0.2% 8.2 0.7% 29.9 0.38% 1.4 0.6% Mountain-front Recharge 4,600 5.1% 44 3.9% - - - - Basin Inflow 4,140 4.6% 230 20.4% - - - - Managed Recharge† 24,720 27.6% 39 3.5% 4,684 60% 3 1.5% Agricultural Irrigation 320 0.4% 3 0.3% 2,070 26% 49 21.7% Landscape Irrigation 42,270 47.1% 322 28.5% 844 10.8% 18.2 8.1% Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water 6,725 7.5% 141 12.5% - - - - Conveyance Losses 3,500 3.9% 58 5.1% 20 0.25% 0.45 0.2% Drainage Losses 2,770 3.1% 112 9.9% 127 1.6% 32 14.1% Agricultural Fertilizer 40 0.04% 78 6.9% 56 0.71% 117 52% Lawn Fertilizer 360 0.4% 76 6.7% 15 0.19% 3.1 1.4% Atmospheric Deposition 30 0.03% 21.5 1.9% 1.8 0.02% 1.5 0.7% TOTAL LOADING 89,660 100% 1,130 100% 7,850 100% 226 100% Salt and Nutrient Removal Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % Groundwater Pumping 49,000 84.4% 730 82% 6,700 62% 400 60% Basin Outflow 3,360 5.8% 90 10% 2,490 23% 164 24% Gaining Reaches of Streams - - - - 1,670 15% 110 16% Infiltration into Sewer Lines 2,520 4.3% 28 3% - - - - Infiltration into Storm Drains 3,200 5.5% 46 5% - - - - Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 64 TOTAL REMOVAL 58,080 100% 890 100% 10,860 100% 670 100% NET LOADING 31,520 tons/yr 240 tons/yr - 3,010 tons/yr - 444 tons/yr † The value listed is the median of the 10-year sums of creek and pond recharge, which differs from the sum of the 10-year medians of creek and pond recharge listed in Tables 21and 22, because the median is not a distributive property. 3.4 Assimilative Capacity Assimilative capacity is the difference between the ambient groundwater quality and the Basin Plan Objective. For example, if measured TDS averaged over the groundwater basin is 300 mg/L, and the Basin Plan Objective is 500 mg/L, assimilative capacity is 200 mg/L. The SWRCB Recycled Water Policy stipulates that the available assimilative capacity should be calculated using the most recent five years of available data or a time period approved by the RWQCB. This SNMP uses data from 2008 through 2012 to calculate assimilative capacity. 3.4.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality Data for the two indicator parameters, TDS and nitrate as NO3, were obtained from the District’s regional groundwater monitoring program and from data reported by water retailers to the DDW. Where multiple analyses are available for a given well in the same year, the average of all the sample results was used for that year. The Santa Clara Plain has a zone of saline intrusion in the Baylands as described in Section 3.3.1.3. A regional aquitard separates the shallow aquifer from the principal aquifer as described in Section 2.1. There are two areas where TDS is high in the principal aquifer due to mineral salts of geogenic origin. The two areas with elevated TDS are located in Palo Alto and in a portion of the Evergreen area (see Figure 17). Sediments of marine origin may contain salts of the original seawater that may be the source of these higher dissolved solids (Metzger and Fio, 1997). The areas in question are of limited extent; however they were included in the determination of volume-weighted average concentration. Figure 20 shows the locations of wells used to determine the basin average TDS concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain, and wells used to determine basin average nitrate concentration are shown in Figure 21. In general, shallow monitoring wells have higher TDS than the wells completed in the principal aquifer below the confined zone. Therefore, averages for TDS and nitrate as NO3 were determined separately for the shallow and deep aquifers. A single volume-weighted average was determined for both the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 65 Figure 20 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 66 Figure 21 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Nitrate as NO3 in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 67 3.4.2 Volume-Weighted Average Basin Concentrations Volume-weighted averages were developed for yearly data from 2008 through 2012 for the saturated thickness of the shallow and principal aquifers. MODFLOW model grid cells and depth to water data were used to estimate saturated aquifer volume, and the wells were assigned to shallow or principal aquifers based on their depths. Concentration data from wells corresponding to each model layer were gridded using Surfer Software’s universal kriging option. Gridded values were averaged over the model cells, and the concentrations assigned to each model cell were multiplied by the cell volume and the estimated porosity. The mass of TDS or nitrate as NO3 was summed for each model layer, and the totals from each layer were summed to obtain the overall mass in the Santa Clara Plain. The overall mass was divided by the overall volume to obtain volume-weighted averages for the shallow and principle aquifers, and for a single average, as summarized in Table 34. For the Coyote Valley, available water quality data was interpolated using Thiessen polygons24 ArcGIS software. Values in the Thiessen polygons were assigned to model grid cells to estimate mass, and divided by the total volume in the Coyote Valley, to yield a volume-weighted average concentration. The resulting concentrations for both subareas are contrasted with the Basin Plan Objectives to determine assimilative capacity in Table 34. To determine the basin volume available for mixing, a specific yield was considered representative of the volume involved with active, short-term mixing. Nitrate and the solutes measured in TDS analysis participate in diffusion over the long term, which includes the total effective porosity. Therefore, porosity was used instead of specific yield. Staff considered the estimated porosities of basin aquifer materials, and used a porosity of 30% for the shallow aquifer and 25% for the principal aquifer in the Santa Clara Plain, and 30% for all of the Coyote Valley. Table 34- Factors Used to Determine Volume-Weighted Average Concentrations SANTA CLARA PLAIN Available Mixing Volume, AF Vol-Wt. Avg. Conc. 2008 – 2012 Aquifer Saturated Volume, AF Porosity TDS, mg/L Nitrate as NO3, mg/L Shallow 10,790,700 30% 3,237,200 528 9.1 Principal 86,682,200 25% 22,509,700 410 11.0 Overall 97,472,900 25% 25,746,900 425 10.7 COYOTE VALLEY Vol-Wt. Avg. Conc. 2008 – 2012 TDS, mg/L Nitrate as NO3, mg/L Overall 644,650 30% 644,650 377 20.0 24 Thiessen Polygons, also called Voronoi Cells, are a method for subdividing an area based on locations of data points (e.g., wells or rain gages). Polygons are formed by line segments perpendicular to the midpoints of lines formed by connecting adjacent points. Thiessen polygons are used to develop an area-weighted distribution of data across a spatial domain to lessen the effect of clustered data or data gaps. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 68 Table 35 – Assimilative Capacity in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Sub-Area/Aquifer Vol-Wt. Avg TDS, mg/L TDS Assimilative Capacity Vol-Wt. Avg Nitrate as NO3 NO3 Assimilative Capacity Basin Plan Objective 500 45 Santa Clara Plain – Shallow 528 -28 9.1 35.9 Santa Clara Plain – Principal 410 90 11.0 34.0 Santa Clara Plain – Overall 425 75 10.7 34.3 Coyote Valley 377 123 20.0 25.0 3.4.3 Estimated Basin Assimilative Capacity The assimilative capacities listed in Table 34 show that for the Santa Clara Plain overall, there is an assimilative capacity of 75 mg/L for TDS and 34.3 mg/L for nitrate as NO3. The Coyote Valley has lower average TDS concentration, with an assimilative capacity of 123 mg/L. Nitrate as NO3 concentrations in the Coyote Valley are higher with an assimilative capacity of 25 mg/L. 3.4.4 Projecting Future Assimilative Capacity Future assimilative capacity can change with variation in salt loading and removal and associated changes in TDS and nitrate concentrations. The approach used for projecting future concentrations involves projecting changes to TDS and nitrate loading and removal. This section discusses the basis for the assumptions applied to make these projections, and explains the results of calculations of future assimilative capacity. 3.4.4.1 Assumptions for Future Loading The Recycled Water Policy stipulates that SNMPs should calculate S/N loading impacts for no less than a ten-year time frame. In order to coincide with the planning period for the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the planning horizon selected is 2010 through 2035. In this timeframe, a number of anticipated changes will impact water use and quantities of salt and nitrate in groundwater. These anticipated changes are based on projections for water demand and water conservation detailed in the Urban Water Management Plans published every five years. Future actions that can affect (increase or decrease) the salt and nitrate loading include the following: • Improved recycled water quality from advanced treatment. • Planned increases in recycled water use. • Planned indirect potable reuse using advanced-treated recycled water. • Planned rehabilitation of known problems with infiltration of saline water into sewer lines. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 69 • Decreasing trends in pumping for environmental remediation. • Planned outdoor water conservation initiatives. • Planned capital improvements to increase recharge system capacity. • Anticipated increases in drainage losses due to increased sewer flows and storm drain losses (septic component is assumed to be constant). • Anticipated increases in conveyance losses associated with increases in water use. While there are many forecasts for long-term variation in rainfall, evapotranspiration, and sea level rise in response to climate change (i.e., in 50 to 100+ years), there are only a few studies available that estimate local conditions in the near term (i.e., in the next 25 years). For the SNMP planning horizon, there are not sufficient local studies of rainfall and evapotranspiration changes to render a projection, so these factors were held constant. Similarly, the possible effects from sea level rise on delta water quality and local saline incursion of streams over the next 25 years is not considered for these projections due to lack of a reliable short-term forecasts. Table 35 lists the numeric factors used to forecast changes to salt and nitrate loading to groundwater. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 70 Table 36 – Basis of Future Loading Projections by Category LOADING Tied to Urban Water Management Plan water demand and water conservation projections; assumes 45% outdoor water use overall. About 90% of SJWC’s projected 7,000 AF new recycled water irrigation is retrofit displacing existing landscape irrigation with potable water. Increased loading from irrigating with higher TDS recycled water is included in the Recycled Water Category. Landscape Irrigation Other Irrigation Held constant. Includes domestic well outdoor irrigation parks, golf course irrigation, and agricultural irrigation. Managed Recharge 20,000 AF/yr of advanced treated recycled water is forecasted to be available for additional groundwater recharge by 2030. Future loading includes the IPR scenario (20,000 AF/yr by 2030), and new recharge from upgrade of the Kirk Diversion Dam (920 AF/yr by 2015), Alamitos Diversion Dam (440 AF/yr by 2018), and the Coyote Diversion Dam (1,000 AF/yr by 2020) per the 5- year Capital Improvements Program report. In addition, the Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan includes a new recharge facility in the west part of the Santa Clara Plain with a 3,300 AF/yr capacity, for which 1,650 AF/yr recharge is projected (total of all new recharge = 4,000 AF/yr). Natural Recharge Held constant. Recycled Water Non-potable recycled water used for irrigation is projected to increase from about 7,000 AF in 2010 to 26,500 AF in 2035. Advanced treated recycled water will be blended with tertiary-treated recycled water to achieve a TDS of 500 mg/L. Sunnyvale plans long term addition of 2,061 AF/yr and forecasts improved TDS at 760 mg/L. Palo Alto achieved a TDS reduction from 950 mg/L to 770 mg/L in 2013 and forecasts achieving 600 mg/L by 2018 if identified projects are funded and completed (included in the forecast). Drainage Losses Drainage losses will increase from 2,100 tons TDS/year to 2,600 tons per year according to projected increases in wastewater and stormwater volumes, and the resulting loading will increase slightly based on projected water quality changes in response to water conservation. Conveyance Losses Increases proportional to projected increases in demand. Fertilizer Held constant. Atmospheric Deposition Held constant – assumes increased number of vehicles is offset by improved emissions controls and increased use of alternative fuel vehicles. REMOVAL In 2013, Palo Alto sleeved Mountain View Trunk Line reducing TDS from 950 to 775 mg/L. This trunk line contributes 31% of the 21.7 MGD total flow to the plant. The reduction in annual removal from saline infiltration of sewer lines is 732 tons per year in 2013, and 2,240 by 2022 (included in the forecast).B Saline Infiltration of Sewer Lines Retailer pumping Increases per 2010 UWMP Projections. Non-Retailer Pumping Agricultural pumping decreases in both the Coyote Valley and the Santa Clara Plain per the projection in Urban Water Management Plan. C Overall, the Santa Clara Plain non-retailer pumping decreases due to the continuing trend of declining environmental pumping. Basin outflow/gaining streams Held constant. Definitions: Other Irrigation = agricultural irrigation, irrigation from domestic wells, irrigation of parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.; Managed Recharge = combined recharge from percolation ponds and in-stream recharge (includes Indirect Potable Reuse, which is not counted in the Recycled Water Category); Natural Recharge = mountain front, rainfall, and losing reaches of streams; Drainage Losses = sewer line exfiltration, storm drain exfiltration, and septic tank leach field effluent; Conveyance Losses = real losses from retailer distribution systems and regional transmission losses; Fertilizer = combined agricultural and lawn and garden fertilizer; Atmospheric Deposition = dry deposition of nitrogen exclusive of rainfall. References: A) RMC, 20 13 B) City of Palo Alto, 2013 C) SCVWD, 2010 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 71 3.4.4.2 Methodology and Assumptions for Mixing Calculation The procedure used to determine the change in concentration resulting from loading and removal of salts and nitrate is a basic mixing equation, in which the following assumptions are made: • Mixing occurs within the year that the loading occurs, i.e., mixing is considered to be instantaneous. • Mixing involves the entire saturated volume, including both the shallow and principal aquifers. Accordingly, the geographic locations of different loading sources (e.g., recycled water vs. septic tanks) are inconsequential for determining a change in basin-wide average concentration for the combined shallow and principal aquifers. • The role of the confining clay layer (aquitard) in isolating the principal aquifer can be ignored for the purposes of determining changes in overall basin concentration. • The effects of changes in rates of loading or removal are instantaneous. • The unsaturated zone is in steady state with respect to sorption therefore, transit of salt and nitrate through the unsaturated zone is taken as instantaneous. • Attenuation of nitrate due to root uptake and denitrification does not delay its transit across the unsaturated zone. • The volume of water in the groundwater basin remains constant. • The relevant time step for determining changes in concentration is one year. These assumptions allow for a simplified calculation of basin concentrations. Some of these assumptions exaggerate the effects of salt and nitrate loading and are therefore conservative. For example, the residence time of nitrate in the unsaturated zone may span 40 to 80 years, causing long-term delayed effects from present-day loading (Sebiloa et al., 2013). By assuming a single mixing volume, local variations in rates of concentration changes are not considered. This approach to forecasting future changes in concentrations cannot be applied to estimating salt and nitrate concentration changes in individual wells or specific areas. This simplified approach allows determination of basin-wide concentration changes that match available data for groundwater and source-water quality. Subdividing the basin for salt and nitrate loading analysis based on hydrologic, geologic, and land-use characteristics was not pursued because data limitations would make the analysis of sub-areas less reliable. The number of available monitoring data points varies substantially from year-to-year within smaller areas. Moreover, the variation of land use throughout the subbasin subareas is relatively small. For example, the Santa Clara Plain is primarily suburban/urban with no substantial agricultural areas. The most pronounced variation in land use is between the Coyote Valley, which is primarily rural/suburban, and the Santa Clara Plain, which is primarily suburban/urban; therefore, these two subareas were evaluated separately. The mixing equation used to evaluate future groundwater salt and nitrate concentrations (S/N) can be stated verbally and symbolically as follows: Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 72 New Concentration = [Mass S/N Added + Mass S/N already in groundwater – Mass S/N removed] groundwater volume where Cn+1 is the new concentration, MLn is the mass of salt/nitrate loaded in year n, MRn is the mass of salt/nitrate removed in year n, Cn is the groundwater salt/nitrate concentration in year n, and V is the subarea aquifer saturated porosity volume. The calculated new basin concentration is applied to groundwater sources of loading for the next year, setting up a feedback loop that accounts for salt accumulation or depletion due to successive net loading or net removal. Where the quantity of S/N loaded exceeds the quantity of S/N removed, the mixing equation will result in concentrations that are larger than the prior years, resulting in an upward trend. While measured concentrations in individual wells show flat or very slightly increasing or decreasing trends in salt and nitrate over the past fifteen years, the mixing equation predicts trends in the basin-wide averages that increase or decrease more rapidly. This departure in trend is attributable to the assumptions of instantaneous mixing, which does not reflect the relatively slow movement of groundwater. Accordingly, the projections provided for 2011–2035 are by nature, inflated because the concentrations changes will take much longer than 25 years to manifest. 3.4.5 Future Assimilative Capacity Projections Long–term changes in basin–wide groundwater quality are typically slow and gradual because of the large volume of groundwater in storage. In order to account for variable hydrologic conditions, the starting concentration used to forecast future groundwater quality is taken as the median concentration in the 10–year baseline period (2001–2010). The Recycled Water Policy requires that groundwater quality be estimated a minimum of 10 years into the future. This SNMP includes projections from 2010 through 2035 – the planning horizon for the Urban Water Management Plans – to evaluate long-range changes to current trends that may result from planned changes to land and water use. To estimate future loading and removal for factors that are not expected to change loading and removal, rates were held constant at the median value from the 2001–2010 baseline period. Other loading and removal factors were systematically adjusted to reflect future changes in land use and water use, and are included in Urban Water Management Plans, Master Plans, and other planning documents, as noted in Table 35. Ongoing programs and policies that achieve groundwater quality management to mitigate S/N loading are described in Appendix 4. The primary determinant of future changes in loading is forecasts of increased water use, including landscape irrigation with potable and recycled water. The Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) prepared by each water retailer and the District’s 2010 UWMP forecasts demand increase in response to population growth and planned developments, as well as conservation goals mandated by California’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan and District water conservation efforts. Table 36 summarizes the changes in overall water use anticipated in the 2010 UWMPs. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 73 Table 37 – Retailer Demand Projections after Conservation Savings(1) (AF/year) Retailer 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Cal Water Service Co. 14,060 12,710 12,920 13,120 13,330 Great Oaks Water Co.(3) 13,260 13,420 13,830 14,250 14,660 Milpitas, City of(4) 15,280 16,240 17,220 18,240 19,320 Morgan Hill, City of(4) 8,970 8,520 8,990 9,580 10,160 Mountain View, City of(5) 14,280 14,860 15,430 16,000 16,750 Palo Alto, City of(2) 14,190 14,460 14,690 15,500 16,310 Purissima Hills Water District(5) 3,130 3,320 3,490 3,660 3,830 San José Municipal Water(6) 32,140 35,230 38,460 42,120 45,780 San José Water Company 143,790 147,860 150,930 154,080 157,290 Santa Clara, City of 31,260 33,050 34,610 36,070 37,430 Stanford University(2) 5,100 5,740 6,250 6,860 7,470 Sunnyvale, City of(5) 27,480 27,900 28,390 28,920 29,800 Independent Groundwater Pumping(7) 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 Totals 338,540 348,910 360,810 374,000 387,730 County-wide Agricultural Demand Projection(8) 29,110 28,140 27,160 26,180 25,250 (1) Includes conservation savings goal for both urban and agricultural conservation. See Table 43 for total District water conservation program water savings goal with 1992 base year. (2) 2035 values are a linear extrapolation of retailer provided data. (3) From District developed demand projections based on ABAG Projections 2009 calibrated with actual use data. (4) Figures shown are total demand for Morgan Hill. This SNMP accounts for Morgan Hill wells pumping in Coyote Valley and commercial/residential use north of Cochrane Road. (5) Projections are based on the BAWSCA Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy Phase I Scoping Report (Table A-2, May, 2010) with adjustments for active conservation. (6) Projections are consistent with the City of San Jose Envision 2040 Draft General Plan Update Preferred Alternative. Includes all of San Jose Municipal’s service areas and portions of Coyote Valley where the actual retailer to serve this area has not yet been defined. (7) Demands for independent pumpers were assumed to continue at the same average level observed in the historical pumping record (2000 – 2009). (8) Calculated from estimates of projected total agricultural acreage and a water use factor (1.7 AF/yr). 3.4.5.1 Future Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation To determine future loading from landscape and agricultural irrigation, the retailer demand projections listed in Table 36 were apportioned to each retailer according to the in-basin/out- basin use splits, indoor-outdoor use splits, and water sources splits (groundwater, treated imported water, SFPUC water, and/or local reservoir water) described in Section 3.3.1.7. The Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 74 period from 2010–2015 is not addressed in the UWMP projections shown in Table 36. The large increase in loading from 2010–2015 shown in Figure 22 is due to extrapolating from the 2010 measured values to the volume for the projected 2015 retailer demand. This suggests that the retailer demand projected in the 2010 UWMP for 2015 and possibly subsequent years is overestimated. During the 2013-2014 drought, landscape irrigation has declined, rather than increased. Drought conservation measures are not reflected in the projections because the analysis was based on the 2010 UWMP projections. Agricultural water demand projections shown in Table 36 apply primarily to the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin. The percent change for each five-year interval was applied to the agricultural acreages in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Figures 22-25 chart the projected loading from landscape irrigation by retailer water and agricultural wells, domestic wells and other supply wells used to irrigate parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc. (non-retailer irrigation). Figure 22 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 23 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Ag & Other irrigation, TPY Lansdcape Irrigation , TPY Salt Loading from Landscape Irrigation - Santa Clara Plain Landscape Irrigation Ag Irrigation Domestic & Other Irrigation 0 5 10 15 0 100 200 300 400 500 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Ag & Other irrigation, TPY Ladnscape Irrigation, TPY Nitrate Loading from Landscape Irrigation - Santa Clara Plain Landscape Irrigation Domestic & Other Irrigation Ag Irrigation Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 75 Figure 24 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley Figure 25 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley 3.4.5.2 Future Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge Projections for natural recharge are held constant for the planning horizon as mountain-front recharge and basin inflow are assumed to remain the same. Projected increases in managed recharge are based on capital projects included in the District’s 5-year Capital Improvements Projects Plan that will increase operational recharge capacity to the extent that water supply is available. The 2012 Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan also identifies a new recharge facility in the western Santa Clara Plain. For the purposes of this SNMP, the capacities of the improvements and increased recharge volumes assumed to come on-line according to the schedule are shown in Table 38. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Agricultural Irrigation, tons per year Landscape & Domestic Irrigation, tons per year Salt Loading from Agricultural and Landscape Irrigation - Coyote Valley Ag Loading Landscape Irrigation Domestic & Other Irrigation 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Ag Irrigation, TPY Landscape Irrigation + Domestic, TPY Nitrate Loading from Agricultural and Landscape Irrigation - Coyote Valley Landscape Irrigation Domestic & Other irrigation Ag Irrigation Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 76 Table 38 – Schedule and Capacity of Recharge Capital Improvement Projects Project Average Yield Increase Capacity, AF/yr Assumed Increase in Recharge, AF/yr Estimated Completion Date Alamitos Diversion Dam 2,200 440 2018 Coyote Diversion Dam 5,000 1,000 2020 Kirk Diversion Dam 4,600 920 2015 New Recharge Facility 3,300 1,650 2026 TOTALS 15,100 4,010 Managed recharge is also projected to increase as Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) projects come on-line. IPR projects take advanced treated recycled water blended with current sources of recharge to provide lower TDS water for recharging the subbasin. The assumed quality of water supplied with IPR projects is 168 mg/L TDS and 2 mg/L nitrate as NO3. Actual quality of water used for IPR may have higher or lower concentrations depending on operational constraints and other factors. The assumed schedule of increased recharge volumes from IPR projects is as follows: Table 39 – Schedule and Capacity of Indirect Potable Reuse Recharge Projects Project Average Yield Increase (AF/yr) Estimated Completion Date Los Gatos Recharge System 20,000 AF/yr 2032 Schedule and volumes included in the 2012 Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan (SCVWD, 2012). Water supply for recharge projects is highly variable due to its dependency on available imported water and rainfall-supplied local reservoirs. The baseline volumes for managed recharge are based on the sum of recharge facility 10-year median volumes. The range of managed recharge volumes from 2001 through 2010 is from 64,629 to 88,507 AF/yr. The projected salt and nitrate loading from managed recharge shown below in Figures 26-29 includes managed recharge in percolation ponds and creeks. A significant source of variability in recharge water quality is the quality of water imported from the state and federal water projects and used in recharge operations. Depending on how current and/or future pumping facilities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta are operated, overall salinity (TDS) of imported water may decrease between 50 and 100 mg/L. If no changes are made to delta operations and severe climate change scenarios are realized, imported water salinity may increase substantially. Because both scenarios (improved or deteriorated delta water quality) are highly uncertain, the projections for SNMP have held imported water TDS and nitrate constant by water source. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 77 Figure 26 – Salt Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 27 – Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 28 – Salt Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Natural Recharge & IPR, TPY Managed Recharge , TPY MAR Natural IPR Start IPR in 2032 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Natural Recharge & IPR Recharge Loading, TPY MAR Natural IPR Start IPR in 2032 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Natural Recharge Loading, TPY Managed Recharge Loading, TPY MAR Natural Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 78 Figure 29 – Nitrate Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley 3.4.5.3 Future Loading from Recycled Water Future loading projections for recycled water include improved water quality from advanced treatment of recycled water, sewer line rehabilitation, and increased utilization of recycled water. Recycled water master plans were reviewed for each of the three producers (South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR), Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), and Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQP). The planned schedule of improvements and expansion used for SNMP projections are listed in Table 40. Table 40 – Recycled Water Master Plans: Expansion and Water Quality Improvements System Volume Increases Future TDS Starting Year Notes SBWR 0 500 mg/L 2014 – 2017 Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center comes on-line; tertiary treated recycled water blended with purified water to lower TDS from 725 mg/L to 500 mg/L, phased in system-wide by 2017; assume linear change. SBWR 4,850 500 mg/L 2015 – 2035 SJWC UWMP baseline + projected 4,850 AF/yr new SJWC projects in next 25 yrs; add 970 AF/yr every 5 yrs. SBWR 3,300 500 mg/L 2020 – 2035 SJ UWMP baseline + projected 3,300 AF/yr new RW SJ Muni. RW projects; adding 825 AF/yr every 5 yrs in 2020. SBWR 100 500 mg/L 2020 Adds 100 AF/yr for Milpitas BART Station development in 2020. SVWPCP 1,885 760 mg/L 2020 – 2033 Treatment improves TDS from 856 mg/L TDS to 760 mg/L in 2023. Increased volume from Apple and other expansion; 495 AF/yr by 2020; 764 AF/yr by 2025; 140 AF/yr by 2030; 486 AF/yr by 2030. PARWQCP 0 770 mg/L – 600 mg/L 2013 – 2018 PARWQCB resleeved a sewer main in Mtn. View producing immediate improvement to TDS by eliminating saline groundwater intrusion. Additional resleeving projects are planned to bring TDS to 600 mg/L by 2018. PARWQCP 5,500 600 mg/L 2027 Palo Alto Phase III recycled water expansion projects 5,500 AF/yr increase by 2027. Up to 915 AF/yr additional expansion may occur in current Phase II, which is not yet serving at full capacity. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Recharge Loading, TPY MAR Natural Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 79 The quality of source water before it becomes wastewater and recycled water varies significantly under different scenarios. As mentioned in 3.3.5.2, TDS in imported water may increase or decrease, depending on whether improvements are made to managing delta pumping and whether climate change scenarios are realized. Changes to source water quality can shift the quality of recycled water, depending on the type and degree of treatment. The future projections for recycled water reflect planning scenarios only, and exclude delta conveyance improvements and climate change scenarios. Groundwater quality also changes in response to loading and removal, so the source water that becomes recycled water may change as groundwater quality changes or as the blend of supplies shifts. These potential variations in recycled water quality are not incorporated into the future planning scenarios evaluated here. The schedule of planned improvements is also subject to change. For example, the PARWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan calls for addition of reverse osmosis and micro-filtration by 2050, but changing conditions could lead to bringing advanced treatment online sooner, possibly within the SNMP planning horizon. Similarly, planned improvements for SBWR and Sunnyvale WPCP could come on-line earlier or later than the SNMP planning scenarios. Figures 22 and 23 display the projected loading from recycled water in the scenario outlined in Table 40. Figure 30 – Salt Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 31 – Nitrate Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain Notes: SBWR = South Bay Water Recycling; SWPCP = Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant; PARWQCP = Palo Alto Water Pollution Control Plant. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Recycled Water Loading, TPY SBWR SWPCP PARWQCP Total 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Recycled Water Loading, TPY SBWR SWPCP PARWQCP Total Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 80 3.4.5.4 Future Loading from Conveyance and Drainage Losses As described in 3.3.1.9 and 3.3.1.10, conveyance losses include that portion of water distribution system losses that ultimately recharge groundwater. Similarly, drainage losses are losses from storm drains, sewer lines, and septic leachfield effluent that recharge groundwater. Conveyance losses are treated as proportional to the volume of water served, and indexed to projected changes in annual total volume of water served by water retailers inside the Santa Clara Plain or inside the Coyote Valley (including the portion of Morgan Hill that is in Coyote Valley). Storm drain losses are proportional to future volumes of runoff. To make an approximation, storm drain losses are indexed to population growth, which is taken as an indicator of the increase in impervious surfaces. Assuming that most new development is multi-family housing, the percent increase in impervious surface area was taken as the percentage of population increase. Septic leachfield volumes are assumed to remain constant. The County’s new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Ordinance could lead to some improvements in septic tank management, potentially decreasing loading from this source. The impacts of the ordinance are subject to many variables that are not easily assessed, so a constant value was used. Sewer line losses are indexed to the SCVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan projections for wastewater treatment flows to obtain volume increases. Wastewater concentration is indexed to measured values from 2010, which increase as a result of water conservation. Indoor water conservation results in increased TDS concentration of influent at wastewater treatment plants which can negatively impact the quality and quantity of recycled water. The degree to which wastewater concentration changes in response to water conservation is unknown; however this effect is widely observed (Wistrom, et al., 2006). An assumption is made that wastewater TDS concentration increases by 1/10th the amount of projected increases in water conservation volumes. Table 41 summarizes the assumptions made for sewer line loss projections. Figure 32 displays loading projections from conveyance losses in the Santa Clara Plain, and Figures 33 and 34 provide loading projections for drainage losses in the Santa Clara Plain. Both conveyance losses and drainage losses in Coyote Valley are small and fixed at constant values throughout the 25-year period evaluated. Table 41 – Factors Used to Project Future Sewer Line Losses Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Wastewater Volume, MGD 169 177 184 192 194 Percent WW Volume change 4.5% 4.7% 4.0% 4.3% 1.0% Conservation Goal, AF/yr 63,100 76,100 86,700 98,800 98,800 Concentration Increase % (assumed) 2.47% 2.06% 1.39% 1.36% 0.0% Source: SCVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 81 Figure 32 – TDS and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses in the Santa Clara Plain Note: conveyance losses in Coyote Valley are small (ranging from 12 to 15 tons per year TDS and 0.4 to 0.5 tons per year nitrate), and are therefore not displayed. Nitrate as NO3 is displayed on the right axis. Figure 33 – TDS Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain Note: Nitrate as NO3 loading from drainage losses (septic tanks) in Coyote Valley are held constant throughout the planning period (127 tons TDS per year), and are therefore not displayed. Figure 34 – Nitrate as NO3 Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain Note: Nitrate as NO3 loading from drainage losses (septic tanks) in Coyote Valley are held constant throughout the planning period (79 tons nitrate as NO3 per year), and are therefore not displayed. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr Salt as TDS loading, tons/yr TDS NO3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Septic TDS Load, tons/yr Sewer/Storm/Total TDS Load, tons/yr TOTAL Sewer Storm Septic 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 50 100 150 200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Storm/Spetic Nitrate Load, tons/yrSewer/Total Nitrate Load, tons per yearSewer TOTAL Storm Septic Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 82 3.4.5.5 Future Loading from Dry Loading Sources Dry loading includes fertilizer, soil amendment application, and atmospheric deposition. Combined, these categories contribute only minor amounts of salt and nitrate. The factors that could change rates of fertilizer use or rates of atmospheric deposition are not quantified. Atmospheric deposition could decrease in response to more alternative fuel vehicles and improved emissions controls, and fertilizer application could decrease with land use changes. Because these changes are not easily predicted, for SNMP analysis, they were left as fixed values equal to the 2001-2010 median loading rates. 3.4.5.6 Salt and Nitrate Removal Projections As listed in Table 15 and shown in Figure 15, salt and nitrate are removed when groundwater is removed by pumping, basin outflow, gaining reaches of streams, and groundwater infiltration into sewer lines and storm drains. The primary variable in salt and nitrate removal is the rate of groundwater pumping. Projected demand by water source was obtained from the Urban Water Management Plans and pro-rated to annual increments to project rates of salt and nitrate removal due to groundwater pumping. Infiltration of saline groundwater to sewer lines has been reduced in Palo Alto and additional projects will further reduce infiltration. Gaining reaches of streams in the Santa Clara Plain have not been quantified; though there might be some groundwater discharging to streams in the northern reaches of streams. Figures 35-38 summarize the projected rates of salt and nitrate removal. Figure 35 – TDS Removal in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 36 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Santa Clara Plain 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 TDS removed, tons/yr Total Removal - left axis Municipal Pumping - left axis Basin outflow - right axis Non-Retailer Pumping - right axis Inflow to Sewer Lines - right axis Inflow to Storm Drains - right axis 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Nitrate-NO3 Removed, tons/yr Municipal Pumping - left axis Non-Retailer Pumping - right axis Total Removal - left axis Inflow to Sewer Lines - right axis Basin outflow - right axis Inflow to Storm Drains - right axis Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 83 Figure 37 – TDS Removal in the Coyote Valley Figure 38 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Coyote Valley 3.4.5.7 Net Loading/Removal and Assimilative Capacity The sum of all loading projections, minus the sum of all removal projections, gives the net loading or removal. In the Santa Clara Plain, net loading of TDS is projected to start at 25,000 tons per year and grow to 47,000 tons per year by 2035. The primary causes of the net loading are outdoor irrigation, imported water used for groundwater recharge, and increasing irrigation with recycled water. Currently, about 90,000 AF of water is imported and used in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin for outdoor irrigation and managed aquifer recharge. Imported water used outdoors or for recharge represents about 26,000 tons of new salt per year (TDS), with about 7,000 tons salt added to groundwater through recharge, and about 19,000 tons salt added through landscape irrigation.25 Nitrate addition from imported water is low due to the low concentration of nitrate found in imported water. Concurrent with the addition of 26,000 tons of salt to groundwater per year from imported water, groundwater is removed from the subbasin via groundwater pumping and basin outflow. Pumping and basin outflow remove a combined 49,000 tons of salt per year. The TDS in water served by municipal retailers is returned to the 25 These figures exclude imported water used for outdoor irrigation at homes and businesses located in the foothills outside the groundwater Subbasin. Imported Water refers to State Water Project, Federal Water Project water from the San Luis Division, and Hetch-Hetchy water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 TDS Removal, tons per year Municipal Pumping Non-Retailer Pumping Gaining reaches of streams Basin outflow Total Removal 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Nitrate as NO3 Removal, tons / year Municipal Pumping Non-Retailer Pumping Basin outflow Gaining reaches of streams Total Removal Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 84 groundwater basin at an average rate of about 45% (the percentage of municipal water used for outdoor irrigation), while about 55% of the salt goes to the wastewater treatment plants and to the Bay, with a small fraction getting processed as recycled water. The nitrate in imported water is much lower than in groundwater, so groundwater pumping combined with root uptake and denitrification, cause a net removal of nitrate from the groundwater basin. While the amount of new salt introduced to the subbasin each year is large, the volume of water into which the salt is mixed in this analysis is also large. Table 34 presents the mixing volume – 25,746,900 AF. The starting net loading amount in 2011, tons per year when divided by the mixing volume equates to a net change in TDS concentration of 0.88 mg/L per year. By 2035, the net loading is projected to increase to 47,000 tons per year, producing a net change in TDS concentration of 1.31 mg/L/yr. To determine future estimated basin concentrations, the net loading is added to the mass of salt already dissolved in groundwater at ambient concentrations. The overall basin average TDS concentration calculated in Section 3.3.2 is 425 mg/L. The existing mass of salt dissolved in groundwater is 17,260,184 tons. The net loading forecasted for each year is added to the prior year’s total salt mass and divided by the basin saturated porosity volume to get the next year’s concentration. The new concentration is used to determine net removal from groundwater pumping and net loading from landscape irrigation with groundwater. Figures 39-42 show the net loading, future TDS and nitrate concentrations, and corresponding assimilative capacity. The fluctuation in net loading is due to use of actual recharge volumes for 2010–2012 and projected 2013 based on January-October data. Figure 39 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/L Net Loading, tons/year Net Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L Basin Plan Objective assimilative capacity Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 85 Figure 40 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 41 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Coyote Valley Figure 42 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Coyote Valley 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/L Net Loading, tons/year Net Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L Basin Plan Objective assimilative capacity 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 -5,000 -4,000 -3,000 -2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/L Net Loading, tons/year Net Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L Basin Plan Objective assimilative capacity 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 (350) (300) (250) (200) (150) (100) (50) 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/LNet Loading, tons/yearNet Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L BasinPlan Objective assimilative capacity Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 86 The net removal of both TDS and nitrate in Coyote Valley is partly attributable to pumping that supplies water to consumers in the Santa Clara Plain, i.e., the water is moved from one subarea to the other (about 3,100 tons per year TDS and 86 tons per year nitrate as NO3). There is also a net basin outflow from Coyote Valley, about 2,500 tons per year TDS and 160 tons per year nitrate. In addition, Coyote Valley has gaining reaches of streams that remove about 1,700 tons per year TDS and about 110 tons per year nitrate. The net removal of salt and nitrate produces a steady decrease in estimated concentrations as shown in Figures 41 and 42, above. 3.4.5.8 Allocation of Future Assimilative Capacity The allocation of future assimilative capacity consumption by loading category is listed in Table 42. The sum of all planned recycled water irrigation and groundwater recharge projects in the Santa Clara Plain consumes 9.2% of the TDS assimilative capacity in the 25 year planning timeframe ending in 2035. The assimilative capacity of nitrate as NO3 is projected to increase due to net nitrate removal from groundwater pumping, basin outflow, and sewer line infiltration; therefore, recycled water projects do not consume any assimilative capacity for nitrate as NO3. At the end of the 25 year evaluation period in 2035, 41% of the 75 mg/L TDS assimilative capacity is projected to be consumed overall (30.75 mg/L), with 44.25 mg/L TDS assimilative capacity remaining. The TDS assimilative capacity consumed by all planned Santa Clara Plain recycled water projects (including landscape irrigation and indirect potable reuse), 6.3%, is below the Recycled Water Policy 20% threshold for multiple projects. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 87 Table 42 – Annual Consumption of TDS Assimilative Capacity (AC) by Loading Categories % AC Consumed overall % AC by Recycled Water % AC by Managed Recharge % AC by Indirect Potable Reuse % AC by Irrigation (excludes recycled water) % AC by Natural Recharge Drainage + Conveyance & Dry Loading 2011 1.29% 0.12% 0.33% 0.67% 0.17% 2012 1.25% 0.12% 0.32% 0.64% 0.16% 2013 1.43% 0.16% 0.39% 0.70% 0.18% 2014 1.41% 0.16% 0.38% 0.70% 0.17% 2015 1.42% 0.16% 0.38% 0.71% 0.17% 2016 1.42% 0.16% 0.38% 0.71% 0.17% 2017 1.42% 0.16% 0.38% 0.71% 0.17% 2018 1.46% 0.17% 0.38% 0.72% 0.18% 2019 1.49% 0.19% 0.39% 0.73% 0.18% 2020 1.54% 0.20% 0.40% 0.75% 0.18% 2021 1.57% 0.22% 0.41% 0.76% 0.18% 2022 1.59% 0.23% 0.41% 0.77% 0.19% 2023 1.61% 0.24% 0.41% 0.77% 0.19% 2024 1.64% 0.25% 0.41% 0.78% 0.19% 2025 1.67% 0.26% 0.42% 0.79% 0.19% 2026 1.72% 0.28% 0.43% 0.81% 0.19% 2027 1.76% 0.29% 0.44% 0.82% 0.20% 2028 1.79% 0.31% 0.44% 0.83% 0.20% 2029 1.82% 0.32% 0.45% 0.85% 0.20% 2030 1.86% 0.34% 0.45% 0.86% 0.20% 2031 1.85% 0.34% 0.45% 0.86% 0.20% 2032 1.76% 0.35% 0.37% 0.023% 0.84% 0.20% 2033 1.75% 0.35% 0.37% 0.022% 0.84% 0.20% 2034 1.75% 0.34% 0.36% 0.022% 0.84% 0.20% 2035 1.75% 0.34% 0.36% 0.022% 0.84% 0.20% TOTAL 41.3% 6.2% 10.2% 0.1% 20% 4.8% Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 88 CHAPTER 4: SALT AND NUTRIENT MONITORING PLAN The Recycled Water Policy requires development of a SNMP Monitoring Plan for each groundwater basin in California. The District is the groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County, which includes the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. For many years the District has conducted regular comprehensive monitoring that includes TDS and nitrate, as well as other water quality parameters. The District also analyzes data from municipal wells reported to DDW. The District prepares annual water quality reports that document the monitoring results and provides trend analyses for TDS and nitrate, and a comparison of detections with WQOs. District monitoring reports are made available on its website. The proposed SNMP Monitoring Program includes the District’s voluntary subbasin monitoring and reporting for TDS and nitrate. The District currently conducts monitoring for selected CECs at a recycled water irrigation site. CEC monitoring is not a required component of the Recycled Water Policy for basins where recycled water reuse is limited to irrigation (there are currently no active recycled water recharge projects). The District’s ongoing groundwater monitoring and reporting is voluntary and relies on monitoring District monitoring wells and private wells under agreements with the well owners. The Salt and Nutrient Monitoring Plan, provided as Appendix 3, is a subset of the District’s regional monitoring program, which covers more water quality parameters than are required by the Recycled Water Policy. The goals established in the Recycled Water Policy for the Salt and Nutrient Monitoring Plan are met by the District’s annual sampling. Monitoring well locations coincide with recharge locations, recycled water operations, and groundwater production. The plan presented in Appendix 3 fulfills the objectives set forth in the Recycled Water Policy. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 89 CHAPTER 5: ANTI-DEGRADATION ANALYSIS The regional and cumulative impacts analysis presented in Chapter 3 of this SNMP demonstrates that multiple recycled water projects in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin use a minor amount of the available TDS assimilative capacity. The analysis shows that assimilative capacity is expected to increase (i.e., concentrations are projected to decline) for both nitrate and TDS in the Coyote Valley, and for nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain. Groundwater TDS concentrations are projected to increase in the Santa Clara Plain by 2035, but are not projected to exceed the Basin Plan objective. Chapter 3 demonstrates that the minority of the projected Santa Clara Plain TDS increase is attributable to recycled water irrigation. As noted in Chapter 3, the simplifying assumptions made for this SNMP (e.g., instantaneous mixing, no attenuation of salts in the unsaturated zone) have the effect of overstating the rate of salt accumulation. For example, the concentration trends associated with future projections are not mirrored in observed trends from the last 15 years, yet the same S/N loading and removal processes have been ongoing. The District has invested in the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC) to substantially improve recycled water quality. The District and water retailers are engaged in a continuous effort to increase water conservation, which can further reduce the amount of salt loading. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan, if implemented, could also play a major role in reducing the importation and accumulation of salt. As improvements are made to limit conveyance losses and drainage losses and to increase outdoor water conservation, the rate of salt accumulation will slow. Similarly, employing micro-irrigation technologies and limiting fertilizer use to agronomic demands will help to reduce S/N loading. The Recycled Water Policy and other statewide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. As stated in the Recycled Water Policy, “The collapse of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, climate change, and continuing population growth have combined with a severe drought on the Colorado River and failing levees in the Delta to create a new reality that challenges California’s ability to provide the clean water needed for a healthy environment, a healthy population and a healthy economy, both now and in the future.” As the policy notes, “We strongly encourage local and regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local water for California by emphasizing appropriate water recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of supply are drought-proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long- term.” With the current severe drought, the benefits of recycled water use in terms of sustainability and reliability cannot be overstated. Use of recycled water in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of Santa Clara County. The SNMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Table 43 provides an explanation of why recycled projects are in compliance with SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 90 Table 43 – Anti-Degradation Assessment SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 Component Anti-Degradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State.  The Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives are being met in average ambient groundwater and will continue to be met in the future  Recycled water irrigation project(s) and other S/N loading sources will not cause average groundwater quality to exceed the SMCL for TDS or the primary MCL for nitrate-NO3.  Use of recycled water for irrigation to replace groundwater is consistent with the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy, which encourages increased reliance on local, drought-resistant water supplies. The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State.  The recycled water used for irrigation is tertiary-treated water that meets California’s Title 22 unrestricted use classification.  The District is now producing up to 8 MGD advanced treated water from the SVAWPC. The City of Sunnyvale Plans to improve recycled water quality, and the City of Palo Alto has resleeved some sewer mains resulting in lower TDS recycled water. The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development.  The recycled water projects are an integral part of water and wastewater master plans for the subbasin. Groundwater management programs are being or will be implemented to continue attaining WQOs.  The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is actively managed with numerous programs, projects, and plans to manage groundwater, as described in Appendix 4. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 91 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This SNMP tracks the addition and removal of salts and nutrients to and from the groundwater basin, revealing a dynamic interplay between water uses and salt accumulation and dilution. In the Coyote Valley, concentrations of both TDS and nitrate are found to decrease over time. In the Santa Clara Plain, nitrate concentrations are projected to decrease while TDS concentration is projected to increase, without exceeding basin water quality objectives. The rate of increase in TDS concentration does not correspond closely with the individual well TDS concentration trends analyzed in the District’s annual groundwater reports. This suggests that the simplifying assumptions used to make the projections may be too aggressive, such that the projected rate of accumulation exceeds the measured concentration trends. The categories contributing the greatest amount of S/N loading (outdoor irrigation of landscaping by potable water and managed recharge) are also linked to the largest means of S/N removal (groundwater extraction, consumptive uses of water, and basin outflow). Nevertheless, salt accumulation is indicated for the Santa Clara Plain, which warrants consideration of the following recommendations for additional salt and nutrient management measures: 1. New and continuing initiatives for outdoor water conservation will continue to diminish the quantities of S/N loading from outdoor irrigation with potable water. 2. New and continuing advanced treatment of recycled water will further reduce the minor amount of salt loading from this category. 3. If adopted and implemented, future indirect potable reuse with low TDS, advanced- treated recycled water can diminish the demand for imported water for managed recharge. Similarly, contingent on funding and approval, direct potable reuse of low TDS, advanced-treated recycled water finished at the District’s drinking water plants can displace higher salinity groundwater and imported water currently distributed for indoor and outdoor water uses. 4. Adoption of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is likely to significantly reduce the salinity of imported water used for both managed recharge and outdoor irrigation with potable water. 5. New and continuing city initiatives to improve sewer lines to prevent intrusion of saline groundwater will decrease salt loading from tertiary-treated recycled water used for irrigation. 6. Continued District monitoring and analysis of groundwater quality data will be useful for observing any changes to the long-term trends in TDS and nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 92 REFERENCES Alhajjar, B.J., Chesters, G., and Harkin, J.M., 1990. Indicators of Chemical Pollution from Septic Systems. Ground Water 28(4): 550–568. Amick, R.S., and Burgess, E.H., 2000. Exfiltration in Sewer Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. EPA/600/R-01/034. Aquacue, 2011. Uncovering Leaks and Other Mysteries, Faster than Traditional Methods, with New Real- Time Technology http://www.icwt.net/wtc/p12/u-330.pdf ASTM, 2009. ASTM C969 – 02 Standard Practice for Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines. http://www.astm.org/Standards/C969.htm Bicki, T.J., R.B. Brown, M.S. Collins, R.S. Mansell, and D.F. Rothwell, 1984. Impact of On ‐site Sewage Disposal Systems on Surface and Ground Water Quality. Report to Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Contract Number LC‐170. Biggar, J. W., and Coney, R. B., 1969. Agricultural Drainage and Eutrophication. In Eutrophication : Causes, Consequences, and Correctives. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1969. Blanchard, C.L., Michaels, H. and Tannenbaum, S., 1996. Regional Estimates of Acid Deposition Fluxes in California for 1985-1994. California Air Resources Board Contract No. 93-332. Brooks, J.L., Rock, C.A., and Struchtemeyer, R.A.,1984. Use of peat for on-site wastewater treatment: II. Field studies. J. Environ. Qual. 13: 524-530. Brown and Caldwell and Geotechnical Consultants Inc., 1981. San Martin Water Quality Study – Phase 1 report. Prepared for Santa Clara County. Brown, K.W. and Thomas, J.C., 1978. Uptake of N by grass from septic fields in three soils. Agronomy Journal. 70: 1,037–1,040. Canter, L.W., and Knox, R.C., 1985. Septic tank system effects on ground water quality. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. Canter, L.W., 1997. Nitrates in Groundwater. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. CH2MHill, 1992, Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Model Project, Hydrogeologic Interpretation CH2MHill, 2005, Llagas Basin Numerical Groundwater Model City of Palo Alto, 2012. Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Prepared by Carollo Engineers, May, 2012. City of Palo Alto, 2013. Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan, 2013: The Pollution Prevention Plan for the City of Palo Alto's Regional Water Quality Control Plant. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33315 City of Santa Clara, 2010. Sewer System Management Plan. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 93 Collins, S., 1998. Modeling Spatial Variations in Air Quality Using GIS. In: GIS and Health. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, London, United Kingdom. Conn, K.E., and Siegrist, R.L., 2007. Occurrence and Fate of Trace Organic Contaminants in Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems and Implications for Water Quality Management. Colorado Water Institute. Dudley, J .G., and Stephenson, D.A., 1973. Nutrient Enrichment of Ground Water from Septic Tank Disposal Systems. Inland Lake Renewal and Shoreland Management Demonstration Project Report. University of Wisconsin at Madison. Department of Water Resources (DWR), December 1975, Bulletin No 118-1 Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: South San Francisco Bay, Volume III: Northern Santa Clara County Area Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Update 2003 DWR, 2013. Public Draft Report to the Legislature on Urban Water Management Plan Demand Management Measures Reporting and Requirements. http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/committees/urban/u2/docs/ITP_UWMP_Leg_Report_Public_Draft_1 2-24-13.pdf EBMUD, 2013. East Bay Regional Private Sewer Lateral Program: Presentation to Real Estate Professionals Information Meeting, December 10, 2013. www.eastbaypsl.com/eastbaypsl/doc/REPInfo.pdf Effert, D., J. Morand, and M. Cashell, 1985. Field performance of three onsite effluent polishing units. In Proc. 4th Nat. Symposium on individual and small community sewage systems, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 351-361. Ellis, J.B., 2001. Sewer performance: inflow, infiltration and exfiltration. In: Proceedings of the INTERURBA II Conference, Session on Interactions between sewers, treatment plants and receiving water in urban areas. Lisbon, Portugal, February 19-22, 2001. Feth, J.H., 1966 Nitrogen Compounds in Natural Water--A Review. Water Resources Research, 2(1): 41–58. Hansel, M.J., and R.E. Machmeier, 1980. On-site Wastewater Treatment on Problem Soils. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 52(3): 548–558. Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch, 1992. Statistical Methods in Water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Elsevier Science Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2254 Iwamura, T.I.. 1980. Saltwater Intrusion Investigation in the Santa Clara County Baylands Area, California, Santa Clara Valley Water District Report. Kaplan, O.B., 1991. Septic Systems Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Karpf, C. and Krebs, P., 2004. Application of the leakage model to assess exfiltration. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling, Dresden 2004, pp. 217–224. Kopp, K., and K. Guillard, 2005. Clipping Contributions to Nitrate Leaching from Creeping Bentgrass Under Varying Irrigation and N Rates. University of Connecticut Digital Commons. Plant Science Articles. Paper 12. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/plsc_articles/12 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 94 LAFCO, 2011. Santa Clara Countywide Water Service Review Public Review Draft http://www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov/service_reviews/water_2011_publicdraft/SC_Water_MSR_Public_Rev iew_Draft_resized.pdf Lowe, K.; Rothe, N., Tomaras, J., DeJong, K., Tucholke, M., Drewes, J., McCray, J., and Munakata- Marr, J., 2007. Influent Constituent Characteristics of the Modern Waste Stream. from Single Sources: Literature Review. WERF, 04-DEC-1. 89pg. PDF available at: www.ndwrcdp.org/publications Malone, R.W., N. Huth, P.S., Carberry, L. Ma, T.C. Kaspar, D.L. Karlen, T. Meade, R.S. Kanwar, and P. Heilman. 2007. Evaluating and predicting agricultural management effects under tile drainage using modified apsim. Geoderma 140:310-322. McCloskey, T. F. and Finnemore, E. J., 1995, Estimating Hydraulic Conductivities in an Alluvial Basin from Sediment Facies Models. Vol.34, No.6-Ground Water November-December 1995. McCracken, D.V., M.S. Smith, J.H. Grove, C.T. MacKown, and R.L. Blevins, 1994. Nitrate leaching as influenced by cover cropping and nitrogen source. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1476–1483. Meisinger, J.J., and G.W. Randall, 1991. Estimating Nitrogen Budgets for Soil-Crop Systems. In: R.F. Follett, D.R. Keeney, and R.M. Cruse (eds.), Managing Nitrogen for Groundwater Quality and Farm Profitability. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 85-124. Metcalf & Eddy, 1972. Wastewater Engineering: collection, treatment, disposal. McGraw Hill, New York. Metzger, L.F., and Fio, J.L., 1997. Ground-Water Development and the Effects on Ground – Water Levels and Water Quality in the Town of Atherton, San Mateo County, California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4033. U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. Milly, et al., 2008. Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science, February, 2008: Vol. 319 no. 5863 pp. 573-574. NADP, 2012. National Atmospheric Deposition Program Database. http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ Accessed June 14, 2012. NCCE (North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service), 2008. Nutrient Removal by Crops in North Carolina. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/Soilfacts/ag-439-16W.pdf Newhouse M.W., Hanson R.T., Wentworth C.M., Everett R. R., Williams C.F., Tinsley J.C., Noce T.E., and Carkin B.A., 2004, Geologic, Water-Chemistry, and Hydrologic Data from Multiple-Well Monitoring Sites and Selected Water-Supply Wells in the Santa Clara Valley, California, 1999–2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5250, USGS. Otis, RJ., Boyle, W.C., and Sauer, D.K., 1975. The performance of household wastewater treatment units under field conditions. Proc. National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium., ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 191- 201. Panno, S.V., Kelly, W.R., Martinsek, A.T., and Hackley, K.C., 2006. Estimating Background and Threshold Nitrate Concentrations Using Probability Graphs. GROUND WATER, September–October 2006, 44(5):697–709. Popkin, R.A., and Bendixen, T.W., 1968. Improved Subsurface Disposal. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation Vol. 40(8):1499–1514. RMC Water and Environment, 2011. South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study. http://www.sawpa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Task-2-Source-Loading-TM_20110812-2.pdf Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 95 RMC Water and Environment, 2012. Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. Final Report, March, 2012. Prepared for City of Santa Rosa. SCVURPPP, 2006. Water Quality Monitoring and Watershed Assessment. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/pdfs/0506/monitoring%20factsheet.pdf SCVWD, 1994. Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study – Nitrate Source Area Identification. Santa Clara Valley Water District. SCVWD, 1996, Llagas Subbasin Nitrate Study Final Report. Santa Clara Valley Water District. SCVWD, 2006. Pilot water softener rebate program, final report. Santa Clara Valley Water District. California. Department of Water Resources. SCVWD, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/UWMP2010.aspx SCVWD, 2012 Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx SCVWD, 2013. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2012. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/Clean_Reliable_Water/Where_Does_Your_Water_Come_From/Groundwater/An nual_Groundwater_Report_for_Calendar_Year_2012.aspx SCVWD, 2013a. Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/PAWS2013.aspx SCVWD, 2013b. Preliminary Analysis of Bay Delta Conservation Plan Benefits and Costs to Santa Clara County. Agenda memo to Santa Clara Valley Water Board of Directors, December 9th, 2013. http://cf.valleywater.org/About_Us/Board_of_directors/Board_meetings/_2013_Published_Meetings/PublishedMeetin gs.htm Sidle, R.C. and Kardos, L.T., 1979. Nitrate Leaching in a Sludge-Treated Forest Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. Vol. 43 No. 2, p. 278-282. doi:10.2136/sssaj1979.03615995004300020006x Siegrist R.L., M.D. Witt, and W.C. Boyle. 1976. The Characteristics of Rural Household Wastewater. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 102(3): 533-548. Taylor, J., 2003. Evaluating Groundwater Nitrates from On-Lot Septic Systems, a Guidance Model for Land Planning in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University. WateReuse, 2006 Characterizing and Managing Salinity Loadings in Reclaimed Water Systems. American Water Works Association Research Foundation and WateReuse. http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/91099.pdf Weiss, S., 1999. Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies: Nitrogen Deposition and Management of Nutrient-Poor Grasslands for a Threatened Species. Conservation Biology 13(6):1476–1486. SWRCB, 2010. State Water Resources Control Board, Groundwater Information Sheet: Salinity. Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program. Taylor, J., 2003. Evaluating Groundwater Nitrates from On-Lot Septic Systems, a Guidance Model for Land Planning in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University. Todd Groundwater/Kennedy Jenks, 2010, Groundwater Vulnerability Study Santa Clara, California http://www.valleywater.org/Services/GroundwaterStudies.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 96 Todd Groundwater, 2014. Salt and Nutrient Management Plan: Llagas Subbasin. October, 2014. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Tonnesen, G., Wang, Z, Omary, M., and Chien, C.J., 2007. Assessment of Nitrogen Deposition: Modeling and Habitat Assessment CEC PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC -500-2005- 032. UCD, 2002. Practical Lawn Fertilization. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8065. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/ UC Davis, 2012. Nitrogen Sources and Loading to Groundwater, Technical Report 2, Assessing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water, With a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater: Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature. US EPA, 1993, Ground Water Resource Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, October 1993. EPA 813-R-93-003. US EPA, 2006, Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA Quality System Series documents, QA/G-4. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C., February 2006. EPA/240/B-06/001. Washington Department of Ecology, 2000. Nitrogen Use by Crops and the Fate of Nitrogen in the Soil and Vadose Zone – A Literature Search. Washington State University and Washington Department of Ecology, Interagency Agreement No. C9600177, Publication No. 00-10-015 Wistrom, A., Rohwer, B., Lynch, A., Lynch, S., 2006. Salinity Impacts to Water Recycling in Southern California. Presentation to the WEFTEC 2006 Conference, October 21-25, 2006. Dallas, Texas. Water Environment Foundation. www.WEFTEC.org Zhan, H., and Mackay, W.A., 1998. An Assessment of Nitrate Occurrence and Transport in Washoe Valley, Nevada. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience IV(4):479–489. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 97 SNMP GLOSSARY acre-foot – the amount covering one acre to a depth of one foot, equal to 43,560 cubic feet (325,850 gallons) advanced treatment – treatment techniques such as microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and UV disinfection to produce highly-purified (near distilled quality) recycled water anti-degradation analysis – an analysis to demonstrate that existing high quality water will be maintained, or that any change to existing water quality will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water, and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies aquitard – A layer of low-permeability soil (e.g. a clay) that retards but does not prevent the flow of water to or from an adjacent aquifer assimilative capacity – the capacity for a water body to absorb constituents without exceeding a water quality objectives bio-swale –landscape elements designed to remove silt and pollution from surface runoff water confined aquifer – an aquifer that is overlain by a low permeability, confining layer, often made up of clay. The groundwater below the confining layer is under pressure greater than atmospheric and if penetrated with a well, the water level can rise above the top of the aquifer constituents of emerging concern (emerging contaminants) – a broad range of unregulated chemical components found at trace levels in many of our water supplies, including surface water, drinking water, wastewater, and recycled water conveyance losses – the combined volume of real losses from retailer distribution systems and regional transmission losses denitrification – the microbially facilitated process of nitrate reduction that may ultimately produce molecular nitrogen (N2) through a series of intermediate gaseous nitrogen oxide products disinfection byproducts – chemicals formed when disinfectants used in water treatment plants react with bromide and/or natural organic matter present in the source water. Disinfection byproducts for which regulations have been established fpr drinking water, include trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, bromate, and chlorite drainage losses – the combined quantity of water from sewer line exfiltration, storm drain exfiltration, and septic tank leach field effluent effective porosity – the volume of pore space that will drain in a reasonable period of time under the influence of gravity endocrine disruptors – chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 98 gaining stream – a stream whose flow increases in the downstream direction due to the discharge of groundwater into the streambed groundwater basin/subbasin – an area underlain by permeable materials capable of furnishing a significant supply of groundwater to wells or storing a significant amount of water. A groundwater basin is three-dimensional and includes both the surface extent and all of the subsurface fresh water yielding material groundwater divide – the boundary between two adjacent groundwater basins, which is represented by a high point in the water table groundwater recharge reuse – use of recycled water for groundwater recharge projects. Hetch-Hetchy system – the water system constructed and owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission that serves water from Hetch-Hetchy reservoir in the Sierra Nevada mountains to Milpitas, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University, in addition to San Francisco and numerous other municipalities inelastic land subsidence – permanent subsidence that results when sediments are compressed beyond their previous maximum effective stress, which generally occurs when groundwater levels decline past historic low levels land subsidence – the gradual settling of the land surface owing to compaction of aquifer materials managed aquifer recharge – the practice of artificially increasing the amount of water that enters a groundwater reservoir by diverting water to percolation ponds and timing reservoir releases to optimize in-stream recharge mountain front recharge – subsurface inflows from bedrock in the hills surrounding the Santa Clara Plain, and inflow from uncontrolled reaches of streams permeability – a measure of how well porous soil or bedrock can transmit water or other fluids personal care products – consumer products including fragrances, topical agents such as cosmetics and sunscreens, laundry and cleaning products; and all the “inert” ingredients that are part of these products saline intrusion – movement of saline water into aquifers, most often due to the incursion of saline water in the lower reaches of creeks in the Santa Clara Plain San Felipe Project – the San Felipe Division of the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project, includes the Santa Clara Valley. The project delivers 132,400 acre-feet of water annually for municipal and industrial use to users in Santa Clara and San Benito counties sewer line exfiltration – movement of wastewater outside sewer pipes into soil and groundwater due to defects in sewer pipe materials, construction, or due to damage storage capacity – the amount of groundwater of suitable quality that can be economically withdrawn from storage within economic, institutional, physical, and/or chemical constraints total dissolved solids – represents the total concentration of dissolved substances in water. TDS is made up of inorganic salts, as well as a small amount of organic matter. Common inorganic salts that can be found in water include calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium, Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 99 which are all cations, and carbonates, nitrates, bicarbonates, chlorides and sulfates, which are all anions. Cations are positively charged ions and anions are negatively charged ions unconfined aquifer – an aquifer that is open to receive water from the surface, and whose water table surface is free to fluctuate up and down, depending on the recharge/discharge rate. There are no overlying "confining beds" of low permeability to physically isolate the groundwater system water banking – the practice of forgoing water deliveries during certain periods, and “banking” either the right to use the forgone water in the future, or saving it for someone else to use in exchange for a fee or delivery in kind Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A1-1 APPENDIX 1 – Recycled Water Policy State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy and Amendments Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-1 APPENDIX 2 – Groundwater Management Plan Groundwater Management Plan Basin Management Objectives and Strategies Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-2 Figure 43 – District Board Policy Framework Board Ends Policies (Goals and Objectives) Board direction as to the intended results, organizational products, impacts, benefits, outcomes, recipients, and their relative worth. District Mission The mission of the District is a healthy, safe, and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara County through the comprehensive management of water resources in a practical, cost-effective, and environmentally-sensitive manner. CEO Interpretations Chief Executive Officer direction regarding strategies to achieve the Board Ends Policies and outcome measures to gauge performance in meeting the Ends. District Act The Act grants the District specified authority related to the management of water for all beneficial uses and protection from flooding in Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-3 Figure 44 – Relation Between District Policy and 2012 GWMP A-1.2 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Using the District’s overall water supply management objectives, the following basin management objectives (BMOs) were developed: BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including saltwater intrusion. These BMOs describe the overall goals of the District’s groundwater management program. The rationale and meaning of these objectives, as well as their relationship to District policies, are discussed below. Water Supply Reliability and Minimization of Land Subsidence (BMO 1) BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. The District relies on groundwater for a significant portion of the county’s water supply, particularly in South County where groundwater provides more than 95% of supply for all beneficial uses and 100% of the drinking water supply. Local groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by the District’s comprehensive water supply management activities in order to reliably meet the needs of county residents, businesses, agriculture and the environment. The District relies on the Board Ends Policies Basin Management Objectives Strategies Outcome Measures Basin Management Strategies Outcome Measures District Board Policy 2012 GWMP CEO Interpretations Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-4 conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water to meet the county’s water demands now and in the future. The District’s goal of minimizing land subsidence is combined with the water supply reliability goal since the actions taken to address one also addresses the other. Significant historical land subsidence due to groundwater overdraft was essentially halted by about 1970 through the District’s expanded conjunctive use programs, which allowed groundwater levels to recover substantially. The avoidance of inelastic (or permanent) land subsidence has been a major driver for the District over its history given the extremely high costs associated with reduced carrying capacity of flood control structures, damage to infrastructure, and saltwater intrusion. BMO 1 reflects the District’s integrated approach to water supply reliability and commitment to minimizing land subsidence and is consistent with the following Board policies: Board Water Supply Goal 2.1: Current and future water supply for municipalities, industries, agriculture, and the environment is reliable. Board Water Supply Objective 2.1.1: Aggressively protect groundwater from the threat of contamination and maintain and develop groundwater to optimize reliability and to minimize land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. Groundwater Quality Protection (BMO 2) BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including saltwater intrusion. While surface water goes through significant treatment processes before being served as drinking water, groundwater in this county typically does not require wellhead treatment before being served. Although the District does not serve groundwater directly to consumers, as the local groundwater management agency the District works to help ensure that the groundwater used by the residents and businesses of Santa Clara County is of reliably high quality. In highly urbanized areas such as the Bay Area, there are numerous threats to groundwater quality including urban runoff, industrial chemicals, and underground storage tanks. Residential and agricultural use of pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers can also impact groundwater quality. Although the process of moving through soil layers provides some filtration of water, this natural process is not effective for all contaminants. Groundwater degradation may lead to costly treatment or even make groundwater unusable, resulting in the need for additional supplies. Preventing groundwater contamination is more cost effective than cleaning up polluted groundwater, a process that can take many decades or longer depending on the nature and extent of the contamination. Notable contamination sites in the county requiring significant groundwater cleanup include large solvent releases at the IBM and Fairchild sites in south San Jose in the 1980s, and the Olin perchlorate release in Morgan Hill, which was discovered in the early 2000s. Historically, saltwater intrusion has been observed in the shallow aquifer adjacent to San Francisco Bay during periods of higher groundwater pumping and land subsidence. Significant increases in groundwater pumping or sea level rise due to climate change could potentially lead to renewed saltwater intrusion. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-5 The goal of the District’s groundwater quality protection programs is to ensure that groundwater is a viable water supply for current and future beneficial uses. In addition to the primary deep drinking water aquifers, the District works to protect the quality of all aquifers in the subbasins, including shallow groundwater, as these are potential future sources for drinking water or other beneficial use. Section 5 of the District Act authorizes the District to prevent the pollution and contamination of District surface water and groundwater supplies. BMO 2 is consistent with the District Act and with Board Water Supply Objective 2.1.1. A-2.3 Basin Management Strategies The basin management strategies are the methods that will be used to meet the BMOs. Many of these strategies have overlapping benefits to groundwater resources, acting to improve water supply reliability, minimize subsidence, and protect groundwater quality. The strategies are listed below and are also described in detail in this section. 1. Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize saltwater intrusion and land subsidence. 2. Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. 3. Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. 4. Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. Strategy 1: Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize saltwater intrusion and land subsidence. The District relies on groundwater subbasins to help meet water demands, naturally transmit water over a wide area, and provide critical storage reserves for emergencies such as droughts or other outages. Because groundwater pumping far exceeds what is replenished naturally, the District manages groundwater and surface water in conjunction to ensure the groundwater subbasins remain an important component in meeting current and future water demands. Maintaining the District’s comprehensive managed recharge program using both local and imported waters is critical to sustaining groundwater supplies. This requires maintaining water supply sources and existing recharge facilities as well as developing additional recharge facilities to help support future needs as identified in the District’s Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan. Currently, several of the District reservoirs have restricted storage capacity due to limitations imposed by Division of Safety of Dam (DSOD). Resolving dam safety issues that currently restrict reservoir storage is also an important component of this strategy. Just as important as direct recharge are the availability of SFPUC supplies to the county, the District’s treated water deliveries, water conservation and water recycling programs, which serve as in-lieu recharge by reducing groundwater demands. Together these programs help to Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-6 maintain adequate groundwater storage, keep groundwater levels above subsidence thresholds, and maintain flow gradients toward San Francisco Bay. This, in turn, supports groundwater pumping and minimizes risks related to land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. The District’s managed recharge and in-lieu programs are described in detail in Chapter 4 and specific outcome measures related to groundwater levels and storage are discussed in Chapter 6. Strategy 2: Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. Groundwater in Santa Clara County is generally of very high quality, with few public water systems requiring wellhead treatment prior to delivery to customers. The District evaluates groundwater quality and potential threats so that changes in groundwater quality can be detected and appropriate action can be taken to protect the quality of groundwater resources. This includes assessing regional conditions and trends, evaluating threats to groundwater quality including emerging contaminants, conducting technical studies such as vulnerability assessments, and implementing strategies to protect groundwater from contaminant sources. Groundwater protection programs are described in detail in Chapter 4 and specific outcome measures related to groundwater quality are presented in Chapter 6. Strategy 3: Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. Comprehensive monitoring programs provide critical data to understand groundwater conditions and support operational decisions, including the timing and location of managed recharge. The District has implemented programs to regularly monitor groundwater levels, groundwater quality (including monitoring near recycled water irrigation sites), recharge water quality, surface water flow, and land subsidence. Local water retailers also collect groundwater quality data for compliance with California Department of Public Health regulations and monitor groundwater levels. Data from these programs is essential to evaluating current conditions, preventing groundwater overdraft and subsidence, and measuring the effectiveness of basin management programs and activities. These monitoring programs and related monitoring protocols are described in Chapter 5. The District has also developed models to support operational decisions and long-term planning. These include operational and water supply system models, as well as models specific to groundwater. The District has developed calibrated flow models for the Santa Clara Plain, Coyote Valley, and the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin, which are used to evaluate groundwater storage and levels under various operational and hydrologic conditions. These models are used to support ongoing water supply operational decisions as well as long-term planning efforts. Maintaining calibrated models that can reasonably forecast groundwater conditions is critical to the District’s comprehensive groundwater management strategy. Strategy 4: Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. Since the 1950s, land use in the Santa Clara Plain has changed from largely rural and agricultural to a highly developed urban area. The increased amount of land covered by impervious materials has increased runoff and reduced natural recharge. Although not as urbanized as the Santa Clara Plain, the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin serves the growing cities Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-7 of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and significant development has been considered in the Coyote Valley. This strategy calls for working with land use agencies to maximize natural recharge by protecting groundwater recharge areas and supporting the use of low-impact development. Increased urbanization also increases the risk of contamination particularly in groundwater recharge areas, which are more vulnerable due to the presence of highly permeable sediments. The District coordinates with land use agencies with regard to potentially contaminating land use activities and resource protection. Regulatory agencies also play a critical role in groundwater protection with regard to the establishment of water quality objectives and the cleanup of contaminated sites. The District will continue to work with these agencies and identify opportunities for enhanced cooperation to minimize impacts from existing contamination and prevent additional contamination from occurring. This includes the development of technical studies, participation in policy development, and coordination on proposed development. The relationship between the basin management objectives, strategies, and related programs and activities, is shown below in Figure 17. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-8 Figure 45 – Relation Between Basin Management Objectives, Strategies, and Programs Basin Management Objectives BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including salt water intrusion. Basin Management Strategies 1. Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize salt water intrusion and land subsidence. 2. Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. 3. Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. 4. Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. Programs and Activities (Chapter 4) Programs to maintain water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence Programs to protect groundwater quality Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A3-1 APPENDIX 3 – Groundwater Monitoring Plan SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 1 APPENDIX 4 – Groundwater Quality Management Local Government Groundwater Quality Management Program Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 2 Groundwater Quality Management Programs Salt and nitrate loading projections show that the average basin concentrations of TDS and nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley comply with the RWQCB’s Basin Plan Objectives throughout the 25-year evaluation period. Nitrate concentrations are projected to decrease in both the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Salt concentrations (as TDS) are projected to decrease in Coyote Valley, but will increase in the Santa Clara Plain at a rate of approximately 1.1 mg/L/year, while Basin Plan Objectives are not projected to be exceeded through 2035. Accordingly, Implementation Measures are not required for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP. Good groundwater management practice includes programs that can proactively protect groundwater quality from salt loading in the long term and there are a variety of programs and policies that cause a net reduction in salt loading. This section describes programs that have the added benefit of groundwater quality protection by limiting or reducing salt loading. Developing a quantitative enumeration of the reduction in salt loading attributable to each activity is a major undertaking that is made difficult by the inherent uncertainties of future projections. Accordingly, a qualitative description of these activities is provided. The benefit of the water quality protection programs described below is incorporated into the projections for future assimilative capacity. A-4.1 Existing Programs and Activities that Mitigate Salt and Nutrient Loading Existing programs can be categorized by the medium from which they reduce salt loading, which correlates to Figure 15 (Relationship of Salt and Nutrient Sources to Groundwater). For example, surface water management activities include stormwater management and conjunctive use. Wastewater management includes pretreatment programs and improvements to recycled water quality. Groundwater quality programs can include groundwater quality monitoring and reducing direct loading to groundwater from lawn and garden fertilizers. Water quality protection activities are described in more detail in the following sections. A-4.1.1 Surface Water Programs Programs, policies, and activities that improve the quality of surface water that infiltrates to groundwater are listed below: • Construction stormwater management. • Mitigation of drainage impacts from new developments (low impact development). • Enforcement of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements (e.g., eliminating non-stormwater discharges to storm drains). • Rainwater capture, storage, and infiltration. The majority of the programs that reduce salt and nitrate loading are required by or addressed in the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) issued in October 2009. The cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara County, have joined together to form the Santa Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 3 Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). SCVURPPP’s goals include prohibiting non-stormwater discharges and reducing pollutants in stormwater runoff, as well as administering compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit. The SCVURPPP program has been operating since 1990 and continues to promote awareness of and compliance with the MRP requirements. The centerpiece of the SCVURPPP program is the Watershed Watch Campaign, a multi-year education and outreach effort designed to increase the public’s awareness of urban runoff issues including pollution prevention. SCVURPP also provides on-line resources such as guidance on low impact development (LID), rainwater harvesting, and contractor compliance with stormwater management requirements. All of the cities in the Santa Clara Plain participate in and promote the SCVURPPP programs. Because stormwater recharges groundwater, improvements to stormwater quality can decrease salt and nitrate loading to groundwater. The cities and towns in the Santa Clara Plain have codified requirements for stormwater pollution prevention. Many of these municipal codes require permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures for development and redevelopment projects that will reduce water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the site for the life of the project. For example, the City of Mountain View has published Storm Water Quality Guidelines for Development Projects. Similar requirements are included in the municipal codes and city policies as listed in Table 44, below. The cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and Los Gatos formed the West Valley Clean Water Program to reduce pollutants in storm drain discharges and maximize the effectiveness of pollution prevention efforts by the four West Valley Communities. Table 44 – Example City Requirements for Stormwater Pollution Prevention City Requirement Reference San Jose Minimize and treat stormwater runoff from new/re- development projects per MRP: use LID Council Policy 6-29 Milpitas Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Muni Code Ch 16 Santa Clara Control of unauthorized discharges City Code Ch 13.20 Sunnyvale Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control: LID reqs. Muni Code Ch12.60 Mountain View Stormwater Treatment at New/Redevelopment Projects Muni Code Ch 35.34 Palo Alto Treat storm water runoff using LID techniques Muni Code Ch 16.11 Los Altos Treatment of stormwater runoff with LID measures, including rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapo- transpiration or biotreatment Muni Code Ch 10.16 Cupertino Discharge to storm drains prohibited Storm Water Prevention Plan (SWPPP) http://www.cleancreeks.org/ Cupertino Muni Code 9.18.040, 9.18.090; Los Gatos Muni Code Ch. 12; Saratoga Campbell Los Gatos Individual City Stormwater Requirements may include extensive measures to protect stormwater quality. For example, the City of Mountain View requires the following: • Development projects shall submit a stormwater management plan in accordance with the city's guidelines. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 4 • Property owners must ensure that permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures are inspected twice annually to ensure they are working properly, and written inspection must be submitted to the city annually (an enforceable requirement). • The city has the right of entry to inspect and repair stormwater pollution prevention measures. New development and redevelopment projects that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface are required to implement Low Impact Development site design, source control, and treatment measures to address stormwater runoff pollutants and prevent increases in runoff flows. In addition, projects that add or replace one acre or more of impervious surface are required to include hydromodification control measures. These requirements limit post-project runoff to the estimated pre-project runoff rates and durations. Stormwater treatment and site design measures, such as grassy swales, bioretention, and detention in landscaping all help to detain and infiltrate increased flows. To gauge the effectiveness of stormwater pollution prevention measures, SCVURPPP conducts a range of surface water quality monitoring activities at varying spatial scales. These include studies designed to assess water quality and beneficial uses in local creeks and the San Francisco Bay, and loading studies to evaluate the proportion of pollutants entering the Bay from local tributaries. Studies on local water bodies are typically conducted through the Program's Multi-Year Monitoring Program. Monitoring activities are conducted to evaluate pollutant loading to San Francisco Bay. These studies are conducted through regional partnerships (e.g., the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality).26 The Multi-Year Monitoring Program has collected and analyzed screening level water quality monitoring data from 73 creek sites located within the Santa Clara Plain in the last ten years. Water samples were analyzed for conventional water quality parameters, chemical pollutants (metals and organic contaminants), aquatic toxicity, and pathogen indicators (SCVURPPP, 2006). A-4.1.2 Stormwater Infiltration Devices Low-impact development initiatives often promote design with stormwater infiltration devices to reduce runoff and increase groundwater recharge. Stormwater infiltration devices such as dry wells and infiltration basins help to reduce runoff to creeks that carries pollutants to the bay. However, these devices also have the potential to introduce pollutants to groundwater. Dry wells may be constructed to penetrate saturated aquifers, eliminating the benefit of soil filtration that removes some dissolved constituents. Infiltration basins that are excavated to a depth that penetrates the saturated zone may also introduce salts and nutrients to groundwater. Other stormwater infiltration devices, such as bio-swales, are designed to enhance filtration of stormwater before it percolates to groundwater. While bio-swales may facilitate precipitation or adsorption of metals, oil and grease, these structures can be expected to transmit dissolved salts and nitrate (with some nitrate attenuation). The Federal Clean Water Act requires local municipalities to implement measures to control pollution from their storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. Under the auspices of the Clean Water Act, the San Francisco RWQCB issued an area-wide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES MS4) to the fifteen co-permittees of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) for the discharge 26 http://www.sfei.org/node/1074 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 5 of storm water from urban areas in Santa Clara County. The fifteen SCVURPPP co-permittees are the thirteen municipalities within the Santa Clara Basin watershed area27, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The SCVURPPP Permit requires each of the co-permittees to ensure the reduction of pollutant discharges from development projects through incorporation of treatment and other appropriate source control and site design measures. The SCVURPPP NPDES Permit establishes minimum design criteria and maintenance requirements in certain types of development projects. In order to protect groundwater from pollutants that may be present in urban runoff, treatment control measures such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins must meet the following conditions: a. Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to the extent necessary to protect groundwater quality at sites where infiltration devices are to be used. b. Infiltration devices may not contribute to degradation of groundwater quality. c. Infiltration devices must be adequately maintained to maximize pollutant removal capabilities. d. The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater must be at least 10 feet. e. Unless storm water is first treated by a means other than infiltration, infiltration devices may not be used in areas of: • industrial or light industrial activity; • areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic on main roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting roadway); • automotive repair shops, car washes, fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); • nurseries; • any other land use or activity which may pose a high threat to groundwater quality, as designated by the City. f. Infiltration devices must be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any known water supply wells. The SCVURPPP Permit is available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/R2-2009- 0074_Revised.pdf In 2012, the District partnered with SCVURPPP to develop updated stormwater infiltration device standards for the Regional NPDES stormwater permit. The standards are included in Appendix A of the C.3 Stormwater Handbook.28 27 Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, and the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 6 A-4.1.3 Water Conservation Programs A major source of salt loading identified in Section 3.2.1.7 is landscape irrigation. Due to evaporation, the TDS concentration in irrigated water is effectively concentrated as much as ten-fold and nearly all of the salt in irrigated water ultimately migrates to groundwater . Therefore, conservation of outdoor irrigation water has a direct effect on reducing salt loading. The District Board of Directors established Water Supply Objective (E-2.1.5) to “maximize water use efficiency, water conservation and demand management opportunities.” The District CEO has also established a specific Outcome Measure (OM 2.1.5.a) for this objective, which aims to conserve at least 98,000 AF/yr by the year 2030. Indoor and outdoor water conservation is already a core stratagem for managing water supply reliability however, most water conservation savings have been realized from indoor water conservation measures. As discussed in 3.3.5.4, one consequence of indoor conservation is higher TDS and nitrate in wastewater. When indoor water conservation measures are employed (e.g., shorter showers, low-flush toilets), salt and nitrate added to wastewater through household activities is dissolved into a smaller volume of water, with a corresponding increase in salt and nitrate concentration. As a result, the TDS and nitrate concentrations of tertiary- treated recycled water are increased. Outdoor water conservation includes replacing water intensive lawns and gardens with drought- resistant native plants that require substantially less water, improving efficiency of lawn sprinklers, promoting weather-based irrigation controllers, and other measures. For example, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), comprised of cities whose water is supplied in part by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, hosts workshops on sustainable landscaping, water-use efficiency in the landscape, use of California native and drought tolerant plants, alternatives to lawns, water efficient irrigation practices, and more.29 An added benefit to replacing lawns with native or drought-tolerant plants is to reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental fertilizers, which cause salt and nitrate loading to groundwater. The Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Jose Water Company offer residents free “water- wise house calls” in which an inspector advises homeowners of opportunities to save water, including evaluating the efficiency of sprinkler systems, issuing an individualized irrigation schedule, identifying irrigation leaks, broken or mismatched sprinkler heads, and other common irrigation problems. For example, in 2012, San Jose Water Company completed 1,936 water use audits, including: • 1,045 Single Family residential; • 400 landscape only; • 59 indoor only; • 242 multi-family residential; • 35 commercial; • 155 dedicated irrigation sites. 28 http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_A-Infiltration_Guidelines_2012.pdf 29 The Cities participating in BAWSCA include Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Purissima Hills Water District, and Stanford University. The sustainable landscaping Green Gardner Program is described here: http://www.mywatershedwatch.org/greengardener.html. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 7 The San Jose Water Company and Santa Clara Valley Water District have also created demonstration gardens at their campuses to educate homeowners on landscape design with drought tolerant native plants. The District also operates a Landscape Rebate Program, in which residents and businesses can receive rebates for upgrading irrigation hardware, installing weather-based irrigation controllers, and replacing high-water using landscape with qualifying low-water using plants. The District is currently planning a Landscape Water Use Evaluation Program, which will provide real-time water use reports comparing actual water usage against a recommended water budget to large landscape sites. On-site surveys will be performed as needed. The estimated savings from outdoor water conservation programs operated by the District in 2012 is 1,200 AF/yr. The projected savings from District managed outdoor water conservation for 2030 is 10,300 AF, which would avert future TDS loading of about 4,000 tons salt per year. Gray water (non-toilet wastewater, i.e., from washing machines, dishwashers, showers and baths, kitchen sink water, etc.) is another potential source of irrigation water. The District is promoting gray water use through a rebate program that funds installation of systems that take washing machine effluent directly into drip irrigation systems. The program is limited in scope and is expected to decrease the demand for outdoor irrigation water by 300 AF, depending on the extent of homeowner participation. While gray water displaces retailer water now used for outdoor irrigation, it has higher TDS than the water it is displacing. Household wastewater typically has TDS that is ~200 mg/L higher than the source water (Kaplan, 1991). Of the sources of TDS in wastewater, 42% comes from washing machines using conventional detergents (Siegrist et al., 1976). On this basis, 300 AF/yr of graywater use would add ~34 tons of salt/year. However, best management practices for graywater systems include promoting low-salt detergents. Therefore, at the subbasin scale, TDS loading from graywater use is expected to be negligible for the volumes considered in the District’s graywater system rebate program. A-4.1.4 Groundwater Management Programs Several groundwater management programs and policies decrease salt and nitrate loading or increase recharge with water that is low in salts and nitrates. A wide range of existing programs that focus on other objectives is aligned with loading reduction and increased recharge of high quality water. A-4.1.4.1 Composting Composting greenwaste generated from gardening activities and then adding compost to soil lowers the plant demand for fertilizers. While compost is not itself a fertilizer, soils amended with compost have improved capacity for storing nutrients for gradual release. Compost added to soil also improves soil water retention capacity, thereby reducing demand for irrigation water. Mulch also serves to conserve irrigation water for landscaping. Increasing the use of compost and mulch in gardens is the goal of several outreach programs, which have the joint objective of reducing solid waste generation. Table 45 lists some of the ongoing compost and mulch outreach programs. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 8 Table 45 – Compost and Mulch Programs in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Jurisdiction Program Link SCVURPPP + Solid Waste Programs Eco-Gardeners Program http://www.bayareaecogardens.o rg/ City of Palo Alto Garden Workshops – Composting http://www.cityofpaloalto.org City of Mountain View Composting & Yard Trimmings Program http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us City of Sunnyvale Monthly Home Composting Workshops www.recycling.insunnyvale.com City of Santa Clara Partners with County of Santa Clara Master Composter Program http://www.sccgov.org/sites/iwm/ hc/Pages/How-to-Compost.aspx City of San Jose Composting classes and bin sales http://www.sanjoseca.gov/calend ar.aspx City of Milpitas Partners with County of Santa Clara Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission Programs http://www.sccgov.org/sites/iwm/ hc/pages/classes.aspx City of Campbell Partners with County of Santa Clara City of Cupertino Free compost; Partners with County of Santa Clara City of Saratoga Compost bin sales and partners with County of Santa Clara City of Morgan Hill Partners with County of Santa Clara A-4.1.4.2 Fertilizer Management Agricultural fertilizer use in the Santa Clara Plain is a minor component of overall estimated nitrate loading (78 tons per year or 8.7%), but is the primary component of nitrate loading estimates for Coyote Valley (117 tons per year or 54.8% – see Table 29). Estimated nitrate loading from lawn fertilizer (76 tons per year) makes up 8.4% of nitrate loading in the Santa Clara Plain and 1.4% (3 tons) of nitrate loading in Coyote Valley. Several programs educate homeowners on optimal fertilization rates, timing, and application methods. For example, the Santa Clara County Integrated Pest Management program provides outreach materials for healthy lawn care practices that achieve both fertilizer and irrigation reduction (www.sccgov.org). The Santa Clara County Master Gardeners program conducts similar outreach for “water-wise lawns” (http://www.mastergardeners.org/scc.html). The University of California Cooperative Extension –“Healthy Crops, Safe Water Initiative” promotes reduced agricultural fertilizer use. Some achievements include: • Developed best management practices to minimize nitrate leaching in irrigated crop production. • Developed “nitrate quick test” for managing fertilizer decisions in vegetable production. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 9 • Studying the nitrogen use efficiency of high-nitrogen crops to improve timing of fertilizer application. • Promoting fall-planted non-legume cover crops that can take up in excess of 100 lb N/acre (nitrogen that otherwise could leach to groundwater). In the past, the District operated the Infield Nutrient Assessment Assistance Program (INAAP). The INAAP program provides: • Free testing of agricultural pumps and irrigation systems. • Irrigation scheduling consultation. • Testing and consultation in plant nutrient status and fertilizer management for three years. The program’s objectives were to increase water and nutrient use efficiencies and reduce nitrogen fertilizer loading to groundwater. The program ended in 2008 due to insufficient funding and participation. A-4.1.4.3 Septic Tank Management Effluent from septic tank leach fields adds nitrate and salt to groundwater. About 10% (38 tons) of the estimated nitrate loading in Coyote Valley is from septic tanks, while there are fewer than 100 septic tanks in the Santa Clara Plain. The County of Santa Clara issues septic tank permits. In December, 2013, the County adopted a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Ordinance (OWTSO), which became effective on December 26, 2013. The OWTSO modernizes construction standards and citing requirements for the disposal of wastewater on site, and allows for alternative treatment technologies. The OWTSO requires applicants to conduct a backhoe excavation to verify the soil profile to a depth of 5 feet below ground surface, and a wet weather groundwater investigation where the water table is high. The County’s septic tank ordinance requires groundwater to be at least 5 feet below the leachfield in soils with moderate percolation rates, and 20 feet in highly permeable soils. For alternative OWTS a 2 to 5-foot separation to groundwater is required. The County has published an extensive Onsite Systems Manual,30 which provides updated information regarding design details and guidelines for conventional and alternative systems, and system operating and monitoring requirements. To the extent that new systems may replace older, conventional systems, some reduction in nitrate loading may be realized. For example, recirculating sand filters (e.g., Venhuizen Standard Denitrifying Sand Filter) can provide additional nitrogen removal, as can aerobic treatment units and alternative media filters. However, the OWTSO does not require that older or failing systems be replaced rather, OWTSO requires that they be repaired. Some homeowners may be motivated to install alternative treatment technologies to address challenging soil conditions, extend the life of the leach field, or to achieve other advantages. Nevertheless, it is difficult to predict the effect that the new OWTSO will have on nitrate loading. 30 http://www.sccgov.org/sites/deh/Consumer%20Protection%20Division/Program%20and%20Services/Land%20Use% 20Program/Pages/Onsite-Wastewaster-Treatment-Systems-Ordinance.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 10 A-4.1.4.4 Livestock Manure Management In addition to onsite wastewater management, many rural residences in Coyote Valley and some parts of the Santa Clara Plain must also deal with livestock wastes. The County has recommended best management practices for mud and manure management to owners of horses, goats, sheep and other livestock (http://livestockandland.org/resources/). The website includes guidance on manure composting, manure management, designing horse paddocks to protect water quality, stormwater management, and more, in both English and Spanish. At Stanford University, the equestrian program includes manure composting and stormwater management. A-4.1.4.5 Groundwater Monitoring Programs As described in Appendix 3, the District operates a county wide groundwater monitoring program that includes analysis for nitrate and TDS. Annual reports include summary statistics by subbasin and trend analyses in individual wells. Monitoring does not in itself change loading, but it is a required element of salt and nutrient management in order to determine the condition of the groundwater basin on an ongoing basis. In addition to gaining a basin-wide understanding of groundwater conditions, it is important for individual domestic well owners to understand the quality of their well water. The District currently operates a free basic water quality-testing program for domestic well owners, which includes analysis of nitrate and has produced a detailed picture of the distribution of nitrate in domestic wells. Results from the domestic well testing program are included in the District’s Annual Groundwater Report. In order to understand the long-term impacts of recycled water on groundwater quality, the District has undertaken two programs to monitor groundwater beneath sites irrigated with recycled water (one in Edenvale/south San Jose and the other at two locations in Gilroy). Shallow monitoring wells are sampled at the Edenvale and Gilroy sites, and groundwater and recycled water are analyzed for TDS and nitrate, as well as a wide range of other constituents associated with recycled water, including constituents of emerging concern. Analyzing the concentration trends of TDS, nitrate, and other constituents over time provides insights to the impact of irrigation with tertiary treated recycled water on shallow groundwater at a local scale. At the San Jose site, this monitoring program may also allow observation of the time lag between initiation of irrigation with lower TDS recycled water (tertiary treated recycled water blended with advanced treated recycled water, TDS of 500 mg/L), and any corresponding changes to groundwater TDS concentrations. Understanding the amount of time needed for groundwater quality to change in response to recycled water application can assist with refining salt loading projections. The City of San Jose has also undertaken long term shallow groundwater monitoring at recycled water irrigation sites, using six shallow monitoring wells installed in 1997, and six deep production wells. Recycled water application at the shallow monitoring well sites began in 1999. Statistical analysis of long term concentration trends is updated periodically based on annual sampling in March each year. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 11 A-4.1.4.6 Drinking Water Source Assessment Program and District Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment The 1996 reauthorization of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) included an amendment requiring states to develop a program to assess sources of drinking water and encouraging states to establish drinking water source protection programs. The Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWSAP) includes delineation of the areas around drinking water sources through which contaminants might move and reach drinking water supplies. The DWSAP includes an inventory of “potentially contaminating activities” (PCAs) that might contribute to the release of contaminants within the delineated area. This enables a determination to be made as to whether the drinking water source might be vulnerable to contamination. The DWSAP was administered by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and implemented by each water retailer. DWSAP guidance identifies PCAs that have the potential to contribute salt or nitrate to groundwater, listed in Table 46. Table 46 – Potentially Contaminating Activities Contributing Salt and Nitrate to Groundwater Potentially Contaminating Activity Nitrate Contribution Salt Contribution Agricultural Drainage   Car Washes  Cement/concrete plants  Food processing plants   Metal plating/finishing/ fabricating  Dairies   Lagoons (for animal waste or irrigation tail water) and Agricultural Drainage   Golf Courses, Parks, Schools, Sports Fields, Cemeteries  Housing (lawn maintenance, swimming pools, etc.)   Landfills, Waste Transfer and Recycling, Composting   Mines/gravel pits  Livestock operations   Irrigated crops   Apartments and condominiums   Sewer Lines and Septic Systems   Groundwater contamination from the above PCAs could result from the misuse and improper disposal of liquid and solid wastes; illegal dumping of household, commercial, or industrial wastes; accidental spills; and ongoing leaching from septic leach fields, construction sites, infiltration of roadway and parking lot runoff, and leaching of fertilizers from farms, landscaping, and lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and sports fields. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 12 The DWSAP does not have an ongoing funding mechanism or mandate to update the inventories of PCAs. The intended benefit of the DWSAP program is to increase public awareness of the interconnection of land use activities and groundwater quality, and for planners to consider groundwater vulnerability in their permitting decisions. In 2010, the District published a comprehensive Groundwater Vulnerability Study for Santa Clara County.31 The study analyzed the two key components of groundwater vulnerability: 1) groundwater sensitivity, and 2) risk from potentially contaminating activities. Four factors were found to be the most important in characterizing groundwater sensitivity. These include 1) soil media characteristics in the unsaturated zone, 2) groundwater recharge, 3) depth to top of well screens, and 4) annual groundwater production. The potentially contaminating activities risk analysis found that large portions of the Santa Clara Plain are at high risk due to the high level of development and many associated industrial and commercial contaminant release sites, along with the lingering impacts of past agricultural releases. Although the confined zone in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin affords relatively good protection from surface contamination, the outer western unconfined zone appears to be highly sensitive to contamination due to the significant groundwater production in this area. Relatively lower overall risks from potentially contaminating activities are associated with the Coyote Valley, which is rural and less developed with far fewer industrial/commercial contaminant release sites. Nonetheless, most of Coyote Valley shows a moderate level of risk associated with irrigated agriculture. Although the risk from potentially contaminating activities is lower than in the Santa Clara Plain, the Coyote Valley exhibits high to very high vulnerability, which is driven by high sensitivity due to high recharge rates and permeable soils. Coyote Valley has the most potential for future development and thus the most potential for an increase in groundwater vulnerability in the future. The Groundwater Vulnerability Study produced a detailed vulnerability map of the study area along with a Geographical Information System (GIS) tool, which allows the District to better focus groundwater management programs and assess potential groundwater quality impacts from future changes in land use. The tool features sensitivity (for Shallow and Principal Aquifers), PCA risk, and vulnerability maps (for Shallow and Principal Aquifers). Additional maps are also provided to enhance the usefulness of the tool. Pull-down menus feature tables with explanatory fields. The tool enables District staff to work interactively with the vulnerability study analysis. The objectives of the tool are to enable District staff to: • Evaluate potential impacts of new developments. • Prioritize basin management activities. • Prioritize oversight of known contamination sites. A-4.1.4.7 Water Distribution System Leak Detection Programs Water utilities and water companies are motivated to locate and correct leaks in water distribution system piping to conserve costs and avoid nuisance conditions and possible secondary damage to streets and landscaping. Most water retailers are prepared to respond to major leaks or breaks 24/7 and are able to be on site within 30-minutes of dispatch. Water distribution piping is subjected to significant stresses that cause leaks to occur relatively frequently. Seven of the 13 water retailers serving the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley 31 http://www.valleywater.org/Services/GroundwaterStudies.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 13 reported the number of water main line and service connection breaks or leaks in the 2011 LAFCO report, “Santa Clara Countywide Water Service Review”. These seven retailers have 130,608 connections, and collectively experienced a total of 273 water main line leaks or breaks and 473 service connection leaks or breaks in 2010 (LAFCO, 2011). Leak detection programs are pursued at the initiative of the water retailers to meet their system management and business needs. For example, the City of Sunnyvale conducted a pilot program to install “Smart Meters” allowing real-time monitoring using web-based analysis tools of water use at parks and City Facilties. The meters allow water use to be optimized, and the data collected to be analyzed to identify leaks. The program identified one leak of 224 gallons per hour (Aquacue, 2011). Other approaches commonly used for leak detection include temporary or permanent installation of acoustic data loggers that can detect leaks based on the sound produced by a leaking pipe. To address leaks detected on privately owned service connections, many cities have Water Waste Ordinances. These ordinances prohibit water waste due to unattended open hoses, broken sprinkler heads or irrigation lines, plumbing leaks, and excessive irrigation running off property or spraying on sidewalks or gutters. Upon detecting a leak or violation, the party who owns the leaking pipe or irrigation system is given notice and a timeframe to correct the problem. Water retailers also have capital improvement plans to periodically replace aging infrastructure. While leak detection programs help to locate and eliminate some system leaks, pipeline replacement with new materials installed using superior construction methods go much further to mitigating salt and nitrate loading from system losses. The District operates 140 miles of pipelines for treated and untreated water. The District’s Leak Detection Program includes continuous 24 hour monitoring of meters on all major conveyance facilities, daily flow records, monthly pipeline inspections, and water balances. Meters are calibrated regularly as part of the District’s Preventative Maintenance Program. Average summertime raw water conveyance through District pipelines is approximately 200 million gallons per day. Flows in major facilities are monitored continuously with a SCADA system at the District's Operations Center and at each of the District's water treatment plants. Technicians and operators perform daily inspections and record metered and gaged flows daily to verify system integrity. Each month the right of way in which facilities are buried is inspected by helicopter for signs of leakage. An overall water balance and a treated water balance is conducted monthly to establish distribution and to identify possible meter problems or leakage. The District operates a facility for meter testing where smaller meters up to 24 inches are tested based upon volume or time period following AWWA standards, larger meters are periodically tested using volumetric methods where feasible, and all meters are calibrated to manufacturer's specifications regularly as part of the District's preventative maintenance program. For the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the California Department of Water Resources is considering several amendments to plan reporting requirements. An Independent Technical Panel on Demand Management Measures released a public draft report to the legislature on Urban Water Management Plan Demand Management Measures Reporting and Requirements (DWR, 2013). The report notes that substantial system losses are commonplace, and recommends that for the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan update, water utilities quantify their distribution system water losses a minimum period of one year prior to 2015. For all subsequent UWMP updates, water utilities would report the distribution system water loss for each of the five years preceding the plan update. If these recommendations are adopted, the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 14 method for quantifying the distribution system water loss would be reported in accordance with a standardized worksheet based on the water system balance methodology (water audit software) developed by the American Water Works Association. Several of the water retailers in the Santa Clara Plain using SFPUC Hetch Hetchy water are already carrying out loss reporting by this standard following best management practices promoted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council.32 A-4.1.4.8 Managing Swimming Pool Water Swimming pools must be drained occasionally to allow pool maintenance. Pool water has elevated chlorine, which converts to chloride and can contribute to salt loading. To prevent discharge to creeks, ordinances and public information campaigns guide the public to discharge to sewer cleanouts instead of storm drains. Because most creeks also recharge groundwater, and sewer lines transmit their contents with only minor losses, mandating sewer line discharge of pool water and prohibiting storm drain discharge of pool water will control and reduce salt loading to groundwater. SCVURPPP has prepared educational brochures to be placed in pool supply stores and community centers. Many city ordinances expressly prohibit the discharge of chlorinated pool water to storm drains. These outreach programs and controls are particularly important in view of the trend toward saltwater swimming pools and chlorine free pool systems that rely on copper and silver biocides and algaecides. A-4.1.4.9 Water Softener Technology Improvements Water softeners that require dosing with salt for regeneration contribute substantial amounts of salt to wastewater, which in turn contributes to higher TDS in recycled water. Most water softeners are ion-exchange resin bed systems. Water softener resin beds exchange sodium or potassium on the resin for magnesium and calcium in the treated water, thereby reducing water hardness. The ongoing exchange increases the total sodium in the wastewater from businesses and homes that use water softeners. Water softening resins use sodium chloride brines for regeneration. The quantity and rate of addition of salt to water softening systems can be used to predict the total loading of salt to the sewer system. Reducing salt use by water softeners is a strategy employed to control the salinity of recycled water. Timer-based water softeners are regenerated twice as often as demand-initiated regenerations, and therefore use twice as much salt. Substituting potassium for sodium can also improve the quality of recycled water, increasing its suitability for landscape irrigation however, the TDS contribution from regenerations would not change signficantly. Rebate programs to motivate replacement of timer-based water softener regeneration with demand-initiated regeneration are effective at lowering both salt discharge to the sewer and total water use. In 2003 and 2004, the District conducted a pilot program to issue rebates to residents who upgrade their water softeners to more efficient models. The pilot program issued rebates for 400 water softeners, saving an estimated 1.2 million gallons per year, and reducing salt discharge by approximately 120 tons per year (SCVWD, 2006). A survey of Santa Clara County residential water use in 2004 found that 17% ( 3.6%) of the 410 single-family residences canvassed and 3% ( 2.3%) of the 187 multi-family residences canvassed used water softeners. The survey identified 71% of single-family residences using self-regenerating water softeners and 40% of multi-family residences using self-regenerating water softeners. Extrapolated over the many single-family and multi-family residences overlying 32 http://www.cuwcc.org/resource-center/resource-center.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 15 the Santa Clara Plain, there is a large number of water softeners in use, representing a significant potential for reducing wastewater influent salinity content, as enumerated in Table 48. On average, each water softener dischages about 3 pounds salt per day to the sewer (SCVWD, 2006). The City of San Jose commissioned the South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study to assess salt discharges to the sanitary sewer (RMC, 2011). The study included: • Sample collection (composite samples) and laboratory analysis of key industrial dischargers with high flows and/or suspected high salinity discharges. • Continuous conductivity monitoring of the influent flows at the WPCP for a one month period. • Continuous conductivity and flow monitoring (in the collection system) of representative residential and commercial sites around the tributary area to better understand residential consumptive use, residential water softener use, and the commercial contribution of key commercial categories. Conductivity monitors were installed for a one week period at each site. • Hourly composite sample collection and laboratory analysis of TDS at a key pump station in Alviso, using a 24-hour sample collector. Hourly samples were collected for a four day period at the site. The continuous monitoring of wastewater TDS determined that about 70 mg/L of wastewater TDS is contributed by water softener discharges, as depicted in Figure 46 (RMC, 2011). The data show periodic spikes in wastewater TDS concentration which reflect discharges from timer- based water softener regeneration, The 2011 South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study also estimated the total salt discharges to sewers from self-regenerating water softeners. The estimate used three approaches: • Alternative 1: Water Softener Load Based on Survey of Bags of Salt Used Per Month. • Alternative 2: Water Softener Additions Estimated from Collection System Monitoring. • Alternative 3: Water Softener Worksheet Estimate of 35.3 mg/l TDS added area wide. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 16 Figure 46- Interpretation of Continuous Wastewater TDS Monitoring Data (RMC, 2011) The salt discharge estimates from the three methods were integrated with the District’s 2004 survey of water softener use. In conjunction with housing metrics (i.e., single family and multifamily dwelling units) for the City, an estimated 10% of San Jose households in the tributary area are assumed to have self regenerating water softeners (RMC, 2011). The estimate based on survey data for salt use varies substantially from the estimates based on collection system monitoring data and on the water softener worksheet basis: Table 47 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in SJ-SC WPCP Tributary Area Method for Estimating Water Softener Discharge to Sewer Salt Added in SJ-SC WPCP Tributary Area (as TDS) 1. Water Softener Load Based on Survey of Bags of Salt Used Per Month 22,200 tons/yr 2. Water Softener Additions Estimated from Collection System Monitoring 4,200 tons/yr 3. Water Softener Worksheet Estimate of 35.3 mg/l TDS added area wide 4,400 tons/yr Data from RMC 2011. Estimates were carried across 410,546 homes. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 17 The confidence level in all three estimates is low due to the variability of source water quality and numerous variables that impact water softener regeneration however, methods 2 and 3 are in relatively close agreement. The San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (SJ-SC RWF) tributary area covers about three quarters of the area of the Santa Clara Plain. Applying these assumptions for all the households within incorporated cities (and presumably on sewer) for the enitire Santa Clara Plain, gives the following results: Table 48 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in Tributary Areas for All 3 POTWs Method for Estimating Water Softener Discharge to Sewer Salt Added in SJ-SC WPCP, Sunnyvale WPCP, and Palo Alto RWQCP Tributary Areas 1. Water Softener Additions Estimated from Collection System Monitoring 5,610 tons/yr 2. Water Softener Worksheet Estimate of 35.3 mg/l TDS added area wide 5,880 tons/yr Based on 548,412 households (US Census 2010 – by city) exclusive of homes on sewer in the unincorporated county areas. This estimate may be in error where homes inside city limits are on septic or where homes in the unincorporated area are connected to sewers. New technology for salt free water softening using physical, rather than chemical methods is now commercially available. Electromagnetic and electrically-induced precipitation devices can reduce scale formation by approximately 50 percent. Another approach called template- assisted crystallization reduces scale formation by greater than 90 percent. While none of the municipalities in Santa Clara County have prohibited conventional water softeners, some communities such as Santa Clarita Valley in southern California have already banned the use of ion exchange water softeners to improve wastewater quality for water reuse applications. The development of viable, salt free alternatives is a critical step toward eliminating brine discharges to wastewater. A few of the commercially available salt free water softeners are listed here:33 • Pelican NaturSoft • Next Filtration Technology – nextScaleStop • LifeSource Water System – ScaleSolver • NuvoH20 – Home Salt-Free Water Softener • Aquasana SimplySoft • Eddy Electronic Descaler • AQUA REX • AQUA EWP • BIOSTAT2000 Industries also use water softeners and reverse osmosis systems to condition water for various industrial applications. Reverse osmosis systems can also be a source of salinity in wastewater because 15 to 20% of the water treated is rejected to the sewer, bearing salts at five to seven times the initial TDS of the source water. Similarly, some cooling towers used in factories and 33 No commercial product endorsement is implied. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has not tested these systems and cannot recommend one system over another. Other systems not listed here may be equally effective. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 18 other facilities discharge evapo-concentrated wastewater that may carry as much as seven times the source water salinity content to the sewer. The 2011 South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study estimated industrial salt discharge to sewers using data from the 2007 US Economic Census to determine the number of each of these commercial businesses that are located in the tributary area. Water use data from each type of business was obtained from the 2006 City of Santa Clara Sewer Capacity Analysis to estimate average commercial sewer flows by industry type. TDS values for each of the types of commercial businesses were added from 2011 sewer monitoring data, if available, or from the report, “Characterizing and Managing Salinity Loadings in Reclaimed Water Systems” (WateReuse, 2006). Several city ordinances include provisions limiting the discharge of salt to the sewer. For example, the City of Mountain View’s City Code (§35.33.13.3) requires that the average TDS of discharges to the sewer not exceed 5,000 mg/L, and the maximum TDS not exceed 10,000 mg/L. Industrial pretreatment inspections may test for specific conductance or sample for TDS to check for compliance however, compliance testing is not usually conducted for residential dischargers. A-4.2 Future Measures and Activities to Mitigate and Remove Salts and Nutrients Future developments that are incorporated into long range plans or are under consideration can change the S/N balance in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. Over the 25-year planning horizon for SNMP, it is likely that some plans and forecasts will not materialize, while other developments may occur that have not yet been anticipated. This section examines the potential impacts of planned and foreseeable changes to the S/N balance in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. A-4.2.1 Advanced Treatment of Recycled Water Recycled water produced at the South Bay Water Recycling, Sunnyvale WPCP, and Palo Alto RWQCP has TDS ranging from 725 to 865 mg/L. Construction of the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC) adjacent to the SJ-SC RWF was completed in 2013, and the system began operating in March 2014. Plans are under consideration for additional treatment at both the Sunnyvale WPCP and the Palo Alto RWQCP, which will improve the quality of recycled water by lowering TDS. A-4.2.1.1 Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center The SVAWPC is designed to treat tertiary treated recycled water to produce 8 million gallons per day of low-TDS water.34 Salts are removed using micro-filtration and reverse osmosis, and pathogens are removed using ultraviolet light. The highly purified water produced at SVAWPC will have an average TDS concentration of around 40 milligrams per liter. The addition of this purified water to tertiary-treated recycled water from South Bay Water Recycling will reduce the TDS levels from the current average of 725 mg/L to 500 mg/L for irrigation, and to 50 mg/L or less for indirect potable reuse (augmenting managed aquifer recharge). The reduction in TDS from advanced treatment of recycled water for irrigation and indirect potable reuse is incorporated into the assimilative capacity projections presented in Section 3.3.5.3. 34 The 8 MGD figure is the current capacity as constructed. Future capacity can be achieved by expanding SVAWPC with additional storage and treatment capacity. The SVAWPC facility was designed to accommodate future expansion. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 19 One of the goals of the Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan is to provide advanced treated recycled water for blending with local reservoir water to produce 20,000 AF/yr of indirect potable reuse (IPR) by 2030 (SCVWD, 2012). Using recycled water for IPR will replace the imported water currently used for some recharge ponds. Advanced treated water may be blended with local reservoir water or used directly, depending on the logistical constraints at the recharge facilities slated for future IPR. The quality of advanced treated water used for IPR will depend on several factors including operational capacity, availability of local reservoir water for blending, blending ratios, and the quality of advanced treated water produced at SVAWPC. The quality of IPR water recharged to groundwater can range from 40 mg/L to 500 mg/L TDS. Advanced water purification provides another new opportunity for recycled water use as a raw water source for drinking water treatment. Advanced treated water is free of pathogens and has low dissolved solids. With modifications, constituents of emerging concern such as NDMA, 1,4- dioxane, and perfluorinated, compounds can also be removed. Advanced water purification is capable of producing high-quality water that consistently and reliably meets the California Department of Public Health Title 22 Drinking Water Standards. It is therefore a natural fit to integrate this high-quality, drought proof drinking water source into the District’s drinking water treatment and treated water distribution system. Incorporation of advanced treated recycled water into drinking water treatment is referred to as Direct Potable Reuse (DPR). Planning for DPR adds operational flexibility to decrease reliance on imported water whose availability is subject to change in the event of prolonged drought, levee or pump failure, or seismic disruption. For planning purposes, a 50:50 blend scenario was evaluated. A 50:50 blend of advanced treated water at 50 mg/L TDS and current sources of recharge (volume-weighted average TDS of 286 mg/L) will produce recharge water quality of 168 mg/L TDS. Table 49 presents the forecasted future assimilative capacity under this scenario. Table 49 – Changes to Assimilative Capacity for the 50:50 Blend IPR Scenario Scenario 2035 Santa Clara Plain TDS, mg/L 2035 Assimilative Capacity Rate of TDS increase, mg/L/year Baseline 456.8 43.2 1.23 TDS = 168 mg/L 456.0 44.0 1.20 A-4.2.1.2 Sunnyvale Recycled Water Improvements The Sunnyvale WPCP produces tertiary-treated recycled water with a TDS of approximately 870 mg/L (TDS ranged from 771 to 965 mg/L between 2002 and 2011). Plans for additional treatment would reduce TDS to 760 mg/L in 2023, and increase the volume of recycled water produced for landscape irrigation. The future reduced TDS for recycled water produced at Sunnyvale WPCP is incorporated into the projections shown in Section 3.5.3.3. A-4.2.1.3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Improvements The Palo Alto RWQCP Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan describes a Phase III recycled water expansion project to add 5,500 AF/yr of recycled water irrigation by 2027. Up to 915 AF/yr additional expansion may occur in the current Phase II, which is not yet serving at full capacity. Changes to recycled water treatment are not planned within the 25-year planning horizon for SNMP however, Palo Alto’s Long Range Facilities Master Plan mentions advanced Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 20 treatment of recycled water using ultra-filtration and reverse-osmosis by 2050 (City of Palo Alto, 2012). A-4.2.1.4 Dual Plumbing with Recycled Water New developments present the opportunity to incorporate recycled water into household plumbing so that toilets are flushed using recycled water. Toilets use a minor portion of total indoor water use (10 – 20%), and only a small fraction of recycled water production is projected for indoor purposes (3%). The effect of indoor uses for recycled water is to conserve treated drinking water, which also increases the salinity of wastewater and in turn can increase the TDS concentration of tertiary-treated recycled water. Because the volumes in question are small (~ 1,400 AF/yr in 2035),35 dual plumbing of recycled water was not incorporated into future loading analysis. A-4.2.3 Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements As discussed in Section 3.2.3.4 (Groundwater Infiltration into Sewer Lines), where sewer mains are buried below the water table, groundwater may flow under hydrostatic pressure into the sewers through defective joints, cracks, or other openings. The shallow groundwater condition where sewer lines are submerged is found near the bay, where groundwater is locally saline. Infiltration of saline groundwater into sewer lines contributes a significant amount of salt to wastewater, and recycled water may have elevated TDS as a result. Projects to reduce intrusion of saline groundwater to sewer lines favor better quality recycled water. One such project, funded and managed by the City of Mountain View, upgraded the Mountain View Trunk Line, which carries wastewater to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and is located within an area of highly saline groundwater. The Mountain View Trunk Line was resleeved36 in 2013, reducing TDS in recycled water from 950 to 775 mg/L. This trunk line contributes 31% of the 21.7 MGD total flow to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Plant. Additional capital improvements to wastewater infrastructure in Mountain View and Palo Alto are expected to achieve a reduction in recycled water TDS from the present 775 mg/L to 600 mg/L by 2022. Resleeving sewer mains will also result in a reduction in salt removal of 2,240 tons TDS per year. The reduction in salt loading from Palo Alto recycled water and the reduction in salt removal from saline intrusion into sewer lines are incorporated into the forecasts presented in Section 3.3.5.6. In recent years, the City of Sunnyvale completed a major sewer trunk line rehabilitation project on Borregas Avenue, and the City of San Jose has been following a maintenance-driven schedule of sewer line repairs and replacements. To the extent that these improvements reduce intrusion of saline groundwater to sewer lines, a reduction of recycled water TDS will result. The City of San Jose sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 2,250 miles of sewer mains ranging in diameter from 6 to 90 inches, and includes 16 pump stations. San Jose has identified potential improvements to recycled water quality from rehabilitating sewer mains where intrusion of saline groundwater occurs. The 2011 South Bay Water Recycling Salinity 35 This volume equates to about 1.2 million gallons per day, which is less than 1% of the current wastewater treatment capacity at the SJ-SC WPCP, and a still smaller fraction of 2035 wastewater treatment capacity. 36 Resleeving a pipe involves inserting a smaller diameter intact pipe inside a larger diameter defective pipe or inserting a flexible epoxy liner that is cured to form a rigid and durable pipe. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 21 Study reports monitoring results for a site was selected in Alviso for hourly sampling of wastewater TDS over a 4-day period. The results show TDS ranged from 7,000 to more than 30,000 mg/L, and visible groundwater intrusion was observed in the course of the test. The total annual salt load from intrusion of saline groundwater at this single Alviso manhole, after subtracting source water quality and consumptive use salinity, was 1,250 tons per year (RMC, 2011). The City of San Jose’s 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan identifies 17 major sewer improvement projects, including the Alviso section studied in 2011. The City plans to spend $2 million to upgrade sections of sewer mains in Alviso by mid 2016, which is also expected to eliminate significant salt addition to wastewater from intrusion of saline groundwater. Stanford University also conducts routine video monitoring of campus sewer lines, and has an ongoing Capital Improvement Project to replace aging and deteriorating sewer pipes. A-4.2.4 Managed Recharge Infrastructure Improvements The District currently operates 393 acres of recharge ponds and 91 miles of controlled in-stream recharge. Water used for managed recharge comes from three sources: 1) imported water 2) local reservoirs and 3) stormwater runoff. As described in Sections 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.1.5, the volume-weighted average recharge water concentrations are 191 mg/L and 0.6 mg/L for TDS and nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain, and 238 mg/L and 0.36 mg/L for TDS and nitrate in Coyote Valley. Capital projects are underway to improve three diversion dams for recharge ponds in the Santa Clara Plain. As described in Table 38, the improvements will allow more flexible operations that will increase the number of days per year that flow in streams is partially diverted to fill recharge ponds. Replacing flashboard dams with inflatable dams allows quicker dam removal with less labor, so that the dams can remain in place longer before storm events and releases from upstream dams require dam removal. The estimated increased recharge capacity from these improvements at three diversion dams is 11,800 AF/yr (SCVWD, 2010). The projects will be completed in 2014, 2018, and 2020. However, the addition of recharge capacity does not directly translate into increased volume of groundwater recharge. If the subbasin is in a relatively full condition, recharge operations are typically scaled back. Similarly, recharge operations are typically scaled back when surface water supplies are limited. In addition to new capacity from diversion dam improvement projects, the Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan identifies increased recharge capacity from constructing new recharge ponds in the western Santa Clara Plain. The yield from the new ponds is projected to be about 3,300 AF/yr. The recharge ponds could be located on the west side of the valley, along Saratoga Creek near Highway 85 (SCVWD, 2012). For planning purposes, we assume that on average, 20% of the increased capacity created by the dam diversion improvements, and 50% of new recharge facility capacity is used, i.e., the net additional recharge for determining loading is 4,000 AF/yr. We further assume that all of the additional recharge would be with local sources and not advanced treated recycled water. This increased recharge is incorporated into the projections in Section 3.3.5.2. A-4.2.5 Imported Water Quality Improvements As shown in Figure 47, water imported for treatment and/or distribution to retailers comprised about 182,000 AF in 2013, which is about 48% of the water used by retailers and other beneficial uses (SCVWD, 2013a)37. Even though imported water is of good quality with low 37 Includes water used for banking outside Santa Clara County and Hetch Hetchy water from SFPUC, and excludes imported water used for recharge. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 22 TDS in many years, any improvements to imported water quality will produce a significant reduction of overall loading. Imported water quality is controlled by conditions in the south Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where pumping stations convey runoff from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the State Water Project and Central Valley Water Projects (SWP and CVP). The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) includes alternative water conveyance arrangements that could improve protection of sensitive fish species in the Delta and reliability of water supplies. The new conveyance facility would withdraw water from further north in the Delta, where salinity levels are lower than in the south Delta. Figure 47 – 2013 Water Supply A Includes net district and non-district surface water supplies and estimated rainfall recharge to groundwater basins. B Includes municipal, industrial, agricultural, and environmental uses. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 23 Operation of the proposed new north delta intakes is anticipated to decrease the average annual TDS of SWP and CVP Delta exports by about 22 percent under the BDCP proposed project when compared with the BDCP future “no action” scenario (SCVWD, 2013b). This would reduce the salt loading of deliveries to the District’s three drinking water treatment plants, and to the District’s managed groundwater recharge program. Current drinking water treatment plant processes cause minor increases in the salt content of the source water.38 Any improvement in the salinity of source water translates to a reduction in salt loading from landscape irrigation and managed recharge as well as lower-TDS recycled water at plants without advanced treatment. Reducing the TDS of imported water by 22 percent would reduce the amount of salt loading to the basin through landscape irrigation, managed recharge, and conveyance losses by approximately 9,300 tons per year. Because the outcome of BDCP is not yet known, this reduction in salt loading was not incorporated into the future loading projections. A-4.3 Future Assimilative Capacity Changes from Additional Groundwater Quality Management Programs and Other Changes The majority of the water quality management strategies identified in Sections A-4.2 and A-4.3 are programs and measures that are already being carried out. The benefit of existing programs is incorporated into the projections for future assimilative capacity. Future changes that are not yet incorporated into the projection include the following categories described in Section A-4.2. • As yet unidentified rehabilitation of sewer lines where intrusion of saline groundwater occurs (would improve quality of tertiary-treated recycled water). • As yet unplanned conversion of brine-regenerated water softeners to no-salt alternatives. • Imported water quality improvements. • As yet unidentified changes to recycled water quality and quantity, e.g., Palo Alto adopting advanced treatment before 2050. The effect that these changes may have on future assimilative capacity is difficult to estimate quantitatively due to the lack of detailed information on key parameters. However, a qualitative assessment can be made, with a comparison of which future measures will lead to larger or smaller changes in future assimilative capacity. A qualitative comparison of possible future scenarios is shown in Table 49. 38 Drinking water treatment disinfects imported surface water and removes suspended solids, but is not designed to remove salt. The treatment processes used to disinfect the water and remove natural organic matter add salt to treated water. The 10-year average increase of median TDS in treated water compared to raw water at Penitencia, Santa Teresa, and Rinconada Water Treatment Plants is 7.8%, 4.1%, and 10.3%, respectively. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 24 Table 50 – Comparison of Qualitative Changes to Future Assimilative Capacity from Unquantified Potential Changes to Future TDS Loading Prospective Change Change in Future Loading from Change in Future Assimilative Capacity Sewer Line Rehabilitation to mitigate infiltration of saline groundwater Recycled Water   Decreased recycled water loading = increased assimilative capacity Sewer Line Rehabilitation to mitigate exfiltration Drainage Losses   Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Lower-TDS Recycled Water Irrigation (i.e., <500 mg/L) Salt Loading   Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Water Softener Conversion to No-Salt Alternatives Recycled Water TDS Drainage Losses    Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Improved Quality of Imported Water Outdoor Irrigation Managed Recharge Conveyance Losses Recycled Water      Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Size of arrows indicate relative magnitude of change Not included in Table 49 is any change to rainfall and evapotranspiration that may occur due to climate changes such as prolonged drought or prolonged periods of cooler and wetter conditions. Like many other hydrologic forecasts, future projections for this SNMP make the assumption of stationarity, i.e., that the natural systems controlling natural recharge fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of variability. The stationarity assumption is widely considered to be inadequate for managing water resources, in view of anthropogenic changes in recent decades that influence hydrologic outcomes (Milly, et al., 2008). These anthropogenic changes did not influence earlier records of rainfall or other climate factors, so assuming that early climatic patterns will persist (assuming stationarity) may be ignoring a long-term or near-term shift in rainfall, temperature, evaporation, etc. The alternative is detailed stochastic modeling of hydrologic responses to future climate scenarios predicted by global-scale climate models, which are also limited by inherent uncertainty. It is beyond the scope of this SNMP to engage in “Monte Carlo” style conditional simulations of future salt-loading outcomes in response to prospective future hydrology scenarios. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 1 APPENDIX 5 Groundwater Infiltration to Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 2 Groundwater Infiltration to Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains The magnitude of groundwater infiltration (GWI) to sanitary sewers can be estimated by several different methods. These include: 1. Applying estimates generated by sanitary system operators (SSOs). 2. Applying literature values for infiltration based on the diameter of the pipes within the areas where the water table is above the pipes. 3. Applying literature values for infiltration based on the number of acres or sewered areas within the zone of high groundwater (applies to sanitary sewers only). 4. Contrasting wet season and dry season baseline flows and subtracting estimated total wastewater based on per capita wastewater generation literature values and census data (applies to sanitary sewers only). Estimates of GWI to storm drains were made using method 2. To increase confidence in the GWI estimate for sewers currently used in the District’s flow model, estimation methods 2 and 3 above were carried out for sewers and compared. The results are shown in Table 51. Sewer GWI Estimates Generated by Sanitary System Operators The City of San Jose estimated GWI into the Santa Clara-San Jose (SJSC) sanitary sewer system in 1992. This estimate (5,600 AF/yr) has been used for the District’s groundwater flow model and is about 4.5% of the 10-year median SJSC-WPCP flows in 2001-2010 (CH2M Hill, 1992). The same ratio was applied to the inflow volumes for the Palo Alto and Sunnyvale wastewater plants to arrive at a total estimated GWI into sewers of 7,520 AF/yr. To determine the amount of salt removed by this GWI estimate, we applied the locally interpolated average TDS concentrations for groundwater in the shallow aquifer. The Coyote Valley is not served by a sanitary sewer system, so there is no salt and nitrate removal by this mechanism. The SSO estimate includes GWI within the zone of saline intrusion north of the 100 mg/L chloride contour, which was also excluded from the SNMP loading analysis. The value may therefore over-estimate the salt removal within the domain of the SNMP analysis. Sewer GWI Estimates Using Literature Rates Based on Pipe Diameter Typical sewer laterals are constructed at depths 4 feet for houses on slabs and 8 feet for houses with basements. Sewer mains are typically constructed 8 to 10 feet below ground. Sewer mains are most commonly located beneath streets; hence, street maps are a suitable surrogate for sewers in the Santa Clara Plain. The distribution of sewer line materials, diameters, and ages from available sanitary system data was applied to the street surrogates for sewer lines in all areas subject to GWI. This approach excludes sewer laterals on private property, which are generally assumed to be above the water table. The portion of the sewer system residing in the area where depth to water was 10 feet or less was selected for the infiltration evaluation.39 The following assumptions and approximations are made for estimating GWI in the zone with depth to water less than 10 feet (exclusive of the saline intrusion zone): 39 Depth to water was mapped for the principal aquifer for the Fall of 2002. Spring depth to water is generally shallow so that the area with depth to water less than 10 feet is larger. To capture year-round infiltration and dry years, the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 3 • The rate of GWI used, 100 gpimd,40 represents the majority of the system and corresponds to the 65% of pipes older than 45 years (EPA, 1971). • 1/3 of the area has year-round GWI. • 2/3 of the area has GWI from December through April (150 days, or 41%). • Roads classified as “Class 1” (e.g., freeways) are assumed not to represent locations of sewers. • 95% of sewer pipes are made of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). • The distribution of VCP diameter in all areas follows the general pattern for sanitary systems with available data: 6" 65% 8" 20% 10" 5% 12" 3% • Pipes older than 45 years infiltrate at 10 times the estimated exfiltration rate. • Pipes between 45 years and 25 years old infiltrate at 5 times the estimated exfiltration rate. • Pipes between 25 years and 15 years old infiltrate at the same rate as assumed exfiltration. • Pipes younger than 15 years old have no infiltration. • The ~5% of sewers made of materials other than VCP (e.g., ductile iron pipe, PVC pipe, HDPE pipe, reinforced concrete pipe) may be larger in diameter but are generally less vulnerable to infiltration and are ignored for this analysis. The result of combining these assumptions is shown in Table 51. Sewer Line Infiltration Estimates Based on Area Methods GWI into sewers is sometimes estimated based on acres of development. For example, the City of Santa Clara Sanitary System Management Plan uses design criteria of 1,000 gallons infiltration per acre per day (gpad) for construction north of Highway 101, and 750 gallons per acre per day for construction south of Highway 101 (City of Santa Clara, 2010). Because it is difficult to predict GWI rates based on physical system data alone, estimates of GWI based on actual flow monitoring data are considered more reliable. The City of Santa Clara estimated GWI based on minimum flows during non-rainfall periods and during a wet weather flow monitoring period. Minimum flows typically occur at night or during early morning hours when base wastewater flows are lowest. GWI can also be estimated as the difference between average metered flows during non-rainfall periods and computed average base Fall groundwater depths were used to estimate the portion of the system in which infiltration may occur. The principal aquifer is used as a surrogate for the water table however, that assumption may not be valid where there is a cone of depression or upward vertical gradients outside the artesian zone. 10 gpimd = gallons per inch diameter per mile of sewer per day Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 4 wastewater flow. In either case, the resulting GWI is expressed on a unit basis (gpd/acre or gpad) by dividing by the sewered acreage of the monitored area. Typical GWI rates may range from 100 to over 1,000 gpad (City of Santa Clara, 2010). The assumed GWI for this SNMP is 250 gpad in areas with year-round infiltration, and 100 gpad in areas with infiltration occurring only from December through April. One-third of the area mapped in Fall 2002 as 0 to 10 ft depth to water is presumed to have year-round GWI, while two-thirds is presumed to have GWI from December through April. The result of the area-based estimation method is included in Table 51, below. Table 51 – Comparison of 3 Different Methods to Estimate Groundwater Infiltration to Sewers System Operator Estimate* Literature Rates, Pipe Diameter Method** Santa Clara Area Method Groundwater Infiltration 7,520 AF/yr 2,930 AF/yr 3,500 AF/yr TDS removed 6,550 tons/yr 2,520 tons/yr 3,130 tons/yr Nitrate removed 56 tons/yr 28 tons/yr 16.2 tons/yr * includes areas in zone of saline intrusion that are excluded from SNMP loading analysis. **this method was selected for estimating GWI The difference between the SSO estimate and the pipe diameter and area methods may be due to a combination of:  The inclusion of areas excluded from SNMP analysis in the SSO estimate.  Use of factors that may be too low (e.g., 100 gpidm instead of 150 or higher).  Using Fall depth to groundwater contours instead of Spring. These choices are made to ensure that salt and nitrate removal by GWI is not over-estimated to avoid understating the long-term effects of salt and nitrate loading. The area method may overstate the magnitude of GWI because land uses were not differentiated when selecting the area within the zone of shallow groundwater where sewer lines are submerged. Accordingly, the pipe diameter method was selected for estimating GWI. Storm Drain Infiltration Storm drains in both the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley may remove groundwater where they are submerged year-round or seasonally. To estimate the magnitude of groundwater infiltration into storm drains, an estimate of exfiltration was developed and the ten- fold infiltration estimation factor described in 3.3.1.10 was applied. Sanitary sewer lines made of concrete typically have an exfiltration rate of less than 200 gallons per inch of internal diameter per mile of sewer over 24-hours (ASTM C 969). For this analysis, we assume that the rate is 100 gallons per inch of internal diameter per mile (gpidm) of sewer length over 24 hours. Applying this leakage rate to an average 3,000-ft reach of concrete storm sewer with a diameter of 60-inches, the rate of stormwater loss would be 4,380 gallons per day. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 5 Storm sewers however, are not held to the tight leakage standards required of sanitary sewers so the rate of exfiltration could be greater. For sanitary sewers, we assume that exfiltration is 10% of infiltration. Exfiltration usually occurs when the pipe is carrying less than total capacity and has lower pressure head driving the leakage. When a storm drain is submerged in groundwater, hydrostatic pressure drives groundwater into the pipe from all directions, resulting in a substantially higher flow of water into the storm drain.41 For consistency, we also assume that groundwater infiltration into storm drains is 10-fold the rate of exfiltration. The District has compiled GIS coverages of storm drain locations and lengths, and mapped the depth to groundwater (using Fall, 2002 as explained in 3.3.3.4). To estimate the length of storm drains that are submerged, the following simplifying assumptions are made:  One-third of the storm drains within the mapped 0 to 10 feet depth to groundwater zone are submerged year-round.  Two-thirds of the storm drains within the mapped 0 to 10 feet depth to groundwater zone are submerged seasonally, i.e., between December 1st and April 30th.  The average diameter of all storm drains is 24 inches. There are 371 miles of storm drains within the area mapped as 0 to 10 feet minimum depth to groundwater, exclusive of the “saline intrusion zone” where chloride exceeds 100 mg/L. The storm drains included in the groundwater infiltration estimate are shown in Figure 48. Applying the assumptions listed above, the 100 gpidm ASTM exfiltration factor, and the 10-fold infiltration assumption, the estimated annual groundwater infiltration to storm drains is 4,380 AF/yr. Using the volume-weighted average shallow groundwater concentration spatial distribution42 for TDS, nitrate as nitrogen, and assigning concentrations to storm drain reaches, the annual salt and nitrate removal is estimated to be 3,200 and 46 tons per year, respectively. 41 For example, the East Bay Municipal Utility District reports that during the rainy season, inflow and infiltration can lead to a 10-fold increase in the volume of wastewater that makes its way to EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (EBMUD, 2013). Inflow refers to rainfall runoff entering sewers through manholes, while infiltration refers to movement of groundwater into storm drains that are positioned below the water table. 42 See Section 3.4.2 for derivation of basin-wide volume-weighted average concentrations for the shallow and principal aquifers. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 6 Figure 48 – Storm Drains Located in Zone of Minimum Depth to Groundwater Less than 10 Feet NOTE: Zone of 10-foot depth to water approximated from elevations of groundwater pressure surface from principal aquifer mapped for Fall, 2002 and USGS land surface elevation contours. Storm Drain map may not reflect recent development in this area. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Page A6-1 APPENDIX 6 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Comments and District Responses to Comments May 15, 2015 Dr. Keith Roberson San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, 14th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan – Response to Regional Water Board and State Water Board Comments Dear Dr. Roberson: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) appreciates the Water Board’s participation in the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) stakeholder process for the Santa Clara Subbasin. We received the Regional and State Water Boards’ detailed and helpful comments on the Draft SNMP. This letter provides responses to your comments. The District has updated the SNMP based on comments received from the Water Board and basin stakeholders. The District has posted the updated report to our website, and will send you a hard copy for your reference. The District requests that the Water Board formally concur with the findings of the Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP. Comments on Analysis Approach 1. Please discuss the appropriateness of using the median as the best indicator of groundwater quality. A graph of the ranked median concentration by well from lowest to highest would be a helpful way to summarize the data and quickly see clusters and outliers. Response: There is significant range in the groundwater quality data, which are not normally distributed due to a wide range of values for some parameters and low- and high-concentration outliers. As it represents the 50th percentile, or middle of the sample population, the median is the most robust value to represent the basin-wide groundwater quality, and is superior to the mean. The District reports median values for water quality data in the Annual Groundwater Report, which will also be used for SNMP monitoring reporting. For consistency, the District completed the SNMP analysis using median concentrations; however, basin-wide volume-weighted averages were used to assess assimilative capacity. A chart of ranked median concentration by well to show clusters and outliers would not retain the spatial component of the data, as not all wells monitor the same groundwater features (e.g. shallow vs. principal aquifer, Coyote Valley vs. Santa Clara Plain, recharge zone vs. confined zone, land use variation, etc.). A justification for using the median concentration was added to the SNMP. 2. For the various salt and nutrient loading sources, was there any attempt to model the effects of loading based on where within the basin it occurs? For example, section Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 2 May 15, 2015 3.3.1.8 discusses 6,725 tons of salt loading due to landscape irrigation with 6,640 acre- feet of recycled water. Was it assumed that all the salt load instantaneously mixes throughout the basin? Response: Mixing assumptions and rationale are described in Section 3.4.4.2. To simplify calculations, salts and nutrients are assumed to mix completely throughout the saturated volume of the basin in the same year they are added. Due to this simplifying assumption, the geographic location of loading sources did not need to be modeled. 3. Was salt and nitrate loading from septic systems accounted for? If so how? Is there a spatial component to it? Response: Yes, loading from septic systems was included in the analysis under the loading category of “drainage losses” – see Sections 3.3.1.10, 3.4.5.4., and Figure 3-13a and b. The District added Figure 3-5 to show the general locations of septic tanks in the Santa Clara Subbasin. 4. Section 3.4.2 (page 65) – Is there a particular reason that the volume-weighted average concentrations for the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley were based on data from 2006-2010 when there appears to be ample data available for the period 2002 – 2012 as presented in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5? Response: The District updated the volume-weighted average data in Tables 3-21 and 3-22 with the most recent five years of data available (2008–2012). 5. What is the rationale for combining the shallow and principal aquifer zones of the Santa Clara Plain as one for net TDS and nitrate loading evaluation such as in Figures 3-13 and 3-13b? Figure 3-13 shows approximately a 30 mg/L TDS increase for these zones over 25 years based on the various loading assumptions. That’s about a 7% increase or use of assimilative capacity. Could this be determined for each aquifer zone independently? Response: The Recycled Water Policy calls for comparison of basin assimilative capacity to Basin Plan water quality objectives. Because the Basin Plan does not distinguish between shallow and principal aquifers, a combined assimilative capacity approach was used. The SNMP findings indicate there is available assimilative capacity for both salts and nutrients, even under the conservative assumption of instantaneous, basin-wide mixing. While it is possible to assess available assimilative capacity separately for the shallow and principal aquifers with more time and effort, the results still need to be added to predict total consumption of assimilative capacity, which is the metric upon which the Recycled Water Policy is focused. 6. For the Santa Clara Plain it appears that the largest increase in TDS loading is due to projected recycled water use over the next 25 years. Currently 6,600 acre-feet of Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 3 May 15, 2015 recycled water is applied as landscape irrigation for a TDS loading of 6,700 tons. That’s about 8% of the total TDS loading to the sub-basin. Over the next 25 years, recycled water use could increase to 16,000 acre-feet (Table 3-27) for a TDS loading of nearly 25,000 tons (Figure 3-9a). What percentage of total TDS loading would that constitute in 25 years? Response: In 2035, the percentage of TDS loading contributed by recycled water is about 19% as shown in Table 3-29 (percentage is the ratio of TDS assimilative capacity consumed by recycled water to the total for 2035). However, to gage cumulative consumption of assimilative capacity over the 25 year evaluation period, the yearly TDS loading from all sources is divided by the basin volume and a revised basin TDS concentration is calculated. By 2035, 41% of available basin assimilative capacity is projected to be consumed by TDS loading from all sources, of which 6.2% is due to loading from recycled water irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain (see Table 3-29). 7. Would the greatest loadings still be due to the managed recharge and landscape irrigation using non-recycled water sources? Response: Yes. Bear in mind that the loading charts (e.g., Figures 3-9 through 3-13) show only half the balance, before accounting for the removal terms. Of the 41% assimilative capacity consumed, the portion consumed by recycled water is 15%, while the portion consumed by managed recharge and irrigation with distributed water is 73%. These percentages are derived from the ratios of the total assimilative capacity consumption in Table 3-29. 8. The references for the literature used to estimate the nitrate attenuation factor seem to be pretty old. A better explanation of how the attenuation factors were arrived at would be a good addition. Response: Most of the literature cited was published in the last three decades (and some in the last few years); the information used is still valid and relevant. The nitrate leaching estimate of 35% used in the SNMP is in reasonable agreement with a median value for leaching of applied nitrogen used in the 2012 UC Davis study on nitrogen sources and loading prepared for the State Water Board (30.2 percent). 9. Some justification should be provided for using TDS as the sole indicator of salinity. Response: As described in Section 2.5.1: “TDS is a comprehensive measure of all salts in groundwater, and is therefore used as the indicator parameter for salts in this SNMP. Tracking individual salts such as sodium, magnesium, or calcium is less informative for salt management because these solutes are subject to cation exchange with clays and other minerals, which may decrease concentrations of one solute while increasing another. The relative proportions of calcium, sodium or magnesium may change from geochemical reactions, but the TDS stays relatively constant and is therefore a more robust measure of salts in groundwater. Limitations to TDS measurement accuracy can make comparison of TDS analyzed by different methods difficult. However, the Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 4 May 15, 2015 consistent application of a single method employed for analysis of District samples makes TDS the best overall indicator of salt in groundwater for this SNMP.” 10. The Santa Clara Plain model was not calibrated to include a module for gaining reaches of streams. Some explanation or correction factor could be considered. Response: Gaining reaches of streams are expected to occur in tidal reaches, which makes it difficult to gage streams with sufficient accuracy to discern volumes of groundwater discharge. Resolution of the water balance for the District’s Santa Clara Plain flow model is made by adjusting other lumped terms from which gaining reaches of streams cannot be separated. Because the discharge of groundwater and associated salts and nutrients to streams is not included in the SNMP analysis, the estimates for net loading are conservative in terms of basin protection. In spite of loading estimates being biased high, projections show that the Santa Clara Subbasin does not accumulate enough salt in 25 years to exceed Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives. 11. As far as assimilative capacity and baseline, these should be estimated with vertical boundaries (shallow and principal aquifers) because the loading happens in one or the other aquifer (usually the shallow) and groundwater does not mix the way they are assuming. The statement that simplifying assumptions have the effect of overstating the rate of salt accumulation is only partially true, because the rate of salt accumulation in the shallow aquifer is being underestimated. However, because the major sources of anticipated loading are irrigation and managed recharge, this may not be as critical because these sources lend themselves to potential controls. Response: This SNMP was prepared using the groundwater basin boundaries described in the Basin Plan, which does not distinguish between the shallow and principal aquifers when considering beneficial uses. The best opportunity to curtail salt and nitrate loading in the subbasin is from conservation of water used for outdoor irrigation. Due to the extreme drought, the District has offered residents of Santa Clara County rebates for outdoor water conservation measures. Since 2013, these rebate programs have converted more than 1,380,000 square feet of residential lawns to drought-resistant landscaping and paid for smart irrigation controls, permanently reducing loading from irrigation. If implemented, measures in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan may also reduce the salinity of imported water, thereby decreasing loading from landscape irrigation using non-recycled water, and from managed recharge. 12. Regarding potential controls, the document should include some implementation plan to lower salt loading in the Santa Clara Plain because the use of assimilative capacity in this basin is predicted to increase. This will be the main gist of the SNMP and will figure prominently in the decision to adopt a Basin Plan Amendment. Response: The District has provided an inventory of ongoing programs and projects that limit or reduce salt and nutrient loading (Appendix 4). However, the conclusion of the SNMP analysis, which relied on conservative assumptions, is that Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives will not be exceeded within the 25 year planning horizon. Per the Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 5 May 15, 2015 Recycled Water Policy, a formal implementation plan is therefore not required (see Section 6.b.(2)). The Recycled Water Policy allows consumption of some assimilative capacity to enhance water supply reliability by supporting recycled water projects, particularly those that incorporate advanced treatment. Comments on Document Clarity (Text, Tables, Figures) 13. The resolution of Figure 2-2 is poor and could be improved to show the demarcation between the shallow and principal aquifers. According to footnote 1 the boundary is at the 150 foot depth. Response: This Figure has been replaced with a better quality graphic. Additional lines and explanatory text were added to indicate that the approximate location of the 150 foot boundary between shallow and principal aquifer, and to advise that this demarcation is conceptual and not a clear geologic boundary that is consistently present in boring logs at all locations. 14. On page 20 (section 2.1.1) there is mention of the Evergreen area and the zone of saline intrusion. No figures are referenced but Figure 3-3 does show the zone of saline intrusion. Please consider referencing Figure 3-3 here and also showing the zone of saline intrusion on Figures 2-13 and 2-14. Also, is the Evergreen area shown on any figure? Is the source of elevated TDS and/or nitrate in that area discussed somewhere? Response: The District adjusted Figure 3-3 to show the location of the Evergreen area and to indicate the zone of saline intrusion. The source of elevated TDS is described in Section 3.4.1. 15. Figure 3-3 shows 4 wells in the zone of saline intrusion. Are there additional monitoring wells in this area? Response: There are 15 monitoring wells shown on Figure 4-1 that are used to measure changes in groundwater salinity near the bay. Four of these wells have consistently measured > 100 mg/L chloride. 16. Division of the Santa Clara Plain into shallow and principal aquifers is only mentioned as a footnote to table 2-2. Better discussion of this division is warranted, especially because Figure 2-2 does not seem to support it. Similarly, the decision not to separate Coyote Valley into shallow and principal aquifers should be addressed. (e.g. no major aquitard etc.) Response: Figure 2-2 was revised to make the shallow/principal designation more clear, and language was added language to Section 2.1.1 to explain this designation. For the Coyote Valley, text was edited to explain why it is treated as a single, unconfined aquifer. Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 6 May 15, 2015 17. On page 23, I believe the figure being referenced should be 2-5. If so, I don’t really see the correlation between the statement that high production wells are in the southern portion of Coyote Valley in that figure. Maybe it’s a drafting issue? Response: Yes, it was a drafting issue. Pumping in the Llagas Subbasin was shown, which obscured production wells at the southern end of Coyote Valley. Figure 2-5 was revised to show only Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley pumping. 18. There is a lack of information regarding the modeling software used. What is the “District groundwater flow model” (p.27)? What are the SCPMOD and CVMOD models? (p.38). Are they MODFLOW with associated interfaces? Response: A footnote was added to Section 2.1.5 with a brief explanation of the District’s MODFLOW models. 19. Both the TDS and Nitrate sections of Table 2-8 are identical. This would be quite a coincidence and may be a cut and paste error. Response: This was a cut and paste error; the table has been corrected. 20. The text in the Nitrate Trends section on page 31 does not match the associated table and does not appear to match Figures 2-13 and 2-14. Response: The incorrect language was for the entire county, including the Llagas Subbasin. The wording and counts in the nitrate trends section have been updated, and the text was re-written so that the sections are now parallel. Note that in the PDF copy on the District website, the page number referenced is now 33. 21. There are a number of tables listing values that do not align with the corresponding values shown in Table 3-20. Response: The disparity between values in individual loading category tables and the summary table were primarily the result of rounding. Each table was checked and updated to confirm agreement with the underlying calculations and the summary table, which is numbered 3-19 in the PDF version on the District’s website. 22. Is basin inflow loading included with managed recharge? The numbers seem to indicate this but I’m not sure it’s advisable. Response: Basin inflow was inadvertently omitted from Table 3-20 (now Table 3-19 in the online PDF version). It has been added in and the percentages in Table 3-19 have been adjusted. The District appreciates the Water Boards’ participation in the development of the Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP as well as the detailed review of the Draft SNMP. If these responses require Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 7 May 15, 2015 any further resolution, please contact me at (408) 630-2051 or Vanessa De La Piedra at (408) 630-2788. Sincerely, Thomas Mohr, P.G., H.G. Senior Hydrogeologist cc: Alec Naugle, San Francisco Bay Water Board Diane Barclay, State Water Board V. De La Piedra, G. Hall September 1, 2015 Sent via electronic mail: No hardcopy to follow Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686 Attn: Mr. Thomas Mohr Email: tmohr@valleywater.org Subject: Comments on the Revised Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Santa Clara Subbasin, dated November 2014 Dear Mr. Mohr: The revised SNMP provides a solid foundation for guiding decision making, and we appreciate the District’s efforts to address our comments on the initial July 2014 draft. In order for the Water Board to endorse the SNMP, we require additional information about the location and distribution of existing salt and nutrient concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. While we recognize that our Basin Plan does not explicitly distinguish between the shallow and deep aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain, SNMPs must provide us with a better understanding of any localized areas (shallow and deep) where elevated salt and nutrient concentrations exist. This information is critical for the Water Board to effectively evaluate the need for source control measures in the context of waste discharge permitting related to salt and nutrient source discharges (e.g., OWTS and recycled water use). Just as we must understand the location of solvent and petroleum contaminants within shallow and deep aquifers, we must also understand the specific locations of salt and nutrient problems. Attached are additional suggestions for improving the SNMP and our remaining outstanding questions. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (dwhyte@waterboards.ca.gov, 510-622- 2441) or Keith Roberson (kroberson@waterboards.ca.gov 510-622-2404). Sincerely, Dyan Whyte Assistant Executive Officer Page 2 SF Bay Regional Water Board staff questions and comments on the Revised Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Santa Clara Subbasin, dated November 2014 1. Executive Summary a. Consider including a brief summary of the District’s role (or lack thereof) with managing fertilizer use and septic system regulation. 2. Introduction a. Section 1.1 – Consider including a brief summary of the current and projected recycled water use here. It’s not until section 3.3.1.8 where the first quantification recycled water use is mentioned (6,6,40 AF), and that is the current use only. Table 3-23 indicates projected recycled water use by 2035 will be 26,500 AF. b. Section 1.2 - Consider including a brief summary of the District’s plans for recharge/use of stormwater as per the State Board’s Recycled Water Policy. 3. Chapter 2: Groundwater Subbasin Characterization a. The locations and spatial distribution of wells with elevated TDS and nitrate in the shallow and deep aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley should be provided on figures (see comment s d and e below for further detail). b. While Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show the locations of wells with increasing TDS and nitrate trends, concentrations do not need to be increasing to pose a problem if they already exceed WQOs. The locations of wells where TDS and nitrate concentrations are currently elevated above WQOs should be provided (see comment s d and e below for further detail). c. Section 2.5.2 - The “Basin Plan agricultural objective” for nitrate + nitrite of 5 mg/L is not a water quality objective (WQO). Rather it is a threshold, and the objective is the “limit” value of 30 mg/L (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan). While this objective might be more appropriate to use as a basis for comparison, it would still be valuable for Water Board staff to know the locations of wells exceeding the agricultural guidelines (see comment s d and e below for further detail). d. Section 2.5.1 - Total Dissolved Solids – While we recognize that figures 3-7 and 3-8 do show the monitoring well locations used to estimate basin-wide average TDS and nitrate concentrations, respectively, for the Santa Clara Plain (shallow and deep) and the Coyote Valley, there are no figures that show the location-specific TDS or nitrate concentrations. Providing such figures would be very helpful to our evaluation of the SNMP and understanding the nature of localized areas of elevated TDS and nitrate that could affect our future source control/permitting efforts. Please consider providing figures that include: • All shallow aquifer wells in the SCP that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L (as summarized in Table 2-2); include the zone of saline intrusion above 500 mg/L. • All 32 wells in the SCP principal (i.e., deep) aquifer that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L ; the four (or is it five?) that are within the zone of saline Page 3 intrusion; the 27 that are outside it; and the distribution by shallow and deep (i.e., principal) aquifer. • The two wells that exceed the TDS SMCL in the Coyote Valley. • The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending TDS or TDS > SMCL that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. e. Section 2.5.2 – Nitrate – Same as 3d above, except regarding nitrate concentrations. Please consider providing figures that include: • All shallow and deep aquifer wells in the SCP and CV that exceed the Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives Threshold and Limit values for Agricultural Supply of 5 mg/L and 30 mg/L, respectively, for nitrate + nitrite (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan), and the MCL of 45 mg/L, as summarized in section 2.5.2 and tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5. • The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending nitrate, or nitrate > Ag or MCL objectives that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. 4. Chapter 3: Salt and Nutrient Loading a. Section 3.4.1 – Ambient Groundwater Quality – This section describes two areas with naturally-occurring elevated TDS (i.e., Evergreen and Palo Alto). Are there similar localized elevated TDS areas of non-natural origin? b. Table 3-23 and figure 3-11a suggest that as recycled water use for landscape irrigation increases from about 7,000 AF today to 25,000 AF, so does the loading, in tons. That’s about a 1-1 correlation (1 ton of salt loading per every 1,000 acre-feet of recycled water use). Is that meant to be a static assumption? Does it account for the addition of advanced-treated water with lower TDS? Also, what is the projected breakdown of tertiary vs. advanced-treated recycled water use for landscape irrigation over the 25 year planning period? c. Table 3-22 (and ES-2) clearly shows that the shallow aquifer in the Santa Clara Plain has no assimilative capacity (negative 28 mg/L TDS). Section 3.4.1 indicates that the zones of naturally-occurring elevated TDS (Evergreen and Palo Alto) were included in the estimate. Was the area of saline intrusion also included? Our concern is that for purposes of projecting assimilative capacity use over the next 25 years, the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP are averaged together. This yields an apparent positive assimilative capacity of 75 mg/L TDS. We are interested to know what the shallow zone would look like if it did not include certain portions of the zone of saline intrusion and/or the naturally-occurring areas of elevated TDS. 5. Chapter 4: Salt and Nutrient Monitoring Plan a. This chapter concludes that the District’s existing groundwater monitoring program adequately accomplishes the monitoring necessary to assess salt and nutrient loading in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley basins. However, as noted in Chapter 2, there are localized areas where TDS and nitrate already exceed WQOs. Is the groundwater monitoring capability in these particular areas adequate to Page 4 provide the information necessary to assess threats to water quality and human health? Are there any places where additional wells would be beneficial? 6. Appendix 3: Groundwater Monitoring Plan a. Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 indicate that the index well coverage for the SCP and CV is incomplete – the SCP shallow zone has 11 of 18 wells needed (61% coverage); the SCP deep zone has 20 of 35 wells needed (57% coverage); the CV has 8 of 11 wells needed (73% coverage). The specific well locations are shown in figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 of Appendix 3. What is the plan and schedule to reach 100% monitoring coverage in these basins? b. Section 3.7.2 – South Bay Water Recycling Program – This section indicates that the SBWRP monitors six deep supply wells and six shallow monitoring wells in the vicinity of San Jose’s recycled water use locations. Were the data from these monitoring wells included in the baseline groundwater quality evaluation for the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP? The data from these wells should also be included with figures requested under 3d and 3e above. Any other wells specifically monitored in association with recycled water projects should be included c. Section 4.2 – Salt Water Intrusion Monitoring Network – The District’s 22 shallow aquifer monitoring wells for salt water intrusion should be included in figures requested under 3d above. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 1 November 18, 2015 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT RESPONSES TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD’S SEPTEMBER 1, 2015, COMMENTS Water Board Comment 1: Executive Summary - Consider including a brief summary of the District’s role (or lack thereof) with managing fertilizer use and septic system regulation. SCVWD Response: Since the 1990s, the District has implemented numerous programs and activities to address elevated nitrate. The District's nitrate management strategy is to implement programs and work with stakeholders, regulatory and land use agencies to: 1) define the extent and severity of nitrate contamination, 2) identify potential sources, 3) reduce nitrate loading to groundwater, and 4) reduce customer exposure to elevated nitrate. Recently, the District was the recipient of the Groundwater Resources Association of California’s esteemed Kevin J. Neese award for its free nitrate testing program for domestic wells. District efforts to address elevated nitrate include: x Conducting ongoing monitoring and analysis of nitrate trends and hot spots, x Recharging low-nitrate surface water through district recharge facilities to help dilute nitrate in groundwater, x Initial pilot testing of approximately 600 South County domestic wells for nitrate in 1998, x Providing in-field nutrient assistance for growers between 2002 and 2007, x Conducting outreach through workshops and targeted materials including nitrate fact sheets and nutrient management guidelines for growers, x Leading efforts to develop Salt and Nutrient Management Plans in collaboration with basin stakeholders (including the agricultural community) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, x Working with the Resource Conservation Districts to provide irrigation efficiency and nutrient management resources to Santa Clara County growers, x Working to influence state and/or local legislation and policies related to nitrate, including participation in efforts such as the Wastewater Advisory Group related to the Santa Clara County Onsite Wastewater Treatment System ordinance update, x Offering basic water quality testing to eligible domestic well owners, with over 1,150 individual wells tested since 2011 http://www.valleywater.org/Services/FreeTestingProgram.aspx, x Offering rebates for nitrate treatment systems for well users exposed to elevated nitrate beginning in fall 2013 as part of the Safe, Clean, Water and Natural Flood Protection Program approved by county voters http://www.valleywater.org/NitrateRebate/, x Maintaining a Nitrate in Groundwater Web Page and comprehensive Private Well Owner’s Guide. District staff will continue to work in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, agricultural community, and other basin stakeholders to address elevated nitrate in South County groundwater and wells. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 2 November 18, 2015 Water Board Comment 2a: Introduction Section 1.1 – Consider including a brief summary of the current and projected recycled water use here. It’s not until section 3.3.1.8 where the first quantification recycled water use is mentioned (6,640 AF), and that is the current use only. Table 3-23 indicates projected recycled water use by 2035 will be 26,500 AF. SCVWD Response: An updated summary is provided below: Current and Projected Recycled Water Use (updated October 2015) The three wastewater treatment plants operating in the Santa Clara Plain currently produce tertiary treated recycled water for landscape irrigation and industrial uses. Advanced treated recycled water (“purified water”) is also produced at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. Purified water is currently blended with tertiary treated recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling system, which results in substantially lower TDS and nitrate concentrations for recycled water users. In response to the District Board of Directors policy to “protect, maintain, and develop recycled water” the District’s Chief Executive Officer has identified a goal of that at least 10% of the County’s water demands be met with recycled water by 2025. In response to the continuing drought, the District is expediting potable reuse projects, including groundwater recharge projects using purified water in existing and new percolation ponds and injection wells. The preliminary target is to produce 45,000 acre-feet of purified water by 2020; however, the quantity and schedule are subject to change pending outcome of ongoing planning studies. The District is currently producing up to 8 million gallons per day of purified water, which has a salt content averaging 50 mg/L (as total dissolved solids). A summary of the projected recycled water production for each facility located in the Santa Clara Plain is listed in Table A6-1 below. Table A6-1 Current and Projected Recycled Water Production and Quality System Current Production and Quality Future Production and Quality South Bay Water Recycling (San Jose/Santa Clara) 10,200 AFY 500 mg/L TDS 25,000 AFY tertiary + adv. 500 mg/L TDS Sunnyvale 1,700 AFY tertiary 760 to 1,100 mg/L TDS 3,100 AFY advanced 760 mg/L TDS Palo Alto 1,500 AFY tertiary 770 mg/L TDS 7,000 AFY tertiary 600 mg/L TDS Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center 9,000 AFY 50 mg/L TDS currently blended with SBWR tertiary for irrigation and industrial uses 45,000 AFY 50 mg/L TDS to be used for indirect potable reuse or possible future direct potable reuse Recycled Water Production Figures Updated October 2015; average values rounded to nearest 100 AFY. Note that all future projections are subject to change. The projected increase of 15,000 AFY for the South Bay Water Recycling System is included in the 45,000 AFY projected for the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 3 November 18, 2015 Water Board Comment 2b: Introduction Section 1.2 - Consider including a brief summary of the District’s plans for recharge/use of stormwater as per the State Board’s Recycled Water Policy. SCVWD Response: The District’s plans for recharge and use of stormwater are stated in Section 1.5.4 Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water and Stormwater. The District actively recharges stormwater, which is incorporated into managed aquifer recharge operations throughout the County. As a member of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, the District works with other co-permittees to maximize stormwater infiltration while protecting groundwater quality. Section A-4.1.2 in the SNMP provides a detailed description of this effort. Water Board Comments 3a and 3b: Chapter 2 - Groundwater Subbasin Characterization a. The locations and spatial distribution of wells with elevated TDS and nitrate in the shallow and deep aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley should be provided on figures (see comments d and e below for further detail). b. While Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show the locations of wells with increasing TDS and nitrate trends, concentrations do not need to be increasing to pose a problem if they already exceed WQOs. The locations of wells where TDS and nitrate concentrations are currently elevated above WQOs should be provided (see comments d and e below for further detail). SCVWD Response: Figures A6-1, A6-2, and A6-3 have been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of wells in which Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives are exceeded. Water Board Comment 3c: Section 2.5.2 - The “Basin Plan agricultural objective” for nitrate + nitrite of 5 mg/L is not a water quality objective (WQO). Rather it is a threshold, and the objective is the “limit” value of 30 mg/L (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan). While this objective might be more appropriate to use as a basis for comparison, it would still be valuable for Water Board staff to know the locations of wells exceeding the agricultural guidelines (see comments d and e below for further detail). SCVWD Response: Thank you for the clarification. Because the distinction between “threshold” and “limit” in Table 3-6 of the Basin Plan was not clear, the SNMP compared local groundwater quality against the more conservative “threshold” values. Figures A6-4 and A6-5 show locations where the threshold for water quality in agricultural supply (Table 3-6 of the Basin Plan) was exceeded. The Basin Plan 30 mg/L limit was not exceeded in any shallow or principal zone wells. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 4 November 18, 2015 Given the Water Board’s clarification, the last paragraph of Section 2.5.2 is updated to read: The Basin Plan Agricultural Objective of 30 mg/L for nitrate + nitrite (as N) was not exceeded in any shallow or principal zone wells in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. For the more conservative “threshold” of 5 mg/L, thirty seven of 210 wells (18%) in the principal aquifer zone of the Santa Clara Plain exceeded the threshold, as did 22 wells (56%) in the Coyote Valley. Water Board Comment 3d: Section 2.5.1 - Total Dissolved Solids While we recognize that figures 3-7 and 3-8 do show the monitoring well locations used to estimate basin-wide average TDS and nitrate concentrations, respectively, for the Santa Clara Plain (shallow and deep) and the Coyote Valley, there are no figures that show the location- specific TDS or nitrate concentrations. Providing such figures would be very helpful to our evaluation of the SNMP and understanding the nature of localized areas of elevated TDS and nitrate that could affect our future source control/permitting efforts. Please consider providing figures that include: x All shallow aquifer wells in the SCP that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L (as summarized in Table 2-2); include the zone of saline intrusion above 500 mg/L. x All 32 wells in the SCP principal (i.e., deep) aquifer that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L; the four (or is it five?) that are within the zone of saline intrusion; the 27 that are outside it; and the distribution by shallow and deep (i.e., principal) aquifer. x The two wells that exceed the TDS SMCL in the Coyote Valley. x The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending TDS or TDS > SMCL that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. SCVWD Response: Figures A6-1 and A6-2 have been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of wells in which Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives are exceeded. These figures include TDS SMCL exceedances in the zone of saline intrusion. Figure A6-6 is added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the location of monitoring wells intended to monitor the effects of recycled water irrigation. A separate City of San Jose monitoring program for recycled water irrigation has been conducted to evaluate trends in shallow groundwater during more than a decade of recycled water irrigation. The District incorporates the City’s findings in the Annual Groundwater Report. For example, the general water quality findings related to groundwater monitoring at Santa Clara Plain recycled water irrigation sites per the District’s 2013 Annual Groundwater Report are listed in Table A6-2, below: SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 5 November 18, 2015 Table A6-2 Summary of General Water Quality Findings for Santa Clara Plain Recycled Water Irrigation Monitoring Wells Recycled Water Irrigation Groundwater Monitoring Site General Water Quality Observations IDT x Basic chemical composition is stable compared to previous events. x Increasing trends continue to be observed at three of the four wells for salts (bromide, chloride, calcium, sodium, TDS) and dissolved oxygen. SBWR x The basic chemical composition for various wells indicates a shift towards more saline water, primarily due to increasing chloride at the Curtner, Kelley Park, Columbus Park, Watson Park, and Evergreen Park wells. x Increasing trends continue to be observed for salts (including chloride, boron, sodium, and sulfate) at the majority of SBWR monitoring wells. The City of San Jose commissioned a report on the SBWR recycled water irrigation groundwater monitoring network in 2009. A plot of TDS trends from the City’s 2009 analysis is included as Figure A6-7. Figure A6-8 had been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of recycled water irrigation monitoring wells within the Santa Clara Plain with upward trending TDS. There is no recycled water irrigation in the Coyote Valley and, as such, no related monitoring wells. Water Board Comment 3e: Section 2.5.2 – Nitrate Same as 3d above, except regarding nitrate concentrations. Please consider providing figures that include: • All shallow and deep aquifer wells in the SCP and CV that exceed the Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives Threshold and Limit values for Agricultural Supply of 5 mg/L and 30 mg/L, respectively, for nitrate + nitrite (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan), and the MCL of 45 mg/L, as summarized in section 2.5.2 and tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5. • The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending nitrate, or nitrate > Ag or MCL objectives that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. SCVWD Response: Figure A6-3 shows the locations of wells in which the MCL for nitrate is exceeded. Figures A6-4 and A6-5 show locations of wells in which the Ag Water Quality Threshold is exceeded. None of the monitored wells in the Santa Clara Subbasin exceed the Ag Water Quality Objective from Table 3-6 of the Basin Plan (30 mg/L nitrate + nitrite as N). The District’s Annual Groundwater Reports summarize significant trends for monitored parameters at recycled water irrigation sites. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 6 November 18, 2015 Figure A6-9 has been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of recycled water irrigation monitoring wells within the Santa Clara Plain with upward trending nitrate. Trend determination is based on District analysis (as reported in the Annual Groundwater Report) or the 2009 SBWR evaluation as noted on the figure. There is no recycled water irrigation in the Coyote Valley and, as such, no related monitoring wells. Water Board Comment 4a: Section 3.4.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality – This section describes two areas with naturally-occurring elevated TDS (i.e., Evergreen and Palo Alto). Are there similar localized elevated TDS areas of non-natural origin? SCVWD Response: The District monitors 58 shallow and principal zone wells in the Santa Clara Plain annually, and merges that data with municipal well data from the Division of Drinking Water database. The District is not aware of any spatial patterns that reflect localized elevated TDS of non-natural origin. Water Board Comment 4b: Table 3-23 and Figure 3-11a suggest that as recycled water use for landscape irrigation increases from about 7,000 AF today to 25,000 AF, so does the loading, in tons. That’s about a 1-1 correlation (1 ton of salt loading per every 1,000 acre-feet of recycled water use). Is that meant to be a static assumption? Does it account for the addition of advanced-treated water with lower TDS? Also, what is the projected breakdown of tertiary vs. advanced-treated recycled water use for landscape irrigation over the 25 year planning period? SCVWD Response: Per Figure 3-11a, the salt loading from all recycled water use within the Santa Clara Plain is nearly 25,000 AF in 2035, which is essentially a 1:1 correlation (1 ton of salt loading per 1,000 AF of recycled water use) in that year. However, this is not a static assumption, as the projected loading for each year is assessed independently considering recycled water use and water quality. For example, since 2014, the District has been operating the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC), which produces 8 million gallons per day of advanced-treated water with TDS less than 60 mg/L. Purified water is blended with SBWR tertiary treated recycled water to produce delivered water with TDS of about 500 mg/L. The SNMP analysis accounts for increased recycled water irrigation from SBWR, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto, as well as water quality improvements over the 25 year planning period, which are summarized in Table 3-27. At present, SBWR delivers a blend of tertiary treated and advanced-treated water with TDS of about 500 mg/L, while Palo Alto and Sunnyvale deliver recycled water with TDS ranging from 700 to 1,100 mg/L. The volumes and quality of recycled water used for irrigation in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale may change significantly within the SNMP planning horizon. Recently, the City of Palo Alto and the District formed a joint committee to explore opportunities to produce purified water to further lower the TDS of recycled water used for irrigation. The City of Sunnyvale is in the final stages of preparing an EIR for upgrades to their Water Pollution Control Plant, which may include advanced treatment. Sunnyvale anticipates producing lower TDS recycled water to irrigate more sites, including the new SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 7 November 18, 2015 Apple II campus in Cupertino. These improvements may produce substantial decreases in salt loading from the current practice of using tertiary treated recycled water for irrigation. As the expected water quality is not known with certainty, the SNMP conservatively assumes that the current tertiary treated water will continue to be used for irrigation. Water Board Comment 4c: Table 3-22 (and ES-2) clearly shows that the shallow aquifer in the Santa Clara Plain has no assimilative capacity (negative 28 mg/L TDS). Section 3.4.1 indicates that the zones of naturally-occurring elevated TDS (Evergreen and Palo Alto) were included in the estimate. Was the area of saline intrusion also included? Our concern is that for purposes of projecting assimilative capacity use over the next 25 years, the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP are averaged together. This yields an apparent positive assimilative capacity of 75 mg/L TDS. We are interested to know what the shallow zone would look like if it did not include certain portions of the zone of saline intrusion and/or the naturally-occurring areas of elevated TDS. SCVWD Response: The area of saline intrusion as delineated by the extent of the 100 mg/L chloride contour was excluded from the calculation of shallow aquifer assimilative capacity, as indicated in SNMP section 2.5.1 on page 31. The locations of naturally occurring elevated TDS are within the principal aquifer, so they do not affect the determination of assimilative capacity in the shallow aquifer. Therefore, assimilative capacity in the shallow aquifer is expected to remain negative in the next 25 years. However, there are a few mitigating factors that could lead to improvements in shallow aquifer TDS: x Since the District implemented its turf replacement rebate program, well over 4 million square feet of irrigated turf has been replaced with xeriscape or other low-water landscaping alternatives in 2015 alone, bringing the total turf replaced since the program began to nearly 7 million square feet. This program reduces outdoor irrigation, a primary source of salt loading and was not incorporated into the projected salt loading from outdoor irrigation. x As described above, the District’s Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center is now producing 8 million gallons per day of purified water with TDS less than 60 mg/L. That water is blended with tertiary treated recycled water, to lower TDS from the 750 to 950 mg/L TDS range to approximately 500 TDS. These factors were included in the projected assimilative capacity calculation for the subbasin as a whole. New plans are in development to double the capacity of indirect potable reuse projects. The scale and volume of the planned program far exceeds the projections included in this SNMP. As the District’s expedited indirect potable reuse program is still in development, the configuration and volume of projects is not finalized. The projections included in the SNMP also assumed a 50:50 blend of purified and local water. Current plans are to use 100% purified water for IPR, pending the outcome of geochemical compatibility studies. This would result in water with much lower TDS being recharged to groundwater than assumed in the SNMP. Percolating greater volumes of purified water is expected to significantly dilute shallow aquifer TDS in the long term. x The cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto are working to resleeve sections of sewer trunk mains in which saline shallow groundwater is infiltrating. Completion of the first section of pipe near Shoreline Amphitheater resulted in an immediate and significant SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 8 November 18, 2015 decrease in the TDS of recycled water used for irrigation in Palo Alto. Planned continuation of this program will result in decreased salt loading. Water Board Comment 5: This chapter concludes that the District’s existing groundwater monitoring program adequately accomplishes the monitoring necessary to assess salt and nutrient loading in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley basins. However, as noted in Chapter 2, there are localized areas where TDS and nitrate already exceed WQOs. Is the groundwater monitoring capability in these particular areas adequate to provide the information necessary to assess threats to water quality and human health? Are there any places where additional wells would be beneficial? SCVWD Response: The District’s groundwater monitoring network provides extensive areal coverage of the Santa Clara Subbasin, which encompasses nearly 300 square miles. The District samples 70 wells each fall for many constituents, including nitrate and TDS. Through our voluntary domestic well testing program, the District tests nitrate at 200 to 300 domestic wells every year, including many in Coyote Valley, which is more prone to elevated nitrate due to agricultural fertilizers and septic tanks. In addition to this District monitoring, we evaluate water quality data (including nitrate and TDS) from hundreds of public water supply wells each year. Although we believe the District’s monitoring network is comprehensive and adequate to assess threats to water quality, we continually work to maintain and improve the monitoring network as needed. The District is in the process of updating the Groundwater Management Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The findings of the SNMP and ongoing monitoring results may further shape the District’s groundwater monitoring efforts. Findings from annual groundwater sampling, including updated long term trend analysis, are available in the District’s Annual Groundwater Report 1. The District believes that salt and nutrient monitoring data and analysis included in the Annual Groundwater Report satisfies the intent of the 2009 Recycled Water Policy. Water Board Comment 6a: Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 indicate that the index well coverage for the SCP and CV is incomplete – the SCP shallow zone has 11 of 18 wells needed (61% coverage); the SCP deep zone has 20 of 35 wells needed (57% coverage); the CV has 8 of 11 wells needed (73% coverage). The specific well locations are shown in figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 of Appendix 3. What is the plan and schedule to reach 100% monitoring coverage in these basins? SCVWD Response: In addition to the response to Comment 5, above, we note that the statistical analysis undertaken to identify the number of monitoring wells was meant to serve as a guideline for planning purposes. There are practical considerations that must be considered such as related costs to ratepayers, available land, and available funding. As compared to many other areas, the District conducts very extensive monitoring. Through our current network 1 http://www.valleywater.org/Services/Groundwater.aspx SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 9 November 18, 2015 and ongoing modifications as conditions or needs change, we believe we are meeting our goal of obtaining adequate data to assess regional groundwater conditions. Water Board Comment 6b: Section 3.7.2 – South Bay Water Recycling Program – This section indicates that the SBWRP monitors six deep supply wells and six shallow monitoring wells in the vicinity of San Jose’s recycled water use locations. Were the data from these monitoring wells included in the baseline groundwater quality evaluation for the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP? The data from these wells should also be included with figures requested under 3d and 3e above. Any other wells specifically monitored in association with recycled water projects should be included. SCVWD Response: The data from the shallow South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) recycled water irrigation monitoring wells was not included in the baseline groundwater quality evaluation for the shallow aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain. Wells used for deep monitoring were included as they are part of the Division of Drinking Water database. The data from the SBWR shallow monitoring wells is not ideally suited to merging with the District’s regional monitoring because several of the wells had elevated nitrate or other constituents prior to initiation of recycled water irrigation. The District has not validated the SBWR data or incorporated it into its GIS and database; hence, it was excluded from the SNMP analysis. Figure A6-6 is provided to show the location of both the SBWR monitoring wells and the District’s south San Jose recycled water irrigation monitoring wells (the “IDT” site). Data from the IDT wells was incorporated in the SNMP analysis. See responses to Comment 3d above to review the findings of the SBWR monitoring. Water Board Comment 6c: Section 4.2 – Salt Water Intrusion Monitoring Network – The District’s 22 shallow aquifer monitoring wells for salt water intrusion should be included in figures requested under 3d above. SCVWD Response: The zone of saline intrusion is mapped in Figure 3-3 of the SNMP. This figure presents chloride concentration, which is conservatively indicative of saline intrusion where it exceeds 100 mg/L. New Figure A6-1, provided for this response to comments, includes the shallow monitoring wells currently used to monitor saline intrusion. ! ! ¬!¬!¬! ! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! ¬! ¬! ¬! ! ¬! ! ! ¬! ¬!! ! ! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! !!¬!¬! ¬! ¬! ! ! ! ¬! ¬!¬! ¬! Legend 2012 100 mg/L Chloride Contour TDS (mg/L) Shallow Zone !< 500 (below SMCL) ¬!500 - 1000 ¬!1000 - 1500 ¬!1500- 60000 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10Miles Figure A6-1 Shallow Aquifer Wells with TDS above SMCL Water Quality Objective (2000 - 2012 Median) SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 10 ! ! ¬!! ¬! ! !!¬! ! ! !¬! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ¬!! !!! !! ! ! !¬!! ¬!¬! !! ¬! ! ! !! !! ¬! ! ¬! ! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! ¬! ¬!¬!¬! ! ! !! !¬! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¬! ¬!! ! ¬! !!! ¬! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ¬!! ¬!¬!! ! ¬!¬! ! ¬! !! ¬!¬!!! !¬!!! ! ! ¬!¬!¬!¬!¬! ! ! ! ¬! ¬! !! ! !!! !!!! !!!!! ! ¬! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ¬!!!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !¬!¬!! !! ! ¬!! ! !¬! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ¬!! ! ! ¬! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! ! ¬! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! ¬!¬! ! ! ! ! !! ! ¬! ! !! ¬!¬!! ! ! ! ! ¬!¬! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!¬! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ¬! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Legend TDS (mg/L) Principal Zone !< 500 (below SMCL) ¬!500 - 1000 ¬!1000 - 1500 ¬!1500 - 6000 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-2 Principal Aquifer Wells with TDS above SMCL Water Quality Objective (2000 - 2012 Median) ¬!¬! SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 11 !! !!!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !¬! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !!! !! ¬! ¬!!!¬!¬!!!!! !!! !¬!! ! !(237 !(85 §¨¦280 §¨¦680 £¤101 §¨¦880 £¤101 Legend Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) Principal Zone !< 45 (below MCL) ¬!45 - 58 ¬!58 - 70 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-3 Principal Aquifer Wells with Nitrate above MCL Water Quality Objective (2000 - 2012 Median) Note: Shallow Aquifer Wells had no Nitrate above MCL Water Quality Objective between 2000 and 2012 SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 12 ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! ¬!! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! ¬!!!¬!·! !! !(237 !(85 §¨¦280 §¨¦680 £¤101 §¨¦880 £¤101 Legend Nitrate (mg/L) as N !< 5 (below Ag Threshold) ¬!5 - 7.5 ·!7.5 - 10 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Notes: 1. No wells exceeded the 30 mg/L Basin Plan Water Quality Objective. 2. Because nitrate as N is above 5 mg/L, nitrate + nitrite is assumed to be above 5 mg/L. Figure A6-4 Shallow Aquifer Wells Exceeding Basin Plan Agricultural Water Quality Threshold for Nitrate + Nitrite as N (2000 - 2012 Median) ¬! ¬! ¬! Area of Enlargement S i l v e r C re e kV alleyRd.IDT Site and Wells SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 13 !! !!!! XWXWXW!!!XW !!! !!!!XW!XW ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! ! XWXW!!XW! XW !! ! !XWXWXW! ! !XWXW !XWXWXW!XWXW ! !!XWXW !! ! ! XWXW ! !!!!!!! !XW!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !XWXWXW !XWXW!XWXWXW! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !XW! !! !XW !!!! ! XW ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! XWXWXWXW ! !XWXW!!XW!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !XWXWXWXW! !!XW!XWXW!XW ! !XW!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !XW ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! !!!XW ! !!!! !XW!XWXW!XWXW XWXW !!XW !XWXW!XWXW XW XW ! ! XWXWXW ! ! ! !XWXW ! ! ! ! ! ! !! XW XW ! ! ! ! !! ! XW ! ! ! ! ¬!¬!¬!¬! !¬!! !!!¬!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ¬! ¬!!¬!! ¬!!!¬! !¬!¬!! !¬!¬!!! ¬! !! ! ! ¬!¬!! !!!!!!! ! !¬!!!!!!!!! !¬! ¬!¬! !¬!¬! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!¬!¬! !! ! ¬!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !¬!¬!¬! !¬!¬!!!!!!!!!¬!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !¬!¬!¬!! !!¬! ! ¬!! !¬!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! !! ¬!! !!!!¬!!!! ¬! Legend Nitrate as N !< 5 (below Ag Threshold) XW 5 - 10 XW 10 - 20 Nitrate + Nitrite as N !<5 (below Ag Threshold) ¬!5 - 10 !!10 - 15 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Notes: 1. No wells exceeded the 30 mg/L threshold Basin Plan Water Quality Objective. 3. Because nitrate as N is above 5 mg/L, nitrate + nitrite is assumed to be above 5 mg/L. 2. Analyses reported as nitrate + nitrite as N, or nitrate (as N or NO3) Figure A6-5 Principal Aquifer Wells Excceding Basin Plan Agricultural Water QualityThreshold for Nitrate + Nitrite (2000 - 2012 Median) SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 14 ") ") ")&% &% &% &% &% ") ") ") &% @A@A@A@A Columbus Park SJWC Mabury #1 SJWC Gish #2 Watson Park SJWC 17th #11 SJWC Cottage Grove #4 SJWC 12TH #8 Kelly ParkKelly Gardens Curtner Solari Park Evergreen Park Legend @A IDT Monitoring Wells SBWR Monitoring Wells ")Shallow Zone &%Principal Zone @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles @A @A @A @A MW-3 MW-4 MW-1 MW-2 IDT Site(Area of Enlargement) Integrated Device Technology (IDT)site and monitoring wells Silver Cr e e k V a lley R o a dFigure A6-6 Location of Wells Used to Monitor Recycled Water Irrigation SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 15 1000150020002500olved Solids  (mg/L)Watson UA1Kelley Park UA2Columbus UA3Solari FA1Evergreen FA2Curtner FA3Cottage Grove LA1Kelley Park Garden LA205001997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Total Disso12th St #8 LA317th St #10 LA4Mabury #1 LA5Gish #2 LA6Figure E14Total DissolvedSolidsCity of San Jose GMMP UpdateJuly 2009TODD ENGINEERSAlameda, CaliforniaFigure A6-7 TDS Concentrations in SBWR Recycled Water Irrigation Monitoring WellsSource: SBWR Technical Memorandum No. 2 Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Program Update Project, November 2009SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 201516 !! !!ÞÞÞÞ!! !!Þ! !Þ!! !!!!!!!! SJWC Cottage Grove #4 SJWC 12TH #8 Kelly Park Curtner Legend Principal Zone Nitrate Trends !No Trend ÞUpwards Trend Shallow Zone Nitrate Trends !!No Trend ÞÞUpwards Trend @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-8 Post-Irrigation Nitrate Trends in Recycled Water Monitoring Wells !! !! !! !! Integrated Device Technology (IDT)Area of Enlargement Silve r C r e e k V a lle yR oadSCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 17 ! !Þ!Þ!ÞÞ!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!ÞÞEvergreen Park IDT Site Legend Shallow Zone TDS Trends TDS_Trend ÞÞUpward Trend !!No Trend Principal Zone TDS Trends ÞDownward Trend !No Trend @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-9 Post-Irrigation TDS Trends in Recycled Water Irrigation Monitoring Wells Note: no principal zone recycled water irrigation monitoring wells have increasing TDS trends !! !! !!ÞÞSCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 18 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 1 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT RESPONSES TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD’S FEBRUARY 3rd 2016 COMMENTS ON SANTA CLARA SUBBASIN SALT AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN  Water Board Comment 1: The District’s annual groundwater report for 2013 indicates that many domestic wells in the Coyote Valley are affected by nitrate and highlights differences between the District’s regional monitoring program wells and purely domestic wells in the south county, which includes the Coyote Valley and Llagas sub-basin. Specifically, the regional wells have a median nitrate concentration of 17.6 mg/L, while 286 domestic wells tested throughout the south county have a median of 33.1 mg/L, and 34% of them exceed the MCL (45 mg/L). At the same time, the SNMP (Figure 3-19) indicates that about 75% of the total nitrate loading in the Coyote Valley is due to irrigated agriculture and fertilizer use, while about 15% is due to septic systems and other drainage losses. SCVWD Response: The apparent disparity noted between nitrate concentrations in the regional monitoring program wells and domestic wells is an artifact of the well groupings used in various tables in the District’s 2013 Annual Groundwater Report. Table 9 lists the median nitrate concentration for “Zone W-5, South County” as 33.1 mg/L; however, Zone W-5 is a water revenue charge zone that includes both Coyote Valley and the Llagas Subbasin. It is more informative to compare the regional monitoring wells used to obtain the 17.6 mg/L median in Table 7 of the 2013 Annual Report and the 2013 median of domestic wells located only within the Coyote Valley. With regard to nitrate results in the Coyote Valley for calendar year 2013, the District database includes data from 9 monitoring wells, 24 wells sampled by public water systems, and 35 domestic wells sampled under the District’s domestic well testing program. The median nitrate concentration for all 68 wells was 23 mg/L, while the median of domestic wells was 21.1 mg/L. If domestic wells are excluded, the median was 25.8 mg/L. When results for only Coyote Valley are considered, the median nitrate concentration from the District’s regional monitoring program wells and domestic wells are in reasonable agreement. The Llagas Subbasin is addressed in a separate SNMP that was submitted to and accepted by the Central Coast RWQCB1. While we hope this clarifies the Water Board’s specific question regarding 2013 data, the broader thrust of the question is to understand the overall occurrence of nitrate when considering all data. Because the number of wells tested varies by year, there is value in examining data from all wells for all years. Attachment 1 provides summary statistics, maps, and charts of nitrate test results for the Coyote Valley. Important limitations to the data are noted. 1 The Llagas Subbasin SNMP is available on the District’s website:   http://www.valleywater.org/GroundwaterStudies/   4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 2 Water Board Comment 2: We would like to discuss with the District the details of an implementation plan to address this situation. District Response: The District engages in many groundwater quality management activities that are similar to the type of measures included in an implementation plan. A summary of these past and ongoing activities is provided in Appendix 4 to the SNMP. Our understanding is that implementation plans are necessary when the SNMP finds that assimilative capacity is either not available or will be exhausted within the 25-year SNMP planning horizon. The Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP finds that assimilative capacity is still available in 2035. We believe that the District’s ongoing groundwater quality management activities are proactive and effective, within the limits of the District’s jurisdiction. Because the District is not a land use agency, we do not have authority over land uses that have the potential to increase nitrate loading. As regards Coyote Valley, SNMP projections forecast that average nitrate concentrations will decrease substantially in the 25-year period ending in 2035, because nitrate loading is projected to decrease. Substantial groundwater pumping by Great Oaks Water Company for distribution in the Santa Clara Plain is a key factor that causes nitrate and salt to be removed from Coyote Valley. As groundwater is exported from Coyote Valley, significant quantities of nitrate and other salts are removed as well. While the District’s interpretation of the Recycled Water Policy does not include the need for preparing an implementation plan, the District would like to collaborate with RWQCB on groundwater protection activities in Coyote Valley. As discussed in our April 20th conference call, the District will begin sharing private well nitrate testing data with the Water Board beginning in early May 2016. Water Board Comment 3: Is there any effort to better identify the agricultural sources and locations? SCVWD Response: The District has conducted surveys of nitrate sources and nitrate occurrence in groundwater in the past. Most of these efforts have focused primarily on the Llagas Subbasin, while one has also included Coyote Valley. The findings of nitrate studies conducted by the District, Brown and Caldwell, and Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in the Llagas Subbasin are largely transferrable. The District’s conceptual model ascribes the majority of nitrate found in groundwater to known non-point sources, including crop and lawn fertilizers and septic tanks2. Possible exceptions may include historic or current composting or food processing operations, and poultry or dairy operations. A list of relevant nitrate occurrence studies is provided below.                                                              2 On a local scale, septic tanks are point sources; on the basin scale, the wide distribution of numerous septic tanks (about 600 in Coyote Valley) manifests as an areal source. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 3  Brown and Caldwell, 1981. San Martin Area Water Quality Study: Prepared for the County of Santa Clara  Santa Clara County Health Department, 1988. Santa Clara County Private Well Sampling Program-Final Report  SCVWD, 1994. Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Sample Point Selection Report, 25 p.  SVCWD, 1993. Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Nitrate Data Review, 42 p.  SCVWD, 1992 (revised 1993). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Laboratory Contract to Provide Services for the Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study, 29 p.  SCVWD, 1994. Santa Clara Valley Water District Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Nitrate Source Area Identification, December, 1994, 56 p. (Section 205G) grant funds under Assistance Agreement C6009585-91-1 to the State Water Resources Control Board and by Contract No. 1-053-250-0, US EPA).  SCVWD, 1996. Santa Clara Valley Water District Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Final Report. October, 1996, 105 p.  SCVWD, 1998. Private Well Water Testing Program Nitrate Data Report [Llagas Subbasin and Coyote Valley]. December, 1998.  LLNL and SWRCB, 2005. California GAMA Program: Sources and transport of nitrate in shallow groundwater in the Llagas Basin of Santa Clara County, California. (UCRL-TR-213705).  Carle, S., Esser, B., Moran, J., 2005. High-Resolution Simulation of Basin Scale Nitrate Transport Considering Aquifer System Heterogeneity. Geosphere (UCRL-JRNL-214721). The Water Board expressed interest in understanding cropping patterns and fertilizer loading in Coyote Valley. We are providing 2015 cropping patterns in the Coyote Valley for your reference (see Attachment 1). It should be noted that cropping patterns frequently change from year to year, and multiple crops may be grown on the same field within a calendar year. Water Board Comment 4: How is the nitrate loading scenario for agriculture and onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS/septic systems) projected to change over time as land use changes? SCVWD Response: Per Table 3-23, agricultural fertilizer use was held constant through 2035 for the Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP, including Coyote Valley. Septic leach field volumes are assumed to remain constant. The County’s new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Ordinance could lead to some improvements in septic tank management, potentially decreasing loading from this source. The impacts of the ordinance are subject to many variables, so a constant value was used. These assumptions should conservatively estimate future nitrate loading from these sources. Water Board Comment 5: Are there nitrate hotspot areas where there is no access to delivered water or alternative supplies? SCVWD Response: The Coyote Valley domestic wells in which nitrate has been detected above the MCL are located in an elongated area extending nearly five miles from the southern border of Coyote Valley, i.e., an area encompassing about 2 square miles that covers more than half the length of Coyote Valley. However, about two-thirds of the wells in the area where most MCL exceedances occur have median nitrate concentrations below the MCL. While the definition of a “hot spot” is subjective, elevated nitrate appears to be more common in the southwest portion of the Coyote Valley. That area is not currently served by a major public water system; however, there are several small mutual water companies that serve groundwater. The District is currently offering rebates for well 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 4 users exposed to nitrate above the MCL. This program offers rebates of up to $500 for the installation of treatment units certified for nitrate removal. Rebate program information is sent to thousands of domestic well owners annually. Well owners participating in the District’s domestic well testing program receive test results by mail and those with elevated nitrate are given a fact sheet and application for the rebate program. Although it has been in place for several years, the rebate program has had low participation. Most well owners contacted by the District are not participating in the rebate program because they drink bottled water or they have already installed treatment units. The District continues to look for opportunities to expand participation. We are not aware of any plans to extend service connections from nearby municipal water systems or private water utilities to the unincorporated areas in Coyote Valley. Water Board Comment 6: Does the District have any plans to further investigate the nature/extent of the nitrate sources and their longevity? SCVWD Response: While we manage the groundwater subbasin, our jurisdictional mandate does not extend to water quality issues arising from land use. We assess current conditions and trends in nitrate, an effort supported by our free domestic well testing program. As described above, we are also working to reduce well owner exposure to nitrate by offering rebates for point of use treatment systems. In the Llagas Subbasin, which extends from Cochrane Road near Morgan Hill south to the Pajaro River, we are working with the Central Coast Water Board to share information on patterns and trends in nitrate occurrence; however, that work does not extend to identifying sources. The District supports a similar exchange of data and information with the San Francisco Bay Water Board if it is of interest to the Water Board. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 – NITRATE OCCURRENCE IN COYOTE VALLEY Nitrate groundwater quality data from wells in the Coyote Valley is available from one well as early as 1949, and in multiple wells from the 1980s and later. Figure 1 provides a summary of past nitrate testing in Coyote Valley wells. Figure 1 includes samples from municipal wells and agricultural wells, but the great majority of wells shown are domestic wells. Figure 1 – Number of Coyote Valley Wells Tested for Nitrate per Year Nitrate concentrations are elevated in some wells in the southwestern portion of Coyote Valley. A summary of nitrate detections with respect to the MCL is provided in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and map of nitrate detections from all wells is provided in Figure 5. 1 0001 0 1 2 3 4 22334 3 2 3 4 6 7 8 7 12 67 18 13 21 19 16 19 26 28 20 27 24 22 52 47 57 37 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of Wells Tested for Nitrate per YearYear Coyote Valley Wells Tested  for Nitrate by Year 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 6 Figure 2 – Median Nitrate Concentrations in Coyote Valley Wells Tested 4 Times or More Figure 3 – Average Nitrate Concentration by Well for All Wells Tested in Coyote Valley 22 10 7 5 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 0‐15 15.1‐30 30.1‐45 45.1‐60 60.1‐75# of WellsNitrate as NO3, mg/LNitrate MCL = 45 mg/L, Nitrate as NO356 30 32 25 10 2 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0‐15 15.1‐30 30.1‐45 45.1‐60 60.1‐75 75.1‐90 >90# of WellsNitrate as NO3, mg/LNitrate MCL = 45 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 7   Figure 4 –Median Coyote Valley Nitrate Concentration in Years with 10 or More Wells Tested 0 15 30 45 60 1997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Nitrate  as NO3 (mg/L)Coyote Valley ‐Median Nitrate and  95% Non‐Parametric Confidence Intervals, by Year MCL = 45 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Note ‐data should not be used to interpret a trend.  The number of wells sampled varies significantly by year, some wells  are close to sources of recharge, and wells are screened at different depths. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 8 Figure 5 – Map of All Coyote Valley Nitrate Well Test Results 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 9 Figure 6 – 2015 Cropping Patterns in Coyote Valley (Based on Data from the Santa Clara County Agriculture Commissioner’s Office) The SNMP discusses nitrate from fertilizer application in Section 3.3.2.1. The factors used to estimate fertilizer type and use for different crops were obtained from the University of California Cooperative Extension. Factors used and calculations of nitrogen loading are provide in Tables 1 and 2, below, using 2011 crop data obtained from the Santa Clara County Agriculture Commissioner’s office. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 10 Commodity Nitrogen, lbs/acre/yr lbs NO3/acre /yr, leached Commodity Nitrogen, lbs/acre/yr lbs NO3/acre /yr, leached ALFALFA 115 178.3 LETTUCE HEAD 190 294.6 ALMOND 200 310.1 LETTUCE LEAF 190 294.6 AMARANTH, EDIBL 75 116.3 LETTUCE ROMAINE 220 341.1 APPLE 21 32.6 MELON 137 212.4 APRICOT 40 62.0 MINT 200 310.1 ARRUGULA 125 193.8 MIZUNA 190 294.6 ARTICHOKE 200 310.1 NAPA CBG TGHT H 180 279.1 ARTICHOKE SEED 200 310.1 NECTARINE 150 232.6 BARLEY 65 100.8 N-GRNHS FLOWER 0 0.0 BASIL 100 155.1 N-GRNHS PLANT 0 0.0 BEAN DRIED 96 148.8 N-OUTDR FLOWERS 0 0.0 BEAN DRIED SEED 96 148.8 N-OUTDR PLANTS 0 0.0 BEAN SPROUT 00.0N-OUTDR TRANSPL 0 0.0 BEAN SUC SEED 96 148.8 OAT 150 232.6 BEAN SUCCULENT 165 255.8 OF-FLWRNG PLANT 0 0.0 BEAN UNSPECIFD 130 201.6 OLIVE 135 209.3 BEET 165 255.8 ONION DRY ETC 180 279.1 BLACKBERRY 60 93.0 OP-FLWRNG PLANT 0 0.0 BOK CHOY LSE LF 175 271.3 OP-FOLIAGE PLNT 0 0.0 BROCCOLI 220 341.1 OP-TURF 100 155.1 BROCCOLI SEED 220 341.1 ORANGE 110 170.6 CABBAGE 180 279.1 OT-PALM 0 0.0 CAULIFLOWER 240 372.1 PASTURELAND 42 65.1 CAULIFLOWR SEED 240 372.1 PEACH 150 232.6 CELERY 200 310.1 PEAR 150 232.6 CHERRY 60 93.0 PEPPER FRUITNG 388 601.6 CHRISTMAS TREE 92 142.6 PEPPERMINT 200 310.1 CHRYSAN GARLAND 00.0PERSIMMON 108 167.5 CILANTRO 148 229.5 PLUM 125 193.8 CORN, FIELD 240 372.1 PRUNE 150 232.6 CORN, HUMAN CON 210 325.6 PUMPKIN 137 212.4 CUCUMBER 190 294.6 RADICCHIO 125 193.8 CUCUMBER SEED 190 294.6 RANGELAND 0 0.0 FORAGE HAY/SLGE 80 124.0 RAPE 175 271.3 FRISEE 180 279.1 RASPBERRY 60 93.0 GAI CHOY LSE LF 180 279.1 RESEARCH COMMOD 0 0.0 GAI LON TGHT HD 180 279.1 SPINACH 60 93.0 GARLIC 200 310.1 SQUASH 317 491.5 GF-CARNATION 00.0STRAWBERRY 150 232.6 GF-CHRYSANTHMUM 00.0SUNFLOWER 95 147.3 GF-FLOWER SEED 00.0SWISS CHARD 180 279.1 GF-FLWRNG PLANT 00.0TOMATO 164 254.3 GF-FOLIAGE PLNT 00.0TOMATO PROCESS 182 282.2 GRAPE 20 31.0 VEGETABLE 104 161.3 GRAPE, WINE 20 31.0 WALNUT 200 310.1 GT-FLWRNG PLANT 00.0WATERCRESS 50 77.5 KALE 180 279.1 WHEAT 100 155.1 KIWI 161 249.6 WHEAT FOR/FOD 100 155.1 Table 1 – University of California Cooperative Extension Crop Factors for Nitrogen Loading. Note: These factors were used to calculate fertilizer loading in Table 3-15 in the SNMP. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 11 Commodity Nitrogen, lbs/ acre/ year Nitrate as NO3 lbs /acre/year , leached Acres Nitrate as NO3 Loading, lbs/yr Salt as TDS Loading, lbs/yr Acres Nitrate as NO3 Loading, lbs/yr Salt as TDS Loading, lbs/yr Nitrate as NO3 Loading, lbs/yr Salt as TDS Loading, lbs/yr Alfalfa 115 178 313.3 55,869 36,033 55,870 36,030 Amaranth, Edible 75 116 4.5 525 338 520 340 Apple 21 33 10.5 343 222 2 50 32 390 250 Apricot 40 62 35.9 2,226 1,436 78 4,839 3,121 7,070 4,560 Basil 100 155 2.3 356 229 360 230 Bean Succulent 165 256 1 383 247 380 250 Bean Unspecified 130 202 3.0 602 389 600 390 Bok Choy 175 271 14.1 3,828 2,469 3,830 2,470 Cherry 60 93 378.8 35,243 22,730 11 988 637 36,230 23,370 Corn, retail 210 326 81.9 26,670 17,201 16 5,364 3,459 32,030 20,660 Forage Hay/Silage 80 124 131 16,287 10,504 16,290 10,500 Grape 20 31 0 10 7 10 7 Grape, Wine 20 31 6.5 202 130 56 1,732 1,117 1,930 1,250 Kiwi 161 250 3.7 935 603 930 600 Oat 150 233 121.1 28,172 18,169 240 55,884 36,043 84,060 54,210 Olive 135 209 150 31,484 20,306 31,480 20,310 Op-Turf 100 155 15.7 2,438 1,573 2,440 1,570 Orange 110 171 15 2,528 1,631 2,528 1,631 Pastureland 42 65 150 9,753 6,290 9,753 6,290 Peach 150 233 1 153 99 150 100 Peppers, Fruiting 388 602 71.5 43,024 27,749 2 1,204 776 44,230 28,520 Prune 150 233 3 589 380 590 380 Squash 317 492 1 490 316 490 320 Tomato 164 254 2 509 328 510 330 Walnut 200 310 1 254 164 250 160 Wheat 100 155 172.7 26,782 17,273 136 21,025 13,560 47,810 30,830 Wheat (Fodder) 100 155 37.3 5,784 3,731 11 1,748 1,127 7,530 4,860 TOTAL, tons per year 1,273 116 75 1,007 78 50 194 125 Coyote Valley Santa Clara Plain Santa Clara Subbasin TotalUCCE Crop Factors Table 2 – Calculated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Fertilizer Sources in the Santa Clara Subbasin, Based on 2011 Cropping Patterns (used to calculate values presented in SNMP Table 3-15) June 1, 2016 Ms. Vanessa de la Piedra Groundwater Monitoring and Analysis Unit Manager Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Sent via Email to vdelapiedra@valleywater.org SUBJECT: Concurrence with the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Santa Clara Subbasin, Santa Clara County Dear Ms. de la Piedra: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Water District’s 2014 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Santa Clara Subbasin (SNMP). We’re pleased to concur with the SNMP as it provides a solid foundation for guiding decision making and promotes recycled water use in the Santa Clara Valley. As a result of this process, we’ve come to better understand groundwater conditions in the Santa Clara and Coyote Valleys, and the challenges the District faces related to the quality and reliability of imported surface water that is used for groundwater recharge. We applaud the innovative solution to use advanced purified water to help manage salt and nutrient contributions to the basin and achieve the District’s 10% recycled water goal. We also recognize the District’s efforts to address elevated nitrate conditions in the Coyote Valley and provide outreach and solutions to private well owners. We would like to acknowledge the professionalism and hard work of District staff to address our feedback on earlier SNMP versions. As a result, we are confident that the SNMP will effectively manage salts and nutrients from all sources, and will attain water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses of groundwater. As such, the SNMP meets the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2009 “Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water”. Water Board staff will continue working cooperatively with District staff to implement the recommendations presented in the SNMP. In particular, we will collaborate with District staff to better understand the nature of elevated nitrate concentrations in groundwater within the Coyote Valley, and how sources can most effectively be addressed to protect domestic use of groundwater. Ms. De la Piedra - 2 - June 1, 2016 Santa Clara Valley Water District In the next few months we anticipate bringing a resolution of support for the District’s SNMP to our Board and will coordinate with District staff as appropriate. If you have any questions, please contact Alec Naugle of my staff at (510) 622-2510 or via email at alec.naugle@waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, Dyan Whyte Assistant Executive Officer Cc: Tom Mohr (tmohr@valleywater.org) Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686 Phone: (408) 265-2600 Fax: (408) 266-0271 www.valleywater.org NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN LIVERMORE VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN July 2015 PREPARED BY: ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 454-5000 PREPARED BY: ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY STAFF Matt Katen, P.G. – Principal Geologist Tom Rooze, P.G. – Associate Geologist Contributors: Jill Duerig, P.E. – General Manager Kurt Arends, P.E. – Assistant General Manager Jarnail Chahal, P.E. – Engineering Manager Colleen Winey, P.G. – Assistant Geologist Nutrient Management Plan I July 2015 Table of Contents Page ES Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................i ES 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................i ES 2 Groundwater Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations .............................................................. ii ES 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation...................................................................................................................... ii ES 4 Antidegradation Analysis ........................................................................................................................... iv ES 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies ............................................................................................... v ES 6 Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................. vii 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Management Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Master Water Recycling Permit and Salt Management Plan ...................................................... 3 1.3.2 State Recycled Water Policy ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3.3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) ....................................................................... 4 1.3.4 Zone 7 Wastewater Management Plan ....................................................................................... 4 1.3.5 Groundwater Management Plan and Annual Reports ................................................................ 5 1.4 Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 CEQA Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 6 2 Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations ................................................................................. 9 2.1 Groundwater Basin Overview ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Main and Fringe Basins ............................................................................................................ 11 2.1.3 Aquifer Zones ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Groundwater Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.2.1 Conjunctive Use ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Groundwater Storage ................................................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Groundwater Production .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.4 Groundwater Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 17 Nutrient Management Plan II July 2015 2.3 Basin Water Quality (Nutrients) ............................................................................................................... 19 2.3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3.2 Nitrate Concentrations .............................................................................................................. 20 2.3.3 Assimilative Capacity ............................................................................................................... 26 2.4 Areas of Concern ...................................................................................................................................... 26 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 35 3.1 Historical Sources of Nitrate .................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.1 Fate and Transport of Nitrate .................................................................................................... 36 3.2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 37 3.3 Nitrogen Loading Calculations ................................................................................................................. 41 3.3.1 Current Nitrogen Loading ........................................................................................................ 41 3.3.2 Future Nitrate Loading ............................................................................................................. 46 3.4 Projected Nitrate Concentrations ............................................................................................................. 51 4 Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis ................................................................................ 55 4.1 Recycled Water Projects ........................................................................................................................... 55 4.2 Stormwater Capture Projects .................................................................................................................... 56 4.3 State Water Board Recycled Water Policy Criteria .................................................................................. 56 4.4 Antidegradation Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 57 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... 59 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 59 5.2 Investigate Areas of Concern .................................................................................................................... 59 5.3 Minimize Nitrogen Loading ...................................................................................................................... 59 5.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 59 5.3.2 Fertilizer Application................................................................................................................ 60 5.3.3 Recycled Water Irrigation ........................................................................................................ 60 5.3.4 Livestock Manure Management ............................................................................................... 60 5.3.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems .................................................................................... 61 5.4 Enhanced Attenuation ............................................................................................................................... 62 6 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 63 6.1 Investigate Boundaries of Areas of Concern ............................................................................................. 63 6.2 Implementation Measures to Minimize Nitrogen Loading ........................................................................ 63 6.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 63 6.2.2 Fertilizer BMPs ........................................................................................................................ 64 6.2.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs ............................................................................................. 64 6.2.4 Livestock Manure Management ............................................................................................... 65 6.2.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ............................................................................. 65 Nutrient Management Plan III July 2015 6.3 Implementation Measures to Enhance Nitrate Attenuation ...................................................................... 77 6.3.1 Low Impact Development BMPs ............................................................................................. 77 6.4 Basin Monitoring Programs ..................................................................................................................... 77 6.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 77 6.4.2 Nutrient Specific Monitoring Programs ................................................................................... 78 6.5 Implementation Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 80 7 References ................................................................................................................................................ 81 List of Figures Page Figure ES-1: Nitrate Concentrations (Upper Aquifer) and Areas of Concern ............................................ ii Figure ES-2: Projected Nitrate Concentrations by Basin .......................................................................... iii Figure ES-3: Antidegradation Assessment ................................................................................................. iv Figure ES-4: Summary of Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... vi Figure ES-5: Proposed OWTS Requirements Inside Areas of Concern ................................................... viii Figure 2-1: Map of Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins (DWR, 1974) ........................... 9 Figure 2-2: Recharge Area and Confining Layer above Upper Aquifer ................................................... 12 Figure 2-3: Gradient in Upper Aquifer, October 2013 ............................................................................. 13 Figure 2-4: Gradient in Lower Aquifer, October 2013 ............................................................................. 14 Figure 2-5: Map of Municipal Wells ......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-6: Groundwater Supply and Demand Components .................................................................... 18 Figure 2-7: Maximum Concentration of Nutrients in Basin Areas ............................................................ 19 Figure 2-8: Nitrate Concentrations in Upper Aquifer ............................................................................... 20 Figure 2-9: Nitrate Concentrations in Lower Aquifer ............................................................................... 21 Figure 2-10: Schematic Cross Section ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2-11: Nitrate Concentrations by Node ........................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-12: Storage (AF), Nitrate Concentrations (as NO3 in mg/L) and Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) by Node, Subbasin, and Basin Area .................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2-13: Nitrate Concentrations by Subbasin, Aquifer, and Basin Area ............................................ 25 Figure 2-14: Average Nitrate Concentrations and Assimilative Capacities by Basin Area ...................... 26 Figure 2-15: Nitrate Areas of Concern ...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 2-16: Nitrate Areas of Concern and Trends................................................................................... 33 Figure 3-1: Historical and Existing Sources of Nitrate ............................................................................. 35 Figure 3-2: Existing Nitrogen Sources and Removal ................................................................................ 37 Figure 3-3: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Horse Boarding, Rural Properties, and Wineries .................. 38 Figure 3-4: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Fertilized Irrigation by Land Use ........................................... 39 Figure 3-5: Source Water Application Rates from Irrigation by Land Use .............................................. 40 Figure 3-6: Nitrate Concentrations in Irrigation Source Water ............................................................... 40 Figure 3-7: 2013 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 3-8: 2013 Source Water Distribution ............................................................................................. 42 Figure 3-9: Total Nitrate Loading (in lbs N/acre) ..................................................................................... 43 Figure 3-10: Net Nitrogen Loading by Basin, Current Land Use with Average Rainfall ......................... 44 Figure 3-11: Summary of Current Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal ................................................ 45 Nutrient Management Plan IV July 2015 Figure 3-12: Percentage Loading by Source - Current Conditions .......................................................... 45 Figure 3-13: Land Use at Buildout ............................................................................................................ 47 Figure 3-14: Source Water Distribution at Buildout ................................................................................. 48 Figure 3-15: Net Nitrogen Loading by Basin, Land Use at Buildout with Average Rainfall .................... 49 Figure 3-16: Summary of Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal at Buildout ........................................... 50 Figure 3-17: Percentage Loading by Source at Buildout .......................................................................... 50 Figure 3-18: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Main Basin ................................................................. 51 Figure 3-19: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin North .................................................... 52 Figure 3-20: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin Northeast .............................................. 52 Figure 3-21: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin East ...................................................... 53 Figure 4-1: Existing and Future Recycled Water Use ............................................................................... 55 Figure 4-2: Antidegradation Assessment ................................................................................................... 58 Figure 6-1: Special OWTS Permit Areas ................................................................................................... 70 Figure 6-2: Happy Valley Area of Concern ............................................................................................... 71 Figure 6-3: May School Area of Concern ................................................................................................. 72 Figure 6-4: Buena Vista/Greenville Areas of Concern .............................................................................. 73 Figure 6-5: Mines Road Area of Concern ................................................................................................. 74 Figure 6-6: Tank OWTS Permit Requirements for Areas of Concern ....................................................... 75 Figure 6-7: Graphs of OWTS Limits.......................................................................................................... 76 Figure 6-8: Map of Program Wells ........................................................................................................... 79 Figure 6-9: Proposed Schedule for Areas of Concern ............................................................................... 80 Figure A-1: Groundwater Gradient Map, Upper Aquifer, Fall 2013 ........................................................ 83 Figure A-2: Groundwater Gradient Map, Lower Aquifer, Fall 2013 ........................................................ 83 Figure A-3: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2013 Water Year ......................... 83 Figure A-4: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Lower Aquifer, 2013 Water Year ......................... 83 Figure A-5: Nodal Constants for Storage Calculations ............................................................................ 83 Figure A-6: Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2008 Water Year .................................................... 83 Figure A-7: Map of Wells in Groundwater Quality Program ................................................................... 83 Figure A-8: Horsley Witten Group, 2009 Executive Summary .................................................................. 83 Figure A-9: Land Use Related Loading Factors, from RMC, 2012 .......................................................... 83 Figure A-10: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations; 25% Nitrogen Leaching Rate ....................................... 83 Figure A-11: Historical Nitrate Concentrations in Wells Outside Areas of Concern, Fringe Basin North ............................................................................................................................................................ 83 Nutrient Management Plan V July 2015 Acronyms and Abbreviations Abbrev Description Abbrev Description AC Assimilative Capacity LWRP Livermore Water Reclamation Plant ACEH Alameda County Environmental Health MCL Maximum contaminant level AF Acre-feet mg/L Milligrams per liter AF/yr Acre-feet per year N Nitrogen bgs Below ground surface NMP Nutrient Management Plan BMO Basin Management Objective NO3 Nitrate Ion BMP Best Management Practices OWTS Onsite Wastewater Treatment System BOs Basin Objectives PO4 Phosphate Ion CASGEM CA Statewide GW Elevation Monitoring POTW Publicly owned treatment works CDA Community Development Agency ROWD Request of Waste Discharge CDPH California Department of Health Services RRE Rural Residential Equivalence CEC Constituents-of-emerging-concern SBA South Bay Aqueduct CIMIS California Irrigation Management System SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District CEQA California Environmental Quality Act SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency CWS California Water Service SMP Salt Management Plan DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District SNMP Salt Nutrient Management Plan DWR California Department of Water Resources State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board EIR Environmental Impact Report SWP State Water Project ft Feet TAF Thousand acre-feet GIS Geographic information systems TDS Total dissolved solids GWMP Groundwater Management Plan TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen GPQ Groundwater Pumping Quota USGS U.S. Geological Survey LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board LAMP Local Agency Management Program WDR Waste Discharge Requirements lbs Pounds WWMP Wastewater Management Plan Nutrient Management Plan ES-1 July 2015 ES Executive Summary ES 1 Background This Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) was developed for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] Basin No. 2-10) by the Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). The NMP provides an assessment of the existing and future groundwater nutrient concentrations relative to the current and planned expansion of recycled water projects and future development in the Livermore Valley. The NMP also presents planned actions for addressing positive nutrient loads and high groundwater nitrate concentrations in localized Areas of Concern where the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) (i.e., septic tank systems) is the predominant method for sewage disposal. The NMP was prepared as an addendum to Zone 7’s Salt Management Plan (SMP) which was adopted by the Zone 7 Board of Directors in 2004 to address salt loading in the groundwater basin and to fulfill the requirements of the joint Master Water Recycling Permit (Order No. 93-159) and General Water Reuse Order (General Order No. 96-011). Because the SMP was incorporated into Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) for the Basin in 2005, the NMP is now also incorporated into Zone 7’s GWMP. This NMP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and a notice of exemption has been filed with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted a Recycled Water Policy in 2009 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011) and an amendment to the policy in 2013 (State Water Board, Resolution No. 2013-0003) to encourage and facilitate the increased use of recycled water statewide. The policy requires among other things, that Salt/Nutrient Management Plans (SNMP) be completed for all groundwater basins in California. With the addition of this NMP, Zone 7’s SMP is akin to the SNMP required by the State’s Recycled Water Policy. The NMP was developed with support and input from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), Alameda County Environmental Health Department (ACEH), Alameda County Community Development Agency (Alameda CDA), Zone 7’s Retailers (City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, Dublin San Ramon Services District [DSRSD], and California Water Service), and other stakeholders and interested public. For this purpose, several meetings were held with these stakeholders between June 2013 and June 2015. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-2 July 2015 ES 2 Groundwater Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is an inland alluvial basin underlying the east-west trending Livermore-Amador Valley (Valley) and Livermore Uplands in northeastern Alameda County. For this NMP, the groundwater basin has been divided into four basin areas:  Main Basin  Fringe Basin North  Fringe Basin Northeast  Fringe Basin East The Main Basin has been further divided into an upper and lower aquifer. The Main Basin is a portion of the groundwater basin that contains the highest yielding aquifers and generally the best quality groundwater. It is an important source of drinking water for the communities that overly it. The fringe basins contain slightly higher salinity water and generally yield low quantities of water to wells. Some groundwater flows from the Fringe Basin North into the Main Basin aquifer where it comingles with Main Basin groundwater, but it is believed that very little of the groundwater in the two eastern fringe basins comingles with Main Basin groundwater. The aquifers beneath the Livermore upland areas south of Livermore and Pleasanton typically only yield small amounts of groundwater to wells, and are not expected to be impacted by existing or planned recycled water projects; therefore, with the exception of the high OWTS use area of unincorporated Happy Valley, the upland portion of the groundwater basin is not addressed in this plan. The locations of the groundwater basin areas and Happy Valley are shown below in Figure ES-1. Zone 7’s GWMP program monitors groundwater quality throughout the basin areas. Of the two main groundwater quality parameters being monitored as nutrient contamination indicators (nitrate and phosphate), only nitrate has been detected at significant concentrations in the basin areas. The Basin Objective (BO) for nitrate in groundwater is 45 mg/L (measured as NO3) or less for all of the NMP basin areas (California State Water Board, 2011). This is the same value adopted by the California Department of Health as the maximum contamination limit (MCL) for drinking water. Average nitrate concentrations (as NO3) in the Main and Fringe Basins range from 11 to 15 mg/L. Assimilative capacity, which represents the capacity of a groundwater basin to absorb pollutants, is calculated by subtracting the average concentration from the BO. The assimilative capacities of the basins range from 30 to 34 mg/L. While average nitrate concentrations in the basin areas are below the BO, and ample assimilative capacity exists in each basin area for nitrate, there are ten localized Areas of Concern within the groundwater basin that have nitrate concentrations above the BO (see Figure ES-1 below). These ten “hot spots” are believed to be vestiges of past agricultural land uses and processes, and former municipal wastewater and sludge disposal practices; however, five of the areas are outside of municipal Urban Growth Boundaries where sewage disposal continues to be by OWTS. They are:  Happy Valley  Buena Vista  Mines Road  May School  Greenville ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-2 July 2015 Figure ES-1: Nitrate Concentrations (Upper Aquifer) and Areas of Concern ES 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nitrate contamination in groundwater supplies is typically the result of nitrogen-containing compounds being leached from the surface or soil column and mixing with the ambient groundwater. Nitrogen exists in the environment in many forms and can change forms as it moves through the soil. Sources of nitrogen loading include: fertilizers used on croplands, parks, golf courses, lawns, and gardens; sewage and other wastewaters disposed of onsite; decaying vegetation and other organic materials; animal manure and urine from pastures, animal enclosures, and other livestock boarding facilities; and nitrogen-fixing crops such as alfalfa, clover and vetch. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-3 July 2015 Within the soil zone, nitrogen compounds readily convert to ammonium and nitrate and/or are lost to volatilization, plant uptake and denitrification processes. Because nitrate is highly leachable and readily moves with water through the soil profile, excessive rainfall or over-irrigation will cause nitrate to leach below the plant's root zone and may eventually mix with groundwater. Groundwater nitrate concentrations are good indicators of nutrient contamination, and graphing concentrations versus time can indicate whether nitrate conditions are changing or stable; however this NMP uses estimates of nitrogen loading from various identified sources to help evaluate whether nitrate concentrations will increase or decrease in the long-term. For this effort, annual nitrogen loading from each known source was estimated and summed spatially using geographic information systems (GIS) software. The results were then applied to a Zone 7-developed spreadsheet model to predict future nitrate concentrations for each basin area, taking into account planned land use changes and expansions of recycled water use. The model results predict that average nitrate concentrations will decrease over time in the Main and Northeast Fringe basin areas, and will increase only slightly in the North and East fringe basin areas. The incremental increases in predicted nitrate concentrations due to the planned recycled water use expansions (shown on Figure 3-14 and Figure 4-1) in the Main and Northeast Fringe basin areas are less than 1 mg/L over the 37 year model period, or about 3% of the assimilative capacity for these two areas. The future average total nitrate concentrations as predicted by the Zone 7 model are summarized by basin area in Figure ES-2 below: Figure ES-2: Projected Nitrate Concentrations by Basin 0 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-4 July 2015 ES 4 Antidegradation Analysis The State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy requires SNMPs to include an antidegradation analysis demonstrating that the recycled water projects included within the plan will collectively satisfy the requirements of State Water Board’s “Antidegradation Policy” (Resolution No. 68-16). The antidegradation analysis for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is summarized below in Figure ES- 3: Figure ES-3: Antidegradation Assessment State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 Component Antidegradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State. The irrigation projects will:  contribute only a minimal increase (<1 mg/L) in groundwater nitrate concentrations at urban buildout.  not use more than 20% of the available Assimilative Capacity  not cause groundwater quality to exceed Basin Plan Objectives The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. Because all planned recycled water projects over the groundwater basin are landscape irrigation projects, most of the nitrogen from these projects will be removed by plant uptake and volatilization (and some by bacterial denitrification under certain conditions). Additional nitrogen loading will be avoided with the continued use of recycled water and fertilizer use best management practices (BMPs) (Section 6.1) The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. The recycled water projects are crucial for continued sustainability of the Valley’s water supply and are part of the urban growth plans for Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Implementation measures are being or will be implemented to help achieve Basin Plan Objectives in the future. Both the SMP and the NMP contain measures that have been or will be implemented to address current and future salt and nutrient loading of the Groundwater Basin. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-5 July 2015 ES 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies Although overall basin groundwater quality is not expected to degrade significantly due to ongoing and anticipated future nutrient loading, there is still a need to further assess, reduce or manage, and monitor nutrient loading to make sure that new high nitrate areas are not created by poor waste management practices or over-application of fertilizers and irrigation waters. In general, the NMP’s short-term goals are to improve the understanding of current and historical nutrient impacts to the groundwater basin, and to minimize current and future nutrient loading while allowing for a reasonable amount of new loading from rural development and recycled water use increases. The long-term goal is to meet Basin Objectives in all parts of the groundwater basin. The NMP strategies for achieving these goals include promoting the continued use of “best management practices” (BMPs) requirements aimed at minimizing nutrient loading from certain land uses (i.e., irrigated and fertilized turf and landscapes, confined livestock operations, vineyards and wineries). The NMP also promotes the enforcement of current County OWTS regulations and Zone 7 Wastewater Management policies and the future development and implementation of ACEH’s Local Area Management Program (LAMP) to minimize nutrient loading from current and future development in unsewered areas of the basin. In order to address the localized high nitrate conditions in the Areas of Concern, the NMP advocates an adaptive management strategy that begins with: 1) Increasing the understanding of the extent and source(s) of the high nitrate concentrations in the Areas of Concern, and adjusting Area of Concern boundaries as appropriate; 2) Requiring new development projects within the unsewered Areas of Concern to minimize, or when practical, reduce the overall nutrient loading on the project parcel by installing only new, advanced OWTSs with nitrogen–reducing treatment; and 3) Continuing the monitoring of the nitrate concentrations and the success of these actions to reduce them. Figure ES-4, below, provides a summary of the nutrient loading-specific goals for the active sources and the strategies developed to achieve the specific goals. FIGURE ES‐4 SUMMARY OF GOALS AND STRATEGIES NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Goals Strategies Strategy 1a: Identify and sample additional existing domestic supply wells. Strategy 1b: Encourage additional hydrogeology studies in Areas of Concern as part of new commercial developments. Strategy 2a: Promote the use of fertilizer BMPs (Section 6.1.2 ) to avoid over-application of fertilizers. Using results of soil and irrigation water chemical testing to determine the appropriate amount of additional fertilizer to apply is a good way to lessen excess leachable nitrogen in the soil. Strategy 2b: Limiting irrigation water application to the crop and landscape plants’ agronomic rates will reduce the amount of nutrient-rich leachate that migrates below the vegetation root zone and into the underlying aquifer(s). Strategy 3a: Follow Recycled Water Policy guidance for landscape irrigation projects. Minimize recharge of nitrogen by irrigating landscapes to the prescribed agronomic rates. Account for the nitrogen content of the recycled water when determining how much fertilizer to apply. Strategy 3b: Maintain low levels of nitrogen in the produced recycled water by keeping the nitrogen concentrations in the source water low and/or optimize low nitrogen levels in recycled water production. Goal 4: Minimize nitrogen loading from concentrated livestock facilities such as horse boarding, training, and breeding facilities Strategy 4: Promote the use of BMPs (Section 6.1.4 ) such as manure management and controlling site drainage to prevent nutrient contamination of rainfall runoff and irrigation return flows that may percolate to groundwater and/or flow into surface water bodies. Strategy 5a: Require local wine producers and bottlers to apply for and comply with RWQCB WDRs for the proper treatment and disposal of winery process waste streams. Strategy 5b: Develop guidance document(s) to assist both project proponents and RWQCB staff with Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and WDR development and evaluations. Strategy 6a: Continue applying Zone 7 policies and County Ordinance and Regulation provisions, e.g., 1 Rural Residential Equivalence (RRE)/5 Ac max. Strategy 6b: Continue to work with ACEH to ensure that: 1) they are aware of groundwater nitrate issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin; 2) variance requests are given the appropriate scrutiny; and 3) their OWTS approvals are consistent with adopted NMP goals and objectives. Strategy 7a: Increase understanding of existing conditions and causes, and set realistic management goals and apply adaptive management as necessary. Strategy 7b: Require new development projects utilizing OWTS in the Areas of Concern to reduce and/or minimize the overall nitrogen loading to the property. Strategy 7c: On at least an annual basis, assess performance of wastewater treatment systems, estimate area-wide nitrogen loading, and monitor groundwater quality beneath the Areas of Concern. Goal 8: Increase capture and infiltration of stormwater recharge to dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater Strategy 8: Promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to capture and infiltrate rainfall runoff and irrigation return flow ACEH = Alameda County Enviromental Health RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board BMPs = Best Management Practices Enhanced Attenuation Investigate Areas of Concern Goal 1: Obtain additional information in shallow aquifer zones of the Areas of Concern Goal 6: Minimize nitrogen loading from new onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), e.g., septic tank systems. Goal 3: Minimize nitrogen loading from recycled water irrigation projects Goal 7: Reduce nitrogen loading from OWTS in Areas of Concern Septic Tanks - Inside Areas of Concern Fertilizer Application Recycled Water Irrigation Livestock Manure Management Winery Process Wastewater Septic Tanks - Outside Areas of Concern Goal 2: Minimize nitrogen loading from fertilizer application using BMPs Goal 5: Minimize nitrogen loading from onsite disposal of winery process wastewater 7/22/2015 E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigES‐04‐ImplementationPlan.xlsx Figure ES‐4 ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-7 July 2015 ES 6 Plan Implementation Zone 7 plans to simultaneously refine the extent of the Areas of Concern and minimize nitrogen loading from existing sources. To further characterize the range and size of nitrate contamination, Zone 7 will work with ACEH and CDA on encouraging or requiring hydrogeologic studies as part of new commercial developments, and with existing well owners to sample existing shallow wells for nitrate, and with permitees planning new wells or soil borings near Areas of Concern to include electronic logs (elogs) and/or groundwater sampling in their construction plans. To minimize nitrogen loading from existing sources, the NMP encourages continued use of existing BMPs to minimize groundwater impacts from fertilizer and recycled water applications, livestock manure, and winery wastewater. Landscape and agriculture management industries promote careful metering of fertilizers and irrigation water as cost saving measures as well as environmental preservation measures. The State’s Recycled Water Policy has built-in prohibitions for over application and runoff of recycled water. Permitted livestock facilities, such as commercial equine boarding facilities, typically have requirements for active manure management conditioned in their County-issued Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Likewise, onsite treatment and disposal (or recycling) of industrial wastewater, such as that generated by winemaking processes, requires a waste discharge permit from the Water Board which often contains provisions for minimizing and monitoring the nutrient loading from the onsite operations. The NMP also encourages continued use of existing Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to increase the capture and infiltration of stormwater in order to help attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater. With continued implementation of these BMPs, future nitrate concentrations are projected to remain below 20% of the assimilative capacities calculated for each of the four Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin areas. Continued application of these BMPs also helps to minimize nutrient loading in the high nitrate Areas of Concern. In the five Areas of Concern that are within sewered areas, fertilizer and recycled water use BMPs are important for keeping nitrogen loading low, whereas fertilizer use and manure management BMPs and Waste Discharge Requirements for wineries help prevent nitrate concentrations from worsening in the five Areas of Concern that are in the unincorporated portions of the Valley. However, because there is potential for onsite disposal of residential and commercial sewage to be a significant nitrogen loading component in the five unincorporated Areas of Concern, the NMP recommends implementing additional OWTS performance measures that will, at a minimum, prevent nitrogen loading from OWTS from increasing, and in the long term, should help decrease the loading in these nitrate “hot spots.” The recommended OWTS design criteria for new development in the five Areas of Concern that are outside municipal urban growth boundaries are summarized below in Figure ES-5. These criteria are designed to minimize nitrogen loading from new OWTS use and reduce existing loading in the five Areas of Concern over time by replacing conventional OWTS with new treatment systems when the opportunities arise. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-8 July 2015 The NMP recommends that the special OWTS permit requirements described in Figure ES-5 be incorporated into the LAMP, which ACEH anticipates completing a draft in 2016, and finalizing it by 2018. Figure ES-5: Proposed OWTS Requirements Inside Areas of Concern 1 Does not apply to existing, properly-working, and properly-sized OWTS. 2 Loading rates calculated based on 1 RRE = 34 lbs/yr. 3 Assume that 18% of rainfall naturally recharges to groundwater unless study demonstrates otherwise. Zone 7 has a comprehensive water resources monitoring program in place as part of its GWMP. Monitoring elements include groundwater level monitoring, groundwater quality sampling, and climatological, surface water, land use, and wastewater and recycled water monitoring. Zone 7 wil l continue to use the data collected as part of these monitoring program elements to refine the nitrate concentration maps, Area of Concern boundaries, and the extent of the special OWTS permitting areas. Zone 7 will identify data gaps and suggested locations and depths for new monitoring wells and/or soil borings for expedited groundwater sampling in the Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will provide this information to property owners and developers to assist in developing efficient strategies for fully characterizing nitrate concentrations and nitrogen loading for projects inside Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will also work with ACEH to develop an OWTS monitoring plan that may require that owners and developers install additional monitoring wells up-gradient and down-gradient of the high nitrate areas. NMP-related monitoring results will be reported along with other groundwater sustainability and management information in Zone 7’s annual Groundwater Management Program reports. Minor updates to the SMP/NMP will also be reported in the annual reports. As the assigned Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the groundwater basins located within its service areas, Zone 7 plans to incorporate the then OWTS Scenario Parcel Size New Requirement Max Nitrogen Loading Rate2 ≤ 7 acres Must install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s). 23.8 lbs/year Per Parcel Total nitrogen loading on the parcel must not exceed the Maximum Nitrogen Loading Rate. Commercial uses must also install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s). 3.4 lbs/year Per Parcel Acre OR Prepare hydrogeologic study that assesses current groundwater nitrate conditions beneath the site and demonstrates that nitrate concentration of total onsite recharge 3 does not exceed 36 mg/L (80% of MCL) or the maximum concentration at the site, whichever is lower. 6.8 lbs/year Per Parcel Acre > 7 acres New, upgraded, or replacement OWTS required by County OWTS Ordinance 1 ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-9 July 2015 current SMP/NMP into a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin before the due date of January 31, 2022. Nutrient Management Plan 1 July 2015 1 Background 1.1 Introduction Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has actively managed the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] Basin No. 2-10) for over 50 years. Zone 7 prepared a Salt Management Plan (SMP) in 2004 to address the increasing level of total salts in the Main Basin of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. The SMP was designed to protect the long-term water quality of the Main Basin and is a permit condition of the Master Water Recycling Permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Order No. 93-159, issued jointly to Zone 7, the City of Livermore, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The SMP was approved by the Water Board in October 2004 and was incorporated into Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) in 2005. The status of salt management is updated in Zone 7's annual GWMP reports, copies of which are submitted to the Water Board to satisfy associated permit reporting requirements. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted a Recycled Water Policy in February 2009 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011) to encourage and facilitate the increased use of recycled water statewide. The policy requires among other things, that Salt/Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) be completed for all groundwater basins. The policy was amended in January 2013 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2013-0003) to include provisions regarding the monitoring of Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs). Because there is already an approved SMP for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, a new SNMP is not required. However, to make the existing SMP comparable to the SNMP described in the Recycled Water Policy, Zone 7 has prepared this Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) as an addendum to its 2004 SMP, and, by extension, its GWMP. This plan does not cover other groundwater basins within the Zone 7 Service Area (Sunol Valley, San Joaquin – Tracy Subbasin) because there are no recycled water projects planned in those basins. This report is organized into the following sections:  Section 1: Introduction – provides an overview of the report.  Section 2: Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin Characteristics – provides an overview of the groundwater basin including groundwater inventory and basin water quality.  Section 3: Basin Nutrient Evaluation – describes how Zone 7 manages the groundwater basin for storage and water quality.  Section 4: Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis – describes the proposed recycled water irrigation projects and how this plan addresses the State’s antidegradation policy (State Water Board Resolution Number 68 – 16).  Section 5: Goals and Strategies – describes the nutrient management options and strategies and outlines the nutrient management goals for groundwater, wastewater, and recycled water.  Section 6: Plan Implementation – describes the implementation measures and provides an overview of the basin monitoring program.  Section 7: References – a list of reports and documents that were used to prepare this report. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 2 July 2015 1.2 Purpose and Management Objectives This NMP summarizes Zone 7's approach to managing nutrient loading in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. The main purposes of this nutrient management plan are to:  Provide an assessment of the existing and future groundwater nutrient concentrations;  Address the additional nutrient loading anticipated from the planned expansion of recycled water use over the groundwater basin; and  Identify specific high groundwater nitrate areas and describe the planned management actions developed to address these impacted areas. Zone 7’s primary groundwater Basin Management Objective (BMO) is to provide for the control, protection and conservation of groundwater for future beneficial uses. The Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) designates the following beneficial uses for groundwater in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin:  Municipal and Domestic Supply  Industrial Service and Process Supply  Agricultural Supply The Basin Plan also specifies Groundwater Quality Objectives for total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin as follows: Central Basin TDS: Ambient or 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L), whichever is lower Nitrate (as NO3): 45 mg/L Fringe Subbasins TDS: Ambient or 1,000 mg/L, whichever is lower Nitrate (as NO3): 45 mg/L Upland and Highland Areas California domestic water quality standards set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and current county standards. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal water supply shall not contain concentrations of chemicals in excess of natural concentrations or the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, particularly Tables 64431-A and 64431-B of Section 64431, Table 64444-A of Section 64444, and Table 4 of Section 64443. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 3 July 2015 This “living” NMP incorporates adaptive management strategies. Regular updates will be provided in Zone 7’s GWMP Annual Reports. 1.3 Regulatory Framework 1.3.1 Master Water Recycling Permit and Salt Management Plan In 1993, the Water Board issued a joint Master Water Recycling Permit (Master Permit) (Order No. 93- 159) to Zone 7, DSRSD, and the City of Livermore authorizing the three agencies to produce, distribute and manage recycled water throughout the Livermore-Amador Valley (Valley). The Master Permit required that an SMP be developed to fully offset both current salt loading from natural sources and operations and any future salt loading associated with new recycled water projects before any extensive water recycling projects could be implemented in the Valley. Between 1994 and 1999, Zone 7 developed a draft SMP for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin through a collaborative process with its retail water supply customers and the public. The SMP was finalized and approved by the Water Board in 2004, and later incorporated into Zone 7’s GWMP. DSRSD and the City of Livermore have since filed for, and have been granted, coverage under a regional General Water Reuse Order (General Order No. 96-011) to administer their current and future landscape irrigation recycled water projects within their individual jurisdictions. As with the Master Permit, the General Order requires that an SMP be developed and approved. The Master Permit has been kept active by the Water Board at the request of DSRSD and Livermore only to address potential future groundwater recharge projects. The City of Pleasanton has applied for permit coverage for their planned recycled water use projects under the same general order that DSRSD and City of Livermore’s recycled water programs are operating under (General Order No. 96-011), and references Zone 7’s approved SMP in its application to satisfy the order’s SMP requirement. 1.3.2 State Recycled Water Policy In 2009, the State Water Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy (State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011) which requires that SNMPs be completed for all groundwater basins using recycled water in California. However, since an approved SMP already exists for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, a new SNMP is not required. In June 2014, the State Water Board adopted General Water Quality Order No. 2014-0090-DWQ to promote and regulate landscape irrigation recycled water projects within the state. This general order was written to be consistent with the State’s Recycled Water Policy in that it requires an SNMP be prepared 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 4 July 2015 and adopted by the Water Board. This NMP will be submitted to the Water Board as an amendment to the previously adopted SMP, and by extension Zone 7’s GWMP. 1.3.3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) In June 2012, the State Water Board adopted a new policy that establishes siting, design, operation, and maintenance criteria for OWTS statewide. The purpose of this policy is to allow the continued use of OWTS by providing local agencies a streamlined regulatory tool with clear criteria and a flexible alternative for protecting water quality and public health from OWTS impacts where local conditions call for special requirements to be implemented. The OWTS Policy gives the Regional Water Boards the principal responsibility to oversee implementation, and calls for incorporating the OWTS Policy requirements into all Basin Plans. The San Francisco Bay Water Board adopted a Basin Plan amendment in June 2014 that incorporates the State's new OWTS Policy. Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) enforces the State Water Board’s policies for the operation, installation, alteration, and repair of individual onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), (i.e., septic tank systems) in all of Alameda County under the authority of Chapter 15.18 of the Alameda County General Ordinance. The County’s 2007 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems and Individual/Small Water Systems Regulations were developed in collaboration with the Water Board and Zone 7, and include special provisions for the Upper Alameda Creek Watershed, above Niles; such as a moratorium for new OWTS in unincorporated Happy Valley and a 5-acre minimum parcel size requirement for new OWTS in the remainder of the watershed. The recent OWTS Policy allows for local agencies such as ACEH to implement or continue additional requirements like these that address local conditions and special concerns, but mandates that they be detailed in a Local Area Management Program (LAMP) developed in consultation with the Water Board. As such, ACEH is planning to work with Water Board staff and other local entities to develop an LAMP for Alameda County. ACEH anticipates completing a draft LAMP by 2016 and finalizing it by 2018. More information on the LAMP provisions envisioned for the areas overlying the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is provided in Section 6.2.5. 1.3.4 Zone 7 Wastewater Management Plan In 1982, Zone 7 adopted its Wastewater Management Plan for the Unsewered, Unincorporated Area of Alameda Creek Watershed above Niles (WWMP) (Zone 7, 1982), which provides wastewater management policies intended to prevent further degradation of water quality from onsite wastewater disposal systems in the Livermore Valley, Sunol Valley, and Niles Cone groundwater basins. An additional policy was added in 1985 that limited the use of OWTS for new commercial development (Zone 7 Resolution 1165). Although ACEH issues permits for OWTS in Alameda County, Zone 7 requires special approval for any of the following OWTS located within the Valley: 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 5 July 2015  Any new OWTS constructed, partially or fully, for a commercial or industrial use;  Any conversion of a residential OWTS to a commercial or industrial use; or  Any new residential OWTS that discharges greater than one rural residential equivalence of wastewater (i.e., greater than an annual average of 320 gallons/day) per 5 acres. 1.3.5 Groundwater Management Plan and Annual Reports In 2005, Zone 7 compiled and documented all of its groundwater management policies, objectives, and programs, including its WWMP and SMP, into its comprehensive GWMP for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which the DWR recognizes as a SB1938-compliant GWMP. Zone 7’s GWMP provides a detailed description of the groundwater management goals and practices used for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, as well as detailed descriptions of the subbasin boundaries, hydrologic settings, historical groundwater use and overdraft, practices and measures used to prevent future overdraft and groundwater quality degradation, and stakeholder involvement during the development of the GWMP. Another significant portion of the GWMP addresses the numerous monitoring programs and protocols employed by Zone 7 to quantify, manage and protect the basin’s groundwater supplies. The GWMP itself is intended to be a “living document,” and as such, undergoes periodic reevaluations and updates as conditions and management goals may change. Periodic adjustments to the GWMP are noted in the Annual Reports for the Groundwater Management Program (years 2005 to 2013), available online at www.zone7water.com. Major revisions are handled through a formal revision or addendum process that involves collaboration between Zone 7, the Water Board, Zone 7’s retailers, and other stakeholders in an open public process. In 2014, California passed three new bills (Senate Bills 1168 and 1319, Assembly Bill 1739) designed to achieve sustainable groundwater management in the state within the next 20 years. In SB 1168, Zone 7 was deemed the exclusive local agency to manage groundwater within its statutory boundaries with powers to comply with this new part of the Water Code. 1.4 Stakeholder Involvement This NMP was developed with cooperation and input from regulatory agencies (e.g., Water Board, ACEH, Alameda County Community Development Agency [Alameda CDA]), property owners, Zone 7’s Retailers (City of Livermore, DSRSD, City of Pleasanton, California Water Service), and other interested parties. The following meetings took place from June 2013 to June 2015 to discuss the calculation methods, results, and proposed actions:  June 2013: Meeting at the Water Board with Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), RMC, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) also in attendance. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 6 July 2015  July 2013: Status meetings with Zone 7 Retailers.  October 2013: Status meeting with Zone 7 Retailers  October 2013: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee discussing preliminary results.  January 2014: Follow-up public meeting and presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee.  March 2014: Progress meeting with the Water Board, SCVWD, SCWA.  April 2014: Public stakeholder meeting with property owners and residents in May School, Buena Vista and Greenville Areas of Concern. Staff from ACEH and Alameda CDA were also in attendance.  July 2014: Progress meeting with the Water Board, ACEH and Alameda CDA  October 2014: Progress meeting with Zone 7 Retailers to discuss final results.  November 2014: Progress meeting with the Water Board, ACEH, and Alameda CDA to discuss final results.  November 2014: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee to discuss final results.  February 2015: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board to present draft report.  March 2015: Meeting with the Water Board to discuss comments on draft report.  April 2015: Follow-up meeting with the Water Board to further discuss proposed revisions to draft report.  May 2015: Follow-up meeting with the Water Board and ACEH staff to review changes to draft report. A copy of the draft NMP report was also provided to CDA for comments.  June 2015: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee to discuss draft report. In addition, a webpage was created on Zone 7’s website at www.zone7water.com and maintained for the NMP project. Public meeting announcements, meeting presentation slides, and draft NMP documents were posted on the webpage or elsewhere on the website during the development and review of the draft NMP. 1.5 CEQA Considerations This Nutrient Management Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A notice of exemption has been filed with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder. This Plan is an addendum to the existing Groundwater Management Plan, which in 2005 was also found to be exempt from CEQA. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 7 July 2015 The NMP provides a focused assessment of current and anticipated issues and concerns relating to nitrate concentrations in the groundwater basin. Best management practices are identified – focused primarily on minimizing nitrogen loading over the groundwater basin. The BMPs are inherently protective measures for the environment, and therefore no significant impacts will occur as a result of implementation of the Plan. The plan does not identify the need for new or modified infrastructure. Should Zone 7 wish to undertake such a project in the future to help meet NMP related goals, it would require project-specific analysis under CEQA. Nutrient Management Plan 9 July 2015 2 Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations 2.1 Groundwater Basin Overview This section provides a brief summary of the hydrogeologic setting of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. A more detailed description can be found in Zone 7’s GWMP (Zone 7, 2005a). The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Figure 2-1) is an inland alluvial basin underlying the east-west trending Livermore-Amador Valley (Valley) in northeastern Alameda County. Figure 2-1: Map of Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins (DWR, 1974) The Main Basin is a portion of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin that contains the highest yielding aquifers and generally the best quality groundwater. The Fringe Basins consist primarily of shallow, lower-yielding alluvium containing relatively poor quality groundwater. The upland area portions of the groundwater basin consist primarily of lower-yielding bedrock of the Livermore, Tassajara, and Green Valley Formations. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 10 July 2015 Six principal streams flow into and/or through the Main Basin and join in the southeast where the Arroyo de la Laguna flows out of the Valley. The five arroyos shown in Figure 2-1 and listed below are essentially tributaries to the Arroyo de la Laguna:  Arroyo Valle,  Arroyo Mocho,  Arroyo Las Positas,  South San Ramon Creek,  Tassajara Creek, and  Alamo Creek/Canal. Average precipitation ranges from 14 inches per year at the eastern edge of the Valley to over 20 inches per year in the western portion. 2.1.1 Geology The Valley and portions of the surrounding uplands overlie groundwater-bearing materials. These materials consist of deposits from alluvial fans, streams, and lakes (of Pleistocene-Holocene age; less than about 1.6 million years old) that range in thickness from a few feet along the margins to nearly 800 feet (ft) in the west-central portion. The alluvium consists of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The southeastern region of the Valley is the most important groundwater recharge area and consists mainly of sand and gravel that was deposited by the ancestral and present Arroyo Valle and Arroyo Mocho. The Livermore Formation (Pleistocene age; 11,000 to 1.6 million years old), found below the majority of the alluvium in the groundwater basin, consists of beds of clayey gravels and sands, silts, and clays that are unconsolidated to semi-consolidated. However, the contact between the overlying alluvium and the Livermore Formation is nearly impossible to discern from drill cuttings and electrical logs. This formation is estimated to be 4,000 ft thick in the southern and western portion of the basin. These sediments tend to have low-yielding groundwater in the upland areas. The Tassajara and Green Valley Formations, located in the Tassajara Uplands north of the Valley, are roughly Pliocene in age (1.6 to 5.3 million years old). They basically consist of sandstone, tuffaceous sandstone/siltstone, conglomerate, shale, and limestone. Water movement from these formations to the alluvium of the fringe and Main Basins is minimized by faults and angular unconformities or by stratigraphic disconformities along the formation-alluvium contacts. The lateral movement of groundwater is restricted by the presence of geologic structures which create boundaries. These include the Parks Boundary (which was initially considered to be fault-related, but may be a depositional boundary between recent alluvium and older material), as well as the Livermore, Pleasanton, Calaveras, and Greenville faults. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 11 July 2015 2.1.2 Main and Fringe Basins The Main Basin and Fringe Basins (shown on Figure 2-1) are comprised of the subbasins listed below: Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East  Castle  Bernal  Amador  Mocho II  Bishop  Camp  Dublin  Altamont  Cayetano  May  Spring  Vasco  Mocho I (northern portion)  Mocho I (southern portion) All of the Valley’s municipal supply wells are completed in the Main Basin aquifers, which have the highest transmissivity in the Valley. Figure 2-2 (from Zone 7, 2014) shows the recharge area for the Main Basin. The most relevant of the Fringe Basins to the NMP is the Fringe Basin North due to its connectivity with the Main Basin (Section 2.1.3.1) and because of the amount of recycled water use, both existing and proposed, in that portion of the basin. 2.1.3 Aquifer Zones 2.1.3.1 Overview Water levels in the Main Basin typically vary with seasonal recharge and extraction. The highest water levels usually are found at the end of the rainy season and lowest water levels at the end of the high demand summer/fall seasons; however, this trend can change during periods of extended drought or multi-year storage replenishment (Section 2.2.1). Zone 7 maintains a system of Key Wells that is used to monitor general conditions in each of the Main Basin’s Subbasins. Although multiple aquifers have been identified in the Main Basin alluvium, wells have been classified generally as being in one of two aquifer zones (upper or lower), separated by a relatively continuous silty- clay aquitard up to about 50 ft thick. Groundwater in both the upper and lower aquifer zones generally follows a westerly flow pattern, similar to the surface water streams, along the structural central axis of the valley toward municipal pumping centers. The Main Basin is connected to the fringe areas primarily through the shallow alluvium, especially across the northern boundaries of the Main Basin. Subsurface inflow into the deeper portions of the Main Basin from the fringe subbasins is considered to be minor. The deeper aquifers of the Main Basin are primarily recharged through vertical migration of groundwater within the Main Basin itself. GROUNDWATERBASINBOUNDARY Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR/CW 100 North Canyons Parkway, Livermore, CA REVIEWED: MK Figure 2-2Recharge Area and Confining LayerAbove Upper Aquifer Scale: Date: Oct 3, 2014 7,000 0 7,0003,500 Feet Legend Approximate Limit of Confining LayerConfining LayerGroundwater BasinMain BasinRecharge Area . File: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig2-02-RechargeMap.mxd 1 " = 7,000 ft 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 13 July 2015 2.1.3.2 Upper Aquifer Zone The upper aquifer zone consists of alluvial materials, including primarily sandy gravel and sandy clayey gravels. These gravels are usually encountered underneath a confining surficial clay layer typically 5 to 70 ft below ground surface [bgs] in the west and exposed at the surface in the east. The base of the upper aquifer zone ranges from 80 to 150 ft bgs. Groundwater in this zone is generally unconfined; however, when water levels are high, portions of the Upper Aquifer Zone in the western portion of the Main Basin can become confined. Figure 2-3: Gradient in Upper Aquifer, October 2013 The groundwater gradient in the Upper Aquifer is generally from east to west towards the Bernal Subbasin, then to the south where groundwater flows out of the Main Basin (see Figure 2-3 and Figure A- 1). The gradient typically ranges from 0.005 to 0.025 with isolated areas of flatter or steeper gradients, especially near subbasin boundaries. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 14 July 2015 2.1.3.3 Lower Aquifer Zone All sediments encountered below the clay aquitard in the center portion of the basin have been known collectively as the Lower Aquifer Zone. The aquifer materials consist of semi-confined to confined, coarse-grained, water-bearing units interbedded with relatively low permeability, fine-grained units. It is believed that the Lower Aquifer Zone derives most of its water from the Upper Aquifer Zone through the leaky aquitard(s) when groundwater heads in the upper zone are greater than those in the lower zone. Figure 2-4: Gradient in Lower Aquifer, October 2013 In the Lower Aquifer, the groundwater gradient within the Mocho II and Amador Subbasins ranges from 0.001 to 0.05 with groundwater flowing generally westward along the longitudinal axis of the Livermore- Amador Valley (see Figure 2-4 and Figure A-2). In the Bernal Subbasin, the gradient (typically less than 0.006) is slightly to the north and east towards the Hopyard and Mocho Wellfields. Typically, the lowest elevations correspond to the municipal pumping wellfields within each subbasin. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 15 July 2015 There are two major subsurface structural features that act as partial barriers to the lateral movement of groundwater in the Lower Aquifer. These features define the sub-basin boundaries between the Mocho II and Amador Subbasins, and between the Dublin and Camp fringe basins and the Main Basin. Groundwater levels are significantly higher on the up-gradient sides of these partial barriers, but it is believed that groundwater cascades across these linear features providing some subsurface recharge for the adjacent subbasin. 2.1.4 Land Use The majority of the land use over the Main and Fringe Basins is considered urban (60%), 7% is dedicated to gravel mining, 6% is used for irrigated agriculture, and the remaining areas are open space (27%). Zone 7 has an established Land Use Monitoring Program that identifies changes in land use with an emphasis on changes in impervious areas and the volume and quality of irrigation water that could impact the volume or quality of water recharging the Main Basin. Land use data are derived from aerial photography, permit applications, field observations, and City and County planning documents. The current land use categories are:  Residential (rural)  Residential (low density)  Residential (medium density)  Residential (high density)  Commercial and Business  Industrial  Public  Public (Irrigated Park)  Agriculture (vineyard)  Agriculture (non-vineyard)  Mining Area – Pit  Water Body  Golf Course  Open Space The source of the water that supplies each of the land use polygons is also catalogued. The sources of water are identified as:  Delivered (municipal) water  Groundwater  Recycled water Land use and source water information are used to calculate rainfall and applied water recharge and salt and nutrient loading. Current and future land uses and their associated loading contributions are discussed in more detail in Section 3. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 16 July 2015 2.2 Groundwater Inventory 2.2.1 Conjunctive Use Zone 7 imports extra surface water from the State Water Project’s (SWP) South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and artificially recharges it in the Main Basin (currently using stream percolation in losing reaches). This recharged SWP water is then available to Zone 7 for pumping during dry years. In normal years, Zone 7 operates its wells to augment production during demand peaks and whenever a shortage or interruption occurs in surface water supply or treatment. However, Zone 7 has also pumped groundwater as a salt management strategy. The decision of which well(s) to pump first is based on pumping costs, pressure zone needs, delivered aesthetic water quality issues, operational status, and demineralization facility capacity. Although reduced groundwater pumping may have a positive impact on groundwater storage and delivered water quality, increased groundwater pumping has a beneficial impact on the basin’s salt loading because much of the salt in the pumped groundwater eventually leaves the basin as wastewater export. 2.2.2 Groundwater Storage The Main Basin is estimated to hold up to 254 thousand acre-feet (TAF) whereas the fringe basins are estimated to hold 243 TAF. Zone 7 quantifies the total groundwater storage of the Main Basin by averaging the values computed by two independent methods: a groundwater elevation method and a hydrologic inventory method. Additional information on these two methods can be found in Zone 7’s annual GWMP reports. One of Zone 7’s groundwater basin management objectives is to maintain water levels above historical lows to minimize the risk of inducing land subsidence. Therefore, not all of the total groundwater storage is considered accessible. “Operational” or “Available” Storage is the approximate amount of storage available above the historical low groundwater surface (about 126 TAF). The remainder (approximately 128 TAF) is estimated reserves stored below historical lows. 2.2.3 Groundwater Production Zone 7 provides water resources management services to about 220,000 residents of the Valley. Zone 7 integrates management of both surface and groundwater supplies for conjunctive use and reliability of water supplies. Groundwater typically makes up 15-25% of the water supplied by Zone 7 to its retail water supply agencies; however, higher groundwater use can occur during droughts and surface water outages. In addition, two of the four retailers independently operate supply wells, as do other domestic and agricultural users, so the total amount of groundwater makes up a higher percentage of the total regional supply (typically 20-40%). All of the Valley’s municipal supply wells are completed in Main Basin aquifers (Figure 2-5). 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 17 July 2015 Figure 2-5: Map of Municipal Wells 2.2.4 Groundwater Sustainability Zone 7 strives to manage the basin’s groundwater sustainably. To assure sustainability, Zone 7 quantifies the supply and demand components (Figure 2-6) and their calculated annual volumes each year and makes sure that the long-term averages do not indicate overdraft conditions. The results are presented in Zone 7’s Annual Reports for the GWMP (see Zone 7, 2014 for the most recent example). The Main Basin’s “natural,” sustainable, groundwater yield is defined as the amount of water that can be pumped from the groundwater basin and replenished by long-term average, natural supply. The long- term, natural sustainable yield is calculated based on local precipitation and natural recharge over a century of hydrologic records and projections of future recharge conditions. Applied water recharge has been historically included in the “natural” sustainable yield because of its sustainable contribution to groundwater recharge. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 18 July 2015 Figure 2-6: Groundwater Supply and Demand Components Inflow and Outflow Components Normal Water Year (AF/yr) Natural Sustainable Yield Supply Natural Stream Recharge 5,700 Arroyo Valle Prior Rights 900 Rainfall Recharge 4,300 Applied (Irrigation) Water Recharge 1,600 Subsurface Inflow 1,000 Basin Overflow -100 Inflow Total 13,400 Natural Sustainable Yield Demand Municipal pumping by Retailers 7,214* Other groundwater pumping 1,186 Agricultural pumping 400 Mining Area Losses 4,600 Outflow Total 13,400 Managed Supply Artificial Stream Recharge Inflow Total Varies† Managed Demand Municipal Pumping by Zone 7 Outflow Total Varies† *Retailer Groundwater Pumping Quota (GPQ) for a Calendar Year †Artificial stream recharge and Zone 7 pumping amounts are determined by the availability of surface water The long-term, natural sustainable yield in the Main Basin was estimated to be about 13,400 acre-feet (AF) annually (Zone 7, 1992). While the natural sustainable yield approximates long-term-average natural recharge, the actual amount of natural recharge varies from year to year depending on the amount of local precipitation and irrigation during the year. Zone 7’s artificial recharge operations allow the groundwater basin to yield additional water, which is as sustainable as the supply of imported surface water. Zone 7 contracts with the SWP to import water that is released from the SBA or from Lake Del Valle (an SWP reservoir also operated by the California Department of Water Resources) into the arroyos for the purpose of augmenting the natural stream recharge. Historically, Zone 7’s annual groundwater pumping has varied with the availability of imported surface water and the capacity to treat that surface water. However, Zone 7 also operates its wells for salt management, to supply short-term demand peaks, and to compensate for treatment and conveyance system interruptions. The decision of which well(s) to pump is based on groundwater elevations, pumping costs, pressure zone needs, delivered aesthetic water quality issues, salt management needs, operational status, and groundwater demineralization facility capacity. Although reduced groundwater pumping may have a positive impact on groundwater storage and delivered water quality, increased groundwater pumping has a beneficial impact on the basin’s salt loading because much of the salt in the pumped groundwater eventually leaves the basin as wastewater export. Annual variability can be accommodated as long as the long-term average groundwater demands don’t exceed the sustainable average recharge. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 19 July 2015 2.3 Basin Water Quality (Nutrients) 2.3.1 Overview In addition to managing the basin for supply sustainability, Zone 7 manages the basin for groundwater quality. In general, groundwater quality throughout most of the Main Basin is suitable for most types of urban and agriculture uses with some minor localized water quality degradation. Zone 7’s annual GWMP reports (see Zone 7, 2014 for the 2013 report) present more details of the groundwater quality monitoring and management programs for the basin. The nutrient constituent of concern for this plan is nitrate since it is the only nutrient that has had a significant impact on groundwater quality. The Basin Objective (BO) for nitrate is 45 mg/L (measured as NO3) for both the Main and Fringe Basins (California State Water Board, 2011). Phosphate is also monitored as part of the GWMP, but is encountered in concentrations well below the water quality standards and is not considered a significant nutrient of concern for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Figure 2-7 below shows the maximum concentrations encountered in each of the basin areas. Figure 2-7: Maximum Concentration of Nutrients in Basin Areas Nutrient Standard Concentration Max (2001-2014) Main Basin Fringe North Fringe Northeast Fringe East mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Nitrate (as NO3) 45(1) 95 340(2) 190 163 Phosphate (as PO4) 5(3) 2.85 3.65 1.93 0.34 (1) MCL from CDPH and BO from the Water Board (2) Only 2 sample results above 100 mg/L (3) Recommended limit from World Health Organization 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 20 July 2015 2.3.2 Nitrate Concentrations The results from Zone 7’s annual groundwater sampling are used to prepare nitrate concentration maps each year for Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Program annual reports. Where data gaps exist, Zone 7 uses historical data and geologic expertise to estimate the extent of nitrate concentrations. The nitrate concentration contours maps from the upper and lower aquifers from the 2013 Annual Report (Zone 7, 2014) are shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9 below, and in more detail in Figure A-3 and Figure A-4 in Appendix A: Figure 2-8: Nitrate Concentrations in Upper Aquifer 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 21 July 2015 Figure 2-9: Nitrate Concentrations in Lower Aquifer 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 22 July 2015 A conceptual cross section through the Fringe Basin East and southeast portion of the Main Basin is shown in Figure 2-10 below. Figure 2-10: Schematic Cross Section To calculate Main Basin groundwater storage for Zone 7’s Annual Groundwater Management Plan reports, Zone 7 uses polygonal subareas originally developed by DWR (California DWR, 1974) and referred to as nodes. The groundwater storage of each node is calculated using the nodal thickness, average groundwater elevations from the fall semiannual measuring event, storage coefficient, and total area of each node (see Figure A-5 for the values used for each node). The fringe basin nodes only have upper aquifer zones whereas the Main Basin nodes have upper and lower aquifer zones. The total Main Basin groundwater storage is equal to the sum of all the nodal storage values for the 22 nodes in the Main Basin. Groundwater basin storage varies considerably spatially, especially in the Main Basin. Therefore, Zone 7 calculated a volume-weighted average nitrate concentration for each of the basins using the nodal storage 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 23 July 2015 volumes used in the Zone 7’s 2013 annual GWMP report (Zone 7, 2014). Zone 7 used ArcGIS’s Spatial Analyst to calculate the average nitrate concentration for each groundwater storage node from the nitrate concentration maps (shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9, and in detail in Figure A-3 and Figure A-4). These average nodal concentrations were then averaged by the nodal storage volume to calculate the volume-weighted, average nitrate concentration of each basin. Figure 2-11 shows the layout of the nodes, and the average upper or upper and lower aquifer nitrate concentrations for each node from the 2013 monitoring well sampling results (Zone 7, 2014). Figure 2-11: Nitrate Concentrations by Node Figure 2-12 below shows the storage volume of each node from the 2013 annual report, average nitrate concentrations, and assimilative capacity (AC) by node, aquifer, subbasin, and basin areas (see Section 2.3.3 for discussion on how assimilative capacity is calculated). 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 24 July 2015 Figure 2-12: Storage (AF), Nitrate Concentrations (as NO3 in mg/L) and Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) by Node, Subbasin, and Basin Area Upper Lower Total Basin NODE Basin Subbasin Storage NO3 AC Storage NO3 AC Storage NO3 AC NODE 1 FBN 28,888 1 44 - - - 28,888 1 44 NODE 2 FBN 3,363 3 42 - - - 3,363 3 42 NODE 3 FBN 6,303 6 39 - - - 6,303 6 39 NODE 4 FBN 6,236 14 31 - - - 6,236 14 31 NODE 5 FBN 5,914 14 31 - - - 5,914 14 31 NODE 6 FBN 7,349 11 34 - - - 7,349 11 34 NODE 7 FBN 6,825 11 34 - - - 6,825 11 34 NODE 8 FBN 4,263 2 43 - - - 4,263 2 43 NODE 9 FBN 5,119 5 40 - - - 5,119 5 40 NODE 10 FBN 7,219 11 34 - - - 7,219 11 34 NODE 11 FBN 4,918 6 39 - - - 4,918 6 39 NODE 12 FBN 10,142 3 42 - - - 10,142 3 42 NODE 13 FBN 8,035 3 42 - - - 8,035 3 42 NODE 14 FBN 5,495 5 40 - - - 5,495 5 40 NODE 15A FBN 106 1 44 - - - 106 1 44 NODE 16A FBN 96 2 43 - - - 96 2 43 NODE 15 MB Bernal 535 11 34 1,771 12 33 2,306 12 33 NODE 16 MB Bernal 600 4 41 2,654 13 32 3,253 11 34 NODE 17 MB Bernal 1,499 12 33 1,602 9 36 3,100 11 34 NODE 18 MB Bernal 2,649 10 35 5,457 12 33 8,106 12 33 NODE 19 MB Bernal 3,784 14 31 5,579 12 33 9,363 13 32 NODE 20 MB Bernal 913 1 44 3,656 7 38 4,569 6 39 NODE 21 FBN 17,445 10 35 - - - 17,445 10 35 NODE 22 FBN 11,837 20 25 - - - 11,837 20 25 NODE 23 MB Amador 2,129 11 34 2,812 15 30 4,942 13 32 NODE 24 MB Amador 2,660 15 30 2,993 17 28 5,653 16 29 NODE 25 MB Amador 7,483 12 33 6,979 11 34 14,462 12 33 NODE 26 MB Amador 8,884 7 38 8,923 17 28 17,807 12 33 NODE 27 FBN 17,655 27 18 - - - 17,655 27 18 NODE 28 FBN 7,814 31 14 - - - 7,814 31 14 NODE 29 MB Amador 4,620 27 18 1 26 19 4,621 27 18 NODE 30 MB Amador 7,216 18 27 5,735 21 24 12,951 19 26 NODE 31 MB Amador 8,402 3 42 15,010 8 37 23,412 6 39 NODE 32 FBN 1,024 22 23 - - - 1,024 22 23 NODE 33 MB Amador 639 18 27 479 19 26 1,118 19 26 NODE 34 MB Amador 2,755 25 20 5,618 13 32 8,373 17 28 NODE 35 MB Amador 8,831 7 38 22,775 11 34 31,607 9 36 NODE 36 MB Amador 10,863 1 44 1 7 38 10,865 1 44 NODE 37 MB Amador 209 6 39 0 12 33 209 6 39 NODE 38 MB Mocho II 4,915 37 8 1,629 30 15 6,544 35 10 NODE 39 MB Mocho II 10,011 19 26 4,251 24 21 14,263 21 24 NODE 40 MB Mocho II 10,930 27 18 2,267 10 35 13,197 24 21 NODE 41 MB Mocho II 10,889 4 41 1 2 43 10,890 4 41 NODE 42 MB Mocho II 7,647 36 9 1,759 33 12 9,406 35 10 NODE 43 FBNE 8,622 27 18 - - - 8,622 27 18 NODE 44 FBE 6,830 15 30 - - - 6,830 15 30 NODE 45 FBNE 62,141 14 31 - - - 62,141 14 31 NODE 46 FBNE - 11 34 - - - - 11 34 NODE 47 FBNE - 7 38 - - - - 7 38 Bernal 9,981 11 34 20,717 11 34 30,698 11 34 Amador 64,692 10 35 71,326 12 33 136,018 11 34 Mocho II 44,392 22 23 9,908 24 21 54,299 22 23 Main Basin 119,064 15 30 101,951 13 32 221,015 14 31 FB-North 166,046 11 34 166,046 11 34 FB-Northeast* 70,762 15 30 70,762 15 30 FB-East 6,830 15 30 6,830 15 30 TOTAL* 362,702 13 32 101,951 13 32 464,653 13 32 * not including Nodes 46 and 47 (no storage info available) Storage in AF, NO3 Concentration in mg/L, AC = Assimilative Capacity 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 25 July 2015 The average volume-weighted concentrations were then calculated for each subbasin, aquifer, and basin area; and the results are as shown in Figure 2-13 below. Figure 2-13: Nitrate Concentrations by Subbasin, Aquifer, and Basin Area The 2013 total average nitrate concentration in the upper aquifer is 15 mg/L, with all subbasins between 9 mg/L and 27 mg/L. The average nitrate concentration in the lower aquifer is 13 mg/L, with all subbasins between 11 mg/L and 24 mg/L. The overall concentration for the Main Basin is 14 mg/L. The average concentrations in the Fringe Basins (which only consist of an upper aquifer) ranged between 11 mg/L and 15 mg/L. All average basin concentrations are well below the BO (45 mg/L); however, there are Areas of Concern (described in Section 2.4) where local nitrate concentrations do exceed the BO. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 26 July 2015 2.3.3 Assimilative Capacity Assimilative Capacity, the natural capacity of the groundwater basin to absorb pollutants, is the difference between the BO (45 mg/L) and the average concentration of the basin with a relatively conservative contaminant like nitrate. The assimilative capacity estimated for each of the nodes and basins are shown in Figure 2-14 and are summarized below by basin area. Figure 2-14: Average Nitrate Concentrations and Assimilative Capacities by Basin Area BASIN AREA Average NO3 (mg/L) Basin Objective (mg/L) Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) Main Basin 14 45 31 Upper Aquifer 15 45 30 Lower Aquifer 13 45 32 Fringe Basin – North* 11 45 34 Fringe Basin – Northeast* 15 45 30 Fringe Basin – East* 15 45 30 * Fringe Basins consist of only an upper aquifer The average nitrate concentrations on which the assimilative capacity was calculated are based on nitrate concentration contours and nodal storage volumes calculated for the 2013 Annual Report. Where data gaps existed, Zone 7 used historical data (for example 2008 data in the May School area, Section 2.4) and geologic expertise to estimate the extent of nitrate concentrations contours. 2.4 Areas of Concern Average nitrate concentrations are well below the BO (45 mg/L) in all four groundwater basin areas in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, however there are ten local areas where nitrate concentrations are above the BO. These “Areas of Concern” are shown in orange and red on Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16 and are described below, roughly from West to East. Five of the ten Areas of Concern have a higher-than-average density of OWTS in use, which has led to the development of special requirements for new OWTS applications in these areas. The OWTS management goals and strategies and associated implementation plan for these five Areas of Concern are discussed in detail in Sections 5.3.5 and 6.2.5. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 27 July 2015 Figure 2-15: Nitrate Areas of Concern 1. Happy Valley – This unincorporated, unsewered area has been subdivided into 1 to 5 acre lots and developed with rural residences relying on domestic wells for water supply. There are currently about 100 OWTS in use in Happy Valley. Very little additional development has been planned for the Happy Valley because Alameda County has placed a moratorium on new OWTS construction in the Happy Valley area due to high nitrate detections in some of the domestic wells. There are no dedicated monitoring wells in the area; however, many of the domestic wells have been tested for nitrate since 1973. In 2013, Zone 7 and ACEH conducted voluntary testing of water samples from domestic wells in Happy Valley. Seven of the 31 wells had nitrate concentrations that exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 45 mg/L, with one reaching 124 mg/L. Most of the high nitrate occurrences were detected in the central portion of this enclosed sub-basin, which consists of only one upper aquifer. The results of this study have not yet been finalized as of the date of this plan, however, the approximate extent of nitrate concentrations above 45 mg/L are shown in Figure 2-15. In a 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 28 July 2015 letter dated October 3, 2014, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has asked the City of Pleasanton to report back within six months to the commission on the results of a study to identify how water and sewer services will be provided to the Happy Valley area. 2. Staples Ranch – This elongated Area of Concern runs from west to east in the southern portion of the Camp Subbasin in the eastern portions of Dublin and Pleasanton. This area was heavily farmed in the past, and then left largely as undeveloped open space until recently. It is now planned for low- to medium-density residential and commercial development with connections to the municipal sewer, water, and recycled water. While only two monitoring wells in the upper aquifer (3S/1E 5K 6 and 3S/1E 2M 3) currently have nitrate concentrations above 45 mg/L, several surrounding wells in both the upper and lower aquifers have nitrate concentrations above the average. Concentrations have been slowly rising in monitoring well 3S/1E 2M 3 to a maximum concentration 66.43 mg/L in the 2013 Water Year (see graph below). The contamination is likely a remnant of past agricultural operations that included row crops, alfalfa cultivation, small dairy operations, and OWTS clusters. There is still some dry farming of hay in the area and a golf driving range in the eastern part with approximately 16 acres of irrigated turf. The future planned commercial development may effectively cap any potential buried nutrient sources from the historical agricultural land use, minimizing their leaching during rainfall events. 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Gree Staples Ranch (3S/1E 2M 3) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 29 July 2015 3. Bernal – This Area of Concern is based on nitrate concentrations from one well (3S/1E 22D 2) in the southern portion of the upper aquifer of the Amador West Subbasin. The long-term trend of concentrations in this well (see graph below) has been slowly declining; however, recently concentrations have been fluctuating around the MCL. This area is primarily sewered, and developed as medium-density residential (about 2 to 8 dwellings per acre) with no future additional development planned. The source of high nitrate and the reason for the fluctuating concentrations has not been identified, but it is speculated that the nitrate may have been entering the Main Basin as hill-front recharge and/or subsurface inflow from the neighboring Livermore Uplands to the south. These sources are likely diminishing as urban development spreads into the Upland area. 4. Jack London – This Area of Concern extends from the eastern portion of the Mocho II Subbasins to the northeastern portion of the Amador Subbasin. The eastern portion is primarily sewered medium-density residential while the western portion is sewered commercial (including the Livermore airport) with little future development currently planned. A horse boarding facility operates in the most western part. Portions of this nitrate plume date back to at least the 1960s. Two wells in the upper aquifer have consistently had concentrations above the 45 mg/L (3S/1E 11G 1 and 3S/2E 7H 2), however several surrounding wells in both the upper and lower aquifers also have elevated nitrate concentrations. Nitrate concentrations appear to have stabilized in 3S/1E 7H 2 at just above the MCL (see graph below). The most significant nutrient contributor is believed to have been the historical municipal wastewater disposal that was practiced at several locations along this nitrate plume before the LAVWMA wastewater export pipeline was constructed. Historical and current agricultural practices, and current recycled water use are other potential nutrient loading sources for this area, although considered to be less significant. 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3)(mg/L)Bernal (3S/1E 22D 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Jack London (3S/1E 7H 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 30 July 2015 5. Constitution – This Area of Concern exists near the boundary of the Mocho II, Camp, and Amador Sub-basins and is up-gradient from the Las Positas Golf Course in Livermore. This area is primarily sewered commercial with little future land use development. Nitrate concentrations above the 45 mg/L have only been detected in 3S/1E 1F 2 (see graph below), which shows an upward trend; however, elevated concentrations have also been detected in downgradient monitoring well 3S/1E 2R 1 (see Figure 2-16). The source of the nitrate is unconfirmed, but may be from historical OWTS use and agricultural practices, and current landscape fertilizer application and/or recycled water use. 6. May School - The highest nitrate concentration detected in the groundwater basin is located near May School Rd in the upper aquifer of the May Subbasin. There currently is only one Zone 7 monitoring well in this Area of Concern (2S/2E 28D 2), and it had a nitrate concentration of 189 mg/L in 2013 (see graph below). However, in the 2008 WY, as part of a “snapshot” water quality assessment for this area, Zone 7 sampled and analyzed several domestic wells to determine the extent of the nitrate contamination. These results, presented in the 2008 Annual Report for the Groundwater Management Program, Zone 7, 2009, (see Figure A-6) suggested that the nitrate appeared to be relatively localized, with the highest concentration in the vicinity of 2S/2E 28D 2. The source of high nitrate was not identified; however, it likely comes from agricultural land use in that area. Also, this unsewered area has a concentration of rural residences on Bel Roma Rd that are served by OWTS. There are no known future development plans for the area. 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Constitution (3S/1E 1F 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3)(mg/L)May School (2S/2E 28D 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 31 July 2015 7. Buena Vista - This nitrate plume is defined by several wells in the central and eastern portion of the Mocho II Subbasin in both the upper and lower aquifers. This area is primarily unsewered low- to medium-density residential, vineyard and winery land uses with some future vineyard and winery development planned. Figure 2-10 shows a schematic cross- section that includes the southeastern portion of this Area of Concern. The concentration in 3S/2E 22B 1 (see graph below), near the proximal end of the plume, fluctuates above and below the MCL, but has been above the MCL for the last few years (61.56 mg/L in the 2013 WY). The potential sources of the nitrate are existing OWTS and historical agricultural practices, livestock manure, and composting vegetation. There are over 100 OWTS still in use near the proximal end of the plume, documented historical poultry ranching, and crop and floral farming along Buena Vista Avenue. There are also numerous wineries in the area. 8. Charlotte Way- This Area of Concern exists in the western portion of the Mocho I Subbasin and may commingle with the Buena Vista Area of Concern in the eastern portion of the Mocho II Subbasin. The area is primarily sewered and developed as medium-density residential. There is no future development planned for the area. Elevated nitrate concentrations have been detected in at least three wells, but have historically been greatest in the upper aquifer monitoring well 3S/2E 14A 3 (see graph below). Concentrations in this well have fluctuated above and below 45 mg/L, but dropping below the MCL to 38.31 mg/L in the 2013 WY. The cause is believed to be historical OWTS, fertilizer applications, and other agricultural land uses that no longer exist in the area, but continue to have impact on groundwater quality. 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Buena Vista (3S/2E 22B 1) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Charlotte Way (3S/2E 14A 3) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 32 July 2015 9. Greenville – This Fringe Basin East Area of Concern is represented by a single monitoring well in the upper aquifer located on Greenville Road, near the corner of Tesla Road (3S/2E 24A 1). This area is primarily developed as unsewered low-density residential, vineyard, and wineries with future additional vineyard and winery uses planned. Figure 2-10 above shows a schematic cross-section through the Greenville and southeastern portion of the Buena Vista Areas of Concern. The highest concentration of nitrate recorded for the monitoring well was 163.90 mg/L in 2001 Water Year. The 2013 WY concentration was 156.33 mg/L (see graph below). The source of nitrate in this well is unconfirmed, but may be from historical chicken farming, and other agricultural land uses located up-gradient of the monitoring well. There is concern for the potential increase in onsite wastewater disposal from future commercial development planned for this area. 10. Mines Road – This Area of Concern, which is also represented by a single well; 3S/2E 26J 2 (see graph below). It is located in the southern portion of the Main Basin upper aquifer along Mines Road. Nitrate concentrations in this well have fluctuated widely, ranging from non- detect to a maximum of 94.77 mg/L in October 2011. The reason for the fluctuations are unknown, but may be related to agriculture and changes in precipitation. This area is primarily unsewered low-density residential with little future development planned. 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Greenville (3S/2E 24A 1) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Mines Rd (3S/2E 26J 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L May SchoolGreenvilleMines Rd.Buena VistaJ. LondonStaples RanchBernalConstitutionConstitutionStaples RanchBernalJack LondonBuena VistaGreenvilleMay SchoolCharlotte WayCharlotte WayNITRATE AREAS OF CONCERN AND TRENDSMines RoadFIGURE 2-16y = 0.0022x ‐41.992R² = 0.0218040801201602001980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Nitrate Concentration mg/L3S/1E 4J 5 Nutrient Management Plan 35 July 2015 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation 3.1 Historical Sources of Nitrate The most significant historical sources of nitrate in the basin (shown in Figure 3-1) are from:  Decaying vegetation (buried and surficial)  Municipal wastewater and sludge disposal  OWTS (i.e., septic systems)  Concentrated animal boarding/ranching (horse boarding, chicken and/or cattle ranching)  Applied fertilizers (crops and landscape) Figure 3-1: Historical and Existing Sources of Nitrate 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 36 July 2015 Several of these historical sources are no longer active, but appear coincident with or are slightly up- gradient from several Areas of Concern as described in Section 2.4. The nitrogen loading from these inactive historical sources is difficult to estimate due to the uncertainties about the original nature of the source (e.g., location, size, time frame, nitrogen loading rates). Most of these historical sources ceased several decades ago and are likely to already be in equilibrium with the groundwater basin. Therefore the current nitrogen loading from these inactive historical sources is assumed to be negligible. However, some of the historical nutrient loading processes are still active today (e.g., fertilizer application, onsite wastewater disposal, livestock manure production), albeit in much smaller quantities. These are addressed in the following sections. Since a complete database of active and historical nutrient sources such as existing wineries, concentrated livestock operations, OWTS, and historical municipal wastewater disposal areas was not available for this study, some assumptions were made for their quantities and locations. Computer searches and aerial photo review were performed to identify the active (or recent) wineries and equine facilities shown in Figure 3-1. The areas shown as “Existing Parcels with OWTS” in Figure 3-1 were synthesized using the county tax assessment roll and ArcGIS. Parcels containing structures in the unincorporated, unsewered areas were assumed to be served by an OWTS and therefore shaded accordingly in the figure. The historical OWTS and wastewater disposal areas were taken from figures and exhibits contained in Zone 7’s Wastewater Management Plan (Camp, et al, 1983) and Land Application of Wastewater and Its Effect on Ground-water Quality in the Livermore-Amador Valley (USGS, 1983). Fertilizer application areas are not shown in Figure 3-1 because they are assumed to be widespread and a function of land use. 3.2 Conceptual Model 3.2.1 Fate and Transport of Nitrate To determine if groundwater nitrate concentrations will rise or drop over the long-term, one must calculate the net nitrate loading on the groundwater basin. However, net nitrate loading is difficult to calculate because nitrate readily converts to and from other nitrogen compounds (e.g., nitrite, ammonia, elemental nitrogen) in the unsaturated soil zone. Therefore, it is common to use total nitrogen as the metric for determining potential net nitrate loading. The fate and transport of nitrogen compounds in the unsaturated zone is complex, with transformation, attenuation, uptake, and leaching in various environments. The following excerpt is from Moran, et al, 2011. Nitrogen may be applied to crops in various forms such as animal manure, anhydrous ammonia, urea, ammonium sulfate, calcium nitrate, or ammonium nitrate, but all forms may eventually be converted to nitrate and transported away from the shallow soil zone to streams or groundwater. Denitrification, which converts nitrate to nitrogen or nitrous oxide gas, can mitigate nitrate loading to streams and groundwater, and can occur in any zone where certain geochemical conditions are met, viz. low oxygen, the presence of an electron donor such as organic carbon or reduced sulfur, and a population of 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 37 July 2015 denitrifying bacteria. The hyporheic zone of streams, riparian buffer zones, poorly drained soils, and saturated zones with low dissolved oxygen are all environments where bacteria are generally present and conditions favorable for denitrification may exist. However, once in the saturated groundwater zone, nitrogen is relatively stable, and primarily exists as nitrate. Some denitrification can occur in the saturated zone, but not readily in the oxygen-rich conditions that are so common in the shallow aquifers of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Since nitrate is soluble in water, it is transported with the groundwater through the aquifers. 3.2.2 Methodology 3.2.2.1 Introduction To calculate the net nitrogen loading, Zone 7 sums the current nitrogen loading from all the sources and removal components, which are shown in Figure 3-2 below. Figure 3-2: Existing Nitrogen Sources and Removal NITROGEN SOURCES NITROGEN REMOVAL Stream Recharge Soil Processes Rainfall Recharge  Denitrification Pipe Leakage  Soil texture (absorption) Subsurface Inflow  Plant Uptake Horse Boarding (manure) Groundwater Pumping (wastewater export) Mining Export Subsurface Outflow Rural (OWTS and livestock manure) Mining Export Winery (OWTS and process water) Subsurface Outflow Applied water (well water and recycled) water ) Fertilizers (agriculture and turf) In most cases, current nitrogen loading from each component above (e.g., stream recharge, rainfall recharge, pipe leakage, etc.) can be quantified by multiplying water volume, which Zone 7 calculates annually as part of its groundwater inventory, by the concentration of nitrogen compounds in the water. For example, to calculate the nitrogen loading from stream recharge, the volume of stream recharge is multiplied by the average nitrate concentration in the stream water. Nitrogen loading from historical sources is assumed to have already occurred, and therefore it is considered to have negligible consequence to the current loading (Section 3.1). 3.2.2.2 Manure, OWTS, and Wastewater To calculate the nitrogen loading from horse boarding facilities, rural properties with OWTS, and wineries; Zone 7 calculated the number of facilities or properties from aerial photographs and land use 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 38 July 2015 data and then applied a nitrogen loading rate obtained from literature review as shown on Figure 3-3 below. Figure 3-3: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Horse Boarding, Rural Properties, and Wineries LAND USE CATEGORY Annual Nitrogen Loading Horse Boarding (Manure)1 75 lbs/acre Rural (OWTS and Manure)2 49 lbs/parcel Wineries (OWTS & process water)2 Small 54 lbs/facility Medium 200 lbs/facility Large 355 lbs/facility 1 From RMC 2012, RMC 2013 2 From RMC 2002 3.2.2.3 Irrigation and Fertilizer Application Nitrogen loading from fertilized irrigation or “fertigation” includes the nitrogen from the fertilizer as well as the irrigation source water, and the assumed removal due to soil processes (evapotranspiration, denitrification, soil absorption) and plant uptake. It was calculated using the following formula (where N = nitrogen): Leached N to Groundwater = N from Applied Fertilizer + N in Source Water – (N lost to Soil + Plant Uptake) Where N from Applied Fertilizer is calculated using land use estimates for irrigated acreage, irrigation season, and fertilizer application rates as follows: N from Applied Fertilizer = Percentage Irrigated Area x Percentage of Year Irrigated x N Application Rate The land use values for irrigation are listed below in Figure 3-4: 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 39 July 2015 Figure 3-4: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Fertilized Irrigation by Land Use LAND USE CATEGORY Irrigation Constants Applied Nitrogen Irrigated Area1 Irrigation Season in Fertilizer Application2 % Months lbs N/irr acre Agriculture - Other 72% Apr - Sep 133 Agriculture - Vineyard 48% Apr - Sep 29 Golf Course 60% Oct - Sep 91 Mining Area Other 0% NA 0 Mining Area Pit 0% NA 0 Mining Area Pond 0% NA 0 Open Space 0% NA 0 Public (Schools, Government Bldgs, etc.) 10% Oct - Sep 91 Roads 0% NA 0 Rural Residential 1% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Commercial and Industrial 10% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Park 49% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Residential High Density 27% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Residential Low Density 8% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Residential Medium Density 32% Oct - Sep 91 Water 0% NA 0 1 Pervious Area x Irrigated Portion of Pervious Area, adapted from NHC, 2007. 2 Adapted from RMC, 2012. N from Source Water, which is the nitrogen that is already in the irrigation water before fertilizer is added, is calculated using estimated water application rates by land use and source water concentration. Zone 7 calculated average water application rates by land use (see Figure 3-5 below, in units per acre of land use and per acre of irrigated area) using its areal recharge spreadsheet model, which calculates applied water recharge (along with rainfall recharge and unmetered groundwater pumping) for the Main Basin and Fringe Basin North. The model uses rainfall, evaporation, soil type, irrigation efficiency, pervious area, pervious area irrigated, and irrigation season to calculate applied water rates for 500 ft by 500 ft cells that correspond to those used in Zone 7’s groundwater model. 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 40 July 2015 Figure 3-5: Source Water Application Rates from Irrigation by Land Use LAND USE CATEGORY Water Application Rate Water Application Rate AF/acre AF/irr acre Agriculture - Other 0.7 1.0 Agriculture - Vineyard 0.6 1.3 Golf Course 1.1 1.8 Public (Schools, Government Bldgs, etc.) 0.5 5 Rural Residential 0.6 6 Urban Commercial and Industrial 0.3 3 Urban Park 1.1 2.2 Urban Residential High Density 0.7 2.6 Urban Residential Low Density 0.4 5 Urban Residential Medium Density 1.0 3.1 The concentration of the source water was calculated using data collected as part of Zone 7’s groundwater annual monitoring programs. The concentration ranges for the last ten years and the average used in the calculations is presented below in Figure 3-6. Figure 3-6: Nitrate Concentrations in Irrigation Source Water Water Type NO3 Range mg/L NO3 Average mg/L Delivered (municipal) ND-19.8 3.6 Groundwater (supply wells) ND-147 23.3 Recycled water* 108-196 152 *All nitrogen from NO3, NO2, and TKN assumed to convert to nitrate. ND = Not Detected above the Detection Limit Nitrate concentrations for recycled water in the Valley are usually below detection limits, however other compounds (nitrite, ammonia, and organic nitrogen) contain nitrogen and can be converted to nitrate in the subsurface. Zone 7 assumed that all the nitrogen from these compounds has the potential to convert to nitrate. This is likely not the case, but provides a conservative upper limit of possible nitrate accumulation in the groundwater basin. Also, for this evaluation, it was assumed that for certain land uses (e.g., commercial, agriculture), professional landscapers will reduce the volume of applied fertilizer to account for the nitrogen in the source water. For this study, the N Lost in Soil includes losses due to evapotranspiration, denitrification, soil absorption, and plant uptake, and is assumed to be 87% of the total nitrogen applied (Horsley Witten Group, 2009, Executive Summary included in Figure A-8). 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 41 July 2015 3.3 Nitrogen Loading Calculations 3.3.1 Current Nitrogen Loading To calculate current nitrogen loading, Zone 7 applied the methodology described in Section 3.2.2 using the following data sets:  Daily precipitation for an average year  Daily evaporation for an average year  2013 Land-Use (shown in Figure 3-7)  2013 Source Water Distribution (shown in Figure 3-8) Figure 3-7: 2013 Land Use 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 42 July 2015 Figure 3-8: 2013 Source Water Distribution 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 43 July 2015 The resulting total current nitrogen loading from all sources is shown on the map in Figure 3-9 below. Figure 3-9: Total Nitrate Loading (in lbs N/acre) The net nitrogen loading from each component (loading and removal) is shown by basin area in Figure 3-10 and is summarized in Figure 3-11 below: FIGURE 3-10NET NITROGEN LOADING BY BASINCURRENT LAND USE WITH AVERAGE RAINFALLCOMPONENTSN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrLOADING 18,795 AF 7 mg/L 81,520 3,300 AF 14 mg/L28,426 3,105 AF 6 mg/L 12,249 517 AF 24 mg/L 7,723Stream Recharge 10,895 AF 1 mg/L 8,398 150 AF 4 mg/L 326 1,049 AF 1 mg/L 668 100 AF 1 mg/L 62Nat Stream Recharge 5,700AF 0.94 mg/L 3,315 150AF3.50mg/L326999AF1.00mg/L619 100AF1.00mg/L62AV Prior Rights 900AF 1.58 mg/L881Art Stream Recharge 4,295AF 1.58 mg/L 4,202501.58 mg/L49Rainfall Recharge 4,300 AF 0.50 mg/L 1,333 1,486 AF 0.50 mg/L 461 960 AF 0.50 mg/L 298 276 AF 0.50 mg/L 86Leakage 1,000 AF 21 mg/L 13,020 485 AF 21 mg/L 6,309 50 AF 21 mg/L 651 10 AF 21 mg/L 130Applied Water 1,600 AF 46 mg/L 45,735 1,180 AF 29 mg/L 21,331 1,046 AF 16 mg/L 10,632 130 AF 92 mg/L 7,445Irrigation (fertilizer)30,75720,7927,8341,109Horse Boarding 52 acre 75 lbs/acre 3,9140acre 75 lbs/acre00acre 75 lbs/acre040acre 75 lbs/acre 2,978Rural Septic/Manure 186properties 49 lbs/prop 9,114 11properties 49 lbs/prop539 56properties 49 lbs/prop 2,744 63properties 49 lbs/prop 3,087Winery Large 3 wineries 355 lbs/winery 1,0650wineries 355 lbs/winery00wineries 355 lbs/winery00wineries 355 lbs/winery0Winery Medium 2 wineries 200lbs/winery4000wineries 200lbs/winery00wineries 200lbs/winery00wineries 200lbs/winery0Winery Small 9 wineries 54 lbs/winery 4860wineries 54 lbs/winery01 wineries 54 lbs/winery54 5 wineries 54 lbs/winery270Subsurface Inflow 1,000 AF 21.02 mg/L 13,034 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0REMOVAL‐18,795 AF 10 mg/L‐122,235‐3,300 AF 8 mg/L‐17,236‐3,105 AF 14 mg/L‐26,777‐517 AF 15 mg/L‐4,804Zone 7 Pumping‐5,940 AF 18.30 mg/L‐67,390Retailer Pumping‐6,570 AF 10.78 mg/L‐43,921Ag Pumping‐400 AF 9.32 mg/L‐2,310‐133 AF 0.44 mg/L‐36‐53 AF 15.00 mg/L‐493‐21 AF 15.00 mg/L‐195Other Pumping‐1,185 AF 11.17 mg/L‐8,205Mining Losses‐4,600 AF 0.13 mg/L‐382Subsurface Outflow‐100 AF 0.44 mg/L‐27‐3,166 AF 8.76 mg/L‐17,200‐3,052 AF 13.89 mg/L‐26,284‐496 AF 15.00 mg/L‐4,608Subsurface to Streams‐2,166AF3.10mg/L‐4,166‐3,052AF 13.89 mg/L‐26,284‐496AF 15.00mg/L‐4,608Subsurface to MB‐1,000AF 21.02 mg/L‐13,034NET NITROGEN LOADING‐40,715 11,190‐14,528 2,919UnitsConcentration or RateMAIN BASIN FRINGE BASIN (NORTH) FRINGE BASIN (NORTHEAST) FRINGE BASIN (EAST)UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or Rate5/6/2015E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig3-10-2013NLdgCalcsLch13.xlsxFigure 3-10 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 45 July 2015 Figure 3-11: Summary of Current Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal BASIN AREA N LOADING lbs N/yr N REMOVAL lbs N/yr NET N LOADING lbs N/yr Main Basin 81,520 - 122,235 -40,715 Fringe Basin North 20,426 -17,236 11,190 Fringe Basin Northeast 12,249 - 26,777 -14,528 Fringe Basin East 7,723 - 4,804 2,919 The percentage of loading from each source in each basin area is shown in Figure 3-12 below: Figure 3-12: Percentage Loading by Source - Current Conditions Nitrogen Source Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East Recharge 12% 3% 8% 2% Leakage 16% 22% 5% 2% Irrigation/Fertilizer 38% 73% 64% 14% Animal Boarding 5% 0% 0% 39% OWTS 11% 2% 22% 40% Winery 2% 0% 0% 3% Subsurface Inflow 16% 0% 0% 0% The largest source of nitrogen for the basin areas is irrigation (38% to 73% of total loading), with the exception of the Fringe Basin East, where nitrogen loading from irrigation is only 14% of total loading. In the Fringe Basin East, nitrogen loading is predominantly from horse boarding facilities (39%) and OWTS (40%). OWTS also contribute a significant source of nitrogen (22%) in the Fringe Basin Northeast. The largest removal of nitrogen in the Main Basin is from groundwater pumping (99.7%). In the Fringe Basin areas, where there is little groundwater pumping, the majority of nitrogen removal is from subsurface outflow (95% to 99.8%). However, because there are no wells down-gradient of the Fringe Basin East, the nitrate concentration of the subsurface outflow is unknown. For the calculations presented in Figure 3-10, Zone 7 used the average concentration of the basin. In the Main Basin the net nitrogen loading is negative because of nitrogen removal by groundwater pumping. In the Fringe Basin Northeast the net nitrogen loading is also negative primarily because of high nitrate concentrations in the subsurface outflow into the Arroyo Las Positas. However, the net annual 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 46 July 2015 nitrogen loading is increasing in the Fringe Basin North and Fringe Basin East because there is little groundwater pumping or subsurface outflow and no other major nitrogen removal mechanisms. 3.3.2 Future Nitrate Loading The planning horizon for this study is 2050, which is close to when “buildout” of the cities is currently projected. At buildout, the following land use changes are expected to be completed:  Aggregate mining activities, converting to other uses.  Urban development per Municipal General Plans  South Livermore Plan development  Recycled water project expansions currently planned by the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. To calculate nitrogen loading at buildout, Zone 7 applied the methodology described in Section 3.2.2 using the following datasets:  Daily precipitation for an average year  Daily evaporation for an average year  Land-Use at buildout (shown in Figure 3-13 below)  Source Water Distribution at buildout (shown in Figure 3-14 below) 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 47 July 2015 Figure 3-13: Land Use at Buildout 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 48 July 2015 Figure 3-14: Source Water Distribution at Buildout The net nitrogen loading estimated for each component (loading and removal) at build out for each basin area is shown in Figure 3-15, and summarized in Figure 3-16 below. FIGURE 3-15NET NITROGEN LOADING BY BASINLAND USE AT BUILDOUT WITH AVERAGE RAINFALLCOMPONENTSN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrLOADING 17,395 AF 8 mg/L 87,642 3,300 AF 16 mg/L 32,283 3,105 AF 7 mg/L 13,789 517 AF 28 mg/L 8,905Stream Recharge 9,495 AF 1 mg/L 7,028 150 AF 4 mg/L 326 1,049 AF 1 mg/L 668 100 AF 1 mg/L 62Nat Stream Recharge 5,700AF0.94 mg/L 3,315 150AF3.50 mg/L 326 999AF1.00 mg/L 619 100AF1.00 mg/L62AV Prior Rights 900AF1.58 mg/L881Art Stream Recharge 2,895AF1.58 mg/L 2,833501.58 mg/L49Rainfall Recharge 4,300 AF 0.50 mg/L 1,333 1,486 AF 0.50 mg/L 461 960 AF 0.50 mg/L 298 276 AF 0.50 mg/L 86Leakage 1,000 AF 21 mg/L 13,020 485 AF 21 mg/L 6,309 50 AF 21 mg/L 651 10 AF 21 mg/L 130Applied Water 1,600 AF 54 mg/L 53,227 1,180 AF 34 mg/L25,187 1,046 AF 19 mg/L 12,172 130 AF 107 mg/L 8,627Irrigation (fertilizer)38,24824,6488,3441,262Horse Boarding 52 acre 75 lbs/acre 3,914 0 acre 75 lbs/acre 0 0 acre 75 lbs/acre0 40 acre 75 lbs/acre 2,978Rural Septic/Manure 186properties 49 lbs/prop 9,114 11properties 49 lbs/prop 539 66properties 49 lbs/prop 3,234 73properties 49 lbs/prop 3,577Winery Large 3 wineries 355 lbs/winery1,065 0 wineries 355 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 355 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 355 lbs/winery0Winery Medium 2 wineries 200 lbs/winery400 0 wineries 200 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 200 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 200 lbs/winery0Winery Small 9 wineries 54 lbs/winery486 0 wineries 54 lbs/winery0 11 wineries 54 lbs/winery594 15 wineries 54 lbs/winery810Subsurface Inflow 1,000 AF 21.02 mg/L 13,034 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0REMOVAL‐17,395 AF 10 mg/L‐112,763‐3,300 AF 15 mg/L‐30,599‐3,105 AF 12 mg/L‐23,293‐517 AF 16 mg/L‐5,181Zone 7 Pumping‐5,940 AF 16.93 mg/L‐62,359Retailer Pumping‐6,570 AF 9.98 mg/L‐40,642Ag Calculated‐400 AF 8.62 mg/L‐2,138‐133 AF 0.78 mg/L‐65‐53 AF 13.05 mg/L‐429‐21 AF 16.18 mg/L‐211Other Pumping‐1,185 AF 10.34 mg/L‐7,597Mining Losses‐3,200 AF 0.00 mg/L 0Subsurface Outflow‐100 AF 0.44 mg/L‐27‐3,166 AF 15.55 mg/L‐30,535‐3,052 AF 12.08 mg/L‐22,865‐496 AF 16.18 mg/L‐4,971Subsurface to Streams‐2,166AF5.51 mg/L‐7,396‐3,052AF12.08 mg/L‐22,865‐496AF16.18 mg/L‐4,971Subsurface to MB‐1,000AF37.32 mg/L‐23,139NET NITROGEN LOADING‐25,121 1,683‐9,504 3,724UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or RateMAIN BASIN FRINGE BASIN (NORTH) FRINGE BASIN (NORTHEAST) FRINGE BASIN (EAST)UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or Rate5/6/2015E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig3-10-2013NLdgCalcsLch13.xlsxFigure 3-15 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 50 July 2015 Figure 3-16: Summary of Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal at Buildout BASIN N LOADING (lbs N/yr) N REMOVAL (lbs N/yr) NET N LOADING (lbs N/yr) Main Basin 87,642 -112,763 -25,121 Fringe Basin North 32,283 -30,599 1, 83 Fringe Basin Northeast 13,789 -22,293 9,504 Fringe Basin East 8,905 -5,181 3,724 The percentage of loading from each source in each basin area is shown in Figure 3-17 below. At “buildout,” the largest components of loading and removal of nitrogen are about the same as those estimated for current conditions; only slight percentage changes. The largest source of nitrogen loading for three of the basin areas is irrigation/fertilizer application (i.e., Main Basin, Fringe Basin North, and Fringe Basin Northeast). The 44% to 76% of total loading for this component is a slight increase over the 38% to 73% estimated for the same component under current conditions. For the Fringe Basin East, nitrogen loading is projected to be predominantly from horse boarding facilities (33%) and OWTS use (40%) as compared to 39% and 40%, respectively for the same two components currently. OWTS also are projected to contribute a significant source of nitrogen (23%) at buildout in the Fringe Basin Northeast, as compared to 22% currently. Figure 3-17: Percentage Loading by Source at Buildout Nitrogen Source Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East Recharge 10% 2% 7% 2% Leakage 15% 20% 5% 1% Irrigation/Fertilizer 44% 76% 61% 14% Animal Boarding 4% 0% 0% 33% OWTS 10% 2% 23% 40% Winery 2% 0% 4% 9% Subsurface Inflow 15% 0% 0% 0% The largest removal of nitrogen in the Main Basin is predicted to be from groundwater pumping (99.9% versus 99.7% currently). In the Fringe Basin areas, where there is little groundwater pumping, the majority of nitrogen removal will be from subsurface outflow (95% to 99.8%, approximately the same as 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 51 July 2015 current). However, because there are no monitoring wells down-gradient of the Fringe Basin East, the nitrate concentration of the subsurface outflow had to be estimated. For the calculations presented in Figure 3-15, the average nitrate concentration of the basin was used as the nitrate concentration of the outflow. At buildout, the net nitrogen loading in the Main Basin will continue to be negative because of nitrogen removal by groundwater pumping. In the Fringe Basin Northeast the net nitrogen loading will continue to be negative primarily because of high nitrate concentrations in the subsurface outflow. However, the net annual nitrogen loading will continue to be positive in the Fringe Basin North and Fringe Basin East because there is little groundwater pumping or subsurface outflow, and no other major nitrogen removal mechanisms are apparent. 3.4 Projected Nitrate Concentrations Zone 7 created a spreadsheet model to estimate future nitrogen concentrations for the four basin areas. These are presented and discussed by basin area below. Also shown on the graphs for the Main Basin and Fringe Basin North, where the recycled water irrigation projects are planned, are the predicted concentrations if there were no additional recycled water irrigation projects. According to the Recycled Water Policy, a recycled water irrigation project must use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity or multiple projects must use less than 20% of available assimilative capacity. Since there are three planned recycled water projects in the Valley (by DSRSD, Livermore, and Pleasanton), the results are assessed relative to 20% of the available assimilative capacity. Nitrate concentrations in the Main Basin are expected to drop (see Figure 3-18 below) primarily because of the removal of nitrates by groundwater pumping. The graph below also shows that there is only a minor expected increase in concentrations (<1 mg/L) from future planned recycled water, primarily because it is assumed that for the majority of land uses, nitrogen loading from the recycled water irrigation projects will be offset by reduced fertilizer application (Section 3.2.2). Figure 3-18: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Main Basin 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Main Basin Predicted Nitrate Concentration Concentration With No Additional Recycled Water 20% of Assimilative Capacity 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 52 July 2015 While net nitrate loading is positive in the Fringe Basin North, the total nitrogen loading increase is small relative to the overall volume of water in the basin. Therefore concentrations are only expected to rise slightly (about 2 mg/L) and are not expected to approach the limit of 20% of the assimilative capacity (see Figure 3-19 below). Also, there is only a minor expected increase in concentrations (<1 mg/L) from future planned recycled water, primarily because the nitrogen loading from the recycled water irrigation projects will be offset by reduced fertilizer application. Figure 3-19: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin North Nitrate concentrations in the Fringe Basin Northeast are expected to drop (see Figure 3-20 below) because of the net negative nitrogen loading, primarily because of nitrate losses due to subsurface overflow from the basin. No recycled water irrigation projects are planned over this basin. Figure 3-20: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin Northeast Due to the positive net nitrogen loading primarily from anticipated increases in rural residential and agri- commercial land uses (livestock manure and OWTS leachate), nitrate concentrations are expected to rise 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin North Predicted Nitrate Concentration Concentration With No Additional Recycled Water 20% of Assimilative Capacity 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin Northeast Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 53 July 2015 only slightly (about 1 mg/L) in the Fringe Basin East (see Figure 3-21 below), and are anticipated to remain below the 20% of the assimilative capacity limit. No recycled water irrigation projects are planned over this basin. Figure 3-21: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin East Zone 7 performed an analysis to assess the sensitivity of the nitrogen leaching rates in soil for fertilizer application and irrigation. The results of this parameter sensitivity analysis are presented in Appendix A. For this analysis, Zone 7 used the same method and spreadsheet model that gave the results above, but changed the leachable nitrogen factor for irrigated lands from an average of 13% (Horsley Witten Group, 2009, see Figure A-8) to approximately 25% (RMC, 2012, see Figure A-9). The resulting predicted nitrate concentration graphs (Figure A-10) were then compared to those above to assess whether the higher nitrogen leaching rates would significantly change the results. The results indicated that raising the leaching rate (i.e., more nitrogen leaches through the soil) had only a minimal effect on future nitrate concentrations for all basins except for the Fringe Basin North. In the Fringe Basin North, the predicted nitrate concentration increased to approximately 18 mg/L by 2050 and exceeded the 20% assimilative capacity limit sometime in the early 2040s. This is because the net nitrogen loading is positive in this fringe basin and the majority of the nitrogen loading is from fertilizer/irrigation. However, the predicted trend in nitrate concentration from the estimate using the higher leaching factor is not consistent with the historical trend of nitrogen concentrations in monitoring wells in this basin (see Figure A-11). Historical nitrate concentrations appear to be generally stable or even decreasing since 1974, which is more consistent with the trend resulting from the lower leaching factor shown in Figure 3-19. Zone 7 will continue to monitor nitrate concentrations as part of its annual GWMP reports, and will reassess the nitrogen leaching rates as more research and concentration data becomes available. Zone 7 will update the predicted nitrate concentration graphs in Figure 3-18 to Figure 3-21 if the reassessed leaching rate is determined to be significantly higher, or if there are other significant changes to the parameters used in the calculations (e.g., those presented in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5) or to future plans (e.g., future land use, recycled water). 0 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin East Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity Nutrient Management Plan 55 July 2015 4 Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis 4.1 Recycled Water Projects The Recycled Water Policy and other state-wide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. As stated in the Recycled Water Policy “The collapse of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, climate change, and continuing population growth have combined with a severe drought on the Colorado River and failing levees in the Delta to create a new reality that challenges California’s ability to provide the clean water needed for a healthy environment, a healthy population and a healthy economy, both now and in the future. …….We strongly encourage local and regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local water for California by emphasizing appropriate water recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of supply are drought- proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long-term.” Clearly, the benefits in terms of sustainability and reliability of recycled water use cannot be overstated (quoted from RMC, 2013). Recycled water represents a significant potential resource for the Valley. Livermore, Pleasanton, and DSRSD plan to expand the use of recycled water for turf and landscape irrigation projects over the next few years. The cities supplied Zone 7 with the location of existing and future recycled water use as compiled in Figure 3-14. The estimated volumes of future planned recycled water use are shown in the figure below: Figure 4-1: Existing and Future Recycled Water Use Volume Inside Main Basin Location AF % Existing Livermore 1,700 59% DSRSD 2,800 0% Future East Pleasanton Plan 300 100% Pleasanton Phase 1 1,700 41% Staples Ranch 200 50% DSRSD – planned 300 0% Livermore - planned 300 100% Mitigation of the water quality concerns related to salt loading from recycled water use is addressed in Zone 7’s SMP (Zone 7, 2004, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1.1) and in Zone 7 Annual Reports for the GWMP (most recent is Zone 7, 2014 for the 2013 Water Year, October 2012 to September 2013). Zone 7 4- Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis Nutrient Management Plan 56 July 2015 continues to collaborate with Livermore, DSRSD, and Pleasanton to incorporate future planned recycled water use expansions, and to plan for future groundwater demineralization facilities to mitigate for the potential impact to groundwater and delivered water quality. 4.2 Stormwater Capture Projects Zone 7 supports low impact development (LID) projects with pervious surfaces that allow for improved management of stormwater and enhanced groundwater recharge, particularly in developed areas (Zone 7, 2011). As stated in the Recycled Water Policy, it is also the intent of the State Water Board that because stormwater is typically lower in nutrients and salts and can augment local water supplies, the inclusion of a significant stormwater use and recharge component within the salt/nutrient management plans is critical to the long-term sustainable use of water in California. While there are currently no proposed large-scale plans for stormwater capture and recharge in the Valley, the County and Cities have required stormwater capture and recharge for various small-scale projects. Zone 7 encourages the continuation of this concept into future land development as a means to help dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater (Sections 5.4 and 6.3.1). Zone 7 does include stormwater recharge as part of its areal recharge and stream flow recharge calculations, however the effect of individual, small-scale stormwater capture and recharge projects is not included at this time due to the uncertainties in the projected quantity and volume. The current calculations represent a conservative approach since stormwater capture and recharge would likely decrease nitrate concentrations in the groundwater basin. Future updates to this plan may re-evaluate this approach as future projects are proposed. 4.3 State Water Board Recycled Water Policy Criteria Section 9 Anti-Degradation of the State Water Board Recycled Water Policy states, in part: a. The State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 68-16 as a policy statement to implement the Legislature’s intent that waters of the state shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. b. Activities involving the disposal of waste that could impact high quality waters are required to implement best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to ensure that pollution or nuisance will not occur, and the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained….. d. Landscape irrigation with recycled water in accordance with this Policy is to the benefit of the people of the State of California. Nonetheless, the State Water Board finds that the use of water for irrigation may, regardless of its source, collectively affect groundwater quality over time. The 4- Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis Nutrient Management Plan 57 July 2015 State Water Board intends to address these impacts in part through the development of salt/nutrient management plans described in paragraph 6. (1) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is in place may be approved without further antidegradation analysis, provided that the project is consistent with that plan. (2) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is being prepared may be approved by the Regional Water Board by demonstrating through a salt/nutrient mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub-basin (or multiple projects using less than 20 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub-basin). 4.4 Antidegradation Assessment Section 3.4 includes graphs of future average nitrate concentrations for scenarios with and without the proposed recycled water irrigation projects in the Main Basin and Fringe Basin North. The graphs show that irrigation with recycled water contributes very minor nutrient loading in the basins (<1%), and that the recycled water projects do not use more than 20% of the available assimilative capacity. Nitrogen loading from recycled water can be minimized even further by employing recycled water irrigation BMPs (Section 5.3.3), and fertilizer BMPs (Section 5.3.2) when turf or landscape fertilizers (or fertigation) are applied along with recycled water. The NMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting and improving groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Figure 4-2 addresses how the proposed recycled water irrigation projects comply with each of the components of State Water Board’s Anti Degradation Policy (Resolution No. 68-16). 4- Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis Nutrient Management Plan 58 July 2015 Figure 4-2: Antidegradation Assessment State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 Component Antidegradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State. The irrigation projects will  contribute only a minimal increase (<1 mg/L) in groundwater nitrate concentrations at urban buildout.  will not use more than 20% of the available Assimilative Capacity  will not cause groundwater quality to exceed Basin Plan Objectives The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. Because all planned recycled water projects over the groundwater basin are landscape irrigation projects, most of the nitrogen from these projects will be removed by plant uptake and volatilization (and some by bacterial denitrification under certain conditions). Additional nitrogen loading will be avoided with the use of recycled water and fertilizer use BMPs (see Section 6.1) The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. The recycled water projects are crucial for continued sustainability of the Valley’s water supply and are part of the urban growth plans for Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Implementation measures are being or will be implemented to help achieve Basin Plan Objectives in the future. Both, the SMP and the NMP contain measures that have been or will be implemented to address current and future salt and nutrient loading of the Groundwater Basin. Nutrient Management Plan 59 July 2015 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies 5.1 Introduction As shown in Section 3.4 above, basin-wide nitrogen concentrations are expected to drop or stay relatively constant over the long-term; however, there are some existing high nitrate concentrations in local areas of concern (Section 2.4). Zone 7’s general goal is to further assess and reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations near these “Areas of Concern” using strategies that have a nominal impact on future development and the environment while reducing the nitrogen loading to levels that can be assimilated by natural processes (e.g., denitrification, dilution and diffusion). The strategies presented in this chapter are designed to delineate the extent and boundaries of the Areas of Concern (Section 5.2), and to simultaneously minimize nitrogen loading from existing sources (Section 5.3). 5.2 Investigate Areas of Concern In general, the Areas of Concern in the Main Basin are relatively well delineated because of the basin’s significance for groundwater production. In contrast, the geology and extent of nitrate concentration in the Fringe Basins Northeast and East have not been well delineated because of their relative role for groundwater production in the Valley and limited development. Zone 7 plans to focus future investigation on Areas of Concern where:  Concentrations appear to be rising significantly (i.e., May School, Greenville),  Future development is planned in unsewered areas (i.e., Greenville), and/or  Significant data gaps exist (i.e., May School, Greenville, and Mines Road). Goal 1: Obtain additional information in shallow aquifer zones of the Areas of Concern. Strategy 1a: Identify and sample additional existing domestic wells with pertinent well screen intervals. Strategy 1b: Encourage additional hydrogeology studies in Areas of Concern as part of new commercial developments. Such studies could include the installation of new monitoring wells or direct-push type borings (e.g., Geoprobe, Hydropunch). 5.3 Minimize Nitrogen Loading 5.3.1 Introduction The primary sources of nitrogen loading over the groundwater basin are from fertilizer application, recycled water irrigation, leaching of livestock manure, and onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the best tools for minimizing nitrogen loading from irrigation (fertigation), turf and crop fertilization practices, and penned livestock facilities such as horse 5- Nutrient Management Goals And Strategies Nutrient Management Plan 60 July 2015 boarding facilities. And while the additional nitrogen loading from future recycled water project expansions is expected to be small (Section 3.4), it would be prudent to employ the fertilizer application BMPs as well as the recycled water irrigation BMPs for all recycled water irrigation projects. OWTS use in the Valley involves domestic and commercial systems to treat and dispose of winery process wastewater. OWTS management, especially in the Areas of Concern, requires long-term goals and strategies for ensuring impacts from new onsite wastewater disposal systems are not going to create a new nitrate problem or exacerbate an existing one. Eventually, the conventional OWTS in the Areas of Concern should be converted to alternative systems having nitrogen reduction treatment, or the affected homes and businesses should be connected to a municipal or community sewer system. Management of onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater from wine making and bottling processes is under the Water Board’s jurisdiction, and is currently provided for through the Water Board’s waste discharge requirement (WDR) permit program. Although WDRs are an effective means for managing nutrient loading from this land use, improvements are needed in stakeholder guidance and permit compliance. 5.3.2 Fertilizer Application Goal 2: Minimize nitrogen loading from fertilizer application Strategy 2a: Promote the use of fertilizer BMPs (Section 6.2.2) to avoid over-application of fertilizers. Using results of soil and irrigation water chemical testing to determine the appropriate amount of additional fertilizer to apply is a good way to lessen excess leachable nitrogen in the soil. Strategy 2b: Limiting irrigation water application to the crop and landscape plants’ agronomic rate will reduce the amount of nutrient-rich leachate that migrates below the vegetation root zone and into the underlying aquifer(s). 5.3.3 Recycled Water Irrigation Goal 3: Minimize nitrogen loading from recycled water irrigation projects Strategy 3a: Follow Recycled Water Policy guidance for landscape irrigation projects. Minimize recharge of nitrogen by irrigating landscapes to the prescribed agronomic rates. Account for the nitrogen content of the recycled water when determining how much fertilizer to apply. Strategy 3b: Maintain low levels of nitrogen in the produced recycled water by keeping the nitrogen concentrations in the source water low and/or optimize low nitrogen levels in recycled water production. 5.3.4 Livestock Manure Management Goal 4: Minimize nitrogen loading from concentrated livestock facilities such as horse boarding, training, and breeding facilities 5- Nutrient Management Goals And Strategies Nutrient Management Plan 61 July 2015 Strategy 4: Promote the use of BMPs (Section 6.2.4) such as manure management and controlling site drainage to prevent nutrient contamination of rainfall runoff and irrigation return flows that may percolate to groundwater and/or flow into surface water bodies. 5.3.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems 5.3.5.1 Winery Process Wastewater Goal 5: Minimize nitrogen loading from onsite disposal practices of winery process wastewater. Strategy 5a: Require local wine producers and bottlers to apply for and comply with Water Board WDRs for the proper treatment and disposal of winery process waste streams. Strategy 5b: Develop guidance document(s) to assist both project proponents and Water Board staff with Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and WDR development and evaluations. 5.3.5.2 General OWTS Management Goal 6: Minimize nitrogen loading from new onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), e.g., septic tank systems. Strategy 6a: Continue applying Zone 7 policies and County Ordinance and Regulation provisions, e.g., 1 Rural Residential Equivalence (RRE)/5 Ac max. Strategy 6b: Continue to work with ACEH to ensure that: 1) they are aware of groundwater nitrate issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin; 2) variance requests are given the appropriate scrutiny; and 3) their OWTS approvals are consistent with adopted NMP goals and objectives. 5- Nutrient Management Goals And Strategies Nutrient Management Plan 62 July 2015 5.3.5.3 OWTS Management in Areas of Concern Goal 7: Reduce nitrogen loading from OWTS in Areas of Concern. Strategy 7a: Increase understanding of existing conditions and causes, and set realistic management goals and apply adaptive management as necessary. Strategy 7b: Require new development projects utilizing OWTS in the Areas of Concern to reduce and/or minimize the overall nitrogen loading to the property. Strategy 7c: On at least an annual basis, assess performance of wastewater treatment systems, estimate area-wide nitrogen loading and monitor groundwater quality beneath the Areas of Concern. 5.4 Enhanced Attenuation Goal 8: Increase capture and infiltration of stormwater recharge to dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Strategy 8: Promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to capture and infiltrate rainfall runoff and irrigation return flow (i.e., applied water). Nutrient Management Plan 63 July 2015 6 Plan Implementation 6.1 Investigate Boundaries of Areas of Concern Zone 7 intends to obtain additional information regarding the extent of high nitrate concentrations near Areas of Concern that have significant data gaps, proposed development with OWTS, and/or increasing nitrate concentrations. To this end, Zone 7 plans on pursuing the following options to further investigate the extent of nitrate concentrations:  Zone 7 will work with well owners to sample existing shallow wells for nitrate. This process could include public outreach to homeowners to identify domestic wells with ideal characteristics (e.g., location, screened intervals, well depth) for further delineating the extent of nitrate concentrations in Areas of Concern. These wells could then be sampled and analyzed by Zone 7 at no cost to the well owner.  Zone 7 will assess the data available, identify data gaps, and prepare maps showing preferred locations for future monitoring wells potentially to be installed by developers for each Area of Concern. It is anticipated that the studies will be conducted in the following priority: Greenville, Buena Vista, Mines Road, May School, Happy Valley, Staples Ranch, Jack London, Constitution, Charlotte Way, and Bernal.  Zone 7 will work with Alameda County planning and health agencies to encourage or require hydrogeologic studies as part of new commercial developments. These studies could include installing new monitoring wells in locations identified on the preferred well location maps, sampling of existing wells, or drilling direct-push type borings.  Zone 7 may require that new wells and borings near Areas of Concern include the running of electronic logs (elogs) and/or collecting and analyzing groundwater samples. The results of these elogs and groundwater samples can be used to better understand the geology and assess the extent of contamination in the Areas of Concern.  The data results and work products generated from the tasks above (e.g., preferred well location maps, well sampling results) will be presented in the GWMP Annual Reports or as a separate report, as appropriate, based on the size and extent of the study and/or timing of its completion. 6.2 Implementation Measures to Minimize Nitrogen Loading 6.2.1 Introduction Nitrate concentrations are expected to remain well below 20% of the assimilative capacity limit for all four groundwater areas in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin; however there are local Areas of 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 64 July 2015 Concern where nitrate concentrations are above the Basin Objective (BO, 45 mg/L as NO3). The main sources of nitrogen loading throughout the groundwater basin include fertilizer application, recycled water irrigation, livestock facilities, and onsite wastewater treatment systems. The implementation measures presented below are designed to minimize loading from these main sources, particularly in the Areas of Concern shown on Figure 2-15 and described in Section 2.4. Many of these implementation measures include continuing with existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are monitored and administered by other agencies. 6.2.2 Fertilizer BMPs Fertilizer application should be adjusted to the needs of the plants/crops to which it is being applied and take into account the nutrients already present in soil and irrigation water to avoid over-fertilization. The implementation plan promotes the continued use of the following fertilizer BMPs by agriculturists, park districts, school districts and other landscape and turf managers and practitioners.  Targeted application of fertilizer and soil amendments – limit the application of salts and nutrients to the area at the point of the irrigation drip emitter, rather than broadcast across a large area.  Adjust fertilizer amounts to account for nutrients already present in irrigation water and soil. Nutrient levels can be assessed by testing soil and water.  Apply irrigation at agronomic rates to prevent nutrients in fertilizer from leaching into the groundwater.  Effective vineyard management includes regular soil and petiole testing to help understand what, and volume of, nutrients that need to be added to the soil to produce the desired grape production and flavor. When the soil and petiole testing includes nitrogen as a test parameter, the results can be used to ensure that the amount of additional nitrogen applied is limited to that amount needed by the vines. 6.2.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs The use of recycled water for irrigation is controlled by water recycling criteria in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, and by discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Board. In addition to adhering to these regulations related to recycled water, the implementation plan recommends the continued use of the following BMPs by those who irrigate with recycled water:  Reduce application of fertilizer to account for nitrogen in the recycled water.  Irrigate during evening and early morning hours to reduce evaporation and human exposure. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 65 July 2015  An effective irrigation system should be used that applies recycled water at agronomic rates. Infiltration of recycled water past the active root zone should be limited to only what is needed to remove salts from the root zone. 6.2.4 Livestock Manure Management Livestock and Equestrian Facilities are another source of nitrates due to concentrated amounts of manure where animals are kept. Equestrian Facilities include horse boarding, training, and breeding facilities. The NMP endorses the County’s requirement for concentrated and confined livestock facilities to implement design measures and BMPs for livestock manure management, such as:  Manure management – remove manure regularly. If manure can’t be removed daily then it should be covered and stockpiled on an impervious surface. Surface water should be prevented from reaching the storage area.  Building and site design – should keep animal areas, such as paddocks and corrals, as dry as possible during the rainy season.  Wash rack design – should not allow water to flow into storm drains, creeks, or recharge areas. Wash racks should be connected to the sanitary sewer or lined evaporation ponds, if possible.  Facility and BMP inspections are performed by Alameda County Public Works as part of their Clean Water Program. Additional guidance for manure management can be found in existing documents such as Horse Manure Management – A Guide for Bay Area Horse Keepers (Buchanan et al., 2003). The existing City and County proposed development review and referral process is another opportunity to educate facility managers and architects on the design and operation considerations for limiting nutrient impacts to surface waters and groundwater. 6.2.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Limitations for the expansion of municipal sewer coverage in the Livermore-Amador Valley associated with the establishment of urban growth boundaries have resulted in the continued reliance of OWTS for development in the unincorporated areas. In particular, the continued growth of winery-related commercial development in or near the south Livermore high nitrate areas is a concern for maintaining or improving groundwater quality. OWTS that may have been allowed in the past may not be appropriate in the future as conditions and circumstances surrounding particular locations change or become known. As provided for in the Water Board Basin Plan, ACEH has committed to developing a Local Agency Management Program (LAMP) for Water Board approval that will address their management of OWTS in unincorporated Alameda County. A LAMP is a management program that allows local agencies to establish minimum standards that are different from those specified in the State OWTS Policy, but are 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 66 July 2015 necessary to protect water quality and public health. Requirements for different minimum lot size for new development using OWTS and the addition of nitrogen-removing treatment equipment on OWTS for certain conditions are examples of special provisions that ACEH will likely include in its LAMP. 6.2.5.1 Winery Process Wastewater There are currently over 50 wineries located over the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, however, many of them do not produce or bottle wine onsite. The ones that do produce or bottle wine, also produce a wastewater stream during the wine production and bottling operations. This winery process water, which contains nutrients, is often disposed of in evaporation ponds, on the surface as irrigation or dust control water, or in the subsurface using OWTS and leachfields. Regardless of which of these disposal methods is used, the Water Board has authority to regulate the discharge; thus a Report of Waste Discharge is required to be submitted to the Water Board for the discharge of wastewater to the surface or subsurface. The Water Board will then approve the discharge by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements, waive the need of a WDR, or deny approval of the discharge.  To assist applicants with their ROWD preparation and the Water Board with their evaluation of ROWDs and WDR decisions, Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to provide relevant information on groundwater occurrence, use, quality and vulnerability to the Water Board and applicants.  The preparation of a guidance document on the proper treatment and disposal of wastewater and organic wastes generated from the wine making and wine bottling processes would be beneficial for the development of plans that are effective at minimizing nutrient loading to the groundwater basin. 6.2.5.2 General OWTS Program One of the purposes of the Alameda County Onsite Wastewater and Individual/Small Water Systems Ordinance and Regulations is to prevent environmental degradation of surface water and groundwater from onsite disposal of private sewage to the greatest extent possible. Included in the regulations are special provisions for the Upper Alameda Creek Watershed, above Niles; namely: a. a minimum parcel size requirement of 5 acres for new single-family OWTS; and b. a maximum discharge of 320 gallons per day per 5 acres for commercial OWTS. Continued application of the general provisions of the County OWTS Ordinance and Regulation and these special provisions are expected to minimize the groundwater nitrate impact from OWTS use in the majority of the unincorporated areas of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin except in the Areas of Concern. Additionally, the following measures are planned:  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue working together to ensure that both agencies are aware of groundwater issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and that any OWTS approvals are consistent with the adopted NMP goals and objectives. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 67 July 2015  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to collaborate on the decisions surrounding approval of new OWTS for commercial facilities’ domestic wastewater disposal on a case-by-case basis and to evaluate the potential risks and make proper decisions as additional information becomes available.  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to collaborate on assessing the potential risks and impact(s) associated with granting OWTS regulation variances and on developing any special requirements necessary to ensure groundwater quality protection.  Zone 7 and ACEH will collaborate to determine the applicable time periods of any new OWTS permits, and continued compliance monitoring and renewal requirements to ensure long-term successful performance. 6.2.5.3 OWTS Management in Areas of Concern Zone 7 has identified ten Areas of Concern with elevated nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Current and past onsite wastewater disposal practices are thought to be an important contributor to the high nitrate concentrations found in these areas. As such, ongoing and future wastewater disposal projects in the Areas of Concern should be managed with a bias towards reduction of the current loading. It is also important to increase the understanding of the extent of the nitrate impacts in many of these areas and to monitor the concentration trends as projects add and subtract wastewater loading in these areas. Towards these goals the following measures are expected to be performed:  Zone 7 will coordinate further characterization and monitoring of the local nitrate plumes by working with ACEH, the Water Board and various property owners and consultants on the development of plans for the construction and operation of additional monitoring wells.  Zone 7 will continue its effort to inform ACEH and Alameda CDA of the nitrate issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and to collaborate on development plans, permit reviews, and CEQA analyses for projects involving onsite wastewater disposal in Areas of Concern to assure approvals are consistent with adopted NMP goals and objectives.  Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), developers and County and City planning agencies are expected to continue to work together to create opportunities for discontinuing onsite disposal of nutrient-rich wastewater within the Areas of Concern, such as connecting dwellings and businesses to municipal or community sewage treatment works when feasible.  ACEH, Zone 7, and the Water Board will work together on the development, approval, and implementation of the LAMP to identify the special need areas, contributing local groundwater and geologic expertise, and providing ongoing regional groundwater monitoring. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 68 July 2015 In five of the ten Areas of Concern, OWTS are the predominant method of wastewater disposal, but unlike the other Areas of Concern, there are no current plans for extending the municipal sewer service to these five areas. The five areas are:  Happy Valley (Figure 6-2)  Buena Vista (Figure 6-4)  Mines Road (Figure 6-5)  May School (Figure 6-3)  Greenville (Figure 6-4) Accordingly, special OWTS permit requirements have been developed for new OWTS applications received for these five Areas of Concern. These five special OWTS permit requirement areas are shown in Figure 6-1 to Figure 6-5, and the recommended permit requirements are summarized below and presented in a table in Figure 6-6. These requirements are intended to minimize the impact to existing homeowners and future development while still being protective of the environment and groundwater quality. These special permit provisions are designed to limit or reduce the amount of nitrogen loading from OWTS in the five Areas of Concern over time by requiring parcels planned for new or replacement OWTS to meet a lower nitrogen loading standard than what exists for parcels located outside of the Special OWTS Permit Areas. These proposed requirements do not apply to existing, properly-working and properly-sized OWTS. As is the case for properties outside Special OWTS Permit Areas, the requirements are based on the total size of the property parcel (see graph on Figure 6-7), and assume that the nitrogen loading from one Rural Residential Equivalent (RRE), i.e., a typical, single-family home served by a conventional OWTS is 34 lbs N/year. For new or remodel development on parcels of less than seven acres in the special OWTS permit requirement areas, the project must achieve a total nitrogen loading from all OWTS on the property of less than 0.7 RRE (23.8 lbs N/year) per parcel. This is the equivalent to the loading from two advanced single-family OWTS, each capable of 65% nitrogen reduction. For example, in order to add an additional single-family dwelling with a new OWTS to a parcel that already has an existing single-family dwelling with a conventional OWTS, the project must include installation of pre-treatment equipment, capable of removing 65% of the nitrogen content from the wastewater stream, on both OWTS (new and existing systems). As a consequence, the net result would be an onsite loading reduction from a pre- project total of one RRE to a post- project total of 0.7 RRE. (0.35 + 0.35 RRE). For parcels equal to or greater than 7 acres, the total nitrogen loading from all OWTS must not exceed 0.5 RRE per 5 acres (3.4 lbs N/parcel acre/year). For example, the total nitrogen loading limit for a ten acre parcel is calculated as follows: 10 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑟 x 0.5 𝑅𝑅𝐸 5 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑟= 1 𝑅𝑅𝐸=34 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑁/𝑦𝑟 Alternatively, if the property owner performs a hydrogeologic study demonstrating that the proposed project will not cause nitrate concentrations to rise, then the total nitrogen loading limit is 1 RRE/5 acres (6.8 lbs N/parcel acre). The study must show that total on-site recharge does not exceed 36 mg/L (80% of 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 69 July 2015 the MCL) or the maximum concentration at the site, whichever is lower. The 80% MCL limit is based on Zone 7 Water Quality Policy and provides a standard buffer for not exceeding the MCL. This alternative is intended to encourage additional hydrogeologic studies that can further define the boundaries and nitrate concentrations of Areas of Concern. Because wastewater generated by commercial operations can result in higher loading rates than residential flows, the permitting of OWTS for new commercial projects within the special permit requirement areas require a higher level of scrutiny. At a minimum, projects must include a nitrogen- removing system, but also must demonstrate by analysis that the project will result in an improved nitrate condition beneath the site and not cause the offsite condition to worsen. Many of the commercial use OWTS will fall under the Water Board’s jurisdiction and thus be subject to their Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) requirements. These same permit criteria are anticipated to be incorporated into the County’s LAMP and used by the Water Board while developing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for commercial projects within their purview if they prove to be effective at improving or halting groundwater quality degradation in these Areas of Concern. The following are measures specific to the special permit requirement areas:  Until ACEH’s LAMP has been finalized and approved by the Water Board, ACEH should incorporate and implement an interim permit approval policy such as the one recommended in Figure 6-6.  Zone 7 will continue to refine the special permit area boundaries as more groundwater quality data becomes available in the future.  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to support the Water Board in its WDR decisions and specific requirements.  Zone 7 will work with ACEH to assess the effectiveness of the County’s OWTS moratorium in Happy Valley and whether this regulation should be continued in the County’s LAMP. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 70 July 2015 Figure 6-1: Special OWTS Permit Areas 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 71 July 2015 Figure 6-2: Happy Valley Area of Concern 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 72 July 2015 Figure 6-3: May School Area of Concern 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 73 July 2015 Figure 6-4: Buena Vista/Greenville Areas of Concern 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 74 July 2015 Figure 6-5: Mines Road Area of Concern FIGURE 6‐6PROPOSED OWTS PERMIT REQUIREMENTSFOR SPECIAL OWTS REQUIREMENT AREASNUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANOWTS ScenarioParcel Size New RequirementMax NitrogenLoading Rate2≤ 7 acresMust install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s).23.8 lbs/yearPer ParcelTotal nitrogen loading on the parcel must not exceed the Maximum Nitrogen Loading Rate. Commercial uses must also install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s).3.4 lbs/yearPer Parcel AcreORPrepare hydrogeologic study that assesses current groundwater nitrate conditions beneath the site and demonstrates that nitrate concentration of total onsite recharge3 does not exceed 36 mg/L (80% of MCL) or the maximum concentration at the site, whichever is lower.6.8 lbs/yearPer Parcel Acre1  Does not apply to existing, properly‐working and properly‐sized OWTS.ACEH = Alameda County of Environmental Health2  Loading rates calculated based on 1 RRE = 34 lbs/yr.OWTS = Onsite Wastewater Treatment System3  Assume that 18% of rainfall naturally recharges to groundwater unless study demonstrates otherwise.RRE = Rural Residential EquivalenceMCL = Maximum Conaminant Level (NO3= 45 mg/L)> 7 acresNew, upgraded, or replacement OWTS required by County OWTS Ordinance17/24/2015E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig6‐06‐SepticRequirement.xlsxFigure 6‐6 FIGURE 6‐7Graphs of OWTS LimitsE:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig6‐07‐SepticRequirementGraph.xlsx6/8/2015Figure 6‐70204060801001201401 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920Total Onstie Loading (lbs N/yr)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Limit Outside AOCsNew Limit Inside AOCs1 RRE/parcel0.7 RRE/parcel 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 77 July 2015 6.3 Implementation Measures to Enhance Nitrate Attenuation 6.3.1 Low Impact Development BMPs Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs promote the use of small‐scale, natural drainage features to slow, clean, capture, and infiltrate rainfall in an effort to replenish local aquifers, reduce pollution, and increase the reuse of water. This NMP encourages development approval agencies to require LID BMPs such as those listed below to help dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater:  Bioretention cells and swales,  Permeable pavement blocks, and  Soil amendments to improve soil permeability 6.4 Basin Monitoring Programs 6.4.1 Introduction Zone 7 currently monitors the following as part of its GWMP:  groundwater (levels and quality),  climatological (precipitation and evaporation),  surface water (streamflow and quality),  mining area (mining activities and water export volumes),  land use (area),  groundwater production (volume and quality),  land surface subsidence (inelastic and elastic), and  wastewater/recycled water (use and quality). The monitoring programs focus on the Main Basin where groundwater is pumped for municipal uses, but monitoring stations are located throughout the groundwater basin to assess conditions in the fringe and upland basins. The programs are designed to assess the sustainability and quality of the groundwater basin, and the results are used in water resources management planning and decision making. Complete descriptions of the monitoring programs are provided in Zone 7’s GWMP and SMP. The components of the programs that address nutrient monitoring are outlined below. These programs are evaluated annually and revised as necessary as part of Zone 7’s Annual Reports for the GWMP. Zone 7’s existing monitoring programs already address nutrient monitoring, and no changes are proposed at this time. Zone 7 will identify data gaps and suggested locations and depths for new monitoring wells 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 78 July 2015 and/or soil borings for expedited groundwater sampling in the Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will provide this information to property owners, developers, and regulatory agencies to assist in developing efficient strategies for fully characterizing nitrate concentrations and nitrogen loading for projects inside Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will also work with ACEH to develop OWTS monitoring plans that may require the installation and monitoring of additional regional monitoring wells, up-gradient and down-gradient of high nitrate concentration areas, by the owners and developers. State policy does not require monitoring for Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) for basins where recycled water use is limited to irrigation projects. Since the recycled water use in the Valley is currently limited to irrigation projects, Zone 7 does not monitor for CECs at this time; however, Zone 7 will continue to review the regulations and Valley conditions to assess whether future CEC monitoring is appropriate. 6.4.2 Nutrient Specific Monitoring Programs Climatological Monitoring – Zone 7’s network of seven rainfall stations, two pan evaporation stations, and one California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) station provide daily rainfall and evaporation data for basin recharge calculations. This information is used to calculate the volume of recharge, evaporation, and nitrogen loading from rainfall. Surface Water Monitoring – This program focuses on the four main gaining and losing streams that impact the groundwater basin (i.e., Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas, and Arroyo De La Laguna), and the diversions and accretions that affect the flows into or from each of them. Zone 7 measures the inflow and outflow from the streams to quantify the volume of water recharging or discharging from the groundwater basin’s aquifers. Zone 7 also samples and analyzes water from the streams to provide a record of water quality for the basin’s recharge and discharge waters from which the groundwater basin’s annual nitrate loading is calculated. Zone 7’s Water Level Monitoring – Zone 7 measures groundwater levels in over 230 monitoring and production wells (see Figure 6-8 below and Figure A-7) twice per year during seasonal extremes (i.e., spring highs and fall lows) for storage tracking. Water level measurements are also measured monthly in some wells to monitor subsidence, adjust recharge operations, and identify when semi-annual water level measurements should be scheduled. Zone 7’s Water Quality Sampling –Zone 7 samples groundwater at least annually from all accessible groundwater wells in the program. Samples are analyzed by Zone 7’s laboratory for metals and general minerals (including Nitrate as NO3 and Phosphate as PO4). 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 79 July 2015 Figure 6-8: Map of Program Wells Land Use Monitoring – Zone 7 maps and quantifies Valley land use (see Figure 3-7 for the 2013 land use map) for areal recharge calculations (e.g., rainfall recharge, applied water recharge, and unmetered groundwater pumping for agriculture) and salt/nutrient loading (e.g., from irrigation, horse boarding facilities, and properties with OWTS). The program identifies changes in land use with an emphasis on changes in impervious areas and the volume and quality of irrigation water that could impact the volum e or quality of water recharging the Main Basin. Land use data are derived from aerial photography, permit applications, field observations, and City and County planning documents. Wastewater and Recycled Water Monitoring - Zone 7 compiles and reviews data on the volume and quality of wastewater collected and recycled water used within the watershed from the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP), DSRSD Water Reclamation plant, and the Veterans Hospital sewage treatment plant. Zone 7 also reviews new OWTS applications located within the Valley for compliance with Zone 7’s Wastewater Management Plan. Zone 7 must approve all onsite disposal systems for new commercial developments or any residential OWTS that will potentially exceed the loading allowed for the site. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 80 July 2015 6.5 Implementation Schedule  The investigation of the Areas of Concern is ongoing. Zone 7 is currently soliciting permission to sample existing wells from homeowners near the Areas of Concern. Zone 7 is also currently working with several commercial developers to perform hydrogeologic studies in the Greenville special permit area.  The Implementation Measure BMPs for Fertilizers, Irrigation, Livestock Manure Management, and Low Impact Development are already in place throughout the Valley.  Zone 7 will assess the available data, identify data gaps, and prepare preferred well location maps for each of the Areas of Concern as identified in Section 6.1. These monitoring wells will potentially be installed by the developers. These will be prepared with the following schedule: Figure 6-9: Proposed Schedule for Areas of Concern Area of Concern Calendar Year of Completion Greenville 2016 Buena Vista 2016 Mines Road 2016 May School 2017 Happy Valley 2017 Staples Ranch 2018 Jack London 2018 Constitution 2018 Charlotte Way 2018 Bernal 2018 The results of the data and work products generated from the tasks above (e.g., preferred well location maps, well sampling results) will be presented in the GWMP Annual Reports or as a separate report, as appropriate, based on the size and extent of the study and/or timing of its completion.  Zone 7’s groundwater monitoring programs are also already in place, the results of which are presented in Zone 7’s Annual Reports for the GWMP. New monitoring wells constructed as part of new developments (Section 6.1.5.3) will be added to the existing programs.  The NMP recommends that the special OWTS permit requirements discussed in Section 6.2.5.3 and described in Figure 6.6 be incorporated into the LAMP, which ACEH anticipates completing a draft in 2016, and finalizing it by 2018. Nutrient Management Plan 81 July 2015 7 References Buchanan, Marc et al. 2003, Horse Manure Management: A Guide for Bay Area Horse Keepers. California Department of Public Health. 2014. Titles 22 and 17 California Code of Regulations, California Department of Public Health’s Recycled Water Regulations. California Department of Water Resources.1974. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118-2, Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Livermore and Sunol Valleys. _____. 2003. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118—Update 2003. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 2013, San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. 1982. Wastewater Management Plan for the Unsewered, Unincorporated area of Alameda Creek Watershed above Niles. Prepared for Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Horsley Witten Group, 2009, Evaluation of Turfgrass Nitrogen Fertilizer Leaching Rates in soils on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, June 29, 2009. Moran, Jean; Esser, Bradley; Hillegonds, Darren; Holtz, Marianne; Roberts, Sarah; Singleton, Michael; and Visser, Ate. 2011, California GAMA Special Study: Nitrate Fate and Transport in the Salinas Valley. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), 2007, Hydrology Model Conversion and Update of Present Impervious, memorandum for Zone 7 Water Agency, August 3, 2007. RMC, 2002, Groundwater Nitrate Sources in the Buena Vista Area, May 2002. ———. 2012, Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, Draft Report prepared for the City of Santa Rosa, July 13, 2012. ———. 2013, Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, Prepared for the Sonoma Valley county Sanitation District, September 2013. Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce, H. A. Perlman (USGS). 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. US Geological Survey circular; 1200. Denver, CO: US Geological Survey. Report nr 06079007X. ix, 71p. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 82 July 2015 USGS, 1983, Land Application of Wastewater and Its Effect on Ground-water Quality in the Livermore- Amador Valley, Alameda County, California, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 82-4100, March 1983. Zone 7 (Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7). 1987. Statement on Zone 7 Groundwater Management. August. Prepared by Zone 7 Board Committee. ———. 1992. Main Groundwater Basin Natural Safe Yield, Internal Memo prepared by Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2003. Draft Report, Well Master Plan, Prepared by CH2MHill for Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2004. Salt Management Plan. Prepared by Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2005a. Groundwater Management Plan. Prepared by Jones & Stokes and Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2005b. Well Master Plan Conformed EIR, Prepared by ESA for Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2007. Annual Report for the Groundwater Management Program—2006 Water Year. Prepared by Zone 7, June 2007. ———. 2011. 2011 Water Supply Evaluation. Prepared by Zone 7, July 2011. ———. 2012. Toxic Sites Surveillance Annual Report 2011. Prepared by Zone 7, April 2012. ———. 2014. Annual Report for the Groundwater Management Program—2013 Water Year. Prepared by Zone 7, August 2014. Nutrient Management Plan 83 July 2015 Appendix A Supporting Figures Figure A-1: Groundwater Gradient Map, Upper Aquifer, Fall 2013 Figure A-2: Groundwater Gradient Map, Lower Aquifer, Fall 2013 Figure A-3: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2013 Water Year Figure A-4: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Lower Aquifer, 2013 Water Year Figure A-5: Nodal Constants for Storage Calculations Figure A-6: Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2008 Water Year Figure A-7: Map of Wells in Groundwater Quality Program Figure A-8: Horsley Witten Group, 2009 Executive Summary Figure A-9: Land Use Related Loading Factors, from RMC, 2012 Figure A-10: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations; 25% Nitrogen Leaching Rate Figure A-11: Historical Nitrate Concentrations in Wells Outside Areas of Concern, Fringe Basin North A A A A A A A A A ( A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (? ? A A? ? AA ? A A ? A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A ? A( ?A ?A A A A A 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3S/1W 2S/2E 3S/2E3S/1E 2S/1E2S/1W 3S/3EAmador Dublin Mocho II Spring May Camp Bernal Bishop Mocho I Altamont Mocho I Vasco C a s t l e Cayetano 32E1354.2 32N1341.18 32Q1339.63 33L1335.25 33P2335.15 33R1335.99 15F1428.67 26C2379.99 36E3341.82 27C2524.89 27P2501.81 28D2524.4 28Q1504.67 32K2497.36 34E1493.63 34Q2504.44 1F2409.34 1H3394.35 1P2363.89 2J2364.152J3380.27 2K2368.792M3345.25 2N6334.38 2Q1347.48 2R1355.54 3G2340.6 4A1330.74 4J5327.12 4Q2282.34 5K6331.055L3326.49 5P6324.57 6F3324.3 6N2320.65 7B12313.96 7G7311.37 7J5309.87 7M2306.16 7R8280.4 8B1301.68 8G4277.67 8K1263.31 8N1265.19 9G1276.96 9H10278.18 9J7277.249P5273.9 10A2305.7910D7279.81 10N2278.37 11B1334.5611C3332.1511G1297.26 12A2360.08 12G1340.96 13P5288.62 16E4271.97 P4266.53 16P5297.15 18E4269.86 18J2268.8 19C4269.26 19K1265.56 20C7268.24 20J4273.0820M11271.38 20Q2303.19 22D2308.81 23J1338.7 25C3362.96 29M4270.27 29P2272.65 2A2342.2 12B2320.87 12J1305.31 13J1314.24 1F2549.47 2B2529.06 3A1512.74 3K3509.08 7C2392.92 7H2411.43 8H2432.78 8K2427.68 9Q4481.75 10F3521.44 10Q1531.29 11C1529.18 15R17580.74 16E4489.8517E2449.36 19D7323.73 22B1571.24 23E1596.55 24A1694.23 26J2677.28 29F4449.1 30D2410.52 33G1502.91 ShCliffs332.58 K18351.2 LkH282.92LkI279.67 P10366.55 P12351.28 P27281.39 P28404.79 P41410.93 P42284.78 P44317.87 R3339.92 R4313.5 R22362.74 R23359.83 4 4 0 500 4 3 0 340 4 2 03504 1 0 500430 300335520520 530340 540750740730720710700690680670660650640630620610600590580570560550540530520510500490480470460450440430420410400 390 38 0 410 400390380 350420410400390380370360350340330320310280300 490460450440430420290 34 0 3 6 0 550370510 360 350340 31035 0 300290 690680670660270262500 300 31032 0 470480Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA FILE: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-01-GradientUpper13.mxd REVIEWED: MK Figure A-1Groundwater Gradient MapUpper Aquifer; Fall 2013 (September)Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 6,000 12,000 Feet LEGEND2013 Program Wells10K2 Well Number (abbreviated)284.7 Groundwater Elevation (NM = Not Measured) (Supply 6 Mining A Monitoring; piezometer %Municipal ?NestedGroundwater Contours (NAVD88, Interval = 10')2013 ContoursHatch pattern towards lower elevationRiversMain BasinSubbasin BoundaryMining Area PondsStatic (= groundwater elevation)Pumped FromPumped IntoClay-linedTownship-Range Line SCALE: DATE:Apr 24, 2015 1 in = 6,000 ft ? ( ( ( ( A ( A ?@A @A ? ?@A @A ? ?? ? A @A ? ? A@A ( ? ? ? (A ( ( (A A? @A@A ( ( ?AA@A @A @A ( @A ( (? ( ? ( A @A @A @A @A ? @A @A @A @A @A ( ( ( ? ( @A@A@A ? ( ? ( 3S/1W 2S/2E 3S/2E 2S/1E 3S/1E 2S/1W36F2316.47 28J2513.27 1J3392.61 1P3256.32 2P3252.51 5K7322.93 6G5319.71 7B2315.65 8H9256.23 M4251.96 St1251.98 9H11270.42 9J8263.59 M2NM M3251.01 9P10261.73 10B9265.5210D3263.0510D8270.81 10K2264.27 10K3256.38 10N3271.32 11G2253.86 11M2264.47 11M3252.46 11P6259.34 12H4255.47 12K2244.71 13P6261.42 14B1255.78 14D2261.82 14K2265.55 15F3233.87 15J3255.7 15M3245.88 16A4246.9116C2259.71 P5266.38 P6258.3 16R1256.16 17B4265.7417D4264.79 H7265.58 17D11221.54 H9263.76 P7262.38 H6263.44 18N1263.47 SF-ANM 20B2NM 20C3NM 20C8263.44 24Q1289.39 1B10313.37 5N1405.52 7N2299.56 7P3189.46 7R3400.81 8F1NM 8G1416.93 8H3417.8 8N2410.25 8P1424.5 9L1NM 9P1419.9 9Q1441.03 14B1528.53 15E2513.51 15Q6512.12 15R18577.93 16A3491.9916B1433.79 16C1379.9418B1226.12 19D9247.38 20M1421.68 23E2598.58 30G1NM 210 400 380 390 23 0 590580570560550540530520510500490480470460450440430370360350340330260250 240 320 310290 300280270420410220 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, OrdnanceSurvey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA FILE: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-02-GradientLower13.mxd REVIEWED: MK Figure A-2Groundwater Gradient MapLower Aquifer; Fall 2013 (October)Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 4,000 8,000 Feet LEGEND2013 Program Wells (Lower Aquifer) ! 10K2 Well Number (abbreviated)284.7 Groundwater Elevation (NM = Not Measured) (Supply 6 Mining A Monitor @A Municipal ?NestedGroundwater Contours (NAVD88, Interval = 10')2013 ContoursHatch pattern towards lower elevationMain BasinSubbasin BoundaryMining Area Ponds 2012Static (= groundwater elevation)Pumped FromPumped IntoClay-linedRiversTownship-Range Line SCALE: DATE:Apr 24, 2015 1 in = 4,000 ft A A A A A A A A AAA A A A AA A A A A A A A ( ? A A A ? A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A ? A( A ?A ?A A A A A A A ? 3S/1W 2S/2E 3S/2E3S/1E 2S/1E 2S/1W 3S/3EAmador Dublin Mocho II Spring May Camp Bernal Bishop Mocho I Altamont Mocho I Vasco C a s t l e Cayetano?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 32E113.24 32Q112.31 33L118.64 33P228.08 33R119.22 15F1<0.44 1P27.002J227.01 2J326.622K215.502M366.43 2N60.80 2Q121.88 2R125.38 3G24.124A18.77 7G7<0.44 7J5<0.44 7M2<0.44 8B1<0.44 8G44.218K111.38 8N122.05 9G10.44 9J7<0.449P52.75 10A229.27 11C327.50 11G145.61 23J128.17 12J11.95 13J118.42 18J2<0.44 29P2<0.44 1J1<0.44 2A27.35 1F243.58 8H226.35 8K236.71 20M1121.61 20Q2<0.44 10F338.26 10Q147.39 11C119.35 12C415.72 26C225.46 36E324.00 27P2<0.44 28D2181.57 28Q13.90 32K210.36 34E1<0.44 34Q24.96 4J537.16 4Q212.67 5K643.805L30.49 5P621.35 6F3<0.44 7B12<0.44 18E4<0.44 16E423.87 16P53.2819C412.36 19K1<0.44 20C74.92 20J416.87 22D248.27 25C317.49 29M4<0.44 12B219.66 1F219.18 2B229.10 3A127.19 3K339.86 7H258.01 9Q432.99 14A338.31 15R1758.01 16E44.4717E22.26 18E15.14 19D720.90 22B161.56 23E17.75 24A1153.67 26J22.39 29F41.95 30D21.77 33G11.02 7D225.86 32N111.16 13P50.97 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA REVIEWED: CW Figure A-3Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)Upper Aquifer, 2013 Water YearLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 6,000 12,000 Feet LEGENDWells with 2013 Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)11C3 Well Number (abbreviated)27.06 Nitrate Concentration in mg/L (NS = Not Sampled) (Supply 6 Mining A Monitoring %Municipal ?Nested2013 Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)15-3030-4545-60>60Historical Wastewater DisposalHistorical Septic AreasRecycled Water UseSubbasin BoundaryRiversTownship-Range LineMining Area Pond SCALE: DATE: 1 in = 6,000 ft Apr 17, 2015 File: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-03-NitrateUpper13.mxd HappyValley ? ( ( A A ?@A @A ? @A @A @A ? ?? A @A ? A@A ( ? ? ? (A (A @AA? @A@A ( ?@A@A ( (? ? ( ? A A ( ( ? ( ? ( ? @A @A @A @A @A @A @A@A@A ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 36F2<0.44 28J2<0.44 2P318.78 5K71.51 7B2<0.44 8H926.44 St131.04 9J88.64M113.73 M216.43 M318.11 9P1010.32 10B933.2110D332.28 10K27.75 10K317.54 11G231.18 11M212.89 11M316.47 11P63.54 12H414.08 12K27.93 13P63.41 14B14.47 14D214.44 15J33.50 15M39.34 P89.1716A47.7516C215.06 P518.69 P615.28 17B435.03 17D4<0.44 H917.67 H614.08 20B217.94 20C322.63 20C824.49 1B10<0.44 5N145.17 8H355.80 10Q224.89 14B141.27 15E239.68 15R184.74 16A347.39 19D955.36 20M117.27 23E21.46 7P315 7R320 8N215 8P116 9P144 9Q131 16B113 16C18.818B132 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: CW/TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA REVIEWED: TR Figure A-4Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)Lower Aquifer, 2013 Water YearLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 4,000 8,000 Feet LegendWells with 2013 Nitrate Concentrations11P6 Well Number (abbreviated)3.37 Nitrate Concentration in mg/L (Supply 6 Mining A Monitoring @A Municipal ?Nested well Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)15-3030-4545-60>60Subbasin Boundary SCALE: DATE: Path: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-04-NitrateLower13.mxd 1 in = 4,000 ft May 6, 2015 FIGURE A-5GROUNDWATER STORAGE PROGRAMNODAL CONSTANTS FOR STORAGE CALCULATIONSMAINBASINNODEArea(ft2)Surface(ft MSL)Bot Conf Lyr (ft MSL)Bottom(ft MSL)Thick(ft) SY SSTop(ft MSL)Bottom(ft MSL)Thick(ft) SY SSNODE 15200 329 290 243 47 0.07 0.0024 205 33 172 0.20 0.0012NODE 16320 325 281 235 46 0.05 0.0024 195 33 162 0.20 0.0002NODE 17301 336 283 222 61 0.09 0.0024 179 63 116 0.20 0.00005NODE 18679 334 283 228 55 0.11 0.0024 196 33 163 0.20 0.0012NODE 19703 328 268 222 46 0.11 0.0024 199 53 146 0.20 0.0002NODE 20534 332 265 229 36 0.05 0.0024 215 73 142 0.20 0.00001NODE 23414 340 297 243 54 0.13 0.0024 191 63 128 0.20 0.0018NODE 24503 343 300 230 70 0.14 0.0024 196 73 123 0.20 0.0003NODE 25883 360 330 242 88 0.17 0.0024 222 73 149 0.20 0.0007NODE 26953 353 303 226 77 0.17 0.0024 182 3 179 0.20 0.0003NODE 29388 363 333 278 55 0.23 0.0024 229 229 0 0.20 0.0001NODE 30718 369 none 259 110 0.15 0.0024 230 83 147 0.20 0.0002NODE 311213 372 none 259 113 0.12 0.0024 239 3 236 0.20 0.0003NODE 33165 397 374 327 47 0.09 0.0024 307 253 54 0.20 0.0008NODE 34683 402 none 299 103 0.08 0.0024 283 123 160 0.20 0.0003NODE 352357 422 none 310 112 0.11 0.0024 297 113 184 0.20 0.0002NODE 361753 493 none 387 106 0.09 0.0024 381 381 0 0.20 0.00001NODE 38867 429 none 352 77 0.13 0.0024 339 303 36 0.20 0.0008NODE 391839 484 none 395 89 0.10 0.0024 378 333 45 0.20 0.0003NODE 40913 566 none 487 79 0.23 0.0024 473 423 50 0.20 0.00004NODE 411624 732 none 620 112 0.10 0.0024 607 607 0 0.20 0.00003NODE 42686 551 none 464 87 0.18 0.0024 450 403 47 0.20 0.0001SurfaceGround surfaceft MSLTop and bottom elevations are in feet above Mean Sea Level (NAVD88)Bot Conf LyrBottom elevation of upper aquifer confining layerSYSpecific Yield - used for unconfined conditionsSSSpecific Storage - used for confined conditionsUpper Aquifer Lower AquiferE:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-05NodalConstants.xlsx5/6/2015 AAAAAAAAA(((A(AA((AAAAAAAAA(AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA(?AAA?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA(AAAAAAAAAAA?AAA?AAAAAA6666666666666666666666(((((((3S/1W2S/2E3S/2E3S/1E2S/1E2S/1W3S/3ER41.73R8<0.44R3<0.44P451.11P421.55P270.71LkH1.28C1<0.447N14.072A22.979J71.028G48.558B12.265L32.524Q25.494A10.623G23.412N60.531P25.45R28<0.44R24<0.44R23<0.44R22<0.44P44<0.44P41<0.44P40<0.44P28<0.44P12<0.44P11<0.44P10<0.44LkI<0.44K18<0.447D214.7933G14.8718E15.2316E45.149Q442.788K238.938H246.067H258.016P136.233K337.783A125.242B220.501F217.6712J14.169P542.749G1<0.448N111.698K126.487R8<0.447M2<0.447J5<0.447G7<0.446F3<0.445P618.515K638.174J574.842Q120.772N232.112M356.242K210.102J326.442J215.411F215.3734Q24.6532K29.2630D2<0.4429F4<0.4426J254.4723E112.0022B126.4814A349.1611C154.0310Q140.8310F335.478Q1522.768Q1424.8413J117.2312B222.6329P2<0.4429M4<0.4425C335.0723J134.6822D246.0620Q2<0.4420J419.0920C713.4619K1<0.4419C412.2718J2<0.4418E4<0.4416P5<0.4416E415.7711G151.3711C323.0310A230.207B12<0.4434E1<0.4427P2<0.4436E326.7526C226.7015F1<0.4433R120.7333P238.4433L121.0832Q124.0032N115.9032E119.4924A1107.6115R1755.8020M1110.10ShCliffs<0.44AmadorDublinMocho IISpringMayCampBernalBishopMocho IAltamontMocho IVascoC astleCayetano29A321.3028J2<0.4428D124.1421P169.0921N147.3921R 3<0.4428Q1<0.4429A 425.9128D2179.8030456060304560304530303045303045601530456045451515151545603030156015304515153 030 453030451515ZONE 7 WATER AGENCYDRAWN: TR/CW100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CAFILE: E:\MONITOR\GM\2008wy\Annual\Fig3.2-10-NitrateUpper.mxdREVIEWED: TRFigure 3.2-10Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)Upper Aquifer; 2008 Water YearLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin.0 6,000 12,000FeetLEGENDWells with 2008 Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)(Supply6MiningAMonitoring%Municipal?NestedNitrate Concentrations (mg/L)15-3030-4545-60>602008 Nitrate Contours (15, 30, 45, 60 mg/L)2007 Nitrate Contours (30, 45, 60 mg/L)Mining Area PondMining Area Backfilled ExcavationRecycled Water UseHistorical Septic AreasHistorical Wastewater DisposalAlluvium (Subbasin boundaries dashed)RiversRoads/StreetsTownship-Range LineSCALE: 1 in = 6,000 ftDATE:May 7, 2009 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! A A A A A A A A A AAAA A ( A A A A A A A A( A AAA A ( A A AA AA A AA A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A AAAA@ A A @ (AAA@@ @ AAAA AAAAAAAAA A@ AA AAAAA@ ( AA A AAAAAAAAAAA(A (A @A AAAA A A@@ A (AAAAAA@ @ @ A A @ @ A A ( (AAA A A A @ A( @A AAAA( A AAA A A A AAA A A A A A AAAAA A A A A A A AA A ( A A @ @ @ @ A AAA @ @ @ @ A A A A A A A A( ( (AA( @ A AA 2S/2E 3S/2E 2S/1W 2S/1E 3S/1W 3S/1E 2S/3E 3S/3E 17D11 1P3 2P3 P5 H7H9 28J2 10K3 11M3 11P6 14B1 14D2 15J315M3 16A4 17B4 SF-B SF-A 20B2 20C3 10Q2 14B1 15E2 15Q6 16A3 20M1 5K7 7B2 St1 5N1 7P3 7R3 8F1 8G1 8N2 9P1 16C118B1 M4 M1 M2M3 P8P6P7H6 9Q1 16B1 12J310K211M2 20C920C8 8H48H3 36F136F236F3 1B91B101B11 17D317D417D517D6 8H108H9 10D210D310D4 10B810B910B10 12H412H512H6 11G211G3 12K212K312K4 19D1019D919D819D7 9J89J99P99P109P1116C216C316C4 15R18 23E2 7N2 15M2 36E3 26C2 15F1 32E1 32N1 32Q1 33L1 33P2 33R1 4A1 4J54J6 4Q25P6 5K6 5L3 6F3 1J1 12B2 2A2 6N2 6N3 7B127G7 8B1 8G4 8K1 8N17R87J512J1 7M2 18E4 13J1 19C4 18J2 19K1 29M4 29P2 20Q2 20J4 16P5 16E4 16L2 22D2 20M11 20C7 10A211C3 2N62N2 2M3 2K2 2J3 2J22R12Q1 11B1 12D2 1P2 1L1 1F2 1H3 12A2 7C2 12G1 23J1 25C3 30D2 29F4 33G1 26J2 22B1 10Q1 24A1 14A3 10F3 11C1 3K3 3A1 2B2 1F2 7D2 32K2 28Q1 27P2 28D2 18E1 8P1 7H2 8K2 9Q4 8H2 9G1 9P5 16E417E2 34E1 34Q2 3G2 12C4 7D1 7D3 12A9 6N6 11G1 9J7 15R17 23E1 33L1 15L1 33K1 16B1 8H13 10D5 10B11 12H7 11G4 8H11 17D7 Amador Dublin Mocho II Spring May Camp Bernal Bishop Mocho I Altamont Mocho I Vasco Cayetano Castle Arroy o V a l l eAlamo CreekTassaja ra CreekSo u t h T r i b u t a r y Altamont C r e e k A r r o y o d e L a L a g u n a Arroyo Las Positas A r r o y o M o c h o 13P813P713P613P5 ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA FILE: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-07-GQWells.mxd REVIEWED: MK Figure A-7Map of Wells in Groundwater Quality ProgramLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 6,000 12,000 Feet LEGENDWell Colors !(Upper Aquifer !(Lower Aquifer !(Deep AquiferWell Symbols (Supply A Monitor @ Municipal ANested Monitoring ?Test !KeyWellsMining Area PondsStatic (= groundwater elevation)Pumped FromPumped IntoClay-linedGroundwater BasinSubbasin BoundaryRiversTownship-Range Line SCALE: DATE:Apr 27, 2015 ABBREVIATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL WELLS M = Mocho (Zone 7)H = Hopyard (Zone 7)St = Stoneridge (Zone 7)P = PleasantonSF = San Francisco Water District 1 in = 6,000 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 90 Route 6A • Sandwich, MA • 02563 Phone - 508-833-6600 • Fax - 508-833-3150 • www.horsleywitten.com Sustainable Environmental Solutions Horsley Witten Group Prepared for: Brian Dudley Department of Environmental Protection Cape Cod Office 973 Iyannough Road Hyannis, MA 02601 Submitted by: Horsley Witten Group 90 Route 6A Sandwich, MA 02563 Evaluation of Turfgrass Nitrogen Fertilizer Leaching Rates in Soils on Cape Cod, Massachusetts June 29, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was conducted by the Horsley Witten Group, Inc. (HW) on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to review existing information on nitrogen leaching rates from fertilizer applied to turfgrasss, and make a recommendation on an appropriate rate to be applied to water quality assessments conducted by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) on 89 Cape Cod and southeastern Massachusetts embayments (the MEP embayments). The MEP Model assumes a 20% nitrogen leaching rate within the embayments, based on research conducted by Dr. Brian Howes (MEP Reports). A recent study conducted by Dr. A. Martin Petrovic, on behalf of the Pleasant Bay Alliance (Petrovic, 2008), determined that a 10% nitrogen leaching rate would be appropriate for the embayments. HW reviewed the MEP Reports and Dr. Petrovic’s study, and interviewed Dr. Howes to discuss his calculation method used in deriving the MEP Model leaching rate. HW also conducted a literature search and review of publications cited by both researchers, and of relevant articles published in related peer-reviewed journals. Finally, HW obtained and analyzed 20 years of water quality monitoring data and fertilizer use on greens and fairways from a Cape Cod golf course, the Bayberry Hills golf course in Harwich, MA. This analysis showed a leaching rate under greens of approximately 14% in the first ten years of the golf course, and 26% in the subsequent ten years. Nitrogen leaching rates reported in the literature ranged from 0% (Mancino et al., 1990) to 95% (Mancino et al., 1991), and were affected by a number of factors. Based on the information available, HW identified factors affecting nitrogen leaching, including grass type, establishment method, and maturity; soil type, content, and slope; nitrogen fertilization type, rate, and timing; and climate and water application. HW described the impacts of each of these factors on nitrogen leaching, as quantified by research documented in the reviewed publications. After summarizing the impacts from grass, soil, fertilization, and climate conditions, HW compared the factors to conditions typical of the MEP embayments. Exact Cape Cod conditions were not replicated in the literature reviewed, and based on the importance of climate to leaching rates, HW narrowed the literature search to studies conducted in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. HW analyzed the leaching rate results for each relevant study to obtain one leaching rate representative of the study. The resulting average leaching rate across all studies is 13%. Studies representative of New England weather conditions span a variety of soil types. When considering leaching rate results from studies conducted only on sand, or loamy sand, as are likely to exist on Cape Cod and southeastern coast, the average leaching rate increases to 19%. The results from the literature review, MEP Model assumptions, and Bayberry Hills golf course water quality data analysis suggest that the MEP leaching rate estimate of 20% is reasonable. Evaluation of Turfgrass Nitrogen Leaching Rates Horsley Witten Group MA Department of Environmental Protection 2 June 29, 2009 Santa Rosa Plain Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source, Linkage, and Loading Analysis DRAFT July 2012 6-4 Table 6-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors Land Use Group Applied Water2 (in/yr) Percent Irrigated Applied Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Used Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS (lbs/acre- year) Urban Commercial and Industrial 46.8 5% 91 59 23 717 Farmsteads 46.8 10% 83 54 21 717 Vines 9.4 75% 29 23 3 956 Urban Residential 49.2 25% 91 59 23 478 Pasture 49.2 75% 60 39 15 637 Grasslands/ Herbaceous 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Dairy Production Areas1 0 0% 83 0 75 717 Urban Landscape 46.8 5% 91 59 23 637 Water 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Perennial Forages 49.2 0% 21 15 4 398 Non-irrigated vines 0 0% 17 16 0 478 Shrub/Scrub 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Non-irrigated Orchard 0 0% 75 60 7 319 Barren Land 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 46.8 10% 91 59 23 478 Flowers and Nursery 38 50% 124 81 31 956 Other CAFOs 0 10% 83 0 75 797 Paved Areas 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Other Row Crops 20.4 75% 100 65 25 558 Orchard 29.6 75% 133 100 20 1,195 Warm Season Cereals and Forages 23.2 75% 124 87 25 558 Footnotes: 1 See discussion on dairy parcels below. 2 Base applied water values and other climatic data are taken from DWR land and water use data (http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/anlwuest.cfm). On this website, four years of data are available. Climatic data averages, based on these four years of data, was compared to the 21-year average of available CIMIS climatic data for the Santa Rosa area. As the two data sets correspond well, the average DWR applied water values were used, with some adjustment using crop coefficients for the Santa Rosa area to fit the study land use classes. FIGURE A‐10 PREDICTED NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS 25% NITROGEN LEACHING RATE (RMC, 2012) 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Main Basin Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin North Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin Northeast Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 0 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin East Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA‐10‐NLoadingCalcsCheckLch25Graphs.xlsx 6/12/2015 Figure A‐10 FIGURE A‐11HISTORICAL NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN WELLS OUTSIDE AREAS OF CONCERNFRINGE BASIN NORTHE:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA‐11‐FBN‐Graphs.xlsx5/5/2015Figure A‐1101020304050607080Dec 75Dec 76Dec 77Dec 78Dec 79Dec 80Dec 81Dec 82Dec 83Dec 84Dec 85Dec 86Dec 87Dec 88Dec 89Dec 90Dec 91Dec 92Dec 93Dec 94Dec 95Dec 96Dec 97Dec 98Dec 99Dec 00Dec 01Dec 02Dec 03Dec 04Dec 05Dec 06Dec 07Dec 08Dec 09Dec 10Dec 11Dec 12Dec 13Dec 14Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Date2S-1E_32E012S-1E_32N012S-1W_15F012S-1W_26C022S-1W_36E032S-1W_36F012S-1W_36F022S-1W_36F033S-1E_05L033S-1E_06F033S-1E_06N023S-1E_07B023S-1E_07B123S-1E_07M023S-1W_01B093S-1W_01B103S-1W_01B113S-1W_02A023S-1W_12B023S-1W_12J01 This page intentionally left blank. TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS PPRREEFFAACCEE ............................................................................................................. 1 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11..00 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN ....................................................................... 6 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Stakeholder Interest and Plan Format ............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Objectives of GMP ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 GMP Timeline and Development Process ..................................................................................... 9 1.5 Elements of the SEBP Basin GMP .................................................................................................. 9 1.6 Document Development ................................................................................................................... 9 1.7 Authority To Prepare and Implement A GMP ............................................................................ 11 1.8 Groundwater Management Plan Components ............................................................................. 11 1.9 SEBP Groundwater Management Plan Structure ........................................................................ 12 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG .......................................................................................... 1144 2.1 Overview of SEBP Groundwater Basin ........................................................................................ 14 2.2 Historical Groundwater Use in the East Bay Area ...................................................................... 14 2.3 Groundwater Basin Delineation ..................................................................................................... 15 2.4 Topography and Geomorphic Features ........................................................................................ 17 2.5 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.1 Type A Soils ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.2 Type B Soils ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.3 Type C Soils ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.4 Type D Soils ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.6 Surface Water Features .................................................................................................................... 19 2.6.1 San Leandro Creek ................................................................................................................ 19 2.6.2 San Lorenzo Creek ................................................................................................................ 19 2.7 Precipitation ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.8 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 20 2.9 Flood Plain Delineation ................................................................................................................... 22 2.10 Hydrogeologic Setting .................................................................................................................... 24 2.10.1 Geologic History ................................................................................................................. 25 2.10.2 Mesozoic Through Early Cenozoic Basement Rocks Formed During Subduction of the Farallon Plate ........................................................................................................... 25 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan TOC - 1 March 2013 TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS 2.10.3 Mid-Cenozoic Rocks Formed Prior to the Existence of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands ......................................................................................................................... 29 2.10.4 Plio-Pleistocene Fluvial Deposits Formed After Creation of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands ......................................................................................................................... 29 2.10.5 Late Pleistocene Through Holocene Alluvial, Estuarine and Eolian Deposits ......... 29 2.11 Geologic Structure .......................................................................................................................... 33 2.12 Hydrogeologic Units ...................................................................................................................... 40 2.12.1 Development of Updated Hydrogeologic Cross Sections ............................................ 42 2.12.2 Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Properties .................................................................................. 45 2.13 Groundwater Elevations and Flow .............................................................................................. 47 2.14 Groundwater Quality ..................................................................................................................... 50 2.14.1 General Chemistry .............................................................................................................. 50 2.14.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Investigation, South East Bay Plain (CH2MHill, 2000) ..... 50 2.14.3 Threats to Water Quality .................................................................................................... 56 2.15 Groundwater Recharge .................................................................................................................. 56 2.16 Groundwater Rights in California ................................................................................................ 61 SECTION 33..00 GGRROOUUNNDDWWAATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS ... 63 3.1 Groundwater Management Goals .................................................................................................. 63 3.2 Basin Management Objectives ........................................................................................................ 63 3.3 GMP Components ........................................................................................................................... 64 3.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................................................. 64 3.3.2 Monitoring Programs ....................................................................................................... 66 3.3.3 Groundwater Basin Management Tools ........................................................................ 73 3.3.4 Groundwater Resource Protection ................................................................................. 74 3.3.5 Groundwater Sustainability ............................................................................................. 79 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44..00 PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN ........................ 8888 4.1 Periodic GMP Implementation Meetings ..................................................................................... 88 4.2 Future Review of the SEBP Basin GMP ...................................................................................... 91 4.3 Financing ............................................................................................................................................ 91 4.4 Integrated Water Resources Management..................................................................................... 92 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan TOC - 2 March 2013 TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS APPENDICES − Appendix A: Resolution of Intent − Appendix B: San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Map and Stream Flow Summaries − Appendix C: Flood Delineation Map Inserts − Appendix D: Updated Cross Sections and Documentation of Methodology − Appendix E: Water Quality Tables − Appendix F: Monitoring Guidelines − Appendix G: Water Quality Sampling Plan − Appendix H: Well Standards REFERENCES South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan TOC - 3 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. AACCRROONNYYMMSS AACCRROONNYYMMSS ACWD Alameda County Water District ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments AFY acre-ft per year AHGW Arc Hydro Groundwater ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery CSM Conceptual Site Model DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DWR Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ftp File Transfer Protocol GIS Geographic Information System gpd/ft gallons per day per foot GMP Groundwater Management Plan IGSM Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model LSCE Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers msl mean sea level NWIS National Water Information System NCGB Niles Cone Groundwater Basin NEBIGSM Niles Cone and South East Bay Plain Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model OLSD Oro Loma Sanitary District SB Senate Bill SEBP Basin South East Bay Plain Basin SSM Soil Survey Manual SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS total dissolved solids USGS U.S. Geological Survey West Yost West Yost Associates WRIME Water Resources & Information Management Engineering Inc. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. PPRREEFFAACCEE PPRREEFFAACCEE What Is The Intent of Preparing A Groundwater Management Plan (GMP)? Water is a finite resource with increasing demand for water exploration and reliance on local groundwater supplies has increased. Preserving this valuable natural resource is essential. Various state and local stakeholders recognize that proper management of groundwater resources is necessary. Recognizing the importance of managing groundwater resources, in 1992, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 3030 (AB 3030) which provided local public agencies increased management authority via the development of GMPs. In September 2002, Senate Bill 1938 expanded AB 3030 by requiring GMPs to include specific components in order to be eligible for grant funding for various types of groundwater related projects. A GMP provides the framework for coordinating groundwater management activities among stakeholders. In general, GMP documents are prepared to identify basin management goals and objectives. They also are used to guide future efforts that could be undertaken to effectively monitor and manage a groundwater basin. With that understanding, the Board of Directors of East Bay Municipal Utility District unanimously adopted a resolution of intent to prepare a GMP for the South East Bay Plain Basin on May 24, 2011. EBMUD, together with other basin stakeholders, has prepared this GMP as a means to assure basin sustainability for generations to come. The South East Bay Plain Basin’s Groundwater Management Plan Satisfies Multiple Stakeholder Needs and Objectives What Is A GMP? A Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) is a planning tool that assists overlying water providers in maintaining a safe, sustainable and high quality groundwater resource within a given groundwater basin. GMPs are intended to be “living documents” that can be readily updated and refined over time to reflect progress made in achieving the GMP’s objectives. Because many agencies are new to groundwater planning, state law (SB 1938) outlines a series of actions that will promote ongoing GMP development. In addition, GMPs have become a required “baseline” document for agencies seeking grant funds available from the State of California. Like other planning documents required by the State, an approved GMP is a minimum requirement for agencies seeking competitively awarded grant funds. What Is Required In A GMP? SB 1938 describes the preparation of GMPs and contains numerous requirements and provisions which are briefly summarized as follows: A GMP contains an inventory of water supplies and describes water uses within a given region. A GMP establishes groundwater Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) that are designed to protect and enhance the groundwater basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 1 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE A GMP identifies monitoring and management programs that ensure the BMOs are being met. A GMP outlines a stakeholder involvement and public information plan for the ground water basin. Why Was The SEBP GMP Prepared? The South East Bay Plain (SEBP) Basin GMP has been prepared primarily to document ongoing groundwater management activities, coordinate among basin stakeholders, and prepare for future activities: A GMP is a prerequisite for state grant funding opportunities. The GMP develops a framework or baseline on which to build future planning efforts. Preparing a GMP is good planning procedure. The SEBP Basin GMP satisfies multiple stakeholder needs and objectives. Stakeholder Involvement To address the needs of all affected stakeholders, several meetings and workshops were held that included a discussion of the means of achieving broader involvement in the management of the Basin. Activities have included: Stakeholder planning meetings Coordinating with other local agencies and interests adjacent to the SEBP basin area Soliciting input from stakeholders during the development and public comment process for approving the GMP Developing and fostering relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies Incorporating comments received from stakeholders into the GMP Future Action Items and Recommendations The intended approval date of the SEBP Basin GMP is March 26, 2013. Following approval, Stakeholders will meet periodically to share basin information and to consider potential refinements to the GMP, adding the next increment of details as and when appropriate. In addition, the following recommendations will move forward: Encourage local stakeholder agencies to adopt the GMP Encourage Alameda County Board of Supervisors to adopt more stringent policies regarding well standards Future grant funding should be used when available to: − Better understand the connectivity between the SEBP Basin and the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin − Establish survey control within the Basin − Expand the groundwater model (to include water quality data evaluation, additional geologic data as collected, etc.) − Improve basin understanding South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 2 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE DWR Bulletin 118 delineates the boundaries of the East Bay Plain Basin ranging from the Carquinez strait in the north to the City of Hayward area in the south. It is bound by the Hayward fault zone in the east and San Francisco Bay in the west. Only the southern portion of East Bay Plain Basin has significant storage capacity and has seen significant municipal, industrial, and irrigation well production. As such, for all practical purposes, the management of groundwater resources focuses the southern portion of the Basin. − Coordinate among stakeholders; and − Support beneficial uses of the SEBP basin South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 3 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE Figure P-1: San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 4 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 5 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN SSEECCTTIIOONN 11..00 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.1 BACKGROUND In 1992, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 3030 which provided local public agencies increased management authority over their groundwater resources by enabling them to develop Groundwater Management Plans (GMPs). In September 2002, Senate Bill 1938 expanded AB 3030 by requiring GMPs to include specific components in order for Basin agencies to be eligible for grant funding for various types of groundwater related projects. A GMP provides the framework for coordinating groundwater management activities among stakeholders. In general, the documents are fashioned to identify basin management goals and objectives, along with guiding further efforts that will be undertaken to effectively monitor and manage a groundwater basin. In recent years, due primarily to local interest in the southern portion of the East Bay Plain Groundwater Basin (the South East Bay Plain Basin or SEBP Basin), the interest in crafting a GMP for the SEBP Basin has grown. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), as the largest water provider overlying the East Bay Plain Basin, has taken the lead to guide the GMP development process. 1.2 STAKEHOLDER INTEREST AND PLAN FORMAT With the completion of Bayside Groundwater Project Bayside Phase 1 in March of 2010 and the potential future development of Bayside Phase 2, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) recognized that local groundwater resources were now a key component of the District’s future supplemental supply. Other stakeholder agencies, such as the City of Hayward, have reached similar conclusions. A list of stakeholders is provided in the Table below. Table 1-1: List of Key Stakeholders PARTICIPATING KEY STAKEHOLDERS AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE Alameda County Environmental Health Donna Drogos Alameda County Public Works James Yoo Alameda County Water District (ACWD) Steven Inn City of Alameda Laurie Kozisek City of Hayward Marilyn Mosher City of Oakland Craig Pon City of San Leandro Keith Cooke Hayward Area Recreation District Edwin Little Port of Oakland Liem Nguyen San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Barbara Baginska San Lorenzo Unified School District Prachi Amin All of the above stakeholders have an interest in protecting or managing the SEBP basin (see Figure P-2 for a graphical depiction of the Basin boundary). Preparation of a GMP is an effective step to assure basin sustainability. For EBMUD, preparation of a GMP is consistent with commitments made in the Phase 1 EIR for the Bayside Groundwater Project. A GMP provides a mechanism for EBMUD to monitor, manage, and protect water quality and quantity in the SEBP Basin for potable South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 6 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN uses. For the Alameda County Public Works Department, the GMP discusses their interest in modifying existing well installation and decommissioning standards. The City of Hayward, like EBMUD, has an interest in exploring the potential for the Basin to address a portion of their water supply. All stakeholders understand that working together through the GMP process safeguards their interests and provides a mechanism for a collaborative basin management approach. Emergency Water Supply Wells (City of Hayward): The City of Hayward (City) provides water services for residential, commercial, industrial, governmental, and fire suppression uses. Originally, groundwater wells were used as the primary source of water supply. During the 1940s and 1950s, the well water was supplemented by water purchased from San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy system, owned and operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). In 1962, Hayward entered into an agreement with SFPUC to purchase water from SFPUC and ceased providing well water in 1963. However, to secure a reliable source of potable water for use in the event of an interruption in delivery from the regional Hetch Hetchy Water System, the City designed and constructed five emergency wells, beginning in the mid-1990s and completed in 2001. Although the City does not currently operate these groundwater wells to meet any portion of its day-to-day normal water demand, these emergency wells, which are located within the City and use the local groundwater basins, can theoretically provide up to a total of 13.6 million gallons per day of potable water. These wells are currently certified by the California Department of Health Services for short duration emergency use only. Emergency Well Capacities Well Identification Capacity Well A 1.7 mgd Well B 2.9 mgd Well C 4.6 mgd Well D 1.4 mgd Well E 3.0 mgd South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 7 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF GMP The overarching goal of the South East Bay Plain Basin GMP is to preserve the local groundwater basin as a reliable and sustainable water supply for current and future beneficial uses. To accomplish this goal, the objectives of the GMP together with accompanying plan elements are listed below. The SEBP Basin GMP Objectives are to: Preserve basin storage by maintaining groundwater elevations in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the basin; Maintain or improve groundwater quality in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the basin; and Manage potential inelastic land surface subsidence from groundwater pumping The following plan components are structured to achieve these objectives: Stakeholder and Public Involvement Monitoring Program Data Management and Analysis Groundwater Resource Protection Groundwater Sustainability Each component includes specific management actions. Figure 1-1 graphically depicts the means by which objectives are folded into plan components that in turn address goals for basin management. Preserve groundwater storage by maintaining groundwater elevations in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin. Maintain or improve groundwater quality in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin. Manage potential inelastic land surface subsidence from groundwater pumping. Manage the SEBP basin through coordination collaboration. Stakeholders and Public Involvement Monitoring Program Data Management and Analysis Groundwater Resource Protection Groundwater Sustainability GGOOAALL Preserve local groundwater resource as a reliable and sustainable water supply for current and future beneficial uses BBAASSIINN MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS PPLLAANN CCOOMMPPOONNEENNTTSS MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Figure 1-1: Basin Management Objectives South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 8 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN The SEBP Basin GMP accomplishes the following objectives: Provides statutory authority for stakeholders to manage the groundwater basin; Supports basin sustainability; Maintains local control of groundwater; Supports the rights and beneficial uses of groundwater for basin users; Fosters collaboration and prevents legal disputes among stakeholders; and Increases opportunities for future grant funding. 1.4 GMP TIMELINE AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Preparation of the SEBP Basin GMP has taken approximately two years. The effort began with EBMUD’s Board adoption of a resolution of intent on May 9, 2010. Significant milestones in the GMP development process since that date are summarized in Table 1-3 below. Table 1-3: Significant Milestones/Development Process Milestones Date Public Notice to adopt the Resolution of Intent 5/7/2011 EBMUD Board Adoption of the Resolution of Intent 5/24/2011 Stakeholder Liaison Group Meeting 8/9/2011 Technical Consultant Contract Award 11/8/2011 Stakeholder Liaison Group Meeting 3/29/2012 Stakeholder Well Standard Development Subgroup Meeting 10/16/2012 Stakeholder Salts and Nutrients Management Subgroup Meeting 10/16/2012 Stakeholder Land Subsidence Management Subgroup Meeting 10/23/2012 Completion of Draft Technical Study Report 1/23/2013 Completion of Draft GMP document 1/31/2013 Completion of Final Technical Study Report 2/28/2013 Completion of Final GMP document 3/21/2013 Planned Public Notice to Adopt the GMP 3/12/2013 Planned EBMUD Board Adoption of the GMP 3/26/2013 1.5 ELEMENTS OF THE SEBP BASIN GMP Elements of the SEBP Basin GMP include basin delineation and characterization, the establishment of basin objectives, a description of monitoring activities, and identification of management activities. Stakeholder participation is also detailed. 1.6 DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT The GMP was prepared by EBMUD staff with significant assistance provided by stakeholder organizations. The engineering firm of West Yost, Inc. was contracted to prepare a hydrologic study as well as develop a new groundwater model of the basin. EBMUD staff supervised their efforts. Table 1-4 denotes participation in document development by stakeholder/consultant support. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 9 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Table 1-4 : GMP Document Development Contributors GMP Development Lead Agency EBMUD Board Technical Consultant for the SEBP Basin Characterization Study West Yost Associates Public Outreach EBMUD staff Well Standard Development Subgroup Lead: James Yoo (ACPWA) Members: •Marilyn Mosher (COH) •Prachi Amin (SLUSD) •Ken Minn (EBMUD) Salts and Nutrients Management Subgroup Lead: Alec Naugle (SFRWQCB) Members: •Donna Drogos (ACEH) •James Yoo (ACPWA) •Laurie Kozisek (COA) •Marilyn Mosher (COH) •Prachi Amin (SLUSD) •Ken Minn (EBMUD) Land Subsidence Management Subgroup Lead: Tom Francis (EBMUD) Members: •James Yoo (ACPWA) •Laurie Kozisek (COA) •Marilyn Mosher (COH) •Ken Minn (EBM UD) •Steve Martin (EBMUD) Technical Data and Research Contributors Mike Halliwell (ACWD) John Izbicki (USGS) Ken Minn (EBMUD) Technical Reviewers Mike Halliwell (ACWD) Marilyn Mosher (COH) Ken Minn (EBMUD) DWR Liaison Mark Nordberg South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 10 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.7 AUTHORITY TO PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A GMP The authority to manage the groundwater basin is provided through the Act and Water Code Division 6, part 2.75 (§ 10750 et seq.). The state groundwater management law (Water Code Division 6, part 2.75, commencing with section 10750) prohibits the District from managing groundwater within the service area of another local water district, public utility or mutual water company, without the agreement of that other entity. (Section 10750.9 (b)). State law also encourages local water agencies to coordinate on groundwater management plans. (See Water Code §§ 10755.2-10755.4.) This GMP is prepared to cover the southern portion of East Bay Plain basin as per DWR Bulletin 118. In accordance with Water Code section 10750, EBMUD will be authorized to manage the basin within its service area. Similarly, City of Hayward will be authorized to manage the portion the basin under its groundwater service area. This GMP does not cover areas currently under the management of ACWD. This plan and implementation of the plan shall comply with these and other applicable limitations of state law. On May 24, 2011, EBMUD Board of Directors formally adopted the Resolution of Intent to prepare the GMP for the South East Bay Plain Basin. The Resolution is included in Appendix A. 1.8 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS The South East Bay Plain Basin GMP includes the required and recommended components and applicable voluntary components per CWC § 10750 et seq. as described in DWR’s Bulletin 118, California Groundwater – Update 2003 (DWR, 2003). Seven mandatory components of CWC § 10750 et seq. CWC § 10750 et seq. requires GWMPs to include seven mandatory components and twelve voluntary components to be eligible for award of funding administered by DWR for the construction of groundwater projects or groundwater quality projects. These amendments to the CWC were included in Senate Bill 1938, effective January 1, 2003. The amendments apply to funding authorized or appropriated after September 1, 2003. CWC § 10750 et seq., Mandatory Components: Documentation of public involvement statement 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 3.3.1 Establish basin management objectives 1.3 Monitor and manage groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, inelastic land surface subsidence, and changes in surface water flows and quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by pumping 3.3 Plan to involve other agencies located within groundwater basin 1.7 Adoption of monitoring protocols by basin stakeholders 3.3.2 Map of groundwater basin showing area of agency subject to GMP, other local agency boundaries, and groundwater basin boundary as defined in DWR Bulletin 118 (Figure 2-1) For agencies not overlying groundwater basins, prepare GMP using appropriate geologic and hydrogeologic principles. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 11 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Twelve voluntary components of CWC § 10750 et seq. includes twelve specific technical issues that could be addressed in GMPs to manage the basin optimally and protect against adverse conditions. In addition, DWR Bulletin 118-223 recommends seven components to include in a GMP. The mandatory, voluntary and recommended components are listed below: Control of saline water intrusion. 3.3.5.1 Identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas. 3.3.5.1 and 3.3.4.3 Regulation of the migration of contaminated groundwater. 3.3.5.1 Administration of well abandonment and well destruction program. 3.3.5.1 Mitigation of conditions of overdraft. 3.3.5.1 Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers. 3.3.5.1 Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage. 3.3.2 Facilitating conjunctive use operations. Identification of well construction policies. 3.3.4.1 Construction and operation by local agency of groundwater contamination clean up, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects. 3.3.4.4 and 3.3.5.2 Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies. 3.3.1.3 Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create reasonable risk of groundwater contamination. DWR Bulletin 118 Suggested Components: Manage with guidance of advisory committee. Describe area to be managed under GWMP Create link between BMOs and goals and actions of GWMP 1.3 Describe GWMP monitoring program 3.3.2 Describe integrated water management planning efforts 3.3.5.1 and 4.4 Report on implementation of GWMP 4.1 Evaluate GWMP periodically 4.2 1.9 SEBP GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURE This GMP is structured as follows: Section 1.0 - Introduction: Provides the executive summary and introductory information. Section 2.0 - Water Resources Setting: Provides an overview of existing physical conditions that should be understood and considered when developing and implementing groundwater management activities. This section includes information on topics such as precipitation, hydrology, geology, groundwater levels, groundwater quality, existing well infrastructure, and water demand and supply. The understanding of existing physical conditions helps define groundwater management needs, objectives, and actions. Section 3.0 - Plan Implementation: Discusses the major plan components. The five groundwater management components included in the plan are stakeholders and public involvement, monitoring program, data management and analysis, groundwater protection and groundwater sustainability. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 12 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Section 4.0 - Plan Implementation and Integration: Successful management of the basin directly correlates with successful implementation of plan components and associated actions. As the basin is the local resource for multiple stakeholders with various stakes, successful implementation is, in turn, contingent upon effective collaboration and available resources. Also, the basin management is a perpetual task concerning all stakeholders. Leading a group of stakeholders with common interest, EBMUD will foster collaborative efforts in seeking state and federal funding as well as developing mutually beneficial projects in the basin. Bayside Groundwater Project (EBMUD): The Bayside Groundwater Project is one of several future water supply projects that will help protect EBMUD's 1.3 million customers against severe water rationing in the event of a prolonged drought. In wet years, water would be stored in a deep aquifer; then extracted, treated and distributed to customers during drought. The aquifers far beneath San Leandro and San Lorenzo were chosen as project sites after much exploration. The Bayside Groundwater Project’s planning began in 2001, the Environmental Impact Report was approved by the EBMUD Board of Directors in November 2005 and the project's construction was completed in 2009. After successfully operating the project for some time, EBMUD will consider a larger project in the area that would have a storage capacity of 2 to 10 mgd, providing even greater drought protection. The larger project would first be subjected to the same environmental and public review as the first project, and EBMUD will review results of the groundwater monitoring system and extensometer, which measures minute changes in ground surface elevation. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 13 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.1 OVERVIEW OF SEBP GROUNDWATER BASIN The study area covers a large area of the East Bay Plain underlying a portion of the City of Oakland, Alameda, San Lorenzo, and the City of Hayward (see Figure 2-1). The study area is approximately four miles wide and twelve miles long. It extends from the San Francisco Bay on the west to the edge of the alluvial basin at the base of the Oakland hills on the east, and runs from 35th Avenue in Oakland on the north near the City of Hayward’s southern boundary. The area is densely populated and highly urbanized and is characterized by industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. Although agriculture was important in the past, there is little agricultural land use in the study area at the present time. More information on the hydrology and hydrogeology of the study area is provided in later sections of this report. 2.2 HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER USE IN THE EAST BAY AREA Groundwater was a major part of water supply to the East Bay area from the 1860s to 1930. During that time there was a continuous struggle to locate and develop both ground and surface waters to serve the growing population. By the early 1920s, it was recognized that local groundwater and surface water supplies had reached their limits, and water would have to be brought in from outside the Bay Area. After years of planning and construction, Sierran water entered the area in the spring of 1930. However, instead of continuing to be part of the water supply, municipal well fields were shut down and forgotten. In their 1998 study of groundwater and water supply history of the East Bay Plain, Norfleet Consultants estimated that in the range of 15,000 wells were drilled in the Basin between 1860 and 1950. The majority of these were shallow (less than 100 feet deep), but some were up to 1,000 feet deep. Few of these wells were properly destroyed. EBMUD’s historical review indicates that there were only three sites in the East Bay Plain that historically supported municipal well fields: the Alvarado, San Pablo, and southern Oakland areas. The Alvarado Well Field was located south of the SEBP Basin in the Niles Cone. This site had the most prolific wells and supplied about one half of the groundwater to the East Bay Area. There were 8 to 10 individual well fields in the southern Oakland trend. The first well field in the SEBP area was drilled on Alameda Island (the High Street Field) in the 1880s. Within 10 years, the field was shut down because of water quality problems and casing failures. Additional well fields were drilled to the west (Fitchburg, 98th Street, etc.), following the trend of the aquifer. In 1916, the East Bay Water Company, predecessor of EBMUD, drew about 10 million gallons a day from 117 wells including Robert’s Landing well filed located in San Lorenzo area. These fields were an integral part of the water supply system until they were shut down in 1930. There were three well fields in San Pablo. They were drilled in the late 1900s to supply water to the rapidly growing Richmond area. Overpumping and intrusion of brackish water caused those fields to be shut down by 1920. There is little specific information about historic groundwater quality, but the existing information indicates that groundwater had a relatively similar quality throughout the East Bay Plain. Total dissolved solids (TDS) varied between 500 and 1,000 ppm. Salt/brackish water intrusion occurred along the eastern end of Alameda Island (early 1890s), in the Fitchburg Well Field (late 1920s), and in San Pablo (late 1910s). Existing information indicates that the intrusion was restricted to the upper aquifer (above the Yerba Buena Mud) and was caused by overpumping. All of these fields South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 14 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG were shut down by 1930. Overpumping continued to occur in the Niles Cone for the next 30 years. This resulted in intrusion of the deeper aquifers by the 1950s. 2.3 GROUNDWATER BASIN DELINEATION California Water Code Section 10750 et seq., commonly referred to as AB 3030, stipulates certain procedures that must be followed in adopting a GMP under this section. Amendments to Section 10750 et seq. added the requirement that new GMPs being prepared under Section 10750 et seq. must include additional components in order to be eligible for state grants administered through DWR (SB1938 (Stats 2002, Ch 603)). One of the required components is a map showing the area of the groundwater basin, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118, with the area of the local agency subject to the plan as well as the boundaries of other local agencies that overlie the basin. The SEBP Basin GMP study area is located within the East Bay Plain Subbasin 1 (Figure P-2). DWR describes the East Bay Plain Subbasin as a northwest trending alluvial plain bounded on the north by San Pablo Bay, on the east by the contact with Franciscan Basement rock, and on the south by the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin (NCGB). The East Bay Plain Basin extends beneath San Francisco Bay to the west (DWR, 2003). The study area (shown in light green in Figure 2-1) is bounded on the east, west and south by the groundwater basin boundary as delineated by the DWR in Bulletin 118 (2003) and shown in Figure P-1. The SEBP basin deep aquifer thins to the north and becomes an insignificant source of groundwater near Berkeley (CH2MHill, 2000). For the purpose of this study, the northern boundary of the SEBP Basin GMP area was drawn in Oakland at a location where the depth to basement is relatively shallow and the deep aquifer is relatively thin (CH2MHill, 2004). The southern boundary extends near the southern boundary of the City of Hayward in the transition zone with the Niles Cone Subbasin to the south. 1 The southern boundary of the basin in DWR Bulletin 118 may be subject to modification in a future edition of the Bulletin 118 as per ongoing discussions between DWR and ACWD. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 15 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 16 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.4 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOMORPHIC FEATURES The GMP study area includes Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro, San Lorenzo and Hayward, covering an area of about 115 square miles. The study area consists primarily of flat alleviated lowlands and bay tidal marshes. The topography generally slopes downward toward the San Francisco Bay to the west, ranging in elevation from about 400 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the east to 0 feet msl to the west where the plain meets the San Francisco Bay. This information is relevant to this groundwater study, because groundwater direction and gradient typically correlate well with surface topography on a regional level. Local variations result from groundwater pumping patterns, and geomorphic and structural features such as fault zones. 2.5 SOILS Soils information was compiled and evaluated from field data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service as well as data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This information is key to developing an understanding of groundwater recharge within the GMP study area. These studies utilized soil information for the East Bay Plain obtained by ACWD during the development of the Niles Cone and South East Bay Plain Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model (NEBIGSM) (WRIME, 2005), which included the entire East Bay Plain. The model subregions used for depicting soil information extend beyond the boundaries of the GMP study area. Soils types for the entire East Bay Plain are shown on Figure 2-2. The Soil Survey Manual (SSM) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993), prepared by the USDA Soil Survey Division was used as a guideline for soil classification. The soil data for the study area were categorized into four classifications established from the Natural Drainage Classes and Hydrologic Soil Groups published in the SSM. The categories are briefly described below. 2.5.1 Type A Soils Type A soils, defined as excessively drained to somewhat excessively drained soils, are so termed because water moves rapidly through them. Soils are typically coarse-textured and have high hydraulic conductivity in the upper half of the horizon. Examples of type A soils include coarse sands, tailings, and alluvial deposits, which typically occur along major stream channels. 2.5.2 Type B Soils Type B soils are well drained soils, meaning that water is removed from the soil readily, not rapidly. Soils in the upper one meter of this horizon typically have higher conductivity in the lower half and moderately high hydraulic conductivity in the upper half of the one-meter interval. A representative type B soil is sandy loam. 2.5.3 Type C Soils Type C soils are moderately well drained soils, meaning that water is removed from the soil slowly during portions of the year. Soils typically have moderately high hydraulic conductivity in the upper half of the horizon and moderately low hydraulic conductivity in the lower half. Examples of type C soils include silty sands, silty loam, and clayey sands. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 17 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 18 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.5.4 Type D Soils Type D soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained soils, meaning that water is removed very slowly and free water typically is present at shallow depths or at the surface. These soils typically have low hydraulic conductivity. Examples of type D soils include clays, hardpan, and floodplain deposits. 2.6 SURFACE WATER FEATURES San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks are the principal streams in the study area. These streams originate in the Diablo Range and flow westward into San Francisco Bay. The upland area drained by these streams (43 and 44 square miles, respectively) contains two large reservoirs. With the exception of the Castro Valley area, the drainage basins are not extensively developed. These streams may have been important sources of pre-development groundwater recharge. Muir (1996) estimated that annual recharge from infiltration of stream-flow and direct infiltration of precipitation in the San Leandro and San Lorenzo areas was about 3,500 and 800 acre-ft, respectively. Channeling of these streams due to urbanization has reduced the amount of surface water available for groundwater recharge along the mountain front (Izbicki, 2003). The results of a USGS study completed in 2003 show that recharge of San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks occurs as infiltration of stream flow during winter months. Most recent recharge is restricted to the upper aquifer system in areas near the mountain front. Recently recharged water was not present in the lower aquifer system, probably because of the presence of clay layers that separate the upper and lower aquifer systems. The time to recharge based on Carbon-14 dating of deep groundwater ranged from 500 to greater than 20,000 years. Older groundwater ages suggest that the lower aquifer system is isolated from surface sources or recharge (Izbicki, 2003). 2.6.1 San Leandro Creek San Leandro Creek stream flow data were not available. Because it is a lined channel having little or no interaction with groundwater, no effort was made to estimate the missing data for San Leandro Creek during construction and calibration of the NEBIGSM (WRIME, 2005). 2.6.2 San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Creek stream flow data, compiled by WRIME in preparation of the NEBIGSM, covers the period 1964 to 2000 and more recent (2008 to 2012) data retrieved from the USGS for the Hayward Gage (see Appendix B). The steam flows year round with highest flows in the winter months. Flows rarely exceed 2,000 cubic feet per second. 2.7 PRECIPITATION Although the area is heavily urbanized, precipitation does contribute to recharge in the study area. Rainfall data were compiled and analyzed from two rainfall gages in the study area during development of the NEBIGSM for the period 1922 to 1998. During this period, average rainfall was 19.36 inches per year at the Oakland Museum Station (northern study area) and 17.87 inches per year at the Niles Station (southern study area). Recent precipitation data at the Oakland Museum Station is plotted on Figure 2-3 and shows that average annual precipitation for the period 1971 to 2011 was 22 inches. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 19 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Figure 2-3 2.8 LAND USE Land use information is another factor considered in developing a recharge area/net percolation map for the study area. Figure 2-4 shows the mix of land uses across the SEBP Basin, including the study area. Principal land uses within the study area include residential, industrial, parks and open space. The land use classification information was developed from the 2006 Planned Land Use GIS data file available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) GIS Data Catalog. The 2006 Planned Land Use data file contains geospatial information relating to land uses found in the general plans of the cities and counties of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 20 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 21 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.9 FLOOD PLAIN DELINEATION Figure 2-5 shows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain delineation mapping for the study area dated April 2012. The flood plain delineation was derived from 100-year flood maps available directly from FEMA and digitized into GIS Data. The total area included in FEMA’s 100-year flood plains is approximately 8,400 acres, or 21 percent of the 39,900-acre GMP area. Because Figure 2-5 is scaled to show the entire GMP area, inset maps were created at ten times the size to show better detail. Inset maps are included in Appendix C showing more detail along creeks and streams within the study area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 22 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 23 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.10 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING The purpose of this chapter is to provide sufficient detail on the geologic history and setting to improve understanding of the geologic framework that defines the groundwater basin, including freshwater aquifers. This also includes understanding of the bedrock geometry which defines the boundaries of the basin, aspects of the bedrock geology that could influence groundwater quantity and quality, and the sequence of sedimentation within the bedrock basin that resulted in the SEBP Basin aquifers. The description of the sedimentary sequence is intended to provide a framework for interpreting site-specific geologic information obtained from drilling and logging and to plan future investigative efforts within the SEBP Basin. The sediments comprising the aquifers of the SEBP Basin, as delineated in this report, are primarily composed of relatively young alluvial deposits formed in approximately the last few hundred thousand years by streams, such as San Leandro, San Lorenzo and Alameda Creeks, emanating from the East Bay Hills. Productive groundwater zones, likely former stream channels, are found in discontinuous sand and gravel deposits. These sand and gravel zones are enclosed in fine grained deposits formed in alluvial systems during flood events that overtopped stream channels. Near San Francisco Bay, the alluvial deposits interfinger with estuarine deposits and localized wind-blown sand deposits of approximately the same age. The fine grained alluvial and estuarine deposits have low permeability and create confined (pressurized) conditions for most of the SEBP Basin groundwater production zones. The characteristics of the SEBP Basin aquifers are significantly affected by fault motion. Earth movements not only created the groundwater basin and the depositional environments resulting in the aquifer sediments, but also displaced the aquifer sediments once deposited. Even the youngest deposits forming the SEBP Basin aquifer system are affected, because fault motion is ongoing. However, the somewhat older alluvial deposits, possibly including the productive zones in the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer, have undergone greater northwesterly translation from their original sites of deposition. Also, Alameda Creek is the only antecedent stream in the region, suggesting that it predates the geologically recent deformation and uplift of the East Bay Hills. The geomorphic characteristics of San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks suggest that they are young relative to geologically recent deformation and uplift, introducing the possibility that some deeper alluvial deposits may have been formed by Alameda Creek or other local streams that no longer exist. The alluvial sediments comprising the main freshwater-bearing zones and underlying the SEBP Basin, probably rest upon and are juxtaposed across faults with older fluvial deposits formed in the early stages of the San Francisco Bay lowland’s development. Although the permeability of the coarse-grained fluvial sediments is probably less than the permeability of the coarse-grained alluvial sediments due to greater compaction and cementation, the fluvial sediments are significant to the freshwater aquifer system because they are relatively widespread in the southern San Francisco Bay region. The alluvial, fluvial and estuarine sediments comprising the freshwater aquifer system in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin are underlain by bedrock consisting of very old Franciscan Complex rocks and deformed marine sedimentary rocks, predating the most geologically recent Coast Range uplift. These older rocks are significant because their structural configuration defines the geometry of the groundwater basin and aspects of their mineralogy may influence groundwater quality in the SEBP Basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 24 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The following sections of this chapter provide summaries of the geologic history and structural features that make up the geologic framework of the SEBP Basin. 2.10.1 Geologic History A conceptual geologic column shown in Figure 2-6, illustrates the geologic history of the SEBP Basin within the oldest geologic formation at the base and youngest formation at the top. The geologic column is a graphical representation of the geometrical and temporal relationships between the geologic units that define the SEBP Basin’s geometry and hydraulic properties and influence its water quality. Figure 2-7 is a surficial geologic map of the area. The thickness and extent of the SEBP Basin freshwater aquifer system is delimited by the extent and depth to the top of basement rocks comprised of the Franciscan Complex and the overlying marine sedimentary rocks shown near the bottom of Figure 2-6. Fluvial sediments located at, or near the base of, the freshwater aquifer system may extend the depth and extent of the system beyond the limits indicated by mapped alluvial deposits in the SEBP Basin. The primary aquifers of the SEBP Basin are comprised of the Late Pleistocene through Holocene alluvial and estuarine deposits (shown on the upper part of the geologic column). 2.10.2 Mesozoic Through Early Cenozoic Basement Rocks Formed During Subduction of the Farallon Plate The oldest rocks in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin are late Jurassic through early Tertiary age rocks of the Franciscan Complex and Great Valley Sequence. These rocks provide a record of approximately 140 million years of compressive tectonics, oceanic plate subduction and continental accretion, which ended approximately 28 million years ago when the Farallon Plate was subducted beneath the North American Plate, and right-lateral strike-slip motion was initiated along the San Andreas Fault system (Wakabayashi, 1992). Rocks of the Franciscan Complex are dominated by detrital sediments (greywacke and shale), with lesser amounts of pillow basalts, chert and minor limestone. As originally formed, these rock units present a record of the formation of new oceanic crust (pillow basalts) at oceanic ridges. Chert deposits formed in deep water over the pillow basalts as the oceanic crust moved away from spreading centers and toward the subduction zone on the western margin of North America. Limestone formed in shallow water over oceanic crust at equatorial latitudes. Greywacke and shale were formed by deposition of continentally-derived sediments by turbidity currents at the subduction zone. The entire assemblage was extensively disrupted by folding and faulting in the oceanic trench near the western margin of North America during subduction of the oceanic Farallon Plate. Tectonic disruptions in the subduction zone resulted in metamorphosis of some Franciscan rocks, which are often identified based on metamorphic petrology resulting from high pressure-low temperature conditions brought about by rapid burial and exhumation in the subduction zone. Serpentinite is a characteristic metamorphic rock type of the Franciscan Complex resulting from the metamorphosis of mantle rocks underlying oceanic crust. Intense shearing resulted in mélange, another characteristic part of the Franciscan Complex. Mélange consists of crushed soft rocks, such South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 25 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 26 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG as shale or serpentinite, containing floating blocks of other more resistant rock types ranging in size from a few square feet to a few square miles (Sloan, 2006). Up to nine different Franciscan Complex terrains have been identified in the San Francisco Bay area (Wahrhaftig and Sloan, 1989; Wakabayashi, 1992). The Great Valley Sequence formed contemporaneously with the Franciscan Complex in a marine sedimentary basin, known as a forearc basin, located between the Franciscan Complex subduction zone and the Sierran volcanic arc forming the western edge of the continent. The Sierra volcanic arc was the result of melting of the subducted oceanic plate. Buoyant forces drove the melts upwards into the continental crust and to the land surface creating the predominant rock types of the Sierra Nevada. The Great Valley Sequence consists mostly of shale, sandstone and conglomerate. The Coast Range ophiolite is located at the base of the Great Valley Sequence. The ophiolite is a sequence of dense, igneous rocks of the upper mantle and overlying oceanic crust, which was accreted to the North American continent at the subduction zone. The Mesozoic Coast Range fault system separates the Coast Range ophiolite and overlying Coast Range Sequence on the east from the Franciscan Complex on the west. The Coast Range fault may have been the original demarcation between the Mesozoic rocks undergoing subduction (Franciscan Complex) and those accumulating on the North American continent (Great Valley Sequence). Figure 2-7 shows the extent of the Franciscan Complex and Great Valley Sequence outcrops mapped in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin. The Hayward fault separates the two units, with virtually all mapped occurrences of the Franciscan Complex occurring west of the Hayward fault. These outcrops consist of marine sedimentary rocks of the central terrain east of Oakland, and mélange and chert of the Marin Headlands terrain at Coyote Hills (Wahrhaftig and Sloan, 1989). Likewise, all mapped occurrences of the Great Valley Sequence are east of the Hayward fault. In the areas nearest the SEBP Basin, the Panoche Formation, a sequence of marine sandstones and shales, is the predominant rock type representing the Great Valley Sequence. The watersheds of San Leandro Creek and San Lorenzo Creek, the two main streams entering the SEBP Basin, are underlain by the Panoche Formation. Runoff characteristics of the streams may be influenced to some degree by the geochemical and hydraulic characteristics of the Panoche Formation. The Hayward fault is closely associated with the Coast Range ophiolite near the SEBP Basin, which in this area includes the San Leandro Gabbro and other serpentinized rocks (Figure 2-7). Geophysical data show that the Hayward fault in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin is located on the west edge of a 75 to 80 degree easterly dipping mass of San Leandro Gabbro extending to a depth of approximately four to five miles. This indicates that the location of the Hayward fault in this area is controlled by the Mesozoic Coast Range fault because the Coast Range fault separates the Franciscan Complex from the Coast Range ophiolite and the overlying Great Valley Sequence (Ponce, et. al., 2003). This association may be significant to the SEBP Basin groundwater basin, because the mineral chromite is concentrated in ophiolite sequences, including serpentinized derivatives. Sediments eroded from these rocks, including chromite and other chromium compounds, could be present in the SEBP Basin aquifer sediments, because streams such as San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks cross the ophiolite belt. These streams contribute alluvial deposits that comprise the SEBP Basin groundwater basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 27 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 28 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.10.3 Mid-Cenozoic Rocks Formed Prior to the Existence of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands Transverse movement on the San Andreas fault system began in Southern California approximately 28 million years ago (Wakabayashi, 1992). Transverse movement progressed northwestward over time, and the Hayward fault began to develop approximately 5 to 12 million years ago. Prior to development of the Hayward fault and extending to about 11 to 12 million years ago, marine conditions prevailed in the vicinity of the SEBP, resulting in the marine sedimentary rocks deposited on Mesozoic basement rocks. These mid-Cenozoic rocks are mapped in the East Bay hills (Figure 2-7). The oldest rocks of this period, typified by the Claremont Formation, were formed in deep water environments while younger rocks, typified by the Briones Formation, were formed in shallow marine environments, demonstrating a general progression from deep to shallow marine conditions. No rocks of this age are mapped near the SEBP Basin, but they are present in the subsurface beneath South San Francisco Bay adjacent to the SEBP Basin (Marlow et al, 1999). Approximately 10 million years ago, continued uplift resulted in deposition of non-marine sedimentary rocks. Rocks of this age in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin are represented by the Orinda Formation, which outcrops to the northeast near the Caldecott Tunnel. Sediments in the Orinda Formation indicate deposition on an alluvial plain sloping to the east away from the present day San Francisco Bay Peninsula. 2.10.4 Plio-Pleistocene Fluvial Deposits Formed After Creation of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands Formation of the San Francisco Bay lowlands began approximately four million years ago with uplift of the Coast Range. Fluvial deposits accumulated in localized depositional basins during this time are represented by the Livermore Gravels, the Santa Clara Formation, and in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin, the Irvington gravels (Figures 2-6 and 2-7). The Irvington gravels outcrop intermittently in a narrow band near the Hayward fault extending from the Irvington District of Fremont south towards Coyote Valley. These formations consist predominately of poorly consolidated conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and clay. They range from approximately 0.5 to 4 million years in age (Page, 1992). They are folded and faulted, consistent with their genetic association with uplift of the Coast Ranges during the same period. 2.10.5 Late Pleistocene Through Holocene Alluvial, Estuarine and Eolian Deposits Approximately 0.6 million years ago, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River flowed through the San Francisco Bay lowlands to the Pacific Ocean, and the first known estuarine deposits were formed (Trask and Rolston, 1951; Hall, 1966; Sarna-Wojcicki, 1976; Atwater, 1977; Sarna-Wojcicki et al., 1985; Lanphere, et al., 1999)2. 2 Data supporting these statements were first reported in an engineering geology study conducted to assess alternative crossings near the San Francisco Bay - Oakland Bay Bridge (Trask and Rolston, 1951). Trask and Rolston, page 1083 (1951) reported encountering a volcanic ash deposit at a depth of 280 feet in the deepest of the five members of the Alameda formation defined in their report. The boring was located on the west side of the Bay Bridge near San Francisco (Figure 4-3). Hall (1966) concluded, based on mineralogical analysis, that Great Valley drainage had been established by the time a similar tuff had been deposited in marine sandstone of the Merced Formation outcropping slightly south of San Francisco (Figure 4-2). Sarna-Wojcicki (1976) correlated the ash documented in Trask and Rolston (1951), and equivalent ashes in the Merced and Santa Clara Formations, with the Rockland Ash of the southern Cascade Range and documented an age of approximately one million years, based on the available radiometric age dating of the time. Atwater (1977) apparently interpreted the deepest member of Trask and Rolston’s (1951) Alameda Formation, a stiff greenish gray clay, as an estuarine deposit, and concluded that it was the oldest identified estuarine deposit. Sarna-Wojcicki et al. (1985) documented a revised age of approximately 0.4 million years for the Rockland Ash based on fission track methods. Lanphere, et al. (1999) revised the age upwards to approximately 0.6 million years using radiometric methods. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 29 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Sediments deposited during this period consist of estuarine deposits within the footprint of the current San Francisco Bay, alluvial deposits on the flanks of the East Bay Hills extending into the area currently occupied by San Francisco Bay, and eolian (wind-born) sands (Figure 2-6). The detailed stratigraphy of the deposits underlying the San Francisco Bay was developed by Trask and Rolston (1951). Figure 2-8 shows the five stratigraphic units identified by Trask and Rolston (1951) based on drilling near the Bay Bridge. These stratigraphic units from shallowest to deepest are: Bay Mud Merritt Sand Posey Formation San Antonio Formation Alameda Formation As described in footnote 1, the lower part of the Alameda Formation contains the oldest known estuarine deposits identified in the bay. The Alameda Formation rests directly on Franciscan bedrock on the west edge of the bay, but the full thickness of the Alameda Formation was not penetrated by borings elsewhere (Figure 2-7). Researchers concluded that the Alameda Formation may overlay the Santa Clara Formation or the marine Merced Formation in other areas (see footnote 1). This conclusion is reasonable based on the geologic setting described above, noting especially that the ages of the Santa Clara Formation and other similar fluvial deposits, including the Irvington Gravels, predate and overlap the age of the lowest Alameda Formation estuarine deposits (Figure 2-6). South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 30 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 31 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The stratigraphic relationship between the age equivalents of the lower Alameda Formation and adjacent strata is unclear farther south, including adjacent to the SEBP Basin. It is possible that estuarine deposits of lower Alameda Formation age extend as far south as the SEBP Basin, or interfinger with fluvial sediments, because the Santa Clara Formation contains a volcanic ash of the same age as the volcanic ash found in the lower Alameda Formation (Atwater, 1977). Mid-Cenozoic marine rocks formed prior to the existence of the San Francisco Bay lowlands underlie lower Alameda age sediments west of San Leandro (Marlow, 1999). Atwater (1977) reinterpreted the stratigraphic sequence used by Trask and Rolston (1951) based on microfossil and other evidence collected in the south bay. Atwater (1977) concluded, based on the lack of marine microfossils and estuarine mollusks and other evidence, that the Posey Formation in the south bay is alluvial rather than estuarine. Atwater (1977) also identified the San Antonio Formation as the youngest Pleistocene age estuarine deposit in the south bay, with an age of 60,000 to 100,000 years. The late-Pleistocene estuarine sequence has approximately the same lateral extent as the recent estuarine deposits (Atwater 1977). Based on this information, the depositional sequence in the south bay is from youngest to oldest (Figure 2-6): Estuarine deposits (Bay Mud, Holocene) Isolated eolian sand deposits (late-Pleistocene-Holocene) Alluvium (late-Pleistocene, <60,000 years) Estuarine deposits equivalent to the San Antonio Formation (late Pleistocene, approximately 60,000-100,000 years) Alluvium (late-Pleistocene, >100,000 years) Fluvial and estuarine deposits with undefined stratigraphic relationships. Plio-Pleistocene, 4 million to 500,000 years; oldest identified estuarine deposit (600,000 years) identified near Bay Bridge In summary, the significance of this stratigraphic sequence is that thick alluvial and fluvial sequences capped by two major estuarine sequences underlie the bay to the west of the SEBP Basin. If sufficiently permeable, these alluvial and fluvial sequences should have hydraulic continuity with the alluvial and fluvial sediments underlying the SEBP Basin and form a continuous confined aquifer system extending to the west beneath the bay. Holocene to late-Pleistocene alluvial deposits formed by streams emanating from the East Bay hills are the youngest deposits in the SEBP Basin (Figure 2-6 and 2-7). The SEBP Basin is underlain by the coalesced alluvial fans of San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek and Alameda Creek. Although Alameda Creek is located south of the SEBP Basin, it has significance to the SEBP Basin geology, because of its size and age. San Leandro Creek and San Lorenzo Creek have small drainages in comparison to Alameda Creek, and, of the three streams, only Alameda Creek is an antecedent stream, predating the most recent Coast Range uplift. Assuming a long-term slip rate of approximately one centimeter per year on the Hayward Fault over 500,000 years, sediments deposited by Alameda Creek west of the Hayward fault could have been displaced approximately three miles to the northwest. Coincidently, this is approximately the distance to the dissected older alluvial deposits mapped on the west side of the Hayward fault in the SEBP Basin (Figure 2-7). Extensive older alluvial deposit are also mapped in the SEBP Basin farther north in the Oakland South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 32 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG area. Older alluvial deposits may have been formed by ancestral streams not associated with existing drainages, because the most recent episode of Coast Range uplift has been underway for approximately the past four million years. This uplift has significantly modified the topography of the area. Regardless of the origin of the oldest late-Pleistocene alluvial deposits in the SEBP Basin, they are likely to be widespread in the subsurface based on the depositional environment. However, estimation of the spatial distribution of coarse versus fine textures in these deposits based on geologic principles is hindered by the unknown nature of ancestral streams forming the deposits and the unknown displacement history of the Hayward fault and possibly other faults hidden in the subsurface. 2.11 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The San Francisco Bay lowlands occupy a down-dropped fault block between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the East Bay hills of the Diablo Range. The block is bounded by major, active strands of the San Andreas fault on the west and the Hayward fault on the east (Figure 2-7). The block is disrupted by other active and inactive faults as evidenced by the seismicity away from the active strands of the San Andreas and Hayward faults, and the bedrock relief, which locally brings Franciscan Complex rocks above the elevation of basin filling sediments. A map of isostatic residual gravity contours of the SEBP Basin and vicinity is represented in Figure 2-9. Gravity data was evaluated to understand the shape of the bedrock surface underlying the more recent sedimentary deposits, including the freshwater aquifer. Isostatic residual gravity measurements have been corrected to compensate for lateral variation in the density or thickness of large crustal blocks. The SEBP Basin is situated on the eastern edge of one of two major areas of anomalously low gravity measurements (Roberts and Jachens, 1993). The other anomaly is located in eastern San Pablo Bay and is caused by a young pull-apart basin where the Hayward fault steps over to the east to the Rodgers Creek fault (Ponce et. al, 2003). The geologic structure causing the gravity anomaly at the SEBP Basin is an older structure known as the San Leandro synform (Marlow, et. al., 1995). This downward fold predates the most recent Coast Range uplift beginning about four million years ago and affects the Franciscan Complex and the overlying mid-Cenozoic marine rocks (Marlow, et. al., 1999). A seismic cross section through the San Leandro synform from Marlow, et. al. (1999), is shown in Figure 2-10. The figure shows a basement of Franciscan Complex bounded by an upper erosional surface, which is overlain by dipping layers of mid-Cenozoic marine sediments on the eastern side of the section. The synform was probably formed when the originally flat-lying marine sediments were folded by the same forces that reinitiated Coast Range uplift beginning approximately four million years ago (Figure 2-6). The upper surface of the marine sediments is truncated by an erosional surface that extends across the Franciscan Complex on the western side of the section. The deposits above this surface are relatively undisturbed and consist of late Pliocene through recent fluvial, alluvial, estuarine and eolian deposits. Based on drill hole data presented in Figuers (1998), these sediments extend to depths below sea level of at least 665 feet. The two-way travel time to the base of the sediments is approximately 0.3 seconds. Assuming a seismic velocity of 5,000 feet per second, the depth to the base of the flat-lying sediments is approximately 750 feet. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 33 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The gravity anomaly associated with the San Leandro synform extends to the north beneath the SEBP Basin in the San Leandro/Oakland area, suggesting a lower density in, or greater depth to, the Franciscan Complex basement in this area. A map of the earth’s magnetic-field intensity contours based on aerial surveys (USGS, 1996) is represented in Figure 2-12. The map helps to delineate basement features with contrasting magnetic susceptibility, which may not be reflected in density contrasts. The map clearly shows the location of the Hayward fault and another northwest trending feature extending across the bay in the same area as the San Leandro synform. Based on additional processing and analysis of the magnetic data, Ponce et. al. (2003) concluded that the northwesterly trending feature is a serpentinite with a high magnetic susceptibility. The work of Ponce, et. al. (2003) also shows small magnetic anomalies in the northern SEBP Basin, but the significance of these anomalies has not been assessed. Figure 2-12 shows the location of a seismic reflection transect across the SEBP prepared by the USGS (Catchings, et. al., 2006). Seismic reflection methods detect sonic velocity differences in the subsurface, which are indicative of contrasting rock types. Seismic reflection data can also be used to differentiate aquifer and aquitard material in some depositional environments. Figure 2-13 is a southwest-northeast cross section based on the seismic reflection results, borehole data, and gravity measurements. Based on the results, depth to the Franciscan Complex ranges from approximately 1,000 feet near the northeastern end of the transect to approximately 3,000 feet on the southwestern end, where the transect crosses into the San Leandro synform (Figures 2-9 and 2-10). The USGS identified three aquifer zones along the transect based on the seismic reflection data and available borehole data. The approximate depths of the bottoms of these zones are as follows: Shallow Zone: 70 to 230 feet Intermediate Zone: 330 to 460 feet Deep Zone: 530 to 660 feet The depth of each zone increases from northeast to southwest. The USGS identified five zones in which the reflection data indicated faulting extending through the near surface sediments (Figure 2-13). The most significant of these zones is located approximately 7,000 feet east of the bay shore in the vicinity of Arroyo High School. These faults may be related to the Silver Creek fault, which is mapped at the surface in the Morgan Hill area and inferred to exist in the subsurface as far north as Fremont (Wagner, et. al., 1990). Groundwater flow may be impeded across the fault zones. Also, aquifer thickness and permeability (hydraulic conductivity) may be different on either side of a fault zone, because faulting could juxtapose geologic materials formed in different depositional settings. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 34 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 35 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 36 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 37 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 38 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 39 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.12 HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS This section describes the hydrogeologic units that comprise the freshwater aquifer system within the SEBP Basin. The discussion provides: Rationale for defining the SEBP Basin hydrogeologic units and their relationship to hydrogeologic units in the NCGB Summary of the hydraulic properties of the Deep Aquifer Zone, as estimated during previous aquifer testing Documentation of groundwater levels, quality and groundwater recharge and discharge areas Numerous groundwater studies have described the hydrogeology of the SEBP Basin. The objective of this study is to build on previous work and to integrate additional information to better characterize the Deep Aquifer Zone. Information in this section describes the methodology used to incorporate new subsurface information into existing geologic cross sections developed through a joint effort by Alameda County Water District, the City of Hayward, and EBMUD (LSCE, 2003). This updated subsurface information was used along with long-term aquifer tests performed on wells screened in the Deep Aquifer Zone (LSCE, 2003 and Fugro, 2011) to develop updated conceptual and numerical groundwater models. As introduced in the previous chapter, Holocene to late-Pleistocene alluvial sediments comprise the important groundwater producing zones in the aquifer system of the SEBP Basin. Fine grained sections of the alluvial sequences create confining conditions between the more permeable groundwater producing zones. Near the bay, fine grained estuarine deposits also create confined conditions. It is likely that groundwater producing zones have continuity with similar alluvial and fluvial zones beneath the bay, which are likewise confined by fine-grained estuarine sequences. Franciscan Complex rocks form the base of the aquifer system and limit its easterly extent. As shown in the figure below, in many areas the permeable zones are most likely to be discontinuous, and it is difficult to correlate sand and gravel layers over great distances between wells. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 40 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The available geophysical logs, borehole data, and cross sections show that the depth intervals typically containing relatively high percentages of permeable sediments can be grouped into three hydrogeologic units as follows: Shallow Aquifer Zone: approximately 30 to 200 feet Intermediate Aquifer Zone: approximately 200 to 500 feet Deep Aquifer Zone: approximately 400 to 660+ feet The Shallow Aquifer Zone is present throughout the study area, with permeable zones typically occurring at depths between 30 and 130 feet below land surface (CH2MHill Inc., 2000). The SEBP Basin Shallow Aquifer Zone exists in approximately the same range of depths as the NCGB’s Newark and Centerville Aquifers. Groundwater in the Shallow Aquifer Zone is generally confined except near recharge areas along the mountain front. The Intermediate Aquifer Zone generally has discontinuous sand and gravel deposits that are difficult to correlate between wells. It occurs in approximately the same depth range as the NCGB’s Fremont Aquifer. The Deep Aquifer Zone contains a significant permeable zone that appears to be continuous throughout the SEBP Basin, but at a greater depth than the NCGB Deep Aquifer. This permeable zone appears to be thickest and most continuous south of San Leandro (Maslonkowski, 1988) and thins, eventually disappearing, to the north (CH2MHill, Inc., 2000). In this area, aquifers are underlain by partly consolidated deposits (Marlow et. al., 1999) having low porosity and low permeability (Izbicki, 2003). Distribution and Occurrence of Permeable Material Comprising the SEBP Aquifers (Modified from CH2MHill, 2000) South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 41 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.12.1 Development of Updated Hydrogeologic Cross Sections The cross section analysis and update involved integrating and comparing information obtained from numerous sources using ArcHydro Groundwater 3 and other related GIS tools. The information evaluated included published geologic and geophysical cross sections, model surfaces, and hydrogeological and geophysical data. Published cross sections from four sources were reviewed and analyzed. Figure 2-14 shows the locations and sources of the cross sections evaluated for this study. The first two groups of cross sections were developed by consulting firms Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE, 2003) and CH2MHill (CH2MHill. 2000). The third and fourth sets of cross sections reviewed include those prepared by the USGS (Izbicki,2003; Catchings, 2006). Figure 2-15 shows the locations of the three updated cross sections developed using Arc Hydro Groundwater and other related GIS tools. To fully utilize this existing work, all available cross sections were spatially referenced and new subsurface information was added using GIS tools. This allowed enhanced visual analysis of multiple sets of information in one common environment. The LSCE Cross Sections 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 4-9 coincide with the primary north-south cross section updated for this study and designated as Transect A-A’ (Figure 2-15). Two east-west sections were developed. The location for B-B’ coincides with the A-A’ cross section transect provided in Izbicki, 2003. The location for C-C’ is midway between Izbicki’s B-B’ transect (Izbicki, 2003) and the USGS cross section transects in their seismic refraction report (Catchings, 2006). 3Arc Hydro Groundwater is a geodatabase design for representing groundwater datasets within ArcGIS. The data models helps archive, display, and analyze multidimensional groundwater data, and includes several components to represent different types of datasets including representations of aquifers and wells/boreholes, 3D hydrogeologic models, temporal information, and data from simulation models (http://www.archydrogw.com/ahgw/Main_Page). South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 42 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 43 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 44 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Subsurface Analyst was the primary tool used for cross section analysis. Each transect was georeferenced and digitized so the information was projected in real-world coordinates, within the Arc Hydro Groundwater geodatabase. The benefit of projecting the published literature in real- world coordinates is that it provided a mechanism to overlay external data, enhancing the ability to review existing model input parameters with the most updated hydrogeological information. A complete set of updated cross sections and detailed description of the Arc Hydro approach utilized for the updates is provided in Appendix D. For this study, the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer and the NCGB Deep Aquifer are depicted as separate hydrogeologic units. The distinction between the two hydrogeologic units is based largely on work conducted by LSCE (2003). LSCE (2003) documented ten permeable stratigraphic units within the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer and transition zone based on geophysical and lithologic logs. These were labeled in increasing numerical sequence from deepest to shallowest. With notable exception, units 1 through 6.5 are all located in the SEBP Basin, based on hydraulic responses measured during aquifer testing (LSCE, 2003). Units 7 and 8 are located in the transition zone [LSCE (2003), Figures 2 through 5]. The exception to the previous statement is identified on LSCE (2003) Figure 4, which shows City of Hayward Well B penetrating, from shallowest to deepest, stratigraphic units 8, 7 and 4.5. Units 7 and 8 extend southward to at least City of Hayward Well C, but pinch out to the north in the SEBP Basin. On initial inspection, unit 4.5 appears to be a continuation of stratigraphic unit 4 of the SEBP Basin; however, LSCE (2003) appears to conceptualize units 4 and 4.5 as separate, with unit 4 falling in the SEBP Basin and unit 4.5 falling in the transition zone. This conceptualization is supported by the hydraulic responses to pumping in City of Hayward Wells C and E (LSCE, 2003). Pumping in City of Hayward Well C, which produces water from units 7 and 8 of the Niles Cone Basin, caused a response in City of Hayward Well B that matched the response for a single idealized confined aquifer as represented by the Theis (1935) equation, whereas wells, such as the Mount Eden well, in the SEBP Basin, exhibited hydraulic responses that did not match the idealized response. Conversely, pumping in City of Hayward Well E, which produces water from units 4 and 6 of the SEBP Basin, caused a response in City of Hayward Well B that proved a hydraulic connection but did not match the response for a single idealized confined aquifer. Other Deep Aquifer wells clearly in the SEBP Basin, such as the Mount Eden well, exhibited hydraulic responses that matched the response for a single idealized confined aquifer. 2.12.2 Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Properties Hydraulic properties have been estimated from a variety of aquifer tests conducted in the Deep Aquifer Zone as documented in LSCE (2003) and Fugro (2011). Based on review of these results, transmissivity of the Deep Aquifer Zone of the SEBP Basin ranges from approximately 33,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) to 141,000 gpd/ft and storativity ranges from 0.00005 to 0.005. Figure 2-16 shows the locations of the pumping and observations wells included in aquifer tests conducted by LSCE (2003) and Fugro (2011). South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 45 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 46 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Generally, the highest transmissivity values were measured in the vicinity of the EBMUD Bayside Project Phase 1 well. In this area, transmissivity ranged from approximately 96,000 gpd/ft to 141,000 gpd/ft. Wells farther to the east tended to have lower transmissivity. For example, transmissivity measured during testing of the Farmhouse well ranged from 33,000 gpd/ft to 52,000 gpd/ft, and testing of City of Hayward Well D resulted in an estimated transmissivity of 30,000 gpd/ft. The lower values cited in these examples may be further evidence for a north-trending fault extending between the EBMUD Oro Loma ASR demonstration well and the Farmhouse well. Offset along the fault may have caused differences in the depositional setting between the east and west sides of the fault, resulting in lower permeability or reduced aquifer thickness to the east. Changes in permeability (hydraulic conductivity) and thickness were evaluated during model development. The LSCE (2003) and Fugro (2011) transmissivity estimates for City of Hayward Well E differ significantly. The LSCE (2003) estimate of 12,000 gpd/ft was based on limited spatial information gained over a shorter duration of testing than the Fugro (2011) test, and, therefore, is considered to be subject to greater uncertainty. The LSCE (2003) estimate is based on pump testing and water level measurements in Well E. The test was conducted for a period of 14 days. Because the estimate was not based on any other observation wells, any uncertainties related to the site-specific conditions at Well E affected the estimate. These uncertainties include geologic variability, and the adequacy of the well design, construction and development for the site-specific conditions. The Fugro (2011) estimate was based on pumping in the Bayside well while using Well E as an observation well. The aquifer test was conducted for a much longer period of time (approximately 56 days), and included multiple observation wells. The Fugro (2011) transmissivity estimates for Well E ranged from 93,000 gpd/ft to 98,000 gpd/ft. These estimates were consistent with the estimates based on other observation wells in the area. Therefore, the Fugro (2011) transmissivity estimates appear to be characteristic of the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer near City of Hayward Well E, and these values were used to develop the initial hydraulic property estimates in the updated numerical model. 2.13 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS AND FLOW Figure 2-17 shows the groundwater elevation contours for the Shallow/Newark aquifer (EBMUD, 2006) and changes in groundwater levels over time for key wells throughout the study area (DWR Water Data Library). Groundwater generally flows from east to west across the study area from a high of 30 to 40 ft. msl to at or slightly below sea level in the western portion of the study area. Fewer data points are available to generate groundwater contour maps for wells screened entirely in the deep aquifer, but a review of available data suggests a pattern in the orientation of the potentiometric surface, again indicating that groundwater flows from east to west. However, groundwater elevation in the deep aquifer ranges from a high of 10 to 20 feet above msl in the east to a low of -20 feet above msl on the west (CH2MHill, 2000). Because the deeper aquifer zone has lower head than the shallow aquifer(s), the potential exists for downward movement of water through non-pumped wells, if hydraulic cross connectivity exists. The upper and lower systems may also be connected through corroded and failed casings of abandoned wells (Izbicki, 2003). Changes in groundwater elevation data for key wells in the study are available online at DWR’s water data library, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. Changes in groundwater levels over time are shown for eight wells throughout the study area. Many of these hydrographs show a recovery in groundwater levels from a low of -120 to -60 ft. sml in the South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 47 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 1960s to very near sea level in the 1990s.Wells in the east central portion of the study area (0302W008, 0302W29F, 0302W36L) have had more stable groundwater levels ranging generally between 5 to 40 ft. msl over the period of record. DWR discontinued monitoring water levels in these wells 10 to 15 years ago, and more recent data were not available for this study. Also, DWR does not specify well depths for these key wells, so much of the variability seen between hydrographs may be the result of wells screened in different aquifer zones. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 48 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 49 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.14 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 2.14.1 General Chemistry Four key sources of information were utilized in the documentation of general groundwater quality provided in this section. These sources are listed and key findings summarized below. 2.14.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Investigation, South East Bay Plain (CH2MHill, 2000) This report evaluated the distribution of water quality parameters as a function of depth within the SEBP Basin and makes the following observations: Compared to deeper levels, groundwater less than 200 ft below ground surface (ft. bgs) is characterized by relatively high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, nitrate, and sulfate. Shallow wells exceed the MCL for nitrate (45 mg/L as NO3), and the secondary MCL for TDS (1,000 mg/L), chloride (250 mg/L), sulfate (250 mg/L), iron (0.30 mg/L) and manganese (0.05 mg/l). Nitrate is elevated in large parts of the San Leandro/San Lorenzo area, probably due to septic tank effluent and past farming activities in these areas. Wells with total depths greater than 500 ft. bgs are located primarily in the southern portion of the study area. These wells have high iron and manganese levels that commonly exceed their secondary MCLs. Elevated TDS and chloride concentrations are probably related to the presence of shallow well screens in the deeper wells. 2.14.2.1 Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifer Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, USGS Water-Resource Investigation Report 02-4259 (Izbicki, 2003) The purpose of this report was to evaluate hydrogeologic, and geochemical conditions in aquifers underlying the SEBP. Key findings relevant to the current study include the following: Water level measurements in observation wells and downward flow measured in selected wells during non-pumped conditions suggest that water may flow through wells from the upper aquifer system into the lower aquifer system during non-pumped conditions. Even given the potentially large number of abandoned wells in the study area, the total quantity of flow through abandoned wells and subsequent recharge to the lower/deep aquifer system is still considered small on a regional basis. However, where this water contains contaminants from overlying land uses, flow through abandoned wells may be a potential source of low- level contamination. Oxygen-18 and deuterium data do not indicate that leaking water supply pipes are a significant source of recharge. Rather, noble-gas data indicate recharge results from highly focused recharge processes from infiltration of winter stream flow and more diffuse recharge from infiltration of precipitation within the study area. Groundwater in the deep aquifer tends to be higher in sodium and potassium relative to calcium and magnesium, likely the result of precipitation of calicite and ion exchange reaction occurring as groundwater passes through the aquifer from recharge areas to the deeper aquifer system. Arsenic concentrations ranged from non-detect to 37 ppb, and the USEPA MCL for arsenic is 10 ppb. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 50 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Carbon-14 ages (time since recharge) of deep groundwater ranged from 500 years before present (in water from wells near recharge areas along the mountain front) to 20,000 years before present (in partly consolidated deposits underlying the Oakport injection site).These data suggest that the lower aquifer system is isolated from surface sources of recharge. The presence of poor quality water at depth may limit extended pumping of deeper aquifer in excess of injection, especially near faults where partly consolidated deposits may have been uplifted and are adjacent to freshwater aquifers. 2.14.2.2 Characterization of Existing Groundwater Quality for Bayside Groundwater Project, (Fugro, 2007) This report documents the sampling and analysis of groundwater collected from two deep monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Bayside Phase I well. In July of 2007, Fugro West Inc. collected samples from MW-5d and MW-6, both screened in the deep aquifer, and performed full Title 22 analysis. Table 2-1 is modified from this report, includes well construction information, and summarizes the analytical results. Both samples include a water quality that is sodium chloride to sodium bicarbonate in chemical character. The TDS concentrations in MW-5d and MW-6 were 460 and 420 mg/l. Selenium was present in only MW-5d at 0.39 ug/l.Arsenic was detected in MW-5d and MW-6 at very low concentrations of, 0.45 and 0.77 ug/l, respectively. 2.14.2.3 USGS National Water System Information Database West Yost obtained water quality data maintained by the USGS and available at the National Water Information System (NWIS) Database, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. NWIS is a comprehensive database of historic and recent water quality data obtained from public agencies including local water purveyors, DWR, and federal agencies, such as the USGS. West Yost prepared summary tables of TDS, chloride, and nitrate included in Appendix E which presents analytical results sorted by well depth. These data are visually displayed on maps showing the aerial distribution of TDS (Figure 2- 18), chloride (Figure 2-19), and nitrate (Figure 2-20). The highest concentrations of TDS and chloride occur in two shallow wells adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. Appendix E also provides a summary of median concentrations of TDS, Cl-, and NO3- with depth in SEBP Basin Study Area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 51 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Table 2-1. Summary of Deep Aquifer Water Quality Data near the Bayside Project – South East Bay Plain Basin South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 52 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 53 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 54 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 55 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.14.3 Threats to Water Quality Locations of contaminant sites were obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sites were downloaded from SWRCB’s Geotracker website on March 15, 2012 and represent all open-status contaminant sites determined by the SWRCB to potentially impact groundwater in the East Bay Plain and Niles Cone Basins. Within the SEBP Basin GMP area, there are 672 sites. Of those 672 sites, only 212 are still open cases in varying stages of remediation. Figure 2-21 shows the locations of these open cases in the SEBP Basin. Thirty-five have a status of “Verification Monitoring;” 138 have a status of “Site Assessment;” 18 have a status of “Remediation;” 14 have a status of “Inactive;” and 7 have a status of “Assessment & Interim Remedial Action.” Figure 2-22 shows the locations of local and regional groundwater contaminant plumes in the SEBP Basin. This information was prepared in 1999 by the Bay Area RWQCB (RWQCB, 1999) and represents the most current published information on the nature and extent of these contaminant plumes based on verbal communications with RWQCB and DTSC staff during the course of this study. This map should be updated using more recent groundwater quality information. 2.15 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks were important areas of recharge to the SEBP Basin before development occurred in the area. The predevelopment estimate of stream recharge was about 3,500 acre-ft per year (afy) and infiltration of precipitation was about 800 afy (Muir 1996). As the result of urbanization, natural recharge may have decreased because of the channelization of streams and an increase in pavement covering permeable soil surfaces. Figure 2-23 shows the amount of recharge used for the groundwater model. The source of information for the estimated recharge amounts, by model subregions, was ACWD’s NEBIGSM (WRIME, 2005). Factors considered in assigning recharge or net deep percolation as shown on Figure 2-23 include: Surface geology/soil type Land use Applied Water Precipitation Steamflow Average annual recharge for the SEBP Basin study area is the sum of Hayward North, San Leandro and Oakland subregions, approximately 5,446 afy, which is about 33 percent of the 16,452-afy total for the entire IGSM model area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 56 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 57 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 58 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 59 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WW AATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Cross Section Update SEBP Shallow Aquifer SEBP Intermediate Aquifer SEBP Deep Aquifer South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 60 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.16 GROUNDWATER RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA4 Water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians. Article 10, Section 2 of the California Constitution, enacted in 1928, prohibits the waste of water and requires reasonable use, reasonable method of use and reasonable method of diversion for all surface and groundwater rights. The doctrine of reasonable and beneficial use is the basic principle defining California water rights. Surface Water Rights: The chronological order of surface water rights starts from pre-1848 “Pueblo Rights”, to “federally reserved right”, the common law “riparian rights”, and “appropriated rights”. Prior to 1914, appropriative rights could be acquired simply by posting or filing a notice, and then diverting and using the water for reasonable, beneficial purposes (referred to as “pre-1914 water rights”). Since 1914, California statutory law has required that an application be filed and a permit obtained from a State agency, currently from the State Water Resources Control Board. Groundwater Rights: Like surface water, use of groundwater is not only dependent upon water rights but is also subject to environmental and water quality consideration. In 1903, the “Correlative Rights” doctrine was introduced by a well-known California water rights case (Katz v. Walkinshaw). It established a “sharing” rule similar to that achieved under the torts doctrine. Under the correlative rights doctrine, the right to groundwater is a usufructuary right that is appurtenant to the overlying land. The right to use groundwater is shared by all overlying owners of a groundwater basin. Unlike prior appropriation, correlative rights do not allow a precise definition of an individual’s water rights. In the event of conflict, parties are forced to seek an optimal solution that allows all competing uses to continue with as little conflict as possible. A groundwater shortage is likely shared among all users. Solutions to conflicts between rights: In the history of California groundwater management, legal and regulatory solutions to the conflict between the correlative rights of landowners overlying a groundwater basin and the long-held prior appropriation rights of users both outside and inside the groundwater basin have had a major impact on the distribution of groundwater but also on the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water. Unlike surface water rights, groundwater rights in California are not governed by a permit system, except in the case of basin adjudication. Through the adjudication process, courts have rendered decisions establishing precedents including doctrine of “mutual prescription” in key cases – City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra by Supreme Court of California in 1949; City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, the Supreme Court of California in 1975; Alameda County Water District v. Niles Sand and Gravel by California Court of Appeal, 1st District in 1974; High Desert County Water District v. Blue Skies Country Club, Inc. by California Appellate Court in 1994, City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency by the California Supreme Court in 2000. If contending water users in the same groundwater basin cannot resolve their issues, and one or more individuals pursue resolution through a lawsuit, the result may be adjudication. Under 4 Reference: Watersheds, Groundwater and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide by Thomas Harter and Larry Rollins, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3497 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 61 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG adjudication, courts establish the safe yield of the basin and decide how much each individual water user can extract annually. The process can take a long time (years to multiple decades), because of the number of parties involved, general lack of judicial experience in water law and science, and California’s lack of special water courts. These are costly legal battles involving hired experts, attorneys, and multiple studies. By all accounts, it is preferable to manage groundwater basins by basin users through collaboration. This GMP process enacted by AB3030 and SB 1938 is now the common practice to manage groundwater basin for sustainable use of all basin users. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 62 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS 33..00 GGRROOUUNNDDWWAATTEERR MMAANN AAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS The elements of the plan include the overarching goal, management objectives and components that identify and discuss relevant actions to meet these goal and objectives of the plan. 3.1 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GOALS The overarching goal of the plan is to – preserve the local groundwater resource as a reliable and sustainable water supply for current and future beneficial uses. 3.2 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES To achieve the goal, the plan outlines four basin management objectives (BMOs): 1.Preserve groundwater storage by maintaining long-term groundwater elevations in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin: Groundwater elevation is a direct indicator of the volume of groundwater stored in the basin as well as the groundwater gradient. The historical record of groundwater elevations show that the basin experienced the lowest storage in the early 1960s. Since then, groundwater elevations have recovered significantly. Under this management objective, is basin users will work collaboratively to manage groundwater extraction and recharge in the basin to maintain the basin’s long-term groundwater elevations. 2.Maintain or improve groundwater quality in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin: The groundwater quality of the basin in the GMP area is pristine in the deep aquifer of the basin. However, some locations within the basin area present water quality concerns, especially in shallow and intermediate aquifers. This management objective is to preserve the existing water quality condition and prevent it from degradation. 3.Manage potential inelastic land surface subsidence from groundwater pumping: If groundwater level declines occur, land subsidence is possible from compaction of underlying formations. Subsidence can be either recoverable elastic subsidence or irrecoverable inelastic subsidence. The risk of irrecoverable subsidence from the operation of groundwater extraction depends on basin hydrogeology and, the extent of groundwater pumping and recharge. Groundwater usage therefore can result in changes to the internal water pressure (groundwater levels). This management objective is to avoid irrecoverable land surface changes caused by excessive groundwater extraction by monitoring and managing groundwater levels. 4.Manage the SEBP basin through coordination and collaboration: The success of basin management activities depends upon the involvement of key stakeholders including basin users, municipalities, regulatory agencies and the public. This management objective is to foster collaboration and coordination through information sharing and cooperation. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 63 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS 3.3 GMP COMPONENTS 3.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement The sustainability of the groundwater basin concerns a broad range of stakeholders in both the private and public sectors. Water suppliers consider the basin as a source of emergency and supplemental water supply. Private well owners rely upon the basin for their irrigation water supply. Local entities view it as a future source of water. State and local regulatory agencies are tasked to enforce the water quality standards for the basin. Municipalities like to protect the basin as a local resource for their constituents. As such, the development and implementation of basin management goals and associated management actions must take into account stakeholder interest in achieving the overarching objective of maintaining the basin’s sustainability. For that reason, as a lead agency, EBMUD has taken a set of actions to ensure stakeholder involvement to develop the GMP in accordance with statutory requirements. These actions include: Promoting public participation. Involving other local agencies and groundwater suppliers within the SEBP basin and neighboring basin in GMP development. Forming a stakeholder liaison group to guide the GMP process. Developing relationships with state and local agencies. Pursuing a variety of key partnerships to achieve a sustainable local water supply. 3.3.1.1 Public Involvement and Outreach In accordance with CWC § 10753.2, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a GMP was published in local newspapers. The notice discussed the fact that EBMUD’s governing board would meet to pass the NOI, and that the public was invited to said meeting. EBMUD Board of Directors meeting inviting the public to attend. In addition, EBMUD staff reached out to private well owners, state and local agencies, local government entities, local utilities, communities and businesses informing them of the plan to craft a GMP and inviting them to participate in the process. The following entities agreed to participate: City of Hayward City of Oakland Port of Oakland City of San Leandro City of Alameda Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Environmental Health Department San Lorenzo Unified School District Hayward Area Park District Alameda County Water District San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 64 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS On August 16, 2012, EBMUD launched a dedicated web portal for GMP development to provide information to the public on GMP activities. Following GMP certification, the website will be used to disseminate plan implementation activities to the stakeholders and public. On behalf of stakeholders, EBMUD will: Continue efforts to encourage public participation as opportunities arise. Reach out to local and business communities via EBMUD’s Bayside Groundwater Project Community liaison group Assist stakeholders in disseminating information through other various meetings and public forums. 3.3.1.2 Collaboration Among Basin Stakeholders and Adjacent Basins DWR’s bulletin 118 delineates the boundary of the East Bay Plain and adjacent basins. Multiple stakeholders such as local communities, overlying water rights holders, regulatory agencies, existing basin users, business entities, municipalities and local governments have various interests and jurisdiction over the basins. Although currently the SEBP Basin is not a primary source of drinking water supply for most of overlying stakeholders, it is considered as an important source for water supply reliability, future water supply planning and irrigation. EBMUD reached out to current and future stakeholders with various interests and formed the Stakeholders Liaison Group. Among these adjacent basins, Alameda County Water District (ACWD) manages and uses the Niles Cone basin for its public water supply. On average ACWD obtains about 40% of its water supplies from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. In fiscal year 2010-2011, about 25,400 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. Recognizing the importance of the Niles Cone Basin and the connective relationship between the SEBP Basin and Niles Cone Basin, EBMUD included ACWD in the Stakeholder Liaison Group. The main purpose of the group is to share information among the stakeholders, solicit input and foster collaboration in developing the GMP and implementing the basin management activities driven by the GMP. 3.3.1.3 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies State agencies including the California Department of Water Resources all are interested parties in protecting the basin water quality and preserving water quantity (supply). For example, the State Water Resources Control Board develops and enforces statewide water quality policies. Their regional office, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, prepares and implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for the basin, covering both surface water and groundwater. It also includes programs of implementation to achieve water quality objectives. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees and regulates the water quality standards, and California Department of Water Resources assists in developing local water resources. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 65 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS As a part of the stakeholder outreach process, EBMUD sought State agencies’ participation. As the lead agency, EBMUD plans to constantly coordinate with these entities during the GMP implementation. EBMUD plans to take the following actions: Continue to develop working relationships with local, state and as necessary, federal agencies. Coordinate GMP implementation activities with the local, state and federal agencies as appropriate. 3.3.1.4 Pursuing Partnership Opportunities As the lead agency, EBMUD is committed to facilitating partnership arrangements at the local, state, and federal levels in seeking grant funding opportunities for the preservation and sustainable development of local water resources. To date, EBMUD has fostered partnership opportunities with a number of interested parties. For example, EBMUD has worked with the USGS to construct a subsidence monitoring station in the basin. Under the objectives of the GMP, EBMUD will continue to facilitate and participate in partnership opportunities among stakeholders. EBMUD plans to take the following actions: Continue to seek grant opportunities to fund local projects that can improve groundwater management 3.3.2 Monitoring Programs A key component of the GMP is a monitoring program designed to assess the status of the basin and trigger actions to preserve the basin. The program includes monitoring groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, and land surface referenced elevations for tracking elastic and inelastic land surface subsidence, and salt and nutrients concentrations. The monitoring tasks are to be implemented under the following programs: Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program Subsidence Monitoring Program 3.3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program Groundwater level monitoring is an important component to manage basin storage, groundwater gradients, detect pumping or recharge activities, and develop a replenishment strategy. Currently EBMUD operates a network of 17 monitoring wells covering a part of the basin. Additional monitoring wells are needed to cover the remaining parts of the SEBP basin. A number of stakeholders - such as Port of Oakland, City of Alameda, City of Hayward and Hayward Area Park District - either own or operate wells within the basin. As such, individual monitoring activities can be coordinated to collect comprehensive data for the basin. Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Protocols: Without standard monitoring protocols, potential differences in data collection techniques, reference datum, monitoring frequencies and documentation methods in groundwater level measurement as well as groundwater quality sampling could lead to incomparable data sets and discrepancies. Although individual groundwater data South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 66 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS collection protocol may be adequate to meet a stakeholder’s needs, the lack of standardizing protocols could result in misrepresentation of basin-wide groundwater conditions. EBMUD plans to work with the local stakeholders in developing the groundwater elevation monitoring program for this GMP. Over time, establishing a regional monitoring network, comprising monitoring and production wells to integrate existing monitoring wells with additional wells owned by stakeholders and private owners, would benefit the basin. Although dedicated monitoring wells yield more accurate data, idle production wells can be used as an alternative for data collection. In accordance with provisions of SBX7 6, State Department of Water Resources (DWR) is implementing the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program for the DWR Bulleting 118 basins including SEBP basin. EBMUD is one of the monitoring agencies which volunteers to report groundwater elevation data to DWR under the CASGEM program. DWR has developed the groundwater elevation monitoring guideline for the CASGEM program. Hence for the SEBP basin integrated monitoring well network, DWR’s monitoring guidelines (Appendix F) are to be used as recommended monitoring protocols. Monitoring Frequency: A consistent measurement frequency would help identify seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater levels. Semi-annual monitoring of the designated wells could be planned to coincide with the high and low seasonal water-levels of the year for the basin. Ideally, as the SEBP Basin is influenced by daily tidal activities, continual measurement at predetermined frequencies (such as hourly or every four hours using programmable pressure transducers) is recommended for future improved data collection. Currently, EBMUD deploys pressure transducers in its monitoring wells to measure and record groundwater level changes. Integrated SEBP Basin Monitoring Well Network: Currently EBMUD monitors a portion of SEBP basin by using 17 monitoring wells for its Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1. As a part of groundwater management effort, EBMUD is working with City of Hayward and City of Alameda to expand the monitoring network coverage by integrating additional wells. The following Table 3-1 summarizes the EBMUD’s Bayside Project monitoring wells designated for the SEBP groundwater elevation monitoring well network. Figure 3-1 shows the location of these existing wells along with potential wells being considered for the proposed integrated regional monitoring well network. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 67 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 68 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33..00 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Table 3-1: Bayside Project Groundwater Monitoring Wells South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 69 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Actions: The following actions are planned to monitor and manage groundwater elevation: Use CASGEM Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines for water level data collection. Provide stakeholder agencies with guidelines on the collection of water quality data as per USEPA sampling standards. Assist stakeholders in developing and implementing monitoring programs. Coordinate with stakeholder agencies to develop standardized reference elevations for monitoring well. Coordinate with stakeholders and request that the timing of water level data collection occurs on or about April 15 and October 15 of each year. Provide a periodic assessment of groundwater elevation trends and conditions to stakeholders. Assess the adequacy of the groundwater elevation monitoring well network periodically. 3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program For basin management, managing water quality is as important as managing basin groundwater quantity. Significant use of the SEBP Basin for drinking water supply ceased in the early 20th century, therefore historic water quality data is not available. While regulatory agencies and various entities have collected water quality data in specific locations and various purposes, comprehensive and historical water quality data sets are not available. In the last decade, the USGS has completed research and analysis of the East Bay Plain Basin water quality in collaboration with EBMUD also as a part of State’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The USGS study shows that the water quality of deep aquifer in the SEBP Basin remains pristine and the age of groundwater is dated at 9,200 years since it was recharged. This is attributed to the basin hydrogeology consisting of protective thick clay layers shielding contaminants. However, multiple perforated wells and improperly constructed or abandoned wells could act as artificial conduits by allowing contaminants from shallow zones to penetrate deeper aquifers, which is a potential threat to basin water quality. Accordingly, this GMP proposes well standards for existing wells and future wells to preserve basin water quality from threats of contaminants including salts and nutrients. It is a future goal of this GMP to eventually develop and maintain an integrated groundwater database using a GIS platform. For that purpose, annual water quality sampling would be planned and groundwater quality data from stakeholder and public sources would be integrated into a water quality database. Appendix G contains a possible groundwater quality sampling plan listing the water quality constituents to be analyzed when resources are available. The water quality monitoring well network would continue to be modified to cover greater basin area as resources available. Actions: The following actions are planned to monitor and manage groundwater quality: Coordinate with stakeholders to assist in using standardized water quality sampling protocols South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 70 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Maintain stakeholder’s existing monitoring well network for purposes of groundwater quality monitoring Collaborate with local, state, and federal agencies such as USGS to identify opportunities to continue conducting water quality analysis in less known areas of the basin Review and assess the effectiveness of the groundwater quality monitoring program periodically and recommend improvements as necessary Secure grant funding to initiate a GIS based groundwater quality database, and To collect, compile and integrate groundwater quality data 3.3.2.3 Subsidence Monitoring Program Land subsidence can result from compaction of underlying formations caused by groundwater level decline. Subsidence can be categorized as recoverable elastic subsidence or irrecoverable inelastic subsidence. Subsidence concerns, within the SEBP basin, while certainly not as serious as in other areas of California are nevertheless present. The risk of irrecoverable subsidence from operation of groundwater extraction depends on basin hydrogeology, the extent of groundwater pumping and the resulting change in the internal water pressure (groundwater levels). Groundwater contained within aquifers and aquitards helps support the weight of the overlying sediments because the water contained in the pore spaces in the sediments creates an internal water pressure. Land subsidence can occur if groundwater pumping reduces the water pressure within the pore space of the saturated sediments over a period of time, thereby causing the sediments to compress. Elastic Subsidence: Subsidence in the coarser-grained materials of the aquifers is elastic. A small amount of elastic subsidence is expected to occur over a broad area of the SEBP Basin in response to pumping, which is what happens when any well in a confined aquifer produces water. Under conditions of elastic subsidence, the compaction is relatively small and is reversed when pore pressures increase due to rising water levels, including during injection of groundwater. The amount of this elastic subsidence is a function of the amount of drawdown. As occurs in nearly any basin with groundwater pumping, elastic subsidence will completely reverse following each groundwater pumping cycle as water levels recover. Inelastic Subsidence: Under certain conditions, groundwater pumping can result in a permanent change in the structure of the sediments, known as inelastic subsidence. These conditions may result in a non-recoverable compaction of the aquifer system. Inelastic subsidence occurs when the water pressure in finer-grained sediments is reduced beyond their historic low water levels. The result is a permanent change to the intergranular structure of the sediments that cannot be reversed when water levels recover. The compressibility of sediments under inelastic conditions is much greater than it is under elastic conditions, and may require decades to millennia to complete. The potential for inelastic subsidence depends on both the magnitude and duration of drawdown. Inelastic subsidence is highly unlikely to occur if water levels are maintained above historical lows. Subsidence Monitoring in the SEBP basin: In coarser-grained materials, such as the sands and gravels that comprise the East Bay Plain Deep Aquifer, the change in pore pressure is roughly uniform throughout the thickness of the sediments and can be monitored by measuring changes in water levels in observation wells. As a part of the EBMUD’s Bayside Project, direct measurement of South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 71 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS ground elevation changes for Bayside Phase 1 are being accomplished using high-resolution extensometers, as shown in Figure 3-2. These instruments which were constructed and calibrated by the USGS detect compression in the deep and shallow aquifer sediments. The accuracy of well- constructed extensometers is on the order of 0.001 millimeters. Extensometer data is being reviewed continuously by EBMUD to assess whether subsidence is occurring and whether it is elastic or inelastic. If any inelastic subsidence is detected the accuracy of the extensometers is such that it will be a very small amount measurable near the Bayside Well No. 1. Figure 3-2 Bayside Groundwater Project Extensometer South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 72 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Along with measurement of land surface movement using the above mentioned extensometer, contingent upon availability of funding, a periodic survey of reference elevations for the monitoring network would enable stakeholders to better track land surface movements including subsidence of the SEBP Basin. Actions: The following actions are identified to monitor and manage potential subsidence. The program will continue to monitor land subsidence and pursue additional actions as necessary if resources are available. These will include: Periodically re-survey the established reference elevations at groundwater monitoring locations. Collaborate with State and federal agencies, particularly USGS, to collect and analyze land surface movement data for potential land subsidence using various methodologies including InSAR remote sensing. 3.3.2.4 Data Management and Data Sharing Groundwater data management requires data compilation and database maintenance. As the lead agency, EBMUD will continue to collect data required for the operation of the Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1 and maintain a database of well information, well logs, groundwater quality and elevation data, and, when readily available, known groundwater contamination sites. These databases support water resources development, basin management, and groundwater model calibration. 3.3.3 Groundwater Basin Management Tools 3.3.3.1 SEBP Groundwater Model As a part of GMP development, a groundwater model of the SEBP Basin and the NCGWB using the USGS finite difference flow model, MODFLOW was created to simulate groundwater management strategies. Further refinements and/or verification of the model will become necessary to accurately define basin sustainability and interbasin relationships to better manage the SEBP basin under increased levels of groundwater use. Hydrologic Model of the SEBP Basin: The new model was constructed utilizing two existing models. One model was developed by CH2M Hill in 2001. It was developed on behalf of EBMUD as part of the planning for their Bayside Groundwater Project. The model was constructed using the USGS’s MODFLOW groundwater modeling code. That MODFLOW model consisted of seven layers. The other model was developed also in the early 2000s by Wrime, Inc. on behalf of the Alameda County Water District, EBMUD and the City of Hayward. Titled the NCGB-SEBPB model (NEBIGSM), it uses the finite element IGSM model code. The NEBIGSM model consists of four layers. The NEBIGSM model has been used extensively by ACWD as a basin management tool. Since its development, significant updates/contributions have been made to the model. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 73 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Code Selection: The USGS MODFLOW code was selected as the primary platform to develop the new groundwater flow model (NEB MODFLOW Model), as it provided the option to support both immediate and future modeling needs for basin stakeholders. Specifically, it is the most widely used groundwater modeling code publically available. MODFLOW has an ability to simulate three- dimensional problems involving recharge and evapotranspiration, wells, drains, and stream-aquifer interactions. It also has a suite of technically sound companion modules that have been reviewed and validated throughout the groundwater community that provide options (at some future date) to simulate the basin’s response to groundwater contamination (predicting contaminant transport). It also allows one to identify and predict the risk of saltwater intrusion and basin subsidence. In addition, MODFLOW is integrated into the Arc Hydro Groundwater (AHGW) suite of tools that were used to support the data management, data analysis and visualization work completed for the technical study prepared as part of the GMP development effort. For the new model development, the NEBIGSM model was selected as the primary data source for the new MODFLOW model. Model Description: The NEB MODFLOW model, prepared for this GMP, is a seven-layer, finite difference groundwater flow model developed using the USGS MODFLOW code. The new model establishes/calculates a water balance for the GMP area. It also provides baseline estimates of key parameters (e.g., water levels, boundary flow conditions, etc.) for basin management purposes. The simulation period of the NEB MODFLOW model starts from October 1, 1964 and runs through October 1, 2012. The model simulation period is monthly, except for the duration from August 2010 through September 2010. Additional stress periods were added during this time period to match the actual pumping that occurred during 2010 from EBMUD’s pump test at the Bayside Well (Fugro, 2011). The models ability to replicate water level changes in observation wells was then assessed. 3.3.4 Groundwater Resource Protection In this GMP, resource protection entails both prevention of contamination from entering the groundwater basin and remediation of existing contamination. Prevention measures include adoption and enforcement of relevant well standards including proper well construction and destruction practices, development of wellhead protection measures, protection of recharge areas, controlling groundwater contamination, and managing salts and nutrients. 3.3.4.1 Well Standards As per authority provided by County General Ordinance Code, Chapter 6.88, the Alameda County Public Works Agency (ACPWA), administers the well permitting program for Alameda County. The code authorizes ACPWA to regulate groundwater wells and exploratory holes as required by the California Water Code. The provisions of these laws are administered and enforced through ACPWA’s Well Standards Program. ACPWA’s Water Resources Section is responsible for all well permitting activities for nine cities and unincorporated western Alameda County including the SEBP Basin area. The Water Resources Section manages all drilling permit applications within its jurisdiction, and oversees compliance via guidelines for well construction and destruction, geotechnical and well contamination investigations, well data searches that meet specific criteria, and other activities. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 74 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS To better protect the SEBP basin from water quality degradation, pollution or contamination caused by improper construction, use, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction, improvement, inactivation, decommissioning, or destruction of wells, exploratory holes, other excavations, and appurtenances, the current well standards were reviewed and updated to meet current well standard enforcement needs. The updated standards are included in the Appendix H. These standards are derived from water well industry procedures and processes deemed most effective at meeting local groundwater protection needs and are based on the standards developed by ACWD and the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Note that following GMP adoption, stakeholders will work to see that these updated standards are considered for adoption by Alameda County. Actions: The GMP will implement the following tasks: Ensure that all stakeholders are provided a copy of the County well ordinance and understand the proper well construction procedures. Support ACPWA in adopting the updated well standards. Support stakeholders in educating public about the updated well standards and in adopting local ordinances to implement the well standards. 3.3.4.2 Wellhead Protection EBMUD and City of Hayward serve the SEBP Basin area primarily from surface water sources. Both these water suppliers have developed supplemental drought supply and/or emergency sources using groundwater. These sources are subject to permitting requirements of California Department of Public Health (DPH). DPH requires water suppliers to identify wellhead protection areas under the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) Program administered by the DPH in order to issue a drinking water supply permit. EBMUD has completed a DWSAP assessment in 2012 by completing the following three major components required by DPH: A delineation of capture zones around sources (wells); an inventory of Potential Contaminating Activities (PCAs) within protection areas. A vulnerability analysis to identify the PCAs to which the source is most vulnerable. A delineation of capture zones using groundwater gradient and hydraulic conductivity data to calculate the surface area overlying the portion of the aquifer that contributes water to a well within specified time-of-travel periods. Areas are delineated representing 2, 5, and 10 year time-of-travel periods. Protection areas are managed to protect the drinking water supply from viral, microbial, and direct chemical contamination. Inventories of PCAs include identifying potential origins of contamination to the drinking water source and protection areas. PCAs may consist of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential sites, or infrastructure sources such as utilities and roads. Depending on the type of source, each PCA is assigned a risk ranking, ranging from “very high” for such sources such as gas stations, dry cleaners, and landfills, to “low” for such sources such as schools, lakes, and non-irrigated cropland. Vulnerability analysis includes determining the most significant threats to the quality of the water supply by evaluating PCAs in terms of risk rankings, proximity to wells, and Physical Barrier Effectiveness (PBE). PBE takes into account factors that could limit infiltration of South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 75 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS contaminants including type of aquifer, aquifer material (for unconfined aquifers), pathways of contamination, static water conditions, hydraulic head (for confined aquifers), well operation, and well construction. The vulnerability analysis scoring system assigns point values for PCA risk rankings, PCA locations within wellhead protection areas, and well area PBE; the PCAs to which drinking water wells are most vulnerable are apparent once vulnerability scoring is complete. Actions: The GMP will recommend the following actions: Obtain an updated coverage of potentially contaminating activities and provide that information to stakeholders. Share current wellhead protection measures and provide a summary of actions taken by others as a tool in managing their individual wellhead protection programs. 3.3.4.3 Protection of Recharge Areas Although the productive aquifers in most parts of the SEBP Basin are confined by thick clay layers and the surface water does not directly contribute to aquifer recharge, it is important to recognize the link between activities that take place on the surface and the potential impact of these activities on the long-term quality and quantity of groundwater recharge. As such, the GMP includes delineation of recharge areas to be protected and recognized for planning purposes. It is recommended that land use authorities recognize the need to protect groundwater recharge areas and pay special attention to overlying land use practices that either impede (e.g., large pavement areas) or could pollute (e.g., proper oil disposal) water as it makes its way from the surface to the aquifer. Actions: The GMP recommends the following action: Inform and assist groundwater authorities and the land-use planners to consider the need to protect prominent groundwater recharge areas in land use planning processes. 3.3.4.4 Groundwater Contamination The known contaminated sites in the SEBP basin area are in the shallow zone. The shallow zone in the Basin area is not considered to be a water source for industrial and municipal water supply but traditionally has been used for irrigation purposes. However, there is a concern that the contaminants in the shallow zone could be transmitted through multiple-perforated wells into productive intermediate and deep aquifer units. As the Basin area has industrial and manufacturing activities, sources of contaminants known are recorded in environmental databases such as GeoTracker. Thus far, there is no significant adverse impact to the deeper production zones of the groundwater basin. However, the concern of potential contaminations from various sources does exist. Although the GMP stakeholders do not have authority or the direct responsibility for taking action against responsible parties, they are committed to coordinating with responsible parties and regulatory agencies to foster appropriate actions and remediation. For example, should any South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 76 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS contaminants exceeding water quality standards be detected or a spill event is observed, the GMP stakeholders will inform and coordinate with SFRWQCB and DTSC. Actions: The GMP stakeholders will take the following actions: If contaminants exceeding water quality standards are detected in monitoring wells, contact appropriate regulatory agencies Coordinate with SFRWQCB and DTSC to encourage these agencies to take necessary actions 3.3.4.5 Salt and Nutrient Management (SNM) 3.3.4.5.1 Background The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Recycled Water Policy on February 3, 2009. The purpose of the Policy is to increase the use of recycled water in a manner that implements state and federal water quality laws. The policy encourages water recycling with the stated goals of: Increasing recycled water use by at least one million acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2020 and by at least two million AFY by 2030. Substituting as much recycled water for potable water as possible by 2030. The SWRCB is also encouraging every region in California to develop a salt/nutrient management plan by 2014. Because each groundwater basin or watershed is unique, the plan detail and complexity will depend on the extent of local salt and nutrient problems. Plan components include: Basin-wide water quality monitoring Water recycling goals and objectives Salt and nutrient source identification Basin loading - assimilative capacity estimates Salt mitigation strategies Anti-degradation analysis Emerging constituents consideration (e.g., PPCPs, EDs) Currently, only limited recycled water supply is available within the SEBP Basin area. However, in the future, recycled water supply could become a significant source. In addition, because of the proximity to the San Francisco Bay, high concentrations of TDS are observed in shallow zones of the Basin. 3.3.4.5.2 Objectives The primary goal of SNM is to facilitate basin-wide management of salts and nutrients from all sources in a manner that optimizes recycled water use while ensuring protection of groundwater supply and beneficial uses, agricultural beneficial uses, and human health. In addition, SNM is required for seawater intrusion related salt loading. Considering that limited to no recycled water use South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 77 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS is taking place within the most productive area of the SEBP Basin, and as based on existing hydrogeology, the following are the objectives of the SNM plan for the SEBP Basin: To recognize the importance of monitoring salt and nutrient compounds. To evaluate the need for SNM. To establish a base line water quality condition for the basin. To evaluate existing and potential future sources. To integrate additional constituents in water quality monitoring for salt and nutrients management. To collect water quality data. 3.3.4.5.3 Salt & Nutrient Source Analysis Existing Salt and Nutrient Composition of the SEBP basin: The SEBP Basin interfaces with San Francisco Bay. The shallow aquifer unit of the Basin is exposed to seawater and higher concentrations of TDS are detected in the shallow zone. Section 2.13 of the GMP details the current water quality condition in the Basin area. As discussed in that section, previous studies evaluate the distribution of water quality parameters as a function of depth within the SEBP Basin and make the following observations: Compared to deeper levels, groundwater less than 200 ft bgs is characterized by relatively high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, nitrate, and sulfate. Shallow wells exceed the MCL for nitrate (45 mg/L as NO3), and the secondary MCL for TDS (1,000 mg/L), chloride (250 mg/L), sulfate (250 mg/L), iron (0.30 mg/L) and manganese (0.05 mg/l).Nitrate is elevated in large parts of the San Leandro/San Lorenzo area, probably due to septic tank effluent and past farming activities in these areas. Wells with total depths greater than 500 ft bgs are located primarily in the southern portion of the study area. These wells have high iron and manganese levels that commonly exceed their secondary MCLs. Elevated TDS and chloride concentrations are probably related to the presence of shallow well screens in the deeper wells. Potential Source of Salt and Nutrient: Depending upon the quality of recycled water, recycled water use could become an additional source of salt and nutrients for the basin. Currently, all existing recycled water uses are in the least productive area of the basin portion that is not used for public water supply). As a part of the basin management activities, recycled water use within the basin will be periodically observed and the monitoring plan will be modified as needed to manage the basin water quality. 3.3.4.5.4 Salt & Nutrient Plan and Implementation Options: As a part of the water quality monitoring program, the water quality sampling and analysis is to be done periodically to monitor the basin water quality. In addition, the water supply wells are to be sampled and analyzed for permit compliance purposes. Strategies: Although the water quality monitoring network is sufficient to track water quality objectives, the network can be improved by adding dedicated monitoring wells and sampling events. To improve water quality monitoring capabilities, under the implementation of this GMP, available state and federal grants will be pursued. In addition, periodic bi-lateral South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 78 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS meetings with San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQB) will be planned to review and discuss the water quality data and plan actions. The stakeholders will seek collaboration and support in obtaining grant funding and in developing any necessary actions. Implementation: A key component of the GMP is monitoring basin water quality. Section 3.3.2.2 of this document details the groundwater quality monitoring program including aater quality monitoring constituents and sampling protocols. Salt and nutrient constituents will be included as a part of monitoring program. Details of the monitoring plan are discussed in these sections. 3.3.5 Groundwater Sustainability 3.3.5.1 Coordinated Management Activities Following GMP adoption, basin stakeholders recognize the need to perform various activities on a routine basis that when combined serve as the means to manage the basin thereby insuring its conjunctive capabilities (Conjunctive Management Activities). Activities are grouped into the following categories: Stakeholder Efforts; Basin Monitoring; Groundwater Protection Measures (& Enforcement); Other Sustainability Measures; and Integration with Other Agency & Organization Planning Efforts. Stakeholder Efforts (Public Outreach & Coordinated Stakeholder Activities): Maintaining and strengthening stakeholder involvement in the groundwater management effort will be a key conjunctive management activity moving forward. The process of encouraging broad involvement will be successful if the public is engaged. Public Outreach and Involvement: The stakeholder committee formed for the GMP preparation will spearhead outreach efforts. Initially, those efforts will focus on informing key elected officials and the public about the GMP. Communication activities could be within or outside the SEBP basin boundary, depending on the audience and their interest(s). However, the focus of public outreach will be to reach residents and business owners that overlie the basin. The following actions may be used to encourage public involvement: Hold an annual stakeholders workshop with public involvement as a standing agenda item. Agency leads for GMP implementation shall work with stakeholders to assure continued communication following GMP adoption (including participation in discussion with stakeholders, electeds and staff) Make available printed copies of the GMP at public libraries within the basin footprint Make available an electronic version of the GMP Maintain the EBMUD-hosted website for the SEBP basin GMP South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 79 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Through the stakeholder group, coordinate outreach to inform the public and key elected officials Present GMP details at community forums, in conjunction with existing neighborhood outreach efforts Maintain a mailing list of those interested in participating on any GMP-related committees Meet with representatives from business groups and other interested organizations as appropriate Coordinated Stakeholder Activities: Stakeholders are committed to advancing the knowledge of the Basin to promote Basin sustainability. The following activities are future means to meet that commitment: Working together to seek grant funding for key projects and planned actions beneficial for the Basin Working proactively to address potential conflicts of groundwater interests Basin Monitoring: Comprehensive, long-term monitoring provides data needed to evaluate changes in the Basin over time. GMP implementation will call for continued groundwater monitoring coupled with updated groundwater modeling when appropriate in order to assist in decision making as it pertains to basin management. Monitoring of the groundwater basin shall include the following elements: Groundwater elevation monitoring Groundwater quality monitoring Land subsidence monitoring Data management/storage Groundwater Elevation Monitoring: While agencies such as EBMUD have been performing groundwater elevation monitoring for a number of years, there is an interest to continue and perhaps expand that effort over time. As funding is available, the following activities could be performed on a periodic basis: Surveys of existing monitoring wells: The City of Hayward and EBMUD have wells that are routinely monitored as part of their ongoing operations. Additional known wells can be added to monitoring program assignments based on whether such information is necessary and additional resources are available Expansion of monitoring activities: If additional resources become available, monitoring could be expanded beyond those wells which have been instrumented by the City of Hayward and EBMUD Data Sharing: Data would be shared with a stakeholder team (likely led by EBMUD) and can be made available to the public and interested parties to track basin sustainability over time South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 80 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS The following actions are planned regarding groundwater elevation monitoring: Assess groundwater elevations collected as part of ongoing agency activities for network adequacy Work with private well owners who wish to continue to operate their groundwater wells to 1) comply with well standards and 2) collect and share groundwater data. Seek grant funding to expand the monitoring program. Groundwater Quality Monitoring: Water quality information has been collected over the years by several of the basin stakeholders. The following actions are proposed moving forward: Stakeholders will review groundwater quality data collected as part of on-going activities associated with agency operations to determine trends, conditions and adequacy of the groundwater quality monitoring network. If there appears to be an acute need for additional modeling, the stakeholders will work to identify funding mechanisms. Land Subsidence Monitoring: EBMUD has a program in place, in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, to monitor Land Subsidence adjacent to its Bayside Groundwater Project facilities in San Lorenzo, CA. Plans are to continue to use that facility to monitor land subsidence in that general portion of the SEBP Basin. Additional subsidence monitoring performed by stakeholders such as the City of Alameda will be periodically reviewed to assess the behavior of the SEBP Basin. Monitoring Protocols: Stakeholders are to adhere to water quality data collection procedures developed by the State of California Department of Public Health. Data Management: Assuming a source of funding can be secured, EBMUD could serve as a centralized agency for the purpose of data management as it pertains to the SEBP basin. Specifically, EBMUD could: Maintain and update a data management system to store information collected by the various stakeholders in regards to groundwater elevations and groundwater quality. Use the data collected to prepare periodic evaluations of the groundwater condition in the SEBP basin, which in turn can be shared with other stakeholders and the general public. Groundwater Protection Measures: Groundwater quality protection is a key factor to ensuring the sustainability of a groundwater resource. As part of this GMP, groundwater quality protection includes both the prevention and minimization of groundwater quality degradation, as well as measures for the minimization of contamination. Prevention measures include proper well construction and deconstruction practices, development of wellhead protection measures, and source control of potential contaminants. Well Construction, Abandonment and Deconstruction: Alameda County Public Works Department, a GMP stakeholder, is responsible for rules and procedures associated with well construction, abandonment and deconstruction. Those rules and procedures are detailed in Appendix H. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 81 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Wellhead Protection: Identification of wellhead protection areas is a component of the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Projection (DWSAP) Program administered by DPH. EBMUD, as part of its Bayside Groundwater Project, has provided DPH with the following information: A delineation of the capture zone around the Bayside Groundwater Project’s extraction well. An inventory of potential contaminating activities (PCAs) within the project’s protection areas. A vulnerability analysis to identify the PCAs to which the project is most vulnerable. The following are potential future/further actions regarding this topic: Continue to identify source areas and protection zones as needed when and if the SEBP Basin is used as part of any future activity (such as the expansion of the Bayside Groundwater Project by EBMUD). Update management approaches that can be used to provide better protection to the water supply from PCAs including voluntary control measures and expanded public education. Controlling Migration and Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater: The known groundwater contamination plumes within the SEBP Basin are discussed in Section 2.13. To address contamination, the stakeholders will coordinate with responsible parties and regulatory agencies to keep those interested informed on the status of potential contamination in the SEBP Basin. The actions listed below are to be considered as a means to improve protection of groundwater quality from contamination: Provide well owners with information regarding DPH and ACPWD well requirements. Incorporate any new known high risk PCAs into the data management system(s) created for the SEBP Basin. Make contaminant plume information available to well owners through various informational avenues (the SEBP Basin GMP webpage, etc). Control of Saline Water Intrusion: Seawater intrusion from San Francisco Bay is a challenge, particularly for the upper most aquifers in the SEBP Basin. Section 3.3.4.5 addresses salt and nutrient management efforts proposed, however, aside from those efforts, this GMP proposes that the following additional actions could be implemented over time, particularly if and when seawater intrusion issues become problematic for the lower-most aquifer: Track saline water movement from San Francisco Bay through on-going groundwater monitoring efforts. Examine TDS, chloride and sulfate concentrations collected for the Bayside Groundwater Project monitoring to identify any trends over time. Perform studies (when and if funding can be secured) to review salinity sources and their distribution; to identify mitigation alternatives. Develop projects (when and if funding can be secured and assuming mitigation is needed) to address saline water intrusion. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 82 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Other Sustainability Measures: Various water management options are available to address groundwater supply sustainability. The primary method in play for the deep aquifer of the SEBP Basin is direct aquifer recharge/groundwater banking, managed as a strategy to replenish the Basin and serve as a secure storage means for water that could be sourced during times of drought. As EBMUD and others (such as the City of Hayward) utilize the basin for water supply, there are no plans at this point in time to consider alternatives such as storm water recharge and/or recycled water recharge. However, the use of other supplies (such as recycled water) for irrigation, etc. can be promoted as a means to limit the use of groundwater supplies. Similarly, conservation and demand reduction measures can be employed that will reduce the reliance on the SEBP Basin. Direct Aquifer Recharge/Groundwater Banking: The deep aquifer in the SEBP Basin is being utilized by EBMUD to store treated water for later use during droughts. The project, the Bayside Groundwater Project is an Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, and demonstrates how direct aquifer recharge can be utilized to assure the long term sustainability of the basin. The following planned actions are possible to build upon this concept: Possible expansion studies to assess the feasibility of a larger, Phase 2 of the Bayside Groundwater Project (moving from an existing 1 mgd operation to as large as a 10 mgd operations) Full scale Phase 2 project development (based on the results of feasibility studies and the ensuing planning efforts) If or when other parties are shown to have depleted storage within the lower aquifer, there is the possibility that direct aquifer recharge could be utilized to counter or correct for the depletion. Integration with Other Agency and Organization Planning Efforts: There are various planning efforts underway within basin stakeholder organizations where integration is possible, however the three that are most-likely to benefit from integration include: Urban Water Management Plans General Plans/Land Use Plans Integrated Regional Water Management Plans Urban Water Management Plans: Two Basin stakeholders (EBMUD and the City of Hayward) have developed Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP). These UWMPs, are required by the State of California for all retail water purveyors who have more than 3,000 customers. UWMPs are designed to encourage efficient water use and identify ways to meet future customer demands and issues such as the sustainability of groundwater resources, should such resources play a factor. General Plans/Land Use Plans: Stakeholder agencies are committed to providing GMP information to those entities responsible for the preparation and update of land use plans and general plans for cities and counties. The goal of such interaction will be to enable all land use agencies to have access to information regarding activities taking place for the protection and availability of groundwater resources within the SEBP basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 83 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS 3.3.5.2 Water Conservation and Recycling EBMUD and the City of Hayward are the two water suppliers within the SEBP Basin. Each has water conservation programs in place to reduce the demand for water. The following section briefly discusses the programs of the two agencies. EBMUD’s Water Conservation Program: EBMUD provides technical and financial assistance to encourage customers to help assure an adequate water supply by using water efficiently. Their water conservation staff advises customers on selecting water-efficient products, implementing best management practices, and designing/maintaining WaterSmart landscaping and efficient irrigation methods. Water conservation services include water use surveys, incentives for high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, appliances, process equipment and irrigation systems, and free distribution of conservation self-survey kits and water efficient devices (i.e., showerhead, faucet aerators) that reduce water use. EBMUD is also very active in new water conservation technology research and the development of education and demonstration projects. In 2011, EBMUD updated its Water Conservation Master Plan (“WCMP”) to help meet long-term water supply needs through the year 2020. The WCMP serves as a blueprint for implementation strategies, goals and objectives for achieving additional water savings consistent with the targets identified in EBMUD’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan as well in their recently adopted Water Supply Management Program 2040 (WSMP 2040). The WCMP incorporates elements of the State of California’s Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB7) which calls for achieving a statewide goal of a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020. City of Hayward’s Water Conservation Program: The City of Hayward has one of the lowest per capita water usage among agencies that purchase water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This is perhaps partially due to the fact that, as one of the original signatories to the California Urban Water Council (CUWC) Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU), Hayward has long been committed to effective water conservation. The CUWC was created to increase water use efficiency through partnerships among urban water agencies, public interest organizations and private entities that provide services and equipment to promote water conservation. Hayward has and will continue to actively participate in regional demand management efforts, including development and implementation of the regional Water Conservation Implementation Plan as developed by Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) in 2009. Hayward evaluates each regional conservation program individually to assess the benefits to Hayward customers. To date, Hayward has participated in regional programs such as: High efficiency clothes washing machine rebates High efficiency toilet rebates Indoor water efficiency standards for new development Residential water efficient landscape classes School education programs (in-class and assembly) Distribution of pre-rinse spray valves Adoption of bay friendly landscape ordinances and standards Hayward intends to continue to implement cost effective water conservation programs. Moving forward, the City will continue to assess and implement additional cost effective water conservation South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 84 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS measures in order to achieve SB7 targets and to carry Hayward City Council’s mission of efficient and sustainable use of resources. Potential future programs may include: Rebates for weather-based irrigation controllers and efficient irrigation systems Water use surveys for commercial/industrial sites, including hotels and motels Incentives to replace inefficient commercial and industrial equipment 3.3.5.3 Periodic Basin Assessment and Reporting Contingent upon available funding, the basin management actions will be reviewed and analyzed to evaluate effectiveness of the actions. Necessary modification may be considered to achieve the GMP objectives. These analyses and findings are to be reported to the basin stakeholders. 3.3.5.4 Basin Replenishment Using the GMP as a guide, all stakeholders led by EBMUD are to collaboratively manage the Basin. EBMUD has not committed to exclusively taking on basin management authority, although the agency will continue to provide guidance and coordination for other stakeholders. When basin storage conditions warrant the need to address replenishment matters, EBMUD will work with GMP stakeholders to undertake necessary actions. 3.3.5.5 Basin Water Budget The new groundwater flow model (NEB MODFLOW) for the SEBP Basin area as well as the water budget prepared for the Basin are primarily intended for groundwater planning purposes to assist in managing ground water resources. As a numerical analysis tool, a groundwater model assists water managers and basin stakeholders in understanding the general dynamics of the groundwater flow system within the SEBP Basin. During the GMP preparation, upon completion of model calibration, the model was used to generate a water balance and baseline estimates for the GMP area. In addition, major components of the groundwater budget were developed using the model. From model results, groundwater elevations within the SEBP Basin appear to be reaching an equilibrium. Groundwater levels have been increasing since the 1960s, primarily as a result of the decrease in volume of groundwater extraction throughout the area since that time. Based on a technical review of current information, the primary inflow into the GMP area can be categorized as recharge to the aquifers as a result of deep percolation of precipitation and applied water, subsurface inflow, and inflow from ungauged watersheds. The source of groundwater flow in the shallow zone is percolation primarily from the foothill region that lies to the east. That water move from east to west in the shallow aquifer, flowing towards San Francisco Bay. It is believed that the flow entering the intermediate and deep aquifers systems consists of contributions from beneath the San Francisco Bay. If there are modifications to the volume and/or rate of groundwater extraction in the SEBP Basin, it would likely influence the overall flow balance and distribution of inflow into the GMP area. The overall water balance for the GMP area is provided in the Figure 3-3. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the simulated water budget for the GMP area for a 20-year period from 1993 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 85 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS through 2012. On average, inflows and outflows were in balance across the period, resulting in relatively small changes in storage in the aquifer. The average annual change in storage for the period was 152 acre-feet, a small annual increase. This is consistent with the relatively stable groundwater elevation trends over the same period as detailed in previous basin studies. Those studies indicated that the basin was refilling at a rate of 1,300 acre-feet per year in the mid-1990s (CH2MHILL, 2000). The results from the hydrologic study performed as part of this GMP preparation indicates that the basin has nearly stabilized, and the rate of increase in storage is decreasing as a consequence. These estimates and findings are influenced by the assumptions necessary to create an “initial condition” for the Basin (as well as by how the model conceptualized various operational details of the Basin). Modifications to either of these components could be called for when and if additional Basin data becomes available in the years ahead. In turn, the water balance as prepared for the SEBP Basin should be updated. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 86 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Future Governance Plans: It is anticipated that at some point in time, there may be a need to enter into a more formal governance structure. Such a structure would enable the following: Collective management of a well protection program, well destruction program/policies, well installation policies, etc. Integration of Basin objectives into the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Collective means to apply for grant monies. Development of means and procedures whereby Basin replenishment is managed (should one or more entities be deemed responsible for extracting groundwater from the Basin to cause overdraft). Collective preparation of updates to the GMP as well as of periodic State-of-the-Basin reports. While undertaking all the sustainability measures, if the Basin becomes overdrafted, EBMUD will collaborate with stakeholders to develop a replenishment plan. Table 3-2: Simulated Annual Water Budget for the SEBP Groundwater Basin, 1993 through 2002 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 87 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN SSEECCTTIIOONN 44..00 PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN 4.1 PERIODIC GMP IMPLEMENTATION MEETINGS Working with other Basin stakeholders, EBMUD will review the progress made implementing the GMP. Stakeholders will hold meetings to facilitate the review process, tentatively assumed to be annual State of the Basin meetings. Those meetings will discuss the groundwater conditions in the SEBP Basin area and document groundwater management activities from the previous year. Much of the data reviewed as part of preparing annual State of the Basin summaries will come from the monitoring and successful implementation of the action items as developed and detailed in Section 3.0 of this GMP. During periods where significant changes have occurred within the Basin, the stakeholders (as an action item following the State of the Basin meeting) may elect to craft a summary report. That summary will document conditions that have occurred since last State of the Basin meeting. The report may include:  A summary of monitoring results that includes a discussion of historical trends and an interpretation of water quality and groundwater elevation data.  A summary of management actions during the period covered by the report.  A discussion of the need (if any) to collected additional groundwater basin data to aid in the analysis of conditions observed.  A discussion, supported by monitoring results, of whether management actions are achieving progress in meeting Basin management objectives.  A discussion of the need to modify any GMP component, including the Basin management objectives. Description of Action Implementation Schedule (approximate time for commencing activity following GMP adoption) I. Stakeholder Involvement Involving the Public  Continue efforts to encourage public participation as opportunities arise.  Reach out to local and business communities via EBMUD’s Bayside Groundwater Project’s Community Liaison Group.  Assist stakeholders in disseminating the information through other various public forums. On-going 6 months 6 months Coordinate with State and Federal Agencies  Continue to develop working relationships with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies.  Coordinate GMP implementation activities with local, state and federal agencies as appropriate. On-going On-going South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 88 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN Pursuing Partnership Opportunities  Continue to foster partnership opportunities to achieve both local supply reliability and broader regional and statewide benefits.  Continue to seek grant opportunities to fund local projects that can improve groundwater management and improve local water infrastructure. On-going On-going II. Monitoring Programs Groundwater Elevation Monitoring  Use CASGEM groundwater elevation monitoring guidelines for water level data collection.  Provide stakeholder agencies with guidelines on the collection of water quality data as per USEPA sampling standards.  Assist stakeholders in developing and implementing monitoring programs.  Coordinate with stakeholder agencies to develop standardized reference elevations for monitoring wells.  Coordinate with stakeholders and request that the timing of water level data collection occur on or about April 15 and October 15 of each year.  Provide a period assessment of groundwater elevation trends and conditions to stakeholders.  Assess the adequacy of the groundwater elevation monitoring network periodically. On-going On-going and as needed On-going and as needed On-going and as needed On-going On-going 12 months Groundwater Quality Monitoring Programs  Coordinate with stakeholders in using standardized water quality sampling protocols.  Monitor stakeholder’s existing monitoring well network for purposes of groundwater quality monitoring.  Collaborate with local, state, and federal agencies such as USGS to identify opportunities to continue conducting water quality analyses in less known areas of the basin.  Review and assess the effectiveness of the groundwater quality monitoring program periodically and recommend improvements as necessary.  Develop a GIS based groundwater quality database.  Apply for state and federal grants to collect, compile and integrate groundwater quality data. On-going and as necessary On-going On-going 12 months 12 months (if grant funding is available) 12 months (depending on grant program opportunities) South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 89 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN Subsidence Monitoring Program  Periodically re-survey the established reference elevations at groundwater monitoring stations.  Collaborate with state and federal agencies, particularly the USGS, to collect and analyze land surface movement data for potential land surface subsidence using various methodologies including InSAR remote sensing. 36 months (if grant funding is available) 36 months (if grant funding is available) III. Groundwater Management Tools Groundwater Resources Protection  Ensure that all stakeholders are provided a copy of the county well ordinance and understand the proper well construction procedures.  Support ACPWA in adopting the updated well ordinance.  Support stakeholders in educating the public about the updated well standards and in adopting local ordinances to implement those well standards. 6 months+ (assumes county passes new well ordinance) 3 months 6-12 months Wellhead Protection  Obtain an updated coverage of potentially contaminating activities and provide that information to stakeholders.  Share current wellhead protection measures and provide a summary of actions taken by others as a tool in managing their individual wellhead protection programs. 24 months 24 months Protecting Recharge Areas  Inform and assist groundwater authorities and land use planners to consider the need to protect prominent groundwater recharge areas in the land use planning process. 24 months Groundwater Contamination  If contaminants exceeding water quality standards are detected in monitoring wells, initiate facilitation between the responsible parties and the potentially impacted stakeholders to manage the contamination.  Inform and coordinate with SFRWQCB and DTSC to encourage these agencies to take necessary actions. On-going and as needed On-going and as needed South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 90 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN IV. Groundwater Sustainability Public Outreach and Involvement  Hold an annual stakeholders workshop whereby the matter of public involvement is a standing agenda item.  Agency leads for GMP implementation shall work with other stakeholders to assure continued communication following GMP adoption (including participation in discussions with stakeholders, electeds and staff).  Make available printed copies of the GMP at select public libraries within the basin footprint.  Alert the public as to the availability of an electronic version of the GMP (by mentioning it in existing newsletters, newspaper articles, etc.).  Maintain the EBMUD-hosted website for the SEBP basin GMP.  Through the stakeholders group, develop a coordinated outreach plan to inform the public and key electeds.  Present GMP details at community forums, in conjunction with existing neighborhood outreach efforts. 12 months 3 months 3 months 1 month – 12 months On-going 3 months 3-12 months 4.2 FUTURE REVIEW OF THE SEBP BASIN GMP This GMP is intended to be a framework for future coordinated management efforts in the South East Bay Plain area. As such, many of the identified actions will likely evolve as the stakeholder agencies begin to work together to cooperatively manage and learn more about the basin. Over time, and in the event that the basin usage grows such that it becomes an even greater relied-upon resource to the various stakeholders, the potential need for a more formal groundwater management entity may be considered. There is the potential, as described in section 4.1, that additional actions could also be identified as part of the GMP implementation periodic review process. The GMP is therefore intended to be a living document, and it will be important to evaluate all of the actions and objectives over time to determine how well they are meeting the overall goal of the plan. 4.3 FINANCING Implementation of the GMP, as well as many other groundwater management-related activities could be funded from a variety of sources including in-kind services by agencies; state or federal grant programs; and local, state, and federal partnerships. Some of the items that would require additional resources include:  Monitoring for groundwater quality or elevations in non-purveyor wells  Preparation of GMP annual reports South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 91 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN  Updates of the overall GMP  Updates of data sets and recalibration/improvement of the groundwater model produced for the SEBP Basin  Collection of additional subsidence data (beyond what EBMUD is required to collect as part of its operation of their Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1)  Construction of monitoring wells where critical data gaps exist  Stream-aquifer interaction studies  Implementation of the GMP including: − Committee coordination − Project management 4.4 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Integration of various water management programs that are underway in the Bay Area is a complex activity, as part of the update of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP). The Bay Area IRWMP will reference the GMP effort and document moving forward as part of the periodic updates of the Bay Area IRWMP. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 92 March 2013 1 2 3 Subregion (check all that apply)North Bay East Bay South Bay West Bay 4 County(ies) 5 Watershed Tributary 6 Public or private land?Public Private Both 7 Other Participating or Partnering Agencies/Organizations (separate with commas) This form need not be completed in its entirety in order to propose a project for inclusion in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). Items denoted with an asterisk (*) are required. Sponsoring Agency/Organization* Complete “Part 1: Project Concept” as much as possible to identify and describe the project. The second section of this part, “Collaboration Information,” will help provide sponsors of other projects with sufficient information so they know whether or not there may be value in working with you to develop a more integrated and multipurpose project. Complete “Part 2: Detailed Project Information” so that a project may be thoroughly described and prioritized in the IRWMP. Projects cannot be scored without information provided in Part 2. Review “Part 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis” which enables the Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee to better score projects for inclusion in a grant proposal. The information is also is used by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in scoring grant proposals. This section does not need to be completed at this stage but will be required as the project review and selection process moves forward. Please review this section to become familiar with information requirements typical for grant applications and use it to complete Table A in Section 3. PART 1: PROJECT CONCEPT Complete “Table A in Part 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis” to enable the Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee to understand to what degree projects have cost:benefit information and what additional support is needed to gather this information, which is required by DWR to score the grant proposals. See Tables 1 through 14 prior to completing Table A for detail on the information required Name of Project* BAY AREA IRWMP Project Form March 2012 Basic Project Information 8 Contact Person Name* 9 Email* 10 Phone* (###) ###-### 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project deadline and/or expiration date 1 Water Quality Improvement Water Reuse/Recycling Related to a Native American Tribe Project Type (Check al that apply. Please provide a brief explanation, in a few words, below each of the checked project types) Drinking Water Supply Basic Project Description (1-2 Sentences) Project Website (if any) Estimated Project Cost What percentage of project costs does the agency/organization have in matching funds? (does not apply to non- governmental organizations and disadvantaged communities) Estimated time to complete all phases of the project once funding is secured Infiltration Stormwater Improvements Groundwater Benefits Habitat Protection and Restoration Flood Protection Related to a Disadvantaged Community Collaboration Information (Please complete this portion of the template as much as possible at this time in order to help others determine if this project might be combined with one or more other projects in order to create a more integrated and multipurpose project and share project development costs. Further information can be added at a later date as appropriate.) 2 3 4 5 6 Projects cannot be scored without information provided in Part 2. 1 2 Is the project an element or phase of a regional or larger program? Yes No 3 4 5 Project element Status (e.g., pending, in process, complete) Conceptual plans Land acquisition/easements Preliminary plans CEQA/NEPA Construction drawings Funding Readiness to proceed How does this project effectively integrate water management with land use planning? Detailed Project Description (Please complete/answer all questions even if it repeats information provided in the Part 1: Project Concept.) Provide a detailed description (1-2 paragraphs) of the project including the general project concept, what will be constructed and/or implemented, how the project will function, treatment methods employed, how a conservation program would function, water savings achieved, etc.* If so, what is the regional or larger program and how does this project relate to it? PART 2: DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION Please indicate the status of the following: Does this project incorporate and implement low impact development (LID) design features, techniques, and practices to reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff? Percent completion Proposed project start date (Initiation of project activities) (mm/dd/yyyy) Proposed project completion date (mm/dd/yyyy) What additional partnerships or project activities could make this a multi-benefit project? (see Project Type, above) Is the sponsor of this project in a position to financially assist a project partner that may have limited financial resources to help develop a collaborative project? If this is a conservation effort, does it address long-term drought preparedness by contributing to sustainable water supply and reliability? 6     7 Project Latitude Project Longitude Location Description     8 Project Need a. b. 9 Project Benefits a. b. iv. Resource Stewardship (watershed management, habitat protection and restoration, recreation, open space, etc.) Does the project reduce water supply demands on the Bay/Delta Estuary? List documents that contain information specific to the proposed project description and provide links to those that may be found online. i. Water Supply (conservation, recycled water, groundwater recharge, surface storage, etc.) iii. Flood and Stormwater Management Project Location Please provide either Latitude/Longitude or Location Description. To determine the latitude/longitude, use the closest address or intersection. If the project is linear, use the furthest upstream latitude/longitude. It is important to understand the need(s) or issue(s) that the proposed project will address and the benefits that it will provide. Information provided in this section defines the need(s) or issue(s) that the proposed project will address and will help to catalog existing need(s) or issue(s) in the Bay Area. ii. Water Quality Discuss critical impacts that will occur if the proposal is not implemented. Provide a 1-2 paragraph description of the need(s) or problem(s) that the project will address. As applicable, discuss the water supply need, operational efficiency need, water quality need, ability to reduce water demand and/or water supply, or resource stewardship need (e.g. ecosystem restoration, floodplain management). List any applicable surface water bodies and groundwater basins associated with the proposed project. Provide a detailed description (1-5 paragraphs) of the benefit(s) that the project will provide. To the extent possible, this description should quantify changes and benefits that will result from implementation of the project. Where not possible, qualitative descriptions may be used. These should include benefits to any of the following that may apply: c. Yes No Yes No 10 a. b. 11 Is the project located within or adjacent to a disadvantaged community? Project Costs Promotes Use of Renewable Energy Sources Does the project include disadvantaged community participation? Improves Water System Energy Efficiency Advances/Expands Water Recycling Promotes Urban Runoff Reuse Source of funding match for capital cost If there is no disadvantage community, please identify and provide the number of low income areas with census tracts, blocks and/or sectors, low income population/total population). Climate Change (check all those that indicate to what extent the project contributes to climate change response actions) Land/easement cost Addresses other Anticipated Climate Change Impact (e.g. through water management system modifications) Improves Flood Control (e.g. through wetlands restoration, management, protection) Other (Please Describe): Upper estimated total capital cost Increases Water Supply Reliability Advances/ Expands Conjunctive Management of Multiple Water Supply Sources Lower estimated total capital cost Other (Please Describe): Mitigation by Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and/or Energy Consumption Increases Water Use Efficiency or Promotes Energy-Efficient Water Demand Reduction Contributes to Carbon Sequestration (e.g. through vegetation growth) Other (Please Describe): Does the project address any known environmental justice issues? Please describe: Provides Additional Water Supply Promotes Water Quality Protection Advances/Expands Water Recycling Promotes Urban Runoff Reuse Addresses Sea Level Rise Promotes Habitat Protection Reduces Water Demand Establishes Migration Corridors Re-establishes River-Floodplain Hydrologic Continuity Re-introduces Anadromous Fish Populations to Upper Watersheds Enhances and Protects Upper Watershed Forests and Meadow Systems Adaptation to Climate Change Increases Water Use and/or Reuse Efficiency Life of the project (years) Annual operations and maintenance cost Funding source for annual operations and maintenance 12 13 14 15 Climate Change Response Actions (Adaptation to Climate Change, Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Reduce Energy Consumption) Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Expand Environmental Stewardship Protect Surface and Groundwater Quality Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits Reduce Reliance on the Bay-Delta Practice Integrated Flood Management Statewide Priorities (check all that the project addresses) Drought Preparedness Water Meter Requirements Eligibility Criteria. (Please see pages 15 and 16 of Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010.) Groundwater Management Plan Improve Flood Management Improved Operational Efficiency and Transfers Increase Water Supply Improve Water Quality California Water Plan Resource Management Strategies (check all that apply). (Please see page 45 of Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010.) Reduce Water Demand Practice Resources Stewardship Other Strategies (Please Describe): Urban Water Management Plan Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users CEQA Compliance Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands Watershed protection and management Groundwater Monitoring Requirements AB 1420 Compliance Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring Groundwater recharge and management projects Drinking water treatment and distribution Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs BMP Compliance Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management Multiple Benefits – for Proposition 84 grants (check all that apply – at least one must be checked) Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection Reduced Reliance on the Bay-Delta Projects that directly address a critical water quality or supply issue in a DAC Urban water suppliers implementing certain BMPs as on page 17 of Guidelines Exceptions to above (if none are checked): 16 17 a. b. c. Be designed to manage stormwater runoff to reduce flood damage (PRC §5096.827) Be consistent with the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) (PRC §5096.827) Not be a part of the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) (PRC §5096.827) Bay Area IRWM Plan Goals and Objectives (check all that apply) Minimizing solid waste generation/maximize reuse Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating net impacts to environment Maintaining and promoting economic and environmental sustainability through sound water resources management practices Promotion of economic, social, and environmental sustainability For Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management (check all that apply – Note that to be eligible for funding, the project must address all) Securing funds to implement solutions Improved supply reliability Meeting future and dry year demands Maximizing water use efficiency Preserving highest quality supplies for highest use Minimizing vulnerability of infrastructure to catastrophes and security breaches Maximizing control within the Bay Area region Increasing opportunities for recycled water use consistent with health and safety Maintaining a diverse portfolio of water supplies to maximize flexibility Securing funds to implement solutions Protection and improvement of hydrologic function Achieving community awareness of local flood risks, including potential risks in areas protected by existing projects Maximizing external support and partnerships Maximizing ability to get outside funding Considering and addressing disproportionate community impacts Balancing needs for all beneficial uses of water Protecting cultural resources Increasing community outreach and education for watershed health Engaging public agencies, businesses, and the public in stormwater pollution prevention and watershed management, including decision -making Maximizing economies of scale and governmental efficiencies Providing trails and recreation opportunities Maximizing community involvement and stewardship Reducing energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate Securing funds to implement solutions Protecting, restoring, and rehabilitating natural watershed processes Protecting against overdraft Providing for groundwater recharge while maintaining groundwater resources Controlling excessive erosion and managing sedimentation Maintaining or improving in-stream flow conditions Improving floodplain connectivity Preserving land perviousness and infiltration capacity d. e. f. g.     Securing funds to implement solutions Providing clean, safe, reliable drinking water Minimizing taste and odor problems Periodically evaluating beneficial uses Maintaining health of whole watershed, upland vegetation and land cover to reduce runoff quantity and improve runoff quality Reducing pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable Protection of public health, safety, and property Eliminating non-stormwater pollutant discharges to storm drains Protection and improvement of the quality of water resources Minimizing point and non-point source pollution Preserving natural stream buffers and floodplains to improve filtration of point and non-point source pollutants Protecting surface and groundwater resources from pollution and degradation Anticipating emerging contaminants Providing lifecycle support (shelter, reproduction, feeding) Reducing mass loading of pollutants to surface waters Reducing salinity-related problems Minimizing variability for treatment Meeting promulgated and expected drinking water quality standards Managing floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation Protecting and recovering fisheries (natural habitat and harvesting) Protecting wildlife movement/wildlife corridors Advancing technology through feasibility studies/demonstrations Continuously improving stormwater pollution prevention methods Securing funds to implement solutions Creation, protection, enhancement, and maintenance of environmental resources and habitats Providing net benefits to environment Conserving and restoring habitat for species protection Managing pests and invasive species Minimizing health impacts associated with polluted waterways Achieving effective floodplain management by encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas Maintaining performance of flood protection and stormwater facilities Partnering with municipalities to prepare mitigation action plans that reduce flood risks to the community Coordinating resources and mutual aid between agencies to enhance agency effectiveness Acquiring, protecting and/or restoring wetlands, streams, and riparian areas Enhancing wildlife populations and biodiversity (species richness) Designing and constructing natural flood protection and stormwater facilities Improving structural complexity (riparian and channel) Securing funds to implement solutions List any other project information that merits consideration. Recovering at-risk native and special status species 18 Water Management Strategy Ecosystem Restoration Expected project benefits and impacts. Quantify as much as possible the benefits and impacts of the project for each water management strategy (see the list in #13 above). The following is an example of the format without the benefits and impacts quantified: Changes in local species composition and diversity (ex., 2 species potentially impacted) Reduced flooding (ex., reduce probability of sever flooding by 30%) Improved Water Quality (ex., reduce nitrate concentrations to < 10 mg/L) Increased critical habitat (ex., 5 additional acres of habitat) Protection and enhancement of physical and biological processes (ex., increasse average streamflow from 70 cu ft/s to 150 cu ft/s) Temporary construction impacts (ex., 5 acres impacted over 6 months) Typical Benefits Typical Impacts PART 3: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS Please access the Section 3 Tab below for Part 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis Benefit Category Is this benefit addressed by the proposed project? (Yes/No) Can you provide this C:B information now? (Yes/No) Will you be able to provide this C:B information for a grant application? (Yes/No) If you answered "No" in column "C", do you need extra assistance to be able to provide this information? Additional Comments Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem Restoration Recreation and Public Access Power Cost Savings and Production Flood Avoided Cost of Future Projects Other (please specify): BAY AREA IRWMP Project Template March 2012 The following is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of the Handbook that explains in more detail the purpose of the analysis: Benefit-cost analysis is the procedure where the different benefits and costs of proposed projects are identified and measured (usually in monetary terms) and then compared with each other to determine if the benefits of the project exceed its costs. Benefit-cost analysis is the primary method used to determine if a project is economically justified. A project is justified when: • estimated total benefits exceed total estimated economic costs; • each separable purpose (for example, water supply, hydropower, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, etc.) provides benefits at least equal to its costs; • the scale of development provides maximum net benefits (in other words, there are no smaller or larger projects which provide greater net benefits); and • there are no more-economical means of accomplishing the same purpose. PART 3: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS This portion of the project template asks for information that will be critical in determining which projects will be included in a Proposition 84 grant proposal. DWR uses the cost benefit analysis as a major scoring factor for both Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E grant proposals. After reviewing the ENTIRE Section, (Tables 1 through 14) please complete Table A. The DWR Economic Analysis Handbook (http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/planning/economic_analysis_guidebook/econguidebook.pdf) is referred to in the Proposition 84 & Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010 as guidance for determining if project benefits justify project costs. Table A* - Cost:Benefit Information Availability Please review this section to become familiar with information requirements typical for grant applications. After reviewing the ENTIRE Section, please complete Table A below. (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Non-State Share* (Funding Match) Requested Grant Funding Other State Funds Being Used Total % Funding Match (a)Direct Project Administration Costs $0 #DIV/0! (b)Land Purchase/Easement $0 #DIV/0! (c)Planning/Design/Engineering/ Environmental Documentation $0 #DIV/0! (d)Construction/Implementation $0 #DIV/0! (e)Environmental Compliance/ Mitigation/Enhancement $0 #DIV/0! (f)Construction Administration $0 #DIV/0! (g)Other Costs $0 #DIV/0! (h)Construction/Implementation Contingency $0 #DIV/0! (i)Grand Total (Sum rows (a) through (h) for each column) $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Benefit Category Benefit Detail Measure of Benefit (Units) Level of Benefit Without Project Level of Benefit With Project Benefit Start Year Benefit End Year Water Supply(1)AFY Water Quality AFY Ecosystem Restoration Acres Recreation and Public Access Acres Power cost savings and production kWh Other Avoided cost of future projects Please refer to next tab. Flood Please contact K/J if your project has flood damage reduction benefits. *List sources of funding: Use as much space as required. Table 2 - Project Benefits Project Title: Water Supply Benefits Water Quality and Other Expected Benefits Budget Category Avoided cost of future projects Flood Damage Reduction Comments: Enter any sources and references, including page numbers, supporting the numbers used above. Table 1 - Project Budget Project Title: Integrated Regional Water Management Projects (Proposition 84) For integrated regional water management projects that may qualify for grants under Proposition 84 for grant funding, please refer to the Handbook and tables and also complete as much as possible the following Project Budget and Project Benefits forms that were used by consultants to gather project information that was included in the Round 1 proposal and that DWR then evaluated to determine the benefit-cost ratio. Benefit Category Power cost savings and production Avoided cost of future projects (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Non-State Share* (Funding Match) Requested Grant Funding Other State Funds Being Used Total % Funding Match (a)Direct Project Administration Costs $0 #DIV/0! (b)Land Purchase/Easement $0 #DIV/0! (c)Planning/Design/Engineering/ Environmental Documentation $0 #DIV/0! (d)Construction/Implementation $0 #DIV/0! (e)Environmental Compliance/ Mitigation/Enhancement $0 #DIV/0! (f)Construction Administration $0 #DIV/0! (g)Other Costs $0 #DIV/0! (h)Construction/Implementation Contingency $0 #DIV/0! (i)Grand Total (Sum rows (a) through (h) for each column) $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Quantity of power saved or produced Flood Avoided physical damage (buildings, contents, infrastructure, landscaping, vehicles, equipment, crops, ecosystems) Ecosystem Restoration Habitat restoration Ecosystem improvements and preservation Fish and wildlife enhancements Recreation and Public Access Types and quality of recreational activities Visitor days Water Quality Improvements related to protecting, restoring or enhancing beneficial uses Water quality improvements for impaired water bodies and sensitive habitats Avoided water quality projects Avoided water treatment Avoided wastewater treatment Water quality improvements related to providing water supplies (if not already captured as a water supply benefit) (1) At a minimum, each water supply benefit must be described. If possible, each benefit should be quantified in physical terms. For each water supply benefit, the applicant should determine if a monetary value could be placed on the unit of benefit. Below is a sample list of project benefits. If you choose to enter a benefit not listed below, please provide a detailed description. Benefit Detail Water Supply Groundwater Basin Storage Conservation program Table 3 - Project Budget Project Title: Budget Category *List sources of funding: Use as much space as required. Avoided loss of functions (NET loss of business income, NET loss of rental income, NET loss of wages, NET loss of public services, NET loss of utility services, displacement costs of Avoided emergency response costs (Evacuation and rescue costs, security costs, dewatering flood management system repairs, humanitarian assistance) Avoided public safety and health impacts (population at risk, casualties, displacement/shelter needs, critical facilities) See Table 11 below for details For benefits that could not be quantified in physical terms, please provide a description below. The description should include a description of economic factors that may affect or qualify the amount of economic benefits to be realized. The description should also include any uncertainty about the future that might affect the level of benefits received. Description of Qualitative Benefits : Stormwater and Flood Management Projects (Proposition 1E) For Round 1 of Proposition 1E Stormwater and Flood Management grants the Department of Water Resources (DWR) required the following tables to be completed. It is expected that the same will be the case for Round 2. If the proposed project is for stormwater and flood management please complete the tables with as much detail as possible. Initial Costs (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Total Costs Discounted Costs (b) +…+ (g)(h) x (i) 2012 $0 1 $0 2013 $0 0.943 $0 2014 $0 0.89 $0 2015 $0 0.84 $0 …… …… Project Life … Hydrologic Event Event Benefit (Million $) With With Project Project (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h) (c) x (d)(c) x (e)(f) – (g) 10-Year $0 $0 $0 15-Year $0 $0 $0 20-Year $0 $0 $0 25-Year $0 $0 $0 50-Year $0 $0 $0 (a) (b) (c)$0 (d) With Project (2) 6% discount rate; 50-year analysis period (could vary depending upon life cycle of project). Expected Annual Damage Benefit (a) – (b) Present Value Coefficient (2) (c) x (d) Total Present Value of Future Benefits (e) (1) This program assumes no population growth thus EAD will be constant over analysis period. $0 Water Supply Projects Table 6 - Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Benefits Table 4 - Annual Cost of Flood Damage Reduction Project (All costs should be in 2009 Dollars) Project Title: Transfer to column (e) Table 15: Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries. $0 OtherReplacement Discount Factor Transfer to Table 15, column (c): Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries Expected Annual Damage Without Project (1) Expected Annual Damage With Project (1) Without Project Event Probability Event DamageDamage if Flood Structures Fail Without Project Comments to Table 4: Table 5 - Event Damage Operations and Maintenance Costs Discounting Calculations Year Grand Total Cost From Table 3 (row (i), column(d)) Admin Operation Maintenance Total Present Value of Discounted Costs (Sum of Column (j)) Probability Structural Failure Table 7 - Minimum Seismic Failure Economics Data Project Title: Variables Earthquake magnitude which causes structural failure Estimated probability of seismic event causing structural failure (%) Potential inundation damage ($) Without Project Initial Costs (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Total Costs Discounted Costs (b) +…+ (g)(h) x (i) 2012 $0 1 $0 2013 $0 0.943 $0 2014 $0 0.89 $0 2015 $0 0.84 $0 …… …… Project Life … (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Change Resulting from Project(1)Annual $ Value(1) Discounted Benefits(1) (e) – (d)(f) x (g)(h) x (i) 2012 a $0 $0 1 $0 b $0 $0 1 $0 c $0 $0 1 $0 d $0 $0 1 $0 ..$0 $0 $0 2013 a $0 $0 0.943 $0 b $0 $0 0.943 $0 c $0 $0 0.943 $0 d $0 $0 0.943 $0 ..$0 $0 $0 2014 a $0 $0 0.89 $0 b $0 $0 0.89 $0 c $0 $0 0.89 $0 d $0 $0 0.89 $0 …..$0 $0 … Project Life $0 $0 … Table 8- Annual Cost of Water Supply Project (All costs should be in 2009 Dollars) Project Title: Operations and Maintenance Costs Discounting Calculations Other Discount Factor Year Capital and Other initial Costs from Table 6 Admin Operation Maintenance Replacement With Project Unit $ Value(1)Discount Factor(1) Total Present Value of Discounted Costs (Sum of Column (j))$0 Transfer to Table 14, column (c): Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries Comments to Table 8: Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits Based on Unit Value Measure of Benefit (Units) Table 9- Annual Water Supply Benefits (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Project Title: Year Type of Benefit Without Project $0 (Sum of the values in Column (j) for all Benefits shown in table) (1) Complete these columns if dollar value is being claimed for the benefit. Comments to Table 9: (a)(b)(1)(c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Total Cost Avoided for Individual Alternatives (b) + (c) + (d) (e) x (f) 2012 $0 1 $0 2013 $0 0.943 $0 2014 $0 0.899 $0 2015 $0 0.839 $0 …… Project Life … (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) Discounted Benefits(1) (d) x (e) 2012 a 1 $0 b 1 $0 c 1 $0 ..1 $0 2013 a 0.943 $0 b 0.943 $0 c 0.943 $0 ..0.943 $0 2014 a 0.89 $0 b 0.89 $0 c 0.89 $0 ..0.89 $0 …… Project Life … Discounted Costs Avoided Project Description: (All avoided costs should be in 2009 dollars) Table 10 - Annual Costs of Avoided Projects Comments to Table 10: Avoided Capital Costs Avoided Replacement Costs Avoided Operations and Maintenance Costs Table 11 - Annual Other Water Supply Benefits (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Total Present Value of Discounted Costs $0 (Sum of Column (g)) (%) Avoided Cost Claimed by Project Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits Based on Unit Value $0 (Sum of the values in Column (f) for all Benefits shown in table) Project Title: Year Type of Benefit Description of Benefit Total Present Value of Discounted Avoided Project Costs Claimed by alternative Project $0 (Total Present Value of Discounted Costs x % Avoided Cost Claimed by Project) Project Title: Costs (1) Complete these columns if dollar value is being claimed for the benefit. Comments to Table 11: Annual Benefits ($)(1)Discount Factor(1) Discounting Calculations Year Alternative (Avoided Project Name): __________________ Discount Factor (1) For green infrastructure projects, calculate the avoided capital costs by multiplying each acre treated by $32,526 to get the expected benefit Total Discounted Water Supply Benefits Total Discounted Avoided Project Costs Other Discounted Water Supply Benefits (a) (b) (c) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Measure of Benefit Unit $Annual $ (Units)Value(1)Value(1) (e) – (d)(f) x (g)(h) x (i) 2012 a $0 $0 1 $0 b $0 $0 1 $0 c $0 $0 1 $0 ..$0 $0 1 $0 2013 a $0 $0 0.943 $0 b $0 $0 0.943 $0 c $0 $0 0.943 $0 ..$0 $0 0.943 $0 2014 a $0 $0 0.89 $0 b $0 $0 0.89 $0 c $0 $0 0.89 $0 ..$0 $0 0.89 $0 Project Life … Water Supply(2)Flood Damage Reduction(3)Other(4)Total (g)(h) (d) + (e) + (f)(g) / (c) $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Summary Comments to Table 12: (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Manually enter (a) + (c) or (b) + (c) Table 12 - Total Water Supply Benefits (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Project Title: Table 13 - Water Quality and Other Expected Benefits Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits (d) (a) + (c) or (b) + (c) Comments to Table 13: Project Title: Year Type of Benefit Without Project Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits Based on Unit Value $0 (Sum of the values in Column (j) for all Benefits shown in table) Transfer to Table 14, column (f): Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries (1) Complete these columns if dollar value is being claimed for the benefit. With Project Change Resulting from Project Discount Factor(1) Discounted Benefits(1) Total Present Value Project Benefits B/C Ratio (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (1) From Table 4, column (j). Or from Table 9, column (j). If project is a multi-purpose project, avoid double-counting costs. (2) From Table 12, column (d) (3) From Table 6, row (e) (4) From Table 13, column (j) Table 14 - Proposal Project Costs and Benefits Summary for Proposition 1E Proposal Title: Agency: Project Agency Total Present Value Project Costs(1) Project Information Form (PIF) A.PROJECT INFORMATION 1.Project Title: 2.Project Sponsor(s): 3.Eligible Applicant Type: 4.IRWM Project Region(s): 5. Yes No If yes, please complete D.8 and/or D.9. Show on map if applicable. 6. Yes No If yes, please complete D.10. Show on map if applicable. 7. 8. Funding Category: DAC Implementation Project General Implementation Project 9. Project Type:Other: B.SELECTED ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 1. Yes No 2. Yes No If yes, complete part a: a.What IRWM Plan goal(s)/objective(s) does the project address? Identify and explain. Select most applicable project type. See Section II.C. of the 2019 Guidelines for full description of eligible project types. If "Other" is selected, please write in the space provided the proposed project type. Does the project provide benefits directly to a Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDA) (minimum 75% by population or geography)? Is the Project Sponsor a Tribe, or does the project provide benefits to a Tribe (minimum 75% by population or geography) as defined by Proposition 1? Provide project map. Include location of project, project benefit and/or service area, and other applicable information. Will the project be included in the IRWM Plan, that will be adopted prior to anticipated Agreement Execution? Does the project address a critical need(s) and/or priority(ies) of the IRWM Region as identified in the IRWM Plan? 5/23/2019 Page 1 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3. 4. Yes No If yes, please explain below. 5.Does the project contribute to regional water self-reliance? Yes No If yes, please explain below. Does the project have an expected useful life consistent with Government Code §16727 (generally 15 years)? If not, explain why this requirement is not applicable. Does the project address and/or adapt to the effects of climate change? Does the project address the climate change vulnerabilities assessed in the IRWM Plan? 5/23/2019 Page 2 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 6. Yes No If yes, please identify below. 7.Will CEQA be completed within 12 months of Final Award? Yes No 8.Will all permits necessary to begin construction be acquired within 12 months of Final Award? Yes No NA, not a project under CEQA NA, project benefits DAC/EDA/Tribe (minimum 75%), or a Tribe is a local project sponsor NA, project benefits DAC/EDA/Tribe (minimum 75%), or a Tribe is a local project sponsor Does the project provide a benefit that meets at least one of the Statewide Priorities as defined in the 2019 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines? NA, project is exempt under CEQA 5/23/2019 Page 3 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) C.WORK PLAN, BUDGET, and SCHEDULE SUMMARY 1. 2. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Project Description: Provide a brief project description summarizing major components, objectives, goals, and intended outcomes/benefits (quantitative and qualitative). (d)(a)(b) Budget: Provide cost estimates for each Budget Category listed in the table below. (Required for Pre-Application Material Submittal; not required for Final Application Submittal) Note: Provide information or other documentation to support the cost estimate in a separate attachment. Identify the source of all cost share and other funds. If other funds are not used, describe efforts to obtain other funding and/or why other funding sources were not used. Category Table 1 - Project Budget Cost Share: Non‐ State Fund Source Requested Grant Amount Other Cost Share (including other State Sources) Total Cost Project Administration Land Purchase/ Easement Planning/Design /Engineering /Environmental Documentation Construction/ Implementation Grand Total (Sum rows (a) through (d) for each column) (c) 5/23/2019 Page 4 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3.Cost Share Waiver Requested (DAC or EDA)?Yes No If yes, continue below: 4. (a) (b) (c) (d) <Approximately 250 words> Schedule: Include reasonable estimates of the start and end dates for each Budget Category listed in Table 1 - Project Budget. (Required for Pre-Application Material Submittal; not required for Final Application Submittal) Table 2 - Project Schedule Cost Share Waiver Justification: Describe what percentage of the proposed project area encompasses a DAC/EDA, how the community meets the definition of a DAC/EDA, and the need of the DAC/EDA that the project addresses. In order to receive a cost share waiver, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will provide benefits (minimum 25% by population or geography) that address a need of a DAC and/or EDA. (b) End Date (a) Start DateCategory Construction/ Implementation Planning/Design/Engineering/Environmental Documentation Land Purchase/ Easement Direct Project Administration 5/23/2019 Page 5 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) D.OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION 1.Provide a narrative for project justification. If applicable, include references to supporting documentation such as models, studies, engineering reports, etc. Include any other information that supports the justification for this project, including how the project can achieve the claimed level of benefits. <Approximately 750 words> 5/23/2019 Page 6 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 2.Project Benefits Table: Type of Benefit Claimed:Benefit Units*: Type of Benefit Claimed:Benefit Units*: * Secondary <15 words maximum> Primary <15 words maximum> Table 3 - Project Benefits Benefit Anticipated Useful Life of Project (years): Primary (Required) Secondary (Optional) Physical Benefits (At project completion or lifetime, as appropriate) (b)(c)(a) Added Physical Benefit Description Quantitative Benefit DWR may require applicant to convert or modify Benefit Claimed and/or Benefit Units. Where applicable, select one of the following units that corresponds to the benefit claimed: • For water supply produced, saved, or recycled, enter acre-feet per year (AFY) • For water quality, enter constituent concentration reduced in mg/L • For flood damage reduction, enter inundated acres reduced in acres • For habitat improved, restored or protected, enter habitat restored in acres • For fishery benefits, enter increased fishery flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) • For species protection, enter number of species benefited Qualitative Benefits (For Decision Support Tools, please describe non-physical benefits.) Comments: [Include narrative on additional benefits, as warranted.] 5/23/2019 Page 7 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3. Yes No If yes, provide a description of the benefits to the various regions. 4. 5. Yes No If yes, complete parts b and c: Yes No b. Describe how the project helps address the contamination. c. Does the project provide safe drinking water to a small disadvantaged community? If yes, provide an explanation on how the project benefits a small disadvantaged community as defined in the 2019 IRWM Guidelines. Provide a narrative on cost considerations. For example, were other alternatives to achieve the same types and amounts of physical benefits as the proposed project evaluated? Provide a justification as to why the project was selected (e.g., if the proposed project is not the lowest cost alternative, why is it the preferred alternative? Are there any other advantages that the proposed project provides from a cost perspective?) a. Does the project address a contaminant listed in AB 1249? Does the proposed project provide benefits to multiple IRWM regions [or funding areas]? If the project is located in another funding area, please provide the information requested in the 2019 Guidelines, Section 1.A. 5/23/2019 Page 8 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 6. Yes No If yes, please describe. 7. Yes No If yes, please describe. 8. Does the project provide safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes (consistent with AB 685) to meet a specific need(s) of a community? Does the project employ new or innovative technologies or practices, including decision support tools that support the integration of multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, water supply, flood control, land use, and sanitation? If the project provides benefits (75% by population or geography) to a DAC, explain the need of the DAC and how the project will address the described need. Explain how the area/community meets the definition of a DAC. 5/23/2019 Page 9 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 9. 10. 11. Yes If yes, please describe. NA If NA, please describe why physical access to a property is not needed. No If no, please provide a clear and concise narrative with a schedule to obtain necessary access. Does the project sponsor have legal access rights, easements, or other access capabilities to the property to implement the project? If the project provides benefits (75% by population or geography) to an EDA, explain the need of the EDA and how the project will address the described need. Explain how the area/community meets the definition of an EDA. If the project provides benefits (75% by population or geography) to a Tribe or a Tribe is the sponsor of the project, explain the need of the Tribe and how the project will address the described need. 5/23/2019 Page 10 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) E.ENVIRONMENTAL 1.Please fill out the CEQA Timeline Table below, if applicable: a. If additional explanation or justification of the timeline is needed, please describe below (optional). 2.Permit Acquisition Plan: For each permit not yet acquired, describe the following: Table 4 - CEQA Timeline List all permits needed to complete the project. If the project does not provide benefits to a DAC, EDA, or Tribe (min 75%), all permits needed to begin construction must be acquired within 12 months of Final Award. CEQA STEP COMPLETE? (y/n)ESTIMATED DATE TO COMPLETE Initial Study Notice of Preparation Draft EIR/MND/ND Public Review Final EIR/MND/ND Adoption of Final EIR/MND/ND Notice of Determination Permitting Agency Date Acquired or AnticipatedType of PermitNo. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. n. 4. 5. n. 1. 2. 3. a. Actions taken to date (include dates of any key meetings, consultations, submittals, etc.)b. Any issues or obstacles that may delay acquisition of permitNo. 5/23/2019 Page 11 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3. a. Yes No If yes, please explain: b. Yes No If yes, please explain: c. Yes No If yes, please explain: d. Yes No If yes, please explain: Permitting Checklist: This checklist is provided as a courtesy for documentation purposes. Not all permits which may apply are listed. (Required for Pre-Application Material Submittal; not required for Final Application Submittal) Will the proposed project have the potential to affect historical, archaeological, or cultural resources? (i.e. National Historic Preservation Act and/or State Historic Preservation Officer Consultation) Does the project involve any activities that may affect federally or state listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? (i.e. Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation and Incidental Take Authorization and Section 10 Incidental Take Permit, California Endangered Species Act Permit, and/or ESA & CESA Consistency Determination) Would the proposed project work in, over, or under navigable waters of the US or discharge dredged or fill material in waters of the US? (i.e. Rivers & Harbors Act Section 10 Permit and/or Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit) Will the proposed project discharge into a water of the US? (i.e. Clean Water Act Section 401 and/or 404 Permit) 5/23/2019 Page 12 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) e. Yes No If yes, please explain: f. Yes No If yes, please explain: g. Yes No If yes, please explain: h. Yes No If yes, please explain: i. Yes No If yes, please explain: For water supply projects, do you need to obtain a water right? (Water Rights Permit) Will the proposed project divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement) Will the proposed project change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement) Will the proposed project use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement) Will the proposed project deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration 5/23/2019 Page 13 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) j. Yes No If yes, please explain: Is the proposed project within the defined coastal zone? (Coastal Development Permit) 5/23/2019 Page 14 of 14 2019 Projects updated August 2019 Project Title Subregion Sponsoring Agency RD1 System Fish Passage Improvements East Alameda County Water District Lower Walnut Creek Restoration East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District River Oaks Stormwater Capture Project South City of San Jose NBWRP Phase 2 North North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) Calistoga Water and Habitat Project North City of Calistoga and Napa County Resource Conservation District San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, Upstream of Highway 101 West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Bay Area Regional Water Conservation Multiple East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) San Francisco Zoo Recycled Water Pipeline Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission McCosker Creek Restoration East East Bay Regional Park District Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gates Improvements South-West Santa Clara Valley Water District OLSD Sewer Pipeline Replacement Project South Oro Loma Sanitary District Sutter Urban Flood Reduction East City of San Pablo Implementing BMPs on Rural Lands North Sonoma Resource Conservation District San Mateo Water Resources Program West San Mateo Resource Conservation District BART Hayward Maintenance Complex Rainwater Catchment, Bio-Retention Basin, and Solar Thermal project East BART Bayfront/Atherton Flood Protection Project South County of San Mateo Belmont Creek Watershed Restoration Project West County of San Mateo Hayward Recycled Water Project Phase-2 East City of Hayward Bayfront Recycled Water and SLR Protection West West Bay Sanitary District Graywater Direct Installation Program for Underserved Communities Multiple Ecology Action Athlone Terrace Pump Station Upgrade West County of San Mateo Department of Public Works Walnut/Angus pump stations upgrades West San Mateo County Flood Control District Aging Concrete-Lined Channels East Zone 7 Water Agency Bluff Erosion Protection Preservation Esplanade West City of Pacifica Beach Boulevard South Seawall Replacement West City of Pacifica Chain of Lakes Pipeline East Zone 7 Water Agency Retional Upstream Detention Improvements East Zone 7 Water Agency 2015 Projects updated May 26, 2015 Bay Area Regional Shoreline Resilience Program East State Coastal Conservancy Coastal San Mateo County Drought Relief Phase II West San Mateo Resource Conservation District 2020 Turf Replacement Project 2014 Projects updated May 28, 2014 Bay Area Regional Water Supply and Conservation Project Bay Area Regional Recycled Water Project North City of Calistoga Drought Response & Water Supply Reliability on the Central Coast Enhancing and Balancing- Beneficial Uses of Water Resources in the Pescadero-Butano Watershed Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission MMWD WaterSMART Irrigation with AMI/AMR North Marin Municipal Water District Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Treatment for Drought Water Quality Conflicts Zone 7 Water Supply Drought Preparedness Project East Zone 7 Water Agency 2013 Project List updated October 29, 2012 350 Home and Garden Challenge Bay Area East North South West Daily Acts ACPWA Low Impact Development Implementation and Demonstration Project: Parking Lot Stormwater Treatment Improvements East Alameda County Public Works Agency Agricultural Riparian Buffer and Habitat Enhancement East Alameda County RCD Airway Improvement Project (R5-2 ) East Zone 7 Water Agency Alameda County Adopt-A-Creek-Spot East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Foothill Blvd. Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Habitat Easements East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Healthy Watershed Program East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Norbridge/Strobridge Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Patterson Pass Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Riparian Invasive Mapping and Removal East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Tesla Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Vasco Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda Creek Flood Protection, Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Alamo Canal Flood Control Program (R9-7) East Zone 7 Water Agency Alamo Canal/South San Ramon Creek Erosion Control (R9-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project East East Bay Regional Park District Alhambra Valley Creek Coalition - Erosion Control and Riparian Restoration Project East Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. Alkali Sink Management (R1-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Almaden Dam Improvements South Santa Clara Valley Water District Altamont and Las Positas Creeks/Springtown Alkali Sink Restoration East Natural Resources Conservation Service, Alameda County Altamont Creek Improvement (R1-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit South Santa Clara Valley Water District Ardenwood Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 1 (R10-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 2 (R10-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 3 (R10-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 4 (R10-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 5 (R10-5) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo las Positas Diversion Project (R5-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo las Positas Habitat Enhancement and Recreation Project (R1-5) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo las Positas Multi-Purpose Project (R1- 6) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo Mocho Bypass and Regional Storage at Chain of Lakes (R6-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo Mocho Management Plan (R6-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo Seco Improvements (R2-2) East Zone 7 Ash Creek Stormwater Management and Wildlife Enhancement Project North Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Assessment of an urban watershed and implementation of urban stormwater retrofit projects East Friends of Sausal Creek Bay Area Green Infrastructure Initiative: Scientific support related to planning and implementation of water infrastructure upgrades toward green alternatives East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute Bay Area Regional Desalination Project (BARDP) - Alternative Analysis Report East South West EBMUD, CCWD, Zone 7, SCVWD, SFPUC Bay Area Regional Reliability Interties - EBMUD/CCWD East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC Bay Area Regional Water Conservation and Education Program East North South West Zone 7 Water Agency, San Francisco PUC and Contra Costa Water District Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) – East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Short-Term Water Transfer Pilot Project (Pilot Project) East South West Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Brackish Groundwater Field Investigation Project (Brackish Groundwater Project) East South West BAWSCA (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency) Bay Point Regional Shoreline Wetland Restoration East East Bay Regional Park District Bay-Friendly Landscape Standards for Green Infrastructure Projects: Maximizing Watershed Benefits East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition Bay-Friendly Outreach Campaign for Home Gardeners and Nurseries East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition Bay-Friendly Qualified Landscape Professionals Training East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project West City of Redwood City Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 2 East EBMUD Beach Watch Program North South West Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association Bel Marin Keys Phase of the Hamilton Wetlands Restoration North Coastal Conservancy Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District Bockman Canal Area Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Bolinas Avenue Stormwater Quality Improvements and Fernhill Creek Restoration North Town of Ross Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration Project North Marin County Open Space District Breuner Marsh Restoration, Richmond East East Bay Regional Park District Building Climate Change Resiliency Along the Bay with Green Infrastructure & Treated Wastewater East North South San Francisco Estuary Partnership Butano Creek Stream Course Restoration West California State Parks Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 East Contra Costa Water District Capacity Improvement at Arroyo las Positas (R1-7) East Zone 7 Water Agency Castro Valley Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCCSD Refinery Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CCCSD-Concord Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Central Dublin RW Distribution and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District Central/Eastshore Pump Station Improvement Project East City of Alameda Cesar Chavez Street Flood and Stormwater Managment Sewer Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Chabot Canal Improvement Project (R8-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Charcot Storm Pump Station South City San Jose Chelsea Wetlands Restoration Project East Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and City of Hercules City of Berkeley Watershed Management Plan East City of Berkeley City of Hayward Recycled Water Project East City of Hayward City of San Jose Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan South City of San Jose City Watersheds of Sonoma Valley North Sonoma County Water Agency Cleaning up trash in the Bay Area's stormwater East North South West Association of Bay Area Governments/SF Estuary Partnership Collaborative Aquatic Resource Protection in the Watershed Context: Science and Technology to Visualize Alternative Landscape Futures North San Francisco Estuary Institute Conserving Our Watersheds North Marin Resource Conservation District Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network East Contra Costa County Contra Costa County LID School Program East The Watershed Project Contra Costa County Low Impact Development Rebate Program East The Watershed Project Corte Madera Bayfront Flood Protection and Wetlands Restoration Project North Marin Audubon Society/Marin Bayland Advocates Corte Madera Creek Headwaters Restoration Plan North Marin County Parks Corte Madera Creek Tidal Marsh Restoration North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed; Marin County Water Conservation and Flood Control District; Marin County Parks Dept. Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Broadmoor Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Fairfax Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Lefty Gomez Field Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Loma Alta Tributary Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Memorial Park Detention Basin, San Anselmo North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Merwin Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Nokomis- Madrone Neighborhood Flood Protection North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - San Anselmo Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Sleepy Hollow Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed Infiltration and Storage Assessment North Ross Valley Watershed Program, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed Corte Madera Creek Watershed Sediment Control and Drinking Water Reliability Project North Marin Municipal Water District Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Barriers to Fish Passage in Sleepy Hollow Creek North Town of San Anselmo, Marin County Department of Public Works Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Saunders Fish Barrier Removal North Town of San Anselmo, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Ross Valley Sanitary District Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Sedimentation Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Smolt Trapping North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed Creek Signage East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Cull Canyon Dam and Reservoir Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District DA 48B Storm Drain Line A at Port Chicago Highway, Bay Point (#201) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District DA 48C Storm Drain Line at Marina Road, Bay Point (#_) East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Daly City Expansion Recycled Water Project West SFPUC, City of Daly City DDSD Advanced Wastewater Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DDSD Advanced Water Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Decoto District Green Streets Phase 3 East City of Union City DERWA Pump Station 1 - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District DERWA Recycled Water Plant - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District Developing a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Proposal (CREP) to improve water quality and protect rangeland habitats in the Bay Area East North South West Defenders of Wildlife Diablo Country Club Satellite Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Alameda East EBMUD East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Oakland-Alameda Estuary Crossing East EBMUD East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Palo Alto Groundwater Supply Conjunctive Use Project South West City of East Palo Alto East Palo Alto Storm Water Conveyance, Tidal Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreational Enhancement Project West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority EBMUD - Pretreatment Facilities East EBMUD EBMUD/ZONE 7 Regional Reliability Intertie East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 3 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Exterior Painting of Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District Fish Barrier Removal at Railroad Overcrossing (R3-5b) East Zone 7 Water Agency Fish Passage Improvements at Memorial County Park, San Mateo County West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Goat Island Marsh Tidal Marsh Restoration & Interpretive Nature Trail North Solano Land Trust Grant Avenue Green Street Water Quality/Flood Protection Demonstration Site East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Grayson and Murderer's Creek Subregional Improvements, Pleasant Hill (#106) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Grayson Creek Levee Raising and Rehabilitation, Pacheco (#_) East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Grayson Creek Levee Rehabilitation at CCCSD Treatment Plant, Pacheco (#107) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Grayson Creek Sediment Removal, Pacheco (unincorp.)(#109) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Grimmer Greenbelt Gateway (Line G Channel Enhancement) East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hayward Marsh Restoration and Enhancement Project East East Bay Regional Park District Headquarters Facility - Landscaping East Alameda County Water District Hillman Area Improvements Project West City of Belmont Holmes Street Sedimentation Basin and Granada/Murrieta Protection and Enhancement Project (R3-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Implementation of High Priority Projects Identified in the Pilarcitos Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) Implementation of Pond Management Plan West Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Implementation of the Napa River Watershed Assessment Framework North Napa County Resource Conservation District Implementing "Slow It, Spread It, Sink It!" in Sonoma and Napa Counties North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District Implementing LandSmart Plans to Improve Water Quality North Napa County Resource Conservation District Implementing TMDLs in the Napa River, Sonoma and Suisun Creek watersheds with the Fish Friendly Farming/Fish Friendly Ranching programs North California Land Stewardship Institute Improving Quantitative Precipitation Information for the San Francisco Bay Area East North South West Zone 7 Water Agencies for Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) Installation of a New Seismic Valve at Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District Laguna Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Lagunitas Booster Station North Marin Municipal Water District Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project North Marin Municipal Water District Lagunitas Creek Winter Habitat Enhancement Implementation North Marin Municipal Water District Lake Chabot Raw Water Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) LID and Stormwater Management - Lagunitas Watershed North The Watershed Project Line G-1-1 Maintenance Plan (R9-6 ) East Zone 7 Water Agency Line T Crossing Retrofit (R9-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Lower Arroyo del Valle Restoration and Enhancement Project (R7-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Lower Arroyo Mocho Improvement Project (R8-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez (#110) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Lynch Canyon Watershed Improvements North Solano Land Trust Mapping Marin County's Flood Control Levees North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Marin County Flood Control Asset Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Marin County Sea Level Rise Land Use Adaptation North Marin County CDA Martinez Adult School Flood Protection & Creek Enhancement East Martinez Unified School District Martinez Water Quality and Supply Reliability Improvement Project East City of Martinez / Contra Costa Water District McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration Project North Marin County Parks Memorial Park Waste Water Treatment West San Mateo County Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Miller Avenue Green Street Plan North City of Mill Valley Milliken Creek Flood Reduction, Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration North Napa County Milliken Diversion Dam Flow Control North City of Napa Water Division Mission Boulevard to Meek Estate Creekside Trail and Habitat Improvements East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mission Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Montalvin Manor Stormwater Harvest and Use, Bioretention, and Flood Risk Reduction Project East Contra Costa County Montezuma Creek Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Project North Marin County Parks Department Mountain View/ Sunnyvale Recycled Water Intertie Alignment Study South City of Mountain View Napa County Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Wells North Napa County Napa River Arundo Removal Lodi Lane to Zinfandel Lane North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Napa River Restoration, Bioassessment & Education Project North Napa County Resource Conservation District Napa River Restoration: Oakville to Oak Knoll Reach North Napa County Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project North Napa County New Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Station West Westborough Water District New Tank Mixer for Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Construction Project East Alameda County Water District NMWD Gallagher Well and Pipeline Project North North Marin Water District North Bay Water Reuse Program North North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) North Marin Water District Marin Country Club Recycled Water Expansion North North Marin Water District North Richmond Pump Station - Retrofit and Replumb East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Pacheco Marsh Restoration, Martinez (#111) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District / Muir Heritage Land Trust / East Bay Regional Park District Palo Alto Golf Course Redesign Wetlands Enhancement and Restoration Project South City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Recycled Water Project South West City of Palo Alto Parks Floodplain Dedication and Levee Construction (R3-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Peacock Gap Recycled Water Extension Project North Marin Municipal Water District Permanente Creek Flood Protection South Santa Clara Valley Water District Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project West County of San Mateo Department of Public Works and Parks Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV North City of Petaluma, Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Pilarcitos Creek Equestrian Bridge West California State Parks Pine Creek Dam Seismic Assessment, Walnut Creek (#122) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Pine Creek Reservoir Sediment Removal and Capacity Restoration, Walnut Creek (#124) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Pinole Creek Fish Passage Improvements project at I-80 Culverts East Contra Costa RCD Pinole Creek Habitat Restoration (1135 Project), Pinole (#12) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Portola Redwood State Park Wastewater System West (unknown) Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit for County and Federal Facilities East Dublin San Ramon Services District Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Redwood City Recycled Water Project Phase 2 – Central Redwood City West City of Redwood City Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 North Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Refugio Creek and North Channel Restoration East City of Hercules Regional Green Infrastructure Capacity Building Program East North South West SFEP Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project West SFPUC, Cities of Daly City and San Bruno and California Water Service Company Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy East North South West Bay Area Joint Policy Committee Reliez Valley Recycled Water Project East EBMUD Removing Fish Passage Barriers in the Napa River Watershed North Napa County Resource Conservation District Resilient Landscapes Climate Adaptation Strategy: Tools for Designing Sustainable Bay Area Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute - Aquatic Science Center Rheem Creek Conservation Project (Shortcut Pipeline Improvement Project) East Contra Costa Water District Richardson Bay Erosional Shoreline Adaptation to Sea Level Rise: Draft Conceptual Designs and Opportunity/Constraints Assessment North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project - Future Expansion East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Rindler Creek: Habitat Restoration and Erosion Control North Solano Resource Conservation District Robertson Park Enhancement Project and Levee Construction (R3-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Rodeo Creek Sediment Removal, Rodeo (#14) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Rodeo Creek Stabilization near Christie Road, Rodeo (#16) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Rodeo Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main upgrades South Roseview Heights Mutual Water Company Rossmoor Well Replacement Project East City of Pittsburg Rubber Dam No. 1 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District Rubber Dam No. 3 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District Rush Ranch HQ Storm Water Management, Public Access & Rangeland Improvements North Solano Land Trust Salvador Creek Intregrated Flood and Watershed Improvements North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Catanio Creek culvert repair and enhancement East City of San Ramon San Francisco Bay Livestock and Land Program East North South West Ecology Action San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh-Upland Transition Zone Decision Support System (DSS) East North South West San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory San Francisco Eastside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility West City and County of San Francisco, Airport Commission San Francisco Westside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation Project, Highway 101 to El Camino Real South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority San Francisquito Watershed Plan South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority San Geronimo Landowner Assistance Program- Habitat Restoration Projects North Marin County Department of Public Works/SG Planning Group San Gregorio Creek Tributary Water Quality and Flow Monitoring West San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center San José Green Alleys Demonstration Project South City of San Jose San José Green Streets Demonstration Project South City of San Jose San Leandro Creek Environmental Education Center, Alameda County East Alameda Count Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Leandro Creek Hazard Tree Management and Riparian Habitat Restoration East ACFCWCD San Leandro Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Tidal Wetlands Restoration East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Major Fish Passage Barrier Removal (MB-10) Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Stewardship Program East Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Pablo Bay South Watershed Awareness and Action Plan East The Watershed Project San Pablo Bay South Watershed Community Stewardship Program East The Watershed Project San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 2A (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 3 - 4 (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 5-6 (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority Santa Clara Valley Water District Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility Expansion Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant Project East EBMUD Sausal Creek Restoration Project East City of Oakland SCADA System Major Upgrades East Alameda County Water District School District Green Infrastructure Capacity Building/Pilot Projects East West San Francisco Estuary Partnership Sears Point Restoration Project North Sonoma Land Trust SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAVEL CREEK WATERSHED North Vedanta Society of San Francisco SFPUC Eastside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West SFPUC SFPUC Westside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Shinn Pond Fish Screen East Alameda County Water District Sinbad Creek Project (R11-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Solano Project Terminal Reservoir Seismic Mitigation North Solano County Water Agency Sonoma Valley Groundwater Banking Program North Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma Valley Integrated Water Management Program North Sonoma County Water Agency Soulajule Mercury Remediation North Marin Municipal Water District South Bay Aqueduct Turnout Construction and Low-Flow Crossings (R3-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project & South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study: Early Implementation Activities South California State Coastal Conservancy South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Model Enhancements East EBMUD South East Bay Plain Basin Subsidence Monitoring Network East EBMUD South San Francisco Recycled Water Facility West South San Francisco/SFPUC Southwestern Solano County Open Space Acquisition and Watershed Assessment North Solano Land Trust Spring Branch Creek Tidal Marsh & Seasonal Creek Restoration North Solano Land Trust Springtown Golf Course Improvements (R1-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Springtown Improvements (R1-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Stanley Enhancement and Restoration Project (R3-5a) East Zone 7 Water Agency Stinson Beach flood protection and habitat enhancement project North Marin County Department of Public Works Stivers Lagoon Marsh Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Streambank and Habitat Restoration Projects East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Study of Mercury methylation in South San Francisco Bay in Relation to Nutrient Sources South San Francisco Estuary Institute Suisun City Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project North City of Suisun City Suisun Valley Flood Management North Solano County Water Agency Sulphur Creek/Hayward Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Sycamore Grove Recharge Bypass Project (R4- 1 ) East Zone 7 Water Agency Tassajara Creek Improvement Project (R8-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency The Bay Area Creek Mouth Assessment Tool East North South West San Francisco Estuary Partnership The Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW) Project East North West PRBO Conservation Science Tice Creek Bypass (Drainage Area 67), Walnut Creek, CA (#117) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Tomales Bay Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Improvement Program North Tomales Bay Watershed Council Foundation Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Project East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Tule Ponds Education Center Rehabilitation East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Upland Transition Zone Mapping for Southern San Pablo Bay (West): North Gallinas Watershed Council/Marin County DPW/marin County Parks and Openspace Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery Project East SFPUC Upper Arroyo de la Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project (R8-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Upper Napa River Water Quality Improvement and Habitat Enhancement Project North California Land Stewardship Institute Upper York Creek Dam Removal -- St. Helena, Napa River Watershed North City of St. Helena/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Velocity Control Project (R2-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Veterans' Court Seawall Reconstruction East City of Alameda Vista Grande Drainage Basin Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Walnut Creek Levee Rehabilitation at Buchanan Field Airport, Concord (#119) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Walnut Creek Sediment Removal - Clayton Valley Drain to Drop Structure 1 , Concord (#118) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Conservation and Mobile Water Lab Program North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District Water Dog Lake Sediment Removal West City of Belmont Water Supply and Instream Habitat Improvements in Suisun Creek North Ca. Land Stewardship Institute Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project East City of Pittsburg Watershed Information Center & Conservancy of Napa County North County of Napa Westborough Main Pump Station Generator West Westborough Water District Western Dublin Recycled Water Distribution Expansion and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District White Slough Flood Control and Improvement Project North Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Restoration and Management Plan East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Wildcat Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration (1135)(#7) East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Wildcat Creek Watershed Erosion and Sediment Control Project East East Bay Regional Park District Wildcat Sediment Basin Desilt, North Richmond (#5) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Wildcat/San Pablo Creeks Phase II Channel Improvements, San Pablo (#9) East City of San Pablo Zone 1 Recycled Water- Pleasant Hill Build Out East Contra Costa Sanitary District Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission All San Francisco Bay Plan Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay Amended periodically http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/laws_pl ans/plans/sfbay_plan.shtml San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission All Living With a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. 2011 Multiple activities within the Baylands San Francisco Bay No http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/Livi ngWithRisingBay.pdf San Francisco Bay Joint Venture All Restoring the Estuary: A Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Wetlands and Wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay http://www.sfbayjv.org/strategy. php#implementation_strategy San Francisco Estuary Project All Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 2007 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay Yes http://www.sfestuary.org/pages/i ndex.php?ID=7 San Franscisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board All Watershed Management Intiative Integrated Plan 2004 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Bay Area Region No San Franscisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board All San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). 2011 Water Quality Bay Area Region Yes (periodically) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/r wqcb2/basin_planning.shtml SFBA Wetland Ecosystem Goals Project All Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals 1999 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay No State Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and Restoration Center, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and San Francisco Estuary Partnership All San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report, Conservation Planning for the Submerged Areas of the Bay 2010 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay No USFWS All Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California 2009 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ es/Recovery-Planning/Tidal- Marsh/es_recovery_tidal-marsh- recovery.htm Bay Area Open Space Council All The Conservation Lands Network, San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project Report 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Bay Area Region http://www.bayarealands.org/ Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association All Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection 1999 Stormwater Management Bay Area Region No California Coastal Commission All California's Critical Coastal Areas, San Francisco Bay Region 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Bay Area Region Yes (periodically) Bay Area Regional Reliability All Drought Contingency Plan 2018 Multiple activities within the Baylands Bay Area Region http://www.bayareareliability.co m/top-menu/documents/ Alameda County E Clean Water Program, Stormwater Management Plan no date Stormwater management Alameda County Yes ( every 5 years) www.acgov.org/sustain/what/wa ter/cwpc.htm 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-1 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Alameda County Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency E South Bay Aqueduct Watershed Protection Program Plan 2008 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Alameda County Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Zone 7 service areas Yes (as needed) http://www.acwd.org/?nid=161 Alameda County Water District E 2015-2020 Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Alameda County Water District service area. Yes (every 5 years) https://www.acwd.org/Document Center/View/1264/ACWDs-2015- --2020-UWMP?bidId= City of Berkeley E Watershed Management Plan 2011 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management, Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration City of Berkeley http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/upl oadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _City_Council/2011/10Oct/Wate rshed%20Management%20Plan .pdf City of Hayward E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Hayward Yes (every 5 years) https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/docum ents/City%20of%20Hayward%2 0Final%202015%20UWMP.pdf City of Livermore E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Livermore Yes (every 5 years) City of Pittsburg E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Pittsburg Yes (every 5 years) http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/Mo dules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc umentid=8283 City of Pleasanton E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Pleasanton Yes (every 5 years) http://admin.cityofpleasantonca. gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.a spx?BlobID=33966 Contra Costa County E Stormwater Management Plan, 1999 2004 Stormwater management Contra Costa County http://www.cccleanwater.org/_p dfs/CCCWPSWMP99-04.pdf Contra Costa Clean Water Program E Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan 2019 Stormwater management Contra Costa County https://www.cccleanwater.org/re sources/stormwater-resource- plan Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District E The 50 Year Plan 2009 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District service area http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/DocumentView.asp x?DID=6853 Contra Costa Water District E Historical Freshwater and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay 2010 Salt and Salinity Management Contra Costa Water District service area http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterri ghts/water_issues/programs/ba y_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhibits/s wrcb/swrcb_ccwd2010.pdf Contra Costa Water District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Contra Costa Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ccwater.com/Docu mentCenter/View/2216/2015- Urban-Water-Management-Plan- PDF 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-2 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Contra Costa Water District E Water Management Plan 2017 Urban Water Management Contra Costa Water District service area https://www.ccwater.com/Docu mentCenter/View/3881/2017- Water-Management-Plan-Draft- PDF Contra Costa Water District E Treated Water Master Plan 2015 Urban Water Management Contra Costa Water District service area https://www.ccwater.com/Docu mentCenter/View/545/2015- Treated-Water-Master-Plan- Update-PDF Delta Diablo Sanitation District E Sewer System Management Plan 2008 Wastewater and Recycled Water Delta Diablo Sanitation District service area not accessible online Diablo Water District E Groundwater Management Plan for AB 3030 2007 Groundwater Management Diablo Water District service area. http://www.diablowater.org/docu ments/pdfs/DiabloWDGWMP5- 23-07.pdf Diablo Water District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Diablo Water District service area.Yes (every 5 years) http://diablowater.org/doc/194/ Dublin San Ramon Services District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Dublin San Ramon Services District service area Yes (every 5 years)https://www.dsrsd.com/home/sh owdocument?id=2890 Dublin San Ramon Services District E Water Master Plan Update 2016 Water Supply Dublin San Ramon Services District service area https://www.dsrsd.com/home/sh owdocument?id=2816 East Bay Municipal Utility District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management East Bay Municipal Utility District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ebmud.com/water/a bout-your-water/water- supply/urban-water- management-plan/ East Bay Municipal Utility District E Main Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Use Master Plan EIR 2011 Wastewater and Recycled Water East Bay Municipal Utility District service area No East Bay Municipal Utility District E Water Supply Management Program 2040 2012 Water Supply East Bay Municipal Utility District service area http://www.ebmud.com/sites/def ault/files/pdfs/wsmp-2040- revised-final-plan.pdf Zone 7 E Stream Management Master Plan 2006 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Zone 7 service area Yes (update underway) http://www.zone7water.com/final- smmp Zone 7 E Groundwater Management Plan for Livermore Amador Valley Groundwater Basin 2005 Groundwater Management Zone 7 service area Yes (as needed) http://www.zone7water.com/ima ges/pdf_docs/water_supply/gmp- covertablecontents.pdf Zone 7 E Salt/Nutrient Management Plan 2004 Salt and Salinity Zone 7 service area Yes (update underway) http://www.zone7water.com/publ ications-reports/water- reportsplanning-documents/158- salt-management-plan-2004 Zone 7 E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Zone 7 service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.zone7water.com/im ages/pdf_docs/water_supply/ur ban_water_mgmt_plan_2015.pd f 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-3 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Zone 7 E Water Supply Evaluation 2019 Water Supply/Urban Water Management Zone 7 service area Yes (as needed) https://www.dropbox.com/s/fzhd f6olhcvnmyc/2019%20WSE%2 0Update.pdf?dl=0 Zone 7 E Sustainable Water Supply Annual Review 2011 Water Supply/Urban Water Management Zone 7 service area Yes (annually) http://www.zone7water.com/sust ainable-water-supply-annual- review-invisible-menu- 553?task=view Zone 7 E Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2010 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Zone 7 service area Yes, database updated as needed http://ww.eastalco- conservation.org/ Zone 7 E Lake Del Valle Reservoir Water Supply Storage Expansion Concept 2018 Water Supply Zone 7 service area https://www.zone7water.com/im ages/pdf_docs/water_supply/lak e_del_valle_firo_report_1-31- 18.pdf Tri Valley Agencies E Joint Tri-Valley Potable Reuse Technical Feasibility Study 2018 Water Supply Tri Valley area (Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton) https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxcy ajryga5j61s/potable_reuse_feas ibility_study_May-2018.pdf?dl=0 Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program E, S, W Regional Recycled Water Master Plan 1999 Wastewater and Recycled Water Bay Area Region Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency E, S, W Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Long Term Water Supply Strategy Phase IIA Final Report 2012 Water Supply Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency service area http://bawsca.org/docs/BAWSC A%20PH%20II%20A%20Final% 20Report_2012_07_03%20Revi sed%20073012.pdf South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project E, S, W South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Final EIR/EIR 2007 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Eden Landing, Alviso and Ravenswood salt pond complexes, south San Francisco Bay No http://www.southbayrestoration. org/EIR/ City of Benicia N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Benicia Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/vert ical/sites/%7BF991A639-AAED- 4E1A-9735- 86EA195E2C8D%7D/uploads/B enicia_2015_UWMP_Final_7.2 0.16.pdf City of Fairfield N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Fairfield Yes (every 5 years) https://fairfield.ca.gov/civicax/fil ebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=1 3707 City of Napa N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Napa Yes (every 5 years) https://www.cityofnapa.org/Docu mentCenter/View/1376/Urban- Water-Management-Program- 2015-Update-PDF?bidId= City of Petaluma N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Petaluma Yes (every 5 years) https://cityofpetaluma.net/wrcd/ pdf/temp/2015UWMPFinal.pdf City of Sonoma N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Sonoma Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sonomacity.org/doc uments/2015-urban-water- management-plan/ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-4 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link City of Vallejo N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Vallejo Yes (every 5 years) http://www.cityofvallejo.net/com mon/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?ite mId=5570055 Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District N Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Urban Water Management Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District service area Yes (every 5 years) ESA library Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District N Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Action Plan 2010 Water Quality Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District service area http://www.mcstoppp.org/acroba t/AP2010_20050520%20.pdf Marin County Parks N Marin County Parks Road Assessment Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin County Marin County Parks N Marin County Parks Road and Trail Management Plan Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin County http://www.marincounty.org/Dep ts/PK/Our-Work/OS-Main- Projects/RTMP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program N Action Plan Fiscal Years 2005-2006 through 2009-2010 2012 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Marin County Yes (annually) http://www.mcstoppp.org/acroba t/AP2010_20050520%20.pdf Marin Municipal Water District N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Water Supply Marin Municipal Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) http://www.marinwater.org/Docu mentCenter/View/4016/MMWD- 2015-UWMP-Final- Report?bidId= Marin Municipal Water District N Vegetation Management Plan 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area Marin Municipal Water District N Mt. Tamalpais Watershed Road and Trail Management Plan and EIR Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area Marin Municipal Water District N Lagunitas Creek Stewardship Plan 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area http://www.marinwater.org/docu ments/Lagunitas_Creek_Stewar dship_Plan_MMWD_Final_June _2011.pdf Marin Municipal Water District N Lagunitas Creek Unpaved Roads Sediment Source Site Assessment 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area http://marinwater.org/Document Center/View/182/Lagunitas- Creek-Review-and-Evaluation- June-2011?bidId= Marin Municipal Water District N Water Resources Plan 2040 2016 Urban Water Management Marin Municipal Water District service area www.marinwater.org/Document Center/View/5095 Napa County Resource Conservation District N Napa River Watershed Owners Manual: An Integrated Resource Management Plan no date Water Supply Napa County Resource Conservation District service area No http://www.napawatersheds.org/ docManager/ Napa County Resource Conservation District N 2005-06 Strategic Plan 2005 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Napa County Resource Conservation District service area http://www.napawatersheds.org/ files/managed/Document/3900/ FinalWICCStratPlan05-06.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-5 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Napa County Resource Conservation District N Carneros Creek Watershed Management Plan 2005 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Napa County Resource Conservation District service area http://www.napawatersheds.org/ docs.php?ogid=10423 Napa Sanitation District N Wastewater Treatment Plan Master Plan 2011 Wastewater and Recycled Water Napa Sanitation District service area No http://www.napasanitationdistrict .com/treatment/wtpmp.html North Bay Water Reuse Authority N North Bay Water Reuse Program 2010 Wastewater and Recycled Water North Bay Water Reuse Authority service area No http://www.nbwra.org/docs/index .html North Bay Watershed Association N North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan 2003 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration North Bay Watershed Association membership area No http://www.nbwatershed.org/SW P/ph1/Ph1_ExecSummary.pdf North Marin Water District N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management North Marin Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.nmwd.com/pdf/FIN AL%20North%20Marin%20UW MP%20Master%202015.pdf Novato Sanitary District N Sewer System Management Plan 2010 Wastewater and Recycled Water Novato Sanitary District service area No http://www.novatosan.com/asse ts/files/documents/Final_SSMP _2010_revJune2011.pdf Solano County Water Agency N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Solano County Water Agency Yes (every 5 years)http://www.scwa2.com/home/sh owdocument?id=2798 Sonoma County Water Agency N Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan 2007 Groundwater Management Sonoma County Water Agency service area No http://sonomavalleygroundwater .org/wp- content/uploads/Sonoma-Valley- Groundwater-Management-Plan- 2007.pdf Sonoma County Water Agency N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Sonoma County Water Agency service area Yes (every 5 years) https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.c om/media/185/media/164720.P DF Sonoma County Water Agency N Sewer System Management Plans (All Service Areas)2006 Wastewater and Recycled Water Sonoma County Water Agency service area No http://www.scwa.ca.gov/sewer- system-management-plans/ Sonoma County Water Agency N Water Supply Strategies Action Plan 2013 Water Supply, Groundwater Management Sonoma County Water Agency service area https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.c om/185/media/164687.pdf Sonoma County Water Agency N Sonoma County Stream Maintenance Program Manual and EIR 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Sonoma County Water Agency service area http: www.scwa.ca.gov/lower.php?ur s=environmenal-impact reportss#smp Suisun Solano Water Authority N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Suisun Solano Water Authority service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sidwater.org/Docum entCenter/View/1151/SSWA_20 15-UWMP-FINAL_8-15- 16?bidId= The Marin County Community Development Agency, Planning Division N Watershed Management Plan 2004 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin County No http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts /CD/main/comdev/Watershed/ WMP_Pt1.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-6 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Tomales Watershed Council N Tomales Bay Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan 2007 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Tomales Bay watershed http://www.tomalesbaywatershe d.org/informationreports.html Valley of the Moon Water District N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Valley of the Moon Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f 7204b_0b944a237b264fb29463 0cc4b82619ba.pdf Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District N Sewer System Management Plan no date Wastewater and Recycled Water Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District service area not accessible online City of Milpitas S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Milpitas Yes (every 5 years) http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/Adopt ed-2015-Milpitas-UWMP- Revised-6-27-16.pdf City of Morgan Hill S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Morgan Hill Yes (every 5 years) https://www.morgan- hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/Vie w/22998/MorganHill_2015UWM P_FinalWithErrata_051018 City of Mountain View S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Mountain View Yes (every 5 years) https://www.mountainview.gov/c ivicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx? BlobID=19444 City of San Jose S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of San Jose Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Doc umentCenter/View/57483 City of San Jose S San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan 2011 Wastewater and Recycled Water, Flood Protection, Habitat Restoration San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant lands No http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/g o/site/1823/ City of Santa Clara S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Santa Clara Yes (every 5 years) http://santaclaraca.gov/home/sh owdocument?id=48088 Santa Clara Basin WatershedManagement Initiative S Watershed Action Plan 2003 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Santa Clara Basin Watershed http://cf.valleywater.org/_wmi/P articipates_login/Participates/W AP/draft/Actiondraft0803.cfm Santa Clara Valley Urban Run-off Program S Santa Clara Valley Urban Run-off Pollution Prevention Program 2004 Stormwater and Groundwater Management Santa Clara Valley Water District service area http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/urmp_2004/2004_UR MP_Final.pdf Santa Clara Valley Water District S One Water Plan Flood Protection and Stormwater Management; Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration; Water Supply Santa Clara County https://onewaterplan.wordpress. com/ Santa Clara Valley Water District S Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2012 Groundwater Management Santa Clara Valley Water District service area http://www.valleywater.org/Servi ces/Groundwater.aspx 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-7 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Santa Clara Valley Water District S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Santa Clara County Yes (every 5 years) https://www.valleywater.org/site s/default/files/SCVWD%202015 %20UWMP-Report%20Only.pdf Santa Clara Valley Water District S Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan 2012 Water Supply Santa Clara County Yes (every 5 years) http://www.valleywater.org/Servi ces/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx Santa Clara Valley Water District S Water Supply Master Plan In Proce ss Water Supply Santa Clara Valley Water District service area https://www.valleywater.org/site s/default/files/Draft%20WSMP %202040%20Complete_v2.pdf South Bay Water Recycling and Santa Clara Valley Water District S South Bay Water Recycling Strategic and Master Plan 2014 Wastewater and Recycled Water Santa Clara County https://www.valleywater.org/site s/default/files/335%20P3%20Re lated%20Reports%20SBWR%2 0Stratigic%20and%20Master% 20Plan%20- %20Report%20%28Vol.1%29% 20%281%29.pdf City of Palo Alto S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Palo Alto Yes (every 5 years) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ci vicax/filebank/documents/51985 Great Oaks Water Company S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Southern San Jose Yes (every 5 years) https://www.greatoakswater.co m/OtherPDFs/2015UrbanWater ManagementPlan.pdf City of Sunnyvale S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Sunnyvale Yes (every 5 years) https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com /LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=276 1621&GUID=A221A3CC-14F2- 49A9-B9DE- 54ECC6359DC9&Options=&Se arch= California Water Service Company S Urban Water Management Plan 2011 Urban Water Management The majority of the incorporated city of Los Altos, fringe sections of the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and adjacent unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Yes (every 5 years) https://www.calwater.com/docs/ uwmp2015/las/2015_Urban_Wa ter_Management_Plan_Final_(L AS).pdf San Jose Water Company S Urban Water Management Plan 2011 Urban Water Management Most of San Jose, most of Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated Santa Clara County Yes (every 5 years) http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanw atermanagement/2010uwmps/S an%20Jose%20Water%20Com pany/SJWC'S%202010%20UW MP%20with%20Appendicies.pd f 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-8 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Santa Clara Valley Water District S Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 2014 Stormwater and Groundwater Management; Wastewater and Recycled Water Northern Santa Clara County Santa Clara Valley Water District S Infrastructure Reliability Plan 2005 Water Supply Santa Clara County Yes (in process) Santa Clara Valley Water District S Three Creeks Habitat Conservation Plan 2015 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Coyote Creek, Guadalupe River, and Stevens Creek Watersheds in Santa Clara County No City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District S Valley Habitat Plan 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Most of Santa Clara County http://scv- habitatplan.org/www/site/alias__ default/1/home.aspx City of Mountain View S Recycled Water Master Plan In Proce ss Wastewater and Recycled Water City of Mountain View San Jose Water Company S Recycled Water Master Plan 2008 Wastewater and Recycled Water City of Sunnyvale S Recycled Water Master Plan Wastewater and Recycled Water City of Sunnyvale City of Burlingame W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Burlingame Yes (every 5 years) https://www.burlingame.org/doc ument_center/Water/2015%20U rban%20Water%20Managemen t%20Plan.pdf City of Daly City W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Daly City Yes (every 5 years) http://www.dalycity.org/Assets/D epartments/Water+and+Waste water/pdf/City+of+Daly+City+20 15+UWMP_Public+Review+Dra ft_Full+Report.pdf City of East Palo Alto W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of East Palo Alto Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ci.east-palo- alto.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Vie w/2714 City of Menlo Park W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Menlo Park Yes (every 5 years) https://www.menlopark.org/Doc umentCenter/View/10111/2015- Urban-Water-Managment- Plan?bidId= City of Millbrae W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Millbrae Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/ho me/showdocument?id=7918 City of Redwood City W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Redwood City Yes (every 5 years) http://www.redwoodcity.org/hom e/showdocument?id=8091 City of San Bruno W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of San Bruno Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civ icax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?bl obid=27012 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-9 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Estero Municipal Improvement District W Urban Water Management Plan 2011 Urban Water Management Estero Municipal Improvement District service area Yes (every 5 years) http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanw atermanagement/2010uwmps/E stero%20Municipal- Foster%20City/ Mid-Peninsula Water District W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Mid-Peninsula Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://storage.googleapis.com/ midpeninsulawater- org/uploads/MPWD_2015%20U WMP_Final.pdf National Heritage Institute W San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Gregorio Creek Watershed No North Coast County Water District W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management North Coast County Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.nccwd.com/images/ PDFs/North_Coast_County_Wa ter_District_2015_UWMP_June _15_2016.pdf San Francisco Public Utilities Commission W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City and County of San Francisco Yes (every 5 years) https://sfwater.org/modules/sho wdocument.aspx?documentid= 9300 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission W Sewer System Improvement Program Report 2010 Wastewater, watershed management City and County of San Francisco http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?pa ge=117 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission W Sources and Supply Planning 2012 Water Supply City and County of San Francisco www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?pa ge=75 San Mateo County W Sewer System Management Plan 2009 Wastewater and Recycled Water San Mateo County http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/p ublicworks/Divisions/Flood%20 Control,%20Lighting,%20Sewer %20and%20Water/Sewer%20S ervices/San%20Mateo%20Co% 20SSMP_1.pdf San Mateo County Resource Conservation District W Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plan 2008 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Mateo County No www.sanmateorcd.org/Pilarcitos IntWtrshdMgmPlan_TxtFigs.pdf Town of Hillsborough W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Town of Hillsborough Yes (every 5 years) https://www.hillsborough.net/Do cumentCenter/View/2988/Final- 2015-UWMP-with- Attachments?bidId= California Department of Fish and Game Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration California National Marine Fisheries Service Recovery Plan for Central California Coastal Coho Salmon Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration California 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-10 Appendix E-1 BAIRWMP Master Stakeholder List and Sample Messages Sent to List (note: email addresses have been removed from stakeholder list. For entries that only have an organization, only the email address is known.) First Name Last Name Organization Jeff Aalfs Town of Portola Valley Margaret Abe-Koga City of Mountain View Janet Abelson City of El Cerrito Myrna Abramowicz Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Kristi Abrams City of Gilroy Michael Abramson Napa Sanitation District Ruben Abrica City of East Palo Alto Derek Acomb California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Teresa Acuna Califiornia Special Districts Association Marissa Adams Jones & Stokes Susan Adams County of Marin Susan Adams County of Marin Mark Addiego City of South San Francisco Gary S.Agopian City of Antioch Alicia C.Aguirre City of Redwood City Amy O.Ahanotu City of Rohnert Park Chris Albertson Pat Alexander Napa Valley Museum Pete Alexander East Bay Regional Park District Susan Alfelp Napa County Park and Open Space District Allan Alifano City of Half Moon Bay Emily Allen The Bay Institute Emily Allen PRBO/STRAW James Allen City of Palo Alto Katy Allen City of San Jose Steven Allen Town of Windsor Dean Allison City of Pinole Alex Ameri City of Hayward Candace Andersen Town of Danville Craig Anderson LandPaths Dave Anderson City of Saratoga John Anderson Hedgerow Farms Kellie Anderson Max Anderson City of Berkeley Mike Anderson City of Lafayette Pat Anderson City of Oakley Scott Anderson Town of Tiburon Tim Anderson Sonoma County Water Agency Brandt Andersson City of Lafayette Susan Andrade-Wax City of Pleasanton Greg Andrew Marin Municipal Water District Betty Andrews ESA Carl Anduri City of Lafayette Rick Angrisani City of Clayton Rick Angrisani City of Clayton Marshall Anstandig City of Monte Sereno Ana M.Apodaca City of Newark Alyson Aquino Natural Resources Conservation Service Eddie Arango Corix Peter Arellano City of Gilroy Kurt Arends Zone 7 Water Agency Greg Armendariz City of Milpitas Jennifer Armer City of Rio Vista Newell Arnerich Town of Danville First Name Last Name Organization Carol Arnold Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Judy Arnold County of Marin Jesse Arreguin City of Berkeley Jac Asher City of Emeryville Darcy Aston Napa Sanitation District Ruth Atkin City of Emeryville Kwablah Attiogbe Alameda County Public Works Mitch Avalon Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District John Avalos City and County of San Francisco Steve Babb City of Healdsburg Rachel Babcock Sandy Baily Town of Los Gatos Ian Bain City of Redwood City Mike Bakaldin City of San Leandro Mike Bakaldin City of San Leandro Jason Baker City of Campbell Edward Ballman Balance Hydrologics Michael Ban Marin Municipal Water District Subrata Bandy HDR Curtis Banks City of Foster City Tim Banuelos City of Pinole Sheryl Barbic The Bay Institute Janet Barbieri Jones & Stokes Steve Barbose Vom.com Siavash Barmand City of Belvedere Jill Barnes City of Mill Valley Valerie Barone City of Concord Morris Barr City of Dixon Steve Barr City of Brentwood Erika Barraza Carollo Engineers Teresa Barrett David Barron Butters Canyon Conservancy David Barth California Depatment of Water Resources Scott Bartley City of Santa Rosa Stephanie Bastianon Friends of the Petaluma River Phil Batchelor City of Vallejo Helen Bates Milenka Bates City of Sonoma Nathaniel Bates City of Richmond Tom Bates City of Berkeley Rajeev Batra City of Santa Clara Rajeev Batra, P. E.City of Santa Clara Robert Bauman City of Hayward Victoria Baxter City of San Jose Cathy Baylock City of Burlingame Chris Bazar County of Alameda John Beall Coyote Guadalupe RDC Michele Beasly Greenbelt Alliance Robert Beaumont County of Marin Erin Beavers City of Fairfield Gordon Becker Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR) John Becker City of Newark First Name Last Name Organization Jovanka Beckles City of Richmond Christie Beeman ESA PWA Gina Belforte City of Rohnert Park Doug Bell City of Burlingame Robert B.Bell City of Redwood City Rebecca Benassini City of El Cerrito Ron Bendorff City of Healdsburg Diana Benner The Watershed Nursery Belia R.Bennett City of American Canyon Joan Bennett City of American Canyon Michelle Benvenuto Winegrowers of Napa County Don Berger Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Jim Bergman Town of Windsor Katie Bergmann Natural Resources Conservation Service Allan Berkwitz Environmental Volunteers Andrew Berman City of Mill Valley Yader Bermudez City of Richmond Daniel Bernie Town of Moraga Kevin Berryhill Napa County Public Works Pam Bertani City of Fairfield Martha Berthelsen The Watershed Project Toni Bertolero GHD Dane Besneatte City of Dixon Jack Betoune Napa County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Jack Betourne Betourne Environmental Consulting Robert Beyer City of Fremont Dipti Bhatnagar Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Rhodora Biagtan Dublin San Ramon Services District Jill Bicknell Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Don Biddle City of Dublin Betsy Bikle Wellesley Mandi Billingo Kids for the Bay Victor Bjelajac California Department of Parks and Recreation Kate Black City of Piedmont Jim Blanke RMC Water and Environment Terry Blount City of Martinez Natalya Blumenfeld Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Jill Bluso Demers San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory Phil Bobel City of Palo Alto Astrid Bock-Foster Napa Sustainable Winegrowing Group David Boesch County of San Mateo Rob Bonta City of Alameda Kevin Booker Sonoma County Water Agency Courtland (Corky)Booze City of Richmond Steve Borchard Rios Farming Company Timm Borden City of Cupertino Brian Bordona Napa County CDPD Ann Borgonovo ESA/PWA Susan Boswell Watershed Information Center and Conservancy of Napa County; Sustainable Napa County Mark Boucher Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Gerard Boulanger City of Hercules First Name Last Name Organization Mike Boulland Friends of Los Alamitos Creek Watershed (FOLAW) Constance Boulware City of Rio Vista Josephine Bower San Francisco International Airport Dennis Bowker Private Consultant Pam Boyle Dion Bracco City of Gilroy Dave Bracken Town of Corte Madera David Bracken Town of Corte Madera Jerry Bradshaw City of El Cerrito Josh Bradt Urban Creeks Council Suzanne Bragdon City of Suisun City Larry Bragman Town of Fairfax Susie Brain Friends of Stevens Creek Trail David Braunstein City of Belmont Shawna Brekke-Read Town of Moraga David Briggs Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership Kurt Brinkman City of Emeryville Mike Britten Carollo Engineers Del Britton City of St. Helena Gary Broad City of St. Helena Robert Brockman City of Brentwood Charlie Bronitsky City of Foster City Desley Brooks City of Oakland John Brosnan Sonoma Land Trust Amy Brown City of Campbell John C.Brown City of Petaluma Ken Brown Bear Flag Social Club Marti Brown City of Vallejo Valerie Brown County of Sonoma Michael Brownrigg City of Burlingame Jane Brunner City of Oakland Charles Bryant City of Emeryville Joel Bryant City of Brentwood Kevin Bryant Town of Woodside Ronit Bryant City of Mountain View Julia Bueren Contra Costa County Howard Bunce County of Marin Bob Bundy Corte Madera Flood Board Brad Burkholder California Dept of Fish and Wildlife David Burow Town of Woodside Patrick Burt City of Palo Alto Richard Burtt Town of Windsor Lisa Bush Gerald Butler City of Belvedere Shannon Butler Pacific Watershed Associates Thomas K.Butt City of Richmond Brenda Buxton California State Coastal Conservancy Nicole Byrd Solano Land Trust Ted Cabral Carl Cahill Town of Los Altos Hills Joseph A.Calabrigo Town of Danville Keith Caldwell County of Napa Josept T.Callinan City of Rohnert Park Tom Campbell City of Benicia First Name Last Name Organization David Campos City and County of San Francisco Xavier Campos City of San Jose Chris Canning City of Calistoga Stacey Dolan Capitani Napa Valley Vintners Laurie Capitelli City of Berkeley Manny Cappello City of Saratoga Todd Capurso Town of Los Gatos Janice Carey City of Orinda Michael Carlin San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Ed Carlson Jerry Carlson Town of Atherton Mike Carlson Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stephanie Carlson University of California Berkeley Bill Carmen Larry Carr City of Morgan Hill Efren Carrillo County of Sonoma Keith Carson County of Alameda Maureen Carson City of Vacaville Emmett D.Carson, Ph.D.Silicon Valley Community Foundation Emmett D.Carson, Ph.D.Silicon Valley Community Foundation Eric Cartwright Alameda County Water District Bob Caruso Always Angels David Casas City of Los Altos Will Casey City of Pittsburg Stephen H.Cassidy City of San Leandro L Castilla New Leaf June Catalano City of Pleasant Hill Kristen Cayce San Francisco Estuary Institute Jarnail Chahal Zone 7 Water Agency Tom Chambers City of Healdsburg Wilma Chan County of Alameda Ann Chaney City of Albany Barry Chang City of Cupertino Michael Chang Asian Pacific American Leadership Institute Andre Chapman Unity Care Group Steve Chappel Suisun Resource Conservation District Erin Chappell Department of Water Resources Laura Chariton Daniel Chase WRA, Inc. Kathleen Chasey Martha Walker Garden California Native Habitat Garden Steve Chatham Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Aparna Chatterjee City of Hayward Larry Cheeves City of Union City Jen Chen City of Hillsborough Judy Chen Chinese American Political Association Ann Cheng City of El Cerrito Mintze Cheng City of Union City John Cherbone City of Saratoga Ken Chew Town of Moraga John Chiang City of Piedmont Lewis Chilton Town of Yountville David Chiu City and County of San Francisco Richard Chiu Town of Los Altos Hills First Name Last Name Organization Richard Chiu, Jr., P.E.Town of Los Altos HIlls Paul Choisser Friends of Mount Diablo Creek Chris Choo County of Marin, Department of Public Works Mark Chow San Mateo County Carmen Chu City and County of San Francisco Kansen Chu City of San Jose Lawrence Chu City of Larkspur Rich Cimino Audubon Society Peggy Claassen City of Newark Susannah Clark County of Marin Bill Clarkson City of San Ramon Jennifer Clary Tracy Clay County of Marin Meredith Clement Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Richard Cline City of Menlo Park Brian Cluer National Marine Fisheries Service Alexandra Cock Town of Corte Madera Suzanne Coffee Selby Creek Watershed Partnership Cindy Coffey City of American Canyon Andrew Cohen City of Menlo Park Ellie Cohen PRBO Conservation Science Malia Cohen City and County of San Francisco Walter Cohen City of Oakland Marge Colapietro City of Millbrae John Coleman Bay Planning Coalition Kay Coleman Town of San Anselmo Laurel Collins Richard Collins Town of Tiburon Ron Collins City of San Carlos Andrew Collison ESA Diana Colvin Town of Colma Neal Conatser County of Marin Carla Condon Town of Corte Madera Sean Condry Town of San Anselmo Patrick Congdon Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Craig Conner Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Damon Connolly City of San Rafael Mike Connor San Francisco Estuary Institute Pete Constant City of San Jose Rich Constantine City of Morgan Hill Anthony Constantouros Town of Hillsborough Clarke Conway City of Brisbane Valorie Cook Carpenter City of Los Altos Cheryl Cook-Kallio City of Pleasanton Brent Cooper City of American Canyon Caitlin Cornwall Sonoma Ecology Center Leslie Corp Birgitta E.Corsello County of Solano David D.Cortese County of Santa Clara Gene Cortright City of Fairfield Pat Costello City of Napa Water Division Mark Cowin Department of Water Resources Bob Cox City of Cloverdale Burton Craig City of Monte Sereno First Name Last Name Organization Dave Craig City of San Anselmo Jim Craig City of Sunnyvale Brian Crawford County of Marin Anne Crealock Sonoma County Water Agency Pamela C.Creedon Central Valley RWQCB Jeffrey R.Cristina City of Campbell Thomas H.Cromwell City of Belvedere Sharon Crull City of St. Helena Arturo Cruz City of San Pablo Paul Curfman ESA Paul Curfman Jack Curley County of Marin Peggy Curran Town of Tiburon Richard Currie Union Sanitary District Bene Da Silva County of Marin Cynthia D'Agosta Committee for Green Foothills Linda Dahl County of Marin Tom Dalziel Steve Danehy City of Mill Valley Christine Daniel City of Berkeley Brad Daniels Trout Unlimited Kate Dargan State Fire Marshall, Retired Doug Darling Maeve Daugharty Winzler and Kelly Fran David City of Hayward Debbie Davis Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Debbie Davis Hugh Davis County of Marin James (Jim)Davis City of Antioch Nora Davis City of Emeryville Osby Davis City of Vallejo Ronald Davis City of East Palo Alto Sheila Davis Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Jane Day City of Suisun City Ignacio De La Fuente City of Oakland Hector De La Rosa City of Rio Vista Jerry Deal City of Burlingame Emily Dean Diane Decicio City of San Rafael Chris DeGabriele North Marin Water District Chris DeGroot City of Santa Clara Doug deHaan City of Alameda Peter DeJarnatt City of Pacifica Joanne F.del Rosario Town of Colma Lara DeLaney City of Martinez John Delgado City of Hercules Theresa Della Santa Town of Atherton John Dell'Osso City of Cotati Sonya DeLuca Grape Growers Sonya DeLuca Napa Valley Grape Growers Phillip Demery County of Sonoma Priscillia deMuizon Melanie Denninger California Coastal Conservancy Scott Derdenger City of Belvedere First Name Last Name Organization Sam Derting City of Suisun City Maryann Derwin Town of Portola Valley Greg Desmond City of St. Helena Paul Detjens Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Myrna deVera City of Hercules Carlos Diaz Winzler and Kelly Fred Diaz City of Fremont Sue Digre City of Pacifica Diane Dillon Napa County Robert Dillon City of Gilroy Deanne DiPietro Sonoma Ecology Center Rod Diridon, Sr.Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters Jim Dobbie Town of Atherton Bill Dodd County of Napa Tim Dodson California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Brian Dolan City of Pleasanton Brad Donahue Town of Colma Sandra Donnell City of Belvedere Morgan Doran University of California Agricultural Extension Marita Dorenbecher Town of Yountville John Doughty City of East Palo Alto Jim Downey Lowell Downey ICARE Gary Downing Town of Corte Madera HR Downs Owl Foundation David Dowswell City of Dixon Frank Doyle Town of Tiburon Michael (Mike)Doyle Town of Danville Robert E.Doyle East Bay Regional Parks District Will Drayton Treasury Wine Estates Will Drayton Edward C. (Ted)Driscoll Town of Portola Valley Phong Du City of Redwood City Sara Duckler Santa Clara Valley Water District John Dunbar Town of Yountville Emily Duncan City of Union City Elizabeth Dunn City of Novato Michael Dunsford City of Calistoga Steve Duran City of Richmond Steven Duran City of Hercules David Durant City of Pleasant Hill Scott Dusterhoff Stillwater Sciences Patti Dustman Alameda County Water District Dominic Dutra City of Fremont Anona Dutton Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Beth Dyer Santa Clara Valley Water District Lynn E. Johnson, Phd, Pe National Marine Fisheries Service Teresa Eade Alameda County Waste Management Authority/StopWaste.org Suzanne Easton Blue Ridge Berryessa Natural Area Dean Eckerson Delta Diablo Sanitary District Kathleen Edson Napa County Resource Conservation District First Name Last Name Organization Bill Ekern City of Redwood City Jon Elam Paul R.Eldredge City of Brentwood Wendy Eliot Sonoma Land Trust Sandy Elles Napa County Farm Bureau Claire Elliot Acterra - Stewardship Program Deborah Elliott Napa County Bud Ellis City of Napa Public Works Department Lorrin Ellis City of Union City Ellen Ellsworth City of Novato Sean Elsbernd City and County of San Francisco Richard Emig City of Sebastopol William F.Emlen County of Solano Kristin Ep Belinda B.Espinosa City of Pinole Sid Espinosa City of Palo Alto Tonya Espinoza City of Napa Water Division Jose Esteves City of Milpitas Eric Ettlinger Marin Municipal Water District Linus Eukel Muir Heritage Land Trust A. Peter Evans City of East Palo Alto Amy Evans Alameda County Resource Conservation District Salvatore Evola City of Pittsburg Matt Fabry City of Brisbane Aaron Fairbrook Turtle Island Restoration Network Rina Faletti Univerisity of Texas Steven B.Falk City of Lafayette Anthony Falzone NewFields Erin Farnand City of Napa Public Works Department Erin Farnand City of Napa Public Works Department Mark Farrell City and County of San Francisco Terri Fashing BASMAA Terri Fashing County of Marin Abby Fateman Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Stephanie Faulkner Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Carol Federighi City of Lafayette Coralin Feierbach City of Belmont Bill Feil Friends of Pleasant Hills Creeks Arthur Feinstein Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Leslie Fergson State Water Resources Control Board Veronica A.Ferguson County of Sonoma Kelly Fergusson City of Menlo Park John Ferons City of St. Helena Frederick Ferrer Health Trust Nelson Fialho City of Pleasanton Debra Figone City of San Jose Frank Figone Marin Municipal Water District Jarrett Fishpaw City of Los Altos Helen Fisicaro Town of Colma John Fitzgerald R Warren Flint Five E's Unlimited Steve Flint City of Half Moon Bay Darren Fong National Park Service First Name Last Name Organization Carolyn Ford City of Sausalito Claudette Ford City of Berkeley Will Forney Jones & Stokes Paul Forsberg California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Jim Forsythe City of San Rafael Rosanne Foust City of Redwood City Amy Fowler Santa Clara Valley Water District Rick Fraites County of Marin Charissa Frank Swinerton Incorporated Michael Frank City of Napa Michael Frank City of Novato Paul Frank NewFields Jim Fraser Town of Tiburon Marina Fraser City of Half Moon Bay John Frawley The Bay Institute of San Francisco Jim Frazier City of Oakley Alice Fredericks Town of Tiburon Robin Freeman Peralta Community College Matt Freiberg Matthew Freiberg The Watershed Project Sandra Freitas Santa Clara Basin WMI Maureen Freschet City of San Mateo Nick Frey Pam Frisella City of Foster City Roger Fry Debora Fudge Town of Windsor Margaret Fujioka City of Piedmont Brian Fulfrost San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory Michael Fuller City of Mountain View Michael A.Fuller City of Mountain View Stephen Fuller-Rowell Diane Furst Town of Corte Madera Greg Fuz City of Pleasant Hill Karen Gaan Pat Gacoscos City of Union City Karen Gaffney County of Sonoma Kevin Gailey Town of Danville Tina Gallegos City of San Pablo Laurie Gallian Charlene Gallina City of Calistoga Tom Gandesbery California Coastal Conservancy Richard Garbarino City of South San Francisco Herman Garcia Coastal Habitat Education & Environmental Restoration Leon Garcia City of American Canyon Genoveva Garcia Calloway City of San Pablo Patricia Gardner Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits Shari Gardner Friends of the Napa River Elizabeth Gargay GHD Frances Garland Contra Costa Water District Susan Garner City of Monte Sereno Stewart Gary City of Livermore Victor Garza La Raza Roundtable Dr. Lori Gaskin West Valley College Don Gasser Napa Communities Firewise Foundation First Name Last Name Organization Jeffrey Gee City of Redwood City Debbie Gehret City of Pacifica Howard Geller City of Clayton Andy Gere San Jose Water Company Matt Gerhart California Coastal Conservancy Vince Geronimo AECOM Lorrie Gervin City of Sunnyvale Ben Gettleman Kearns & West, Inc. Geoff Geupel PRBO Conservation Science Sami Ghossain Union Sanitary District Leia Giambastiani PRBO Conservation Science Patricia S.Gilardi City of Cotati Paul Gilbert-Snyder East Bay Municipal Utility District Crisand Giles Building Industry of the Bay Area Jeri Gill Sustainable Napa County Peter Gilli City of Mountain View Marie Gilmore City of Alameda Kelly Gin Natural Resources Conservation Service Jack Gingles City of Calistoga John Gioia County of Contra Costa Debbie Giordano City of Milpitas Hillary Gitelman County of Napa David Gittleson City of Morgan Hill Mayor David Glass Steve Glazer City of Orinda Federal D.Glover County of Contra Costa Fred Glover Blackwell City of Oakland Robin Goble Town of Windsor Brenda Goeden Bay Conservation and Development Commission Glenn Goepfert City of Cupertino Dev Goetschius Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County Steve Goldbeck SF Bay Conservation & Development Commission Jonathon Goldman City of Sausalito Jonathon Goldman City of St. Helena Stephanie Gomes City of Vallejo Armando Gomez City of Milpitas Gabriel A.Gonzalez City of Rohnert Park Ignacio Gonzalez County of Santa Clara Javier Gonzalez Silicon Valley Latino Democratic Forum Juliana Gonzalez The Watershed Project Pedro Gonzalez City of South San Francisco Raquel (Rae)Gonzalez Town of Colma David Goodison City of Sonoma Barry Gordon City of Walnut Creek Deborah C.Gordon Town of Woodside Malila Gordon Bioengineering Institute Susan Gorin City of Santa Rosa Robert G.Gottschalk City of Millbrae Zeke Grader Institute for Fisheries Resources Sue Graham League of Women Voters Robert Grassilli City of San Carlos Matt Graul East Bay Regional Park District David Graves Saintsbury Vineyard and Winery Jeremy Graves City of Sausalito First Name Last Name Organization Allen Grayson Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mark Green City of Union City Phil Green City of Pinole Ford Greene Town of San Anselmo Russ Greenfield Darren Greenwood City of Livermore Michael J.Gregory City of San Leandro Bailey Grewal City of Brentwood Bailey Grewal City of Brentwood Jack Griffin City of Sebastopol Thomasin Grim Marin Municipal Water Distric Terrence Grindall City of Newark Matt Grocott City of San Carlos Carole Groom County of San Mateo Jan Gross Heritage Landscapes Kara Gross Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network Robin Grossinger San Francisco Estuary Institute Geoffrey L.Grote City of Piedmont Brandt Grotte City of San Mateo Phoebe Grow RMC Water and Environment John Guardino Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Pat Guasco City of Sausalito Sandy Guldman Andy Gunther Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR) Jim Gustafson City of Los Altos Kent Gylfe Sonoma County Water Agency Laurie H. Suda United States Army Corps of Engineers Linda H.Hu East Bay Municipal Utility District Dana Haasz Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Scott Haggerty County of Alameda Tom Haglund City of Gilroy Brad Hall Richard Hall Town of Yountville Richard Hall Yountville Town Council Barbara Halliday City of Hayward Whit Halvorsen The Bay Institute of San Francisco Keith Halvorson City of Pittsburg Leslee Hamilton Friends of Guadalupe River Park and Gardens Lauren Hammack Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Matt Hammer People Acting in Community Together (PACT) Doug Hanford Hanford ARC Scott Hanin City of El Cerrito Erin Hannigan City of Vallejo Eric Hansen South Bay Water Recycling Jeri Hansen-Gill Sustainable Napa County Marilyn Harang City of Redwood City Bree Hardcastle California Department of Parks and Recreation James C.Hardy City of Foster City Steve Hardy City of Vacaville Wade Harper City of Antioch Howard Harpham Town of Moraga Mike Harris Cheryl Harris Napa Solano Audubon First Name Last Name Organization Dilenna Harris City of Vacaville Kelly Harris Bioengineering Institute Richard Harris East Bay Municipal Utility District Bill Harrison City of Fremont Kevin Hart City of Dublin Marshall Hart City of Napa Water Division Roger Hartwell Pam Hartwell-Herrero Town of Fairfax Susan Harvey City of Cotati Ben Harwood Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Daphne Hatch National Park Service Erik Hawk Susan Haydon Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Gretchen Hayes Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project Kathy Hayes Mike Healy Barry Hecht Balance Hydrologics Kara Heckert Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Trathen Heckona Daily Acts Erica Heimberg Turtle Island Restoration Network Kirk Heinrichs City of Campbell Daniel C.Helix City of Concord Barbara Heller City of San Rafael Paul Helliker Marin Municipal Water District Bob Hemati Town of Ross Diane Henderson Town of San Anselmo Olden Henson City of Hayward Iris Herrera Califiornia Special Districts Association Rose Herrera City of San Jose George R.Hicks City of Fairfield Kasie Hildenbrand City of Dublin Daniel Hillmer City of Larkspur Adele Ho City of San Pablo Tan Hoang Rainer Hoenicke San Francisco Estuary Institute John Hoffnagle Land Trust of Napa County Dana Hoggatt City of Pittsburg Barry Hogue Town of Corte Madera Barry Hogue Town of Corte Madera Dwight Holford Upper Putah Creek Stewardship Elise Holland County of Marin Karen Holman City of Palo Alto Marc Holmes Nadia V.Holober City of Millbrae Clayton Holstine City of Brisbane Hanson Hom City of Sunnyvale Parastou Hooshialsadat Winzler and Kelly Dale Hopkins Regional Water Quality Control Board Kathy Hopkins Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Doug Horner City of Livermore Don Horsley County of San Mateo Joseph Horwedel City of San Jose Gregg Hosfeldt City of Mountain View Saeid Hosseini Santa Clara Valley Water District First Name Last Name Organization Jennifer Hosterman City of Pleasanton Vivian Housen Rod Houser Kennedy/Jenks Consultants David Houts Zone 7 Water Agency Angela Howard Town of Portola Valley Joey Howard Dan Hubacher Dave Hudson City of San Ramon Michael J.Hudson City of Suisun City Terry Huff Alameda County Resource Conservation District Mark Hughes City of Benicia Erika Hughes Reis Marin Resource Conservation District Gary Huisingh City of Dublin Gary Huisingh City of Dublin Joan Hultberg Sonoma County Water Agency Beth Huning San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Curtis Hunt City of Vacaville Jill Hunter City of Saratoga Linda Hunter The Watershed Project Linda Hunter The Watershed Project R. Scot Hunter Town of Ross Eliot Hurwitz Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency Larry Husted City of Napa Public Works Department Amy Hutzel California Coastal Conservancy Matthew Hymel County of Marin Ken Ibarra City of San Bruno Jim Inglis Stanford University Jay Ingram Town of Moraga John Inks City of Mountain View Juliana Inman City of Napa Jeff Ira City of Redwood City Joseph J. Dillon National Marine Fisheries Service Jennifer J. Walker Watearth, Inc. Connie Jackson City of San Bruno Janeen Jackson Greenbelt Alliance Rose Jacobs Gibson County of San Mateo Craig Jacobsen Jim Jakel City of Antioch Beverly James Novato Sanitary District Dave Jaramillo California Conservation Corps Jay Jaspers Sonoma County Water Agency Paul Jensen City of San Rafael Tim Jensen Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mick Jessop City of Suisun City Ben Johnson City of Pittsburg Beverly J.Johnson City of Alameda Corbin Johnson County of Sonoma Doug Johnson California Invasive Plant Council Ralph Johnson Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District Margaret Johnston Tomales Bay Watershed Council Carolyn Jones Natural Resources Conservation Service Pam Jones Kearns & West, Inc. First Name Last Name Organization Susan Jones City of Healdsburg Tim Jones US EPA, Headquarters William C.Jones City of El Cerrito Mark Joseph City of American Canyon Shicha K Chander California Department of Water Resources Jennifer Kaiser Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Brian Kalinowski City of Antioch Ash Kalra City of San Jose Matt Kamkar San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Rachel Kamman Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Jon Kanagy Nord Vineyard Services Rebecca Kaplan City of Oakland Sandeep Karkal Novato Sanitary District Mike Kashiwagi Town of Atherton Daniel Kasperson City of Suisun City R. Michael Kasperzak City of Mountain View Anne Kasten Town of Woodside Thom Kato Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Maurice Kaufman City of Emeryville Guy Kay Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Sandra Kaya Livermore area Recreation and Park District Gabe Kearney Garrett Keating City of Piedmont Daniel E.Keen City of Concord Bill Keene County of Sonoma James Keene City of Palo Alto William Keene Sonoma County Water Agency Janet Keeter City of Orinda Megan Keever Stillwater Sciences Paula Kehoe San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Ann Keighran City of Burlingame Jill Keimach Town of Moraga Kirsten Keith City of Menlo Park David Keller Judy Kelly San Francisco Estuary Partnership Ken Kelly United Neighborhoods of Santa Clara County Linda Kelly City of Sonoma Michael Kelly City of Sausalito Naomi Kelly City and County of San Francisco Barbara Kelsey Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Thomas R.Kendall, PE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SF District, Chief, Planning Branch Janet Kennedy City of Martinez Paul Kermoyan City of Campbell Patricia Kernighan City of Oakland Brannon Ketcham National Park Service Sapna Khandwala Stillwater Sciences Art Kiesel City of Foster City Brad Kilger City of Benicia Jane Kim City and County of San Francisco Jay Kim City of Palo Alto Mary Kimball Center for Land Based Learning Sally Kimsey Putah Creek Watershed Group Sally Kimsey First Name Last Name Organization Mary Ann King Trout Unlimited Neysa King Tomales Bay Watershed Council Stephen Kinsey County of Marin Susan Kirks Mike Kirn City of Healdsburg Andy Klein City of San Carlos Janet Klein Marin Municipal Water District Larry Klein City of Palo Alto Shani Kleinhaus Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society David Kleinschmidt City of Vallejo Shane Klingbeil John Klochak U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ernest Klock County of Marin Mitchell Klug Napa County RCD/WICC David Knapp City of Cupertino Liz Kniss County of Santa Clara Charlie Knox City of Benicia Jonathan Koehler Napa County Resource Conservation District Leslie Koenig Alameda County Resource Conservation District Fred Kogler City of Rio Vista Carl Kohnert Friends of Sausal Creek Steve Kokotas MIG, Inc. Larry P.Kolb Friends of the San Francisco Estuary Stan Kolodzie Dublin San Ramon Services District Stan Koludzie DSRSD Steve Konakis California Native Plant Society - Napa Chapter Richard Konda Asian Law Alliance Barbara Kondylis County of Solano, Supervisor Barbara R.Kondylis County of Solano Jaime Kooser SF NERR, SFSU / Romberg Tiburon Center John Kopchik Contra Costa County John Kopchik Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Max Korten Conervation Corps North Bay Michael F.Kotowski City of Campbell Rick Kowalczyk City of Half Moon Bay Kevin Kramer Town of Corte Madera Gary Kraus City of Calistoga Jack Krebs City of Rio Vista Jennifer Krebs San Francisco Estuary Project Bernhard Krevet Friends of the Napa River Bernhard Krevet Friends of the Napa River James Krider City of Napa Christine M.Krolik Town of Hillsborough Jeff Kroot Town of San Anselmo Andrea Krout County of Sonoma Laura C.Kuhn City of Vacaville Kallie Kull County of Marin Krishna Kumar Carol Kunze Berryessa Trails and Conservation Carol Kunze Berryessa Trails and Conservation Alan Kurotori City of Santa Clara Catherine Kutsuris Contra Costa County Florence La Riviere Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Melody Labella Central Contra Costa Sanitary District First Name Last Name Organization Peter LaCivita United States Army Corps of Engineers Jon LaHaye Marin Municipal Water District Thomas Lai County of Marin Steve Lake Town of Danville Mark Landman City of Cotati Brooke Langston BRBNA Conservation Partnership/ Audubon CA Landowner Stewardship Program Stephanie Lapine Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Margaret Laporte Stanford University Michael Lappert Town of Corte Madera Mondy Lariz Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition Mondy Lariz Stevens & Permanente Creeks Watershed M Larizadeh City of Novato Jack LaRochelle City of Napa Rich Larsen Town of Los Altos Hills Greg Larson Town of Los Gatos Sue Lattanzio Michael Laughlin Town of Colma Michael Lauher Environmental Education Coalition of Napa County Jane Lavelle Water Enterprise, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Kristina Lawson City of Walnut Creek Becca Lawton Sonoma Ecology Center Cathy Lazarus City of Mountain View Steve Lederer Napa County Department of Environmental Management Brad Ledesma Zone 7 Water Agency Chris Lee Sonoma County Water Agency Edwin Lee City and County of San Francisco Hannah Lee County of Marin Wayne J.Lee City of Millbrae Daisy Lee Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Suzanne Lee Chan City of Fremont Lou Leet City of American Canyon Ron Lefler City of Lafayette Michael Lennox University of California Davis Cliff Lentz City of Brisbane Steve Leonardis Town of Los Gatos Jonathan Leone City of Sausalito Peter Leroe-Munoz City of Gilroy Roger Leventhal County of Marin Ellen Levin SFPUC Marc Levine City of San Rafael Michele Lew Asian Americans for Community Involvement David Lewis Save the Bay David Lewis University of California Davis Elizabeth Lewis Town of Atherton Liz Lewis County of Marin Liliana Li Vision New America Marilyn Librers City of Morgan Hill Sam Liccardo City of San Jose Warren Lieberman City of Belmont Jack Liebster County of Marin David Lim City of San Mateo First Name Last Name Organization Khee Lim City of Millbrae Karin Lin NPS RTCA Jim Lincoln Napa County Farm Bureau/Putah Creek Watershed Group Jim Lindley City of Dixon Bill Lindsay City of Richmond James Lindsay City of Milpitas James Lindsay City of Saratoga Helen Ling City of Livermore Garry Lion City of Mill Valley Katherine Lira Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Ally Little Assm. Nancy Skinner Leslie Little City of Morgan Hill Jim Livingstone City of San Ramon John Livingstone City of Saratoga Emily Lo City of Saratoga Mark Lockaby Town of Fairfax Nadia Lockyer County of Alameda Susan Loftus City of San Mateo Dan Logan National Marine Fisheries Service Brian Long City of Napa Public Works Department Debbie Long City of Pinole Pete Longmire City of Pittsburg Albert Lopez County of Alameda Lori Lopin Town of San Anselmo Mary Lou Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Andria Loutsch CDM Smith Michael Love Michael Love and Associates, Inc. Brian Loventhal City of Monte Sereno Evan Low City of Campbell Diane Lowart City of Dublin Jeremy Lowe ESA/PWA Patrick Lowe Watershed Information Center and Conservancy of Napa County Eric Lucan City of Novato Darcie Luce California Land Stewardship Institute Mark Luce County of Napa Gary Luebbers City of Sunnyvale Pamela Lung City of Livermore Greg Lyman City of El Cerrito Robert Lynch Mike Maacks City of Cloverdale Rob Maccario Town of Ross Pierce Macdonald City of Belvedere Sue Mace Michael Machado Delta Protection Commission Laura Macias City of Mountain View Ilene Macintire Alameda County Flood Control Jake Mackenzie City of Rohnert Park Nancy Mackle City of San Rafael Nancy Mackle City of San Rafael Jeremy Madsen Greenbelt Alliance Carol Mahoney Zone 7 Water Agency Orrin Mahoney City of Cupertino First Name Last Name Organization Homer Maiel Town of Atherton Linda Maio City of Berkeley Vivien Maisonneuve California Department of Water Resources Karen Majors City of Martinez Chris Malan ICARE Chris Malan Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Josh Malan Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Joshua Malan ICARE Joan Malloy City of Union City Lana Malloy City of Monte Sereno Jeff Maltbie City of San Carlos Frank Mandola City of South San Francisco Jon Mann HDR David Mansfield Nader Mansourian City of San Rafael Eric Mar City and County of San Francisco John Marchand City of Livermore Laurel Marcus California Land Stewardship Institute Laurel Marcus California Land Stewardship Institute Dan Marks City of Berkeley Darlene Marler Pope Valley Watershed Council Brad Marsh City of Larkspur Shawn E.Marshall City of Mill Valley Patricia E.Martel City of Daly City Bob Martin Christopher Martin Town of Ross Mischon Martin County of Marin Laura Martinez City of East Palo Alto Jessica Martini-Lamb Sonoma County Water Agency Mitch Mashburn City of Vacaville Abbas Masjedi City of Pleasanton Peter Mason Town of Woodside Karen Massey City of Cloverdale Len Materman San Francisquito Creek JPA Karyl Matsumoto City of South San Francisco Jack Matthews City of San Mateo Carol Mattson California Native Plant Society Michael May San Francisco Estuary Institute John McArthur City of Rohnert Park Robert (Bob)McBain City of Piedmont Scott McBain Casey McCann City of Brentwood Casey McCann City of Brentwood James McCann City of Mill Valley James C.McCann City of Mill Valley Julie McClure City of Mill Valley Robert H.McConnell City of Vallejo Lex McCorvey County of Sonoma Farm Bureau Paul McCreary City of Dublin Andrew McCullough City of San Rafael Lori McDonald Larkspur City Hall Lisa McEvilly Kliman Sales First Name Last Name Organization Cindy McGovern City of Pleasanton Kevin McGowan City of San Rafael Mike McGraw Bureau of Reclamation John McGuire City of Hercules Mike McGuire County of Sonoma Susan Mcguire Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Pete McHugh City of Milpitas Tom McInerney Town of San Anselmo Alex McIntyre City of Menlo Park Dan McIntyre City of Livermore Drew McIntyre North Marin Water District Kathy McKeithen Town of Atherton Chris McLam Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Eileen McLaughlin Wildlife Stewards Gayle McLaughlin City of Richmond Clysta McLemore Ulistac Outreach Center/ Natural Area Jamie McLeod City of Santa Clara Richard McMurtry Environmental Coalition for Living Streams Karen McNamara City of San Ramon Leonard R.McNeil City of San Pablo Tom McNicholas Diane McNutt Town of Los Gatos Tom Means City of Mountain View Rico E.Medina City of San Bruno Joe Medrano City of Clayton Julian Meisler Sonoma Land Trust David Melilli City of Rio Vista Gerardo Mendez City of Napa Public Works Department Karen Mendonca Town of Moraga Michael Menesini City of Martinez Ariel Mercado City of Hercules Jill Mercurio Town of Moraga Ann Merideth City of Lafayette Michael Metcalf Town of Moraga Sandra Meyer City of Walnut Creek Lisa Micheli Pepper Wood Preserve John C.Michels Caltrans Alrieq Middlebrook California Native Garden Foundation Mike Mielke Silicon Valley Leadership Group Nathan Miley County of Alameda Brian Millar City of Daly City Howard Miller City of Saratoga Jeff Miller Alameda Creek Alliance Phil Miller County of Napa Ray Miller City of Brisbane Roger Miller Federation of Fly Fishers - Nothern California Council Kathy Millison City of Santa Rosa Rick Misuraca City of Mill Valley Pat Mitchell Silicon Valley Faces Richard Mitchell City of Richmond Karen Mitchoff County of Contra Costa Glenn Moeller California Department of Water Resources Marjorie Mohler Town of Yountville First Name Last Name Organization Bryan Montgomery City of Oakley Anne Moore City of Larkspur Darryl Moore City of Berkeley Doug Moore Gerald Moore Jeffery Moore Silicon Valley NAACP Jim Moore Town of Fairfax Mike Moore City of Mill Valley Steve Moore Nute Engineers Jean Mordo Town of Los Altos Hills Rod Moresco City of Vacaville Morgan Morgan Lamoreaux Vineyards/Oak Knoll Ranch Mike Morris Domaine Chandon Paul V.Morris City of San Pablo Ann Morrison City of Larkspur Carl Morrison Morrison & Associates, Inc. Gus Morrison City of Fremont Marilyn Mosher City of Hayward Rick Moshier City of Santa Rosa Peter Mott City of Napa Leslie Moulton ESA Stephanie Moulton-Peters City of Mill Valley Catherine Moy City of Fairfield Christopher Moylan City of Sunnyvale John Mraz City of Fairfield Bert Mulchaey East Bay Municipal Utility District Cicely Muldoon National Park Service J. Matthew Mullan Town of Windsor John Muller City of Half Moon Bay Kevin Mullin City of South San Francisco Trish Mulvey CLEAN South Bay Thomas Mumley SF Bay Water Board Pete Munoa Cal Fire Pete Munoa Cal Fire Susan S.Muranishi County of Alameda Peter Murray City of Pinole Mike Myers Larkspur City Hall Matthew Naclerio City of Alameda Nancy J.Nadel City of Oakland Barry M.Nagel City of South San Francisco Terry Nagel City of Burlingame Chester Nakahara City of Piedmont Reza Namvar RMC Water and Environment James Nantell City of Burlingame Napa Chamber of Commerce Napa Chamber of Commerce Green and Sustainable Practices Committee Mike Napolitano San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Gary Napper City of Clayton Roger Narsim Santa Clara Valley Water District Mansour Nasser City of Sunnyvale Anu Natarajan City of Fremont Jim Navarro City of Union City Charles Neal Peralta Colleges District Bob Neale Sonoma Land Trust First Name Last Name Organization Mary Nejedly Piepho County of Contra Costa Playalina Nelson Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Ann Nevero City of St. Helena Jon Newby City of San Jose Mark Newhouser Sonoma Ecology Center Anne Ng Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Madison P.Nguyen City of San Jose Nick Nguyen Town of Tiburon Joyce Nichols Carolyn Parr Nature Center Marilyn Nickel City of Milpitas Richard Niemann Friends of the Napa River Richard Niemann Friends of the Napa River Thomas Niesar Alameda County Water District Mary Ann Nihart City of Pacifica Ron Noble Ken Nordhoff City of Walnut Creek Janith Norman City of Rio Vista Tony Norris Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Karin North City of Palo Alto Mohammed Nuru City and County of San Francisco Ed Nute Nute Engineers Jason Nutt City of Novato Jason Nutt City of Novato Damien O'Bid City of Cotati Irene O'Connell City of San Bruno Terry O'Connell City of Brisbane Matt O'Conner O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Matt O'Connor Town of Hillsborough Emmett O'Donnell Town of Tiburon Rolf Ohlemutz Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Peter Ohtaki City of Menlo Park Lorraine Okabe League of California Cities Steve Okamoto City of Foster City Patrick O'Keeffe City of Emeryville Christina Olague City and County of San Francisco Mark Olbert City of San Carlos Ernesto Olivares City of Santa Rosa Pierluigi Oliverio City of San Jose Phil O'Loane City of San Ramon Peggy Olofson San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Daniel Olstein The Nature Conservancy Suzanne Olyarnik University of California Davis Stephen Omdorf Wildlife Conservation Commission Ryan O'Neil Town of Fairfax Janet Orchard City of Cotati Ned Orett Bruce Orr Stillwater Sciences Dean Orr City of Orinda Nate Ortiz California Conservation Corps Afshin Oskoui City of Belmont Jake Ours City of Santa Rosa Ron Packard City of Los Altos Chuck Page City of Saratoga Joe Palla City of Cloverdale First Name Last Name Organization Bob Pallas Connolly Ranch Michael Palmer Town of Corte Madera Marc Pandone WICC Board of Directors Gina Papan City of Millbrae Nancy Parent City of Pittsburg Vicki Parker City of Cotati Peter Parkins County of Sonoma Mike Parness City of Napa John Parodi PRBO Conservation Science Dean Parson County of Sonoma Naomi Patridge City of Half Moon Bay Elizabeth Patterson City of Benicia Joni Pattillo City of Dublin Mary Pearsall Walter Pease City of Pittsburg Joe Pecharich National Marine Fisheries Service Debbie Pedro, AICP Town of Los Altos HIlls Marvin Peixoto City of Hayward Onita Pelligrini City of Petaluma Rodrigo Pena San Jose Conservation Corp Michael Perani Herb Perez City of Foster City Scott Perkins City of San Ramon Michel Perret Michel Perret Vineyard MIchael Perrone CA Dept.of Water Resources, Div of Environ Services Leslie Perry Regional Water Quality Control Board Jeff Peters Questa Engineering Paula Peterson Robert Peterson Napa County Marjie Pettus City of Healdsburg Linda Pfeifer City of Sausalito Kathleen Phalen City of Milpitas Gary O.Phillips City of San Rafael Barbara Pierce City of Redwood City Julie Pierce City of Clayton Jim Pierson City of Fremont Patrick Pike Napa County Public Works Dave Pine County of San Mateo Al Pinheiro City of Gilroy Joe Pirzynski Town of Los Gatos Ina Pisani National Marine Fisheries Service/Ocean Associates, Inc. Michele Pla Gary Plass City of Healdsburg Althea Polanski City of Milpitas Adam Politzer City of Sausalito Carrie Pollard Sonoma County Water Agency Kathy Pons James Ponton San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Jim Ponton Regional Water Quality Control Board Randy Pope City of Oakley Chris Potter CA Resources Agency Bob Power Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Myke Praul Town of Yountville Andy Preston City of San Rafael First Name Last Name Organization Gail A.Price City of Palo Alto Harry T.Price City of Fairfield Nico Procos City of Palo Alto Jim Prola City of San Leandro Jeffery Provenzano City of San Jose Liza Prunuske Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Gina Purin County of Marin Nancy Pyle City of San Jose Ralph Qualls City of Cupertino Jean Quan City of Oakland Caroline Quinn Delta Diablo Sanitary District Sean Quinn City of Fairfield Michelle Quinney City of Campbell Bill Quirk City of Hayward Jeff Quiter Hedgerow Farms David Rabbitt County of Sonoma Dan Rademacher The Bay Nature Institute John Radford Town of Los Altos Hills Marcia L.Raines City of Millbrae James Raives County of Marin Kish Rajan City of Walnut Creek Jeri Ram City of Dublin Jeri Ram City of Dublin Brent Randol Napa County Wildlife Conservation Commission Elke Rank Zone 7 Water Agency Matt Raschke City of Palo Alto Jeff Rasmussen East Bay Regional Park District Yvonne Rasmussen University of California Master Gardners Jane Ratchyre City of Palo Alto Robert Ravasio Town of Corte Madera Michael J.Reagan County of Solano Chuck Reed City of San Jose John Reed Town of Fairfax Ursula Reed City of San Leandro Nina D.Regor City of Cloverdale David Reid Friends of Five Creeks Larry E.Reid City of Oakland Robert R.Reid West Valley Sanitation District James Reilly Stetson Engineers Anthony Rendon California League of Conservation Voters Tiffany Renee Dave Requa Dublin San Ramon Services District Stephen A.Rhodes City of Pacifica Winston Rhodes City of Pinole Heidi Rhymes Katie Rice County of Marin Steve Rice Town of Los Gatos Dan Rich City of Mountain View C Richard Oakland Museum Allan Richards Stetson Engineers John Richards Town of Portola Valley A. Sepi Richardson City of Brisbane Dave Richardson RMC Water and Environment Ron Richardson California Water Service Company First Name Last Name Organization Don Ridenhour Napa County Eric Riedner Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Len Rifkind City of Larkspur Ann Riley State Water Resources Control Board Kevin Riley City of Santa Clara Kevin L.Riley City of Santa Clara Carol Rios City of Oakley Jeff Ritterman City of Richmond David Rizk City of Hayward Diana Roberts Jones & Stokes Glenn Roberts City of Palo Alto Jennifer Roberts Jennifer Roberts StopWaste.org Marc Roberts City of Livermore Donald Rocha City of San Jose Mary Helen Rocha City of Antioch Michael Rock Town of Fairfax George Rodericks City of Belvedere Matt Rodriguez City of San Pablo John Roeder Greak Oaks Water Company Cindy Roessler Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Authority Curtis Rogers City of Monte Sereno Greg Rogers City of San Ramon Jim Rogers City of Richmond Laurette Rogers PRBO Conservation Science Steve Rogers Town of Yountville Kevin Rohani Town of Los Gatos Carlos Romero City of East Palo Alto Dan Romero City of Hercules Kevin Romick City of Oakley Ron Romines Town of Woodside Wendie Rooney Town of Los Gatos Manny Rosas City of Redwood City Chris Rose Solano Land Trust Marvin Rose City of Sunnyvale Mark Ross City of Martinez Roanna Ross WHITLEY BURCHETT & Associates Robert Ross City of San Mateo Lynne Rosselli Sonoma County Water Agency Tom Rouse City of Sonoma Tom Rouse Ron Rowlett City of Vacaville Cynthia Royer City of Daly City Jim Ruane City of San Bruno Kelseay Rugani Kearns & West, Inc. Carol Russell City of Cloverdale Eric Russell Green Mountain College P. Rupert Russell Town of Ross Vance Russell BRBNA Conservation Partnership/ Audubon CA Landowner Stewardship Program John Russo City of Alameda Pauline Russo Cutter City of San Leandro Trudi Ryan City of Sunnyvale Wayne Ryan Napa River Steelhead First Name Last Name Organization Matt Sagues County of Marin Michael Salazar City of San Bruno Mark Salinas City of Hayward Sam Salmon Town of Windsor Samantha Salvia RMC Water & Environment Barbara Salzman Marin Audubon Society Bob Sampayan City of Vallejo Bryn Samuel City of Oakland Catarina Sanchez City of St. Helena Pedro M. (Pete)Sanchez City of Suisun City Joanne Sanders City of Sonoma Deanna J.Santana City of Oakland Mark Santoro City of Cupertino Jeremy Sarrow Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mike Sartor City of Palo Alto Tito Sasaki Megan Satterlee City of Los Altos Chris Sauer Napa County Weed Management Area Chris Sauer WICC Board of Directors John Sawyer City of Santa Rosa Joe Sbranti City of Pittsburg Tim Sbranti City of Dublin Jim Scanlin Alameda County Public Works Libby Schaaf City of Oakland Nancy Schaefer Tom Schaefer Friends of Calabazas Creek Korie Schaeffer National Marine Fisheries Service Lisa Schaffner County of Sonoma Alliance Greg Scharff City of Palo Alto Rem Scherzinger City of Piedmont Dan Schiada City of Benicia Greg Schmid City of Palo Alto Edward Schmidt Douglas J.Schmitz City of Los Altos Scott Schneider County of Marin Cheryl Scholar Town of Windsor Judy Schriebman Leap Frog Productions Robert S.Schroder City of Martinez Bruce Schultz Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Irv Schwartz ILS ASSOCIATES, INC. Susan Schwartz Friends of Five Creeks Alan Schwartzman City of Benicia Dan Schwarz City of Larkspur Daniel Schwarz Larkspur City Hall Ken Schwarz Horizon Water & Environmental M.Schweickert DOW Chemical Wetlands Team Jeff Schwob City of Fremont Sandra Scoggin San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Dave Scola City of Martinez Nancy Scolari Marin Resource Conservation District Greg Scoles City of Belmont Kathrin Sears County of Marin First Name Last Name Organization Mark Seedall Contra Costa Water District Michael A.Segala City of Suisun City Linda J.Seifert County of Solano Mary Selkirk Martin Sellers Cece Sellgren Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Maria Sena Contra Costa Special Districts Association Carrie Sendak Harry Seraydarian Joe Seto Zone 7 Water Agency Sue Severson City of Orinda John D.Seybert City of Redwood City Gail Seymour California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Sally Seymour Sustainable Napa County Cyndy Shafer California Department of Parks and Recreation Kathleen Shaffer City of Sebastopol Hamid Shamsapour City of Larkspur Hamid Shamsapour Larkspur City Hall Thomas Shanahan Town of Woodside Sheela Shankar Kids for the Bay Lisa Woo Shanks USDA, National Resource Cons. Service Mo Sharma City of Monte Sereno Jeff Sharp Napa County Jeff Sharp Napa County CDPD Leigh Sharp Napa County Resource Conservation District Andrea Shelton Latina Coalition Silicon Valley Nancy Sheperd City of Palo Alto Brad Sherwood Sonoma County Water Agency Dana Shigley City of American Canyon Fraser Shilling Department of Environmental Science and Policy, UC Davis Chuck Shinnamon Friends of the Napa River George M.Shirakawa County of Santa Clara Chris Shirley San Mateo County Parks Bill Shoe County of Santa Clara Carolyn Shoulders National Park Service Aarti Shrivastava City of Cupertino David Shuey City of Clayton Gordon Siebert City of Morgan Hill David Siebo David Siedband David Siedband Jac Siegel City of Mountain View Joanne Siew RMC Water and Environment Cindy Silva City of Walnut Creek Joseph Silva Town of Colma Bob Simmons City of Walnut Creek Luke Sims City of San Leandro Luke Sims City of San Leandro Daniele Sinclair NCTPA Maia Singer Stillwater Sciences Rod Sinks City of Cupertino Gary Skrel City of Walnut Creek First Name Last Name Organization Christina Sloop San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Karen Slusser City of Calistoga Carla Small Town of Ross Richard Smelser City of Gilroy Matt Smeltzer Geomorph Design Jeffrey V.Smith County of Santa Clara Victoria Smith City of Orinda Laura Snideman City of Half Moon Bay Solano RCD Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership Chris Sommers EOA, Inc. Ray Soper Integra Ricardo Sousa The Watershed Project Diana M.Souza City of San Leandro Janet Sowers Fugro Consultants Jennifer Sparacino City of Santa Clara Barbara Spector Town of Los Gatos Mark Spencer Alameda County Waste Management Authority/StopWaste.org James P.Spering County of Solano Marley Spilman Friends of Coyote Creek Richard Spitler City of Calistoga Niroop Srivatsa City of Lafayette Pam Stafford City of Rohnert Park Jim Stallman Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Daisy Stark City of Palo Alto Joyce Starosciak City of San Leandro Danielle Staude City of Mill Valley Carolyne Stayton Tomales Bay Watershed Council Kent Steffens City of Sunnyvale Eric Steger County of Marin Rita Steiner Natural Resources Conservation Service Todd Steiner Turtle Island Restoration Network Anne Steinhauer Napa Valley Vintners Karen Stepper Town of Danville Gary Stern National Marine Fisheries Service Phil Stevens Urban Creeks Council Michael Stevenson Horizon Water & Environmental Mendel Stewart U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rosalyn Stewart Jones & Stokes Ann Stillman San Mateo County Susan Stompe Len Stone City of Pacifica Erick Stonebarger City of Brentwood Robert Storer Town of Danville Ross (Hank)Stratford City of Clayton Richard Strauss Town of Ross Nancy Strausser William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Christina Strawbridge City of Benicia Pam Strayer Aaron Stressman CSS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC Dietrich Stroeh Kirsten Struve City of San Jose Debbie Stutsman City of San Anselmo First Name Last Name Organization Debra Stutsman Town of San Anselmo Matt Sullivan City of Pleasanton Ginger Summit Town of Los Altos Hills Jill Sunahara Horizon Water and Environment Jill Sunahara Jones & Stokes Karen Sundback League of Women Voters Herminio Sunga City of Vallejo Matt Swalberg Town of Tiburon Eric Swalwell City of Dublin Charles Swanson City of Orinda Christina Swanson The Bay Institute of San Francisco David Swartz Contra Costa County Watershed Program Roy Swearingen City of Pinole Caitlin Sweeney San Francisco Estuary Partnership Michael Sweeney City of Hayward Leandra Swent Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Mike Swezy Marin Municipal Water District John Swiecki City of Brisbane David Sykes City of San Jose Fari Tabatabai United States Army Corps of Engineers Dawn Taffler Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Dan Takasugi City of Calistoga Dan Takasugi City of Calistoga Lena Tam City of Alameda Nancy Tamarisk Napa Sierra Club Jeff Tangen Napa County CDPD David Tanner Town of Woodside Steve Tate City of Morgan Hill Donald L. (Don)Tatzin City of Lafayette Lori Taylor City of Alameda Robert (Bob)Taylor City of Brentwood Todd Teachout City of Sausalito KJ Team DOW Chemical Wetlands Team Jill Techel City of Napa Claire Teel Friends of Los Alamitos Watershed John C.Telischak City of Belvedere Sue Teneyck San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society J. Edward Tewes City of Morgan Hill Eric Thaut U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Renee Theriault Webber Sonoma County Water Agency Ann Thomas Madeline Thomas Reena Thomas Brezak and Associates Rick Thomasser Napa County Rick Thomasser Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Arnie Thompson San Francisquito Watershed Council Brendan Thompson State Water Resources Control Board Dianne Thompson City of Cotati Holly Thompson Mike Thompson Sonoma County Water Agency Pat Thompson Town of Ross Rick Thornberry Jerry Thorne City of Pleasanton First Name Last Name Organization Claire Thorp National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Peggy Thorpe Renteria Vineyard Management Michael Throne City of American Canyon Bob Tiernan Town of Yountville Adrienne Tissier County of San Mateo Mike Tognolini East Bay Municipal Utility District Mark R.Tompkins NewFields Ken Torke City of Palo Alto Helen Torres Hispanas Organized for Political Equality Cristina Torresan County of Marin Melody Tovar City of San Jose Jon Tracy County of Sonoma Joel Tranmer The Land Trust of Napa County Will Travis Bay Area Joint Policy Committee c/o Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter Marcus Trotta Sonoma County Water Agency Dave Trotter Town of Moraga Vitaly Troyan City of Oakland Lynne Trulio Silicon Valley Environmental Partnership Moses Tsang Alameda County Public Works Randy Tsuda City of Mountain View Cat Tucker City of Gilroy David Tucker South Bay Water Recycling Rebecca Tuden City of Oakland Pamela Tuft City of Petaluma Luann Tung Friends of the Arroyos Laureen Turner City of Livermore David J.Twa County of Contra Costa Scott Tye Elizabeth Tyree County of Sonoma Uchenna Udemezue City of San Leandro Uchenna Udemezue City of San Leandro Josh Uecker RMC Water and Environment Josh Ueker RMC Water and Environment Gayle B.Uilkema County of Contra Costa Emmanuel Ursu City of Orinda Junice Uy Rick Vaccaro City of Fairfield Cecilia Valdez City of San Pablo Luisa Valiela EPA Marie Valmores Contra Costa Water District Mark van Gorder City of Napa Kathleen Van Velsor Association of Bay Area Governments Bill Vandivere Clearwater Hydrology Marsha Vas Dupre City of Santa Rosa John M.Vasquez County of Solano Sam Veloz PRBO Conservation Science Andria Ventura Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund Erin Ventura City of Monte Sereno Lori Vereker City of Concord Jan Vick City of Rio Vista Phillip Vince City of Martinez Pat Von Behren Friends of Pleasant Hills Creeks Peter Vorster The Bay Institute of San Francisco First Name Last Name Organization James M.Vreeland City of Pacifica Mike Vukman Urban Creeks Council Ken Wachtel City of Mill Valley Phiroze Wadia Larkspur City Hall Graham Wadsworth Town of Yountville Brad Wagenknecht County of Napa Gary Waldeck Town of Los Altos Hills James Walgren City of Los Altos Cassandra Walker City of Napa Public Works Department Victoria Walker City of Concord Ben Wallace Solano Land Trust Mike Wallace Zone 7 Water Agency Carolyn Walsh County of Santa Clara Patrick Walter Purissima Hills Water District Chien Wang Alameda County Public Works Dave Warden City of Belmont Rachael Wark RMC Water and Environment Mike Wasserman County of Santa Clara Ryan Watanabe California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Rich Waterman City of Campbell Alyson Watson RMC Water and Environment Kristina Watson Save The Bay Nancy Watt County of Napa D. Kenyon Webster City of Sebastopol Tina Wehrmeister City of Antioch Tina Wehrmeister City of Antioch Robert Weil City of American Canyon Herb Weiner City of Sausalito David Weinsoff Town of Fairfax Ann Wengert Town of Portola Valley Susan Wengraf City of Berkeley Jennifer West City of Emeryville Alex Westhoff Delta Protection Commission Nelia White California Land Stewardship Institute Peter White City of St Helena Peter White City of St. Helena Dave Whitmer Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Sue Wickham Solano Land Trust Bill Widmer Town of Atherton Jeff Wieler City of Piedmont Scott Wiener City and County of San Francisco Carl Wilcox CA Department of Fish & Game William Wilkins City of Hercules Curtis Williams City of Palo Alto Jennifer Williams Santa Clara County Farm Bureau Laurie Williams County of Marin Mark Williams Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Meredith Williams San Francisco Estuary Institute Roland Williams Casto Valley Sanitary District Stan Williams Santa Clara Valley Water District Tom Williams City of Milpitas Paul Willis Town of Hillsborough Russell Wilsey Mt Veeder Stewardship Council Betsy Wilson Napa-Sonoma Marsh Restoration Group First Name Last Name Organization Dan Wilson California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Leo Winternitz The Nature Conservancy Bob Woerner City of Livermore Daniel Woldesenbet County of Alameda Bruce Wolfe State Water Resources Control Board Christy Wolter Town of Los Gatos Gus Wolter City of Cloverdale David Woltering City of Clayton Gilbert Wong City of Cupertino Phil Wong City of San Ramon Vince Wong Zone 7 Water Agency Jim Wood City of Healdsburg Julian Wood PRBO Conservation Science John Woodbury Napa County Regional Parks and Open Space District John Woodbury Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District April Wooden City of Suisun City Bethtina Woodridge Public Allies Silicon Valley David E.Woods City of East Palo Alto Jesse Woodside City of Napa Public Works Department Perry Woodward City of Gilroy Amy Worth City of Orinda Kriss Worthington City of Berkeley Christine Wozniak City of Belmont Gordon Wozniak City of Berkeley Ken Wright City of Napa Public Works Department Susan Wright San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley Vanessa Wyant PRBO Conservation Science Aimee Wyrick Pacific Union College Gary Wysocky City of Santa Rosa David Yam Caltrans Gilbert Yan City of Belmont Michael Yankovich County of Solano Ken Yeager County of Santa Clara Yiaway Yeh City of Palo Alto Erica Yelensky US EPA Region 9 CC Yin Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association Chino Yip Napa County Regional Park & Open Space District Andrea Youngdahl City of Oakland Jessica Zadeh South Bay Water Recycling Dan Zador Napa County CDPD Shirlee Zane County of Sonoma Chris Zapata City of San Leandro John Zentner Friends of Orinda Creeks Francisco Zermeno City of Hayward Sam Ziegler US Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Water Division Tom Zigterman Stanford University Linda Zimmerman Contra Costa County Greg Zlotnick Santa Clara Valley Water District John Chevron, Inc. John Mark California Department of Water Resources Ned First Name Last Name Organization Ned Norman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Rochelle Acterra Acterra - Stewardship Program Acterra - Stewardship Program Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Agency Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Water District Alameda County Water District Alnus Ecological American Water Enterprises ARUP ARUP Assm. Nancy Skinner Assm. Nancy Skinner BACWA Balance Hydro Balance Hydrologics Balance Hydrologics Balance Hydrologics Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Bay Conservation and Development Commission Bay Conservation and Development Commission Bay Friendly Coalition Bay Friendly Coalition California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Conservation Corps California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources First Name Last Name Organization California Department of Water Resources California Dept of Fish and Wildlife California Dept of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Resources Agency California Water Service Company California Water Service Company California Water Service Company Caltrans CDM Smith Center for Biological Diversity Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR) City of Albany City of Belmont City of Belmont City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Brisbane City of Brisbane City of Burlingame City of Burlingame City of Burlingame City of Campbell City of Daly City City of Dixon City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of Foster City City of Foster City City of Foster City City of Half Moon Bay City of Half Moon Bay City of Hayward City of Lafayette City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Mill Valley City of Millbrae City of Millbrae City of Millbrae First Name Last Name Organization City of Milpitas City of Napa City of Oakland City of Oakland City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of San Bruno City of San Bruno City of San Bruno (Water Department) City of San Carlos City of San Carlos City of San Jose City of San Jose City of San Jose City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San Jose, Watershed Protection Division City of San Mateo City of San Mateo City of San Mateo City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Clean Water Action Clean Water Action Clearwater Hydrology Coastside County Water District Coastside County Water District Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District First Name Last Name Organization Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Corix County of Alameda County of Marin County of Marin County of Napa County of Sonoma County of Sonoma Creekcats Daly City Delta Diablo Sanitary District Delta Diablo Sanitary District Delta Diablo Sanitary District Dublin San Ramon Services District Dublin San Ramon Services District Ducks Unlimited DWR DWR Earth Island Institute East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Regional Park District East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Water Caucus EOA, Inc. EOA, Inc. EPA EPA EPA ESA ESA ESA ESA ESA/PWA ESA/PWA ESA/PWA ESA/PWA Far West Engineering First Name Last Name Organization Friends of Alhambra Creek Friends of Orinda Creeks Friends of the Napa River Friends of the Petaluma River Golden Gate Audubon Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Green Foothills Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Hydroikos Associates ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes Interbill Jones & Stokes Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Kearns & West, Inc. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kids for the Bay Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LMi.net Los Medanos College Marin County Marin County Marin County Marin County Planning (and OSD) Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Marin Open Space Trust Metropolitan Transporation Commission Mid Peninsula Open Space District Montara Water and Sanitary District Morrison & Associates, Inc. Morrison & Associates, Inc. Mt. View Sanitary District First Name Last Name Organization Muir Heritage Land Trust MWH Global Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Resource Conservation District Napa Open Space District National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service Natural Resource Conservation District NewFields North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) North Bay Watershed Association North Coast County Water District North Marin Water District OneWorld Communications Peninsula Open Space Trust Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council PRBO Conservation Science PRBO Conservation Science PRBO Conservation Science PRBO Conservation Science Presido Trust Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Puente de la Costa Sur Questa Engineering Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment Rural Community Assistance Corporation San Francisco Bay Joint Venture San Francisco Bay Joint Venture San Francisco Bay RWQCB San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute First Name Last Name Organization San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project San Francisco International Airport San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisquito Creek JPA San Francisquito Creek JPA San Francisquito Creek JPA San Francisquito Creek JPA San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County C/CAG SW Runoff Program San Mateo County Farm Bureau San Mateo County Parks San Mateo County Parks San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Resource Conservation District San Mateo County Resource Conservation District San Mateo County Road Maintenance San Mateo County Supervisor Carole Groom San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley San Mateo County Supervisor, 3rd District Santa Clara Regional OSA Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District First Name Last Name Organization Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside SF Bayland Goals Update SF Port SF Port SF Regional Water Quality Control Board SFPUC SFPUC SFPUC Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Valley CAC Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sound Watershed Consulting Sound Watershed Consulting SRT Consultants for MWSD State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board Stevens & Permanente Creeks Watershed Stillwater Sciences Stillwater Sciences, Inc. StopWaste.org First Name Last Name Organization StopWaste.org StopWaste.org Surfrider Foundation - San Mateo County Surfrider Foundation - San Mateo County Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology TeleScience Networks The Bay Institute of San Francisco The Bay Institute of San Francisco The Bay Institute of San Francisco The Watershed Project The Watershed Project The Watershed Project Tomales Bay Watershed Council Tomales Bay Watershed Council Tomales Bay Watershed Council Town of Atherton Town of Atherton Town of Atherton Town of Colma Town of Hills Borough Town of Hillsborough Town of Hillsborough Town of Portola Valley Town of Portola Valley Town of Ross Town of Woodside Turtle Island Restoration Network U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Army Corps of Engineers Urban Creeks Council Urban Creeks Council Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Wetlands and Water Resources WHITLEY BURCHETT & Associates Wolf & Associates Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:July 23 Workshop, Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Date:Monday, July 02, 2012 10:08:49 AM Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. July 23, 2012 Public Workshop for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Dear Bay Area Water and Land Use Community, The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. On behalf of the coalition of water, flood, watershed, and planning agencies and organizations in the Bay Area that is updating the Bay Area IRWMP, I invite you, or someone from your agency or organization, to participate in the first of three public workshops that will provide information and gather input to develop the 2013 update to the Bay Area IRWMP. Importantly, understanding the Plan and its objectives will also help prepare your agency or organization to submit water project concepts by SEPTEMBER 1, 2012 for inclusion in the Plan, thereby qualifying your project for Prop. 84 and other competitive state grant funding. Public Workshop The first public workshop will be held on MONDAY, JULY 23, 2012 from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. at the Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 (Lake Merritt BART Station). The purpose of the workshop is to inform you about the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP, how it affects your agency or organization, how you can provide input into the Plan, and how you can propose water resource projects to be included in the Plan. Projects serving disadvantaged communities will get special consideration. The workshop is intended for public agency representatives (particularly water, land use, and sustainable development), policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests and individuals interested in water supply, water quality, flood protection/stormwater management, wastewater/recycled water, and watershed and habitat protection. A draft agenda will be posted on the website, www.bairwmp.org. Speakers from regional and local water and flood organizations, as well as from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), will explain the objectives of the Bay Area IRWMP which are to promote integrated water management planning at the city, county and regional level, how new state guidelines are modifying integrated regional water management planning, how to collaborate with partners on project development, and potentially to get state assistance for addressing water challenges in your community. The second workshop will be held Monday, August 27, 2012 and will provide a more in-depth look at how projects will be prioritized in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP. The date of the third workshop is not yet set. We hope to see you or a representative of your agency or organization on July 23 in Oakland. Sincerely, Paul Helliker Marin Municipal Water District Chair, Coordinating Committee Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan P.S. Participation in the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee is open to anyone interested in regional water projects, programs and policies. Please join us at our monthly meetings, check the website, www.bairwmp.org, for the contact person in your subregion, or contact us at BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. We are partnering with stakeholder engagement specialists Kearns & West on this project. forward to a friend Our mailing address is: bairwmp@kearnswest.com unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Reminder, July 23 Public Workshop-- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Date:Friday, July 20, 2012 2:48:23 PM Reminder, July 23 Public Workshop --Bay Area Integrated Regional Water ManagementPlan Dear Water, Land Use and Community Stakeholder: This is a reminder of Public Workshop #1 for the 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional WaterManagement Plan on Monday, July 23, 2012, 4-6 p.m., at the Association of Bay AreaGovernments Auditorium, 101 Eighth St., Oakland, CA. (Lake Merritt BART Station.) The workshop will provide an overview of the process to update the Plan, the Plan objectives,and the submittal and evaluation of water –related project proposals. Projects included inthe Plan can qualify for competitive state grant funding, and there will be a regional processto prioritize projects. The deadline to submit a water project proposal is September 1, 2012. Visitwww.bairwmp.org to submit a proposal online. Workshop #2 will be held August 27, 2012, 4-6 p.m., Oakland venue to be determined. Themain topic of the meeting will be project prioritization for the Bay Area IRWMP. Public agencies and non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit projects and tocollaborate on projects. Projects serving water challenges in disadvantaged, low-incomecommunities will get special consideration. Native American tribes are also encouraged toconsider projects that will serve their needs. For information, please visit the website or email BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. Forward this email to a friend. Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Today’s Bay Area IRWMP Workshop in Oakland should not be affected by Presidential street closures Date:Monday, July 23, 2012 9:58:06 AM Today's Bay Area IRWMP Workshop in Oakland should not be affected by Presidential street closures Dear Bay Area Water, Land Use and Community Stakeholders: Today’s visit to Oakland by President Obama coincides with our 4-6 p.m. Bay Area IRWMPWorkshop, but access to the meeting should not directly be affected by street closures. The President will be at the Scottish Rite Temple across from Lake Merritt at about 18th Streetand Lakeside Blvd. The Bay Area IRWMP Workshop is being held about eight blocks away at 101 8 th St. between Oak St. and Madison St. at the Association of Bay Area Governments. FYI, the following streets are currently scheduled for closure today by the Oakland PoliceDepartment. Telegraph Avenue between 17th Street and Thomas L. Berkley Way 17th Street between Broadway and San Pablo Avenue 18th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues 19th Street between Broadway and San Pablo Avenue William Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues Rashida Muhammad Street between 19th and 20th streets San Pablo Avenue from 17th Street to Thomas L. Berkley Way While there are protests scheduled for the BART station at 12th and Broadway, the BARTstation closest to the workshop is the Lake Merritt station. Presentations from the meeting will be posted on July 24, 2012. And please remember,Project Proposals are due September 1, 2012. Please visit www.bairwmp.org for the onlinesubmittal template. Sincerely, The Coordinating Committee of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Forward this email to a friend Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:BAIRWMP: Follow-up from 7/23 workshop, reminder of 9/1 project submittal deadline Date:Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:08:17 PM BAIRWMP: Follow-up from 7/23 workshop, reminder of9/1 project submittal deadline Thank you to those who attended the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan(Bay Area IRWMP) Public Workshop on July 23 in Oakland. We had a great turnout! For thosewho were unable to attend the workshop, electronic copies of the workshop’s presentationsand question-and-answer session are posted on the project website (http://bairwmp.org/). Future workshopsIn order to allow agencies and non-governmental organizations to submit project proposals bythe September 1 deadline, we will hold Workshops #2 and #3 further along in the Plandevelopment process, likely in early 2013. This will allow stakeholders to learn about andprovide input on chapters dealing with topics such Bay Area IRWM Plan performance andmonitoring, financing integrated projects, and the relationship of integrated watermanagement to land use planning and climate change. Please visit the project website(www.bairwmp.org) where information will be posted as it becomes available. We will alsosend a notice of the workshops, so please make sure to include our email address in your“approved” list. Reminder – September 1 project submittal deadline The deadline for submitting projects to be included in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP is September1, 2012. Please visit the following link for more information on how to submit a project onthe project website: http://bairwmp.org/projects/submitting-a-project-to-the-bay-area-irwmp If you have any questions regarding your project proposal or how to submit on the website,please contact your subregional outreach lead:· North (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano counties) – Harry Seraydarian: harryser@comcast.net· East (Contra Costa, Alameda counties) – Mark Boucher: mbouc@pw.cccounty.us· South (Santa Clara County) – Brian Mendenhall: BMendenhall@valleywater.org)· West (San Francisco, San Mateo counties) – Cheryl Muñoz: cmunoz@sfwater.org Disadvantaged community (DAC) maps availableIf you are considering submitting a project proposal that serves a disadvantaged community,maps that incorporate 2010 Census data are now available on the project website athttp://bairwmp.org/dac/dac-info . For assistance with developing DAC project proposals,please contact Caitlin Sweeney: CSweeney@waterboards.ca.gov. Thank you for your continued interest in the development of the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP! Forward this email to a friend From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:IRWMP Projects – New deadline….Sept. 7 Date:Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:54:15 PM IRWMP Projects – New deadline...Sept. 7 Dear project proponents: As you may know, the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan is currently beingupdated. As part of this process, the Plan will include proposed projects for water resourcesmanagement in the Bay Area. These proposed projects are due September 7 and can eitherbe new projects, or can be updated versions of projects already in the Plan. In either case,information about the projects must be included in the online database housed at the BayArea IRWMP website. A complete new or updated project description is required to be eligible for inclusion in the2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and to be eligible for future grantfunding. New ProjectsIf you are proposing a new project, please visit the Bay Area IRWMP website atwww.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project" andfollow the instructions. You may click the blue "Submit a project" button at the bottom ofthat page. Updating Existing ProjectsIf your project has already been submitted and included in the Plan, you will need to confirmthat you want to continue to include it in the Plan. Please visit the IRWMP website atwww.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project,"and then click on the link "Click here for instructions on how to update existing projects." Ifyou do not update the project information, the project will be put in an inactive file and notincluded in the Active Project List. Reviewing and Scoring ProjectsAll projects submitted or updated by the deadline of September 7 will be reviewed inaccordance with a Project Review Process and scoring methodology authorized by theCoordinating Committee. The original deadline was set for September 1. Drafts ofthese materials are now available on the IRWMP website, "Submitting a Project" page. DRAFT Project Review Process: http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/2013 Projreview processDRAFT Review Process Schedule: http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/2013 ProjRev Process ScheduleDRAFT Project Scoring and Ranking Methodology: http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/Project Scoring & Ranking Method/ DeadlinePlease note that the deadline for submitting a new project or updating an existingproject has been extended to September 7, 2012. This date has been selected to allowadequate time to review, score and prioritize projects included in the Plan, and to considerprojects for further analysis and inclusion in a proposal for implementation grant funding. Website Bulletin BoardIn order to provide an opportunity for further collaboration, the Bay Area IRWMP website nowincludes a bulletin board for project proponents: http://bairwmp.org/projects/needs-board/ Please note that you will need to register with the Bay Area IRWMP website in order to editproject information. If you need assistance or have questions, you may seek technical supportby contacting projects@bairwmp.org . Thank you, Paul HellikerChair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Important NEW information - DAC projects http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=9a3e9618a6b3b97bca774ec79&id=f5a45acb85[3/14/2013 3:51:25 PM] Important NEW information - DACprojects Dear project proponents: The purpose of this message is to provide NEW information regarding IRWM projectsbenefitting disadvantaged communities. The Department of Water Resources has confirmed that IRWM projects benefitting adisadvantaged community (DAC) and included in a future IRWM Implementation Grantproposal may be eligible for special treatment, as summarized below. Match waiverA cost match waiver (minimum 25% match) can be requested for any IRWM DAC project thatspecifically addresses a need of a DAC. This means that matching funds requirements couldbe waived for any IRWMP project specifically benefitting a disadvantaged community. Funding appropriationThe IRWM program requires that 10% of statewide funding for Implementation Grants mustaddress critical water supply/water quality needs of a DAC. DWR has confirmed ourunderstanding that flood control projects in a DAC are eligible for this DAC-dedicated funding(in addition to the match funding waiver), if they meet a critical water supply or waterquality need. For a flood control project, the project sponsor must present the argument forhow the flood control project addresses a critical water supply/water quality need. Forexample, if a flood control project is located in a DAC and is designed to prevent publichealth risks associated with exposure to bacterial or chemical pollutants that could resultfrom flooding (such as happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina), the project couldbe considered by DWR to meet a critical water quality need. The deadline for submitting new or updated project descriptions to be eligible for inclusion inthe 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and future IRWMImplementation Grant proposals, is September 7, 2012. New or updated project descriptions received after 12:00 midnight on September 7 willnot be considered during the Project Review Process for inclusion in the 2013 IRWM Plan. Please note that you will need to register with the Bay Area IRWMP website in order to editproject information. If you need assistance or have questions, you may seek technical supportby contacting projects@bairwmp.org . Thank you,Paul HellikerChair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Forward this email to a friend From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop #2 - January 28, 2013 Date:Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:10:18 PM January 28, 2013 Public Workshop #2 for the Bay Area Integrated Water Management Plan You are invited to the second public workshop for the development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop will be held on Monday, January 28, 2013 from 4-6 p.m. at StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA. (12 th St. BART) The purpose of the workshop is to provide water, flood and watershed agencies and organizations with information about water-related projects and funding sources related to integrated water resource management projects in the Bay Area. The topics for the workshop will include: ·2013 Bay Area IRWMP Projects – Scoring and Ranking Projects for Inclusion in the Plan – Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association and Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee, and ·Financing and Collaboration – Opportunities, Challenges, Successes: Current and Emerging Opportunities for Funding Water Resource Projects 1) Water and wastewater public-private partnerships – Grant Schlereth, ARUP 2) Flood management projects – Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency 3) Non-governmental organization projects – Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership The topics will provide ample opportunity for discussion by participants. The workshop is intended for public agency representatives (particularly water, land use, and sustainable development), policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests and individuals interested in water supply, water quality, flood protection/stormwater management, wastewater/recycled water, and watershed and habitat protection. For further information, please visit the website, www.bairwmp.org. The Bay Area IRWMP is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. P.S. Participation in the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee is open to anyone interested in regional water projects, programs and policies. Please join us at our monthly meetings, check the website, www.bairwmp.org , for the contact person in your subregion, or contact us at BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:January 28 Water Workshop - Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Date:Monday, January 14, 2013 1:46:30 PM Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here willshow in the preview area of some email clients.Is this email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser . January 28, 2013 Public Workshop #2 for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan “Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration” You are invited to the second public workshop for the development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop will be held on Monday, January 28, 2013 from 4-6 p.m. at StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA. (12th St. BART) Topics for the workshop include: Scoring, ranking and selecting projects for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Funding sources and collaborations for water project implementation, including public-private and public-non-profit partnerships Speakers include: Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency Grant Schlereth, ARUP Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership Steve Ritchie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission There will also be a discussion with participants about removing barriers to collaboration between public agencies and non-profit organizations as well as with for-profit organizations. Please visit www.bairwmp.org for an agenda and further information about the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop is intended for public agency representatives (particularly water, land use, and sustainable development), policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests and individuals interested in water supply, water quality, flood protection/stormwater management, wastewater/recycled water, and watershed and habitat protection. The Bay Area IRWMP is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. P.S. Participation in the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee is open to anyone interested in regional water projects, programs and policies. Please join us at our monthly meetings, check the website, www.bairwmp.org , for the contact person in your subregion, or contact us at BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com . follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Reminder: Bay Area IRWMP January 28th Workshop Date:Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:37:10 PM Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here willshow in the preview area of some email clients.Is this email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser . January 28, 2013 Public Workshop #2 for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan “Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration” As a reminder, you are invited to the second public workshop for the development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop will be held on Monday, January 28, 2013 from 4-6 p.m. at StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA. (12 th St. BART) Topics for the workshop include: · Scoring, ranking and selecting the 300+ projects for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP · Funding sources and collaborations for water project implementation, including public-private and public-non- profit partnerships Please visit the website , www.bairwmp.org, for an agenda and further information about the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Bay Area IRWMP Draft Chapters Available for Public Review Date:Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:41:47 PM Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here willshow in the preview area of some email clients.Is this email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser . Three draft chapters are now available for public review as part of the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update process: Chapter 2: Region Description Chapter 3: Objectives Chapter 6: Regional Priorities (includes Appendix 6-2: Project Template) Please visit the BAIRWMP website at http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan- update/public-drafts/drafts to access the draft chapters. How to provide comments Please submit your substantive comments on Chapters 2, 3 and 6 using a Chapter Review Form (available at the link above) and send to Dana Haasz (DanaHaasz@KennedyJenks.com ) by March 28, 2013. Please use a separate form for each chapter reviewed. Review of additional Plan Update chapters Each of the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update’s chapters will be available for public review prior to being combined into one document (note: this combined Plan Update will also be available for review in June 2013). The draft chapters will be available on the BAIRWMP website (http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/public- drafts/drafts ), and a message will be sent to this distribution list at the beginning of each chapter’s 30-day review period. Below is the list of BAIRWM Plan Update chapters: Chapter : Title Chapter 1: Governance Chapter 2: Region Description Chapter 3: Objectives Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies Chapter 6: Project Review Chapter 7: Impacts & benefits Chapter 8: Performance & Monitoring Chapter 9: Data Management Chapter 10: Financing Chapter 11: Technical analysis Chapter 12: Relation to Water planning Chapter 13: Relation to land use planning Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement Chapter 15: Coordination Chapter 16: Climate change forward to a friend unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 Appendix E-2 Stakeholder Assessment Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 1 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update Summary of Interviews with Coordinating Committee Members February 2012 Members Interviewed: • Thomasin Grim, Marin MWD • Paul Helliker, Marin MWD (CC Chair) • Jennifer Krebs, ABAG/SFEP • Brian Mendenhall, Santa Clara Valley Water District • Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates • Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association • Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Association I. 2006 Plan Development Stakeholder Efforts A. Adequate to very good stakeholder: engagement of “the usual suspects” Local water agencies/special districts/ local government Water-specific state agencies Regional NGOs And, particularly for Plan development B. Minimal/not successful engagement of: Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities (DACs/EJ). except for some outreach done by Carl Morrison on behalf of his clients/the effort Environmental groups Tribal organizations AND ALSO Research institutions Consulting firms Stormwater agencies County/city planning directors/agencies Resource Conservation Districts Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 2 Some state agencies (e.g. Fish & Game) Federal agencies And, engagement after Plan adoption was minimal C. Legacy of 2006 BAIRWMP collaboration efforts Flood agencies are now working together (Bay Area Flood Protection Association -- BASFPA) Also a water agency coalition, a clean water agency, a stormwater group (BAWAC, BASWA, BAWN) Subregional efforts may take it to the next step (e.g. NBWA sea-level-rise planning BUT, everyone is busy doing their own jobs and is likely to have less time to contribute to the CC or to “mentoring” DACs or other community-based organizations D. Stakeholder engagement goals were not clearly defined General notions range from “it’s the right thing to do” to “we need to get the most complete set of products we can so we need to hear from people in addition to agencies” Some local water agencies thought the state funds were for them and didn’t consider “integration” a priority Much of the engagement was actually “outreach,” i.e. informing stakeholders, but if you weren’t a local water agency you might not have really gotten a sense of how decisions were made and how your interests/group could influence decisions or benefit by them. After the plan was adopted in 2006, the attention shifted to identifying projects for submission to DWR for funding. There was very little if any ongoing stakeholder outreach other than public Coordinating Committee meetings and the more recent subregional groups E. Hurdles to Disadvantaged Communities and tribal engagement Need to develop a consolidated list of DACs and tribal groups, including relationships that subregional groups have DACs often don’t have the staff or volunteer time to participate in engagement activities, let alone submit a project proposal Their interests/priorities may not relate to the four functional areas (supply, quality, wastewater, flood protection); further, DAC projects must address water supply and/or water quality Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 3 Even if they have a water problem, it may be local and not obviously solved by a regional or integrated project Lack of knowledge of how to identify a project, find a partner, provide input to the application. Potential partner agencies may not see it in their interest to partner. Tribes are a challenge. They don’t seem to have specific water needs, unless the gaming industry generates demand that can’t be met. We’ll need to work with some agency resources to identify tribal representatives to talk to. DACs may underestimate the amount of resources and money a project will take and, consequently, they may never propose to do the work. II. 2013 Plan Update: More explicit stakeholder engagement goals should be part of an overall stakeholder engagement plan A. A successful stakeholder engagement plan would look like: Generate a sizeable number of projects, with both geographic and functional diversity There are projects that span the cross functional areas. For example, a habitat restoration project that includes flood management and groundwater recharge and maybe some recycled water. We go to the DACs and tribes to talk! Don’t make them come to our meetings! Ask them what their water problems are and what they want done about them. Manage expectations. Boil down the IRWMP to the types of projects that would make sense for DACs and also qualify for DWR’s criteria. Determine quickly whether their needs would be met by qualified projects. If not, tell them it’s not going to work but we’ll keep you on the mailing list and keep the BAIRWMP process in mind for the future. Empower NGOs to go to the DACs and tribes to raise awareness, interest and participation. Make some of the time at CC meeting specific so we can do a “deep dive” on more limited topics of interest to stakeholders rather than just do reviews and updates. Make the groups aware of state funding. You can lead a horse to water…. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 4 B. DWR should provide appropriate, region-specific criteria for what constitutes a disadvantaged community (DAC) 80% of median household income of state? Or region? And, more broadly, who IS the public? Does it include the likes of the Tea Party? C. DWR should provide guidance on tribal-related projects Few distinct tribal communities of a significant size in Bay Area Don’t tend to have region- or culture-specific water deficiencies DWR’s focus on water quality and water supply often does not relate to the challenges and concerns of Bay Area DACs and tribal communities. Their access to adequate quantities of clean water is not different from other residents. DAC and tribal water needs may not be the type that is easily integrated in geography or functional areas D. Foster a culture of collaboration that extends beyond the plan Clearly define “collaboration” and “integrated” so they can be considered from the start of project identification/development Beyond projects, convey necessity and benefit of region-wide water planning Provide a compelling reason for stakeholders, particularly DACs/EJ/tribes, to participate Provide opportunities in addition to CC meetings for DACs/tribes to participate E. Of the stakeholder engagement, how much should be geared toward DACs and tribes? Ranges from “Top priority!” to “Less than half our engagement efforts.” It’s in the work plan. A third should go to the DACs. But that might be too much given the potential for meeting state criteria. Need to clarify criteria with DWR! Given current understanding of DWR’s criteria that 10% of proposed project dollars should go to DACs and tribes, some felt it may be unreasonable because of the low numbers of communities that meet state requirements for income and for discrete water problems that qualify. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 5 We might be tempted to try to find problems that aren’t there. Why should we expend the effort on projects with a low likelihood of qualifying for state funds? If DACs don’t have the interest or bandwidth to participate, we can’t force them and we shouldn’t spend our time trying to create problems to solve. Not realistic to think a small community organization is going to put together an IRWMP organization F. Flood control and sea-level rise may be most promising DAC projects Find a map of flood-prone communities and target them Potential for climate change to create flooding in Low-lying communities would be more subject to flooding and to the effects of sea-level rise could meet state criteria for funding Flood management AND riparian or wetlands management together. With sea level rise, we’d want more wetlands in which to disperse the water Consider solutions: sea walls, evacuation plans (would these qualify as inter- regional and multi-benefit?) G. Other projects of interest to DACs may be: Conservation Rate reductions Watershed management Reduction of mercury pollution via stormwater drainage into Bay Impact of habitats on water quality Wastewater treatment plants H. The subregional approach has the best likelihood for engagement success. Subregional leads know the organizations and the territory. “Map” their relationships. Consolidate their lists of organizations. Regional watershed groups have good potential to cross multiple geographic and functional boundaries Recruit additional subregion stakeholder “co-captains” Compensate NGOs to engage community representatives who can identify potential problems that could be addresses by state bond money Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 6 I. Outreach techniques might include: An outreach and engagement plan that has the buy-in from key players in the update Develop a simple, consistent message about why people/organizations should care about the IRWMP, how they can benefit, and how they can get help to get state money Deliver the messages: o In person by going to the groups o In simple text and graphics using project examples and photos o Via a more user-friendly website, including an online sign-up for announcements and e-newsletters o Via a quarterly e-newsletter Summary of Interviews Focusing on Disadvantaged Communities Page 1 Prepared by Kearns & West Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update Summary of Interviews Focusing on Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) April 2012 Stakeholders Interviewed: • Jennifer Clary – Clean Water Action • Debbie Davis – former member of Environmental Justice Coalition for Water • Melanie Denninger – State Coastal Conservancy • Karen Gaffney – North Coast IRWMP • Carol Mahoney – Zone 7 Water Agency • Karen Pierce – SF Department of Public Health, Bayview-Hunters Point environmental justice advocate • Chuck Striplen – SFEI, member of Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Reflections on 2006 IRWMP DAC Engagement • Process was frustrating for organizations serving DACs. • Proposed edits to the draft Plan from DAC perspectives/interests were largely not incorporated into the final Plan. • Organizations serving DACs were unable to involve DACs and integrate their projects because outreach to DACs occurred too late in the process and grantee funding was limited. • There were resources allocated and staff assigned to “fill the gaps” – identify DAC needs, vet ideas, develop project proposals, etc. This was essential. Challenges/Obstacles to Effective DAC Engagement in 2012-2013 DAC Criteria • There are a limited number of DACs in the Bay Area. • Water quality/water supply is not a significant concern in the Bay Area. Resources • DACs are often represented by people with limited bandwidth (full-time jobs and other responsibilities). Water issues are usually not high on their list of priorities and participating in meetings/workshops and developing proposals requires a significant time investment. • DACs have limited resources/experience to identify projects and develop project proposals, and there are no guarantees that projects will be funded. • BAIRWM participating agency staff have limited resources to target DAC communities. Structure/Process • CC meetings take place during the day, and DAC representatives are not typically able or willing to attend. • BAIRWM leadership is comprised of water resource agency staff, without direct connections to residents. Many other IRWM regions have elected officials involved, and there is a built-in mechanism/incentive to conduct outreach. • BAIRWM outreach efforts are not centralized, making it challenging to be strategic with time and resources. Relationships • Water resource agencies often do not have strong working relationships with DACs and the organizations that serve them. Summary of Interviews Focusing on Disadvantaged Communities Page 2 Prepared by Kearns & West • Some DACs have lingering distrust from the 2006 BAIRWMP development process, including skepticism that DAC input will be incorporated if they participate and contribute feedback. Initial Recommendations for Engaging DACs Resources • Determine how best to use limited resources to engage DACs in the review of draft chapters, project identification, and other Plan Update activities. • Inventory resources (staff and funding) available to engage and provide technical assistance to DACs. Determine what additional resources will be needed and make plan for acquiring/allocating them. Structure/Process • Leverage existing BAIRWM structure to conduct outreach and identify potential projects o Functional Areas (FA), particularly the Water quality/Water supply FA, can coordinate internally and provide guidance/information to help identify DAC projects. Encourage more direct interaction and information sharing between water resource agencies and DACs. o Consistent with broader outreach, DAC outreach should be implemented and coordinated on the sub-regional level. o Identify ways of involving DACs in existing activities. o Be very clear about how DAC input will be incorporated; ensure that commitments are upheld. Be clear about the decision-making process and how they will be assisted in preparing proposals. Outreach and Engagement • Develop DAC-specific outreach messages and materials. • Structure DAC outreach to reflect the criteria for selecting projects. Be clear about what kinds of projects are being sought. • Educate DACs to better make the connection between water and other environmental priorities. • Inventory existing relationships with DACs and the organizations that serve them. Use a spider-webbing approach to reach additional organizations. • Go to the DACs – provide presentations during their standing meetings. DACs want to see/hear from the water agencies directly. • Conduct community visits to better understand issues, build relationships and establish trust. Project Identification • Engage environmental/public health officers, who often know about water quality issues and the needs of DACs. • Identify Bay Area communities that do not have access to safe water/sewer. Consider beginning with county department of public health or local governments, who can identify places with poor housing stock. The Water Board can provide information on violations. Tribal-Specific Issues and Recommendations • Some tribes have professional environmental staff; most do not. • Most Bay Area tribes are diffused, making it difficult to address geographic needs. • Tribal engagement is unique, and tribes themselves are unique. Direct government-to- government consultation is often expected. • The EPA Regional Tribal Operations Committee and DWR’s Tribal Liaison will be helpful resources. Appendix E-3 Agenda for April 17, 2012 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholder Engagement Planning Meeting Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) 375 11th St., Oakland, CA Large Training Room – 2nd Floor Meeting Objectives • Identify objectives for stakeholder engagement (both for IRWMP development and for implementation moving forward) • Confirm current and anticipated engagement activities (in all sub-regions and across all functional areas) and identify gaps • Discuss strategies to engage and identify projects in DACs and tribal communities Agenda Time Item 9:00 – 9:20 Agenda review and introductions • Introduce meeting participants • Review agenda topics and objectives • Framing the discussion – where we’ve been and where we’re going 9:20 – 10:30 Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) to support BAIRWMP development and project identification/selection • Discuss proposed BAIRWMP engagement objectives • Review current and anticipated outreach and engagement activities and roles/responsibilities • Discuss gaps and overlaps 10:30 – 11:40 DAC/tribal engagement planning • Review findings from Kearns & West DAC interviews • Discuss DAC/tribal participation challenges and potential recommendations • Discuss proposed DAC/tribal engagement objectives 11:40 – 11:55 Wrap-up discussion • Additional challenges, recommendations, and guidance for development of SEP and DAC/tribal engagement 11:55 – 12:00 Next steps Meeting Materials 1. Draft timeline of BAIRWMP development and public engagement/outreach milestones 2. Proposed BAIRWMP engagement objectives 3. Compiled results from Outreach and Engagement Activity Survey 4. Summary of findings from DAC interviews 5. Proposed DAC/tribal engagement objectives Appendix E-4 Stakeholder Engagement Plan Stakeholder Engagement Plan Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Project Overview .................................................................................................. 1 III. Stakeholder and Public Engagement Goals and Objectives ............................................................. 1 IV. Stakeholder Identification ............................................................................................................. 4 V. Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Activities ........................................................................... 7 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW The regional water management group for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is preparing the 2013 Plan Update to guide water management efforts in the Bay Area. Using the 2006 Plan as a basis, the new version will update existing information, add a new chapter on climate change, and update portions of the Plan to be current with the California Department of Water Resources’ guidelines and criteria for integrated regional water management plans. This Stakeholder Engagement Plan is a guide for the Coordinating Committee and its consultants to inform and engage stakeholders in learning about and contributing to the development of the Plan and for identification of water-related projects to include in the Plan for potential state grant funding. It was developed with input from interviews with seven members of the Coordinating Committee, six interviews with external stakeholders, a half-day Stakeholder Engagement Workshop held April 17, 2012, discussions with DWR staff, additional conversations with stakeholders, and discussion at the April and May 2012 Coordinating Committee meetings. II. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The development of the Bay Area IRWMP will only be possible with the participation of a range of stakeholders including water professionals, non-profit organizations, and community members. These stakeholders are most able to identify Bay Area water-related challenges and opportunities to address Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 1 of 9 Updated September 2012 them. In order to secure this type of input, efforts must be made to educate the public about integrated water project s and what constitutes an integrated regional water management plan. In addition, opportunities to share information about problems and solutions must be provided. With this understanding and these opportunities in place, interested stakeholders and broader members of the public can be involved in the development of the Bay Area IRWMP, including identifying potential projects to be included. This Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) identifies how stakeholder and public input will help shape the Bay Area IRWMP and how stakeholders can identify projects to be included in the Bay Area IRWMP. The SEP is intended to direct stakeholder engagement during the plan update process through August 2013, and it will also be used to guide stakeholder engagement subsequent to adoption of the Bay Area IRWMP. Kearns & West organized a Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Workshop in April 2012 to confirm Coordinating Committee Goals, Objectives and Priorities for stakeholder outreach and engagement. Fourteen persons attended. Based on that input the following goals and objectives were developed and brought to the Coordinating Committee. Subsequent to the workshop, some of the participants are serving on the Stakeholder Engagement Subcommittee to provide ongoing input and outreach. GOALS: Key stakeholder engagement goals for the Bay Area IRWMP include: 1. Develop a broader understanding of the water needs of the Bay Area 2. Increase broad public awareness of regional water management planning 3. Expand the scope of the Bay Area IRWMP to include planning for climate change impacts and to provide for greater collaboration with land use agencies 4. Further engage non-governmental organizations in the IRWMP planning process 5. Further engage disadvantaged communities in the IRWMP planning process 6. Identify and address the needs of disadvantaged communities 7. Develop more multi-benefit projects than previously submitted OBJECTIVES: The stakeholder engagement objectives that will support the goals of stakeholder engagement include: 1. Plan Update Awareness o BAIRWMP stakeholders know the Plan is being updated and understand why it is important for their respective groups. o Stakeholders understand the opportunities for public participation in content development and review. o Stakeholders understand the decision-making processes associated with the Plan Update, including:  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding Plan Update content  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding potential water projects and their prioritization Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 2 of 9 Updated September 2012 2. Stakeholder Inclusion and Identification o The CC listserv is easy to join, open to anyone, and the list of participants is well maintained and expanding in number. o As identified, people are invited to join the CC listserv and participate as stakeholders. The expansion includes:  Individuals who are on the contact lists of the four BAIRWMP subregional groups  Members of Bay Area regional water- and flood-related coalitions, organizations, and listservs  Members of public policy organizations interested in regional planning  Representatives of organizations in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) who have an interest in water issues addressed by the BAIRWMP  City and County government representatives, particularly those involved in land use planning, flood protection, habitat management, and public health  Experts , individuals and organizations responsible for/interested in impacts of climate change/sea level rise relative to water management  Organizations and individuals involved in watershed protection/habitat restoration  Businesses and associations which impact and/or are impacted by water-related decisions  Native American tribal representatives  Organizations and individuals interested in specific BAIRWMP issues  Other self-identified individuals and organizations o Stakeholders representing DACs and tribes have been identified for targeted outreach/engagement. 3. BAIRWMP Stakeholder Input and Review o Stakeholders impact content development by providing information and data to the Plan Update Team and/or the technical consultants, including at CC meetings, at subregional meetings, at workshops, and in person. Stakeholders can help frame issues, identify challenges and recommend solutions, including recommendations for policies and programs that involve collaboration and integration among organizations and agencies. o Stakeholders are able to review and provide feedback on the Plan Update during public review of draft chapters, which is publicized online, and in CC listserv notices. Stakeholders will also be able to make comments at Public Workshops. o Stakeholders see their input reflected in the Plan Update and/or are informed why their comments are not reflected. 4. Project Identification o The 2013 BAIRWMP includes projects that meet the needs of the Bay Area region and conform to Proposition 84 requirements. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 3 of 9 Updated September 2012 o Stakeholder involvement in the 2013 BAIRWMP produces projects that reflect integration among water management functions, agencies, and organizations to provide multiple benefits to communities. o Stakeholder involvement produces projects that feature greater collaboration among public agencies, non-governmental organizations, and communities. o Stakeholder involvement will identify projects that will disadvantaged commuities 5. Coordination and collaboration o The BAIRWMP process and its participants foster coordination, collaboration, and creative thinking among public agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses and individuals to identify and address the region’s water resource challenges and opportunities. o Agencies, organizations and individuals involved in the Plan Update are informed of the stakeholder engagement activities of other participants, which allows for the effective and efficient use of resources and relationships. III. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION Since the development of the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP, a core group of water agencies and non-profit organizations has continued to operate as the Coordinating Committee (CC), whose membership is open to any interested person. The CC holds monthly meetings and makes decisions on a consensus basis. The region is divided into four subregions to facilitate interaction on a more localized basis. There is a lead or co-leads for each subregion. An effort will be made to enlist water/flood agency representatives in San Mateo County, which is not currently represented. The CC participants and the stakeholder engagement consultant, Kearns & West, will identify potential additional stakeholders for engagement, including regional planning organizations and non-profit groups, land use and planning agencies and organizations, elected officials, disadvantaged communities and Native American tribal representatives, expanding the existing 200-person CC listserv as well as increasing the numbers of people on subregional contact lists. The goal of stakeholder identification is to capture all organizations, agencies and communities that may have an interest in the four functional areas of the Bay Area IRWMP – water supply/water quality, wastewater/stormwater, flood control, and watershed and habitat protection. Bay Area IRWMP stakeholders will include: 1. Wholesale and retail water purveyors 2. Wastewater agencies 3. Flood control agencies 4. Municipal and county governments and special districts 5. Elected officials 6. Regional planning organizations 7. County and local land use planners 8. Utilities 9. Climate change experts 10. Self-supplied water users Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 4 of 9 Updated September 2012 11. Environmental stewardship organizations 12. Community organizations 13. Industry organizations 14. State, federal, and regional agencies or universities 15. Disadvantaged community representatives 16. Native American tribal representatives 17. Any other interested group appropriate to the region Disadvantaged Communities Kearns & West will seek to identify representatives of disadvantaged communities as determined by the California Department of Water Resources’ criteria of less than 80% of the statewide median household income (MHI). Using 2010 U.S. Census data, Kearns & West will update a regional map to clearly indicate disadvantaged communities. Working with water agencies and county and local planning departments, as well as non-profit organizations that represent such communities, Kearns & West will identify a select number of organizations/individuals who are interested in water-related issues and willing to participate in plan development and/or project identification. These representatives will be invited to Bay Area IRWMP public workshops and will also be advised of other ways to collaborate with partner agencies and organizations to submit projects for consideration. Goals and Objectives for Disadvantaged Communities outreach and engagement include: 1. Plan Update Awareness and Participation o Water agencies and non-government organizations that serve Disadvantaged Communities understand the purpose of the Bay Area IRWMP and the participation and decision-making processes supporting the Plan Update so that they can be involved. 2. DAC Projects Included o The Plan Update includes three to five projects that benefit DACs, particularly in the areas of water quality and water supply. These DAC projects have a water agency co-sponsor to provide technical and administrative assistance and support. 3. Internal Coordination o Internal coordination among the water agencies and other organizations involved in the Plan Update allows for the effective and efficient use of resources for engaging DACs and engagement activities are informed by a clear understanding of priorities for DAC engagement. 4. Ongoing/Future DAC Engagement o Outreach and engagement activities build awareness of integrated, regional water management opportunities and result in enhanced trust and long-lasting positive relationships between water agencies and DACs. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 5 of 9 Updated September 2012 Native American Tribes Kearns & West will consult with individuals and organizations familiar with Bay Area tribes and tribal communities to identify appropriate tribal representatives. Kearns & West will also consult with neighboring IRWMPs to determine Bay Area tribes participating on other regional IRWMPs. We will also consult with the California Native American Heritage Commissions to confirm tribes and their contacts as well as strategies for contact. We will then contact, inform and seek involvement from tribes in the development of the Bay Area IRWMP in order to serve the water needs and interests of these populations to the extent possible. The CC participants acknowledge that tribal members are dispersed into existing communities in the Bay Area rather than concentrated in location-specific communities. These initial efforts will provide a foundation for future tribal outreach. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 6 of 9 Updated September 2012 IV. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Key components of the stakeholder outreach and engagement methods are outlined below. They are also included in a process timeline at the end of this document. A. Informational Materials 1. Flyer -- Kearns & West will develop a basic descriptive flyer to be posted to the project website and to be distributed by CC participants at meetings. 2. FAQs -- Kearns & West will revise the Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section of the project website. 3. Website and CC Listserv -- The project website, www.bairwmp.org, will provide information about the Bay Area IRWMP, including notices about public workshops and comment opportunities. The website will include links to presentations and handouts from public workshops. Visitors will also be able to sign up for the CC listserv in order to be notified of upcoming CC meetings. http://bairwmp.org/contact-info B. Consolidated Email List -- Kearns & West will compile a master stakeholder email list to be used for disseminating information, noticing public workshops, and identifying opportunities for stakeholders to review documents. The email list will include the representatives from the organizations and agencies identified in Section III. Kearns & West will select an email contact management system for distributing notices to the list, which is expected to include approximately 2,000 stakeholders. C. Coordinating Committee Meetings The Coordinating Committee (CC) is the regional water management organization developing the Bay Area IRWMP. The CC meets monthly, and these meetings will be used to inform stakeholders on the development of the Plan Update and solicit input on the Plan and potential water projects. Participation in the CC meetings is open to the public; anyone interested in water issues and planning is invited to attend and participate. Kearns & West will work with the CC and the consultant team to organize and facilitate these meetings to ensure that they are open, inclusive, efficient and effective. Summary notes of the meetings are available to the public via the project website. D. Subregional Meetings, Participation in Local Workshops, Email Communications A significant and effective stakeholder outreach strategy since the 2006 Plan was the voluntary appointment of four subregional leads who coordinate and communicate with water interests in their areas. This has been an effective way to break down such a large region as the Bay Area into smaller regions where the subregional leads have knowledge and contacts. Each lead and/or co-lead initiates communication with subregional water interests and hosts and/or participates in subregional meetings. Additionally, each lead maintains a separate email list of local meetings and contact. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 7 of 9 Updated September 2012 E. Public Workshops Kearns & West will work with the CC and its subregional leads to design and implement up to four public workshops to inform stakeholders about the Bay Area IRWMP process and content, how they can provide input into the plan, and how to submit water projects to be included in the plan. Since the majority of contacts on the stakeholder email list, and those who visit the project website, will likely have prior understanding of water issues, the workshops will be aimed primarily at those audiences. Secondarily, the workshops will be aimed at those who may not have a professional role in water issues but who have specific water needs or interests. Representatives of disadvantaged communities will also be invited to public workshops and to subregional public meetings. The public workshops will be two hours in length and will be located at central locations within the Bay Area with access to public transportation. They will include presentations and interactive discussions, and may be held in conjunction with the monthly meeting of the Coordinating Committee. Additionally, subregional leads may use the materials developed for the workshops to hold local, subregional meetings that are specific to their stakeholders. Public Workshop #1 – Bay Area IRWMP Overview and Objectives Overview: This workshop will provide an orientation to the Plan Update process. Date: July 23, 2012 Objectives: To help attendees understand: • IRWM Plan Update goals, objectives, process, requirements and how they can participate • General criteria and requirements for projects to be included in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP as well as the process for submitting projects on the website in order to meet the September 1, 2012 deadline. • Criteria for prioritization of projects for the Plan Public Workshop #2 – Topic-specific Elements of the Bay Area IRWMP (Revised 10/12) Overview: This workshop will provide an overview of the 380+ projects submitted by September 7, 2012 and will discuss measuring progress and financing IRWM efforts and projects Date: January 22, 2013 (dependent on CC meeting date) Objectives: To help attendees understand and provide input on: o Projects to be included in Plan Update o Measuring progress toward achieving Bay Area IRWM goals o Finance Public Workshop #3 – Project Identification and Orientation (To be developed and approved in Q4 2012) Overview: Tentative; This workshop will provide an in-depth look at the impacts of and Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 8 of 9 Updated September 2012 opportunities for inclusion of land use and climate change considerations in planning for the Bay Area's water future. Date: Early 2013 depending on chapter development Objectives: To help attendees understand and provide input on: • The overlapping and related elements of land use and water use planning and how to integrate these elements in general and in the development of projects for inclusion in the Bay Area IRWMP • The new California Department of Water Resources requirements for identifying and planning for the impacts of climate change on water management in general and in the development of projects for inclusion in the Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop #4 – Review of Draft Bay Area IRWMP (Optional and TBD) The CC may sponsor a fourth workshop once the draft plan has been developed in order to review the elements, including the prioritized list of projects. This workshop would be held in the first quarter of 2013. F. Outreach and Publicity for Public Workshops Kearns & West will employ the following outreach and publicity strategies to ensure awareness about the workshops: • Project website workshop notice/invitation, including specific invitations to representatives of disadvantaged communities • E-mail notice/invitation to the project’s master stakeholder email list (estimated at 2,200) • Media release and distribution o Kearns & West will utilize an electronic media release service or a custom-designed Bay Area media distribution list to inform the public about the workshops. This media release would go to major Bay Area newspapers and community newspapers. (Note: The project budget does not allow for paid advertising in metropolitan newspapers.) • Partnering with CC participants to distribute information via their channels • Posting on the DWR eNews email blast, received by people with an interests in California water news Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 9 of 9 Updated September 2012 Appendix E-5 Summary of Subregional Outreach Activities Bay Area IRWMP Subregional Stakeholder Outreach Activities North, South, West, East -- As reported by Subregional Leads January 2011 - September 2012 (Additional meetings and communications occurred in the subregions between plan adoption and the beginning of the Plan Update process.) Subregion , lead Dates 2011 -2012 Type/purpose of meeting/activity/communication #/Types of attendees Outcomes NORTH: Lead, Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association 11/21/11 First meeting with County leads on Plan Update Initial organizing and awareness 1/24/12 NBWA Watershed Council 42 stakeholders Common understanding of Plan Update 2/6/12 MCSTOPPP (Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program) Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting 5 committee members Announcement of IRWMP program and Marin meeting 2/9/12 Marin County meeting San Rafael ~30 stakeholders Dialogue on “integrated” projects 2/21/12 Napa County meeting Yountville ~30 stakeholders Dialogue on “integrated” projects 3/1/12 Sonoma County meeting Petaluma ~20stakehol ders Dialogue on “integrated” projects 3/20/12 North Bay county leads conference call 5 county leads Multiple County e- mails announcing template to stakeholders and updates as needed. 4/11/12 Marin County Flood Control staff meeting update ~20 county staff Update on the IRWMP process and timeline 4/13/12 NBWA Conference "Climate Change: How Can We Be Ready?" 200 stakeholders , elected officials Table and handouts on BAIRWMP update 4/18/12 City of Sonoma meeting 10 stakeholders Sonoma watershed project integration 5/7/12 Sonoma County Water Agency Water Advisory Committee BAIRWMP Update 6/13/12 NBWA Watershed Council 15 stakeholders BAIRWMP Plan update-focus on projects 7/6/12 NBWA Board 30 elected officials and stakeholders BAIRWMP update 7/17/12 City of Petaluma meeting 5 stakeholders Petaluma watershed project integration 7/19/12 North Bay county leads conference call 5 county leads County e-mails to stakeholders with plan update information 8/6/12 Sonoma County Water Agency Water Advisory Committee BAIRWMP Update 8/2/12 Marin Municipal Water District, Marin County Parks, Marin County Flood Control project collaboration meeting 8 staff Planning and coordination for several projects in the County. SOUTH: Lead, Brian Mendenhall, SCVWD 8/20/12 IRWM Workshop 26 internal and external stakeholders Provided information on IRWM, the project review process, and project solicitation WEST: Lead, Mark Boucher, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7/21/2011 East Subregion Meeting 15 stakeholders Coordination, Announcements, Collection of potential projects on maps 8/18/2011 East Subregion Meeting 16 9/15/2011 East Subregion Meeting 16 11/3/2011 East Subregion Meeting 10 2/16/2012 East Subregion Conf Call 11 4/19/2012 East Subregion Conf Call 10 6/21/2012 East Subregion Conf Call ? 8/16/2012 East Subregion Conf Call 13 10/11/11 Emails to gather East Subregion Projects Database coordinator for SF Bay Joint Venture Received habitat projects in GIS format to plot on map. Prior to 7/21/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Coordination, Announcements, Collection of potential projects on maps Prior to 8/18/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Prior to 9/15/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Prior to 11/3/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Prior to 2/16/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ Prior to 4/19/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ Prior to 6/21/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ Prior to 8/16/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ 11/17/12 2011 Contra Costa County Creek and Watershed Symposium 200-300 Manned a table with fliers and map of Subregion asking people to pinpoint their project on the 3'x4' map. 7/2011- 6/2012 Webpages: http://bairwmp.org/subregions/e ast/home - Setup and maintained information on East Subregion web pages to keep information about meetings and deadlines visible to the public and subregion. 7/2011- 8/2012 Emails several dozen coordinate web accounts, projects, answer questions WEST: Co- lead, Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek JPA 8/9/11 10/5/11 11/14/12 Meetings in San Mateo County to provide update on Bay Area IRWMP varied Kellyx Nelson, SMC RCD 7/26/2012- 9/4/2012 Three emails sent to RCD distribution list to notify potential Coastside San Mateo County project proponents to propose projects for BA IRWMP and offering assistance to propose projects About 100 recipients Kellyx Nelson July- September 2012 Regular communication with the office of Supervisor Don Horsley about IRWMP Two projects for coastal San Mateo County submitted for consideration Appendix E-6 General Outreach Materials www.bairwmp.org info@bairwmp.org Time to update the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan! The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a multi- stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. The Bay Area IRWMP was developed in 2006 by a coalition of water and wastewater agencies, flood protection agencies, cities, non-governmental organizations, watershed groups, and regional planning associations. Acceptance of the 2006 Plan by the California Department of Water Resources has made approximately $107 million in Propositions 50, 84 and 1E state grant money available to implement Bay Area projects to improve the health of our water and flood protection systems. It’s time to update the plan to guide future resource planning for:  Water supply and water quality  Wastewater and recycled water  Flood protection and stormwater management  Watershed management, habitat protection and restoration New to the updated plan is a section on the impacts of climate change on water resources planning. This will be of particular interest to those interested in water and land resources in the low-elevation areas surrounding the San Francisco Bay. Additionally, the 2013 IRWMP will emphasize the integration of water management strategies across the Bay Area achieved by collaboration among agencies and jurisdictions. The update of the IRWMP is being guided by a Coordinating Committee composed of the Bay Area’s water, wastewater, flood protection and ecosystem and restoration agencies, as well as resources and regulatory agencies and non-governmental organizations. Grant-funded flood protection project, Lower Silver Creek, Santa Clara Co. Why you should care about the 2013 IRWMP Update Water resources cross jurisdictional boundaries. A systems approach is needed to manage water effectively, and the IRWMP guides that approach. The development and implementation of an effective, multi-interest IRWMP requires the attention of all jurisdictions and interest groups to ensure that key challenges are identified and effective solutions are funded. In addition to your input into the Plan Update itself, that means that if your organization can identify a water-related need, you may be able to get a project funded, in part, by state grants. Projects selected for inclusion in the 2013 Plan Update may be eligible for future funding. Qualified organizations and collaborations may include Bay Area water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood management, watershed and habitat protection and restoration agencies, as well as local governments, environmental groups, business groups and other interested parties. How to Get Involved The Bay Area IRWMP Update process will begin in spring 2012 and continue through 2013. You are invited to participate in a number of ways. By accessing the project website, www.bairwmp.org, you will be able to:  Read the most current Plan Update information and schedule. We’ll be adding to it regularly.  Sign up to receive email updates  See announcements about IRWMP-specific public workshops around the Bay Area  Track the work of the Coordinating Committee  See the date and location of the monthly Coordinating Committee meetings as well as sub-regional meetings, all open to the public Bay Area Region Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 1 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Frequently Asked Questions Introduction to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP 1. What is the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP)? The San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is a planning process and document that identifies Bay Area water challenges and opportunities and how water resources management agencies and communities can work together to plan for and manage the whole lifecycle of this essential resource for the benefit of the region’s seven million residents, its ecosystem and its wildlife. The region qualifies and can compete for specific state funding when the state approves its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The region also becomes part of a statewide network of integrated regional water management planning regions. 2. What geographic region does the Bay Area IRWMP include? The IRWM Regions and Funding Areas are based on hydrological watersheds rather than city/county boundaries. In the Bay Area, the Funding Area described in Proposition 84 and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region is coterminous, including all or part of nine counties and 110 cities. The counties include San Francisco, and parts of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin. The region is further divided into four subregions to address local issues and projects. (See Question 21 for subregion contact information.) The specific geographic extent of the Bay Area IRWMP is based on the boundary of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 2. Hydrologically, the Region 2 boundary generally represents the watershed interfluve for Bay-draining surface flows and runoff. Although some coastal Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo County lands are included within the Region 2 boundary, a majority of lands drain to the Bay. For the purposes of developing a plan to manage integrated water resources, using a physically based watershed boundary that drains (a majority of) lands to a common receiving water body (the Bay) is advantageous. Additionally, Region 2 is a historically defined jurisdictional boundary. Using a well-understood and existing jurisdictional boundary reduces confusion for participating agencies who are already familiar with its geography. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 2 Boundaries of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 3 3. What is the status of the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Update? The Bay Area IRWMP was adopted in 2006. The plan is being updated in 2012 and 2013 to meet revised IRWM Plan Standards set forth in California’s Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management Program Guidelines published by the Department of Water Resources in August of 2010. The Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) is using a Proposition 84 IRWM Planning Grant to develop the updated Bay Area IRWMP. The CC has hired a team of technical, planning, and stakeholder engagement consultants (Kennedy/Jenks, ESA and Kearns & West) to develop the updated Bay Area IRWMP with input from partner agencies, associations, non-profit organizations and the public. First- time participation by new agencies, organizations and individuals is encouraged. Public workshops will be held in the summer of 2012 to explain the 2013 Plan and seek comment and feedback. The project team will update the website to provide information as well as announcements of workshops and public participation opportunities. (www.bairwmp.org). See also Question 20 about how you can get involved.. 4. Who is involved in the Bay Area IRWMP? San Francisco Bay Area water, wastewater, flood protection and stormwater management agencies; cities and counties; watershed management interests, planning agencies and organizations, and non- governmental organizations are involved in the Bay Area IRWMP. They voluntarily participate in the Coordinating Committee (CC), which is the Regional Water Management Group for the Bay Area IRWMP. Additional agencies and organizations are encouraged to learn about the process, provide feedback on the 2013 Plan’s chapters as they are released in 2012 and 2013, and to identify and submit projects to be included in the Bay Area IRWMP so that the projects can compete for state IRWM grants. Agencies and organizations dealing with land use and climate change are particularly encouraged to participate as water resource management is increasingly related to these topics. 5. What is integrated water planning? Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries and involves multiple agencies, communities, groups and individuals. It attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. For instance, water supply, water quality, and habitat projects might be combined with a flood control project in a way that benefits a much larger area than the original jurisdiction. The result is a multi-objective approach that multiplies the benefits of any individual agency’s or organization’s single project. 6. What water resource management challenges will the Bay Area IRWMP address? The Bay Area IRWMP will inform future water resource management planning, including the relationship between water and land use planning, by creating a roadmap that will help enhance water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, improve habitat conditions and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. New to the 2013 Plan will be a chapter that identifies how Bay Area water resources are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Awareness of potential climate change impacts can help communities plan for and mitigate expected water changes and threats. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 4 7. Why is the Bay Area IRWMP important? The Bay Area IRWMP is the regional plan for managing and leveraging our water resource systems, an effort no individual water or flood agency could do on its own. Collaboration strengthens regional clout, reduces resource management conflict, increases benefits across the region, and may reduce costs for individual agencies. On the practical side, water-related agencies that participate in an IRWMP and submit projects qualify to compete for state grant money to fund projects that will help their communities. Non-profit organizations, neighborhood groups, interest groups and Native American tribes can also benefit by collaborating with the public agencies to propose projects to the state that help solve their water resources challenges. 8. What is the impetus behind regional and integrated water management planning? The California Department of Water Resources encourages and –provides funds to communities to collaborate on managing their water resources. In 2002, and again in 2006, California voters recognized the importance of forward-thinking water planning when they approved Propositions 50, 84 and 1E. People and natural resources in the almost 50 California IRWM regions benefit from this bond money designated for Integrated Regional Water Management planning and implementation. 9. What topics, services, and functions does an IRWMP address? IRWMPs include a physical and demographic description of the region and its populations, regional water resources management objectives and priorities, water resources management strategies, implementation impacts and benefits, impacts of climate change (an addition for the 2013 Plan), data management, financing, relationship to local planning, and coordination with state and federal agencies whose jurisdictions and service topics overlap with the IRWMP. It also includes projects that agencies and collaborations of agencies and non-profit organizations and communities have submitted for consideration. The plan serves as a guide to enhance water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, improve habitat conditions, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. 10. Why will climate change be included in the 2013 Plan Update? This new chapter is intended to make water resources management and land use planners, as well as policy makers, throughout the Bay Area aware of climate change impacts on water resources so they can evaluate, prioritize and incorporate policies and strategies that anticipate, plan for, and mitigate climate change. Preliminary evidence suggests that sea level rise may have its greatest impact in low- lying, flood-prone areas that ring the Bay. The 2013 Plan will identify the most vulnerable areas. It will also suggest mitigation measures to address climate change impacts. 11. What types of projects are eligible for state grant funding? IRWM Implementation Grant funding provided under Propositions 50, 84 and 1E seeks to fund water resources projects with a multiplier effect -- multiple strategies for improving water systems that result in multiple benefits to multiple communities. Projects that might qualify for funding include, among others, improved water supply reliability, long-term attainment and maintenance of water quality standards, eliminated or reduced pollution in impaired water and sensitive habitat areas, planning and implementation of multipurpose flood control programs, and drinking water and water quality projects Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 5 that serve disadvantaged communities. The IRWM funds are also -available identify and address water needs specific to Native American communities. Organizational Structure, Governance and Funding 12. Who is updating the Bay Area IRWMP? The Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) is the Regional Water Management Group for the Bay Area IRWMP and its 2013 update. Participation in the CC and its monthly meetings is open to anyone and the group operates on a consensus basis. 13. Who is administering the Planning and Implementation Grants? The Marin Municipal Water District holds the contract with the California Department of Water Resources to administer the Proposition 84 Planning Grant which is funding the 2013 Plan. Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) is administering the two Implementation Grants received to date by the Bay Area IRWMP -- one under Proposition 50 and one under Proposition 84. Future planning and implementation grants may be administered by other participating Bay Area agencies. 14. Who adopts the Bay Area IRWMP? In 2006, the Bay Area IRWMP was adopted by participating Bay Area agencies and organizations. The 2013 Bay Area IRWMP will be adopted by participating Bay Area agencies and organizations, including any additional agencies and organizations interested in participating. The projects that are funded by competitive state grants are implemented by the individual project proponents. 15. Where does California IRWM funding come from? IRWM funding comes from California taxpayers as a result of approval of three important ballot propositions. Key IRWM grant funding milestones include: 2002 - Senate Bill 1672 created the Integrated Regional Water Management Act to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability. November 2002 - California voters passed Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, which provides $500,000,000 (CWC §79560-79565) to fund competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan. November 2006 - California voters passed Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act, which provides $1,000,000,000 (PRC §75001-75130) for IRWM Planning and Implementation. November 2006 - California voters passed Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act, which provides $300,000,000 (PRC §5096.800-5096.967) for IRWM Stormwater Flood Management. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 6 16. What happens to projects not initially funded under Prop 50 or Prop 84? It will not be possible to fund all projects through the funding sources identified above. Funding for projects identified in the IRWMP may come from a variety of other sources as those funding sources are identified over time. Inclusion of a project in the IRWMP does not guarantee that funding is (or will be), available. 17. How will projects be prioritized in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP? The 2013 Plan will include a list of projects, some of which are carryovers from the 2006 Plan and some of which are being identified during 2012. The consultant team, with input from the Coordinating Committee, is drafting criteria for prioritization. Public workshops in the summer and fall of 2012 will present proposed criteria for prioritization and will seek public input on the criteria. The workshops, as well as information on the website, will also provide details about project applications. Based on the proposed criteria, the consulting team will develop a draft, prioritized list of projects for discussion at the September 2012 Coordinating Committee meeting. (Open to the public, check website for details.) Subsequent public workshops will present the prioritized list for public discussion. A final list of prioritized projects will be completed in December 2012 and will be included in the 2013 Plan. 18. How can the Bay Area IRWMP be used for other grant funding sources? Depending on the grant requirements of other funding sources, particularly those seeking integrated approaches, it is conceivable that there may be other related funding opportunities. The Bay Area IRWMP provides a foundation for pursuing such opportunities. How to Get Involved and to Submit Projects for the Plan 19. Who can and should be involved in regional water resources management and the Bay Area IRWMP process? Anyone interested in water resources management and decisions is encouraged to learn and to share his or her knowledge, ideas and questions. Participants include people representing water providers, flood agencies, utility districts, cities and counties, regional governments and coordinating bodies, non- profit and community organizations, educational institutions, and individuals. 20. How can I and my organization participate in the development of the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP? There are a number of avenues for participation in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP: Subregion Activities: The Bay Area is divided into four subregions to allow more specific discussions of topics pertinent to the area. Each subregion has a coordinator(s) and holds meetings and conference calls that are open to all. For information about issues and activities in any of the subregions, and/or to be added to a subregion-specific email listserv, please contact a subregion coordinator listed in Question 22 Who can I contact? Coordinating Committee: Participation in the broad-based, regional water resources management group known as the Coordinating Committee (CC) of the San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 7 Water Management Plan is open to all, whether or not one has an official capacity related to water resources management. Those interested are invited to participate in discussions at monthly meetings, receive email updates, submit comments on chapters as they are released for public review, attend any of the public workshops to be held in 2012 and 2013, and may seek to collaborate with agencies and organizations to submit water resources project proposals. (Check website www.bairwmp.org to sign up for the master email listserv to receive updates, to view meeting details, and submit project ideas.) Please join us at our monthly meetings on the last Monday of the month. See website for details. Working within your organization: Agencies and organizations can consider sponsoring forums to discuss the Bay Area IRWMP and can also distribute information about the Bay Area IRWMP to their constituencies or membership to encourage them to provide information and ideas that might be valuable to the development of the plan. Additionally, individuals in organizations can help by working to build support for the concept of a regional approach to water resource management as well as for adoption of the Bay Area IRWMP in 2013. See the website for a one-page flyer that can be downloaded. Website: Please visit the Bay Area IRWMP website www.bairwmp.org to get information about plan content and 2013 IRWMP update process. Regional email master list: Periodic updates and notices will be issued to the master email listserv for the entire Bay Area. To sign up to receive information via email, please visit the website or go directly to http://lists.bairwmp.org/mailman/listinfo/updates. Subregion email lists: Please contact the subregion leads listed under Question 21 Who can I contact? to be notified of local information and meetings. Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshops: Public workshops are scheduled at key milestones in the summer and fall of 2012 to share information on the elements of the Plan update and to solicit feedback on the draft chapters and important topics, such as project identification and prioritization. The meetings are intended to involve a broad audience, including organizations and individuals who have not been involved in the Bay Area IRWMP previously. Workshop details and information are posted on the website. 21. How can my agency or organization have its water project(s) included in the Bay Area IRWMP? In order to be considered for state IRWM grant funding, a proposed water resources project must be included in the Bay Area IRWMP. If your agency or organization is aware of a water-related problem that can be addressed by a resources project that solves a water-related problem and may meet state grant funding criteria, please complete a project template, or submit project information via the web- based project submittal tool available on the project website, www.bairwmp.org on the left panel. The information does not have to constitute a full proposal during the initial stages. 22. Who can I contact if I want to discuss a water project idea or get added to a subregional email list? If you want to be added to a subregional email list for updates and/or If you have a project idea, please contact any of the leads in the Bay Area’s four subregions. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 8 North: portions of Sonoma, Napa, Solano Counties and the majority of Marin County -- Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association,(415) 389-8237717, harryser@comcast.net West: San Francisco, San Mateo Counties – Cheryl Munoz, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, cmunoz@sfwater.org; Molly Petrick, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 415- 934-5767, MPetrick@sfwater.org; Kellyx Nelson, San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, 650.712.7765, kellyx@sanmateorcd.org; Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, 650-324-1972, kmurray@sfcjpa.org South: Santa Clara County -- Brian Mendenhall, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 408-265-2607, ext 3093, BMendenhall@valleywater.org; Tracy Hemmeter, 408-265-2600, themmeter@valleywater.org East: Alameda, Contra Costa Counties -- Mark Boucher, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 925-313-2274, mbouch@pw.cccounty.us; Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency, (925) 454-5064, cmahoney@zone7water.com Additionally, you can email a general question to Projects@bairwmp.org. 23. When are the project proposals due and how should they be submitted? Project proposal for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP are due September 1, 21012. This will allow the consultant team to review them to determine if modifications, such as collaborations and/or better integration, would make them more competitive for state grant funds. It will also allow the consultant team to apply ranking criteria to the projects that are submitted so that a draft prioritized list of projects can approved by the Coordinating Committee. The final, prioritized list will be part of the Bay Area IRWMP submittal to the Calif0ornia Department of Water resources in 2013. Projects should be submitted via the project website, www.bairwmp.org , where a web-based template is available. 24. What is the objective of the Bay Area IRWMP public involvement process? Ensuring an open, transparent process of plan development and project prioritization is essential to developing a Bay Area IRWMP that is sustainable and implementable. Ongoing public participation during 2013 Plan process, as well as project identification and project prioritization, will help ensure all the key issues identified in the Plan are addressed and will build the foundation for broad-based support of the Bay Area IRWMP. 25. How will the Bay Area IRWMP address disadvantaged communities and Native American tribes? The Coordinating Committee and the public and stakeholder engagement consultants are seeking to determine what water resources-related problems face disadvantaged communities in particular. California considers a “disadvantaged community” one whose median household incomes less than 80% of the statewide median household income (MHI is about $48,500 per year per household). Applying 2010 U.S. Census data to graphical information system (GIS) maps, the team is mapping Bay Area disadvantaged communities. Working with organizations that represent people in vulnerable, Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 9 disadvantaged communities, the team will seek to identify significant current and potential water resources problems. The California Department of Water Resources has indicated that in order to qualify for a state IRWM grant, a project serving a disadvantaged community must address a critical water supply or water quality need. The CC and the consultants will seek to involve disadvantaged communities in partnering with water resources management agencies to propose water resources projects that will qualify for IRWM grant funding. If you are aware of water-related problems facing low-income, disadvantaged communities or populations in the Bay Area, please contact stakeholder engagement consultant, Ben Gettleman, Kearns & West, bgettleman@kearnswest.com. The stakeholder engagement team has identified Bay Area Native American tribal representatives and will seek to identify water resources needs and concerns as well as water resources projects that might address them. If you are aware of water-related problems facing tribal communities in the Bay Area, please stakeholder engagement consultant, Ben Gettleman, Kearns & West, bgettleman@kearnswest.com. Appendix E-7 Materials from Public Workshops Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop: Regional Water Planning and Projects Monday, July 23, 2012 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA (Lake Merritt BART Station) _____________________ 2013 BAY AREA INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN This workshop is for people in public agencies, policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests, and individuals interested in: Water Supply/Water Quality Flood Protection/Stormwater Wastewater/Recycled Water Watershed/Habitat Protection Your projects can qualify for funding. This is first of a series of public workshops to get input into the 2013 Plan and to identify Bay Area water projects that can be included in the Plan to qualify for competitive state grant funding. Brief project idea proposals are due September 1, 2012 and can be submitted via the project website: www.bairwmp.org Contact: Pam Jones 415-430-1208 pjones@kearnswest.com Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan For Immediate Release Public Workshop -– Regional Water/Flood/Watershed Planning The first public workshop for development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan will be held on Monday, July 23, 2012 from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. at the Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA (Lake Merritt BART Station). The purpose of the workshop is to inform water professionals, land-use planners, environmental planners, non-profit organizations and community members about the 2013 update to the Bay Area IRWMP, how it affects communities, how public agencies and non-profit organizations can have input into the plan, and how to submit a water project to be included in the Plan, thereby qualifying agencies and non-profit organizations to compete for state water bond grants. Organizations representing disadvantaged, low-income communities are encouraged to submit project ideas. The Bay Area IRWMP is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. A second workshop will be held August 27, 2012, 4 – 6 p.m., location to be determined. For more information, visit www.bairwmp.org. ### Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Public Workshop #1 Monday, July 23, 2012 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium 101 Eighth St. Oakland CA (Lake Merritt BART Station) AGENDA 3:45 – 4:00 p.m. Registration 4:00 – 4:10 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Paul Helliker, Marin Municipal Water District Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee 4:10 – 4:30 p.m. 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Overview Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency, Alameda County 4:30 – 5:00 p.m. Plan Objectives: How They Guide Successful Project Proposals (with discussion and input) Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association 5:00 – 5:30 p.m. Project Submittals: How to Submit and How it Will be Evaluated (with Q&A) Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates 5:30 – 5:35 p.m. Wrap-up and Next Steps Ann Draper, Santa Clara Valley Water District Vice Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee 5:35 – 6:00 p.m. Subregional and Regional Breakout Groups: Informal Discussion/Q&A with Subregional and Regional Leads North Subregion: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association (harryser@comcast.net) West Subregion: San Francisco, San Mateo Cheryl Munoz, SFPUC (cmunoz@sfwater.org) South Subregion: Santa Clara Brian Mendenhall, Santa Clara Valley Water District (BMendenhall@valleywater.org) East Subregion: Alameda, Contra Costa Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water District (cmahoney@zone7water.com) Regional Projects Caitlyn Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership (CSweeney@waterboards.ca.gov) If you have thoughts on BAIRWMP “Objectives,” please fill out a Comment Card today or send an email to: BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com Also, visit www.bairwmp.org Área de la Bahía Integrada Regional del Agua el Plan de Gestión Taller Público # 1 Lunes, 23 de julio 2012 4:00-6:00 p.m. Asociación de Área de la Bahía gobiernos Auditorio 101 Octava St. Oakland, en California (la estación de BART de Lake Merritt) ORDEN DEL DÍA 3:45-4:00 pm Registro 4:00-4:10 pm Bienvenidos y presentaciones Paul Helliker, Marín Distrito de Agua Municipal Presidencia, Área de la Bahía IRWMP Comité de Coordinación 4:10-4:30 pm 2013 Área de la Bahía IRWMP Información general Carol Mahoney, Zona 7 Agencia del Agua, del Condado de Alameda 4:30 - 5:00 pm Objetivos del Plan: La forma en que las propuestas exitosas Guía de proyectos (con la discusión y la entrada) Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Asociación de Cuencas 5:00 - 5:30 pm Presentaciones del proyecto: ¿Cómo enviar y cómo será evaluado (con Q & A) Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates 5:30-17:35 Resumen y próximos pasos Ann Draper Valle de Santa Clara del Distrito de Agua Vicepresidente, Área de la Bahía IRWMP Comité de Coordinación 5:35 - 6:00 pm subregionales y regionales Trabajo en grupos informales de discusión: / Q & A con cables subregionales y regionales: • Norte Subregión: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association (harryser@comcast.net) • Subregión Occidental: San Francisco, San Mateo Cheryl Muñoz, SFPUC (cmunoz@sfwater.org) • Subregión Sur: Santa Clara Brian Mendenhall, Valle de Santa Clara del Distrito de Agua (BMendenhall@valleywater.org) • Este Subregión: Alameda, Contra Costa Carol Mahoney, la zona 7 del Distrito de Agua (cmahoney@zone7water.com) • Proyectos Regionales Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco, Asociación Estuario (CSweeney@waterboards.ca.gov) Si usted tiene pensamientos sobre BAIRWMP "Objetivos" por favor llene una tarjeta de comentarios de hoy, o envíe un correo electrónico a: BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com ; También, visite www.bairwmp.org 23 de julio 2012 Taller Público para el 2013 Área del Plan Integrado de la Bahía Regional de Administración del Agua Estimado Agua Área de la Bahía y de la Comunidad Uso de la Tierra, El Área de la Bahía de Agua Integrada Plan Regional de Gestión (Área de la Bahía IRWMP) es una de múltiples partes interesadas, los nueve condados del plan de trabajo para coordinar y mejorar la confiabilidad del suministro de agua, proteger la calidad del agua, gestión de la protección contra inundaciones, mantener los estándares de salud pública, proteger el hábitat y los recursos de las cuencas hidrográficas, y mejorar la salud general de la Bahía de San Francisco. El primer taller público sobre el desarrollo de la actualización de 2013 del Área de la Bahía IRMWP se celebrará el Lunes, 23 de julio 2012 de 4:00 - 6:00 pm en la Asociación de Área de la Bahía Gobiernos Auditorio, 101 8th St. Oakland, CA 94,607 (estación de BART de Lake Merritt). Entender los objetivos del Plan aumentará las probabilidades de éxito de su proyecto ya que no todos los proyectos presentados se financiarán. Las propuestas preliminares de proyectos se deben 01 de septiembre 2012 y pueden enviarse a través de la página web del proyecto www.bairwmp.org. El proyecto de temario de la reunión también se ha publicado, como son las preguntas más frecuentes. Los oradores de las agencias de agua locales y regionales se explican los objetivos de la IRWMP Área de la Bahía para promover la planificación integrada de la gestión del agua en la ciudad, el condado ya nivel regional, ¿cómo las nuevas directrices estatales están modificando la planificación regional integrada de la gestión del agua, y cómo puede presentar proyectos que aborden los retos del agua en su comunidad que le permiten competir con los fondos estatales de subvención. Proyectos destinados a los desfavorecidos, en comunidades de bajos ingresos obtener una consideración especial. El segundo taller se llevará a cabo Lunes, 27 de agosto 2012 y proporcionará una mayor profundidad vistazo a cómo los proyectos se dará prioridad en el Plan 2013. Para obtener más información acerca de la IRWMP Área de la Bahía, por favor visite nuestro sitio web, www.bairwmp.org o enviar un correo electrónico a BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. Pre- inscripción para el taller no es necesario. Esperamos que usted o un representante de su agencia u organización el 23 de julio en Oakland. Atentamente, Paul Helliker Marin Municipal Water District Presidente, Comité de Coordinación Área de la Bahía Integrada Regional del Agua el Plan de Gestión PD -- Participación en el Comité de Coordinación está abierta a cualquier persona interesada en los proyectos regionales de agua, programas y políticas. Por favor, únase a nosotros en nuestras reuniones mensuales. Para más información, visite nuestro sitio web, www.bairwmp.org. IRWMP Goals Comments 1 Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability 2 Improve water supply reliability and quality 3 Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 4 Improve Regional Flood Management 5 Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Objectives Potential Measures Comments/Suggestions Goal 1: Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability 1.1 Increase water resources related recreational opportunities Miles of trails, acres of parklands, access, amenities, visitor days 1.2 Encourage implementation of integrated, multi-benefit projects Collaboration between government and regulatory agencies, project proponents and stakeholders. 1.3 Secure adequate support, funding and partnerships to effectively implement plan. Process to successfully respond to funding opportunities; dollars of outside funding; long-term project viability 1.4 Avoid disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities Community support for local projects 1.5 Protect cultural resources Acres of culturally valuable area and/or resource acquired or preserved through conservation easements 1.6 Promote community education, involvement and stewardship Number of informational brochures, workshops, educational and technical assistance events that address water reliability, watershed health, flood risks, flood protection and other IRWM goals; educational curricula for K-12 1.7 Reduce energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate Megawatts reduction in energy use; megawatts of renewable power sources. 1.8 Plan for and adapt to sea level rise Keep important infrastructure out of hazard zone; consider range of sea level projections when evaluating proposed water management projects practice and promote integrated flood management ; AF water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources; water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services; avoid significant new development in areas that cannot be adequately protected from flooding or erosion 1.9 Plan for and adapt to more frequent extreme climate events 1.10 Support data gathering for climate change vulnerabilities Number of monitoring stations 1.11 Enhance monitoring network and information sharing to support proper management of watersheds 1.12 Minimize health impacts associated with polluted water. Compliance with all applicable water quality standards; number of customer complaints 1.13 Work with local land, water, wastewater and stormwater agencies, project proponents and other stakeholders to develop policies, ordinances and programs that promote IRWM goals, and to determine areas of integration among projects Number of local policies, ordinances, incentives and other programs that promote integrated planning and development of LID projects; number of integrated projects Goal 2: Improve water supply reliability and quality Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan DRAFT Objectives - Worksheet Objectives Potential Measures Comments/Suggestions 2.1 Provide adequate water supplies to meet demands. Reliability of supplies of appropriate quality 2.2 Implement water use efficiency to meet or exceed state and federal requirements. Progress towards SBX7-7 goals, number of water conservation measures adopted 2.3 Minimize vulnerability of infrastructure to catastrophes and security breaches. Number of vulnerability assessments 2.4 Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater AF of water storage; number of conjunctive management projects developed 2.5 Provide for groundwater recharge while protecting groundwater resources from overdraft. AFY artificial groundwater recharge 2.6 Increase opportunities for recycled water use. AFY of potable water use replaced by non-potable supply; AFY recycled water production 2.7 Provide clean, safe, reliable drinking water. Compliance with drinking water standards; constituents of concern in drinking water at point of delivery 2.8 Protection of groundwater resources from contamination. Migration of contaminant plumes; recharge area protection Goal 3: Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 3.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate watershed processes. Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; acres of wetlands protected and/or restored; acres of conservation easements 3.2 Control excessive erosion and manage sedimentation. Established sediment TMDL requirements 3.3 Minimize point-source and non-point-source pollution. Nutrient and pesticide application (in Pounds?); implementation of delivery reduction practices; number LID projects that store and infiltrate stormwater runoff; AFY stormwater capture; compliance with TMDLs and NPDES. 3.4 Improve floodplain connectivity. Acres of private property purchased and preserved in 100-year floodplains 3.5 Improve infiltration capacity Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; miles of streams de-channelized; LID projects implemented that include bioswales to increase perviousness; AFY stormwater capture 3.6 Maintain health of watershed vegetation, land cover, natural stream buffers and floodplains, to improve filtration of point and nonpoint source pollutants. 3.7 Control pollutants of concern Compliance with existing and future TMDLs Goal 4: Improve Regional Flood Management 4.1 Manage floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation. Annual flood damages ($); frequency and extent of flooding; number of innovative flood management projects; annual flood flows 4.2 Achieve effective floodplain management that incorporates land use planning and minimizes risks to health, safety and property by encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas Policies and programs that encourage LID in new and rehabilitated development 4.3 Identify and promote integrated flood management projects to protect vulnerable areas Number of integrated flood management projects Goal 5: Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats 5.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate habitat for species protection Acres of critical habitat protected and/or acquired; number of at-risk species; miles of wildlife corridors; acres of riparian habitat restored and/or protected 5.2 Enhance wildlife populations and biodiversity (species richness). Number of species; population numbers 5.3 Protect and recover fisheries (natural habitat and harvesting). Number of listed species; access to spawning habitat for imperiled fish 5.4 Reduce geographic extent and spread of pests and invasive species. Invasive species cover; invasive species numbers Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan DRAFT Objectives - Worksheet Stakeholder-based Approach to Developing the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Phase I Informational Gathering January – April 2012 Phase 2 Internal Preparation April– June 2012 RAP and Prop 84 Guidelines Internal/External Interviews/Assessment Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop Stakeholder Engagement Objectives Confirmation by CC Develop Stakeholder Engagement/ DAC Plan Materials Development IRWMP Objectives Solicit input into Plan Update Identify/prioritize projects qualified for funding Foster projects that feature integration and address DAC needs Products Website updates Flyer Q&A update Master stakeholder list (2,2000+) Update/publicity for Workshops o eNewsletter o Media release Support materials for workshops Phase 3 Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Targeted Partners: LOMUs, Local Water Agencies, Local Flood Agencies, Regional Associations, Land Use and Planning Agencies/Local Government, Environmental Groups, Permitting Agencies, other targeted partners Identified with assistance of BAIRWMP subregional leads and key regional implementing agencies Workshop 1 July 2012 Topic/Objectives Objectives of 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Project Requirements Criteria for Project Prioritization Workshop 2 August 2012 Topic/Objectives Prioritizing Projects Resource Management Strategies Land Use and Water Planning Climate Change Workshop 3 Sept/Oct. 2012 Topic/Objectives Project Rankings Project Wrap- up Workshop 4 January 2013 optional (optiona l) Topic/Objectives Review Draft Bay Area IRWMP Disadvantaged Community identification of issues and consultation on partnerships for project-based solutions. Individual Tribal outreach. Subregional workshops/meetings at the discretion of the subregional leads Coordinating Committee Meetings (public) Coordinating Committee Meetings (public) Coordinating Committee Meetings (public) Bay Area IRWMP Project Submittal Guidance The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is currently being updated. As part of this process, the Plan will include proposed projects for water resources management in the Bay Area. These proposed projects can either be new projects, or can be updated versions of projects already in the Plan. In either case, information about the projects must be included in the online database housed at the Bay Area IRWMP website. A complete new or updated project description is required to be eligible for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and to be eligible for future grant funding. New Projects If you are proposing a new project, please visit the Bay Area IRWMP website at www.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project" and follow the instructions. You may click the blue "Submit a project" button at the bottom of that page. Updating Existing Projects If your project has already been submitted and included in the plan, you will need to confirm that you want to continue to include it in the plan. Please visit the IRWMP website at www.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project," and then click on the link "Click here for instructions on how to update existing projects." If you do not update the project information, the project will be put in an inactive file and not included in the active project list. Deadline Please note that the deadline for submitting a new project or updating an existing project is September 1, 2012. This date has been selected to meet the deadline required by the Department of Water Resources for the Plan update, to allow adequate time to review, score and prioritize projects included in the Plan, and to consider projects for further analysis and inclusion in a proposal for implementation grant funding, expected to be due to DWR by March, 2013. Please note that you will need to register with the Bay Area IRWMP website in order to edit project information. If you need assistance or have questions, you may seek technical support by contacting projects@bairwmp.org. Summary of Question and Answer session Page 1 July 23, 2012 Bay Area IRWMP public workshop Prepared by Kearns & West Summary of Question and Answer Session Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop July 23, 2012, 4:00 – 6:00 PM Association of Bay Area Governments 1515 Clay St., Oakland, CA Overview What follows is a summary of the question and answer session that took place during the Bay Area Integrated Regional W ater Management Plan (IRWMP) public workshop held on July 23, 2012. Answers were provided by several different members of the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee. Question (Q): What is the definition of a disadvantaged community (DAC) in the context of the Bay Area IRWMP? Answer (A): The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines a disadvantaged community as a community or neighborhood with an annual median household income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average ($48,706). DWR allows some flexibility in defining the geographic area that meets the 80 percent threshold. In addition, DWR initially emphasized that DAC projects should meet a critical water supply or water quality need, but in the latest guidelines it seems they are allowing more flexibility. Q: How can more than one person populate the online submittal form for the same project? A: When viewing the project profile on the Bay Area IRWMP website (http://bairwmp.org), the lead submitter can share and delegate access to the project submittal form to others. Q: When will the matrix of project ranking criteria be available? A: The ranking criteria will be prepared by mid-August 2012. The Coordinating Committee (CC) will not act on the criteria, however, until the August 27, 2012 CC meeting. The current thinking with respect to the project ranking criteria can be viewed on the website, located in the materials for the July 23 CC meeting. Prior to that, project proponents will be able to predict how well their projects will fair by reviewing the DWR guidelines. In general, the more resources management strategies and goals that a project covers, the higher it will rank. Q: For the goal of enhancing environmental resources, are there any subcomponents that will be used for evaluation? A: Yes, there are four to five objectives that correspond to the goal of enhancing environmental resources. Q: If I am submitting an update to an existing project, can I modify the Excel file that was originally developed? A: If you are making changes to the project, it would be best to create a new project template online to make sure it is included in the Plan Update. Summary of Question and Answer session Page 2 July 23, 2012 Bay Area IRWMP public workshop Prepared by Kearns & West Q: What is the best way to get smaller projects integrated into other projects so they rank well in the Plan Update? A: You can review the projects that have already been submitted on the project website and look for overlap. The better you are able to increase the scale of collaboration, the stronger the project will be. In addition, habitat projects, for example, should be integrated with other functions like stormwater run-off or working with a flood control agency on groundwater recharge. If the project is just focused on habitat projects it will not likely be scored well. Look for other water resource efforts and try to integrate with them. Q: Do project applicants need to find partners for project integration prior to the September 1, 2012 project submittal deadline, or will there be opportunities to identify partners after that? A: Identifying partners for project integration can take place after the September 1, 2012 deadline. It will also be beneficial to participate in subregional meetings to get a better sense of what other projects are being submitted. Q: If my city has a shovel-ready project that is already partially funded, can we apply for additional funds for a disadvantaged (DAC)-specific project for the remainder of the funding? A: If it is a local project, it can still be integrated with other projects. It could be integrated with projects that address different functional areas, for example. There is dedicated funding for DACs, and the Bay Area IRMWP is actively looking for DAC projects to include in the Plan Update. Q: Can IRWMP funds be used to acquire land for habitat? A: Yes, the project does need to be related to water resources, however. Q: What is the schedule for prioritizing projects in the Plan Update? A: Projects will be submitted by September 1, 2012. There is a more detailed project schedule, including project prioritization, in the meeting packet for the July 23 CC meeting, which is on the project website. Q: How important is it for projects to meet sustainable water objectives to receive funding? A: It depends on the grant round. DWR’s criteria have been identified and this will influence how they are ranked in the Plan Update. Project proponents should aim to meet DWR’s criteria when developing proposals – in the grant funding stage, a work plan will need to be developed that responds to the objectives. Q: If there is a project that is scale-able (i.e., can be made larger), would it be advantageous to keep the project small if that would make it an eligible DAC project? A: If your community is structured to serve a DAC, it will meet that criterion and will be prioritized by DWR since it is important to them. Expanding that project beyond the DAC will take away that advantage, so there will be a trade-off. AGENDA 3:45 – 4:00 p.m. Registration 4:00 – 4:10 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Steve Ritchie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee 4:10 – 4:40 p.m. 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Projects Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association and Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee • Scoring and ranking projects for inclusion in the 2013 BAIRWMP • Project criteria for DWR Grant Applications • Future, new projects for rounds 2 and 3 of grant funding 4:40 – 5:50 p.m. Financing Sources and Collaboration Strategies • Funding Sources – Opportunities, Successes, Challenges 1) Flood management projects – Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency 2) Non-governmental organization projects – Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership 3) Public-Private water and wastewater projects – Grant Schlereth, ARUP • Promoting Agency/Non-governmental Collaborations and Addressing Barriers (Facilitated group discussion of panelists and attendees) • Summary 5:50 – 6:00 p.m. Wrap-up and Next Steps Steve Ritchie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Public Workshop #2 “Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration” Monday, January 28, 2013, 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D Project Name Subregion Sponsoring Agency Contact Person Email 350 Home and Garden Challenge Bay Area East North South West Daily Acts trathen@dailyacts.org ACPWA Low Impact Development Implementation and Demonstration Project: Parking Lot Stormwater Treatment Improvements East Alameda County Public Works Agency chien@acpwa.org Agricultural Riparian Buffer and Habitat Enhancement East Alameda County RCD amy.evans@acrcd.org Airway Improvement Project (R5-2 )East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Alameda County Adopt-A-Creek-Spot East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Foothill Blvd. Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Habitat Easements East Alameda County Resource Conservation District leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Healthy Watershed Program East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Norbridge/Strobridge Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Patterson Pass Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Riparian Invasive Mapping and Removal East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Tesla Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Vasco Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda Creek Flood Protection, Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 A B C D Alamo Canal Flood Control Program (R9-7)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Alamo Canal/South San Ramon Creek Erosion Control (R9-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project East East Bay Regional Park District cbarton@ebparks.org Alhambra Valley Creek Coalition - Erosion Control and Riparian Restoration Project East Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. csell@pw.cccounty.us Alkali Sink Management (R1-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Almaden Dam Improvements South Santa Clara Valley Water District vgutierrez@valleywater.org Altamont and Las Positas Creeks/Springtown Alkali Sink Restoration East Natural Resources Conservation Service, Alameda County sjbainbridge@berkeley.edu Altamont Creek Improvement (R1-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit South Santa Clara Valley Water District fmaitski@valleywater.org Ardenwood Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 1 (R10-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 2 (R10-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 3 (R10-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 4 (R10-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 5 (R10-5)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo las Positas Diversion Project (R5-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 3 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 A B C D Arroyo las Positas Habitat Enhancement and Recreation Project (R1-5)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo las Positas Multi-Purpose Project (R1-6)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo Mocho Bypass and Regional Storage at Chain of Lakes (R6-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo Mocho Management Plan (R6-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo Seco Improvements (R2-2)East Zone 7 cmahoney@zone7water.com Ash Creek Stormwater Management and Wildlife Enhancement Project North Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Assessment of an urban watershed and implementation of urban stormwater retrofit projects East Friends of Sausal Creek coordinator@sausalcreek.org Bay Area Green Infrastructure Initiative: Scientific support related to planning and implementation of water infrastructure upgrades toward green alternatives East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute davids@sfei.org Bay Area Regional Desalination Project (BARDP) - Alternative Analysis Report East South West EBMUD, CCWD, Zone 7, SCVWD, SFPUC habdulla@ebmud.com Bay Area Regional Reliability Interties - EBMUD/CCWD East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC ecorwin@ccwater.com Bay Area Regional Water Conservation and Education Program East North South West Zone 7 Water Agency, San Francisco PUC and Contra Costa Water District rnavarra@zone7water.com Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) – East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Short-Term Water Transfer Pilot Project (Pilot Project) East South West Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) NSandkulla@bawsca.org, ADutton@bawsca.org Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Brackish Groundwater Field Investigation Project (Brackish Groundwater Project) East South West BAWSCA (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency) ADutton@bawsca.org, NSandkulla@BAWSCA.org 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 A B C D Bay Point Regional Shoreline Wetland Restoration East East Bay Regional Park District jrasmussen@ebparks.org Bay-Friendly Landscape Standards for Green Infrastructure Projects: Maximizing Watershed Benefits East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition gretchen@bayfriendlycoalition.o rg Bay-Friendly Outreach Campaign for Home Gardeners and Nurseries East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition gretchen@bayfriendlycoalition.o rg Bay-Friendly Qualified Landscape Professionals Training East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition gretchen@bayfriendlycoalition.o rg Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project West City of Redwood City gle@redwoodcity.org Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 2 East EBMUD tfrancis@ebmud.com Beach Watch Program North South West Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association sbeck@farallones.org Bel Marin Keys Phase of the Hamilton Wetlands Restoration North Coastal Conservancy tgandesbery@scc.ca.gov Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District DCheong@valleywater.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 5 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 A B C D Bockman Canal Area Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Bolinas Avenue Stormwater Quality Improvements and Fernhill Creek Restoration North Town of Ross randell@harrison- engineering.com Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration Project North Marin County Open Space District JRaives@marincounty.org Breuner Marsh Restoration, Richmond East East Bay Regional Park District bolson@ebparks.org Building Climate Change Resiliency Along the Bay with Green Infrastructure & Treated Wastewater East North South San Francisco Estuary Partnership jkrebs@waterboards.ca.gov Butano Creek Stream Course Restoration West California State Parks jkerb@parks.ca.gov Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 East Contra Costa Water District mvalmores@ccwater.com Capacity Improvement at Arroyo las Positas (R1-7)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Castro Valley Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org CCCSD Refinery Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District dberger@centralsan.org CCCSD-Concord Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District dberger@centralsan.org Central Dublin RW Distribution and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com Central/Eastshore Pump Station Improvement Project East City of Alameda lkozisek@ci.alameda.ca.us Cesar Chavez Street Flood and Stormwater Managment Sewer Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission aroche@sfwater.org Chabot Canal Improvement Project (R8-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Charcot Storm Pump Station South City San Jose elaine.marshall@sanjoseca.gov Chelsea Wetlands Restoration Project East Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and City of Hercules amercado@ci.hercules.ca.us 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 A B C D City of Berkeley Watershed Management Plan East City of Berkeley pharrington@cityofberkeley.info City of Hayward Recycled Water Project East City of Hayward Alex.Ameri@hayward-ca.gov City of San Jose Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan South City of San Jose shelley.guo@sanjoseca.gov City Watersheds of Sonoma Valley North Sonoma County Water Agency joan@scwa.ca.gov Cleaning up trash in the Bay Area's stormwater East North South West Association of Bay Area Governments/SF Estuary Partnership jwcox@waterboards.ca.gov Collaborative Aquatic Resource Protection in the Watershed Context: Science and Technology to Visualize Alternative Landscape Futures North San Francisco Estuary Institute rainer@sfei.org Conserving Our Watersheds North Marin Resource Conservation District nancy@marinrcd.org Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network East Contra Costa County csell@pw.cccounty.us Contra Costa County LID School Program East The Watershed Project ricardo@thewatershedproject.o rg Contra Costa County Low Impact Development Rebate Program East The Watershed Project ricardo@thewatershedproject.o rg Corte Madera Bayfront Flood Protection and Wetlands Restoration Project North Marin Audubon Society/Marin Bayland Advocates BSalzman@att.net Corte Madera Creek Headwaters Restoration Plan North Marin County Parks msagues@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Tidal Marsh Restoration North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed; Marin County Water Conservation and Flood Control District; Marin County Parks Dept. sandra.guldman@gmail.com 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 7 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 A B C D Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Broadmoor Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Fairfax Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Lefty Gomez Field Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Loma Alta Tributary Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Memorial Park Detention Basin, San Anselmo North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Merwin Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Nokomis-Madrone Neighborhood Flood Protection North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - San Anselmo Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Sleepy Hollow Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed Infiltration and Storage Assessment North Ross Valley Watershed Program, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed sandra.guldman@gmail.com Corte Madera Creek Watershed Sediment Control and Drinking Water Reliability Project North Marin Municipal Water District mswezy@marinwater.org 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 A B C D Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Barriers to Fish Passage in Sleepy Hollow Creek North Town of San Anselmo, Marin County Department of Public Works sandra.guldman@gmail.com Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Saunders Fish Barrier Removal North Town of San Anselmo, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Ross Valley Sanitary District sandra.guldman@gmail.com Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Sedimentation Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Smolt Trapping North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed sandra.guldman@gmail.com Creek Signage East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Amy.evans@acrcd.org Cull Canyon Dam and Reservoir Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org DA 48B Storm Drain Line A at Port Chicago Highway, Bay Point (#201)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us DA 48C Storm Drain Line at Marina Road, Bay Point (#_)East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Daly City Expansion Recycled Water Project West SFPUC, City of Daly City cmunoz@sfwater.org DDSD Advanced Wastewater Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org DDSD Advanced Water Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org Decoto District Green Streets Phase 3 East City of Union City thomasr@ unioncity.org DERWA Pump Station 1 - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 9 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 A B C D DERWA Recycled Water Plant - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com Developing a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Proposal (CREP) to improve water quality and protect rangeland habitats in the Bay Area East North South West Defenders of Wildlife palvarez@defenders.org Diablo Country Club Satellite Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, fwedingt@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Alameda East EBMUD lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Oakland-Alameda Estuary Crossing East EBMUD lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Palo Alto Groundwater Supply Conjunctive Use Project South West City of East Palo Alto BSwain@CityofEPA.org East Palo Alto Storm Water Conveyance, Tidal Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreational Enhancement Project West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority kmurray@sfcjpa.org EBMUD - Pretreatment Facilities East EBMUD dbruzzon@ebmud.com EBMUD/ZONE 7 Regional Reliability Intertie East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC cmahoney@zone7water.com Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 3 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Exterior Painting of Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 A B C D Fish Barrier Removal at Railroad Overcrossing (R3-5b)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Fish Passage Improvements at Memorial County Park, San Mateo County West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Kellyx@sanmateorcd.org Goat Island Marsh Tidal Marsh Restoration & Interpretive Nature Trail North Solano Land Trust Ben@Solanolandtrust.org Grant Avenue Green Street Water Quality/Flood Protection Demonstration Site East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Grayson and Murderer's Creek Subregional Improvements, Pleasant Hill (#106) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grayson Creek Levee Raising and Rehabilitation, Pacheco (#_)East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grayson Creek Levee Rehabilitation at CCCSD Treatment Plant, Pacheco (#107) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grayson Creek Sediment Removal, Pacheco (unincorp.)(#109)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grimmer Greenbelt Gateway (Line G Channel Enhancement)East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Hayward Marsh Restoration and Enhancement Project East East Bay Regional Park District mgraul@ebparks.org Headquarters Facility - Landscaping East Alameda County Water District patricia.dustman@acwd.com Hillman Area Improvements Project West City of Belmont gyau@belmont.gov Holmes Street Sedimentation Basin and Granada/Murrieta Protection and Enhancement Project (R3-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Implementation of High Priority Projects Identified in the Pilarcitos Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) Kellyx@sanmateorcd.org Implementation of Pond Management Plan West Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District jandersen@openspace.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 11 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 A B C D Implementation of the Napa River Watershed Assessment Framework North Napa County Resource Conservation District rwflint@eeeee.net Implementing "Slow It, Spread It, Sink It!" in Sonoma and Napa Counties North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Implementing LandSmart Plans to Improve Water Quality North Napa County Resource Conservation District leigh@naparcd.org Implementing TMDLs in the Napa River, Sonoma and Suisun Creek watersheds with the Fish Friendly Farming/Fish Friendly Ranching programs North California Land Stewardship Institute laurelm@fishfriendlyfarming.org Improving Quantitative Precipitation Information for the San Francisco Bay Area East North South West Zone 7 Water Agencies for Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) cmorrison@zone7water.com Installation of a New Seismic Valve at Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m Laguna Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org Lagunitas Booster Station North Marin Municipal Water District gandrew@marinwater.org Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project North Marin Municipal Water District gandrew@marinwater.org Lagunitas Creek Winter Habitat Enhancement Implementation North Marin Municipal Water District gandrew@marinwater.org Lake Chabot Raw Water Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com LID and Stormwater Management - Lagunitas Watershed North The Watershed Project harold@thewatershedproject.or g Line G-1-1 Maintenance Plan (R9-6 )East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Line T Crossing Retrofit (R9-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 A B C D Lower Arroyo del Valle Restoration and Enhancement Project (R7-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Lower Arroyo Mocho Improvement Project (R8-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez (#110)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Lynch Canyon Watershed Improvements North Solano Land Trust sue@solanolandtrust.org Mapping Marin County's Flood Control Levees North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District lwilliams@marincounty.org Marin County Flood Control Asset Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District lwilliams@marincounty.org Marin County Sea Level Rise Land Use Adaptation North Marin County CDA jliebster@marincounty.org Martinez Adult School Flood Protection & Creek Enhancement East Martinez Unified School District scasey@martinez.k12.ca.us Martinez Water Quality and Supply Reliability Improvement Project East City of Martinez / Contra Costa Water District jquimby@ccwater.com McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration Project North Marin County Parks eholland@marincounty.org Memorial Park Waste Water Treatment West San Mateo County charris@co.sanmateo.ca.us Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County csell@pw.cccounty.us Miller Avenue Green Street Plan North City of Mill Valley jbarnes@cityofmillvalley.org Milliken Creek Flood Reduction, Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration North Napa County richard.thomasser@countyofna pa.org Milliken Diversion Dam Flow Control North City of Napa Water Division jeldredge@cityofnapa.org Mission Boulevard to Meek Estate Creekside Trail and Habitat Improvements East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Mission Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 13 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 A B C D Montalvin Manor Stormwater Harvest and Use, Bioretention, and Flood Risk Reduction Project East Contra Costa County csell@pw.cccounty.us Montezuma Creek Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Project North Marin County Parks Department kkull@marincounty.org Mountain View/ Sunnyvale Recycled Water Intertie Alignment Study South City of Mountain View alison.turner@mountainview.go v Napa County Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Wells North Napa County deborah.elliott@countyofnapa.o rg Napa River Arundo Removal Lodi Lane to Zinfandel Lane North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District christopher.sauer@countyofnap a.org Napa River Restoration, Bioassessment & Education Project North Napa County Resource Conservation District cmalan@myoneearth.com Napa River Restoration: Oakville to Oak Knoll Reach North Napa County richard.thomasser@countyofna pa.org Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project North Napa County Richard.Thomasser@countyofna pa.org New Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Station West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m New Tank Mixer for Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Construction Project East Alameda County Water District douglas.young@acwd.com NMWD Gallagher Well and Pipeline Project North North Marin Water District cdegabriele@nmwd.com North Bay Water Reuse Program North North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) Kevin.Booker@scwa.ca.gov 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 A B C D North Marin Water District Marin Country Club Recycled Water Expansion North North Marin Water District cdegabriele@nmwd.com North Richmond Pump Station - Retrofit and Replumb East Contra Costa County Flood Control District csell@pw.cccounty.us Pacheco Marsh Restoration, Martinez (#111)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District / Muir Heritage Land Trust / East Bay Regional Park District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Palo Alto Golf Course Redesign Wetlands Enhancement and Restoration Project South City of Palo Alto brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.o rg Palo Alto Recycled Water Project South West City of Palo Alto nicolas.procos@cityofpaloalto.o rg Parks Floodplain Dedication and Levee Construction (R3-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Peacock Gap Recycled Water Extension Project North Marin Municipal Water District mban@marinwater.org Permanente Creek Flood Protection South Santa Clara Valley Water District arouhani@valleywater.org Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project West County of San Mateo Department of Public Works and Parks mchow@smcgov.org Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV North City of Petaluma, Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Pilarcitos Creek Equestrian Bridge West California State Parks jkerb@parks.ca.gov Pine Creek Dam Seismic Assessment, Walnut Creek (#122)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Pine Creek Reservoir Sediment Removal and Capacity Restoration, Walnut Creek (#124) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Pinole Creek Fish Passage Improvements project at I-80 Culverts East Contra Costa RCD carol.arnold@ca.nacdnet.net 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 15 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 A B C D Pinole Creek Habitat Restoration (1135 Project), Pinole (#12)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Portola Redwood State Park Wastewater System West (unknown)rarias@parks.ca.gov Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit for County and Federal Facilities East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org Redwood City Recycled Water Project Phase 2 – Central Redwood City West City of Redwood City crubin@redwoodcity.org Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 North Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy SFarrell@parksconservancy.org Refugio Creek and North Channel Restoration East City of Hercules sduran@ci.hercules.ca.us Regional Green Infrastructure Capacity Building Program East North South West SFEP jkrebs@waterboards.ca.gov Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project West SFPUC, Cities of Daly City and San Bruno and California Water Service Company gbartow@sfwater.org Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy East North South West Bay Area Joint Policy Committee travis@bayareajpc.net Reliez Valley Recycled Water Project East EBMUD Lhu@ebmud.com Removing Fish Passage Barriers in the Napa River Watershed North Napa County Resource Conservation District leigh@naparcd.org Resilient Landscapes Climate Adaptation Strategy: Tools for Designing Sustainable Bay Area Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute - Aquatic Science Center robin@sfei.org Rheem Creek Conservation Project (Shortcut Pipeline Improvement Project) East Contra Costa Water District mseedall@ccwater.com Richardson Bay Erosional Shoreline Adaptation to Sea Level Rise: Draft Conceptual Designs and Opportunity/Constraints Assessment North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District rleventhal@marincounty.org Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project - Future Expansion East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 A B C D Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com Rindler Creek: Habitat Restoration and Erosion Control North Solano Resource Conservation District Chris.Rose@solanorcd.org Robertson Park Enhancement Project and Levee Construction (R3-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Rodeo Creek Sediment Removal, Rodeo (#14)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Rodeo Creek Stabilization near Christie Road, Rodeo (#16)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Rodeo Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main upgrades South Roseview Heights Mutual Water Company tim.rvhmwc@gmail.com Rossmoor Well Replacement Project East City of Pittsburg wpease@ci.pittsburg.ca.us Rubber Dam No. 1 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District anna.lloyd@acwd.com Rubber Dam No. 3 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District anna.lloyd@acwd.com Rush Ranch HQ Storm Water Management, Public Access & Rangeland Improvements North Solano Land Trust ben@solanolandtrust.org Salvador Creek Intregrated Flood and Watershed Improvements North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District richard.thomasser@countyofna pa.org San Catanio Creek culvert repair and enhancement East City of San Ramon rbartlett@sanramon.ca.gov San Francisco Bay Livestock and Land Program East North South West Ecology Action kliske@ecoact.org San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh-Upland Transition Zone Decision Support System (DSS) East North South West San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory dthomson@sfbbo.org San Francisco Eastside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission cmunoz@sfwater.org San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission jgilman@sfwater.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 17 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 A B C D San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility West City and County of San Francisco, Airport Commission Jonathan.Kocher@flysfo.com San Francisco Westside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission cmunoz@sfwater.org San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation Project, Highway 101 to El Camino Real South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority kmurray@sfcjpa.org San Francisquito Watershed Plan South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority kmurray@sfcjpa.org San Geronimo Landowner Assistance Program- Habitat Restoration Projects North Marin County Department of Public Works/SG Planning Group kkull@marincounty.org San Gregorio Creek Tributary Water Quality and Flow Monitoring West San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center amychaas@gmail.com San José Green Alleys Demonstration Project South City of San Jose elaine.marshall@sanjoseca.gov San José Green Streets Demonstration Project South City of San Jose elaine.marshall@sanjoseca.gov San Leandro Creek Environmental Education Center, Alameda County East Alameda Count Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Leandro Creek Hazard Tree Management and Riparian Habitat Restoration East ACFCWCD Chien@acpwa.org San Leandro Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 A B C D San Lorenzo Creek Tidal Wetlands Restoration East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Major Fish Passage Barrier Removal (MB-10) Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Stewardship Program East Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Pablo Bay South Watershed Awareness and Action Plan East The Watershed Project harold@thewatershedproject.or g San Pablo Bay South Watershed Community Stewardship Program East The Watershed Project juliana@thewatershedproject.or g San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 2A (DSRSD- EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority lhu@ebmud.com, fwedingt@ebmud.com San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 3 - 4 (DSRSD- EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority lhu@ebmud.com, fwedingt@ebmud.com San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 5-6 (DSRSD- EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority fwedingt@ebmud.com Santa Clara Valley Water District Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility Expansion Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District tligon@valleywater.org Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant Project East EBMUD Lhu@ebmud.com Sausal Creek Restoration Project East City of Oakland khathaway@oaklandnet.com SCADA System Major Upgrades East Alameda County Water District patricia.dustman@acwd.com School District Green Infrastructure Capacity Building/Pilot Projects East West San Francisco Estuary Partnership jbradt@waterboards.ca.gov Sears Point Restoration Project North Sonoma Land Trust julian@sonomalandtrust.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 19 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 A B C D SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAVEL CREEK WATERSHED North Vedanta Society of San Francisco fanshen@clearwater- hydrology.com SFPUC Eastside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West SFPUC aroche@sfwater.org SFPUC Westside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission aroche@sfwater.org Shinn Pond Fish Screen East Alameda County Water District anna.lloyd@acwd.com Sinbad Creek Project (R11-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Solano Project Terminal Reservoir Seismic Mitigation North Solano County Water Agency tpate@scwa2.com Sonoma Valley Groundwater Banking Program North Sonoma County Water Agency joan@scwa.ca.gov Sonoma Valley Integrated Water Management Program North Sonoma County Water Agency joan@scwa.ca.gov Soulajule Mercury Remediation North Marin Municipal Water District psellier@marinwater.org South Bay Aqueduct Turnout Construction and Low-Flow Crossings (R3- 1) East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project & South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study: Early Implementation Activities South California State Coastal Conservancy bbuxton@scc.ca.gov South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Model Enhancements East EBMUD tfrancis@ebmud.com South East Bay Plain Basin Subsidence Monitoring Network East EBMUD tfrancis@ebmud.com South San Francisco Recycled Water Facility West South San Francisco/SFPUC terry.white@ssf.net Southwestern Solano County Open Space Acquisition and Watershed Assessment North Solano Land Trust sue@solanolandtrust.org 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 A B C D Spring Branch Creek Tidal Marsh & Seasonal Creek Restoration North Solano Land Trust Ben@Solanolandtrust.org Springtown Golf Course Improvements (R1-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Springtown Improvements (R1-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Stanley Enhancement and Restoration Project (R3-5a)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Stinson Beach flood protection and habitat enhancement project North Marin County Department of Public Works cchoo@marincounty.org Stivers Lagoon Marsh Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Streambank and Habitat Restoration Projects East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Katie.bergmann@ca.usda.gov Study of Mercury methylation in South San Francisco Bay in Relation to Nutrient Sources South San Francisco Estuary Institute jay@sfei.org Suisun City Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project North City of Suisun City adum@suisun.com Suisun Valley Flood Management North Solano County Water Agency tpate@scwa2.com Sulphur Creek/Hayward Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Sycamore Grove Recharge Bypass Project (R4-1 )East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Tassajara Creek Improvement Project (R8-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com The Bay Area Creek Mouth Assessment Tool East North South West San Francisco Estuary Partnership adbaudrimont@watersheds.ca.g ov The Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW) Project East North West PRBO Conservation Science jparodi@prbo.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 21 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 A B C D Tice Creek Bypass (Drainage Area 67), Walnut Creek, CA (#117)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Tomales Bay Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Improvement Program North Tomales Bay Watershed Council Foundation robcarson@tomalesbaywatersh ed.org Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Project East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org Tule Ponds Education Center Rehabilitation East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Upland Transition Zone Mapping for Southern San Pablo Bay (West):North Gallinas Watershed Council/Marin County DPW/marin County Parks and Openspace Rachel@KHE-Inc.com Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery Project East SFPUC msargent@sfwater.org Upper Arroyo de la Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project (R8-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Upper Napa River Water Quality Improvement and Habitat Enhancement Project North California Land Stewardship Institute laurelm@fishfriendlyfarming.org Upper York Creek Dam Removal -- St. Helena, Napa River Watershed North City of St. Helena/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers JohnF@cityofsthelena.org Velocity Control Project (R2-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Veterans' Court Seawall Reconstruction East City of Alameda cclark@ci.alameda.ca.us Vista Grande Drainage Basin Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission onzewi@sfwater.org Walnut Creek Levee Rehabilitation at Buchanan Field Airport, Concord (#119) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Walnut Creek Sediment Removal - Clayton Valley Drain to Drop Structure 1 , Concord (#118) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 A B C D Water Conservation and Mobile Water Lab Program North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Water Dog Lake Sediment Removal West City of Belmont gyau@belmont.gov Water Supply and Instream Habitat Improvements in Suisun Creek North Ca. Land Stewardship Institute laurelm@fishfriendlyfarming.org Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project East City of Pittsburg wpease@ci.pittsburg.ca.us Watershed Information Center & Conservancy of Napa County North County of Napa jeff.sharp@countyofnapa.org Westborough Main Pump Station Generator West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m Western Dublin Recycled Water Distribution Expansion and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com White Slough Flood Control and Improvement Project North Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District rohlemutz@vsfcd.com Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Restoration and Management Plan East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Cece Sellgren Wildcat Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration (1135)(#7)East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Wildcat Creek Watershed Erosion and Sediment Control Project East East Bay Regional Park District palexander@ebparks.org Wildcat Sediment Basin Desilt, North Richmond (#5)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Wildcat/San Pablo Creeks Phase II Channel Improvements, San Pablo (#9) East City of San Pablo adeleh@SanPabloCA.gov Zone 1 Recycled Water- Pleasant Hill Build Out East Contra Costa Sanitary District dberger@centralsan.org Coordinating Committee San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan c/o San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 December 21, 2012 Dear Project Proponents, As you are aware, the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) group has been soliciting and evaluating proposals for an upcoming Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Round 2 grant submittal, for which projects have been developed in accordance with the 2013 update of the Bay Area Plan. Approximately $20 million is available to the region in this round. For this process, 67 projects totaling approximately $110 million were submitted for consideration by the BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC), which designated a Project Selection Committee (PSC) to develop and score various conceptual options for packaging together a successful proposal. The CC unanimously decided on December 17, 2012 to pursue the following projects for submission in a Round 2 application based on the analysis and recommendations of the PSC. Project (alphabetical) Amount Bayfront Canal Flood Management & Habitat Project $1,135,000 Breuner Marsh Restoration and Access Project $750,000 Building Climate Change Resiliency Along the Bay with Green Infrastructure and Treated Wastewater $2,000,000 Conserving Our Watersheds $600,000 East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A $1,000,000 Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project $630,000 Milliken Creek Flood Damage Reduction $500,000 North Bay Water Reuse Program - Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Project - Phase 2 $1,020,000 Pescadero Water Supply Project $700,000 Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV $825,000 Regional Groundwater Project (San Bruno-Daly City-San Francisco) $500,000 Regional Water Conservation ($500,000 to Santa Clara Valley Water District) $2,700,000 Rheem Creek Restoration Project * $750,000 Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main Upgrades $500,000 San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility $750,000 San Jose Green Infrastructure $2,000,000 Sausal Creek Restoration Project $500,000 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Green Infrastructure $900,000 Students and Teachers Restoring a Watershed (STRAW) $500,000 Upper York Dam Removal - St. Helena $800,000 TOTAL (20 Projects) ** $19,060,000 * Rheem Creek will not be included unless collaboration confirmed with East Contra Costa County Region. If the Rheem Creek Project is not included, another project from the East Subregion will take its place. ** The total is less than $20 M to provide for administration and performance monitoring Page 2 of 3 Decision Process The PSC pursued a process to evaluate seven options and select the combination of projects that would total less than $20 million and best meet the following factors identified by the PSC: Factors  Must meet DWR criteria for grants to assure a successful grant proposal: o Benefit/ Cost analysis (ability to provide detail for analysis) o Match (25% match or Dis-Advantaged Community waiver) o Readiness to proceed  Fair and equitable allocation of funds throughout the Region, Sub-regions, and Functional Areas  Maintain stakeholder engagement throughout the Sub-regions and Functional Areas  Efficient use of resources ( related to total number of projects) Options The PSC anticipated the need to develop different options that could be evaluated against the factors above. The options included the following with the results noted in italics. A. Most Integrated/ DWR Criteria Projects were rated based on level of integration (benefits to multiple IRWMP functional areas1) as well as DWR criteria for Technical Justification and Benefit/ Cost Analysis (included consideration of Regional projects). Issues - top ranked projects did not include any South Sub-region projects and only 1 Regional project B. Sub-regional Prioritization Four sub-regions prioritized projects within their geographic areas based on long-term sub-regional targets. Issues - too many projects to include in grant application and no regional projects C. Functional Area Emphasis Four functional areas prioritized projects based on $5 million allocations for each functional area Issues – Sub-regional targets not met. D. Climate Change Emphasis 8 projects were identified and ranked that specifically focused on Climate Change Issues - Functional Area and Sub-region allocations were unbalanced –not pursued further. In evaluating the options above, the PSC developed the following screening rules: Rules 1) Cap- No project or entity to receive more than $2 million (Regional Conservation excepted since this is a program with multiple agencies involved) due to breadth and depth of submittals 2) Floor- No project less than $500,000 included (original floor in project request) 3) Planning Limit- No more than 5% ($1 million total) of full submittal 4) Proponent Ranking- Proponents with multiple submittals were asked to rank them and this information was considered in project selection 5) Combined Projects- If projects are separate under CEQA, or are not all within an option’s priority funding range, they cannot be combined 1 Bay Area IRWMP Functional Areas include: Water Supply and Quality; Wastewater and Recycling; Flood Protection and Stormwater; Habitat and Watersheds Page 3 of 3 E. Hybrid Options E-1: Modified Option B (Sub-region Priorities) to include regional projects (STRAW and Regional Conservation) and incorporate some results of Option A. E-2: Variation of E-1 that would allocate $1 million for Planning/Assessment projects. Dropped given number of implementation projects and DWR focus on capital outlay. E-3: Modified Option A (Integration Option) to add funding for South and Regional projects and adjust amounts to stay below limit. The PSC recommended Option E-1 to the Coordinating Committee as the option best meeting identified factors after reviewing common projects in all options. A copy of the Options document prepared for the CC is attached. If you have questions about particular options or projects, please contact the appropriate IRWMP leads at: http://bairwmp.org/subregions/contacts We sincerely appreciate your participation in this process and regret that we could not accommodate more requests for funding. We value hearing about your experience in submitting and will look to incorporate feedback into future grant rounds. Please do not hesitate to contact us with comments and suggestions at Projects@bairwmp.org. Sincerely, Steven R. Ritchie Assistant General Manager, Water San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Chair Finance Chapter Table of Contents Section 10: Financing 10.1 Funding Opportunities 10.1.1 Local Funding 10.1.2 Capital Improvements Program Funding (Revenue Bonds, Certificates of Participation) 10.1.3 Property Tax Assessment (Assessed Valuation) 10.1.4 User Fees 10.1.5 Innovative Local Funding Mechanisms 10.1.5.1 Friends of the Mt. Tamalpais Watershed 10.1.5.2 Napa County, Measure A 10.1.5.3 Ross Valley Storm Drainage Fee 10.1.5.4 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Measure B 10.1.5.5 Zone 7 Water Agency, Stanley Reach Project 10.1.5.6 Potential Spending Offset Projects 10.2 State Funding 10.2.1 Proposition 84 10.2.1.1 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning 10.2.1.2 Department of Water Resources – Local Groundwater Assistance Program 10.2.1.3 Department of Public Health - Emergency and Urgent Water Protection 10.2.1.4 State Water Resources Control Board – Storm Water Grant Program 10.2.1.5 Local Levee Assistance Program 10.2.1.6 Flood Protection Corridor Program 10.2.1.7 Flood Control Subventions Program 10.2.1.8 Urban Streams Restoration Program 10.2.2 Proposition 1E 10.2.2.1 Stormwater Flood Management Program 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 10.2.2.2 Early Implementation Program 10.2.3 Proposition 50 10.2.3.1 Department of Water Resources – Water Use Efficiency Grants 10.2.3.2 Department of Water Resources – Contaminant Removal 10.2.3.3 Department of Water Resources – UV and Ozone Disinfection 10.2.4 Other State Funding 10.2.4.1 State Revolving Fund 10.2.4.2 Safe Drinking Water SRF 10.2.4.3 Infrastructure SRF 10.2.4.4 Clean Water SRF 10.2.4.5 State Water Resources Control Board – Federal 319 Program 10.2.4.6 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Recycling Funding Program 10.2.4.7 Department of Water Resources – New Local Water Supply Construction Loans 10.2.4.8 Department of Housing and Community Development – Community Development Block Grant 10.2.4.9 California Energy Commission (CEC) – Energy Financing Program 10.3 Federal Funding 10.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Source Reduction Assistance 10.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Program Development Grants 10.3.3 National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program 10.3.4 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Grant 10.3.5 US Department of Agriculture – Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Program 10.3.6 US Bureau of Reclamation, WaterSMART Grant Programs 10.3.7 US Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant 10.4 IRWM Project Funding Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Public Workshop #2 Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration Monday, January 28, 2013 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. StopWaste.org 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA Summary of Workshop Participant Input Communication challenges • A workshop participant who is also a BAIRMWP project proponent commented that communication regarding submitting projects for the Proposition 84 Round 2 grant application was poor and that he was not receiving updates and information in a timely manner. Steve Ritchie, Chair of the BAIRWMP Coordination Committee (CC), indicated that the CC would follow up on this concern. Funding Sources and Mechanisms Following presentations provided by Carol Mahoney (Zone 7), Caitlin Sweeney (San Francisco Estuary Partnership), and Grant Schlereth (Arup) on financing sources and collaboration strategies (see BAIRWMP website for workshop presentations: www.bairwmp.org), workshop participants provided their own examples of funding mechanisms they have used and/or have found to be effective to fund water resource projects. These sources include: • The California Financing Coordinating Committee hosts regular Funding Fairs that are open to the public and very helpful. The fairs provide opportunities for project proponents to obtain information about currently available infrastructure grant, loan and bond financing programs and options. o For more information, visit: http://www.cfcc.ca.gov/funding_fairs.htm. • Small non-profit organizations are able to work with the Sonoma County Water Agency, which provides small grants for stakeholder engagement and localized involvement in making improvements to the water system. This has led to a number of successful habitat restoration projects. • Participation in carbon markets for mitigation credits can potentially provide funding for water resource projects. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is exploring this approach and the Point Reyes Bird Observatory is performing work in this area for grasslands and watersheds. In addition, smaller community based watershed groups are beginning to get involved in the carbon credit market. The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) will be hosting a panel on carbon credits in February 2013 to discuss carbon credits and their potential applications. Page 1 of 2 o For more information about the BAWN panel, visit: http://www.sfestuary.org/watershed-network. • SFPUC provides funding for Alameda County Resource Conservation District staff to work on watershed restoration projects. This support provides the RCD with the resources it needs to implement projects; this has proved to be a very successful partnership. • Estate planning for land trusts has allowed a number of conservation projects to take place. This is a strategy that should be considered, and it may be applicable for other types of projects as well. • Santa Clara Valley Water District has a grant program that allows local non-profit organizations to participate in water resource projects. This funding source allows smaller organizations to implement smaller projects, as opposed to the larger infrastructure projects the BAIRMWP prioritizes. BAIRWMP should consider prioritizing funding the larger water resource agencies with funding programs similar to SCVWD because they allow smaller organizations to participate. • The City of Livermore uses development fees to fund flood improvement projects. Developers also sometimes pay drainage fees to mitigate for stormwater runoff. • Several local foundations, including the Lucile and David Packard Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, fund watershed, wetlands and riparian projects. • The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture funding database is a helpful resource. The database includes federal, state and local agency funding sources as well as private sources such as foundations and educational institutions. o For more information, visit: http://www.sfbayjv.org/funding-list.php. • Non-profit organizations are very creative in identifying resources and finding ways of implementing projects. Some use large teams of volunteers for watershed projects, including Acterra in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Partnership and Participation in BAIRMWP • It would be helpful to make available a “cost-benefit consultant” to help project proponents, particularly non-profit organizations that often don’t have the resources to do this, in this important aspect of the project applications • To facilitate partnerships between larger public agencies and smaller organizations, it would be helpful if both sides could clearly articulate what they are looking for in a partner and what they aim to achieve. For example, if larger agencies could to clarify what kinds of projects they are prioritizing, the smaller organizations can then develop some ideas on how to create a mutually beneficial partnership. They might consider articulating/sharing this on a central website that is easily accessible. • A relatively small number of projects included the 2013 BAIRWMP are being led by local cities. The Coordinating Committee should better understand the barriers to participation. • DWR’s requirements for disadvantaged community (DAC) projects to participate in the BAIRWMP, and the DAC boundaries, make it very challenging to participate. The process is complex and DACs have limited staff to work on applications and the intensive reporting and paperwork required. Page 2 of 2 Appendix E-8 Disadvantaged Community Outreach Materials Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Projects Serving Disadvantaged Communities Focus on Disadvantaged Communities The San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is a planning process and document that identifies Bay Area water challenges and opportunities. It also encourages and describes how water resources management agencies and communities can work together to improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. Serving the water needs of low-income, disadvantaged communities (DACs) is a high priority for the people in the water agencies and non-profit organizations who are developing the Bay Area IRWMP. Water projects serving these communities are able to leverage the following advantages: The normally required 25% cost share may be waived for DAC projects. Eligible projects include both construction projects and studies to identify specific water needs that may lead to a construction project. Eligible DAC Projects An eligible DAC project needs to serve a DAC community’s ““critical water supply or water quality need.” Example projects may include (but are not limited to): Management of flood flows that threaten the habitability of dwellings Wastewater treatment necessary to abate or prevent surface or groundwater contamination Replacement of failing septic systems with a system that provides for the long-term wastewater treatment needs of the community. Projects included in the Bay Area IRWMP become eligible for competitive state grants, but grants are not guaranteed. Where are DACs in the Bay Area? The California Department of Water Resources defines DACs as communities and neighborhoods with an annual median household income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average (or incomes less than $48,706). To understand where DACs are located in the Bay Area, visit the Bay Area IRWMP website (www.bairwmp.org) which hosts a series of DAC-specific maps. How to Learn More To learn more about the Bay Area IRWMP process, including how to submit a DAC project, please visit the project website at www.bairwmp.org. You can also contact one of the following subregional leads who can help guide you through the DAC eligibility determination and project submittal processes. North (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano counties) – Harry Seraydarian: harryser@comcast.net East (Contra Costa, Alameda counties) – Mark Boucher: mbouc@pw.cccounty.us South (Santa Clara county) – Brian Mendenhall: BMendenhall@valleywater.org) West (San Francisco, San Mateo counties) – Cheryl Muñoz: cmunoz@sfwater.org Project Submittal Deadline – September 1, 2012 To be included in the Bay Area IRWMP, proposals must be submitted on the project website by September 1. www.bairwmp.org §¨¦580 §¨¦80 §¨¦80 §¨¦680 ∙þ4 ∙þ24 ∙þ1 £¤101 ∙þ92 ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA MARI N SAN FRANCISCO SOLANO Martinez San PabloRichmond Pittsburg Con co rd El Cerrito Antioch Alban y Berkeley Oak land Alam eda San Leandro Hayward Shore Acres Saranap Castro Valley CCCSD MVSD DDSDPINOLE RSD SSD WCA DSRSD EBMUD EBDA LIV LAVWMA USD San Rafael San Francisco W A St E Leland Rd 23rd StDa n ville Blvd S A ir p o rt B lv d Franklin Canyon Rd E 14th St Park St 8 7 t h S t L StOtis Dr M arina Blvd13th AvePaul Ave Walnut Ave C larem ont A ve7 Hills RdAirport DrMission StBeach RdCamino TassajaraJackson StO a k S t Vallecitos RdE 8th St Rivers St Reliez Valley RdMoraga RdM ain StT a ylo r B lvd T u r k S t N Parkside Dr Snake RdFoothill Rd66th AveBroadwayPort Chicago HwyMain StAppian WayPomona Ave 13th StMarket StBoyd Rd Bancroft Ave Center Ave Fleetwood Dr Ful t o n S t S 39th StLomita AveCastro Ranch RdDeer Valley RdGarfield St Skyline Blv d Camino Pablo Broadway TerAlcosta Blvd Moraga W a y W inston D r G rant AveC ourt St Berry StO a k G ro v e R d Miranda AvePleasant Hill RdHegenberger Rd7th St G e a ry B lv d Pacheco Blvd Tiburon Blvd 14th St R o s e S t1st StFassler Ave Cummings Skwy Hickey BlvdBaker StA StTaylor StSaint Marys Rd1 6 t h S t Adeline StE a st S t Mt Ave F St Marsh Creek Rd Rudgear Rd B a y S t Skyl i ne DrB u s h S t Evans Ave S 2nd St6t h St Bunker R d Holmes StA shby A ve51st St G ear y Rd Clayton Rd S L StCrisp Rd Morello Ave Vienna StR edw ood Rd W K StE H St Sunset BlvdN San Pedro Rd 28th AveLone Tree Way 2nd St34th StY g n a c io V a lle y R d Harder Rd8t h St Fairmont DrPacific Ave Alhambra Val l e y R dMission Rd S a n R a mo n V a lle y B lv d W 10th St Bla c k h a w k R d Industrial BlvdMaitla n d D r Pier 4 1 Vineyard AveKirker Pass RdBuchanan Rd S t a n l e y B l v d Highland RdGre at HwyBailey RdS h a w R d Arroyo Valle Colma Creek Grizzly Cree k K aiser CreekAlhambra CreekT ic e C reek Galindo CreekPin e CreekTassajara CreekAlamo CreekSulphur Springs Creek Mills Creek Arroyo Seco Hastings S lough Garrity CreekGrayson CreekCoyote CreekSan Catanio CreekTemescal Creek G reen Valley CreekSouth San Ramon Creek San R amon CreekLauterwasser C r e e k San Rafael Creek Palomares Creek San Leandro CreekShephard Creek Cayetano C reek Gold Creek A rroyo Vall eMiller CreekGlen Echo Creek Buckhorn C r e e k Alamo CreekArroy o La s P o s i tas Ar r oyo de la Lagun a Wildcat C reek San L eand ro C re ek Strawberry CreekPinol e Creek W i l d c a t Creek Galindo Creek Mount Eden Creek Arroyo Cerro Del Mount D i ablo C reek Lion Creek P eaco c k CreekWalnut CreekBolinas Creek San Pedro Creek Claremont C r e e k Seal C reekDeer Flat Creek Rodeo Creek Mar s h C r eekWest Fork Sycamore Creek Norris CreekLafayette C r e e k A r r o y o MochoBear CreekRifle Range Bra nchBear Creek Dry C reekLas Trampas Cre e k East Fork Sycamore Creek Sinbad Creek Alameda Creek Arroyo d el Hambre Bollinger Canyon Creek San Lo r e n z o Cr e ek Donner Cre e k Pine Creek Codornices Creek Deer Creek West Branch Al a mo CreekDry CreekWildcat Creek Country Club Branch Walnut CreekSan Leandro Creek H ollis CreekCrow CreekKirk e r Cre ekDeer C re e k East Branch Green Valley CreekPalo Seco CreekLobos Creek Rod e o C reek Rodeo Creek W a rd C re e k Dry Creek Pine CreekRussellmann Creek Dry CreekR efugio Creek Redwood Creek S u lp h u r C re e k Cayetano CreekPeralta CreekVallecitos Creek Little Pine C r e e k T e h a n C r e e k Sycamore CreekWard Cree k A rroyo V iejoA rroy o Viejo Sand Creek Mountain Springs CreekBack CreekOil Cree kDublin C ree k Sausa l Creek Sycamore Cre ekFrankli n Creek Deer Creek Indian Creek Cottonwoo d CreekC e r r i t o C r e e k Cul l Cr eekSan Pablo Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (East) Source s: U S C ensus Bu reau, 2010 Cens usU.S. Federal Emergen cy Man age ment Administration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Ins titute MARIN NAPA SOLANO SONOMA VAC FSSD BENICIA NSD VSFCD SASM MCSD SVCSD PET LGVSD NSD SMCSD CMSA §¨¦580 §¨¦80 §¨¦680£¤101 ∙þ37 ∙þ12 ∙þ113 ∙þ4 ∙þ24 ∙þ116 San Rafae l Richmond Ro hnert Park Napa Fairfield Vallejo Marin City San Quentin Vacaville Agua Caliente 23rd StMcClay RdEly Rd N Franklin Canyon Rd C o r d e lia R dW Texas St N Texas StBroadwayLopes RdSunset AveAlha m bra A ve Travis Ave Walnut Ave Benicia Rd Ar li ngt on Av eBeach RdSan Marin Dr Gr e e n V a ll e y Rd Rivers St Mt StNave Dr Reliez Valley RdPeabody RdS uis u n Valley RdC e d a r S t L u c k y D r Verne Ave 5th St WLupine Rd W a te rfro n t R d Port Chicago Hwy Borges Ln Pomona Ave C anal S tBolinas RdG StEly Blvd S Boyd Rd Center Ave Olivera Rd E 3rd StE 10th St Camino Pablo E 5th StW estern A ve1st StLaurel St O a k G ro v e R dE 2nd StAtherton Ave Pacheco Blvd Tiburon Blvd Cummings Skwy W 10th StMarin StD S tM a r i n A v e I S t A StE a st S t Military W Main StOld Adobe Rd H St2nd StSan P a b lo A v e Travis Blvd S a n A n t o n i o R d S 2nd St6t h StPotrero AveAscot PkyWalters RdGeary Rd Clayton Rd J e ff e r s o n S t Vi c hy Av eA r n o l d Dr 3rd St B i g Ra n c h Rd N San Pedro Rd 34th St5 t h S t L a s A m i g a s R d Alhambra Valley Rd Marsh Creek Rd Alamo Dr Rose Dr Elmira Rd N Castro StShiloh RdBurndale RdHilborn RdSears Point Rd Lucas Valley Rd 1st AveMi n i Dr Kirker Pass RdBuchanan Rd Fry Rd Lakeville Hwy Airport RdFrates RdBailey RdAbernathy RdFremont Dr G r a h a m CreekS an Pablo C reek Laurel Creek San Antoni o C reek White Slough Novato Creek Austin Cr eekAlhambra CreekTice Creek Encino sa Cre e k Phoenix Creek Mud Slough Bon Tempe Creek Spring Branch Pine C reekWild Horse Creek East Fork Swede George Creek Barker Slo ugh A la mo Cree kCrane C r e e k North Branch Wilson Creek Hill SloughGoodyear Slough Unio n Creek Hastings Slough Green Valley Creek Corte Madera Creek Haraszthy Creek Schell Cree k Napa River Union C reekWill ow BrookGarrity CreekG rayson CreekBasalt Creek Tulucay C r e ek Rattlesnake Creek H o o k e r C reekWoloki Slough Barths Creek Bush Slough McCoy CreekAl amo C re ekNovato C r e e k Fa g a n CreekHuichic a Cr eekDenverton CreekT a m a l p a i s C r e e k Alamo Creek Lauterwasse r C r e e k A m erica n Canyon Creek Felder Creek North Graham Creek S p rin g B ra n c h Miller Cree k Sheehy Cr e ekRedwood CreekNovato C reek Sui su n CreekN o v a t o C re e k Fagan C reek N icasio Cre ekFern Creek Tol a y C r eekSwede George Creek Schultz Slough Wi ldcat Creek Strawberry Creek Pinole Cr e e k Union Creek E ast Bran c h China Slough Galindo Creek Marsh Creek Arroyo Cerro DelMount Diablo Cre ekLas T r ampas C re e k Laguna C r e ekBlue Rock Springs Creek South Fork Matanzas Creek Arroyo SecoWillo w Brook Peltier SloughWalnut CreekSulphur S p ri n g s C r e e k Claremont C r e e k Rodeo Creek Sulph u r S pr i ngs CreekRoss Creek Seal CreekGallinas Creek Webb CreekDe e r Flat Creek Ro deo Creek S a n R a m o n C reekSuscol Creek Nathanson Creek Petaluma River Lafayette Cr e e k Ledgewood CreekBear CreekFowler Creek Rack Cr e e k B e ar Creek Cascade Creek Arroyo Corte Madera Del PresidioCh amplin CreekHarvey Slough First Mallard Branch Milliken Creek Fagan SloughNapa Ri verSpencer Creek Bill Williams Creek East Fork Cataract Creek Middle Fork Lagunitas Creek Arroyo d el HambreWhite Creek Ulatis Cr eekDo nner Cr eekSleepy H o llow C reekN orth Sloug h Kirker CreekPine CreekLynch CreekDowdall Creek Soda CreekSoda Springs Creek Dry Cr eekL a rkspur CreekOld Mill Creek San A nselm o Creek White Creek A r r o y o J a n J o s e Carey Camp Creek Second Mallard Branch Fairfax Creek Wildcat Creek Carneros C reek Laurel CreekRush CreekVan Wyc k Creek Walnut CreekWooden Valley Creek Donahue SloughCoyote Creek West Fork Fern CreekEast Fork Fern Creek Rodgers Creek Sonoma CreekGarrity Creek Sand Creek Browns Cre ek Kirker CreekLaguna CreekBark e r Sloug h South Graham Creek Kent Creek Bothin Creek Adobe CreekRodeo Creek H a l l eck C reek B ig C arson Creek Lagu nitas Creek Pine CreekSarco C re e kWest Fork Lagunitas Creek Cold StreamRussellmann Creek West Fork Swede George Creek Mi l l C r e ekBootjack CreekLichau C re e k Grizzly Creek Mountain Springs Creek Galena Creek Mud Hen Slough Refugio Creek Mira Slough Tule Slough Cataract Creek Kreuse C reek Oil Cree kP e a c o c k C r e e k Little Pine C r e e k Spike Buck Creek Murphy Creek R in d le r C reekGordon Valley CreekCopeland Cr e ek San Rafael Creek Lewis Creek Codornices CreekLone Tree CreekBack CreekDeer Park Creek East Fork Lagunitas Creek Tolay Creek Dug Road Creek Frankli n Creek Napa CreekCarriger CreekAgua Caliente CreekArroyo SecoAsbury C reekArroyo AvichiC e r r i t o C r e e k San Pablo Creek Redw o od C reek Sources: U S C ens us Bure au, 201 0 CensusU.S. Fed eral Emergency Management Adminis tration (FEMA)Wastew ater Treatment Facility, Pacific Institute Wastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities InfrastructureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (North) §¨¦580 §¨¦80 §¨¦80 §¨¦680 ∙þ4 ∙þ24 ∙þ1 £¤101 ∙þ92 ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA MARI N SAN FRANCISCO SOLANO Martinez San PabloRichmond Pittsburg Con co rd El Cerrito Antioch Alban y Berkeley Oak land Alam eda San Leandro Hayward Shore Acres Saranap Castro Valley CCCSD MVSD DDSDPINOLE RSD SSD WCA DSRSD EBMUD EBDA LIV LAVWMA USD San Rafael San Francisco W A St E Leland Rd 23rd StDa n ville Blvd S A ir p o rt B lv d Franklin Canyon Rd E 14th St Park St 8 7 t h S t L StOtis Dr M arina Blvd13th AvePaul Ave Walnut Ave C larem ont A ve7 Hills RdAirport DrMission StBeach RdCamino TassajaraJackson StO a k S t Vallecitos RdE 8th St Rivers St Reliez Valley RdMoraga RdM ain StT a ylo r B lvd T u r k S t N Parkside Dr Snake RdFoothill Rd66th AveBroadwayPort Chicago HwyMain StAppian WayPomona Ave 13th StMarket StBoyd Rd Bancroft Ave Center Ave Fleetwood Dr Ful t o n S t S 39th StLomita AveCastro Ranch RdDeer Valley RdGarfield St Skyline Blv d Camino Pablo Broadway TerAlcosta Blvd Moraga W a y W inston D r G rant AveC ourt St Berry StO a k G ro v e R d Miranda AvePleasant Hill RdHegenberger Rd7th St G e a ry B lv d Pacheco Blvd Tiburon Blvd 14th St R o s e S t1st StFassler Ave Cummings Skwy Hickey BlvdBaker StA StTaylor StSaint Marys Rd1 6 t h S t Adeline StE a st S t Mt Ave F St Marsh Creek Rd Rudgear Rd B a y S t Skyl i ne DrB u s h S t Evans Ave S 2nd St6t h St Bunker R d Holmes StA shby A ve51st St G ear y Rd Clayton Rd S L StCrisp Rd Morello Ave Vienna StR edw ood Rd W K StE H St Sunset BlvdN San Pedro Rd 28th AveLone Tree Way 2nd St34th StY g n a c io V a lle y R d Harder Rd8t h St Fairmont DrPacific Ave Alhambra Val l e y R dMission Rd S a n R a mo n V a lle y B lv d W 10th St Bla c k h a w k R d Industrial BlvdMaitla n d D r Pier 4 1 Vineyard AveKirker Pass RdBuchanan Rd S t a n l e y B l v d Highland RdGre at HwyBailey RdS h a w R d Arroyo Valle Colma Creek Grizzly Cree k K aiser CreekAlhambra CreekT ic e C reek Galindo CreekPin e CreekTassajara CreekAlamo CreekSulphur Springs Creek Mills Creek Arroyo Seco Hastings S lough Garrity CreekGrayson CreekCoyote CreekSan Catanio CreekTemescal Creek G reen Valley CreekSouth San Ramon Creek San R amon CreekLauterwasser C r e e k San Rafael Creek Palomares Creek San Leandro CreekShephard Creek Cayetano C reek Gold Creek A rroyo Vall eMiller CreekGlen Echo Creek Buckhorn C r e e k Alamo CreekArroy o La s P o s i tas Ar r oyo de la Lagun a Wildcat C reek San L eand ro C re ek Strawberry CreekPinol e Creek W i l d c a t Creek Galindo Creek Mount Eden Creek Arroyo Cerro Del Mount D i ablo C reek Lion Creek P eaco c k CreekWalnut CreekBolinas Creek San Pedro Creek Claremont C r e e k Seal C reekDeer Flat Creek Rodeo Creek Mar s h C r eekWest Fork Sycamore Creek Norris CreekLafayette C r e e k A r r o y o MochoBear CreekRifle Range Bra nchBear Creek Dry C reekLas Trampas Cre e k East Fork Sycamore Creek Sinbad Creek Alameda Creek Arroyo d el Hambre Bollinger Canyon Creek San Lo r e n z o Cr e ek Donner Cre e k Pine Creek Codornices Creek Deer Creek West Branch Al a mo CreekDry CreekWildcat Creek Country Club Branch Walnut CreekSan Leandro Creek H ollis CreekCrow CreekKirk e r Cre ekDeer C re e k East Branch Green Valley CreekPalo Seco CreekLobos Creek Rod e o C reek Rodeo Creek W a rd C re e k Dry Creek Pine CreekRussellmann Creek Dry CreekR efugio Creek Redwood Creek S u lp h u r C re e k Cayetano CreekPeralta CreekVallecitos Creek Little Pine C r e e k T e h a n C r e e k Sycamore CreekWard Cree k A rroyo V iejoA rroy o Viejo Sand Creek Mountain Springs CreekBack CreekOil Cree kDublin C ree k Sausa l Creek Sycamore Cre ekFrankli n Creek Deer Creek Indian Creek Cottonwoo d CreekC e r r i t o C r e e k Cul l Cr eekSan Pablo Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (East) Source s: U S C ensus Bu reau, 2010 Cens usU.S. Federal Emergen cy Man age ment Administration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Ins titute ∙þ9 MenloPark Sta nford Portola Va lley Los Altos Mil pitas Sunnyva le Sa nta Cla ra Cuper tino Sa n Jose Cam pbell Sa ra toga Los Ga tos Morgan Hill Scot ts Va lley Sa nta Cruz Live Oak Capitola Opal Cliffs Twin La kes Gilroy SAN MATEO SANTA CLAR A SANTA CRUZ SVA LE SJSCWPCP §¨¦880 §¨¦280 §¨¦680 £¤101 £¤101 ∙þ35 ∙þ1 ∙þ84 ∙þ82 ∙þ1 ∙þ9 ∙þ87 ∙þ130 ∙þ152 ∙þ17 ∙þ237 ∙þ85 ∙þ17 ∙þ85 ∙þ82 ∙þ82 ∙þ35 Felter Rd Alpine RdLundy A veLandess AveBl ossom Hil l Rd S enter R dGreat America PkyRd G J a v a Dr Alma St Race StRedmond Ave S an T eresa BlvdS Springer RdRu b y Av e Hale Ave S i e r r a R d E Zayante RdA b o r n R dPage Mill RdCottle RdF l a t S t Llagas RdSnell Rider RdPierce RdMi n e s Rd Day RdPine AveBi rd AveE Gish RdScott BlvdGold StF o x w o r t h y A v e Doyle Rd Sobey RdWilliams Rd Graham Hi l l RdL ouis R d Story RdT ully R dM c K e a n RdCurie Dr 1st S t D a v e s A v e B r a n h a m L n Highland Way S Wh it e Rd E Middlefield Rd Miller AveHecker Pass Rd M arket S tM e tc a lf R d Colem an RdMonterey HwyBernal RdL a u r el G le n R d L af a y e tte S tPalm DrS Mary AveS King R d W estridge DrGrant RdM t H a m ilt o n R d Oak Dr Snell AveHazel Dell RdBuzzard Lago o n RdKooser RdBig Basin Way Mt Eden Rd M onterey R d Bear Creek RdN 1 7th S t N 1 st S t S Mai n St S 7th St Uvas RdAlba Rd Laurel RdCasa Loma RdSummit Rd Isabel Cr e e k Sobey CreekMartin CreekSan Felipe Cr e ekWest Fork Adobe Creek Miguelita CreekBoulder Brook H e nd r ys Creek Hughes Creek Arastradero Creek Slate CreekMayfield Slough Sausal Creek Isabel C reek M iller Slo u g h Si lv er Creek Isab el Cree k Arroyo H ondo Uvas Cree k South Fork Butano Creek Aptos CreekBear C r e e k Hoove r C r e e kBarron CreekSaratoga CreekLos G atos Creek Coyot e Cre e kLos Gatos CreekBlack Creek Fall Creek P ie d m o n t C r e e k Matadero CreekLlagas Cre e k Arro y o Ho n d o Laguna CreekUvas Creek B r i g gs Creek Packwood Cree kCalabazas CreekRincon CreekAldercroft Creek L o n g B r a nchButano Creek Jones Creek J u mpoff Cree k Bear Creek Co y ote C reek Uvas Cre ek C a lera C reekK ings CreekBonjetti C r e e k Guadalupe CreekCoyote Creek Quail Hollow Creek Llagas CreekSkillet CreekArroyo ValleRhododendron CreekMindego Creek Little Llagas Creek B o u lder Creek Grizzly Creek Alamitos CreekDeer CreekWest Waddell Creek Jam i s on Creek Coyote C r e e k Middle Fork Coyote Creek Her b e r t Creek Twin F all CreekMill CreekBe r r y e ssa Cree k F l i n t C r e e k San Lorenzo RiverZayante CreekO il Creek Bear CreekLittle Coyote Creek Sw iss C re ek Logan CreekEvans CreekBerry CreekBeauregard Creek Las Anim as C re ekSoque l Creek Arroyo Bayo Weeks Creek Lla g as Creek C oyote Cree kKeyston Creek Arroyo CaleroDry CreekS a n Antonio Creek Colorado Cre e k We s t B ranch L l a g a s Cr e e k Alambique Creek Upper Penitencia Cre e k Canoas Creek Los Capitancillos Creek Woodhams Creek A lpine C r e e k Lam bert Creek Winter Creek Al amed a C reek Valencia C r e ekHog Slough Tarwater CreekCoyot e Cr eekL a n g le y C ree k Thompson Creek Scott CreekA dob e C reekBabb CreekMill CreekRoss C re e k San Tomas Aquinas Creek Ferndell CreekPeters C reek Sempervirens Creek Arroyo MochoWilde r CreekBooker CreekPeters Creek Little Arthur Cree kSouth Panther Creek Tularcitos Creek Hale CreekYerba Buena Cre e kStevens Creek Penitencia Creek Wildcat CreekAlameda C r e e k North Branch Piedmont Creek Flint Cree k Bear Creek Calaveras C reek B o nita C reek Pheasant CreekBlooms Creek Coy o t e Creek Uvas Creek G u a d alupe R i v e r Woodruff C reekT im m s C r e e k Babb Creek Arroyo Bayo San Fra ncisquito CreekStapling Creek S ulp h u r S p rin g s C reek B ea n C r ee k Lit t l e Uvas C r e ek Little Boulder Creek Los Gatos Cre e kIndian CreekSan Martin CreekVasona CreekPesc a dero Creek Hare Creek Amaya Creek Sulphur C re e k Newell CreekShear CreekMarsha ll Creek Opal Creek E a st F o r k Coyote Cr e e k Q uim by C reekSmith Creek Mackenzie CreekSilver CreekSpring Creek Agua Puera CreekLiddell Creek Cow Creek Bridge CreekTrout Creek P r o s p ect Creek G old M ine C reekTrout CreekA rr o y o AguagueSouth Branch Tularcitos Creek Llagas CreekMa chado CreekBodfish C reek Todd Creek Hinckley CreekIverson CreekMajors Creek Hayes CreekM ill CreekUnion CreekI s a b e l Cr e e kPermanente CreekN e w CreekMcElroy Creek Indian Cabin Creek Foreman CreekA rroyo D e Los Coc h e s Corte M adera Creek Ruins CreekBay CreekWest Liddell CreekEast Branch Liddell Creek Last Chance Creek Cro y C reekBaldwin CreekSweetw ate r CreekMaddocks Creek Bracken Brae Creek N o rw ood Cre e k Waterman CreekCasserly Creek Bennett Creek Soup Bowl C re e k Rogers CreekDamiani CreekAlamias Cre ekHale CreekGazos CreekArroyo Bayo Crystal CreekSweigert Creek Browns CreekTwo Bar CreekCoal CreekMoore CreekFo w ler Creek Kelly Creek Malosky Creek Arroyo Ag uague Deans Creek Sycamore CreekM o l i n o C re e k Stevens C re ekCrosley Creek Granite CreekIs a bel Cr e ek Lompico CreekLompico CreekParadise CreekBranciforte CreekRegnart CreekBorregas CreekBig C reekRucker CreekFritch CreekLove CreekManson Creek San Felipe CreekPeavine CreekLos Tra n c o s Creek Dexter Creek C or ralito s CreekBull Creek Eagle Creek Dutard Creek Bull Run CreekSierra CreekP u r i s i m a C r e e k Alb a C re e k Live Oak CreekClear Cre ekCenter Creek North F o r k Grizzly Creek G o ld G u lc h C r e e k Bates CreekPanther CreekSan Ysidro CreekS hi ngl e M ill C re e k Gaffey C reekPermanente CreekRe ggi ar d o Cr e e k A r c h ib a ld C r e e k Matadero CreekL ittle CreekPowder Mill CreekMoffett ChannelEast W addell CreekRider Creek S m i t h C r e e k Carbonera CreekBarron Creek Meder CreekPino C reek S outh Babb Creek Hester C ree kBurns Cree k Church CreekYellow Bank CreekSan Ysidro CreekNewell CreekBoyer CreekLa g u n a C r eekSan Vicente CreekLau r e l Creek Mill CreekWastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (S outh) Sources: U S C ens us Bure au, 201 0 CensusU.S. Fed eral Emergency Management Adminis tration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Ins titute SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO Mar inCity Ti bu ron Sa usa lito Be rke le y Oa k lan d Alameda Daly City Bri sba ne Sa n Le andro Foste r City Redwood City East Pa lo Alto Menlo Pa rk Woo d sid e SF PA SM SF BURL SF SBSA PAC NSMCSD SAMC SSF MILL §¨¦80 §¨¦280 §¨¦880 §¨¦580 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 ∙þ92 ∙þ82 ∙þ35 ∙þ1 ∙þ92 ∙þ35 ∙þ1 ∙þ1 ∙þ84 ∙þ82 ∙þ82 ∙þ82 S kyline Blvd Shell Pky Atlantic Ave 1 6 t h S t 4th St D a v is S tP alm Ave L o m b a r d S t Otis St3 0 th S t Avy AveW illow Otis Dr Sunnydale Ave Vicen t e S t S G r a n t S t N o r ie g a S t Louis Rd M arina BlvdM ission StHil l D r T a ra v a l S t Claremont AveSel va St 40th St E dgew ood R dPeralta StHillside Blvd Island Dr3rd Ave14th AveHigh Rd San Leandro St C a n a d a R d Alma St AlamedaHigh StSloat Blvd P a rk B lv d H ic k e y B lv d San Bruno Ave W Market StE m b a rca d e ro R dJenevein AveValparaiso AveJefferson AveFleetwood Dr 1 8 t h S t E 8th St Helen Dr M a n s e ll S t Black Mt RdFarm Hill BlvdMorag a Wa y W in s to n D r School St College AveG rant AveF e lto n S t2 2 n d A v e G e ar y B l v d Moraga Ave 1st AveKeller Ave Hegenberger RdJohn M uir Dr P o w e ll S tC a l i f o r n i a S t E 14th St3rd StFoothill Blvd 1st St P arrott D rPark BlvdAtherton AveHallmark Dr Loyola Dr Middle Harbor Rd2nd StArroyo DrWillow RdAirport Dr 7th St Southgate Ave23rd AveCrespi Dr 14th St Bockman RdAdeline StPacific AveEncinal Ave Mt Ave F St C a ld e c o tt L n 15th AveMaritime StBroadwayB rittan A veF e l l S t Etheldore St Harrison StG e a r y S t Skyline DrM a r i n a B l v d Evans Ave B u s h S t B u nker RdPalm Dr73rd AveHudson St Spring St A shby A veAlta A ve Nimitz Ave51st St D wight Rd Isabella AveJerrold AvePalou Ave E Grand Ave 10th St Vienna StE 3rd Ave A r m y S t Redwood Rd H ayne R dS D ela w a r e S t Ruth Ave2 0 t h S t Lux Ave 8t h St Chateau Dr5th AveSneath LnBridge Pky T u r k S t Pier 4 1 Pinehurst RdHolly StKings Mt Rd Doolittle DrGreat HwyS h a w R d Colma Creek San M ateo C reekCo r d illeras CreekH et ch Hetchy Aqueduct San Ma t e o C re e k Temescal Creek Pulgas CreekSan Pablo Creek Arroyo Ojo D e Agua Sheph ard Creek Denniston CreekGl en Echo Creek San Mateo Creek Be a r Creek M ills C r eek Canada Verde Creek San L eandro C r e ek M ount Eden CreekLion CreekP i l a r c i t o s Creek Corinda Lo s Trancos Creek San Franc isqui to Creek Arroyo De En M edio P u lg a s C r e e k Arroyo Leon Rifle Ran ge Bran ch Madonna Cr e e kSan Vicente CreekMatadero Creek U nion C reek Brooks Creek Locks Creek Purisima Creek B e l m o n t C reekClaremont Creek Easton CreekCountry Club Branch Arroy o Leo n San Leandro Creek Nuff Cre e kApanolio CreekM artini CreekEaston C reekPalo Seco Creek South Fork San Pedro Creek Lobos Creek Middle Fork San Ped ro Creek T u n i t a s C r e e k Barron CreekF renchmans CreekRedwood Creek S u lp h u r C reek San Pedro Creek Peralta CreekPilarcitos Creek Deer CreekLobitos Creek A rroyo V iejoArro y o Viejo La u rel CreekPolhe m us C reek Sausal CreekSanchez CreekApano li o Cr e e k Indian C re e kSan Lorenzo C r e e k Wastewater Treatment Facil ity Disadvantage d C ommuni ti es 100-year Floodp lain 500-year Floodp lain Bay Are a IRWMP Boun dary Envi ronmental Justi ce Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional W ater Management PlanBay Area (West) Source s: U S C ens us Bu re au, 201 0 CensusU.S. Fed eral Emergen cy Man age ment Adminis tration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Institute BAIRWMP Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Outreach Log Date Type Contact Description 2/14/2012 Email Rosina Roibal, Bay Area Environmental Health Coalition Email to Rosina re: outreach to EJ groups in Bay Area; Rosina sent notice to her listserv 2/17/2012 Phone call Jesse Mills, SFEP Phone call with Jesse to develop first generation DAC map 2/18/2012 Maps Jesse Mills, SFEP Developed first generation DAC map 2/21/2012 Phone call/criteria Bruce Shaffer, DWR Phone call with Bruce re: DAC eligibility criteria; provided list of questions for Bruce to vet internally 2/21/2012 Phone call Maria Elena Kennedy, Greater LA IRWMP Interview with Maria Elena re: DAC outreach strategies 2/21/2012 Email Emily Alejandrino, DWR Email to Emily (tribal liaison) re: IRWMP tribal outreach 3/23/2012 Phone call Maria Elena Kennedy, Greater LA IRWMP DAC outreach strategies 3/23/2012 Phone call Tim Nelson, DWR tribal liaison Phone call re: Bay Area tribal communities 3/28/2012 Email Various Sent emails/email exchange with various DAC contacts requesting interviews, including Peter Vorster (Bay Institute), Chuck Striplen (SFEI), Jennifer Clary (Clean Water Action), Meena Palaniappan (Pacific Institute), Marisa Raya (ABAG), Connie Galambos Malloy (Urban Habitat), Torri Estrada (EJCW), Debbie Davis (EJWC) 4/3/2012 Interview Jennifer Clary, Clean Water Action Interview with Jennifer to inform DAC findings assessment 4/4/2012 Email Jennifer Clary, Clear Water Action; Karen Pierce, SF DPH Email exchange with introduction to Karen 4/3/2012 Interview Debbie Davis, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (formerly)Interview with Debbie to inform DAC findings assessment 4/9/2012 Interview Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP Interview with Karen re: IRWMP DAC outreach strategies 4/10/2012 Interview Melanie Denninger, State Coastal Conservancy Interview with Melanie to inform DAC findings assessment 4/10/2012 Interview Karen Pierce, SF Dept of Public Health Interview with Karen to inform DAC findings assessment 4/16/2012 Engagement objectives n/a Developed DAC-specific engagement objectives for Plan Updarte 4/15/2012 Assessment n/a Developed summary of findings from DAC interviews 4/17/2012 Planning meeting CC members Convened and facilitated stakeholder engagement planning meeting; presented assessment findings and discussed DAC engagement strategy with group 4/24/2012 Email Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Email with Caitlin re: following up with current DAC project sponsors to gauge their interest in submitting next phase projects for the Plan 4/27/2012 Phone call Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Planning call with Caitlin re: coordinating with current DAC project sponsors 6/7/2012 Phone call Marisa Raya, ABAG Conversation with Marisa re: DAC projects and outreach to DACs 6/7/2012 Developed communication text Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Drafted email text for Caitlin Sweeney to send to current DAC project sponsors re: idenitying projects for the 2013 Plan Update 6/7/2012 Email Various Caitlin Sweeney emailed current current DAC project sponsors re: identifying projects for the 2013 Plan Update 6/8/2012 Email Harry Seraydarian Email exchange with Harry re: a potential DAC contact - Kristen Schwind, Bay Localize 6/11/2012 Email/review Caitlin Sweeney, others Email exchange with Caitlin re: project proposal from the Watershed Project on Richmond Greenway 6/11/2012 Email/process design Mark Boucher, Carol Mahoney Email to Mark and Carol re: vetting DAC projects and establishing a process for guiding DAC project applicants through the submittal 6/12/2012 Email/process design Mark Boucher, Carol Mahoney, Caitlin Sweeney Email exchange re: vetting DAC projects and establishing a process for guiding DAC project applicants through the submittal process 6/12/2012 Phone call Mark Shorett, ABAG Phone call with Mark re: potential DAC projects 6/12/2012 Phone call Ken MacNab, City of Calistoga Phone conversation with Ken re: potential DAC projects in the City of Calistoga 6/12/2012 Phone call Ted Daum, DWR Phone conversation with Ted Daum re: establishing a process for vetting DAC projects with DWR 6/13/2012 Conversation Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP, Kara Reyes, La Luz Center In-person conversation re: Springs communities in Sonoma Valley and potential DAC project 6/27/2012 Email Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Email to Kevin re: a potential DAC project on San Francisquito Creek 6/27/2012 Phone call Kristen Schwind, Bay Localize Phone conversation with Kristen re: potential DAC projects and ngo's that serve DACs 6/27/2012 Email Brent Butler, City of East Palo Alto Email exchange with Brent re: the City of EPA submitting a DAC projects for the Plan Update 6/27/2012 Email William Gibson, San Mateo County Sent email to William re: potential DAC project 6/27/2012 Email Matthew Snyder, City of San Francisco Sent email to Matthrew re: potential DAC project 6/28/2012 Email Various Email sent to Frank Lopez (Urban Habitat), Amy Vanderwarker (CA Environmental Justice Alliance), Nile Malloy (Communities for a Better Environment), Ericka Erickson (Marin Grassroots) re: potential DAC 6/29/2012 Process n/a Developed process document (including roles) for providing DAC projects sponsors with guidance/assistance and vetting project ideas 6/29/2012 Planning Outreach subcommittee Held conference call with Outreach Subcommittee where K&W presented DAC project guidance/vetting process (process was 7/2/2012 Phone call/email Cynthia D'Agosta, Committee for Green Foothills Phone call and email exchange with Cynthia re: the Committee submitting a project for the Plan Update (they had a project in the 2006 Plan) 7/2/2012 Email/defining DAC requirements Carl Morrison Email exchange with Carl re: match waiver for DACs 7/3/2012 DAC maps n/a Finalized second generation DAC maps (total of 5), including region- wide map and 4 subregion maps 7/6/2012 Email Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Email exchange with Caitlin outlining next steps in identifying DAC projects 7/13/2012 Website n/a Translate and post Workshop #1 Spanish-language notice and agenda 7/13/2012 Email Master contact list including DAC-serving organizations Workshop #1 notice (three emails prior to workshop and one follow-up) 7/13/2012 News release Bay Area media Media release for Workshop #1 sent to Spanish-, Vietnamese, and Chinese-language newspapers 7/20/2012 Email/website Mark Boucher, David Siedband Email to Mark and David re: making the DAC maps available on the BAIRWMP website and creating a dedicated DAC page 7/23/2012 Public workshop Various BAIRWMP public workshop, where project submittal advice was provided (total of 11 DAC representatives attended workshop) 7/24/2012 Email/phone Harry Seraydarian Phone call and email exchage with Harry re: a potential DAC project in 7/24/2012 Email Marie Valmores, CC Water, Alyson Watson, City of Pittsburg Email exchange with Marie and Alyson re: potential DAC project in Pittsburg 7/25/2012 Outreach materials Various Developed draft DAC-specific outreach flyer, sent to various PUT members for review 7/26/2012 Email Walter Pease, City of Pittsburg, Alyson Watson, RMC Email exchange with Walter and Alyson re: potential DAC project in Pittsburg 7/27/2012 Email/maps Rebecca Tuden, City of Oakland Sent Becky DAC map 7/27/2012 Outreach materials n/a Finalized DAC-specific outreach flyer 7/27/2012 Phone call Phil Harrington, City of Berkeley Phone call with Phil re: potential DAC project for City of Berkeley 7/27/2012 Email Various Email to FA leads, Outreach subcommittee members, and attendees of the July 23 CC meeting re: next steps in DAC project identification, including materials for them to conduct DAC outreach and process 7/30/2012 Website n/a DAC maps uploaded to website; DAC-specific page on website created; reviewed website and suggested edits to make material easier to find 7/30/2012 Email FA leads Sent emails to each FA lead requesting that they send notice to their membership groups re: DAC projects 7/30/2012 Email Various DAC contacts Sent email to DAC contacts who attended July 23 workshops (total of 7/31/2012 Email/data analysis Carlos Martinez, City of East Palo Alto Email to Carlos re: DAC census tracts in EPA. Analyzed data using DWR GIS tool to identify DAC census tracts for potential project 8/1/2012 Email Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Email exchange with Kevin re: potential DAC project for San Francisquito Creek 8/14/2012 Phone call Harold Hedelman, Watershed Project Phone call with Harold re: potential DAC project the Watershed Project is considering submitting 8/14/2012 Phone call Chien Wong, Alameda County Flood Phone call with Chien Wong re: potential DAC project 8/17/2012 Email/project concept Ted Daum, DWR Shared Watershed Project DAC project concept with Ted for comments/review 8/23/2012 Phone call Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Phone call with Caitlin to clarify DAC eligibility requirements and discuss Watershed Project DAC project concept 8/23/2012 Phone call Ted Daum, DWR Phone call with Ted to clarify DAC eligibility requirements 8/27/2012 Phone call Phil Harrington, City of Berkeley Questions about DAC project eligibility and submitting DAC-benefitting Berkeley public works project on the website. Also referred to Caitlin Sweeney. 8/30/2012 Email blast IRWMP listserv Email to entire listserv re: clarification of DAC eligibility requirements 9/5/2012 Emails Karen McBride, Rural Community Assistance Corporation (City of Pescadero) Emails/phone calls re: eligibility of Pescadero DAC project, included Carole Foster (San Mateo County) 9/7/2012 Phone/emails Kimra McAfee, Friends of Sausal Creek Assistance re: DAC project, making sure it was submitted online successfully Appendix E-9 Materials for Outreach to Bay Area Native American Tribes Native American Tribes of the Bay Area The following represents the Native American Tribes of the San Francisco Bay Area. Because of the boundaries of the Bay Area IRWMP jurisdiction, the tribes fall outside of the boundaries, with one significant exception – the Casino San Pablo in the East Bay, whose land and operations are owned and managed by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. Sources: Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute; Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brian Campbell, EBMUD; tribal websites; DWR Water Plan Location/population, contacts, IRWMP jurisdiction, issues, potential for IRWMP projects Tribe Tribal Lands/ Population Contact Info Jurisdiction Issues/Capacity Project Potential/ Partner Lytton Band of Pomo Indians Healdsburg. About 200-300 enrollees. Casino San Pablo in San Pablo is their reservation. They own 50 acres in Windsor and have wanted to develop it against local opposition. Marjorie Mejia, Chairperson Lisa Miller, Tribal Administrator 1300 North Dutton Avenue Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95401-7108 Primarily North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney except for Casino San Pablo in Bay Area IRWMP Casino San Pablo in San Pablo adjacent to a creek near the Bay. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Alan Leventhal - Tribal Anthropologist aleventh@email.sjsu.edu 408-761-4516 Primary focus of most of their activity is in pursuing federal recognition and casino development Mishwal Wappo Tribe Napa Valley/Alexander Valley. 340 living members. Scott Gabaldon - Chairman scottg@MishewalWappoTrib e.com 707-494-9159 Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley Not in BAIRWMP jurisdiction Primary focus of most of their activity is in pursuing federal recognition and casino development. Tribe Tribal Lands/ Population Contact Info Jurisdiction Issues/Capacity Project Potential/ Partner P.O. Box 1086 Santa Rosa, CA 95402; Fax: 1 (707) 843-5006 http://www.mishewalwapp otribe.com/ Chuck Striplen, SFEI, trying to work with them on environmental issues. Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria The Kashia Band's reservation is the Stewarts Point Rancheria. It occupies 40 acres in Sonoma County and 86 tribal members reside there. It conducts business from Santa Rosa. 3535 Industrial Drive, Suite B- 2,, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Nina Hapner - Environmental Director nina@stewartspoint.org 707-591-0580 x107 http://www.kashiapomo.blog spot.com/ North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney Construction potential – yes. Sonoma Co Water Agency (Grant Davis) Dry Creek Rancheria (Pomo) 75 acres along Russian River between Healdsburg and Cloverdale. Operates River Rock Casino. Dry Creek Rancheria Tom Keegan - Environmental Director TomK@drycreekrancheria.co m 707-857-1810 x117 www.drycreekrancheria.com North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney The Tribe's waste water facility treats water to the highest standard, and the Rancheria recycles its treated water. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was formed to protect the Dry Creek Rancheria's air, land and water from pollution and Construction potential – yes. Sonoma Co Water Agency (Grant Davis) --River Rock Casino (creek restoration?) Tribe Tribal Lands/ Population Contact Info Jurisdiction Issues/Capacity Project Potential/ Partner to provide a healthy and safe environment for visitors, residents and future generations. Dry Creek Rancheria environmental work done by ESA. Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Graton consists of Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo – 1 acre/1 house in Graton in private ownership. Also, new casino complex on Laguna de Santa Rosa. Devin Chatoian - Environmental Director Lorelle Ross - Vice Chair dchatoian@gratonrancheria. com 707-566-2288; Greg Sarris, Chairperson M Joann Adams, Tribal Administrator Gene Buvelot; 6400 Redwood Drive Suite 300 Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2341 North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney Construction potential – yes. Sonoma Co Water Agency (Grant Davis) New casino complex on Laguna de Santa Rosa. Amah Mutsun Tribal Band South Bay – Jim Keller - Director of Conservation, or Chuck Striplen - Science Advisor way_institute@sbcglobal.net (831) 212-5912 Pajaro IRWMP per Chuck Striplen Last updated: 8/12/12 Bay Area Native American Tribe Outreach Log Date Type Contact Description 3/23/2012 Email Tim Nelson, DWR tribal liaison Received list and maps of tribes in Bay Area 3/23/2012 Phone call Tim Nelson, DWR tribal liaison Phone call re: Bay Area tribal communities 4/2/2012 Interview Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute and Aman Matsun tribe member One hour interview with Mr. Striplen by Pam Jones regarding Bay Area tribes/contacts, IRWMP jurisdictions, water interests/needs, tribal technical capacities 6/28/2012 Email Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute Received email from Mr. Striplen re: additional list of tribe contacts 6/28/2012 Email Chuck Striplen, Aman Matsun tribe member Email from Pam Jones to Mr. Striplen regarding follow-up on tribal contact list and development of plan 7/6/2012 Email Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute Email from Mr. Striplen regarding comments on the plan approach 7/18/2012 Email Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency Lettter for review of Tribal outreach approach and to determine SCWA potential to contact tribes 7/26/2012 Letter California Native American Heritage Commission Letter requesting assistance in developing outreach to Bay Area tribes for the BAIRWMP 8/6/2012 Email Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency Received response from Karen Gaffney regarding input on BAIRWMP tribal efforts 8/20/2012 Voice Mail California Native American Heritage Commission Message requesting input on tribal identification/contacts 8/6/2012 Email Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency Responded to Karen Gaffney's email of 8/6/2012 discussing BAIRWMP tribal efforts Appendix F-1 Projects Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on May 28, 2014 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-1 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan In anticipation of a third round of Proposition 84 funding, the Coordinating Committee in early 2014 solicited regional and subregional project concept proposals. The solicitation resulted in a total of 54 projects submitted, with the total amount sought for funding exceeding $420 million. These projects were then scored using 10 factors that had been developed for this concept proposal solicitation. Table F-1-1 lists the scoring factors and potential score for each factor. In some cases just a yes or no answer was all that was required. Subsequent to the scoring, statewide drought legislation was passed and DWR essentially divided the third round in two parts with the first specifically addressing the drought. The Coordinating Committee then evaluated and rescored the submitted regional and subregional concept proposals as to how they would respond to the drought. The Bay Area regional factors in Table F-1-1 as well as scoring criteria developed after review of the DWR’s Drought Solicitation Guidelines and Draft Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) were key in selecting projects to include in the Drought Solicitation Proposal. The eight projects listed in Table F-1-2 were ranked highly both because of Plan priorities and drought specific needs and are hereby added to the Plan. Submitted project concept proposals not evaluated for the Drought Round are being carried forward for evaluation under DWR’s anticipated final Prop 84 IRWM round in 2015. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-2 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 Table F-1-1: Project Scoring Factors Factor Criteria Scoring (or yes or no) 1 In the Plan? (Y/N) Goals/Objectives 1 to 3 points (Total of 200 points allocated among the 5 goals; 10 points per objective until 40 points maximum per goal [for flood goal, 40 points if all objectives addressed]) Tier into 3 categories: 1 – 1-66 of 200 2 – 67-123 of 200 3 – 124-200 of 200 2 Readiness to proceed 1 to 3 points 1 – Conceptual or early planning 2 – In CEQA or final design phase 3 – CEQA and all permitting complete – can start construct before April 2015 3 Provides 25% match? (Y/N) 4 Provides at least two physical benefits? (Y/N) Physical benefits 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss benefits or evidence of minor benefits for project type 2 - Evidence of moderate benefits for project type 3 - Evidence of high level of benefit for project type 5 Benefit-Cost 1 to 3 points 1 - Not discussed or B/C below 1 2 - B/C between 1-3 3 - B/C above 3 6 Cash for consultant to prepare proposal? (Y/N) 7 Collaboration with other entities 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or only narrow collaboration 2 - Moderate level of partners, some limitations to partnership 3 - Broad collaboration appropriate to project type 8 Degree of integrated benefits 1 to 4 points 1 - Benefits in only one FA or resource area 2 - Benefits 2 FAs or resource areas 3 - Benefits in 3 FAs or resource areas 4 - Benefits in 4 FAs or resource areas 9 Proposal indicates scalability? (Y/N) 10 Regionality (for regional proposals only) 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or constrained to approx 1/3 of relevant part of region or less 2 - Brings benefits to a significant proportion of relevant region (up to 2/3) 3 - Benefits large portions in nearly all of relevant regions 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-3 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 Table F-1-2: Projects Added and Project IRWMP Factors Score Project Total IRWMP Factors Score 1 Bay Area Regional Water Supply and Conservation Project 16.8 / 21 2 Bay Area Regional Recycled Water Project: • Calistoga Recycled Water Storage Facility • Continuous Recycled Water Production Facilities and Wolfe Road Recycled Water Pipeline Extension 16.7 / 21 3 Drought Response & Water Supply Reliability on the Central Coast 13.2 / 18 4 Enhancing and Balancing Beneficial Uses of Water Resources in the Pescadero-Butano Watershed 13.1 / 18 5 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation Project 12.3 / 21 6 MMWD WaterSMART Irrigation with AMI/AMR 11.5 / 18 7 Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Treatment for Drought Water Quality Conflicts 9.6 / 18 8 Zone 7 Water Supply Drought Preparedness Project 12.6 / 18 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-4 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-1 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Appendix F-2 Projects Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on May 26, 2015 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-2 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) issued a Draft Implementation Grant Project Solicitation Package on March 12, 2015 which identified eligible projects and presented a draft scoring system for a fourth round of Proposition 84 funding, the 2015 IRWM Implementation Grant Solicitation. The Bay Area Coordinating Committee solicited regional and subregional project concept proposals via a spring solicitation. The solicitation resulted in a total of 45 project concepts submitted. These 45 submitted project concepts were then reviewed and ranked by the Project Screening Committee (PSC), using the scoring matrix identified in the project solicitation. The matrix, presented in Table F-2-1, lists the scoring factors and potential score for each factor. In some cases just a yes or no answer was all that was required. Numerous conceptual, hybrid, and feasible options for proposal composition were developed by the PSC in order to utilize the project scoring and ranking, and to adhere to established project selection principles, including: 1) Fair and equitable allocation of funds throughout the Region, Sub-regions, and Functional Areas; 2) Maintaining stakeholder engagement throughout the Sub-regions and Functional Areas; 3) Meeting DWR grant criteria are met, assuring a successful proposal; 4) Efficient use of resources (related to total number of projects in proposal). The three projects listed in Table F-2-2 were ranked highly under the Bay Area Coordinating Committee’s 2015 project solicitation and PSC review process, support Plan priorities and Bay Area project selection principles, and are hereby added to the Plan. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-3 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Table F-2-1: Project Scoring Factors Factor Criteria Scoring (or yes or no) 1 In the Plan? (Y/N) Goals/Objectives 1 to 3 points (Total of 200 points allocated among the 5 goals; 10 points per objective until 40 points maximum per goal [for flood goal, 40 points if all objectives addressed]) Tier into 3 categories: 1 – 1-66 of 200 2 – 67-123 of 200 3 – 124-200 of 200 2 Readiness to proceed 1 to 3 points 1 – Conceptual or early planning 2 – In CEQA or final design phase 3 – CEQA and all permitting complete – ready to proceed. 3 Provides 25% match? (Y/N) 4 Provides two physical benefits? (Y/N) Physical Benefits 1 to 6 points 1 - Does not discuss benefits or evidence of minor benefits for project type 3 - Evidence of moderate benefits for project type 6 - Evidence of high level of benefit for project type 5 Benefit-Cost 1 to 3 points 1 - Not discussed or B/C below 1 2 - B/C between 1-3 3 - B/C above 3 6 Cash for consultant to prepare proposal? (Y/N) 7 Collaboration 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or only narrow collaboration 2 - Moderate level of partners, some limitations to partnership 3 - Broad collaboration appropriate to project type 8 Degree of integrated benefits 1 to 4 points 1 - Benefits in only one FA or resource area 2 - Benefits 2 FAs or resource areas 3 - Benefits in 3 FAs or resource areas 4 - Benefits in 4 FAs or resource areas 9 Proposal indicates scalability? (Y/N) 10 Impact/Effect 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or impact constrained to approx 1/3 of relevant part of region or less; no relevance to regional priorities 2 - Brings benefits to a significant proportion of relevant region (up to 2/3); somewhat relevant to regional priorities 3 - Benefits large portions in nearly all of relevant region; highly relevant to regional priorities 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-4 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Table F-2-2: Projects Added and Project IRWMP Factors Score Project Total IRWMP Factors Score 1 Bay Area Regional Shoreline Resilience Program 22.86 2 Coastal San Mateo County Drought Relief Phase II 17.40 3 2020 Turf Replacement Project 16.00 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-1-1 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on April 25, 2016 Appendix G-1 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on April 25, 2016 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-1-2 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on April 25, 2016 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • City of San Pablo Wildcat Creek Restoration Plan The following plans are under development and the Coordinating Committee anticipates accepting them into the BAIRWMP upon completion: • Contra Costa Watersheds Storm Water Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-2- 1 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 27, 2017 Appendix G-2 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on February 27, 2017 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-2- 2 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 27, 2017 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP:  San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-3- 1 Appendix G-3: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on March 27, 2017 Appendix G-3 Storm W ater Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on March 27, 2017 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-3- 2 Appendix G-3: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on March 27, 2017 Appendix G-3: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • San Francisco Public Utilities Commission functional equivalent Stormwater Management Plan • Daly City Vista Grande Drainage Basin functional equivalent Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-4- 1 Appendix G-4: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on May 21, 2018 Appendix G-4 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on May 21, 2018 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-4- 2 Appendix G-4: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on May 21, 2018 Appendix G-4: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Marin County functional equivalent Storm Water Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-5- 1 Appendix G-5: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on October 22, 2018 Appendix G-5 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on October 22, 2018 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-5- 2 Appendix G-5: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on October 22, 2018 Appendix G-5: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Southern Sonoma County Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-6- 1 Appendix G-6: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 25, 2019 Appendix G-6 Storm W ater Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on February 25, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-6- 2 Appendix G-6: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 25, 2019 Appendix G-6: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan • Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-7- 1 Appendix G-7: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on July 22, 2019 Appendix G-7 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on July 22, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-7- 2 Appendix G-7: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on July 22, 2019 Appendix G-7: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-8-1 Appendix G-8: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on August 26, 2019 Appendix G-8 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on August 26, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-8-2 Appendix G-8: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on August 26, 2019 Appendix G-8: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan arb.ca.gov November 2017 The strategy for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Contents Executive Summary ES1 Decades of Leadership ES1 The Climate Imperative – We Must Act ES2 California is on Track – But There is More to Do ES3 California’s Path to 2030 ES4 California’s Climate Vision ES5 Enhance Industrial Efficiency & Competitiveness ES7 Prioritize Transportation Sustainability ES8 Continue Leading on Clean Energy ES10 Put Waste Resources to Beneficial Use ES12 Support Resilient Agricultural and Rural Economies and Natural and Working Lands ES13 Secure California’s Water Supplies ES14 Cleaning the Air and Public Health ES15 Successful Example of Carbon Pricing and Investment ES16 Fostering Global Action ES17 Unleashing the California Spirit ES18 Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Background 1 Climate Legislation and Directives 1 Initial Scoping Plan and First Update to the Scoping Plan 5 Building on California’s Environmental Legacy 5 Purpose of the 2017 Scoping Plan 5 Process for Developing the 2017 Scoping Plan 6 Updated Climate Science Supports the Need for More Action 6 California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 2030 Target 9 Progress Toward Achieving the 2020 Limit 9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking 12 California’s Approach to Addressing Climate Change 12 Integrated Systems 12 Promoting Resilient Economic Growth 13 Increasing Carbon Sequestration in Natural and Working Lands 13 Improving Public Health 14 Environmental Justice 14 Setting the Path to 2050 18 Intergovernmental Collaboration 19 International Efforts 19 Chapter 2: The Scoping Plan Scenario 22 Scoping Plan Scenario 23 Scenario Modeling 31 Policy Analysis of Scoping Plan Scenario 33 Chapter 3: Evaluations 35 Programs for Air Quality Improvement in California 35 AB 197 Measure Analyses 37 Estimated Emissions Reductions for Evaluated Measures 37 Estimated Social Costs of Evaluated Measures 39 Estimated Cost Per Metric Ton by Measure 44 Health Analyses 47 Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Particulate Matter Air Pollution 47 Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Toxic Air Pollution 48 Potential Health Impacts of Active Transportation 48 Future Health Activities 50 Economic Analyses 50 Public Health 57 Environmental Analysis 60 Chapter 4: Key Sectors 62 Low Carbon Energy 65 Industry 69 Transportation Sustainability 73 Natural and Working Lands Including Agricultural Lands 81 Waste Management 88 Water 92 Chapter 5: Achieving Success 96 Ongoing Engagement with Environmental Justice Communities 96 Enabling Local Action 97 Climate Action through Local Planning and Permitting 99 Implementing the Scoping Plan 103 A Comprehensive Approach to Support Climate Action 104 Conclusion 106 Abbreviations 107 ES1 Decades of Leadership From the first law to protect rivers from the impact of gold mining in 1884, to decades of work to fight smog, the Golden State has set the national – and international – standard for environmental protection. California pushes old boundaries, encounters new ones, and figures out ways to break through those as well. This is part of the reason why California has grown to become both the 6th largest economy in the world, and home to some of the world’s strongest environmental protections. And, we have seen our programs and policies adopted by others as they seek to protect public health and the environment. California’s approach to climate change channels and continues this spirit of innovation, inclusion, and success. The 2030 target of 40 percent emissions reductions below 1990 levels guides this Scoping Plan, as the economy evolves to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in every sector. It also demonstrates that we are doing our part in the global effort under the Paris Agreement to reduce GHGs and limit global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius in this century. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (Plan) builds on the state’s successes to date, proposing to strengthen major programs that have been a hallmark of success, while further integrating efforts to reduce both GHGs and air pollution. California’s climate efforts will: • Lower GHG emissions on a trajectory to avoid the worst impacts of climate change; • Support a clean energy economy which provides more opportunities for all Californians; • Provide a more equitable future with good jobs and less pollution for all communities;• Improve the health of all Californians by reducing air and water pollution and making it easier to bike and walk; and• Make California an even better place to live, work, and play by improving our natural and working lands. 2% Recycling & Waste California Carbon Emissions 2015 Total Emissions 440.4 MMTCO2e 11% Electricity Generation 21% Industrial 8% Agriculture 37% Transportation In State8% Electricity Generation Imports 9% Commercial & Residential 4% High-GWP Governor Brown signs SB 32 recommitting California’s efforts to curb climate change. C alifornia Carbon Emissions by sCoping plan sEC tor ES2 The Climate Imperative – We Must Act The evidence that the climate is changing is undeniable. As evidence mounts, the scientific record only becomes more definitive – and makes clear the need to take additional action now. In California, as in the rest of the world, climate change is contributing to an escalation of serious problems, including raging wildfires, coastal erosion, disruption of water supply, threats to agriculture, spread of insect-borne diseases, and continuing health threats from air pollution. The drought that plagued California for years devastated the state’s agricultural and rural communities, leaving some of them with no drinking water at all. In 2015 alone, the drought cost agriculture in the Central Valley an estimated $2.7 billion, and more than 20,000 jobs. Last winter, the drought was broken by record-breaking rains, which led to flooding that tore through freeways, threatened rural communities, and isolated coastal areas. This year, California experienced the deadliest wildfires in its history. Climate change is making events like these more frequent, more catastrophic and more costly. Climate change impacts all Californians, and the impacts are often disproportionately borne by the state’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. is already experiencing CLIMATE CHANGE the impacts of CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES HEAT WAVES RISING SEA LEVELS DROUGHT REDUCED SNOWPACK IN 2015 THE DROUGHT COST THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY AN ESTIMATED $2.7 BILLION & 20,000 JOBS ES3 California is on Track – But There is More to Do Although the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 – also known as AB 32 – marked the beginning of an integrated climate change program, California has had programs to reduce GHG emissions for decades. The state’s energy efficiency requirements, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and clean car standards have reduced air pollution and saved consumers money, while also lowering GHG emissions. AB 32 set California’s first GHG target called on the state to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. California is on track to exceed its 2020 climate target, while the economy continues to grow. Since the launch of many of the state’s major climate programs, including Cap-and-Trade, economic growth in California has consistently outpaced economic growth in the rest of the country. The state’s average annual growth rate has been double the national average – and ranks second in the country since Cap-and-Trade took effect in 2012. In short, California has succeeded in reducing GHG emissions while also developing a cleaner, resilient economy that uses less energy and generates less pollution. Importantly, the State’s 2020 and 2030 targets have not been set in isolation. They represent benchmarks, consistent with prevailing climate science, charting an appropriate trajectory forward that is in line with California’s role in stabilizing global warming below dangerous thresholds. As we consider efforts to reduce emissions to meet the State’s near-term requirements, we must do so with an eye toward reductions needed beyond 2030. The Paris Agreement – which calls for limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius – frames our path forward.Trillion (2009 $)tonnes CO2e/million $ GDP0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2000 20022001 2004 200620052003 2010200920072008 2014201320122011 2015 Emissions per unit GDP GDP EnvironmEntal progrEss and a rEsiliEnt EConomy The California economy has grown while becoming less carbon intensive. 2020 Target 2030 Target 0 100 200 300 400 500 2000 2010 2020 2030Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)2020 Target 2030 Target 2010 2020 2030 C alifornia’s path forward ES4 California’s Path to 2030 Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 extended the goals of AB 32 and set a 2030 goal of reducing emissions 40 percent from 2020 levels. This action keeps California on target to achieve the level of reductions scientists say is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals. This is an ambitious goal – calling on the State to double the rate of emissions reductions. Nevertheless, it is an achievable goal. This Plan establishes a path that will get California to its 2030 target. Given our ambitious goals, this Plan is built on unprecedented outreach and coordination. Over 20 state agencies collaborated to produce the Plan, informed by 15 state agency-sponsored workshops and more than 500 public comments. The broad range of state agencies involved reflects the complex nature of addressing climate change, and the need to work across institutional boundaries and traditional economic sectors to effectively reduce GHG emissions. As part of the Plan development, alternative strategies were considered and evaluated, ranging from carbon taxes to individual facility caps to relying solely on sector-specific regulations. In addition, efforts were made to ensure that the Plan would benefit all Californians. To this end, the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC), a Legislatively created advisory body, convened almost 20 community meetings throughout California to discuss the climate strategy, and held 19 meetings of its own to provide recommendations on the Plan. This Plan draws from the experiences in developing and implementing previous plans to present a path to reaching California’s 2030 GHG reduction target. The Plan is a package of economically viable and technologically feasible actions to not just keep California on track to achieve its 2030 target, but stay on track for a low- to zero-carbon economy by involving every part of the state. Every sector, every local government, every region, every resident is part of the solution. The Plan underscores that there is no single solution but rather a balanced mix of strategies to achieve the GHG target. This Plan highlights the fact that a balanced mix of strategies provides California with the greatest level of certainty in meeting the target at a low cost while also improving public health, investing in disadvantaged and low-income communities, protecting consumers, and supporting economic growth, jobs and energy diversity. Successful implementation of this Plan relies, in part, on long-term funding plans to inform future appropriations necessary to achieve California’s long-term targets. SOURCE: ADVANCED ENERGY ECONOMY employing 500,000 Californians MORE THAN THE MOTION PICTURE& AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES COMBINED CREATING31,000 DIRECT JOBS &57,000 INDIRECT JOBS +#1 IN CLEAN ENERGY JOBSCalifornia is GENERATED renewable energy projects FROM 2002-2015 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY $11.6 BILLION in economic activity Double building efficiency 50% renewable power More clean, renewable fuels Cleaner zero or near-zero emission cars, trucks, and buses Walkable/Bikeable communities with transit Cleaner freight and goods movement Slash potent “super-pollutants” from dairies, landfills and refrigerants Cap emissions from transportation, industry, natural gas, and electricity Invest in communities to reduce emissions C alifornia’s ClimatE poliCy portfolio ES5 California’s Climate Vision Create Inclusive Policies and Broad Support for Clean Technologies Remarkable progress over the past 10 years has put the global energy and transportation sector on a transformative path to cleaner energy. Far outpacing previous predictions, today solar and wind power are often less expensive than coal or natural gas, and they now comprise the majority of global investment in the power sector. Electric vehicle battery costs have tumbled even more quickly than solar costs, while performance has improved dramatically, and the auto industry is committed to an electric future. California’s policies have created markets for energy efficiency, energy storage, low carbon fuels, renewable power – including utility-scale and residential-scale solar – and zero-emission vehicles. Our companies are thriving, making those markets grow. California is home to nearly half of the zero-emission vehicles in the U.S., 40 percent of North American clean fuels investments, the world’s best known electric car manufacturer, and the world’s leading ride-sharing services. California is further advancing efficient land use policies that reduce auto dependency. Altogether, we’re unleashing nonlinear transitions to clean energy and clean transportation technologies that will put California on the path to meeting our 2030 target and the goals of the Paris Agreement. California policymaking has succeeded through thoughtful planning, bolstered by an open public process that solicits the best ideas from a wide array of sources, and by integrating effective regulation with targeted investments to provide broad market support for clean technologies. A key element of California’s approach continues to be careful monitoring and reporting on the results of our programs and a willingness to make mid-course adjustments. As the State looks to 2030 and beyond, all sectors of the economy must benefit from these ideas to create a new and better future. OF TOTAL U.S. INVESTMENT IN CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 50% OF THE ZEVs IN THE U.S. California is home to OF NORTH AMERICAN 40% INVESTMENTS CLEAN FUEL &&90%NEARLYPROJECTIONS 20132011 2015 2019 20212017 20252023 0 500,000 1 M 1.5 M 2 M 2.5 M 3 M 3.5 M Navigant Research Bloomberg New Energy Finance U.S. Energy Information Administration Minimum Compliance Scenario Historical Data Edison Electric Institute Experience has shown clean technology and markets continue to outpace expectations. CumulativE California ZEv salEs projEC tions ES6 The benefits of innovative technologies need to reach all residents and businesses. Air pollution reductions and the associated health benefits should be targeted to communities where they are needed most. All Californians need access to clean transportation options that enable healthy communities to develop and thrive, including walking, cycling, transit, rail, and clean vehicle options. Although GHG reductions can help to reduce harmful air pollution, California must concurrently employ other strategies to accelerate reductions of pollutants from large industrial sources that adversely impact communities. Newly passed AB 617 strengthens existing criteria and toxic air pollutant programs and our partnerships with local air districts to further reduce harmful air pollutants and protect communities. More fundamentally, AB 617 establishes a comprehensive statewide program – the first of its kind – to address air pollution where it matters most: in neighborhoods with the most heavily polluted air. C alifornia’s goals California’s environmental justice and equity movement is establishing a blueprint for the nation and world. The State is pioneering targeted environmental and economic development programs to help those most in need. So far, half of all California Climate Investments, stemming from the State’s Cap-and-Trade-Program, have been used to provide benefits in the 25 percent of California communities that are most disadvantaged by environmental and socio-economic burdens. By increasingly engaging with, and investing in, these communities – investing in technical assistance resources, holding listening sessions, improving our programs, and accelerating our efforts to bring the cleanest technologies to mass market – all California residents can have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and opportunities to participate in the cleaner economy. SAVE WATERMAKE CALIFORNIA MORE RESILIENT CREATE JOBSSUPPORT VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES TRANSFORM TO A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY GIVE CONSUMERS CLEAN ENERGY CHOICES Principles DRAFT aChiEving suCCEss in Equity and aCCEss • Continue to engage local organizations and invest in disadvantaged communities to ensure broad access to clean technologies; • Ensure air pollution reductions happen where they are needed the most; • Integrate across programs and agencies to ensure complementary policies provide maximum benefits to disadvantaged communities; • Implement California Energy Commission and CARB recommendations to overcome barriers to clean energy and clean transportation options for low-income residents; • Provide energy-efficient affordable housing near job centers and transit; and • Implement AB 617 to dramatically improve air quality in local communities through targeted action plans. lEgislativE lEadErship on ClimatE The California Legislature has shaped the State’s climate change program, setting out clear policy objectives over the next decade: • 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030; • 50% renewable electricity; • Double energy efficiency savings; • Support for clean cars; • Integrate land use, transit, and affordable housing to curb auto trips; • Prioritize direct reductions; • Identify air pollution, health, and social benefits of climate policies; • Slash “super pollutants”; • Protect and manage natural and working lands; • Invest in disadvantaged communities; and • Strong support for Cap-and-Trade. ES7 Enhance Industrial Efficiency & Competitiveness California leads the country in manufacturing and industrial efficiency. For every dollar spent on electricity, our manufacturers produce 55 percent more value than the national average. And the efficiency of California industry continues to grow at rates faster than the national average. High efficiency rates, coupled with the Cap-and-Trade Program’s firm emission cap, allow economic activity to increase without corresponding increases in GHG emissions. In other words, the more California produces, the better it is for the planet. Maintaining and extending our successful programs – from the Cap-and-Trade Program and Low Carbon Fuel Standard to zero-emission, renewable energy and energy efficiency programs – will reduce GHGs, increase energy cost savings, offer businesses flexibility to reduce emissions at low cost and provide clear policy and market direction, and certainty, for business planning and investment. This will encourage continued research, evaluation, and deployment of innovative strategies and technology to further reduce emissions in the industrial sector through advances in energy efficiency and productivity, increased access to cleaner fuels, and carbon capture, utilization and storage. aCtion on hfCs Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) represent one of the biggest opportunities to reduce GHGs in the State through 2030 due to their high climate impacts, and in many cases, offer energy efficiency and financial savings, as well. The world recently agreed to phase down their use, but California has committed to move more quickly, in line with the scope of the opportunity for cost-effective emissions reductions in the State. aChiEving suCCEss in industrial EffiCiEnCy and CompEtitivEnEss • Evaluate and implement policies and measures to continue reducing GHG, criteria, and toxic air contaminant emissions from sources such as refineries; • Improve productivity and strengthen economic competitiveness by further improving energy efficiency and diversifying fuel supplies with low carbon alternatives; • Prioritize procurement of goods that have lower carbon footprints • Support and attract industry that produces goods needed to reduce GHGs; and • Cut energy costs and GHG emissions by quickly transitioning to efficient HFC alternatives. ES8 Prioritize Transportation Sustainability California’s transportation system underpins our economy. The extensive freight system moves trillions of dollars of goods each year and supports nearly one-third of the state economy and more than 5 million jobs. The way we plan our communities impacts everything from household budgets to infrastructure needs, productivity lost to congestion, protection of natural and working landscapes, and our overall health and well-being. And transportation is the largest source of GHG, criteria, and toxic diesel particulate matter emissions in the state. California’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse and environmental leader requires additional efforts to improve transportation sustainability with a comprehensive approach that includes regulation, incentives, and investment. This approach addresses a full range of transportation system improvements relating to efficient land use, affordable housing, infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians, public transit, new vehicle technologies, fuels and freight. One example is the deployment of the nation’s first high-speed rail system, which will include seamless connections to local transit. The approach is working: California is home to nearly half of the country’s zero-emission vehicles. Innovative alternative fuel producers and oil companies are bringing more low carbon fuels to market than required by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. And, the State has committed to investing billions in zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure, land use planning, and active transportation options such as walking and biking. In fact, renewable fuels in the heavy-duty vehicle sector are displacing diesel fossil fuel as quickly as renewable power is replacing fossil fuels on the electricity grid. California’s climate policies will also reduce fossil fuel use and decouple the state from volatile global oil prices. CARB’s analyses show fossil fuel demand will decrease by more than 45 percent by 2030, which means Californians will be using less gasoline and diesel resulting in healthier air and cost-savings on transportation fuels. These benefits will be further amplified as we move away from light-duty combustion vehicles. By re-doubling our efforts, California can make sure that markets tip quickly and definitively in the favor of electric cars, trucks, buses, and equipment, while increasing the use of clean, low carbon fuels where zero-emissions options are not yet available. Local transportation planning can make communities become healthier and more vibrant and connected – encouraging housing, walking, biking and transit policies that reduce GHGs and promote good quality of life. And, we can work to ensure that an efficient sustainable freight system continues to power our ever-growing economy. DRAFT RENEWABLE DIESEL USE Source: CARB has increased 7000% since 2011 ES9 Achieving SucceSS in TrAnSporTATion SuSTAinAbiliT y • Connect California’s communities with a state-of-the-art high-speed rail system; • Promote vibrant communities and landscapes through better planning efforts to curb vehicle-miles-traveled and increase walking, biking and transit; • Build on the State’s successful regulatory and incentive-based policies to quickly make clean cars, trucks, buses, and fuels definitive market winners; • Coordinate agency activities to ensure that emerging automated and connected vehicle technologies reduce emissions; and • Improve freight and goods movement efficiency and sustainability to enable California’s continued economic growth. ES10 Continue Leading on Clean Energy California is well ahead of schedule in meeting its renewable energy targets. Wind and solar generation have grown exponentially in recent years, while hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass have consistently contributed renewable power to our energy supply. Californians are the ones who will take action to meet energy efficiency targets, integrate renewable power through demand response, and drive demand for net zero energy buildings. This includes self-generation which also grew exponentially in recent years with installed solar totaling 2,000 megawatts (MW) in 2014 and 5,100 MW of the total statewide self-generation installed solar in 2015. By June 2017, solar installed in California was about 5,800 MW, far exceeding the State’s goals. 1983 1990 2000 2010 2016GWh 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 SOLAR WIND GEOTHERMAL SMALL HYDRO BIOMASS Increasing Renewable Electricity Generation (In-State and Out-of State)inCrEasing rEnEwablE ElECtriCity gEnEration (in & out of state) The Renewable Portfolio Standard, Carbon Pricing, and lower costs for renewable technology are delivering real environmental benefits. ES11 While at this time natural gas is an important energy source, we must move toward cleaner heating fuels and replicate the progress underway for electricity. As with electricity, this starts with efficiency and demand reduction, including building and appliance electrification where these advancements make sense. It calls for minimizing fugitive methane leaks throughout the system, including beyond California’s borders where 90 percent of the natural gas used here originates. And, it includes using more renewable gas – a valuable in-state resource made from waste products – especially in the transportation sector. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable gas can reduce potent short- lived climate pollutants, and state policies should support this effort. Reducing demand for natural gas, and moving toward renewable natural gas, will help California achieve its 2030 climate target. However, switching from natural gas to electricity – where feasible and demonstrated to reduce GHGs – is needed to stay on track to achieve our long-term goals. 50% GOAL33% GOAL 20302020 Reaching California’s Clean Electricity Goals 29% PROGRESS 2016 aChiEving suCCEss in ClEan EnErgy • Effectively integrate at least 50 percent renewables as the primary source of power in the State through coordinated planning, additional deployments of energy storage, and grid regionalization; • Utilize distributed resources and engage customers by making net zero energy buildings standard, implement Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan to double existing building efficiency, and increase access to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy use data; and • Reduce the use of heating fuels while concurrently making what is used cleaner by minimizing fugitive methane leaks, prioritizing natural gas efficiency and demand reduction, and enabling cost-effective access to renewable gas. The State’s 3 largest investor-owned utilities are on track to achieve a 50% RPS by 2020. ES12 aChiEving suCCEss in putting wastE rEsourCEs to bEnEfiCial usE • Develop and implement programs, including edible food waste recovery, to divert organics from landfills and reduce methane emissions; • Develop and implement a packaging reduction program; and • Identify a sustainable funding mechanism to support waste management programs, including infrastructure development to support organics diversion. Put Waste Resources to Beneficial Use Effectively managing waste streams is perhaps the most basic of environmental tenets. “Reduce, re-use, and recycle” is a mantra known even to elementary school students. For decades California law has reduced waste reaching landfills and recaptured value from waste streams through recycling and composting. California law requires reducing, recycling, or composting 75 percent of solid waste generated by 2020. The State also has specific goals for diverting organic waste, which decomposes in landfills to produce the super pollutant methane. State law also directs edible food to hungry families rather than having it discarded. Capturing value from waste makes sense. As described in the Healthy Soils Initiative, compost from organic matter provides soil amendments to revitalize farmland, reduces irrigation and landscaping water demand, and potentially increases long-term carbon storage in rangelands. Organic matter can also provide a clean, renewable energy source in the form of bioenergy, biofuels, or renewable natural gas. California should take ownership of its waste and adhere to a waste “loading order” that prioritizes waste reduction, re-use, and material recovery over landfilling. The State can take steps to reduce waste from packaging, which constitutes about one-quarter of California’s waste stream. It can invest in and streamline in-state infrastructure development to support recycling, remanufacturing, composting, anaerobic digestion, and other beneficial uses of organic waste. And, it can help communities in their efforts to recover food for those in need. ES13 Support Resilient Agricultural and Rural Economies and Natural and Working Lands California’s natural and working landscapes, like forests and farms, are home to the most diverse sources of food, fiber, and renewable energy in the country. They underpin the state’s water supply and support clean air, wildlife habitat, and local and regional economies. They are also the frontiers of climate change. They are often the first to experience the impacts of climate change, and they hold the ultimate solution to addressing climate change and its impacts. In order to stabilize the climate, natural and working lands must play a key role. Work to better quantify the carbon stored in natural and working lands is continuing, but given the long timelines to change landscapes, action must begin now to restore and conserve these lands. We should aim to manage our natural and working lands in California to reduce GHG emissions from business-as-usual by at least 15-20 million metric tons in 2030, to complement the measures described in this Plan. Natural and working lands can be better incorporated into California’s climate change mitigation efforts by encouraging collaboration with local and regional organizations and increasing investment to protect, enhance, and innovate in our rural landscapes and communities. The State is partnering with tribes to preserve carbon, protect tribal forest lands and increase their land base. Transportation and land use planning should minimize the footprint of the built environment, while supporting and investing in efforts to restore, conserve and strengthen natural and working lands. California’s forests should be healthy carbon sinks that minimize black carbon emissions where appropriate, supply new markets for woody waste and non- merchantable timber, and provide multiple ecosystem benefits. Rehabilitating and strengthening wetlands and tidal environments, and incorporating natural landscapes into urban environments will also help make natural and working lands part of the state’s climate solution. Finally, California farmers can be a powerful force in the fight against climate change, in how they manage their lands, tend their crops, and husband their livestock. aChiEving suCCEss in supporting rEsiliEnt agriCultural and rural EConomiEs and natural and working l ands • Protect, enhance and innovate on California’s natural and working lands to ensure natural and working lands become a net carbon sink over the long-term; • Develop and implement the Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to maintain these lands as a net carbon sink and avoid at least 15-20 metric tons of GHG emissions by 2030; • Measure and monitor progress by completing CARB’s Natural and Working Lands Inventory and implementing tracking and performance monitoring systems; and • Unleash opportunity in the agricultural sector by improving manure management, boosting soil health, generating renewable power, electrifying operations, utilizing waste biomass, and increasing water, fertilizer, and energy use efficiency to reduce super pollutants. Improved forest management on tribal lands has preserved almost 3 million metric tons of carbon in California and the revenues from the carbon offsets have been used to secure ownership of ancestral lands. ES14 thE watEr-EnErgy nExus • About 12% of the total energy used in the state is related to water, with 2% for conveyance, treatment and distribution, and 10% for end-customer uses like heating and cooling. • The water-energy nexus provides opportunities for conservation of these natural resources as well as reduction of GHGs. aChiEving suCCEss in sECuring California’s watEr suppliEs • Increase water savings by certifying innovative technologies for water conservation and developing and implementing new conservation targets, updated agricultural water management plans, and long term conservation regulations; • Develop a voluntary registry for GHG emissions from energy use associated with water; and • Continue to increase the use of renewable energy to operate the State Water Project. Secure California’s Water Supplies Water is California’s lifeblood. It sustains communities and drives the economy. An elaborate network of storage and delivery systems has enabled the state to prosper and grow. But this aging system was built for a previous time and is increasingly challenged by the realities of climate change and population growth. Producing, moving, heating and treating water demands significant energy and produces commensurately significant emissions. As California looks to the future, meeting new demands and sustaining prosperity requires increased water conservation and efficiency, improved coordination and management of various water supplies, greater understanding of the water-energy nexus, and deployment of new technologies in drinking water treatment, groundwater remediation and recharge, and potentially brackish and seawater desalination. State efforts must support systemic shifts toward conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy in the water sector. ES15 Climate Plan Provides Health Benefits in 2030 $1.2-1.8 billion VALUE OF AVOIDED HEALTH IMPACTS $1.9-11.2 billion VALUE OF AVOIDED DAMAGES USING SOCIAL COST OF CARBON 3,300~ AVOIDED PREMATURE DEATHS Cleaning the Air and Public Health The benefits of this Plan are broader than just climate change – implementation of the Plan will also help improve public health. The Plan incorporates freight and mobile source strategies which will deliver reductions in criteria and toxic air pollutants to improve air quality. California continues to seek ways to improve implementation of its climate program and its ability to address the unique set of impacts facing the state’s most pollution burdened communities. In addition, CARB’s environmental justice efforts are intended to reach far beyond climate change. While this Plan provides a path for reducing GHG emissions in disadvantaged communities, it also includes new tools that will complement the Plan and lead to further air quality improvements. In particular, implementation of AB 617 will improve air quality in local communities, in partnership with local air districts, using targeted investments in neighborhood-level air monitoring and the development of air pollution reduction action plans with strong enforcement programs. These plans will require pollution reductions from both mobile and stationary sources. Through these efforts, CARB anticipates, and will work for, increased data transparency and the adoption of new statewide air pollutant emission controls that will not only confer short-term benefits to those most in need of improvement, but which will ultimately benefit all Californians. Under the leadership of CARB’s first executive-level environmental justice liaison, the agency is also laying a roadmap to better serve California’s environmental justice communities in the design and implementation across its broader programs. ES16 Successful Example of Carbon Pricing and Investment The Cap-and-Trade Program is fundamental to meeting California’s long-range climate targets at low cost. The Cap-and-Trade Program includes GHG emissions from transportation, electricity, industrial, agricultural, waste, residential and commercial sources, and caps them while complementing the other measures needed to meet the 2030 GHG target. Altogether, the emissions covered by the Cap-and-Trade program total 80 percent of all GHG emissions in California. California’s response to climate change has led to many innovative programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, including the Renewable Portfolio and Low Carbon Transportation Standards, but the Cap-and-Trade Program guarantees GHG emissions reductions through a strict overall emissions limit that decreases each year, while trading provides businesses with flexibility in their approach to reducing emissions. The Cap-and-Trade Program also generates revenue when the allowances to emit pollution are auctioned. Some of the revenue is returned directly to electricity ratepayers, and the rest is dedicated to reducing GHG emissions by making Legislatively directed investments in California with an emphasis on programs or projects that benefit disadvantaged and low-income communities. Including the latest budget, approximately $5 billion has been appropriated to reduce GHG emissions, reduce air pollutant emissions where reductions are needed most, grow markets for clean technologies, and spur emissions reductions in sectors not covered by Cap-and-Trade. These investments are strengthening the economy and improving public health – especially in the areas of the state most burdened by pollution. So far, half of the $1.2 billion spent provides benefits to disadvantaged communities, and one-third of those investments were made directly in those communities. Cap-and -tradE program • Firm, declining cap provides highest certainty to achieve 2030 target. • Low cost GHG emission reductions minimize impact on consumers and economy. • Flexibility for businesses • Can be linked with similar programs worldwide. PROCEEDS INVESTMENTS FIRM LIMIT ON 80% OF EMISSIONS California’s C arbon priCing & invEstmEnts ovErviEw ES17 California’s Cap-and-Trade Program is the most comprehensive, effective, and well-designed carbon market on the planet. Today, the Program is linked with a similar program in Quebec and will link with a similar program in Ontario beginning in 2018. Nearly 40 countries and over 20 subnational entities – altogether representing nearly a quarter of global emissions – have developed, or are developing, emissions trading programs. Each of them looks to California and our linked Western Climate Initiative Partners as they design, implement, and refine their own programs. Fostering Global Action Through the State’s leadership in the Cap-and-Trade Program, innovative sector-specific policies that are reducing technology costs and GHG emissions, and community-scale engagement and investments to reduce GHGs and promote equity, California is playing a significant role in addressing global climate change. Governor Brown has stated that climate change is the most important issue of our lifetime, and has promoted scientifically sound approaches to address climate change in California and beyond. He has participated in international climate discussions at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, the Vatican, and the Climate Summit of the Americas in Canada – calling on other subnational and national leaders to join California in the fight against climate change. He has signed climate change agreements with leaders from Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, other North American states and provinces, and Peru. He has joined an unprecedented alliance of heads of state, city and state leaders – convened by the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund – to urge countries and companies around the globe to put a price on carbon. And California is a founding member of the International Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Alliance, a coalition of national and subnational governments working to accelerate the adoption of ZEVs and make all new Nearly 30,000 projects installing efficiency measures in homes 105,000+ rebates issued for zero-emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles 16,000+ acres of land preserved or restored 6,200+ trees planted in urban areas 200+ transit agency projects funded, adding or expanding transit options 1,100+ new affordable housing units under contract 140,000+ total projects implemented 50% of projects benefiting Disadvantaged Communities ($614M) REGIONS REPRESENT 1.20 That’s 39 % of the global economy BILLIONPEOPLE AND$28.8 IN GDPTRILLION To nd out more visit: Under2MOU.org C ap-and -tradE dollars at work (2017) ES18 cars zero emissions. Delegations from around the world travel to Sacramento to meet with the architects and implementers of California’s climate policies to learn how to successfully combine strong greenhouse gas policies with a strong economy. Perhaps most significant is the Under2Coalition. It is a global climate pact – spearheaded by Governor Brown – among states, provinces, countries, and cities all committing to do their part to limit the increase in global average temperatures below the dangerous levels. Signatories commit to either reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 or achieving a per capita annual emission target of less than 2 metric tons by 2050. More than 200 jurisdictions from 38 countries and six continents have now signed or endorsed the agreement. Together, members of the Under2Coalition represent more than 1.2 billion people and $28.8 trillion in GDP, equivalent to 39 percent of the global economy. Unleashing the California Spirit This Plan is a declaration of California’s path forward. It builds on the State’s successful approach to addressing climate change and harnesses the California spirit to propel a cleaner economy, while serving as an example for others. But this Plan will not be successful on its own. Our collective, and individual, efforts must reach every sector of California’s economy, and every community in the state. As California faces the challenge of climate change, it will succeed as it always has – through open, inclusive processes, through support of clean technology markets, and through a relentless pursuit of a healthy California for all. There should be no doubt that California is united in understanding the need to act, and in the will to act. Investments in clean, low-carbon options will pay off – for the environment and the economy. Investments and training in education and workforce development for a lower carbon economy are a critical part of this transition. This Plan is only the beginning. All of the measures in the Plan will be developed in their own public process, shaped not just by the vision of this Plan, but also by the best understanding of the technology, costs and impacts on communities – and by input from a broad range of stakeholders and perspectives with the recognition that achieving the 2030 target is a milestone on our way to the deeper GHG reductions needed to protect the environment and our way of life. The Plan also proposes developing a long-term funding plan to inform future appropriations necessary to achieve our long-term targets, which will send clear market and workforce development signals. Climate change presents unprecedented challenges, but just as we have always done, Californians will tackle them with innovation, inclusion and ultimately, success. 1 Chapter 1 Background In November 2016, California Governor Edmund G. Brown affirmed California’s role in the fight against climate change in the United States, noting, “We will protect the precious rights of our people and continue to confront the existential threat of our time–devastating climate change.” By working to reduce the threat facing the State and setting an example, California continues to lead in the climate arena. This Scoping Plan for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (Scoping Plan or 2017 Scoping Plan) identifies how the State can reach our 2030 climate target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels, and substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goal to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels. By selecting and pursuing a sustainable and clean economy path for 2030, the State will continue to successfully execute existing programs, demonstrate the coupling of economic growth and environmental progress, and enhance new opportunities for engagement within the State to address and prepare for climate change. This Scoping Plan builds on and integrates efforts already underway to reduce the State’s GHG, criteria pollutant, and toxic air contaminant emissions. Successful implementation of existing programs has put California on track to achieve the 2020 target. Programs such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Renewables Portfolio Standard are delivering cleaner fuels and energy, the Advanced Clean Cars Program has put more than a quarter million clean vehicles on the road, and the Sustainable Freight Action Plan will result in efficient and cleaner systems to move goods throughout the State. Enhancing and implementing these ongoing efforts puts California on the path to achieving the 2030 target. This Scoping Plan relies on these, and other, foundational programs paired with an extended, more stringent Cap-and-Trade Program, to deliver climate, air quality, and other benefits. In developing this Scoping Plan, it is paramount that we continue to build on California’s success by taking effective actions. We must rapidly produce real results to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. The Scoping Plan identifies policies based on solid science and identifies additional research needs, while also recognizing the need for flexibility in the face of a changing climate. Ongoing research to better understand systems where our knowledge is weaker will allow for additional opportunities to set targets and identify actionable policies. Further, a long-term funding plan to inform future appropriations is critical to achieve our long-term targets, which will send clear market and workforce development signals. Climate Legislation and Directives California has made progress on addressing climate change during periods of both Republican and Democratic national and State administrations. California’s governors and legislature prioritize public health and the environment. A series of executive orders and laws have generated policies and actions across State government, among local and regional governments, and within industry. These policies also have encouraged collaboration with federal agencies and spurred partnerships with many jurisdictions beyond California’s borders. Moving forward, California will continue its pursuit of collaborations and advocacy for action to address climate change. The following list provides a summary of major climate legislation and executive orders that have shaped California’s climate programs. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (Nuñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. • Cut the State’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 with maintained and continued reductions post 2020. • First comprehensive climate bill in California, a defining moment in the State’s long history of environmental stewardship. I ntroduct I on 2 • Secured the State’s role as a national and global leader in reducing GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) prepared and adopted the initial Scoping Plan to “identify and make recommendations on direct emissions reductions measures, alternative compliance mechanisms, market-based compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and non-monetary incentives” in order to achieve the 2020 goal, and to achieve “the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions” by 2020 and maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020. AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least every five years. Executive Order B-30-15 In his January 2015 inaugural address, Governor Brown identified actions in five key climate change strategy “pillars” necessary to meet California’s ambitious climate change goals. These five pillars are: • Reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent. • Increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources. • Doubling the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner. • Reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants. • Managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon. Consistent with these goals, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-30-15 in April 2015: • Establishing a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. • Calling on CARB, in coordination with sister agencies, to update the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 target. • Building out the “sixth pillar” of the Governor’s strategy–to safeguard California in the face of a changing climate–highlighting the need to prioritize actions to reduce GHG emissions and build resilience in the face of a changing climate. Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (De Leon, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), Golden State Standards • Required the State to set GHG reduction planning targets through Integrated Resource Planning in the electricity sector as a whole and among individual utilities and other electricity providers (collectively known as load serving entities).• Codified an increase in the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent by 20301 and doubled the energy savings required in electricity and natural gas end uses as discussed in the Governor’s inaugural address. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016), California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2016: emissions limit and Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (E. Garcia, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016), State Air Resources Board: greenhouse gases: regulations. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-30-15. The 2030 target reflects the same science that informs the agreement reached in Paris by the 2015 Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at keeping the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius (°C). The California 2030 target represents the most ambitious GHG reduction goal for North America. Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB on the following areas related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. • Requires annual posting of GHG, criteria, and toxic air contaminant data throughout the State, organized by local and sub-county level for stationary sources and by at least a county level for mobile sources.• Requires CARB, when adopting rules and regulations to achieve emissions reductions 1 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/renewables/ 3 and to protect the State’s most affected and disadvantaged communities, to consider the social costs of GHG emissions and prioritize both of the following: • Emissions reductions rules and regulations that result in direct GHG emissions reductions at large stationary sources of GHG emissions and direct emissions reductions from mobile sources. • Emissions reductions rules and regulations that result in direct GHG emissions reductions from sources other than those listed above. • Directs CARB, in the development of each scoping plan, to identify for each emissions reduction measure: • The range of projected GHG emissions reductions that result from the measure.• The range of projected air pollution reductions that result from the measure.• The cost-effectiveness, including avoided social costs, of the measure. CARB has begun the process to implement the provisions of AB 197. For instance, CARB is already posting GHG, criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant data. CARB also incorporated air emissions data into a visualization tool in December 2016 in response to direction in AB 197 to provide easier access to this data.2 Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016), Short-lived climate pollutants: methane emissions: dairy and livestock: organic waste: landfills • Requires the development, adoption, and implementation of a Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy.3, 4 • Includes the following specific goals for 2030 from 2013 levels: • 40 percent reduction in methane. • 40 percent reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases. • 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon.5 Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), such as black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane, are powerful climate forcers that have a dramatic and detrimental effect on air quality, public health, and climate change. These pollutants create a warming influence on the climate that is many times more potent than that of carbon dioxide. In March 2017, the Board adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SLCP Strategy) establishing a path to decrease GHG emissions and displace fossil-based natural gas use. Strategies include avoiding landfill methane emissions by reducing the disposal of organics through edible food recovery, composting, in-vessel digestion, and other processes; and recovering methane from wastewater treatment facilities, and manure methane at dairies, and using the methane as a renewable source of natural gas to fuel vehicles or generate electricity. The SLCP Strategy also identifies steps to reduce natural gas leaks from oil and gas wells, pipelines, valves, and pumps to improve safety, avoid energy losses, and reduce methane emissions associated with natural gas use. Lastly, the SLCP Strategy also identifies measures that can reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions at national and international levels, in addition to State-level action that includes an incentive program to encourage the use of low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerants, and limitations on the use of high-GWP refrigerants in new refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Assembly Bill 1504 (AB 1504) (Skinner, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2010): Forest resources: carbon sequestration • Requires the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to adopt district forest practice rules and regulations in accordance with specified policies to, among other things, assure the continuous growing and harvesting of commercial forest tree species.• Requires the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to ensure that its rules and regulations that govern the harvesting of commercial forest tree species consider the capacity of forest resources to sequester carbon dioxide emissions sufficient to meet or exceed the sequestration target of 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, as established in the first AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2 CARB. 2016. CARB’s Emission Inventory Activities. www.arb.ca.gov/ei/ei.htm3 CARB. Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in California. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm4 Senate Bill No. 605. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB6055 Senate Bill No.1383. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383 4 Senate Bill 1386 (SB 1386) (Wolk, Chapter 545, Statutes of 2016): Resource conservation, natural and working lands • Declares it the policy of the State that protection and management of natural and working lands, as defined, is an important strategy in meeting the State’s GHG reduction goals. • Requires State agencies to consider protection and management of natural and working lands in establishing policies and grant criteria, and in making expenditures, and “implement this requirement in conjunction with the State’s other strategies to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.” Assembly Bill 398 (AB 398) (E. Garcia, Chapter 135, Statutes of 2017): California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: market-based compliance mechanisms: fire prevention fees: sales and use tax manufacturing exemption • Clarifies the role of the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2030, continuing elements of the current program, but requiring CARB to make some post-2020 refinements. • Establishes a Compliance Offsets Protocol Task Force to provide guidance to CARB in approving new offset protocols that increase projects with direct, in-state environmental benefits. • Establishes the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee to report annually on the environmental and economic performance of the Cap-and-Trade Program and other climate policies. • Identifies legislative priorities for allocating auction revenue proceeds, to include but not be limited to: air toxic and criteria air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources; low- and zero- carbon transportation alternatives; sustainable agricultural practices that promote transition to clean technology, water efficiency, and improved air quality; healthy forests and urban greening; short- lived climate pollutants; climate adaptation and resiliency; and climate and clean energy research. In addition, AB 398 requires CARB to designate the Cap-and-Trade Program as the mechanism for reducing GHG emissions from petroleum refineries and oil and gas production facilities in this update to the Scoping Plan. With respect to local air districts, AB 398 states that it does not limit or expand the district’s existing authority, including the authority to regulate criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants, except that it prohibits an air district from adopting or implementing a rule for the specific purpose of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from stationary sources that are subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program. Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017): Nonvehicular air pollution: criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. This bill was passed as a companion to AB 398 (E. Garcia, 2017) to strengthen air quality monitoring and reduce air pollution at a community level, in communities affected by a high cumulative burden of exposure to pollution. CARB is required to prepare a monitoring plan by October 1, 2018, that assesses the State’s current air monitoring network with recommendations for a set of high-priority locations around the State to deploy community focused air monitoring systems. Local air districts must deploy air monitoring systems in the selected high priority locations by July 1, 2019. Thereafter, CARB will evaluate and select additional locations for community air monitoring on an annual basis. The air districts must also deploy air monitoring systems within one year of CARB’s selection of the high-priority locations. In addition to the monitoring plan, the bill requires CARB to develop a statewide strategy to reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs) in communities affected by high cumulative exposure burdens through approved community emissions reduction programs developed by local air districts, in partnership with residents in the affected communities; requires CARB to establish a uniform system of annual reporting of criteria pollutants and TACs for the existing statewide air monitoring network; and expedites implementation of best available retrofit control technology in non-attainment areas. Tables summarizing the legislation described in this section, along with other climate related legislation and programs are included in Appendix H and organized by sector. 5 Initial Scoping Plan and First Update to the Scoping Plan The Initial Scoping Plan6 in 2008 presented the first economy-wide approach to reducing emissions and highlighted the value of combining both carbon pricing with other complementary programs to meet California’s 2020 GHG emissions target while ensuring progress in all sectors. The coordinated set of policies in the Initial Scoping Plan employed strategies tailored to specific needs, including market-based compliance mechanisms, performance standards, technology requirements, and voluntary reductions. The Initial Scoping Plan also described a conceptual design for a cap-and-trade program that included eventual linkage to other cap-and-trade programs to form a larger regional trading program. AB 32 requires CARB to update the scoping plan at least every five years. The First Update to the Scoping Plan7 (First Update), approved in 2014, presented an update on the program and its progress toward meeting the 2020 limit. It also developed the first vision for long-term progress beyond 2020. In doing so, the First Update laid the groundwork for the goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-058 and B-16-2012 9. It also identified the need for a 2030 mid-term target to establish a continuum of actions to maintain and continue reductions, rather than only focusing on targets for 2020 or 2050. Building on California’s Environmental Legacy California’s successful climate policies and programs have already delivered emissions reductions resulting from cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), low carbon fuels, increased renewable energy, and greater waste diversion from landfills; water conservation; improved forest management; and improved energy efficiency of homes and businesses. Beyond GHG reductions, these policies and programs also provide an array of benefits including improved public health, green jobs, and more clean energy choices. The 2030 GHG emissions reduction target in SB 32 will ensure that the State maintains this momentum beyond 2020, mindful of the State’s population growth and needs. This Scoping Plan identifies a path to simultaneously make progress on the State’s climate goals as well as complement other efforts such as the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and community emissions reduction programs to help improve air quality in all parts of the State. California’s future climate strategy will require continued contributions from all sectors of the economy, including enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, such as solar roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement efforts of local air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to tighten criteria and toxics air pollution emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources, including in disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to large stationary sources. Finally, meeting the State’s climate, public health, and environmental goals will entail understanding, quantifying, and addressing emissions impacts from land use decisions at all governmental levels. Purpose of the 2017 Scoping Plan This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals. Chapter 2 of this document includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. In addition, Chapter 4 provides a broader description of the many actions and proposals being explored across the sectors, including the natural resources sector, to achieve the State’s mid and long-term climate goals. Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in this Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a low carbon 6 CARB. Initial AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf7 CARB. First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm8 www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18619 www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17472 6 economy. This Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and-Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources. Process for Developing the 2017 Scoping Plan This Scoping Plan was developed in coordination with State agencies, through engagement with the Legislature, and with open and transparent opportunities for stakeholders and the public to engage in workshops and other meetings. Development also included careful consideration of, and coordination with, other State agency plans and regulations, including the Cap-and-Trade Program, Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), State Implementation Plan, California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, California Transportation Plan 2040, Forest Carbon Plan, and the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, among others. To inform this Scoping Plan, CARB, in collaboration with the Governor’s Office and other State agencies, solicited comments and feedback from affected stakeholders, including the public, and the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC or Committee). The process to update the 2017 Scoping Plan began with the Governor’s Office Pillar Symposia, which included over a dozen public workshops, and featured a series of Committee and environmental justice community meetings.10 One key message conveyed to CARB during engagement with the legislature, EJAC, and environmental justice communities was the need to emphasize reductions at large stationary sources, with a particular focus on multi-pollutant strategies for these sources to reduce GHGs and harmful criteria and toxic air pollutants that result in localized health impacts, especially in disadvantaged communities. Other consistent feedback for CARB included the need for built and natural infrastructure improvements that enhance quality of life, increase access to safe and viable transportation options, and improve physical activity and related health outcomes. Updated Climate Science Supports the Need for More Action Climate scientists agree that global warming and other shifts in the climate system observed over the past century are caused by human activities. These recorded changes are occurring at an unprecedented rate.11 According to new research, unabated GHG emissions could allow sea levels to rise up to ten feet by the end of this century–an outcome that could devastate coastal communities in California and around the world.12 California is already feeling the effects of climate change, and projections show that these effects will continue and worsen over the coming centuries. The impacts of climate change have been documented by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in the Indicators of Climate Change Report, which details the following changes that are occurring already:13 • A recorded increase in annual average temperatures, as well as increases in daily minimum and maximum temperatures. • An increase in the occurrence of extreme events, including wildfire and heat waves. • A reduction in spring runoff volumes, as a result of declining snowpack. • A decrease in winter chill hours, necessary for the production of high-value fruit and nut crops. • Changes in the timing and location of species sightings, including migration upslope of flora and fauna, and earlier appearance of Central Valley butterflies. 10 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm11 Cook, J., et al. 2016. Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters 11:048002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.12 California Ocean Protection Council. 2017. Rising Seas in California: An Update On Sea-Level Rise Science. www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf13 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Indicators of Climate Change (website): oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/document/indicators-climate-change-california 7 In addition to these trends, the State’s current conditions point to a changing climate. California’s recent historic drought incited land subsidence, pest invasions that killed over 100 million trees, and water shortages throughout the State. Recent scientific studies show that such extreme drought conditions are more likely to occur under a changing climate.14,15 The total statewide economic cost of the 2013–2014 drought was estimated at $2.2 billion, with a total loss of 17,100 jobs.16 In the Central Valley, the drought cost California agriculture about $2.7 billion and more than 20,000 jobs in 2015, which highlights the critical need for developing drought resilience.17 Drought affects other sectors as well. An analysis of the amount of water consumed in meeting California’s energy needs between 1990 and 2012 shows that while California’s energy policies have supported climate mitigation efforts, the performance of these policies have increased vulnerability to climate impacts, especially greater hydrologic uncertainty.18 Several publications carefully examined the potential role of climate change in the recent California drought. One study examined both precipitation and runoff in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, and found that 10 of the past 14 years between 2000 and 2014 have been below normal, and recent years have been the driest and hottest in the full instrumental record from 1895 through November 2014.19 In another study, the authors show that the increasing co-occurrence of dry years with warm years raises the risk of drought, highlighting the critical role of elevated temperatures in altering water availability and increasing overall drought intensity and impact.20 Generally, there is growing risk of unprecedented drought in the western United States driven primarily by rising temperatures, regardless of whether or not there is a clear precipitation trend.21 According to the U.S. Forest Service report, National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment, 2013– 2027,22 California is at risk of losing 12 percent of the total area of forests and woodlands in the State due to insects and disease, or over 5.7 million acres. Some species are expected to lose significant amounts of their total basal area (e.g., whitebark pine is projected to lose 60 percent of its basal area; and lodgepole pine is projected to lose 40 percent). While future climate change is not modeled within the risk assessment, and current drought conditions are not accounted for in these estimates, the projected climate changes over a 15 year period (2013-2027) are expected to significantly increase the number of acres at risk, and will increase the risk from already highly destructive pests such as the mountain pine beetle. Extensive tree mortality is already prevalent in California. The western pine beetle and other bark beetles have killed a majority of the ponderosa pine in the foothills of the central and southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. A recent aerial survey by the U.S. Forest Service identified more than 100 million dead trees in California.23 As there is usually a lag time between drought years and tree mortality, we are now beginning to see a sharp rise in mortality from the past four years of drought. In response to the very high levels of tree mortality, Governor Brown issued an Emergency Proclamation on October 30, 2015, that directed state agencies to identify and take action to reduce wildfire risk through the removal and use of the dead trees. 14 Diffenbaugh, N., D. L. Swain, and D. Touma. 2015. Anthropogenic Warming has Increased Drought Risk in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(13): 3931–3936.15 Cayan, D., T. Das, D. W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, M. Tyree, and A. Gershunov. 2010. Future Dryness in the Southwest US and Hydrology of the Early 21st Century Drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(50): 21272–21276.16 Howitt, R., J. Medellin-Azuara, D. MacEwan, J. Lund, and D. Summer. 2014. Economic Impacts of 2014 Drought on California Agriculture. watershed.ucdavis.edu/files/biblio/DroughtReport_23July2014_0.pdf.17 Williams, A. P., et al. 2015. Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012– 2014. Geophysical Research Letters http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064924/abstract.18 Fulton, J., and H. Cooley. 2015. The water footprint of California’s energy system, 1990–2012 Environmental Science & Technology 49(6):3314–3321. pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es505034x.19 Mann, M. E., and P. H. Gleick. 2015. Climate change and California drought in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(13):3858–3859. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503667112 .20 Diffenbaugh, N. S., D. L. Swain, and D. Touma. 2015. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 10.1073/ pnas.1422385112. www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931.full.pdf21 Cook, B. I., T. R. Ault, and J. E. Smerdon. 2015. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Science Advances 1(1), e1400082, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400082.22 Krist, F.J. Jr., J.R. Ellenwood, M.E. Woods, A.J. McMahan, J.P. Cowardin, D.E. Ryerson, F.J. Sapio, M.O. Zweifler, S.A. Romero. 2014. FHTET 2013 – 2027 National Insect & and Disease Forest Risk Assessment. FHTET-14-01 January 2014. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Report_web.pdf23 USDA. 2016. New Aerial Survey Identifies More Than 100 Million Dead Trees in California. www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/11/0246.xml&contentidonly=true 8 A warming climate also causes sea level to rise; first, by warming the oceans which causes the water to expand, and second, by melting land ice which transfers water to the ocean. Even if storms do not become more intense or frequent, sea level rise itself will magnify the adverse impact of any storm surge and high waves on the California coast. Some observational studies report that the largest waves are already getting higher and winds are getting stronger.24 Further, as temperatures warm and GHG concentrations increase more carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, making it more acidic. More acidic ocean water affects a wide variety of marine species, including species that people rely on for food. Recent projections indicate that if no significant GHG mitigation efforts are taken, the San Francisco Bay Area may experience sea level rise between 1.6 to 3.4 feet, and in an extreme scenario involving the rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, sea levels along California’s coastline could rise up to 10 feet by 2100.25 This change is likely to have substantial ecological and economic consequences in California and worldwide.26 While more intense dry periods are anticipated under warmer conditions, extremes on the wet end of the spectrum are also expected to increase due to more frequent warm, wet atmospheric river events and a higher proportion of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow. In recent years, atmospheric rivers have also been recognized as the cause of the large majority of major floods in rivers all along the U.S. West Coast and as the source of 30-50 percent of all precipitation in the same region.27 These extreme precipitation events, together with the rising snowline, often cause devastating floods in major river basins (e.g., California’s Russian River). It was estimated that the top 50 observed floods in the U.S. Pacific Northwest were due to atmospheric rivers.28 Looking ahead, the frequency and severity of atmospheric rivers on the U.S. West Coast will increase due to higher atmospheric water vapor that occurs with rising temperature, leading to more frequent flooding.29, 30 Climate change can drive extreme weather events such as coastal storm surges, drought, wildfires, floods, and heat waves, and disrupt environmental systems including our forests and oceans. As GHG emissions continue to accumulate and climate disruption grows, such destructive events will become more frequent. Several recent studies project increased precipitation within hurricanes over ocean regions.31, 32 The primary physical mechanism for this increase is higher water vapor in the warmer atmosphere, which enhances moisture convergence in a storm for a given circulation strength. Since hurricanes are responsible for many of the most extreme precipitation events, such events are likely to become more extreme. Anthropogenic warming by 24 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. National Academies Press.25 California Ocean Protection Council. 2017. Rising Seas in California: An Update On Sea-Level Rise Science. www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf26 Chan, F., et al. 2016. The West Coast Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Science Panel: Major Findings, Recommendations, and Actions. California Ocean Science Trust, Oakland, California, USA.27 Dettinger, M. D. 2013. Atmospheric rivers as drought busters on the U.S. West Coast. Journal of Hydrometeorology 14:1721 1732, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-13-02.1. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/ JHM-D-13-02.1.28 Warner, M. D., C. F. Mass, and E. P. Salath´e. 2012. Wintertime extreme precipitation events along the Pacific Northwest coast: Climatology and synoptic evolution. Monthly Weather Review 140:2021–43. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00197.1.29 Hagos, S. M., L. R. Leung, J.-H. Yoon, J. Lu, and Y. Gao, 2016: A projection of changes in landfalling atmospheric river frequency and extreme precipitation over western North America from the Large Ensemble CESM simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 43 (3), 357-1363, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067392/epdf.30 Payne, A. E., and G. Magnusdottir, 2015: An evaluation of atmospheric rivers over the North Pacific in CMIP5 and their response to warming under RCP 8.5. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120 (21), 11,173-111,190, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD023586/epdf.31 Easterling, D.R., K.E. Kunkel, M.F. Wehner, and L. Sun, 2016: Detection and attribution of climate extremes in the observed record. Weather and Climate Extremes, 11, 17-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2016.01.001.32 NAS, 2016: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 186 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/21852. Climate impaC ts at the Community level The California Energy Commission Cal-Adapt tool provides information about future climate conditions to help better understand how climate will impact local communities. cal-adapt.org 9 the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to become more intense on average. This change implies an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no changes in storm size.33,34 Thus, the historical record, which once set our expectations for the traditional range of weather and other natural events, is becoming an increasingly unreliable predictor of the conditions we will face in the future. Consequently, the best available science must drive effective climate policy. California is committed to further supporting new research on ways to mitigate climate change and how to understand its ongoing and projected impacts. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment and Indicators of Change Report will further update our understanding of the many impacts from climate change in a way that directly informs State agencies’ efforts to safeguard the State’s people, economy, and environment.35, 36 Together, historical data, current conditions, and future projections provide a picture of California’s changing climate, with two important messages: • Change is already being experienced and documented across California, and some of these changes have been directly linked to changing climatic conditions. • Even with the uncertainty in future climate conditions, every scenario estimates further change in future conditions. It is critical that California continue to take steps to reduce GHG emissions in order to avoid the worst of the projected impacts of climate change. At the same time, the State is taking steps to make the State more resilient to ongoing and projected climate impacts as laid out by the Safeguarding California Plan.37 The Safeguarding California Plan is being updated in 2017 to present new policy recommendations and provide a roadmap of all the actions and next steps that state government is taking to adapt to the ongoing and inevitable effects of climate change. The Draft Safeguarding California Plan38 is available and will be finalized after workshops and public comments. California’s continuing efforts are vital steps toward minimizing the impact of GHG emissions and a three-pronged approach of reducing emissions, preparing for impacts, and conducting cutting-edge research can serve as a model for action. California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 2030 Target Progress Toward Achieving the 2020 Limit AB 32 directs CARB to develop and track GHG emissions and progress toward the 2020 statewide GHG target. California is on track to achieve the target while also reducing criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants and supporting economic growth. As shown in Figure 1, in 2015, total GHG emissions decreased by 1.5 MMTCO2e compared to 2014, representing an overall decrease of 10 percent since peak levels in 2004. The 2015 GHG Emission Inventory and a description of the methodology updates can be accessed at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm. Per California Health and Safety Code section 38505, CARB monitors and regulates seven GHGs to reduce emissions: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The fluorinated gases are also referred to as “high global warming potential gases” (high-GWP gases). California’s annual statewide GHG emission inventory has historically been the primary tool for tracking GHG emissions trends. Figure 1 provides the GHG inventory trend. Additional information on the methodology for the GHG inventory can also be found at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 33 Sobel, A.H., S.J. Camargo, T.M. Hall, C.-Y. Lee, M.K. Tippett, and A.A. Wing, 2016: Human influence on tropical cyclone intensity. Science, 353, 242-246.34 Kossin, J. P., K. A. Emanuel, and S. J. Camargo, 2016: Past and projected changes in western North Pacific tropical cyclone exposure. Journal of Climate, 29 (16), 5725-5739, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0076.1 .35 California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/research/36 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Indicators of Climate Change (website): https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/document/indicators-climate-change-california37 California Natural Resources Agency. 2017. Safeguarding California. http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/38 http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/ 10 Figure 1: CaliFornia ghg inventory trend Carbon dioxide is the primary GHG emitted in California, accounting for 84 percent of total GHG emissions in 2015, as shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 3 illustrates that transportation, primarily on-road travel, is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the State. Upstream transportation emissions from the refinery and oil and gas sectors are categorized as CO2 emissions from industrial sources and constitute about 50 percent of the industrial source emissions. When these emissions sources are attributed to the transportation sector, the emissions from that sector amount to approximately half of statewide GHG emissions. In addition to transportation, electricity production, and industrial and residential sources also are important contributors to CO2 emissions. Figures 2 and 3 show State GHG emission contributions by GHG and sector based on the 2015 GHG Emission Inventory. Emissions in Figure 3 are depicted by Scoping Plan sector, which includes separate categories for high-GWP and recycling/waste emissions that are otherwise typically included within other economic sectors. Figure 2: emissions by ghg 2000 2002 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 202020062004Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)200 300 400 500 2030 Limit 2020 Limit Total GHG Emissions 2.7% N2O 9.0% CH4 84.0% CO2 4.3% High-GWP 2015 Total Emissions 440.4 MMTCO2e 11 Figure 3: emissions by sCoping plan seCtor In addition, CARB has developed a statewide emission inventory for black carbon in support of the SLCP Strategy, which is reported in two categories: non-forestry (anthropogenic) sources and forestry sources.39 The black carbon inventory will help support implementation of the SLCP Strategy, but is not part of the State’s GHG Inventory that tracks progress towards the State’s climate targets. The State’s major anthropogenic sources of black carbon include off-road transportation, on-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion, and industrial processes (Figure 4). The forestry category includes non- agricultural prescribed burning and wildfire emissions. Figure 4: CaliFornia 2013 anthropogeniC blaCk Carbon emission sourCes* The exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and California’s natural and working lands sector is currently unquantified and therefore, excluded from the State’s GHG Inventory. A natural and working lands carbon inventory is essential for monitoring land-based activities that may increase or decrease carbon sequestration over time. CARB staff is working to develop a comprehensive inventory of GHG fluxes from all of California’s 39 Per SB 1383, the SLCP Strategy only addresses anthropogenic black carbon. 2% Recycling & Waste California Carbon Emissions 2015 Total Emissions 440.4 MMTCO2e 11% Electricity Generation 21% Industrial 8% Agriculture 37% Transportation In State8% Electricity Generation Imports 9% Commercial & Residential 4% High-GWP 2013 10.7 MMTCO2e 36% Off-Road Mobile 18% On-Road Diesel 15% Fireplaces & Woodstoves 14% Fuel Combustion/Industrial 6% Miscelaneous 4% Commercial Cooking 3% Agricultural Burning 2% On-Road Brake & Tire 4% On-Road Gasoline *Using 100-year GWP 12 natural and working lands using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) design principles. CARB released the Natural and Working Lands Inventory with the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Update Discussion Draft.40 This inventory provides an estimate of GHG emissions reductions and changes in carbon stock from some carbon pools in agricultural and natural and working lands. The CARB Natural and Working Lands Inventory includes an inventory of carbon stocks, stock-change (and by extension GHG flux associated with stock-change) with some attribution by disturbance process for the analysis period 2001-2010. Disturbance processes include activities such as conversion from one land category to a different category, fire, and harvest. The CARB Natural and Working Lands Inventory covers varieties of forests and woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands (biomass-stock-change only). The Inventory includes default carbon densities for croplands and urban/developed lands to facilitate stock-change estimation for natural lands that convert to cropland, natural lands that convert to developed lands, and for croplands that convert to developed lands. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking As described above, California maintains an economy-wide GHG inventory for the State that is consistent with IPCC practices to allow for comparison of statewide GHG emissions with those at the national level and with other international GHG inventories. Statewide GHG emissions calculations use many data sources, including data from other State and federal agencies. However, the primary source of data comes from reports submitted to CARB through the Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions (MRR). MRR requires facilities and entities with more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) of combustion and process emissions, all facilities belonging to certain industries, and all electric power entities to submit an annual GHG emissions data report directly to CARB. Reports from facilities and entities that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e are verified by a CARB-accredited third-party verification body. More information on MRR emissions reports can be found at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporti\ng/ghg-rep/reported- data/ghg-reports.htm. All data sources used to develop the GHG Emission Inventory are listed in inventory supporting documentation at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Other State agencies, nonprofit organizations, and research institutions are developing and testing methodologies and models to quantify GHG fluxes from California’s natural and working lands. CARB’s ongoing work on the Natural and Working Lands Inventory will serve as one source of data to gauge the scope of GHG reduction potential from California’s natural and working lands and monitor progress over time. CARB will evaluate other data sources and methodologies to validate or support the CARB inventory or project-scale tracking. Interagency work is also underway to integrate and account for the land use and management impacts of development, transportation, housing, and energy policies. Greenhouse gas mitigation action may cross geographic borders as part of international and subnational collaboration, or as a natural result of implementation of regional policies. In addition to the State’s existing GHG inventory, CARB has begun exploring how to build an accounting framework that also utilizes existing program data to better reflect the broader benefits of our policies that may be happening outside of the State. For GHG reductions outside of the State to be attributed to our programs, those reductions must be real and quantifiable, without any double counting, including claims to those reductions by other jurisdictions. CARB is collaborating with other jurisdictions to ensure GHG accounting rules are consistent with international best practices. Robust accounting rules will instill confidence in the reductions claimed and maintain support for joint action across jurisdictions. Consistency and transparency are critical as we work together with other jurisdictions on our parallel paths to achieve our GHG targets. California’s Approach to Addressing Climate Change Integrated Systems The State’s climate goals require a comprehensive approach that integrates and builds upon multiple ongoing State efforts. As we address future mobility, we identify how existing efforts – such as the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Mobile Source Strategy, California Transportation Plan 2040, High-Speed 40 CARB. 2016. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory - Forests and Other Lands. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/sectors/forest/forest.htm 13 Rail,41 urban planning, housing, and goals for enhancement of the natural environment – can complement each other while providing multiple environmental benefits, including air quality and climate benefits. The collective consideration of these efforts illuminates the synergies and conflicts between policies. For example, land disturbance due to increased renewables through utility scale wind and solar and transmission can release GHGs from soil and disturb grasslands and rangelands that have the potential to sequester carbon. Further, policies that support sustainable land use not only reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and its related emissions, but may also avoid land disturbance that could result in GHG emissions or loss of sequestration potential in the natural environment. Identifying these types of trade-offs, and designing policies and implementation strategies to support goals across all sectors, will require ongoing efforts at the local, regional, and State level to ensure that sustainable action across both the built and natural environments help to achieve the State’s long-term climate goals. Promoting Resilient Economic Growth California’s strategic vision for achieving at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 is based on the principle that economic prosperity and environmental sustainability can be achieved together. Policies, strategies, plans and regulations to reduce GHG emissions help California businesses compete in a global economy and spur new investments, business creation, and jobs to support a clean energy economy. California’s portfolio-based climate strategy can achieve great success when accompanied by consistent and rigorous GHG monitoring and reporting, a robust public process, and an effective enforcement program for the few that attempt to evade rules. The transition to a low-carbon future can strengthen California’s economy and infrastructure and produce other important environmental benefits such as reductions in criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants, especially in California’s most vulnerable communities. Actions that are presented in this Scoping Plan provide economic opportunities for the future, but progress toward our goals is already evident today. For example, in 2015, California added more than 20,000 new jobs in the solar sector. This was more than half of the new jobs in this industry across the nation. Employment in the clean economy grew by 20 percent between 2002 and 2012, which included the period of economic recession around 2008.42 Shifting to clean, local, and efficient uses of energy reinvests our energy expenditures in our local economies and reduces risks to our statewide economy associated with exposure to volatile global and national oil and gas commodity prices. Indeed, a clean economy is a resilient economy. Successfully driving economic transition will require cleaner and more efficient technologies, policies and incentives that recognize and reward innovation, and prioritizing low carbon investments. Enacting policies and incentives at multiple jurisdictional levels further ensures the advancement of land use and natural resource management objectives for GHG mitigation, climate adaptation, and other co-benefits. Intentional synergistic linkages between technological advances and resource stewardship can result in sustainable development. The development and implementation of Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs) pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375, which link transportation, housing, and climate policy, are designed to reduce per capita GHG emissions while improving air quality and expanding transportation and housing options. This Scoping Plan identifies additional ways, beyond SB 375, to promote the technologies and infrastructure required to meet our collective climate goals, while also presenting the vision for California’s continuing efforts to foster a sustainable, clean energy economy. Increasing Carbon Sequestration in Natural and Working Lands California’s natural and working lands make the State a global leader in agriculture, a U.S. leader in forest products, and a global biodiversity hotspot. These lands support clean air, wildlife and pollinator habitat, rural economies, and are critical components of California’s water infrastructure. Keeping these lands and waters intact and at high levels of ecological function (including resilient carbon sequestration) is necessary for the well-being and security of Californians in 2030, 2050, and beyond. Forests, rangelands, farms, 41 California’s High-Speed Rail is part of the International Union of Railways (UIC) and California signed the Railway Climate Responsibility Pledge, which was commended by the Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as part of achieving global 2050 targets.42 California Business Alliance for a Clean Economy. 2015. Clean Energy and Climate Change Summary of Recent Analyses for California. clean-economy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Clean-Energy-Climate- Change-Analyses_January2015.pdf 14 wetlands, riparian areas, deserts, coastal areas, and the ocean store substantial carbon in biomass and soils. Natural and working lands are a key sector in the State’s climate change strategy. Storing carbon in trees, other vegetation, soils, and aquatic sediment is an effective way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This Scoping Plan describes policies and programs that prioritize protection and enhancement of California’s landscapes, including urban landscapes, and identifies next steps to ensure management actions are taken to increase the sequestration potential of those resources. We cannot ignore the relationships between energy, transportation, and natural working lands sectors or the adverse impacts that climate change is having on the environment itself. We must consider important trade-offs in developing the State’s climate strategy by understanding the near and long-term impacts of various policy scenarios and actions on our State and local communities. Improving Public Health The State’s drive to improve air quality and promote community health and well-being as we address climate change remains a priority, as it has for almost 50 years. The State is committed to addressing public health issues, including addressing chronic and infectious diseases, promoting mental health, and protecting communities from exposure to harmful air pollutants and toxins. Several of the strategies included in this Plan were primarily developed to help California achieve federal and State ambient air quality standards for air pollutants with direct health impacts, but they will also deliver GHG reductions. Likewise, some climate strategies, such as GHG reduction measures that decrease diesel combustion from mobile sources, produce air quality co-benefits in the form of concurrent reductions in criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Climate change itself is already affecting the health of our communities and is exacerbating existing health inequities. Those facing the greatest health burdens include low-income individuals and households, the very young and the very old, communities of color, and those who have been marginalized or discriminated against based on gender or race/ethnicity.43 Economic factors, such as income, poverty, and wealth, are among the strongest determinants of health. Addressing climate change presents an important opportunity to improve public health for all of California’s residents and to further our work toward making our State the healthiest in the nation. The major provisions of AB 617 (C. Garcia, 2017), to be completed by 2020, will ensure that as the State seeks to advance climate policy to meet the 2030 target, we will also act locally to improve neighborhood air quality. AB 617 requires strengthening and expanding community level air monitoring; expediting equipment retrofits at large industrial sources that are located in areas that are in nonattainment for the federal and State ambient air quality standards; requiring development of a statewide strategy to further reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants in communities faced with high cumulative exposure levels; and local air district-developed community emissions reductions plans that identify emissions reductions targets, measures, implementation schedules, and enforcement plans for these affected communities. By identifying and addressing the disproportionate impacts felt today and by planning, designing, and implementing actions for a sustainable future that considers both climate and air quality objectives, we can be part of the solution to make public health inequities an issue of the past. Environmental Justice Fair and equitable climate action requires addressing the inequities that create and intensify community vulnerabilities. The capacity for resilience in the face of climate change is driven by living conditions and the forces that shape them. These include, but are not limited to, access to services such as health care, healthy foods, air and water, and safe spaces for physical activity; income; education; housing; transportation; environmental quality; and good health status. Strategies to alleviate poverty, increase access to economic opportunities, improve living conditions, and reduce health and social inequities will result in more climate- resilient communities. The transition to a low carbon California economy provides an opportunity to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxins, and to create a healthier environment for all of California’s residents, especially those living in the State’s most disadvantaged communities. Policies designed to facilitate this transition and state-wide, regional, and local reductions, 43 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2015. The Portrait of Promise: The California Statewide Draft Plan to Promote Health and Mental Health Equity. A Report to the Legislature and the People of California by the Office of Health Equity. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, Office of Health Equity. 15 must also be appropriately tailored to address the unique characteristics of economically distressed communities throughout the State’s diverse geographic regions, including both rural and highly-urbanized areas. Equity considerations must likewise be part of the deliberate and thoughtful process in the design and implementation of all policies and measures included in the Scoping Plan. And CARB must ensure that its ongoing engagement with environmental justice communities will continue beyond the development of the Scoping Plan and be included in all aspects of its various air pollution programs. Additional detail on CARB’s efforts to achieve these goals is provided in Chapter 5. It is critical that communities of color, low-income communities, or both, receive the benefits of the cleaner economy growing in California, including its environmental and economic benefits. Currently, low-income customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Program or the Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) Program are also eligible to receive a rebate under the California Climate Credit, or a credit on residential and small business electricity bills resulting from the sale of allowances received by investor-owned utilities as part of the Cap-and-Trade Program. SB 1018 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 39, Statutes of 2012) and other implementing legislation requires that Cap-and-Trade Program auction monies deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) be used to further the purposes of AB 32 and facilitate reduction of GHG emissions. Investments made with these funds not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide other environmental, health, and economic benefits including, fostering job creation by promoting in-state GHG emissions reduction projects carried out by California workers and businesses. Further, SB 535 (De Leon, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012) and AB 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016) direct State and local agencies to make significant investments using GGRF monies to assist California’s most vulnerable communities. Under SB 535 (de León, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012), a minimum of 25 percent of the total investments were required to benefit disadvantaged communities; of that, a minimum of 10 percent were required to be located within and provide benefits to those communities. Based on cumulative data reported by agencies as of March 2016, the State is exceeding these targets. Indeed, 50 percent of the $1.2 billion dollars spent on California Climate Investments projects provided benefits to disadvantaged communities; and 34 percent of this funding was used on projects located directly in disadvantaged communities.44 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee AB 32 calls for CARB to convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC), to advise the Board in developing the Scoping Plan, and any other pertinent matter in implementing AB 32. It requires that the Committee be comprised of representatives from communities in the State with the most significant exposure to air pollution, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income 44 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/cci_annual_report_2017.pdf environmental JustiCe advisory Committee Martha Dina Argüello Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles Colin Bailey The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Sacramento Gisele Fong End Oil Los Angeles Tom Frantz Association of Irritated Residents Central Valley Katie Valenzuela Garcia (Served until May 2017) Oak Park Neighborhood Association Sacramento Sekita Grant (Served until June 2017) The Greenlining Institute Statewide Kevin Hamilton Central California Asthma Collaborative Central Valley Rey León Valley LEAP Central Valley Luis Olmedo Comité Civico Del Valle Salton Sea Region Kemba Shakur Urban Releaf Bay Area Mari Rose Taruc Asian Pacific Environmental Network Bay Area Eleanor Torres The Incredible Edible Community Garden Inland Empire Monica Wilson Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives Bay Area 16 populations, or both. CARB consulted 13 environmental justice and disadvantaged community representatives for the 2017 Scoping Plan process, starting with the first Committee meeting in December 2015. In February and April 2017, members of the California Air Resources Board held joint public meetings with the EJAC to discuss options for addressing environmental justice and disadvantaged community concerns in the Scoping Plan. The full schedule of Committee meetings and meeting materials is available on CARB’s website.45 Starting in July 2016, the Committee hosted a robust community engagement process, conducting 19 community meetings throughout the State. To enhance this community engagement, CARB staff coordinated with staff from local government agencies and sister State agencies. At the community meetings, staff from State and local agencies participated in extensive, topic-specific “world café” discussions with local groups and individuals. The extensive dialogue between the EJAC, State agencies, and local agencies provided community residents the opportunity to share concerns and provide input on ways California can meet its 2030 GHG target while addressing a number of environmental and equity issues. Environmental Justice Advisory Committee Recommendations The Committee’s recommendations for the Scoping Plan were informed by comments received at community meetings described above and Committee member expertise. Recommendations were provided for the sector focus areas, overarching environmental justice policy, and California Climate Investments. The Committee also sorted their recommendations into five themes: partnership with environmental justice communities, equity, economic opportunity, coordination, and long-term vision. Finally, the Committee provided direction that their recommendations are intended “to be read and implemented holistically and not independently of each other.” The EJAC’s recommendations, in their entirety, are included in Appendix A and available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ejac/meetings/04262017/ejac-sp-recommendations033017.pdf. The Committee’s overarching recommendations for partnership with environmental justice communities, equity, coordination, economic opportunity, and long-term vision include the following recommendations:• Encourage long-term community engagement, a culture shift in California, and neighborhood-level solutions to promote the implementation of the State’s climate plans, using strategies identified by the Committee. • Improve the balance of reducing GHGs and compliance costs with other AB 32 goals of improving air quality in environmental justice communities while maximizing benefits for all Californians. • Consider public health impacts and equity when examining issues in any sector and have CARB conduct an equity analysis on the Scoping Plan and each sector, with guidance from the Committee. • Develop metrics to ensure actions are meeting targets and develop contingency plans for mitigation and adjustment if emissions increases occur as programs are implemented. • Develop a statewide community-based air monitoring network to support regulatory efforts and monitor neighborhood scale pollution in disadvantaged communities.• Coordinate strategies between State, federal, and local agencies for strong, enforceable, evidence-based policies to prevent and address sprawl with equity at the center.• Maximize the accessibility of safe jobs, incentives, and economic benefits for Californians and the development of a just transition for workers and communities in and around polluting industries. • Prioritize improving air quality in environmental justice communities and analyze scenarios at a neighborhood scale for all California communities. • Ensure that AB 32 economic reviewers come from various areas around the State to represent insights on economic challenges and opportunities from those regions. • Do not limit the Scoping Plan to examining interventions and impacts until 2030, or even 2050. Plan and analyze on a longer-term scale to prevent short-sighted mistakes and reach the long- term vision, as actions today and for the next 30 years will have impacts for seven generations. • The Scoping Plan must prioritize GHG reductions and investments in California environmental justice communities first, before other California communities; and the innovation of new technologies or strategies to reach even deeper emissions cuts, whenever possible.• Convene the Committee beyond the Scoping Plan development process. The Committee’s key Energy sector recommendations include:• Developing aggressive energy goals toward 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, including a vision for a clean energy economy, and prioritizing actions in disadvantaged communities. 45 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ejac/ejac.htm 17 • Setting goals for green buildings. • Enforcing GHG reduction targets for existing buildings, and providing upgrades that enable buildings to use renewable energy technologies and water capture. • Prioritizing and supporting community-owned technologies, such as community-owned solar, for environmental justice communities. Key Water sector recommendations include: • Encouraging water conservation and recycling. • Prioritizing safe drinking water for all. The Committee’s key Industry sector recommendations include: • Prioritizing direct emissions reductions in environmental justice communities. • Replacing the Cap-and-Trade Program with a carbon tax or fee and dividend program. • Eliminating offsets and the allocation of free allowances if the Cap-and-Trade Program continues. • Analyze where GHG emissions are increasing and identify strategies to prevent and reduce such emissions in environmental justice communities. • Committing to reductions in petroleum use. The Committee’s key Transportation sector recommendations include: • Increasing access to affordable, reliable, clean, and safe mobility options in disadvantaged communities. • Community-engaged land use planning.• Maximizing electrification.• Restricting sprawl and examining transportation regionally.• Considering the development of green transportation hubs that integrate urban greening with transportation options and implement the recommendations of the SB 350 studies. The Committee’s key Natural and Working Lands, Agriculture, and Waste sector recommendations include:• Reducing waste and mandating that local jurisdictions manage the waste they create. • Returning carbon to the soil. • Not burning biomass or considering it a renewable resource. • Supporting healthy soils as a critical element to land and waste management. • Integrating urban forestry within local communities. • Exploring ways to allow and streamline the process for cultural and prescribed burning for land management and to prevent large-scale wildfires. • Including an annual reduction of 5 million metric tons of CO2e from natural and working lands. The Committee’s recommendations for California Climate Investments include: • Ensuring near-term technologies do not adversely impact communities and long-term investments move toward zero emissions. • Requiring GGRF projects to be transformative for disadvantaged communities as defined by each community.• Eliminating funding for AB 32 regulated entities.• Providing technical assistance to environmental justice communities so they can better access funding and resources. • Prioritizing projects identified by communities and ensuring all applicants have policies to protect against displacement or gentrification. In April 2017, EJAC members provided a refined list of priority changes for the Scoping Plan from the full list of EJAC recommendations. CARB staff responded to each priority recommendation, describing additions to the Scoping Plan or suggested next steps for recommendations beyond the level of detail in the Plan. Appendix A includes the Priority EJAC Recommendations with CARB Responses and full list of EJAC Recommendations. More information about the Committee and its recommendations on the previous Scoping Plans and this Scoping Plan is located at: www.arb.ca.gov/ejac. 18 Setting the Path to 2050 The State’s 2020 and 2030 targets have not been set in isolation. They represent benchmarks, consistent with prevailing climate science, charting an appropriate trajectory forward that is in-line with California’s role in stabilizing global warming below dangerous thresholds. As we consider efforts to reduce emissions to meet the State’s near-term requirements, we must do so with an eye toward reductions needed beyond 2030, as well. The Paris Agreement – which calls for limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and aiming to limit it below a 1.5 degrees Celsius – frames our path forward. While the Scoping Plan charts the path to achieving the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target, we also need momentum to propel us to the 2050 statewide GHG target (80 percent below 1990 levels). In developing this Scoping Plan, we considered what policies are needed to meet our mid-term and long-term goals. For example, though Zero Net Carbon Buildings are not feasible at this time and more work needs to be done in this area, they will be necessary to achieve the 2050 target. To that end, work must begin now to review and evaluate research in this area, establish a planning horizon for targets, and identify implementation mechanisms. Concurrently, we must consider and implement policies that not only deliver critical reductions in 2030 and continue to help support the State’s long-term climate objectives, but that also deliver other health, environmental and economic benefits. We should not just be planning to put 1.5 million ZEVs on the road by 2025 or 4.2 million on the road by 2030 – but rather, we should be comprehensively facilitating the market-wide transition to electric drive that we need to see materialize as soon as possible. This means that we need to be working towards making all fuels low carbon as quickly as possible, even as we incrementally ramp up volume requirements through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. And it means that we need to support the broad array of actions and strategies identified in Chapter 4, and new ones that may emerge – to keep us on track to achieve deeper GHG reductions to protect the environment and our way of life. As with all investments, the approach taken must balance risk, reward, longevity, and timing. Figure 5 illustrates the potential GHG reductions that are possible by making consistent progress between 2020 and 2050, versus an approach that begins with the 2030 target and then makes progress toward the 2050 level included in Executive Order S-3-05. Depending on our success in achieving the 2030 target, taking a consistent approach may be possible. It would achieve the 2050 target earlier, and together with similar actions globally, would have a greater chance of preventing global warming of 2°C. The strategy for achieving the 2050 target should leave open the possibility for both paths. Note that Figure 5 does not include emissions or sequestration potential from the natural and working lands sector or black carbon. Figure 5: plotting CaliFornia’s path Forward 2020 Target 0 100 200 300 400 500 2000 2010 2020 2030Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)2020 Target 2030 Target 2050 Target 2010 2040 2050 Executive OrderS-3-05 19 Intergovernmental Collaboration Federal, state, Tribal, and local action can be complementary. We have seen federal action through the Clean Air Act, regulations for GHG emissions from passenger cars and trucks, development of the Clean Power Plan to limit GHGs from power plants, and the advancement of methane rules for oil and gas production. We have also seen recent federal efforts to delay or reverse some of these actions. As we have done in the past, California, working with other climate leaders, can take steps to advance more ambitious federal action and protect the ability of states to move forward to address climate change. Both collaboration and advocacy will mark the road ahead. However, to the extent that California cannot implement policies or measures included in the Scoping Plan because of the lack of federal action, we will develop alternative measures to achieve the reductions from the same sectors to ensure we meet our GHG reduction targets. Regional, Tribal, and local governments and agencies are critical leaders in reducing emissions through actions that reduce demand for electricity, transportation fuels, and natural gas, and improved natural and working lands management. Many local governments already employ efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those required by the State. For example, many cities and counties improve their municipal operations by upgrading vehicle fleets, retrofitting government buildings and streetlights, purchasing greener products, and implementing waste-reduction policies. In addition, they may adopt more sustainable codes, standards, and general plan improvements to reduce their community’s footprints and emissions. Many Tribes within and outside of California have engaged in consultations with CARB to develop robust carbon offset projects under California’s Cap-and-Trade Program, in particular forest projects. In fact, Tribal forest projects represent a significant percentage of offset credits issued under the Program. These consultations and carbon sequestration projects are in addition to other Tribal climate-related efforts. The State will provide a supportive framework to advance these and other local efforts, while also recognizing the need to build on, and export, this success to other regional, Tribal, and local governments throughout California and beyond. Local actions are critical for implementation of California’s ambitious climate agenda. State policies, programs, and actions–such as many of those identified throughout this Scoping Plan–can help to support, incentivize, and accelerate local actions to achieve mutual goals for more sustainable and resilient communities. Local municipal code changes, zoning changes, or policy directions that apply broadly to the community within the general plan or climate action plan area can promote the deployment of renewable, zero emission, and low carbon technologies such as zero net energy buildings, renewable fuel production facilities, and zero emission charging stations. Local decision-making has an especially important role in achieving reductions of GHG emissions generated from transportation. Over the last 60 years, development patterns have led to sprawling suburban neighborhoods, a vast highway system, growth in automobile ownership, and under-prioritization of infrastructure for public transit and active transportation. Local decisions about these policies today can establish a more sustainable built environment for the future. International Efforts California is not alone in its efforts to address climate change at the international level to reduce global GHG emissions. The agreement reached in Paris by the 2015 Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at keeping the global temperature rise below 2°C, is spurring worldwide action to reduce GHGs and support decarbonization across the global economy. In recent years, subnational governments have emerged to take on a prominent role. With the establishment of the Under 2 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),46,47 the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force,48 and the Western Climate Initiative,49 among other partnership initiatives, subnational jurisdictions from the around the world are collaborating and leading on how best to address climate change. 46 Under 2 MOU website: under2mou.org/ 47 One of the Brown Administration’s priorities is to highlight California’s climate leadership on the subnational level, and to ensure that subnational activity is recognized at the international level. In the year preceding the Paris negotiations, the Governor’s Office recruited subnational jurisdictions to sign onto the Memorandum of Understanding on Subnational Global Climate Leadership (Under 2 MOU), which brings together states and regions willing to commit to reducing their GHG emissions by 80 to 95 percent, or to limit emissions to 2 metric tons CO2-equivalent per capita, by 2050. The governor led a California delegation to the Paris negotiations to highlight our successful climate programs and to champion subnational action and international cooperation on meeting the challenge of reducing GHG emissions. As of October 2017, 188 jurisdictions representing more than 1.2 billion people and more than one-third of the global economy had joined California in the Under 2 MOU.48 Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force website: www.gcftaskforce.org/49 Western Climate Initiative website: www.wci-inc.org/ 20 From its inception, AB 32 recognized the importance of California’s climate leadership and engagement with other jurisdictions, and directed CARB to consult with the federal government and other nations to identify the most effective strategies and methods to reduce GHGs, manage GHG control programs, and facilitate the development of integrated and cost-effective regional, national, and international GHG reduction programs. California undertook a two-pronged approach: first, we assessed our State-specific circumstances to develop measures that would apply specifically in California; and second, we assessed which measures might lend themselves, through careful design and collaboration with other interested jurisdictions, toward linked or collaborative GHG reduction programs. Under the Clean Air Act, California has a special role as an innovator and leader in the area of motor vehicle emission regulations, which allows our State to adopt motor vehicle emission standards that are stricter than federal requirements. Partners around the country and the world emulate these motor vehicle standards, leading to widespread health benefits. Similarly, by enacting a comprehensive climate strategy that appeals to national and international partners, California can help lead the world in tackling climate change. Today, the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program is linked with Québec’s program and scheduled to link with Ontario’s emissions trading system on January 1, 2018. Low carbon fuel mandates similar to California’s LCFS have been adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and by other jurisdictions including Oregon, British Columbia, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. Over two- dozen states have a renewables portfolio standard. California is a member of the Pacific Coast Collaborative with British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington, who collaborate on issues such as energy and sustainable resource management, among others.50 California continues to discuss carbon pricing through a cap-and- trade program with international delegations. We have seen design features of the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program incorporated into other emerging and existing programs, such as the European Union Emissions Trading System, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, China’s emerging national trading program, and Mexico’s emerging pilot emission trading program. Recognizing the need to address the substantial GHG emissions caused by the deforestation and degradation of tropical and other forests, California worked with a group of subnational governments to form the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) in 2008.51 The GCF is currently comprised of 38 different subnational jurisdictions– including states and provinces in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Spain, and the United States–that are contemplating or enacting programs for low-emissions rural development and reduced emissions from deforestation and land use. GCF members continue to engage in discussions to share information and experiences about the design of such programs and how the programs could potentially interact with carbon markets. Ongoing engagement between California and its GCF partners, as well as ongoing discussions with other stakeholders, continues to provide lessons on how such programs could complement California’s climate programs.52 Further, California’s High-Speed Rail is part of the International Union of Railways (UIC), and California has signed the Railway Climate Responsibility Pledge, which was commended by the Secretary of the UNFCCC as part of achieving the global 2050 targets. This initiative is to demonstrate that rail transport is part of the solution for sustainable and carbon free mobility. California will continue to engage in multi-lateral forums that develop the policy foundation and technical infrastructure for GHG regulations in multiple jurisdictions through entities such as the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP), established by California and other partners in 2007. Members of the ICAP that have already implemented or are actively pursuing market-based GHG programs53 share experiences and knowledge. California also participates in the Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR), a multilateral World Bank initiative that brings together more than 30 developed and developing countries to share experiences and build capacity for climate change mitigation efforts, particularly those implemented using market instruments.54 In November 2014, CARB became a Technical Partner of the PMR, and CARB staff members have provided technical information on the design and implementation of the Cap-and-Trade Program at several PMR meetings. 50 Pacific Coast Collaborative website: pacificcoastcollaborative.org/51 Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force Website: www.gcftaskforce.org/ 52 Continued collaboration on efforts to reduce emissions from tropical deforestation and to evaluate sector-based offset programs, such as the jurisdictional program in Acre, Brazil, further demonstrates California’s ongoing climate leadership and fosters partnerships on mutually beneficial low emissions development initiatives, including measures to encourage sustainable supply chain efforts by public and private entities.53 International Carbon Action Partnership website: icapcarbonaction.com/ 54 Partnership for Market Readiness website: www.thepmr.org/ 21 Many foreign jurisdictions seek out California’s expertise because of our history of success in addressing air pollution and climate change. California also benefits from these interactions. Expanding global action to fight air pollution and climate change expands markets for clean technology. This can bolster business for companies in California developing clean energy products and services and help to bring down the cost of those products globally and in California. Additionally, innovative policies and lessons learned from our partners’ jurisdictions can help to inform future climate policies in California. Governor Brown’s focus on subnational collaborations on climate change and air quality has strengthened and deepened California’s existing international relationships and forged new ones. These relationships are a critical component of reducing emissions of GHGs and other pollutants worldwide. As we move forward, CARB and other State agencies will continue to communicate and collaborate with international partners to find the most cost-effective ways to improve air quality, fight climate change, and share California’s experience and expertise in reducing air pollution and GHGs while growing a strong economy. To highlight the State’s resolve and support of other governments committed to action and tackling the threat of the global warming, on July 6, 2017, Governor Brown announced a major initiative to host world leaders at a Global Climate Action Summit planned for September 2018 in San Francisco. 22 This chapter describes the State strategy for meeting the 2030 GHG target (also called the Scoping Plan Scenario), along with a short description of the four alternative scenarios, which were evaluated but ultimately rejected when compared against statutory and policy criteria and priorities that the State’s comprehensive climate action must deliver. All scenarios are set against the business-as-usual (BAU or Reference Scenario) scenario–what would GHG emissions look like if we did nothing beyond the existing policies that are required and already in place to achieve the 2020 limit. BAU includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the SB 375 program for sustainable communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that have been developed or put into statute over the past two years. The Reference Scenario (BAU) shows continuing, but modest, reductions followed by a later rise of GHG emissions as the economy and population grow. The comprehensive analysis of all five alternatives indicates that the Scoping Plan Scenario–continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program–is the best choice to achieve the State’s climate and clean air goals. It also protects public health, provides a solid foundation for continued economic growth, and supports California’s quality of life. All of the alternative scenarios briefly described in this chapter are the product of the Scoping Plan development process and were informed by public input, including that from EJAC, as well as Board and legislative direction over the course of two years. The scenarios all include a range of additional measures developed or required by legislation over the past two years with 2030 as their target date and include: extending the LCFS to an 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity beyond 2020, and the requirements of SB 350 to increase renewables to 50 percent and to double energy efficiency savings. They also all include the Mobile Source Strategy targets for more zero emission vehicles and much cleaner trucks and transit, the Sustainable Freight Action Plan to improve freight efficiency and transition to zero emission freight handling technologies, and the requirements under SB 1383 to reduce anthropogenic black carbon 50 percent and hydrofluorocarbon and methane emissions by 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The recent adoption of AB 398 into State law on July 25, 2017, clarifies the role of the Cap-and-Trade Program through December 31, 2030. Work is still underway on how to quantify the GHG emissions within the natural and working lands sector. As such, the analyses in this chapter do not include any estimates from this sector. Additional information on the current efforts to better understand GHG emissions fluxes and model the actions needed to support the goal of net carbon sequestration in natural and working lands can be found in Chapter 4. Even absent quantification data, the importance of this sector in achieving the State’s climate goals should be considered in conjunction with any efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the energy and industrial sectors. During the development of the Scoping Plan, stakeholders suggested alternative scenarios to achieve the 2030 target. While countless scenarios could potentially be developed and evaluated, the four below were considered, as they were most often included in comments by stakeholders and they bracket the range of potential scenarios. Several of these alternative scenarios were also evaluated in the Initial AB 32 Scoping Plan in 2008 (All Regulations, Carbon Tax).55 Since the adoption of the Initial AB 32 Scoping Plan, some of the alternative scenarios have been implemented or contemplated by other jurisdictions, which has helped in the analysis and the development of this Scoping Plan. This section provides a brief description of the alternatives. A full description of the alternatives and staff’s AB 197 and policy analyses are included in Appendix G. 55 CARB. 2009. Initial AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm Chapter 2 the S copI ng p lan S cenar I o 23 Scoping Plan Scenario: Ongoing and statutorily required programs and continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program. This scenario was modified from the January 2017 Proposed Scoping Plan to reflect AB 398, including removal of the 20 percent refinery measure. Alternative 1: No Cap-and-Trade. Includes additional activities in a wide variety of sectors, such as specific required reductions for all large GHG sources, and more extensive requirements for renewable energy. Industrial sources would be regulated through command and control strategies. Alternative 2: Carbon Tax. A carbon tax to put a price, but not limit, on carbon, instead of the Cap-and- Trade Program. Alternative 3: All Cap-and-Trade. This alternative is the same as the Scoping Plan Scenario, while maintaining the LCFS at a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity past 2020. Alternative 4: Cap-and-Tax. This would place a declining cap on individual industrial facilities, and individual natural gas and fuel suppliers, while also requiring them to pay a tax on each metric ton of GHGs emitted. Since the statutory direction on meeting a 2030 GHG target is clear, the issue of certainty of reductions is paramount. These alternatives vary greatly as to the certainty of meeting the target. The declining mass emissions cap under a cap-and-trade program provides certain and measurable reductions over time; a carbon tax, meanwhile, establishes some carbon price certainty, but does not provide an assurance on reductions and instead assumes that some degree of reductions will occur if costs are high enough to alter behavior. There are also other considerations: to what extent does an alternative meet the target, but also deliver clean air benefits, prioritize reductions at large stationary sources, and allow for continued investment in disadvantaged communities? What is the cost of an alternative and what will be the impact on California consumers? Does an alternative allow for California to link with other jurisdictions, and support the Clean Power Plan56 and other federal and international climate programs? Does an alternative provide for flexibility for regulated entities, and a cost-effective approach to reduce greenhouse gases? The Scoping Plan Scenario provides a portfolio of policies and measures that balances this combination of objectives, including the highest certainty to achieve the 2030 target, while protecting the California economy and consumers. A more detailed analyses of the alternatives is provided in Appendix G. Scoping Plan Scenario The development of the Scoping Plan began by first modeling a Reference Scenario (BAU). The Reference Scenario is the forecasted statewide GHG emissions through 2030 with existing policies and programs, but without any further action to reduce GHGs. Figure 6 provides the modeling results for a Reference Scenario for this Scoping Plan. The graph shows the State is expected to reduce emissions below the 2020 statewide GHG target, but additional effort will be needed to maintain and continue GHG reductions to meet the mid- (2030) and long-term (2050) targets. Figure 6 depicts a linear, straight-line path to the 2030 target. It should be noted that in any year, GHG emissions may be higher or lower than the straight line. That is to be expected as periods of economic recession or increased economic activity, annual variations in hydropower, and many other factors may influence a single or several years of GHG emissions in the State. CARB’s annual GHG reporting and inventory will provide data on progress towards achieving the 2030 target. More details about the modeling for the Reference Scenario can be found in Appendix D. 56 Although the Clean Power Plan is being challenged in legal and administrative processes, its requirements reflect U.S. EPA’s statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases from the power sector. Thus it, and other federal programs, are a key consideration for Scoping Plan development. 24 Figure 6: 2017 sCoping plan reFerenCe sCenario The Scoping Plan Scenario is summarized in Table 1. As shown in the table, most of the measures are identified as “known commitments” (marked with “*”), meaning that they are existing programs or required by statute. These commitments are not part of the Reference Scenario (BAU) in Figure 6 since their passage and implementation is related to meeting the Governor’s climate pillars, the 2030 climate target, or other long-term climate and air quality objectives. In addition to the known commitments, the Scoping Plan Scenario includes a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program.Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)0 100 200 300 400 500 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 REFERENCE SCENARIO (BAU) 431 MMTCO2e 2020 Target 260 MMTCO2e 2030 Target 2050 Goal 25 table 1: sCoping plan sCenario Policy Primary Objective Highlights Implementation Time Frame SB 35057* Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the 50 percent RPS, doubling of energy savings, and other actions as appropriate to achieve GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process. • Load-serving entities file plans to achieve GHG emissions reductions planning targets while ensuring reliability and meeting the State’s other policy goals cost-effectively. • 50 percent RPS. • Doubling of energy efficiency savings in natural gas and electricity end uses statewide. 2030 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)* Transition to cleaner/less- polluting fuels that have a lower carbon footprint. • At least 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity, as included in the Mobile Source Strategy.2030 Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels [CTF] Scenario)58* Reduce GHGs and other pollutants from the transportation sector through transition to zero- emission and low-emission vehicles, cleaner transit systems and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. • 1.5 million zero emission vehicles (ZEV), including plug-in hybrid electric, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2025 and 4.2 million ZEVs by 2030. • Continue ramp up of GHG stringency for all light-duty vehicles beyond 2025. • Reductions in GHGs from medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles via the Phase 2 Medium and Heavy-Duty GHG Standards. • Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new bus sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. • Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025. • Reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to be achieved in part by continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Community Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy, but included in the document “Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion” in Appendix C.59 Various SB 1383* Approve and Implement Short-Lived Climate Pollutant strategy60 to reduce highly potent GHGs • 40 percent reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions below 2013 levels by 2030. • 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon emissions below 2013 levels by 2030. 2030 California Sustainable Freight Action Plan61* Improve freight efficiency, transition to zero emission technologies, and increase competitiveness of California’s freight system. • Improve freight system efficiency by 25 percent by 2030. • Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. 2030 Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program Reduce GHGs across largest GHG emissions sources • Continue the existing Cap-and-Trade Program with declining caps to ensure the State’s 2030 target is achieved. * These measures and policies are referred to as “known commitments.” 57 58 5960 61 57 SB 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015). leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ billNavClient.xhtml?billid=201520160SB350 This policy also includes increased demand response and PV.58 CARB. 2016. 2016 Mobile Source Strategy. www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf59 CARB. Potential State-Level Strategies to Advance Sustainable, Equitable Communities and Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)-- for Discussion. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/091316/Potential%20VMT%20Measures%20For%20Discussion_9.13.16.pdf60 CARB. 2016. Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in California. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm61 State of California. California Sustainable Freight Action Plan website. www.casustainablefreight.org/ 26 Table 2 summarizes the results of the modeling for the Reference Scenario and known commitments. Per SB 32, the 2030 limit is 260 MMTCO2e. That is a limit on total GHG emissions in a single year. At approximately 389 MMTCO2e, the Reference Scenario is expected to exceed the 2030 limit by about 129 MMTCO2e. Table 2 also compares the Reference Scenario 2030 emissions estimate of 389 MMTCO2e to the 2030 target of 260 MMTCO2e and the level of 2030 emissions with the known commitments, estimated to be 320 MMTCO2e. And, in the context of a linear path to achieve the 2030 target, there is also a need to achieve cumulative emissions reductions of 621 MMTCO2e from 2021 to 2030 to reach the 2030 limit. While there is no statutory limit on cumulative emissions, the analysis considers and presents some results in cumulative form for several reasons. It should be recognized that policies and measures may perform differently over time. For example, in early years, a policy or measure may be slow to be deployed, but over time it has greater impact. If you were to look at its performance in 2021 versus 2030, you would see that it may not seem important and may not deliver significant reductions in the early years, but is critical for later years as it results in greater reductions over time. Further, once GHGs are emitted into the atmosphere, they can have long lifetimes that contribute to global warming for decades. Policies that reduce both cumulative GHG emissions and achieve the single-year 2030 target provide the most effective path to reducing climate change impacts. A cumulative construct provides a more complete way to evaluate the effectiveness of any measure over time, instead of just considering a snapshot for a single year. table 2: 2030 modeling ghg results For the reFerenCe sCenario and known Commitments Modeling Scenario 2030 GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e) Cumulative GHG Reductions 2021– 2030 (MMTCO2e) Cumulative Gap to 2030 Target (MMTCO2e) Reference Scenario (Business-as-Usual)389 n/a 621 Known Commitments 320 385 236 As noted above, the known commitments are expected to result in emissions that are 60 MMTCO2e above the target in 2030, and have a cumulative emissions reduction gap of about 236 MMTCO2e. This means the known commitments do not decline fast enough to achieve the 2030 target. The remaining 236 MMTCO2e of estimated GHG emissions reductions would not be achieved unless further action is taken to reduce GHGs. Consequently, for the Scoping Plan Scenario, the Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would need to deliver 236 MMTCO2e cumulative GHG emissions reductions from 2021 through 2030. If the estimated GHG reductions from the known commitments are not realized due to delays in implementation or technology deployment, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver the additional GHG reductions in the sectors it covers to ensure the 2030 target is achieved. Figure 7 illustrates the cumulative emissions reductions contributions of the known commitments and the Cap-and-Trade Program from 2021 to 2030. Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program with Declining Caps This measure would continue the Cap-and-Trade Program post-2020 pursuant to legislative direction in AB 398. The program is up and running and has a five-year-long record of auctions and successful compliance. In the face of a growing economy, dry winters, and the closing of a nuclear plant, it is delivering GHG reductions. This is not to say that California should continue on this road simply because the Cap-and-Trade Program is already in place. The analyses in this chapter, and the economic analysis in Chapter 3, clearly demonstrate that continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030 will provide the most secure, reliable, and feasible clean energy future for California–one that will continue to deliver crucial investments to improve the quality of life and the environment in disadvantaged communities. Under this measure, funds would also continue to be deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to support projects that fulfill the goals of AB 32, with AB 398 identifying a list of priorities for the Legislature to consider for future appropriations from GGRF. Investment of the Cap-and-Trade Program proceeds furthers the goals of AB 32 by reducing GHG emissions, providing net GHG sequestration, providing co-benefits, investing in disadvantaged communities and low-income communities, and supporting the long-term, transformative efforts needed to improve public and environmental health and 27 develop a clean energy economy. These investments support programs and projects that deliver major economic, environmental, and public health benefits for Californians. Importantly, prioritized investments in disadvantaged communities are providing a multitude of meaningful benefits to these communities some of which include increased affordable housing opportunities, reduced transit and transportation costs, access to cleaner vehicles, improved mobility options and air quality, job creation, energy cost savings, and greener and more vibrant communities. Further, the Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to protect electricity and natural gas residential ratepayers from higher energy prices. The program includes a mechanism for electricity and natural gas utilities to auction their freely allocated allowances, with the auction proceeds benefiting ratepayers. The Climate Credit is a twice-annual bill credit given to investor-owned utility electricity residential customers. The total value of the Climate Credit for vintage 2013 auction allowances alone was over $400 million. The first of these credits appeared on customer bills in April 2014.62 Currently, natural gas utilities are permitted to use a portion of their freely allocated allowances to meet their own compliance obligations; however, over time, they must consign a larger percentage of allowances and continue to provide the value back to customers. Additionally, under this measure, the State would preserve its current linkages with its Canadian partners and support future linkages with other jurisdictions, thus facilitating international action to address climate change. The high compliance rates with the Cap-and-Trade Program also demonstrate that the infrastructure and implementation features of the program are effective and understood by the regulated community. This measure also lends itself to integration with the Clean Power Plan requirements and is flexible to allow expansion to other sectors or regions. In late 2017, CARB began evaluating changes to program design features for post-2020 in accordance with AB 398.63 This includes changes to the offset usage limit, direction on allocation, two price containment points, and a price ceiling – which, if in the unlikely event were to be accessed, must result in GHG reductions by compensating for any GHG emissions above the cap, ensuring the environmental integrity of the program. Changes to conform to the requirements of AB 398 will be subject to a public process, coordinated with linked partners, and be part of a future rulemaking that would take effect by January 1, 2021. 62 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/allowanceallocation/edu-v2013-allowance-value-report.pdf63 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/meetings/20171012/ct_presentation_11oct2017.pdf 28 Figure 7: sCoping plan sCenario – estimated Cumulative ghg reduCtions by measure (2021–2030)64 The Scoping Plan Scenario in Figure 7 represents an expected case where current and proposed GHG reduction policies and measures begin as expected and perform as expected, and technology is readily available and deployed on schedule. An Uncertainty Analysis was performed to examine the range of outcomes that could occur under the Scoping Plan policies and measures. The uncertainty in the following factors was characterized and evaluated:• Economic growth through 2030;• Emission intensity of the California economy; • Cumulative emissions reductions (2021 to 2030) achieved by the prescriptive measures, including the known commitments; and • Cumulative emissions reductions (2021 to 2030) that can be motivated by emission prices under the Cap-and-Trade Program. The combined effects of these uncertainties are summarized in Figure 8. As shown in Figure 7, the Scoping Plan analysis estimates that the prescriptive measures will achieve cumulative emissions reductions of 385 MMTCO2e, the Cap-and-Trade Program will achieve 236 MMTCO2e, resulting in total cumulative emissions reductions of 621 MMTCO2e. These values are again reflected in the bar on the left of Figure 8. The results of the Uncertainty Analysis are summarized in the three bars on the right of the figure as follows: • The cumulative emissions reductions required to achieve the 2030 emission limit has the potential to be higher or lower than the Scoping Plan estimate. The uncertainty analysis simulates an average required emissions reductions of about 660 MMTCO2e with a range of +130 MMTCO2e.65 This estimate and the range are shown in Figure 8 as the bar on the right. Notably, the estimate of the average required emissions reductions is 40 MMTCO2e greater than the estimate in the Scoping Plan analysis. • The prescriptive measures have the potential to underperform relative to expectations. Based on CARB staff assessments of the potential risk of underperformance of each measure, the average emissions reductions simulated to be achieved was 335 MMTCO2e, or about 13 percent below the Scoping Plan estimate. The range for the performance of the measures was about +50 MMTCO2e. 64 The whole number values displayed in Figure 7 do not mathematically sum to 621 MMTCO2e, consistent with the modeling results summary in Table 2. This is a result of embedded significant figures and rounding for graphic display purposes. Please refer to the corresponding PATHWAYS modeling data spreadsheets for details.65 The ranges presented are the 5th and 95th percentile observations in the Uncertainty Analysis. See Appendix E for details. Scoping PlanGHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 64 Mobile Sources CFT & Freight 217 Short Lived Climate Pollutants High Global Warming Gases & Methane Reduction from LCFS and Direct Measures 236 Cap-and-Trade Program 64 Energy Efficiency (Res, Com, Ind Ag & TCU) 25 Biofuels (18% LCFS)16 50% RPS 29 These values for the potential reductions achieved by the measures are shown in the figure. • The Cap-and-Trade program is designed to fill the gap in the required emissions reductions over and above what is achieved by the prescriptive measures. Because the total required emissions reductions are uncertain, and the emissions reductions achieved by the prescriptive measures are uncertain, the required emissions reductions from the Cap-and-Trade Program are also uncertain. The Uncertainty Analysis simulated the average emissions reductions achieved by the Cap-and-Trade Program at about 305 MMTCO2e, or about 30 percent higher than the Scoping Plan estimate. The range was simulated to be about +120 MMTCO2e. These values for the potential reductions achieved by the Cap-and-Trade Program are shown in the figure. The Uncertainty Analysis provides insight into the range of potential emissions outcomes that may occur, and demonstrates that the Scoping Plan, with the Cap-and-Trade Program, is extremely effective in the face of uncertainty, assuring that the required emissions reductions are achieved (see Appendix E for more detail). The Uncertainty Analysis also indicates that the Cap-and-Trade Program could contribute a larger or smaller share of the total required cumulative emissions reductions than expected in the Scoping Plan analysis. Figure 8: unCertainty analysis While the modeling results provide estimates of the GHG reductions that could be achieved by the measures, the results also provide other insights and highlight the need to ensure successful implementation of each measure. The SLCP Strategy will provide significant reductions with a focus on methane and hydrofluorocarbon gases. To ensure the SLCP Strategy implementation is successful, it will be critical to ensure programs such as LCFS maintain incentives to finance the capture and use of methane as a transportation fuel–further reducing the State’s dependence on fossil fuels. The modeling also shows that actions on energy efficiency could provide the same magnitude of GHG emissions reductions as the mobile source measures, but each effort will provide different magnitudes of air quality improvements and cost- effectiveness as discussed in Chapter 3. Another way to look at this scenario is to understand the trajectory of GHG reductions over time, relative to the 2030 target. Figure 9 provides the trajectory of GHG emissions modeled for the Scoping Plan Scenario. Again, this depicts a straight-line path to the 2030 target for discussion purposes, but in reality GHG emissions may be above or below the line in any given year(s). Scoping Plan UNCERTAINTY PrescriptiveMeasuresCumulative GHG Emission Reductions2021 to 2030 (MMTCO2e)Cap-and-Trade TotalReductions 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Cap-and- Trade Measures 30 Figure 9: sCoping plan sCenario ghg reduC tions Figure 9 shows the Reference Scenario (yellow) and the version of the Scoping Plan Scenario that excludes the Cap-and-Trade Program (blue). Until 2023, the measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario constrain GHG emissions below the dotted straight line. After 2023, GHG emissions continue to fall, but at a slower rate than needed to meet the 2030 target. It is the Cap-and-Trade Program that will reduce emissions to the necessary levels to achieve the 2030 target. In this scenario, it is estimated that the known commitments will result in an emissions level of about 320 MMTCO2e in 2030. Thus, for the Scoping Plan Scenario, the Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver about 60 MMTCO2e in 2030 and ensure the 2030 target is achieved. To understand how the Scoping Plan affects the main economic sectors, Table 3 provides estimated GHG emissions by sector, compared to 1990 levels, and the range of GHG emissions for each sector estimated for 2030. This comparison helps to illustrate which sectors are reducing emissions more than others and where to focus additional actions to reduce GHGs across the entire economy. 20152010 2020 2025 2030 REFERENCE SCENARIO (BAU) Scoping Plan Scenario Gap closed by Cap-and-Trade 431 MMTCO2e 2020 Target 0 100 200 300 400 500 260 MMTCO2e 2030 Target 31 table 3: estimated Change in ghg emissions by seCtor (mmtCo2e) 1990 2030 Scoping Plan Ranges66 % change from 1990 Agriculture 26 24–25 -8 to -4 Residential and Commercial 44 38–40 -14 to -9 Electric Power 108 30–5367 -72 to -51 High GWP 3 8–1168 267 to 367 Industrial 98 83–9069 -15 to -8 Recycling and Waste 7 8–970 14 to 29** Transportation (Including TCU)152 103–111 -32 to -27 Natural Working Lands Net Sink*-7***TBD TBD Sub Total 431 294–339 -32 to -21 Cap-and-Trade Program n/a 34–79 n/a Total 431 260 -40 * Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector.** The SLCP will reduce emissions in this sector by 40 percent from 2013 levels. However, the 2030 levels are still higher than the 1990 levels as emissions in this sector have grown between 1990 and 2013.*** This number reflects net results and is different than the intervention targets discussed in Chapter 4. The sector ranges may change in response to how the sectors respond to the Cap-and-Trade Program. While the known commitments will deliver some reductions in each sector, the Cap-and-Trade Program will deliver additional reductions in the sectors it covers. Annual GHG reporting and the GHG inventory will track annual changes in emissions, and those will provide ongoing assessments of how each sector is reducing emissions due to the full complement of known commitments and the Cap-and-Trade Program, as applicable. Scenario Modeling There are a variety of models that can be used to model GHG emissions. For this Plan, the State is using the PATHWAYS model.70 PATHWAYS is structured to model GHG emissions while recognizing the integrated nature of the industrial economic and energy sectors. For example, if the transportation sector adds more electric vehicles, PATHWAYS responds to reflect an energy demand increase in the electricity sector. However, PATHWAYS does not reflect any change in transportation infrastructure and land use demand associated with additional ZEVs on the road. The ability to capture a subset of interactive effects of policies and measures helps to provide a representation of the interconnected nature of the system and impacts to GHGs. 66 Unless otherwise noted, the low end of the sector range is the estimated emissions from the Scoping Plan Scenario and the high end adjusts the expected emissions by a risk factor that represents sector underperformance.67 The high end of the electric power sector range is represented by the Scoping Plan Scenario, and the low end by enhancements and additional electricity sector measures such as deployment of additional renewable power, greater behind-the-meter solar PV, and additional energy efficiency. The electric power sector range provided in Table 3 will be used to help inform CARB’s setting of the SB 350 Integrated Resource Plan greenhouse gas emissions reduction planning targets for the sector. CARB, CPUC, and CEC will continue to coordinate on this effort before final IRP targets are established for the sector, load-serving entities, and publicly-owned utilities. State agencies will investigate the potential for and appropriateness of deeper electric sector reductions in light of the overall needs of the Scoping Plan to cost-effectively achieve the statewide GHG goals. Concurrently, CEC and CPUC are proceeding with their respective IRP processes using this range.68 The sector emissions are anticipated to increase by 2030. As such, the high end of the sector range is the estimated emissions from the Scoping Plan Scenario and the low end adjusts the expected emissions by a risk factor that represents sector over performance.69 This estimate does not account for the reductions expected in this sector from the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade line item includes reductions that will occur in the industrial sector.70 CARB. 2016. AB 32 Scoping Plan Public Workshops. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/meetings.htm 32 At this time, PATHWAYS does not include a module for natural and working lands. As such, PATHWAYS cannot be used to model the natural and working lands sector, the interactive effects of polices aimed at the economic and energy sectors and their effect on land use or conditions, or the interactive effects of polices aimed at the natural environment and their impact on the economic and energy sectors. For this Plan, external inputs had to be developed for PATHWAYS to supply biofuel volumes. The natural and working lands sector is also being modeled separately as described in Chapter 4. Moving forward, CARB and other State agencies will work to integrate all the sectors into one model to fully capture interactive effects across both the natural and built environments. Lastly, the PATHWAYS assumptions and results in this Plan show the significant action that the State must take to reach its GHG reduction goals. It is important to note that the modeling assumptions may differ from other models used by other State agencies. Modeling exercises undertaken in future regulatory proceedings may result in different measures, programs, and program results than those used in the modeling for this Scoping Plan. State agencies will engage on their specific policies and measure development processes separately from CARB Scoping Plan activities, in public forums to engage all stakeholders. Uncertainty Several types of uncertainty are important to understand in both forecasting future emissions and estimating the benefits of emissions reductions scenarios. In developing the Scoping Plan, we have forecast a Reference Scenario and estimated the GHG emissions outcome of the Scoping Plan using PATHWAYS. Inherent in the Reference Scenario modeling is the expectation that many of the existing programs will continue in their current form, and the expected drivers for GHG emissions such as energy demand, population growth, and economic growth will match our current projections. However, it is unlikely that the future will precisely match our projections, leading to uncertainty in the forecast. Thus, the single “reference” line should be understood to represent one possible future in a range of possible predictions. For the Scoping Plan Scenario, PATHWAYS utilized inputs that are assumptions external to the model. PATHWAYS was provided plausible inputs such as energy demand over time, the start years for specific policies, and the penetration rates of associated technologies. Each of the assumptions provided to PATHWAYS has some uncertainty, which is also reflected in the results. Thus, while the results presented in the Scoping Plan may seem precise due to the need for precision in model inputs, these results are estimates, and the use of ranges in some of the results is meant to capture that uncertainty. Further, as noted in the November 7, 2016, 2030 Target Scoping Plan Workshop, “All policies have a degree of uncertainty associated with them.”71 As this Scoping Plan is meant to chart a path to achieving the 2030 target, additional work will be required to fully design and implement any policies identified in this Scoping Plan. During the subsequent development of policies, CARB and other State agencies will learn more about technologies, cost, and how each industry works as a more comprehensive evaluation is conducted in coordination with stakeholders. Given the uncertainty around assumptions used in modeling, and in performance once specific policies are fully designed and implemented, estimates associated with the Scoping Plan Scenario are likely to differ from what actually occurs when the Scoping Plan is implemented. One way to mitigate for this risk is to develop policies that can adapt and increase certainty in GHG emissions reductions. Periodic reviews of progress toward achieving the 2030 target and the performance of specific policies will also provide opportunities for the State to consider any changes to ensure we remain on course to achieve the 2030 target. The need for this periodic review process was anticipated in AB 32, as it calls for updates to the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. Additional information on the uncertainty analyses conducted in the development of this Scoping Plan is located in Appendix E. 71 Bushnell, James. Economic Modeling and Environmental Policy Choice. PowerPoint. Department of Economics, University of California, Davis. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/110716/bushnellpresentation.pdf 33 Policy Analysis of Scoping Plan Scenario The following key criteria were considered while evaluating potential policies beyond the known commitments. The results of the economic analysis (presented in Chapter 3) were also important in the design of this Scoping Plan. • Ensure the State achieves the 2030 target. The strategy must ensure that GHG emissions reductions occur and are sufficient to achieve the 2030 target. • Provide air quality co-benefits. An important concern for environmental justice communities is for any Scoping Plan to provide air quality co-benefits. • Prioritize rules and regulations for direct GHG reductions. AB 197 requires CARB in developing this Scoping Plan to prioritize emissions reductions rules and regulations that result in direct emissions reductions at large stationary sources of GHG emissions sources and direct emissions reductions from mobile sources.• Provide protection against emissions leakage. Require any policies to achieve the statewide limits to minimize emissions leakage to the extent possible. Emissions leakage can occur when production moves out-of-state, so there appears to be a reduction in California’s emissions, but the production and emissions have just moved elsewhere. This loss in production may be associated with loss in jobs and decreases in the State’s gross domestic product (GDP) and could potentially increase global GHG emissions if the production moves to a less efficient facility outside of California. • Develop greenhouse gas reduction programs that can be readily exported to other jurisdictions. Currently, California’s Cap-and-Trade Program is linked with Québec’s program and is scheduled to link with Ontario’s cap-and-trade program beginning in 2018. At the same time, California’s ambitious policies such as the RPS, LCFS, and Advanced Clean Cars have resulted in other regions adopting similar programs. • Minimize costs and increase investment in disadvantaged and low-income communities, and low-income households. Currently, Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds from the sale of State- owned allowances are appropriated for a variety of programs to reduce GHGs, and provide other environmental, health and economic benefits including job creation and economic development. Under AB 1550, a minimum of 25 percent of the proceeds are to be invested in projects located in and benefiting disadvantaged communities, with an additional minimum 10 percent to projects in low-income communities, and low-income households. It is important to understand if the strategy will require or result in funding to support these GHG reductions and associated benefits. • Avoid or minimize the impacts of climate change on public health by continuing reductions in GHGs. Climate change has the potential to significantly impact public health, including increases in heat illness and death, air pollution-related exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, injury and loss of life due to severe storms and flooding, increased vector-borne and water-borne diseases, and stress and mental trauma due to extreme weather-related catastrophes.• Provide compliance flexibility. Flexibility is important as it allows each regulated entity the ability to pursue its own path toward compliance in a way that works best for its business model. Flexibility also acknowledges that regulatory agencies may not have a complete picture of all available low-cost compliance mechanisms or opportunities even across the same sector. In addition, under AB 32 and AB 197, the strategy to reduce GHGs requires consideration of cost-effectiveness, which compliance flexibility provides. • Support the Clean Power Plan and other federal climate programs. California will continue to support aggressive federal action, as well as to defend existing programs like the Clean Power Plan, which is the most prominent federal climate regulation applicable to stationary sources. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that federal greenhouse gas regulation must move forward under the federal Clean Air Act, so it is important to ensure that California’s programs can support federal compliance as well. Although continuing litigation has stayed certain Clean Power Plan deadlines in the near term, and U.S. EPA has proposed to reconsider aspects of the rule as issued, the Clean Power Plan remains the law of the land. California is vigorously defending this important program, and is continuing to support federal climate regulation as is required by law. U.S EPA also has a legal obligation to implement GHG controls for power plants, even if it proposes to alter the form of those controls in the future. Therefore, the Clean Power Plan and other federal efforts are important considerations for this Scoping Plan. With regard to the 34 Clean Power Plan, California power plants are expected to be within their limits as set forth by the State’s compliance plan, which was approved by CARB on July 27, 2017. However, the State still needs a mechanism to ensure the emissions for the covered electricity generating plants do not exceed the federal limits. This mechanism must be federally enforceable with regard to the affected power plants, and limit their emissions in accordance with the federal limit. Table 4 uses the criteria listed above to assess the Scoping Plan Scenario. This assessment is based on CARB staff evaluation as well as the analyses described in Chapter 3. table 4: poliCy assessment oF the sCoping plan Criteria Details Ensure the State Achieves the 2030 Target • Incorporates existing and new commitments to reduce emissions from all sectors • The Cap-and-Trade Program scales to ensure reductions are achieved, even if other policies do not achieve them. This is particularly critical given the uncertainty inherent in both CARB’s emission forecast and its estimate of future regulations. Provide Air Quality Co-Benefits • Reduced fossil fuel use and increased electrification (including plug-in hybrid electric, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) from policies such as the Mobile Source Strategy, enhanced LCFS and RPS, energy efficiency, and land conservation will likely reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. • The Cap-and-Trade Program will ensure GHG emissions reductions within California that may reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Prioritize Rules and Regulations for Direct GHG Reductions • Advanced Clean Cars regulations require reduction in the light-duty vehicle sector. • Enhanced LCFS requires reductions in light-duty and heavy-duty transportation. • SB 350, RPS, and energy efficiency will reduce the need for fossil power generation. • The Cap-and-Trade Program constrains and reduces emissions across approximately 80 percent of California GHG emissions. • SB 1383 and the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy require reductions in the agricultural, commercial, residential, industrial, and energy sectors. Protect Against Emissions Leakage • Free allowance allocation to minimize leakage, where supported by research. Develop GHG Reduction Programs that can be Readily Exported to Other Jurisdictions • Supports existing and future linkages, allows for larger GHG emissions reductions worldwide through collaborative regional efforts. • Provides leadership on how to integrate short-lived climate pollutants into the broader climate mitigation program. Minimize Costs and Invest in Disadvantaged and Low-Income Communities, and Low-Income Households • Continue to fund programs and projects that reduce GHGs and meaningfully benefit disadvantaged and low-income communities and low-income households through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Avoid or Minimize the Impacts of Climate Change on Public Health • Reduces GHGs and provides leadership nationally and internationally for climate action. • Provides funding for programs such as home weatherization focused on disadvantaged communities, to mitigate potential cost impacts. Compliance Flexibility • Regulated sources self-identify and implement some GHG emissions reductions actions, beyond those already required to comply with additional prescriptive measures. Support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal Climate Programs • Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program can be used to comply with the Clean Power Plan. 35 Programs for Air Quality Improvement in California For half a century, CARB has been a leader in measuring, evaluating, and reducing sources of air pollution that impact public health. Its air pollution programs have been adapted for national programs and emulated in other countries. Significant progress has been made in reducing diesel particulate matter (PM), which is a designated toxic air contaminant, and many other hazardous air pollutants. CARB partners with local air districts to address stationary source emissions and adopts and implements State-level regulations to address sources of criteria and toxic air pollution, including mobile sources. The key air quality strategies being implemented by CARB include the following: • State Implementation Plans (SIPs).72 These comprehensive plans describe how an area will attain national ambient air quality standards by deadlines established by the federal Clean Air Act. SIPs are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs, air district rules, State regulations, and federal controls designed to achieve the emissions reductions needed from mobile sources, fuels, stationary sources, and consumer products. On March 23, 2017, CARB adopted the Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the SIP, describing the commitments necessary to meet federal ozone and PM2.5 standards over the next 15 years. • Diesel Risk Reduction Plan.73 The plan, adopted by CARB in September 2000, outlined 14 recommended control measures to reduce the risks associated with diesel PM and achieve a goal of 75 percent PM reduction by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. Since 2000, CARB has adopted regulations to reduce smog-forming pollutants and diesel PM from mobile vehicles and equipment (e.g., trucks, buses, locomotives, tractors, cargo handling equipment, construction equipment, marine vessels, transport refrigeration units); stationary engines and portable equipment (e.g., emergency standby generators, prime generators, agricultural irrigation pumps, portable generators); and diesel fuels. Diesel PM accounts for approximately 60 percent of the current estimated inhalation cancer risk for background ambient air.74 CARB staff continues to work to improve implementation and enforcement efforts and examine needed amendments to increase the community health benefits of these control measures.• Sustainable Freight Action Plan.75 This joint agency strategy was developed in response to Governor’s Executive Order B-32-15 to improve freight efficiency, transition to zero emission technologies, and increase the competitiveness of California’s freight system. The transition of the freight transport system is essential to support the State’s economic development in the coming decades and reduce air pollution affecting many California communities. • AB 32 Scoping Plan.76 This comprehensive strategy is updated at least every five years and is designed to achieve the State’s climate goals, which includes measures that achieve air pollutant reduction co-benefits. • AB 1807.77 AB 1807 (Tanner, 1983) created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. CARB uses a comprehensive process to prioritize the identification of substances that pose the greatest health threat and to develop airborne toxic control measures to reduce those exposures. CARB has reduced public exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) through control of motor vehicles, fuels, consumer products, and stationary sources, including adopting control measures for 72 CARB. 2016. California State Implementation Plans. www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm73 CARB. 2000. Final Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with Appendices. www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm 74 CARB and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/rma/rmgssat.pdf 75 CARB. 2016. Sustainable Freight Transport. www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/sfti/sfti.htm 76 CARB. 2016. AB 32 Scoping Plan. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm 77 CARB. 2014. California Air Toxics Program – Background. www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/background.htm Chapter 3 e valuat Ion S 36 industrial sources (e.g., perchloroethylene in automotive products; hexavalent chromium from cooling towers, automotive coatings and plating; ethylene oxide from sterilizers and aerators; dioxins from medical waste incinerators; perchloroethylene from dry cleaners; cadmium from metal melting). • AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program.78 The Hot Spots Program supplements the AB 1807 program by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, identification of facilities having localized impacts, notification of nearby residents exposed to a significant health risk, and facility risk management plans to reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels. • AB 617 Community Air Protection Program. Together with the extension of the Cap-and-Trade Program and in recognition of ongoing air quality challenges, California has committed to expand its criteria and toxic emissions reductions efforts through the pursuit of a multipronged approach to reduce localized air pollution and address community exposure, framed by recently-signed new legislation, AB 617 (C. Garcia, 2017). AB 617 outlines actions in five core areas, to be completed in the 2018 to 2020 timeframe, to reduce criteria and toxic emissions in the most heavily impacted areas of the State: • Community-scale air monitoring. Ambient air monitoring is needed to evaluate the status of the atmosphere compared to clean air standards and historical data. Monitoring helps identify and profile air pollution sources, assess emerging measurement methods, characterize the degree and extent of air pollution, and track progress of emissions reductions activities. AB 617 requires a statewide assessment of the current air monitoring network and identification of priority locations where community-level air monitoring will be deployed. • Statewide Strategy to reduce air pollutants impacting communities. CARB will identify locations with high cumulative exposure to criteria and toxic pollutants, the sources contributing to those exposures, and select locations that will be required to develop a community action plan to reduce pollutants to acceptable levels.• Community Action Plans to reduce emissions in identified communities. High priority locations identified in the Statewide Strategy will need to prepare a community action plan that includes emissions reductions targets, measures, and an implementation timeline. The plan will be submitted to CARB for review and approval. • Accelerated retrofits and technology clearinghouse. This effort will focus on stationary source equipment at Cap-and-Trade facilities that, as of 2007, have not been retrofitted with BARCT-level emission controls for nonattainment pollutants. In addition, creation of a statewide clearinghouse that identifies BACT and BARCT technologies and emission levels for criteria pollutants and TACs will be developed to assist the air districts with the BARCT evaluation and identify available emission controls for the Statewide Strategy.• Direct reporting of facility emissions data to CARB. An improved, standardized emission inventory promotes a better understanding of actual emissions and helps identify major emission sources, priorities for emissions reduction, and data gaps requiring further work. AB 617 requires CARB to establish a uniform emission inventory system for stationary sources of criteria pollutants and TACs. Data integration and transparency-related efforts are already required by AB 197 (E. Garcia, 2016) and underway at CARB, so this new task will build on these efforts. Moreover, it is clear that better data reporting is necessary to identify localized exposure risk to harmful criteria and toxic pollutants and actions to address any localized impacts must be taken as quickly as possible. To support efforts to advance the State’s toxics program, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) finalized a new health risk assessment methodology, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, on March 6, 2015, which updates the previous version of the guidance manual and reflects advances in the field of risk assessment along with explicit consideration of infants and children.79 Subsequently, CARB, in collaboration with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), finalized a Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics for the air districts to use to incorporate OEHHA’s new health risk assessment methodology into their stationary source permitting and AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots programs.80 Together, all of these efforts will reduce criteria and toxics emissions in the State, with a focus on the most burdened communities. In particular, AB 617 responds to environmental justice concerns that the Cap-and- 78 CARB. 2016. AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. www.arb.ca.gov/ab2588/ab2588.htm 79 OEHHA. 2015. Notice of Adoption of Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments 2015. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0 80 www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/rma/rmgssat.pdf 37 Trade Program does not force large GHG emitters to reduce air pollution which results in localized health impacts. Prior to the passage of AB 617, in February 2017, OEHHA published the first in a series of reports tasked with evaluating the impacts of California’s climate change programs on disadvantaged communities. The initial report focused on the Cap-and-Trade Program.81 Future reports will focus on the impacts of other climate programs on disadvantaged communities. The report confirms disadvantaged communities are frequently located close to large stationary and mobile sources of emissions. It also notes there are complexities in trying to correlate GHGs with criteria and toxics emissions across industry and within sectors, although preliminary data review shows there may be some poor to moderate correlations in specific instances. Lastly, the report noted, “…the emissions data available at this time do not allow for a conclusive analysis.” Two additional reports were released during this same period of time: a California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) report focused on identifying equity issues for disadvantaged communities resulting from the implementation of the Cap-and-Trade Program82 and a research paper examining the question of whether the Cap-and-Trade Program is causing more GHG emissions in disadvantaged communities when compared to other regions.83 Both of these reports also confirmed that disadvantaged communities are disproportionately located close to large stationary and mobile sources of emissions. While the CEJA report noted, “Further research is needed before firm policy conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary analysis,” the research paper, in reference to GHGs, states, “By and large, the annual change in emissions across disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged communities look similar.” While the reports do not provide evidence that implementation of the Cap-and-Trade Program is contributing to increased local air pollution, they do underscore the need to use all of the tools (e.g., enhanced enforcement, new regulations, tighter permit limits) available to the State and local agencies to achieve further emissions reductions of toxic and criteria pollutants that are impacting community health. Importantly, AB 617 provides a new framework and tools for CARB, in collaboration with local air districts, to deploy focused monitoring and ensure criteria and toxics emissions reductions at the State’s largest GHG emitters. AB 197 Measure Analyses This section provides the required AB 197 estimates for the measures evaluated in this Scoping Plan. These estimates provide information on the relative impacts of the evaluated measures when compared to each other. To support the design of a suite of policies that result in GHG reductions, air quality co-benefits, and cost-effective measures, it is important to understand if a measure will increase or reduce criteria pollutants or toxic air contaminant emissions, or if increasing stringency at additional costs yields few additional GHG reductions. To this end, AB 197 (E. Garcia, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016) requires the following for each potential reduction measure evaluated in any Scoping Plan update: • The range of projected GHG emissions reductions that result from the measure. • The range of projected air pollution reductions that result from the measure. • The cost-effectiveness, including avoided social costs, of the measure. As the Scoping Plan was developed, it was important to understand if any of the proposed policies or measures would increase criteria pollutant or toxic air contaminant emissions. Note the important caveats around some of the estimates; they must be considered when using the information in the tables below for purposes other than as intended. Estimated Emissions Reductions for Evaluated Measures For many of the existing programs with known commitments, such as the Mobile Source Strategy, previous analyses provide emission factors or other methods for estimating the impacts required by AB 197. Where available, these values were used. In some cases, estimates are based on data from other sources, such as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Renewables Portfolio Standard Calculator. For newly proposed measures, assumptions were required to estimate the values. Consequently, the estimates for the newly proposed measures have substantial uncertainty. The uncertainty in the impacts of these measures would be reduced as the measures are defined in greater detail during the regulatory processes that are undertaken to 81 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/environmental-justice/report/oehhaab32report020217.pdf82 http://dornsife.usc.edu/PERE/enviro-equity-CA-cap-trade83 https://www.dropbox.com/s/se3ibxkv8t4at8g/Meng_CA_EJ.pdf?dl=1 38 define and adopt the programs. For example, as a measure is developed in detail, ways to obtain additional co-pollutant reductions or avoid co-pollutant increases may be identified and evaluated. Table 5 provides the estimates for the measures evaluated during the development of the Scoping Plan. Based on the estimates below, these measures are expected to provide air quality benefits. The table also provides important context, limitations, and caveats about the values. As shown, the table includes criteria pollutant and diesel PM estimates. As mentioned in the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, diesel PM accounts for 60 percent of the current estimated inhalation cancer risk for background ambient air. As we do not have direct modeling results for criteria and toxic pollutant estimates from PATHWAYS, we are estimating air quality benefits by using reductions in GHGs to assign similar reductions for criteria and toxic pollutants. By assigning an arbitrary 1:1 relationship in changes between GHGs and criteria and toxic pollutants, the air quality reductions likely overestimate the actual reductions from implementation of the measures. As noted in the OEHHA report, the exact relationship between GHGs and air pollutants is not clearly understood at this time. Moving forward, CARB will continue to assess the nature of the exact relationship between GHGs and criteria and toxics emissions. All estimates in Table 5 have some inherent uncertainty. The table allows for assessing measures against each other and should not be used for other purposes without understanding the limitations on the how the air quality values are derived. Table 6 provides a summary of the total estimated emissions reductions for the Scoping Plan Scenario as outlined in Table 1. Table 6 was developed by adding the estimated emissions reductions for all of the measures included within the Scoping Plan Scenario in Table 1. More detail on the estimates for the Scoping Plan Scenario, as well as the specific measures included in each of the other four alternative scenarios can be found in Appendix G. In 2030, the Scoping Plan scenario and alternatives will provide comparable GHG and air quality reductions. When there is a range, the measure or policy should be designed to maximize the benefit to the extent possible. table 5: ranges oF estimated air pollution reduCtions by poliCy or measure in 2030 Measure Range of NOX Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of VOC Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of PM2.5 Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of Diesel PM Reductions (Tons/Day) 50 percent RPS ~0.5 <0.1 ~0.4 < 0.01 Mobile Sources CTF and Freight 51–60 4.6–5.5 ~1.1 ~0.2 18 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS - Liquid Biofuels*3.5–4.4 0.5–0.6 0.4–0.6 ~0.5 Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy –––– 2x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)0.4–0.5 0.5–0.7 < 0.1 < 0.01 Cap-and-Trade Program A A A 4–9 * LCFS estimates include estimates of the NOX and PM2.5 tailpipe benefits limited to renewable diesel consumed in the off-road sector. – CARB is evaluating how to best estimate these values. Criteria and toxic values are shown in tons per day, as they are episodic emissions events with residence times of a few hours to days, unlike GHGs, which have atmospheric residence times of decades. A Due to the inherent flexibility of the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as the overlay of other complementary GHG reduction measures, the mix of compliance strategies that individual facilities may use is not known. However, based on current law and policies that control industrial and electricity generating sources of air pollution, and expected compliance responses, CARB believes that emissions increases at the statewide, regional, or local level due to the regulation are not likely. A more stringent post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program will provide an incentive for covered facilities to decrease GHG emissions and any related emissions of criteria and toxic pollutants. Please see CARB’s Co-Pollutant Emissions Assessment for a more detailed evaluation of a cap-and-trade program and associated air emissions impacts: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capv6appp.pdf NOX = nitrogen oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound Important: These estimates assume a 1:1 relationship between changes in GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminant emissions, and it is unclear whether that is ever the case. The values should not be considered estimates of absolute changes for other analytical purposes and only allow for comparison across measures in the table. The values are estimates that represent current assumptions of how programs may be implemented; actual impacts may vary depending on the design, implementation, and performance of the policies and measures. The table does not show interactions between measures, such as the relationship with increased transportation 39 electrification and associated increase in energy demand for the electricity sector. The measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario are shown in bold font in the table below. Additional details, including GHG reductions, are available in Appendix G. table 6: summary oF r anges oF estimated air pollution reduCtions For the sCoping plan sCenario in 2030 Scenario Range of NOX Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of VOC Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of PM2.5 Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of Diesel PM Reductions (Tons/Day) Scoping Plan Scenario 48–73 5.1–7.3 1.4–2.4 5–10 The total estimates for air pollution reductions provided in this table for the Scoping Plan Scenario are estimated by adding the air pollution benefits for the subset of individual measures examined in Table 5 and included in the Scoping Plan Scenario described in Table 1, and scaled by a risk adjustment factor to capture interactive effects and risks of under/over achieving on air pollution reductions. Appendix G includes details of the specific measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario and Alternatives. All caveats in Table 5 apply to air quality estimates in this table. Estimated Social Costs of Evaluated Measures Consideration of the social costs of GHG emissions is a requirement in AB 197, including evaluation of the avoided social costs for measures within this Scoping Plan.84 Social costs are generally defined as the cost of an action on people, the environment, or society and are widely used to evaluate the impact of regulatory actions. Social costs do not represent the cost of abatement or the cost of GHG reductions, rather social costs estimate the harm that is avoided by reducing GHGs. Since 2008, federal agencies have been incorporating the social costs of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the analysis of their regulatory actions. Agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Energy (DOE) are subject to Executive Order 12866, which directs agencies “to assess both the costs and benefits of the intended regulation…”.85 In 2007, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was directed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to include the social cost of carbon in a regulatory impact analysis for a vehicle fuel economy rule. The Court stated that “[w]hile the record shows that there is a range of values, the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.”86 In 2009, the Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget convened the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases87 (IWG) to develop a methodology for estimating the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2). This methodology relied on a standardized range of assumptions and could be used consistently when estimating the benefits of regulations across agencies and around the world. The IWG, comprised of scientific and economic experts, recommended the use of SC-CO2 values based on three integrated assessment models (IAMs) developed over decades of global peer-reviewed research.88 In this Scoping Plan, CARB utilizes the current IWG supported SC-CO2 values to consider the social costs of actions to reduce GHG emissions. This approach is in line with Executive Orders including 12866 and the OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003, and reflects the best available science in the estimation of the socio-economic impacts of carbon.89 CARB is aware that the current federal administration has recently withdrawn certain social cost of carbon reports as no longer representative of federal governmental policy.90 However, this determination does not call into question the validity and scientific integrity of federal social 84 AB 197 text available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB197. 85 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf 86 Center for Biological Diversity v National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 06-71891 (9th Cir, November 15 2007)87 Originally titled the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, the IWG was renamed in 2016.88 Additional technical detail on the IWG process is available in the Technical Updates of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866. Iterations of the Updates are available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf, and https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/ scc_tsd_final_clean_8_26_16.pdf. 89 OMB circular A-4 is available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/OMB%20Circular%20No.%20A-4.pdf. 90 See Presidential Executive Order, March 28, 2017, sec. 5(b). 40 cost of carbon work, or the merit of independent scientific work. Indeed, the IWG’s work remains relevant, reliable, and appropriate for use for these purposes. The IWG describes the social costs of carbon as follows: The social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) for a given year is an estimate, in dollars, of the present discounted value of the future damage caused by a 1-metric ton increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere in that year, or equivalently, the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions by the same amount in that year. The SC-CO2 is intended to provide a comprehensive measure of the net damages – that is, the monetized value of the net impacts – from global climate change that result from an additional ton of CO2. These damages include, but are not limited to, changes in net agricultural productivity, energy use, human health, property damage from increased flood risk, as well as nonmarket damages, such as the services that natural ecosystems provide to society. Many of these damages from CO2 emissions today will affect economic outcomes throughout the next several centuries.91 Table 7. presents the range of IWG SC-CO2 values used in regulatory assessments including this Scoping Plan.92 table 7: sC-Co2, 2015-2030 (in 2007 $ per metriC ton) Year 5 Percent Discount Rate 3 Percent Discount Rate 2.5 Percent Discount Rate 2015 $11 $36 $56 2020 $12 $42 $62 2025 $14 $46 $68 2030 $16 $50 $73 The SC-CO2 is year specific, that is, the IAMs estimate the environmental damages from a given year in the future and discount the value of the damages back to the present. For example, the SC-CO2 for the year 2030 represents the value of climate change damages from a release of CO2 in 2030 discounted back to today. The SC-CO2 increases over time as systems become stressed from the aggregate impacts of climate change and future emissions cause incrementally larger damages. Table 7 presents the SC-CO2 across a range of discount rates – or the value today of preventing environmental damages in the future. A higher discount rate decreases the value placed on future environmental damages. This Scoping Plan utilizes the IWG standardized range of discount rates, from 2.5 to 5 percent to represent varying valuation of future damages. The SC-CO2 is highly sensitive to the discount rate. Higher discount rates decrease the value today of future environmental damages. This Scoping Plan utilizes the IWG standardized range of discount rates, from 2.5 to 5 percent to represent varying valuation of future damages. The value today of environmental damages in 2030 is higher under the 2.5 percent discount rate compared to the 3 or 5 percent discount rate, reflecting the trade-off of consumption today and future damages. The IWG estimates the SC-CO2 across a range of discount rates that encompass a variety of assumptions regarding the correlation between climate damages and consumption of goods and is consistent with OMB’s Circular A-4 guidance.93 There is an active discussion within government and academia about the role of SC-CO2 in assessing regulations, quantifying avoided climate damages, and the values themselves. In January 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) released a report examining potential approaches for a comprehensive update to the SC-CO2 methodology to ensure resulting cost estimates reflect the best available science. The NAS review did not modify the estimated values of the SC-CO2, but evaluated the models, assumptions, handling of uncertainty, and discounting used in the estimating of the SC-CO2. The report titled, “Valuating Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,” recommends near-term improvements to the existing IWG SC-CO2 as well as a long-term strategy to more comprehensive updates.94 The State will continue to follow updates to the IWG SC-CO2, including changes 91 From The National Academies, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, 2017, available at: http://www.nap.edu/24651 92 The SC-CO2 values as of July 2015 are available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd- final-july-2015.pdf 93 The National Academies, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, 2017, available at: http://www.nap.edu/24651. 94 The National Academies, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, 2017, available at: 41 outlined in the NAS report, and incorporate appropriate peer-reviewed modifications to estimates based on the latest available data and science. It is important to note that the SC-CO2, while intended to be a comprehensive estimate of the damages caused by carbon globally, does not represent the cumulative cost of climate change and air pollution to society. There are additional costs to society outside of the SC-CO2, including costs associated with changes in co-pollutants, the social cost of other GHGs including methane and nitrous oxide, and costs that cannot be included due to modeling and data limitations. The IPCC has stated that the IWG SC-CO2 estimates are likely underestimated due to the omission of significant impacts that cannot be accurately monetized, including important physical, ecological, and economic impacts.95 CARB will continue engaging with experts to evaluate the comprehensive California-specific impacts of climate change and air pollution. The Social Cost of GHG Emissions Social costs for methane (SC-CH4) and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) have also been developed using methodology consistent with that used in estimating the IWG SC-CO2. These social costs have also been endorsed by the IWG and have been used in federal regulatory analyses.96 Along with the SC-CO2, the State also supports the use of the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O in monetizing the impacts of GHG emissions. While the SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O provide metrics to account for the social costs of climate change, California will continue to analyze ways to more comprehensively identify the costs of climate change and air pollution to all Californians. This will include following updates to the IWG methodology and social costs of GHGs and incorporating the SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O into regulatory analyses. Table 9 presents the estimated social cost for each policy or measure considered in the development of the Scoping Plan in 2030. For each measure or policy, Table 9 includes the range of the IWG SC-CO2 values that result from the anticipated range of GHG reductions in 2030 presented in Appendix G. The SC-CO2 range is obtained using the IWG SC-CO2 values in 2030 at the 2.5, 3, and 5 percent discount rates. These values (of $16 using the 5 percent discount rate, $50 using the 3 percent discount rate, and $73 using the 2.5 percent discount rate) are translated into 2015 dollars and multiplied across the range of estimated reductions by measure in 2030 to estimate the value of avoided social costs from each measure in that year.97 Implementation of the SLCP Strategy will result in reduction of a variety of GHGs, including methane and HFCs, which reported in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). While there is no social cost of CO2e, the avoided damages associated with the methane reductions outlined in the SLCP Strategy are estimated in Table 9 using the IWG SC-CH4 as presented in Table 8.98 table 8: sC-Ch4, 2015-2030 (in 2007$ per metriC ton) Year 5 Percent Discount Rate 3 Percent Discount Rate 2.5 Percent Discount Rate 2015 $450 $1000 $1400 2020 $540 $1200 $1600 2025 $650 $1400 $1800 2030 $760 $1600 $2000 The range of SC-CH4 is obtained using the IWG SC-CH4 values in 2030 at the 2.5, 3, and 5 percent discount rates. The SC-CH4 values (e.g., $760 using the 5 percent discount rate, $1,600 using the 3 percent discount rate, and $2,000 using the 2.5 percent discount rate) are translated into 2015 dollars and multiplied across the range of estimated methane reductions in 2030 to estimate the value of climate benefits from the SLCP http://www.nap.edu/24651 95 https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-5-3-3.html96 More information is available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_ n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf 97 The IWG.SC-CO2 values are in 2007 dollars. In 2015 dollars, $16, $50, and $73 in 2007 translates to about $18, $57, and $83, respectively, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics GDP Series Table 1.1.4.98 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf 42 Strategy.99 As the social cost associated with the SLCP Strategy does not include the impact associated with non-methane reductions, Table 9 underestimates the avoided social costs of this Scoping Plan as calculated using the IWG valuations. As this Scoping Plan is a suite of policies developed to reduce GHGs to a specific level in 2030, any alternative scenario that also achieves the 2030 target (with the same proportion of carbon dioxide and methane reductions) will have the same avoided social cost, as estimated using the IWG social cost of GHGs, for the single year 2030. The social costs of alternatives could vary if the 2030 target is achieved with vastly different ratios of carbon dioxide to methane reductions. However, all alternatives in this Scoping Plan are anticipated to achieve the same proportion of carbon dioxide and methane reductions and will therefore all have the same estimated avoided social damage or social cost. This social cost, as estimated in 2030 using the IWG SC-CO2 and SC-CH4, ranges from $1.9 to $11.2 billion using the 2.5 to 5 percent discount rates, and is estimated at $5.0 to $7.8 billion using the 3 percent discount rate. For example, in Table 9 the CH4 reductions for the SCLP strategy are about 1 MMTCH4. That value is multiplied by the 2030 SC-CH4 values in Table 8 for the 2030 values at the 2.5 and 5 percent discount rates to get a range of $860 to $2,260 in 2015 dollars. 99 The IWG.SC-CH4 values are in 2007 dollars. In 2015 dollars, the range of SC-CH4 translates to about $858, $1,807, and $2,259, for the 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount rates, respectively. These values are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics GDP Series Table 1.1.4. 43 table 9: estimated soCial Cost (avoided eConomiC damages) oF poliCies or measures Considered in the 2017 sCoping plan development# Measure (Measures in bold are included in the Scoping Plan)Range of Social Cost of Carbon $ million USD (2015 dollars)** 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)$55–$250 Mobile Sources CTF and Freight $200–$1,080 18 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS -Liquid Biofuels $70–$330 Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy $860-$2,260 (SC-CH4) 2x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR $125–$750 Cap-and-Trade Program $610–$6,560 10 percent incremental RPS and additional 10 GW behind-the-meter solar PV*$250–$1,160 25 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS and a Low-Emission Diesel Standard - Liquid Biofuels*$90–$415 20 percent Refinery $55–$500 30 percent Refinery $20–$250 25 percent Industry $20–$415 25 percent Oil and Gas $35–$330 5 percent Increased Utilization of RNG (core and non-core)$35–$165 Mobile Source Strategy (CTF) with Increased ZEVs in South Coast and early retirement of LDVs with more efficient LDVs*$55–$500 2.5x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR, electrification of buildings (heat pumps and res. electric stoves) and early retirement of HVAC*$70–$580 Carbon Tax $775–$8,300 All Cap-and-Trade $700–$6,890 Cap-and-Tax $775–$8,300 Scoping Plan Scenario SC-CO2Scoping Plan Scenario SC-CH4Scoping Plan Scenario (Total) $1,060–$8,970 $860–$2,260 $1,920–$11,230 Note: All values are rounded. The values for SC-CO2 and SC-CH4 in 2030 are presented in Tables 7 and 8. * Where enhancements have been made to a measure or policy, the ranges in emissions reductions are incremental to the original measure. For example, the ranges for the 25 percent LCFS are incremental to the emissions ranges for the 18 percent LCFS. # Measures included in the Scoping Plan and the All Cap-and-Trade measure reflect emissions reductions from modeling changes after passage of AB 398. Emissions reductions from all other measures reflect modeling completed prior to passage of AB 398. See Appendix G for additional details. ** All values have been rounded to the nearest 0 or 5. ~ Some measures do not show a significant change in 2030 when there is an incremental increase in measure stringency or when modeling uncertainty was factored. 44 Social Costs of GHGs in Relation to Cost-Effectiveness AB 32 includes a requirement that “rules and regulations achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions.”100 Under AB 32, cost-effectiveness means the relative cost per metric ton of various GHG reduction strategies, which is the traditional cost metric associated with emission control. In contrast, the SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O are estimates of the economic benefits, and not the cost of reducing GHG emissions. There may be technologies or policies that do not appear to be cost-effective when compared to the SC- CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O associated with GHG reductions. However, these technologies or policies may result in other benefits that are not reflected in the IWG social costs. For instance, the evaluation of social costs might include health impacts due to changes in local air pollution that result from reductions in GHGs, diversification of the portfolio of transportation fuels (a goal outlined in the LCFS) and reductions in criteria pollutant emissions from power plants (as in the RPS). Estimated Cost Per Metric Ton by Measure AB 197 also requires an estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the potential measures evaluated for the Scoping Plan. The values provided in Table 10 are estimates of the cost per metric ton of estimated reductions for each measure in 2030. To capture the fuel and GHG impacts of investments made from 2021 through 2030 to meet the 2030 GHG goal, the table also includes an evaluation of the cost per metric ton based on the cumulative GHG emissions reductions and cumulative costs or savings for each potential measure from 2021 through 2030. While it is important to understand the relative cost effectiveness of measures, the economic analysis presented in Appendix E provides a more comprehensive analysis of how the Scoping Plan and alternative scenarios affect the State’s economy and jobs. The cost (or savings) per metric ton of CO2e reduced for each of the measures is one metric for comparing the performance of the measures. Additional factors beyond the cost per metric ton that could be considered include continuity with existing laws and policies, implementation feasibility, contribution to fuel diversity and technology transformation goals, as well as health and other benefits to California. These considerations are not reflected in the cost per ton metric below. Because many of the measures interact with each other, isolating the cost and GHG savings of an individual measures is analytically challenging. For example, the performance of the renewable electricity measure impacts the GHG savings and cost per ton associated with increasing the use of electric vehicles. Likewise, the increased use of electric vehicles may increase flexible loads on the electric system, enabling increased levels of renewable electricity to be achieved more cost effectively. Both the renewable electricity measure and the increased use of electric vehicles affect the cost of meeting the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. For most of the measures shown in Table 10, the 2030 cost per metric ton is isolated from the other measures by performing a series of sensitivity model runs in the California PATHWAYS model. This cost per metric ton is calculated as the difference in the 2030 annualized cost (or savings) with and without the measure. For the measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario, the analysis starts with the Scoping Plan Scenario PATHWAYS estimates, and then costs and emissions are recalculated with each measure removed individually. For measures included in the No Cap-and-Trade Scenario, the approach starts with the No Cap-and-Trade Scenario PATHWAYS estimates and then each measure is removed. Using this approach, the incremental impact on GHG emissions and costs for each measure is calculated. The incremental cost in 2030 is divided by the incremental GHG emission impact to calculate the cost per ton in 2030. The same approach of removing each measure individually is used to estimate the incremental cost and emission impacts of each measure for the period 2021 to 2030. For each measure, its annual incremental costs from 2021 to 2030 are calculated and then discounted to 2021 using the discount rate used in PATHWAYS to levelize capital costs over the life of equipment. As a result, the discounted incremental cost of each measure is the total investment required from 2021 to 2030 to achieve each measure’s emissions reductions from 2021 to 2030 (including both incremental capital costs and incremental fuel savings/ expenditures). This discounted cost for each measure was divided by its cumulative emissions reductions from 2021 to 2030 to calculate a cost per ton for the measure for the period. A second calculation was also made that divides each measure’s discounted cost by its discounted emissions reductions from 2021 to 2030. The 100 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.pdf 45 same discount rate is used to discount both incremental costs and emissions in this approach. The estimates are presented in the table below. Costs that represent transfers within the state, such as incentive payments for early retirement of equipment, are not included in this California total cost metric. The cost ranges shown below represent some of the uncertainty inherent in estimating this metric. The details of how the ranges for each measure were estimated are described in the footnotes below. All cost estimates have been rounded representing further uncertainty in individual values. It is important to note that this cost per metric ton does not represent an expected market price value for carbon mitigation associated with these measures. In addition, the single year (2030) values and the estimates that encompass 2021 to 2030 do not capture the fuel savings or GHG reductions associated with the full economic lifetime of measures that have been implemented by 2030, but whose impacts extend beyond 2030. The estimates also do not capture the climate or health benefits of the GHG mitigation measures. Table 10 also notes the measures for which sources other than the PATHWAYS model were used to develop estimates of the cost per metric ton. The estimates in the table indicate that the relative cost of the measures is reasonably consistent across the different measures of cost per metric ton. Measures that are relatively less costly using the 2030 cost per metric ton are also less costly using the cost per metric ton based on the period 2021 to 2030. However, for several measures the sign of the estimate differs, such that in 2030 the measure has a positive cost while there is a negative cost for the period 2021 to 2030. This difference in sign occurs because the measure includes increasingly costly investments toward the end of the period examined. By examining only 2030, the lower cost components of the measure that occur in earlier years are omitted, resulting in a higher cost estimate for 2030 alone. 46 table 10: estimated Cost per metriC ton oF measures Considered in the 2017 sCoping plan development and averaged From 2021 through 2030 Important: As individual measures are designed and implemented they will be subject to further evaluation and refinement and public review, which may result in different findings than presented below. The ranges are estimates that represent current assumptions of how programs may be implemented and may vary greatly depending on the design, implementation, and performance of the policies and measures. Measures in bold text are included in the Scoping Plan. Measure Cost/metric ton in 2030* Cost/metric ton 2021-2030** 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) a $175 $100 to $200 Mobile Sources CFT and Freight b <$50 <$50 Liquid Biofuels (18 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS) c $150 $100 to $200 Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy d $25 $25 2x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR f -$350 -$300 to -$200 10 percent incremental RPS and additional 10 GW behind-the-meter solar PV a $350 $250 to $450 Liquid Biofuels (25 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS and a Low-Emission Diesel Standard) b $900 $550 to $975 20 percent Refinery d $100 $50 to $100 30 percent Refinery d $300 $175 to $325 25 percent Industry d $200 $150 to $275 25 percent Oil and Gas d $125 $100 to $175 5 percent Increased Utilization of renewable natural gas - core and non-core e $1500 $1350 to $3000 Mobile Source Strategy (CFT) with Increased ZEVs in South Coast & additional reductions in VMT and energy demand & early retirement of LDVs with more efficient LDVs b $100 <$50 2.5x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR, electrification of buildings (heat pumps & res. electric stoves) and early retirement of HVAC f $75 -$120 to -$70 * Where enhancements have been made to a measure or policy, the cost per metric ton are incremental to the original measure. For example, the cost per metric ton for the 25 percent LCFS are incremental to the cost per metric ton for the 18 percent LCFS. ** The lower values use a cost discount rate of 10 percent and cumulative emissions for the period 2021 to 2030. The higher values discount both costs and emissions using a discount rate of 10 percent. a Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. b Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. c Liquid biofuel values are calculated as the average unsubsidized cost of biofuels supplied above that of an equivalent volume of fossil fuels. These values do not reflect impacts from other biofuel policies, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard or production tax credits, that are partially supported by fuel purchasers/taxpayers outside of California. Therefore, these values do not represent LCFS program costs or potential LCFS credit prices. d See Appendix D e Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. f Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. The cost per metric ton does not represent the results of the CPUC’s or CEC’s standard cost-effectiveness evaluation tests 47 Health Analyses Climate mitigation will result in both environmental and health benefits. This section presents information about the potential health benefits of the Scoping Plan. The impacts are primarily from reduced particulate matter pollution, reduced toxics pollution (both diesel combustion particles and other toxic pollutants), and the health benefits of increased physical activity that will result from more active modes of transportation such as walking and biking in lieu of driving. CARB is using the AB 197 air quality estimates in Table 5 as a proxy to understand the potential health impacts from the Scoping Plan. There is uncertainty in the air quality estimates and that is carried through to the health impacts evaluation presented here. In the future, CARB will be working to explore how to better integrate health analysis and health considerations in the design and implementation of climate programs. Because the health endpoints of each of these benefits is different (e.g., fewer incidences of premature mortality, lower cancer risk, and fewer incidences of heart disease), the methodologies for estimating the benefits differ. Further, the methodologies are statistical estimates of adverse health outcomes aggregated to the statewide level. Therefore, this information should only be used to understand the relative health benefits of the various strategies and should not be taken as an absolute estimate of the health outcomes of the Scoping Plan statewide, or within a specific community. The latter is a function of the unique exposure to air pollutants within each community and each individual’s choice of more active transport modes that increase physical activity. The estimates of health benefits in this section do not include any potential avoided adverse health impacts associated with a reduction in global climate change. While we recognize that mitigating climate change will, for example, prevent atmospheric temperature rise, thereby preventing increases in ozone in California, which will result in fewer breathing problems, the connection is difficult to estimate or model. Since it takes collective global action to mitigate climate change, the following analyses do not attempt to quantify the improved health outcomes from reducing or stopping the rise in global temperatures. The estimated statewide health benefits of the Scoping Plan are dominated by reductions in particulate matter from mobile sources and wood burning and a switch to more active transport modes. In particular, the focus on the impacts of exposure to particulate matter from mobile sources is expected because this is a major cause of air pollution statewide. For this reason, the actions concerning mobile sources in the Scoping Plan were specifically developed with the goal of achieving health-based air quality standards by reducing criteria and toxics emissions as well as GHG emissions simultaneously. In addition, actions that support walkable communities not only result in reduced VMT and related GHG emissions, but promote active transport and increased physical activity that is strongly related to improved health. Table 11 provides a summary of the total estimated health benefits from the relevant metrics for the Scoping Plan. The sections below summarize the methodologies used to estimate these benefits. More detail on how these estimates were calculated can be found in Appendix G. The air pollutant values used in estimating the health impacts are from Table 5 and all caveats in the estimation of the air quality impacts must be considered when reviewing the health impacts discussed below as the air pollutant values are likely overestimates based on assigned relationships to GHGs that may not be real. Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Particulate Matter Air Pollution CARB relied on an U.S. EPA-approved methodology to estimate the health impacts of reducing air pollution by actions in the Scoping Plan. This methodology relies on an incidents-per-ton factor to quantify the health benefits of directly emitted (diesel particles and wood smoke) and secondary PM2.5 formed from oxides of nitrogen from reductions due to regulatory controls. It is similar in concept to the methodology developed by the U.S. EPA for comparable estimations101, but uses California air basin specific relationships between emissions and air quality. The basis of the methodology is an approximately linear relationship between changes in PM2.5 emissions and estimated changes in health outcomes. In this methodology, the number of premature deaths is estimated by multiplying emissions by the incidents-per-ton scaling factor. The factors are derived from studies that correlate the number of incidents (premature deaths, hospitalizations, emergency room visits) associated with exposure to PM2.5. 101 Fann, N., Fulcher, C.M, & Hubbell, B.J. (2009) The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. (2009)Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2(3), 169–176 48 Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Toxic Air Pollution A number of factors complicate any attempt to evaluate the health benefits of reducing exposure to toxic air pollution. First, there are hundreds of individual chemicals of concern with widely varying health effects and potencies. Therefore, a single metric is of limited value in capturing the range of potential toxics benefits. Furthermore, unlike the criteria pollutants whose impacts are generally measured on regional scales, toxics pose concern for both near-source impacts and larger-scale photochemical transformations and transport. Finally, the accepted scientific understanding for cancer risk is that there is usually no safe threshold for exposures to carcinogens. Therefore, cancer risks are usually expressed as “chances per million” of contracting cancer over a (70-year) lifetime exposure (in Table 11 lifetime exposure is provided in the far right column). In light of these complexities, CARB relied on the most recent National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) conducted by the U.S. EPA.102 The NATA 2011 models the potential risks from breathing emissions of approximately 180 toxic air pollutants across the country. Modeled cancer risk results are available by census tract. The NATA data cover industrial facilities, mobile sources (on-road and off-road), small area- wide sources, and more. CARB multiplied the NATA “cancer risk-per-million” values by census tract by the census tract’s population, in order to estimate a population-weighted metric that could be aggregated to the statewide level. This statistic should not be construed as actual real-world cancers (due to the many uncertainties in estimating the real-world levels of risk). Next, CARB applied the percent reductions in emissions due to Scoping Plan actions, in order to obtain an estimate of the “avoided incidence” of statistical lifetime cancers attributable to implementation of the Scoping Plan. Again, the “avoided incidence” is a construct designed to provide a useful statistical metric for comparative purposes among scenarios. It should not be construed to be a real-world parameter. Potential Health Impacts of Active Transportation High levels of active transportation have been linked to improved health and reduced premature mortality by increasing daily physical activity, representing a major direct co-benefit of using active transportation as a strategy to reduce GHG emissions. The benefits of physical activity can be very large. Individuals who are active for approximately 12 minutes a day have a 20 percent lower risk of dying early than those who are active for just 5 minutes a day and those who are active an hour a day, have close to a 40 percent lower risk of premature death.103 The Scoping Plan includes reductions in VMT, which can be achieved in a number of ways, including increased active transportation. To estimate the potential health benefits of active transport, CARB staff reviewed work done by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) concerning the potential health benefits associated with the Caltrans Strategic Management Plan. In this Management Plan, Caltrans set a target for increasing the adoption of active transportation, aiming for a doubling of walking and a tripling of bicycle trips by 2020 compared to 2010. While this plan itself is not part of the Scoping Plan, it helps provide a sense of the magnitude of health benefits associated with increased active transportation. CDPH performed a risk assessment to compare the number of premature deaths due to physical inactivity and traffic injuries in the baseline year of 2010 to the year 2020, assuming that Caltrans’ walking and bicycling mode share targets were met.104 CPDH’s methodology has been documented in a publicly available technical manual105 and the model has appeared in many peer-reviewed research articles.106 It has been in development 102 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011), National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 2011, https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-assessment-results 103 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008) Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, Washington, DC104 Maizlish, N. (2016a) Increasing Walking, Cycling, and Transit: Improving Californians’ Health, Saving costs, and Reducing Greenhouse Gases. Office of Health Equity, California Department of Public Health. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Maizlish-2016-Increasing-Walking-Cycling- Transit-Technical-Report-rev8-17-ADA.pdf105 Maizlish, N. (2016b) Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model (ITHIM): A Guide to Operation, Calibration and Integration with Travel Demand Models. California Spreadsheet Version December 12, 2016.106 Gotschi, T., Tainio, M., Maizlish, N., Schwanen, T., Goodman, A., & Woodcock, J. (2015). Contrasts in active transport behaviour across four countries: how do they translate into public health benefits? Preventative Medicine, 74, 42-48. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.02.009 Maizlish, N., Woodcock, J., Co, S., Ostro, B., Fanai, A., & Fairley, D. (2013). Health cobenefits and transportation-related reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay area. American journal of public health, 103(4), 703-709. doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.300939 Whitfield, G. P., Meehan, L. A., Maizlish, N., & Wendel, A. M. (2016). The Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modeling 49 since 2009, and a California-specific version was released with a recent update in November 2016.107 CDPH estimated that 2,100 premature deaths annually would be avoided if Californians met the Management Plan’s 2020 targets were met by Californians compared to 2010 travel patterns. A recent paper by Dr. Maizlish et al108 quantified the health co-benefits of the preferred Sustainable Communities Strategies scenarios (compared to the 2010 baseline travel pattern) for the major Metropolitan Planning Organizations using the same methodology and found that 940 deaths annually would be avoided. For both analyses, there were significant reductions in cause-specific premature mortality due to increased physical activity, which was slightly counteracted by a much smaller increase in fatal traffic injuries due to the increased walking and bicycling. When taken together, the health benefit of increasing active transportation greatly outweighed the increased mortality from road traffic collisions. The Scoping Plan goals related to active transportation are more aggressive than those in both the Maizlish et al. 2017 publication and the analysis by CDPH for the Management Plan. Therefore, CARB staff used the CDPH estimate of approximately 2,100 fewer premature deaths from the Management Plan as a lower bound of what could be realized through implementation of the VMT reductions and active transport goals called for in the Scoping Plan Scenario. table 11: summary oF r anges oF estimated health impaC ts For the sCoping plan sCenario in 2030 Fewer Premature Deaths Fewer Hospitalizations (all) Fewer ER visits Fewer cancers * Diesel PM ~60-91 ~9-14 ~25-38 Secondary PM ~76-120 ~11-17 ~33-50 Toxics ~21-61 Wood smoke ~1000 ~ 148 ~ 418 Active Transport**>2100 Total ~3300 ~180 ~500 ~21-61 * This metric should not be construed as actual real-world cancer cases. It is intended to be a comparative metric, based on the NATA estimates of lifetime cancer risk (chances-per-million over a 70 year life-time exposure) by census tract multiplied by the tract population. ** Reduction in premature death assumes meeting the CSMP 2020 mode shift target. Note: The numbers in the table represent individual avoided incidences. Tool in Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Implementation Steps and Lessons Learned. Journal of transport & health, 3. doi:10.1016/j. jth.2016.06.009 Woodcock, J. (2015). Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM). Retrieved from http://www.cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/research/modelling/ithim/ Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Tonne, C., Armstrong, B. G., Ashiru, O., Banister, D., & Roberts, I. (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet, 374(9705), 1930-1943. doi:10.1016/s0140- 6736(09)61714-1 Woodcock, J., Givoni, M., & Morgan, A. S. (2013). Health impact modelling of active travel visions for England and Wales using an Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM). PLoS One, 8(1), e51462. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051462 Woodcock, J., Tainio, M., Cheshire, J., O’Brien, O., & Goodman, A. (2014). Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 348, g425. doi:10.1136/bmj.g425107 Woodcock, J. Maizlish, N. (2016). ITHIM: Integrated Transport & Health Impact Modelling, California Version, November 11, 2016. Original citation: Woodcock J, Givoni M, Morgan AS. Health Impact Modelling of Active Travel Visions for England and Wales Using an Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM). PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51462.108 Maizlish N, Linesch N,& Woodcock J.(2017) Health and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of ambitious expansion of cycling, walking, and transit in California. Journal of Transport and Health. ; doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2017.04.011 50 Future Health Activities As Table 11 shows, the Scoping Plan measures would have significant potential positive health outcomes. The integrated nature of the strategies to reduce emissions of GHGs and criteria and toxics emissions could provide multiple benefits. Actions to reduce black carbon from wood smoke are reducing the same particles that lead to premature mortality. Reductions in fossil combustion will not only reduce GHG emissions, but also toxics emissions. Finally, reducing VMT with strategies that provide opportunities for people to switch to active transport modes can have very large health benefits resulting from increased physical activity. In recognition of the potential for significant positive health benefits of the Scoping Plan, CARB is initiating a process to better understand how to integrate health analysis broadly into the design and implementation of our climate change programs with the goal of maximizing the health benefits. Although health impact assessments have been used to inform CARB’s policymaking, these analyses have not been consistently integrated into the general up-front design of CARB programs. To begin the effort to increase health benefits from climate change mitigation policies, CARB will convene a public meeting in Spring 2018 to solicit input on how best to incorporate health analyses into our policy development. CARB staff will seek appropriate tools for these analyses and will assemble a team of academic advisors to provide input on the latest developments in methods and data sources. Economic Analyses The following section outlines the economic impact of the Scoping Plan relative to the business-as-usual Reference Scenario. Additional detail on the economic analysis, including modeling details and the estimated economic impact of alternative scenarios is presented in Appendix E. The Scoping Plan outlines a path to achieve the SB 32 target that requires less reliance on fossil fuels and increased investment in low carbon fuels and clean energy technologies. Through this shift, California can lead the world in developing the technologies needed to reduce the global risks of climate change. This builds on California’s current successes of reducing GHG emissions while also developing a cleaner, resilient economy that uses less energy and generates less pollution. Innovation in low-carbon technologies will continue to open growth opportunities for investors and businesses in California. As modeled, the analysis in this Scoping Plan suggests that the costs of transitioning to this lower carbon economy are small, even without counting the potential opportunities for new industries and innovation in California. Under the Scoping Plan, the California economy, employment, and personal income will continue to grow as California businesses and consumers make clean energy investments and improve efficiency and productivity to reduce energy costs. In 2030, the California economy is projected to grow to $3.4 trillion, an average growth rate of 2.2 percent per year from 2021 to 2030. It is not anticipated that implementation of the Scoping Plan will change the growth of annual State Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Further, this growth in GDP will occur under the entire projected range of Cap-and-Trade Program allowance prices. Based on this analysis, in 2030 the California economy will take only three months longer to grow to the GDP estimated in the absence of the Scoping Plan–referred to as the Reference Scenario. The impact of the Scoping Plan on job growth is also negligible, with employment less than one half of one percent smaller in 2030 compared to the Reference Scenario. Additionally, reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels under the Scoping Plan will lead to avoided social damages from climate change on the order of $1.9 to $11.2 billion, as estimated using the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4, as well as additional potential savings from reductions in air pollution and petroleum dependence. These impacts are not accounted for in this economic analysis. The estimated impact to California households is also modest in 2030. In 2030, the average annual household impact of the Scoping Plan ranges from $115 to $280, depending on the price of reductions under the Cap-and-Trade Program.109 Estimated personal income in California is also relatively unchanged by the implementation of the Scoping Plan. 109 Household projections are obtained from the California Department of Finance and were access on March 16, 2017 at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/. 51 Overview of Economic Modeling Two models are used to estimate the economic impact of the Scoping Plan and California’s continued clean energy transition: (1) the California PATHWAYS model, and (2) the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight Plus model. The California PATHWAYS model estimates the direct costs and GHG emissions reductions of implementing the prescriptive (or non-Cap-and-Trade) measures in the Scoping Plan relative to the BAU scenario.110 Direct costs are the sum of the incremental changes in capital expenditures and fuel expenditures, including fuel savings for reduced energy use from efficiency measures. In most cases, reducing GHG emissions requires the use of more expensive equipment that can be operated using less fuel. In the Scoping Plan, the prescriptive measures modeled in PATHWAYS account for a portion of the GHG reductions required to meet the 2030 target. The remaining reductions are delivered through the Cap-and-Trade Program. The direct costs associated with the Cap-and-Trade Program are calculated outside of PATHWAYS based on an assumed range of Cap-and-Trade allowance prices from 2021 through 2030. To estimate the future costs of the Scoping Plan, this economic analysis necessarily creates a hypothetical future California that is essentially identical to today, adjusted for currently existing climate policy as well as projected economic and population growth through 2030. The analysis cannot predict the types of innovation that will create efficiencies nor can it fully account for the significant economic benefits associated with reducing emissions. Rather, the economic modeling is conducted by estimating incremental capital and clean fuel costs of measures and assigning those costs to certain sectors within this hypothetical future. The macroeconomic impacts of the Scoping Plan on the California economy are modeled using the REMI model with output from California PATHWAYS and estimated Cap-and-Trade Program costs as inputs. Additional methodological detail is presented in Appendix E.111 Estimated Cost of Prescriptive Measures As described above, the Scoping Plan combines new measures addressing legislative mandates and the extension of existing measures, including a comprehensive cap on overall GHG emissions from the State’s largest sources of pollution. The PATHWAYS model calculates costs and GHG emissions reductions associated with the prescriptive measures in the Scoping Plan. Changes in energy use and capital investment are calculated in PATHWAYS and represent the estimated cost of achieving an estimated 50 to 70 percent of the cumulative GHG reductions required to reach the SB 32 target between 2021 and 2030. The Cap-and- Trade Program delivers any remaining reductions, as shown in Figure 8. Table 12 outlines the cost of prescriptive measures by sector in 2030, compared to the Reference Scenario, as calculated in PATHWAYS. Estimated capital costs of equipment are levelized over the life of the equipment using a 10 percent discount rate and fuel costs are calculated on an annual basis.112 The costs in Table 12 are disaggregated into capital costs and fuel costs, which includes the varying costs of gasoline, diesel, biofuels, natural gas, electricity and other fuels.113 Table 12 assumes that all prescriptive measures deliver anticipated GHG reductions, and does not include any uncertainty in GHG reductions or cost.114 The impact of uncertainty in GHG reductions is explored in more detail in Appendices E, which include additional detail on measure, cost, and Reference Scenario uncertainty. The prescriptive measures result in incremental capital investments of $6.7 billion per year in 2030, but these annual capital costs are nearly offset by annual fuel savings of $6.6 billion in 2030. The incremental net cost of prescriptive measures in the Scoping Plan is estimated at $100 million in 2030, which represents 0.03 percent of the projected California economy in 2030. The residential and transportation sectors are anticipated to see net savings in 2030 as fuel savings for these areas vastly outweigh annual capital investment. Several sectors will see a net cost increase from implementation of the prescriptive measures. The industrial sector sees higher fuel costs relative to the Reference Scenario. In the agriculture sector, capital expenditures are due to investments in more efficient lighting and the mitigation of agricultural methane and nitrogen oxides. Agricultural fuel costs increase due to higher electricity and liquid biofuel costs. 110 The PATHWAYS modeling is described in Chapter 2, and additional detail is presented in Appendix D. 111 Additional modeling details are available at the REMI PI+ webpage: http://www.remi.com/products/pi.112 PATHWAYS costs are calculated in real $2012. For this analysis, all costs are reported in $2015. The PATHWAYS costs are inflated using Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data available at: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable. cfm?ReqID=9#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1&903=4.113 Additional information on the fuels included in PATHWAYS is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/1142016/ e3pathways.pdf.114 More information on the inputs to the California PATHWAYS model is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_ scenario_description2016-12-01.pdf. 52 table 12: Change in pathways seCtor Costs in 2030 relative to the reFerenCe sCenario (billion $2015)115 End Use Sector116 Levelized Capital Cost Fuel Cost Total Annual Cost Residential $0.1 -$1.2 -$1.1 Commercial $1.8 -$1.8 $0.1 Transportation $3.5 -$3.8 -$0.3 Industrial $0.8 $0.3 $0.5 Oil and Gas Extraction $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 Petroleum Refining $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Agriculture $0.3 $0.2 $0.5 TCU (Transportation Communications and Utilities) $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 Total $6.7 -$6.6 $0.1 Note: Table values may not add due to rounding. Estimated Cost of the Cap-and-Trade Program The direct cost of achieving GHG reductions through the Cap-and-Trade Program is estimated outside of PATHWAYS. The Cap-and-Trade Program sets an economy-wide GHG emissions cap and gives firms the flexibility to choose the lowest-cost approach to reduce emissions. As with the prescriptive measures, the direct costs of any single specific GHG reduction activity under the Cap-and-Trade Program is subject to a large degree of uncertainty. However, as Cap-and-Trade allows covered entities to pursue the reduction options that emerge as the most efficient, overall abatement costs can be bounded by the allowance price. Covered entities should pursue reduction actions with costs less than or equal to the allowance price. An upper bound on the compliance costs under the Cap-and-Trade Program can therefore be estimated by multiplying the range of anticipated allowance prices by the anticipated GHG reductions needed (in conjunction with the reductions achieved through the prescriptive measures) to achieve the SB 32 target. A large number of factors influence the allowance price, including the ease of substituting lower carbon production methods, consumer price response, the pace of technological progress, and impacts to the price of fuel. Other policy factors that also affect the allowance price include the use of auction proceeds from the sale of State-owned allowances and linkage with other jurisdictions. Flexibility allows the Cap-and-Trade allowance price to adjust to changes in supply and demand while a firm cap ensures GHG reductions are achieved. This analysis includes a range of allowance prices bounded at the low end by the Cap-and-Trade auction floor price (C+T Floor Price) which represents the minimum sales price for allowances sold at auction and the Allowance Price Containment Reserve Price (C+T Reserve Price), which represents the price at which an additional pool of allowances will be made available to ensure entities can comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program and is the highest anticipated price under the Program. Table 13 outlines the projected allowance prices used in this analysis.117 115 PATHWAYS costs reported in $2012 are inflated to $2015 using the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data available at: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1&903=4.116 Information on the end use sectors are available in the California PATHWAYS documentation available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.117 The Cap-and-Trade allowance price range is based on the Cap-and-Trade Regulation approved by the Office of Administrative 53 table 13: estimated r ange oF Cap-and-trade allowanCe priCe 2021–2030* ($2015)2021 2025 2030 C+T Floor Price $16.2 $19.7 $25.2 C+T Reserve Price $72.9 $76.4 $81.9 * Based on current regulation in effect October 1, 2017 Uncertainty in the GHG reduction potential of prescriptive measures in the Scoping Plan can affect the cost of achieving the 2030 target. The aggregate emissions cap of the Cap-and-Trade Program ensures that the 2030 target will be met–irrespective of the GHG emissions realized through prescriptive measures. If GHG reductions anticipated under prescriptive measures do not materialize, the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for a larger share of emissions reductions. Under that scenario, the demand for Cap-and-Trade allowances may rise, resulting in an increase in allowance price. While the Cap-and-Trade allowance price may rise, it is highly unlikely that it will rise above the C+T Reserve price, given the program design. If prescriptive measures deliver anticipated GHG reductions, demand for allowances will be low, depressing the price of allowances. However, the C+T Floor Price represents the lowest price at which allowances can be sold at auction. Table 14 presents the estimated direct cost estimates for GHG reductions achieved through the Cap-and- Trade Program in 2030. These costs represent the lower and upper bounds of the cost of reducing GHG emissions to achieve the SB 32 target under the Scoping Plan. The estimated direct costs range from $1.6 to $5.1 billion dollars (in $2015), depending on the allowance price in 2030. This range highlights the allowance price uncertainty that is a trade-off to the GHG reduction certainty provided by the Cap-and-Trade Program. The estimated cost of GHG reductions is calculated by multiplying the allowance price by the GHG emissions reductions required to achieve the SB 32 target. Sensitivity Analysis In addition to uncertainty in the Cap-and-Trade allowance price and uncertainty in the GHG reductions achieved through the prescriptive measures, there is uncertainty in the GHG emissions that will occur under the Reference Scenario, as presented in Figure 6. There is also uncertainty in costs embedded within the Reference Scenario including the price of oil, other energy costs, and technology costs. The PATHWAYS incremental cost results are also sensitive to the fossil fuel price assumptions. Altering the fuel price trajectory in the Reference Scenario directly impacts the incremental cost of achieving GHG reductions in the Scoping Plan, as the costs of the Scoping Plan are relative to the Reference Scenario.118 The PATHWAYS scenarios use fossil fuel price projections from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015 reference case.119 To estimate the impact of changes in future fuel prices on the estimated incremental cost of the Scoping Plan two sensitivities were conducted. In the low fuel price sensitivity, the AEO low oil and natural gas price case is used to project the future cost of fuels in the Reference Scenario. The cost of the Scoping Plan, relative to the Reference Scenario, increases under these conditions, since fuel savings are less valuable when fuel prices are low. A second sensitivity shows that high future oil and natural gas prices (as projected in the AEO high oil price case) reduce the net cost of the Scoping Plan, relative to the Reference Scenario. This is because avoided fuel savings are more valuable when fuel prices are high. Table 14 outlines the costs and savings from the Scoping Plan (both prescriptive measures and cap-and-trade) under the high and low fuel price sensitivities. The price of oil and natural gas affects the value of fuel savings (as presented in Table 12), which are estimated to be significant using AEO reference oil and natural gas prices. Under the low fuel price sensitivity, Law on September 18, 2017. Documentation is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2016/capandtrade16/capandtrade16.htm 118 In addition to the fuel cost sensitivities presented in this section, Appendix E includes an uncertainty analysis of the Scoping Plan Scenario and alternatives. This analysis addresses uncertainty in the Reference Scenario emissions, GHG reductions from each measure, as well as capital and fuel costs.119 The high and low fuel price sensitivity ranges are derived from differences between the AEO 2016 High Oil Price or Low Oil Price forecast and the AEO 2016 reference case, and are applied as ratios to the base case fuel price assumptions (which are based on the AEO 2015 report). The AEO 2015 report is available at: http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf and the AEO 2016 report is available for download at: http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2016).pdf. 54 the net incremental cost of prescriptive measures is $2.9 billion in 2030. Under the high fuel price sensitivity, the prescriptive measures result in net savings of $4.9 billion in 2030. Table 14 also shows that these price uncertainties are captured within the analyzed range of allowance prices. As described above, changes in fuel prices may affect the price of Cap-and-Trade allowances, but the price is highly unlikely to go outside the range of prices bounded by the C+T Floor Price and C+T Reserve Price. The final column in Table 14 presents the estimated direct cost of the Scoping Plan, including both the prescriptive measures and a range of estimated costs to achieve GHG reductions under the Cap-and-Trade Program for varying projections of future fuel prices. The total cost, reflecting fuel and allowance price uncertainty, ranges from an annual savings to California of $3.3 billion to an annual cost of $8.0 billion in 2030. The net climate benefits, as estimated by the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4, outweigh these direct costs.120 table 14: estimates oF direCt Cost and Climate beneFits in 2030 relative to the reFerenCe sCenario and inCluding Fuel priCe sensitivity (billion $2015) Scenario Prescriptive Measures C+T Floor Price C+T Reserve Price 2030 Total Cost Scoping Plan $0.1 $1.6 $5.1 $1.7 to $5.2 Low Fuel Price Sensitivity $2.9 $1.6 $5.1 $4.5 to $8.0 High Fuel Price Sensitivity -$4.9 $1.6 $5.1 -$3.3 to -$0.2 Fuel price sensitivity is directly modeled in PATHWAYS, resulting in a range of impacts from prescriptive measures. The range of costs labeled “2030 Total Cost” includes the cost of prescriptive measures estimated in PATHWAYS and the impact of the Cap and-Trade Program calculated at the C+T Floor Price (the lower bounds) and the C+T Reserve Price (the upper bounds).The social cost of GHGs estimated range in 2030 is $1.9 to $11.2 billion. Macroeconomic Impacts The macroeconomic impacts of the Scoping Plan are estimated using the REMI model. Annual capital and fuel costs (for example, the costs in Table 12) are estimated using PATHWAYS and input into the REMI model to estimate the impact of the Scoping Plan on the California economy each year relative to GDP, which is often used as a proxy for economic growth, as well as employment, personal income, and changes in output by sector and consumer spending. Table 15 presents key macroeconomic impacts of implementing the Scoping Plan, based on the range of anticipated allowance prices. In 2030, under the Scoping Plan, growth across the indicators is about one-half of one percent less than the Reference Scenario. The results in Table 15 include not only the estimated direct cost of the Cap-and-Trade Program, but also distribution of allowance value from the auction of Cap-and-Trade allowances to California and consumers. See Appendix E for more detail on the modeling of the return of allowance value under the Cap-and-Trade Program in REMI. The Cap-and-Trade Program is modeled in REMI as an increase in production cost to sectors based on estimated future GHG emissions and anticipated free allowance allocation. If a sector is expected to receive free allocation of allowances, the value of those free allowances is not modeled as a cost in REMI. The analysis does include the estimated benefit to sectors due to the proceeds from the auction of cap-and-trade allowances and assumes that each year $2 billion of proceeds from the auction of State-owned cap-and- trade allowances are distributed to the economic sectors currently receiving GGRF appropriations. These funds work to achieve further GHG reductions in California, lower the cost to businesses of reducing GHG emissions and protect disadvantaged communities. Any auction proceeds remaining after the distribution of $2 billion through GGRF sectors are distributed evenly to consumers in California as a dividend. The estimated costs in Table 15 include the cost of the GHG reductions to sectors, as well as the benefit to those sectors when allowance proceeds are returned through the GGRF and as a dividend to consumers, as detailed in Appendix E. 120 Climate benefits are estimated using the Social Cost of Carbon in 2030 across the range of discount rates from 2.5 to 5 percent. All values are reported in $2015. Additional information on the Social Cost of Carbon is available from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of- the-social-cost-of. 55 table 15: maCroeConomiC indiCators in 2030 under base Fuel priCe assumptions Reference Scenario (2030) Scoping Plan (2030) Percentage Change Relative to Reference Scenario California GDP (Billion $2015) $3,439 $3,430 to $3,420 -0.3 percent to -0.6 percent Employment (Thousand Jobs) 23,522 23,478 to 23,441 -0.2 percent to -0.3 percent Personal Income (Billion $2015) $3,010 $3,006 to $3,008 -0.1 percent to -0.1 percent Table 15 was estimated using the REMI model. The range of costs for the Scoping Plan represents the impact of achieving the SB 32 target through prescriptive measures and the Cap-and-Trade Program at the C+T Floor Price (the lower bounds) and the C+T Reserve Price (the upper bounds). It is important to put the results of Table 15 into context of the growing $3.4 trillion California economy in 2030. As noted earlier, the economic analysis does not include avoided social damages and other potential savings from reductions in air pollution and petroleum dependency. Determining employment changes as a result of policies is challenging to model, due to a range of uncertainties and global trends that will influence the California economy, regardless of implementation of the Scoping Plan. The global economy is seeing a shift toward automation and mechanization, which may lead to slowing of employment across some industries globally, irrespective of California’s energy and low carbon investments. In California, employment is projected to reach 23.5 million jobs in 2030. In this analysis, implementing the Scoping Plan would slow the growth of employment by less than one-half of one percent in 2030. Estimated personal income in California is relatively unchanged under the Scoping Plan relative to the Reference Scenario. Considering the uncertainty in the modeling, modest changes in the growth of personal income are not different from zero, which suggests that meeting the SB 32 target will not change the growth of personal income relative to the Reference Scenario. When analyzing the estimated macroeconomic impacts, it is important to remember that a major substitution of electricity and capital away from fossil fuels is anticipated to have a very small effect on California GDP, employment, and personal income–less than one percent relative to the Reference Scenario in 2030. The economic impacts indicate that shifting money and investment away from fossil fuels and to clean energy is likely to have a negligible effect on the California economy. Additionally, it is certain that innovation will continue as new technologies are developed and implemented. While this analysis projects the costs and GHG reductions of current technologies over time, it does not capture the impact of new technologies that may shift the economy and California in unanticipated ways or benefits related to changes in air pollution and improvements to human health, avoided environmental damages, and positive impacts to natural and working lands. Thus, the results of this analysis very likely underestimate the benefits of shifting to a clean energy economy. Consumer spending also shifts in response to implementation of the Scoping Plan relative to the Reference Scenario. As presented in Table 15, there is a negligible impact to consumer income, but small changes in income can alter the distribution of consumer spending among categories. In 2030, consumer spending is lower under the Scoping Plan than in the Reference Scenario across all analyzed allowance prices. Consumers spend less on fuels, electricity, natural gas, and capital as a result of measures in the Scoping Plan that reduce demand, increase efficiency, and drive technological innovations. The estimated impact to California households is also modest in 2030. The estimated cost to California households in 2030 ranges from $115 to $280, depending on the price of reductions under the Cap-and-Trade Program.121 The household impact is estimated using the per-household change in personal income as modeled in REMI and utilizing household estimates from the California Department of Finance. The household impact does not account for benefits from reduced climate impacts, health savings from reduced air pollution impacts, or lower petroleum dependence costs that might impact households. Additional details are presented in Appendix E. As modeled, the household impact of the Scoping Plan comprises approximately one percent of average household expenditures in 2030. To ensure that vulnerable populations and low-income households are not 121 Household projections are obtained from the California Department of Finance and are available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/. 56 disproportionately affected by California’s climate policy, CARB is taking steps to better quantify localized economic impacts and ensure that low-income households see tangible benefits from the Scoping Plan. Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) are currently working on a retrospective analysis that will estimate the impacts across California communities of the implementation of AB 32, which will help identify areas of focus as 2030 measures are developed. The Cap-and-Trade Program will also continue to provide benefit to disadvantaged communities through the disbursement of GGRF funds. The investments made in implementing the Scoping Plan will have long-term benefits and present significant opportunities for California investors and businesses, as upfront capital investments will result in long-term fuel and energy efficiency savings, the benefits of which will continue into the future. The California economy will continue to grow under the Scoping Plan, but it will grow more resilient, more sustainable, and will be well positioned to reap the long-term benefits of lower carbon investments. Economic Modeling of Health Impacts Health benefits associated with reductions in diesel particulate matter (DPM) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are monetized for inclusion in the macroeconomic modeling. The health benefits are estimated by quantifying the harmful future health effects that will be avoided by reducing human exposure to DPM and NOX, as detailed in Appendix G, and monetized by estimating a health effect’s economic value to society. As previously noted the health impacts are based on air quality benefits estimated in Table 6, which have important limitations and likely overestimate the impacts of the Scoping Plan. Additional detail on the economic modeling of health impacts, including the monetization methodology and modeling results for all Scoping Plan scenarios, is presented in Appendix E. Including the monetized health impacts in the REMI modeling has no discernible impact on the overall results. The impact of including the monetized health impacts is indiscernible relative to the impact of the Scoping Plan. Estimating the Economic Impact on Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Implementing the Scoping Plan is estimated to have a small impact on the Statewide California economy through 2030. However, shifting from fossil fuels can disproportionately affect specific geographic regions whose local economies rely on fossil fuel intensive industries. These regions can also include vulnerable populations and disadvantaged communities who may be disproportionately impacted by poor air quality and climate. The regional impacts of the Scoping Plan, including the impact to disadvantaged communities, are estimated using the REMI California County model, which represents the 58 counties and 160 sectors of the California economy. Utilizing the same inputs used for modeling the statewide impact of the Scoping Plan relative to the Reference Scenario, the California County model estimates how measures will affect employment, value added, and other economic indicators at the county level across the state. The county-level REMI output is also used to estimate impacts on disadvantaged communities affected by the Scoping Plan by allocating county impacts proportional to their share of economic indicators unique to each census tract.122 These indicators include industry output, industry consumption by fuel category, personal consumption, and population. The overall impact on employment across regions is not significant and there is no discernible difference in the impact to employment in disadvantaged communities. There is also no discernible impact to wages in disadvantaged communities across regions in California. Additional details on the regional modeling, including the results for the Scoping Plan and alternatives, is presented in Appendix E. In addition to the regional modeling conducted in this analysis, there are currently three research contracts underway at CARB to quantify the impact of California’s climate policy on regions and disadvantaged communities throughout California. As mentioned above, researchers from UCLA are estimating the improvements in health outcomes associated with AB 32, with a focus on disadvantaged communities. This research will be informed by input from technical advisory committees including a group focused on environmental justice. 122 Census tracts are small geographic areas within greater metropolitan areas that usually have a population between 2,500 and 8,000 persons. More information on the composition of census tracts available here: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ gtc/gtc_ct.html. Disadvantaged census tracts are identified using CalEnviroScreen 2.0. Additional information is available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-version-20. 57 There are also two studies currently underway to quantify the impact of GGRF funds. A UCLA contract focuses on quantifying jobs supported by GGRF funds in California, while a University of California, Berkeley contract is constructing methodologies to assess the co-benefits of GGRF projects across California. These research efforts will provide a regional analysis of the impact of and benefits to specific communities and sectors to ensure that all Californians see economic benefits, in addition to clean air benefits, from the implementing the Scoping Plan. Public Health Many measures to reduce GHG emissions also have significant health co-benefits that can address climate change and improve the health and well-being of all populations across the State. Climate change is already affecting the health of communities.123 Climate-related health impacts can include increased heat illness and death, increases in air pollution-related exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, injury and loss of life due to severe storms and flooding, increased vector-borne and water-borne diseases, and stress and mental trauma due to extreme weather-related catastrophes.124 The urgency of action to address the impacts already being felt from a changing climate and the threats in coming decades provides a unique opportunity for California’s leadership in climate action to reduce GHG emissions and create healthy, equitable, and resilient communities where all people thrive. This section discusses the link between climate change and public health. It does not analyze the specific measures included in the strategy but provides context for assessing the potential measures and scenarios. Achieving Health Equity through Climate Action Many populations in California face health inequities, or unfair and unjust health differences between population groups that are systemic and avoidable.125 Differences in environmental and socioeconomic determinants of health result in these health inequities. Those facing the greatest health inequities include low-income individuals and households, the very young and the very old, communities of color, and those who have been marginalized or discriminated against based on gender or race/ethnicity.126 It is these very same populations, along with those suffering existing health conditions and certain populations of workers (e.g., outdoor workers), that climate change will most disproportionately impact.127 The inequitable distribution of social, political, and economic power results in health inequities, while perpetuating systems (e.g., economic, transportation, land use, etc.) that drive GHG emissions. As a result, communities face inequitable living conditions. For example, low-income communities of color tend to live in more polluted areas and face climate change impacts that can compound and exacerbate existing sensitivities and vulnerabilities.128,129 Fair and healthy climate action requires that the inequities creating and intensifying community vulnerabilities be addressed. Living conditions and the forces that shape them, such as income, education, housing, transportation, environmental quality, and access to services, significantly drive the capacity for climate resilience. Thus, strategies such as alleviating poverty, increasing access to opportunity, improving living conditions, and reducing health and social inequities will result in more climate-resilient communities. In fact, there are already many “no-regret” climate mitigation and adaptation measures available (discussed below) that can reduce health burdens, increase community resilience, and address social inequities.130 Focusing efforts to achieve health equity can thus lead to significant progress in addressing human-caused climate change. 123 USGCRP. 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J. L. Gamble, C. B. Beard, J. E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R. J. Eisen, N. Fann, M. D. Hawkins, S. C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D. M. Mills, S. Saha, M. C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C., 312 pp.124 Ibid.125 Whitehead, M. 1992. “The concepts and principles of equity and health.” International Journal of Health Services 22(3), 429–445.126 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2015. The Portrait of Promise: The California Statewide Plan to Promote Health and Mental Health Equity. A Report to the Legislature and the People of California by the Office of Health Equity. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, Office of Health Equity.127 Shonkoff, S., R. Morello-Frosch, M. Pastor, and J. Sadd. 2011. “The climate gap: Environmental health and equity implications of climate change and mitigation policies in California–a review of the literature.” Climatic Change 109 (Suppl 1):S485–S503.128 Ibid.129 Rudolph, L. and S. Gould. 2015. “Climate change and health inequities: A framework for action.” Annals of Global Health 81:3, 432–444.130 Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, et al. 2015. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet: 386, 1861-1914 58 Potential Health Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Measures Socioeconomic Factors: Income, Poverty, and WealthEconomic factors, such as income, poverty, and wealth, are collectively one of the largest determinants of health. As such, climate mitigation measures that yield economic benefits can improve population health significantly, especially if the economic benefits are directed to those most vulnerable and disadvantaged (including those living in poverty) who often face the most health challenges. From the poorest to richest ends of the income spectrum, higher income is associated with greater longevity in the United States.131,132,133 The gap in life expectancy between the richest 1 percent and poorest 1 percent of Americans was almost 15 years for men in 2014, and about 10 years for women.134 Early death among those living in poverty is not a result of those with higher incomes having better access to quality health care.135 Only about 10-20 percent of a person’s health status is accounted for by health care (and 20-30 percent attributed to genetics), while the remainder is attributed to the social determinants of health. These include environmental quality, social and economic circumstances, and the social, media, policy, economic, retail, and built environments– all of which in turn shape stress levels and behaviors, including smoking, diet, and exercise.136 ,137,138 ,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146 In fact, where people live, work, learn, and play is often a stronger predictor of life expectancy than their genetic and biological makeup.147 The World Health Organization’s Commission on the Social Determinants of Health concluded that the poor health of poor people, and the social gradient in health, are caused by the unequal distribution of power, income, goods, and services resulting from poor social policies and programs, unfair economic arrangements, and bad politics.148 Thus, improving the conditions of daily life and tackling the inequitable distribution of power, money, and resources can remedy inequitable health outcomes.149 Simply put, the more evenly distributed the wealth, the healthier a society is.150 The wealth-health gradient has significant implications for this Scoping Plan. State climate legislation and policies require prioritizing GHG reduction strategies that serve vulnerable populations and improve well- being for disadvantaged communities. As such, strategies that improve the financial security of communities facing disadvantages while reducing GHG emissions are win-win strategies. These include providing funds or services for GHG reduction programs (e.g., weatherization, energy efficiency, renewable energy, ZEVs, transit, housing, and others) to low-income individuals and households to help them reduce costs. Among the poorest 25 percent of people, per capita government expenditures are strongly associated with longer 131 Chetty, R., M. Stepner, S. Abraham, et al. 2016. “The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014.” JAMA Published online April 10, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4226.132 Marmot, M., S. Friel, R. Bell, et al. 2008. “Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health.” The Lancet 372, 9650: 1661–1669.133 Woolf, S. H., and P. Braveman. 2011. “Where health disparities begin: The role of social and economic determinants–and why current policies may make matters worse.” Health Affairs (Millwood) 30(10), 1852–1859.134 Chetty R, Stepner M, Abraham S, et al. 2016. The Association between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001- 2014. JAMA. Published online April 10, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4226135 Ibid.136 DHHS, Public Health Service. 1980. Ten leading causes of death in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Bureau of State Services.137 McGinnis, J., and W. Foege. 1993. “Actual causes of death in the United States.” JAMA 270(18), 2207–2212.138 Lantz, P. et al. 1998. “Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: Results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults.” JAMA 279(21), 1703–1708.139 McGinnis, J. et al. 2002. “The case for more active policy attention to health promotion.” Health Affairs 21(2), 78–93.140 Mokdad, A. et al. 2004. “Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000.” JAMA 291(10), 1238–1245.141 Danaei, G. et al. 2009. “The preventable causes of death in the United States: Comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors.” PLoS Medicine 6(4), e1000058.142 World Health Organization (WHO). 2009. Global health risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. Geneva: WHO.143 Booske, B. et al. 2010. Different perspectives for assigning weights to determinants of health. County Health Rankings Working Paper. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.144 Stringhini, S. et al. 2010. “Association of socioeconomic position with health behaviors and mortality.” JAMA 303(12), 1159–1166.145 Thoits, P. 2010. “Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51 Suppl, S41–53.146 McGovern, L., G. Miller and P. Highes-Cromwick. 2014. “Health policy brief: The relative contribution of multiple determinants to health outcomes.” Health Affairs147 Iton, A. 2006. Tackling the root causes of health disparities through community capacity building. In: Hofrichter R, ed. Tackling Health Inequities Through Public Health Practice: A Handbook for Action. Washington, D.C., and Lansing, MI: National Association of County and City Health Officials and Ingham County Health Department; 116–136.148 Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, et al. 2008. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet , Volume 372 , Issue 9650, 1661 – 1669149 Ibid.150 Smith, R. 1996. “The big idea.” British Medical Journal 312:April 20th, Editor’s choice. 59 life spans.151 Successful strategies California has already implemented to assure the poor do not pay higher costs for societal GHG reductions include low-income energy discount programs, in combination with direct climate credits, and policies and programs that help Californians reduce electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption.152 More such strategies could be pursued. To tackle the inequitable distribution of power that leads to disparate health outcomes, agencies can first assure their hearing and decision-making processes provide opportunities for civic engagement so people facing health inequities can themselves participate in decision-making about solutions. Whether it is absolute poverty or relative deprivation that leads to poor health, investments and policies that both lift up the poor and reduce wealth disparities will address the multiple problems of climate change mitigation, adaptation, and health inequities. Employment Employment status impacts human health in many ways. Poor health outcomes of unemployment include premature death, self-rated ill-health (a strong predictor of poor health outcomes), and mental illness.153 ,154,155,156 Economic strain related to unemployment can impact mental health and trigger stress that is linked to other health conditions.157,158 Populations of color are overrepresented in the unemployment and under-employment ranks, which likely contributes to racial health inequities. In 2014, 14.7 percent of African-Americans, 12.1 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives, and 9.8 percent of Latinos were unemployed, compared to 7.9 percent of Whites.159 In addition to providing income, the work experience has health consequences. There is a work status–health gradient similar to the wealth–health gradient. Workers with lower occupational status have a higher risk of death,160 increased blood pressure,161 and more heart attacks.162,163 Higher status workers often have a greater sense of autonomy, control over their work, and predictability, compared to lower status workers, whose lack of control and predictability translates to stress that shortens their lives.164 Nonstandard working arrangements such as part-time, seasonal, shift, contract, or informal sector work have been linked to greater psychological distress and poorer physical health.165,166 Women are heavily overrepresented in nonstandard work, as are people of color and people with low levels of education.167,168 The implementation of California’s climate change goals provides great opportunity to not only improve the habitability of the planet, but also to increase economic vitality, employ historically disadvantaged people 151 Chetty R, Stepner M, Abraham S, et al. 2016. The Association between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001- 2014. JAMA. Published online April 10, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4226152 Gattaciecca, J., C. Callahan, and J. R. DeShazo. 2016. Protecting the most vulnerable: A financial analysis of Cap-and-Trade’s impact on households in disadvantaged communities across California. UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs: Los Angeles, CA. http://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/content/protecting-most-vulnerable. Accessed April 22, 2016.153 Krueger, P., and S. Burgard. 2011. Income, occupations and work. In: Rogers R, Crimmins E, eds. International Handbook of Adult Mortality. New York: Springer: 263–288.154 Rogers, R., R. Hummer, and C. Nam. 2000. Living and Dying in the USA. Behavioral, health, and social differentials of adult mortality. New York, NY: Academic.155 Ross, C. and J. Mirowsky. 1995. “Does employment affect health?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36(3):230–243.156 Burgard, S., and K. Lin. 2013. “Bad jobs, bad health? How work and working conditions contribute to health disparities.” Am Behav Sci 57(8).157 Price, R., D. Friedland, J. Choi, and R. Caplan. 1998. Job-loss and work transitions in a time of global economic change.158 Price, R., J. Choi, and A. Vinokur. 2002. “Links in the chain of adversity following job loss: How financial strain and loss of personal control lead to depression, impaired functioning, and poor health.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(4), 302.159 U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ summary_file/2014/data/. Last updated August 31, 2015. Accessed April 20, 2016.160 Rogers R, Hummer R, and Nam C. 2000. Living and Dying in the USA. Behavioral, health, and social differentials of adult mortality. New York, NY: Academic161 Colhoun, H., H. Hemingway, and N. Poulter. 1998. “Socio-economic status and blood pressure: An overview analysis.” Journal of Human Hypertension 12(2).162 Möller, J., T. Theorell, U. De Faire, A. Ahlbom, and J. Hallqvist. 2005. “Work related stressful life events and the risk of myocardial infarction. Case-control and case-crossover analyses within the Stockholm heart epidemiology programme (SHEEP).” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59(1), 23–30.163 Burgard S, Lin K. 2013. Bad jobs, bad health? How work and working conditions contribute to health disparities. Am Behav Sci: 57(8).164 Marmot, M., G. Rose, M. Shipley, and P. Hamilton. 1978. “Employment grade and coronary heart disease in British civil servants.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32(4), 244–249.165 Dooley, D., and J. Prause. 2004. Settling down: Psychological depression and underemployment. The social costs of underemployment, 134-157. In: Dooley, D. and J. Prause. The Social Costs of Underemployment: Inadequate Employment as Disguised Unemployment. 166 Virtanen, M., M. Kivimäki, M. Joensuu, P. Virtanen, M. Elovainio, and J. Vahtera. 2005. “Temporary employment and health: A review.” International Journal of Epidemiology 34(3): 610–622.167 Nollen, S. 1996. “Negative aspects of temporary employment.” Journal of Labor Research 17(4): 567–582.168 Burgard S, Lin K. 2013. Bad jobs, bad health? How work and working conditions contribute to health disparities. Am Behav Sci: 57(8) 60 in secure jobs, and improve the health of the population. Measures in the Scoping Plan that aim to reduce GHGs can simultaneously improve health and social equity by prioritizing or requiring that: (1) infrastructure projects using public funds pay living wages, provide quality benefits to all employees, and minimize nonstandard work; (2) locals are hired as much as is feasible; (3) preference is given for women-owned and minority-owned businesses; (4) employers receiving public funds assess and reduce work stress and lack of workplace control; (5) projects benefiting from State climate investments prioritize hiring from historically hard-to-employ groups, such as youth (especially youth of color), formerly incarcerated people, and people with physical or mental illness; and (6) training is provided to these same groups to work in jobs in sectors that will support a sustainable economy. Communications Supporting Climate Change Behaviors and Policies California’s leadership on GHG reductions is exceptional. However, climate mitigation goals are often treated independently by sector, and the public does not see a unified message that changes must take place on every level in every sector to preserve human health and well-being. Climate strategy could be supported by public communications campaigns that link sectors and present a message of the need for bold action, along with the benefits that action can yield. Mass media communications and social marketing campaigns can help shift social and cultural norms toward sustainable and healthy practices. Messaging about the co-benefits of climate change policies in improving health and well-being can lead to increased community and decision-maker support among vulnerable groups for policies and measures outlined in the Scoping Plan. Community Engagement Leads to Robust, Lasting, and Effective Climate Policies For California’s climate change policies to be supported by the public and be implemented with enthusiasm, they must be developed through ample, genuine opportunities for community members to discuss and provide input. Californians’ contributions to the policy arena strengthen the end products and assist in their implementation and enforcement. Efforts to mitigate climate change through policy, environmental, and systems change present considerable opportunities to promote sustainable, healthy, resilient, and equitable communities. The measures in the Scoping Plan, and the way they are implemented, can help create living conditions that facilitate physical activity; encourage public transit use; provide access to affordable, fresh, and nutritious foods; protect the natural systems on which human health depends; spur economic development; provide safe, affordable, and energy-efficient housing; enable access to jobs; and increase social cohesion and civic engagement. These climate change mitigation measures can improve overall population health, as well as material conditions, access to opportunity, and health and well-being in communities facing health inequities. Approaching the policy solutions outlined in the Scoping Plan with a health and equity lens can ultimately help lead to a California in which all current and future generations of Californians can benefit and thrive. Environmental Analysis CARB, as the lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Analysis (Draft EA) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CARB’s regulatory program (CARB’s program has been certified as complying with CEQA by the Secretary of Natural Resources; see California Code of Regulation, title 17, sections 60006-60008; California Code of Regulation, title 14, section 15251, subdivision (d)). The resource areas from the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist were used as a framework for a programmatic environmental analysis of the reasonably foreseeable compliance responses resulting from implementation of the measures proposed in the Scoping Plan to achieve the 2030 target. Following circulation of the Draft EA for an 80-day public review and comment period (January 20, 2017 through April 10, 2017), CARB prepared the Final Environmental Analysis Prepared for the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (Final EA), which includes minor revisions to the Draft EA, and the Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Analysis prepared for the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (RTC). The Final EA is included as Appendix F to the 2017 Scoping Plan. The Final EA and RTC were posted on CARB’s Scoping Plan webpage before the Board hearing in December 2017. 61 The Final EA provides a programmatic level of analysis of the adverse environmental impacts that are reasonably foreseeable as resulting from implementation of the proposed Scoping Plan measures; feasible mitigation measures; a cumulative impacts analysis and an alternatives analysis. Collectively, the Final EA concluded that implementation of these actions could result in the following short-term and long-term beneficial and adverse environmental impacts: • Beneficial long-term impacts to air quality, energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. • Less than significant impacts to energy demand, resources related to land use planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and recreational services. • Potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, resources related to land use planning, noise, recreational services, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. The potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are disclosed for both short-term construction- related activities and long-term operational activities, which explains why some resource areas are identified above as having both less-than-significant impacts and potentially significant impacts. For a summary of impacts, please refer to the table in Attachment B to the Final EA. 62 Climate change mitigation policies must be considered in the context of the sector’s contribution to the State’s total GHGs, while also considering any co-benefits for criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant reductions. The transportation, electricity (in-state and imported), and industrial sectors are the largest contributors to the GHG inventory and present the largest opportunities for GHG reductions. However, to ensure decarbonization across the entire economy and to meet our 2030 GHG target, policies must be considered for all sectors. Policies that support energy efficiency, alternative fuels, and renewable power also can provide co-benefits for both criteria and toxic air pollutants. The specific policies identified in this Scoping Plan are subject to additional analytical and public processes to refine the requirements and methods of implementation. For example, a change in the LCFS Carbon Intensity (CI) target would only take effect after a subsequent rulemaking for that regulation, which would include its own public process and environmental, economic, and public health analyses. As described in Chapter 2, many policies for reducing emissions toward the 2030 target are already known. This Scoping Plan identifies these and additional policies or program enhancements needed to achieve the remaining GHG reductions in a complementary, flexible, and cost-effective manner to meet the 2030 target. These policies should continue to encourage reductions beyond 2030 to keep us on track to stabilize the climate. Policies that ensure economy-wide investment decisions that incorporate consideration of GHG emissions are particularly important. As we pursue GHG reduction targets, we must acknowledge the integrated nature of our built and natural environments, and cross-sector impacts of policy choices. The State’s Green Buildings Strategy is one such example of this type of integrated approach. Buildings have tremendous cross-sector interactions that influence our health and well-being and affect land use and transportation patterns, energy use, water use, communities, and the indoor and outdoor environment. Green building regulations and programs offer complementary opportunities to address the direct and indirect effects of buildings on the environment by incorporating strategies to minimize overall energy use, water use, waste generation, and transportation impacts. The Governor’s Green Buildings Executive Order B-18-12 for State buildings and the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code169 are key state initiatives supporting emissions reductions associated with buildings. Local governments are taking action by adopting “beyond code” green building standards. Additional efforts to maintain and operate existing buildings as third-party certified green buildings provides a significant opportunity to reduce GHG emissions associated with buildings. These foundational regulations and programs for reducing building-related emissions are described in more detail in Appendix H. Looking forward, there is a need to establish a path toward transitioning to zero net carbon buildings170, which will be the next generation of buildings that can contribute significantly to achieving long- term climate goals. A discussion of how the green buildings strategy can support GHG reductions to help meet the 2030 target is provided in Appendix I. Recent research activities have provided results to better quantify GHG emissions reductions of green buildings, and additional research activities need to continue to expand their focus to support technical feasibility evaluations and implementation. Research needs related to green buildings are included in Appendix I. Further, each of the policies directed at the built environment must be considered in the broader context of the high-level goals for other sectors, including the natural and working lands sector. For example, policies that support natural and working lands can reduce emissions and sequester carbon, while also providing ecosystem benefits such as better water quality, increased water yield, soil health, reduced erosion, and 169 The authority to update and implement the CALGreen Code is the responsibility of several State agencies identified in California Building Standards Law.170 A zero carbon building generates zero or near zero GHG emissions over the course of a year from all GHG emission sources associated, directly and indirectly, with the use and occupancy of the building (initial definition included in the May 2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan). Chapter 4 K ey S ector S 63 habitat connectivity. These policies and co-benefits will be considered as part of the integrated strategy outlined above. Table 16 provides examples of the cross-sector interactions between and among the main sectors analyzed for the Scoping Plan that are discussed in this chapter (Energy, Transportation, Industry, Water, Waste Management, and Natural and Working Lands, including agricultural lands). This chapter recognizes these interactions and relates these broad strategic options to the specific additional programs recommended in Chapter 2 of this document. Accordingly, Chapter 4 provides an overview of each sector’s contributions to the State’s GHG emissions, a description of both ongoing and proposed programs and policies to meet the 2030 target, and additional climate policy or actions that could be considered in the future. The wide array of complementary and supporting measures being contemplated or undertaken across State government are detailed here. The broad view of State action described in this chapter thus provides context for the narrower set of measures discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this Scoping Plan. It is these measures in Chapter 2 that CARB staff has identified as specific actions to meet the 2030 target in SB 32. The following phrases have specific meanings in this discussion of the policy landscape: “Ongoing and Proposed Measures” refers to programs and policies that are either ongoing existing efforts, or efforts required by statute, or which are otherwise underway or about to begin. These measures include, but are not limited to, those identified as necessary specific actions to meet the 2030 GHG target, and which are set apart and described in greater detail in Chapter 2. “Sector Measures” listed also include cross-cutting measures that affect many entities in the sector; some of these are also identified in Chapter 2. “Potential Additional Actions” are not being proposed as part of the specific strategy to achieve the 2030 target in this Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan includes this broader, comprehensive, review of these measures because it aims to spur thinking and exploration of innovative new technologies and polices that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. Some of these items may not ever be formally proposed, but they are included here because CARB, other agencies, and stakeholders believe their potential should be explored with stakeholders in coming years. 64 table 16: Cross-seC tor relationships Sector Example Interactions with Other Sectors Energy • Hydroelectric power, cooling, cleaning, waste water treatment plant (WWTP) bioenergy • Vehicle-to-grid power; electricity supply to vehicle charging infrastructure • Biomass feedstock for bioenergy, land for utility-scale renewable energy (solar, wind) • Agricultural waste and manure feedstocks for bioenergy/biofuels • Organic waste for bioenergy Transportation • Electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, transit/rail; more compact development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) also demand less energy per capita • More compact development patterns that reduce VMT also demand less water per capita and reduce conversion of natural and working lands • Reducing VMT also reduces energy demands necessary for producing and distributing fuels and vehicles and construction and maintenance of roads • Biomass feedstock for biofuels • Agricultural waste and manure feedstocks for biofuels • Organic waste for biofuels • Greenfield suburban development on natural and working lands leads to increased VMT Industry • Potential to electrify fossil natural gas equipment, substitution of fossil-based energy with renewable energy • Greenfield urban development impacts Water • Energy consumption for water pumping, treatment, heating; resource for cooling, cleaning; WWTP bioenergy • Use of compost to help with water retention / conservation / drought mitigation • Land conservation results in healthier watersheds by reducing polluted runoff, allowing groundwater recharge, and maintaining properly functioning ecosystems Waste Management • Composting, anaerobic digestion, and wastewater treatment plant capacity to help process organic waste diverted from landfills • Compost for carbon sequestration, erosion control in fire-ravaged lands, water conservation, and healthy soils • Replacing virgin materials with recycled materials associated with goods production; enhanced producer responsibility reduces energy impacts of consumption • Efficient packaging materials reduces energy consumption and transportation fuel use Agriculture • Crop production, manure management; WWTP biosolids for soil amendments • Agricultural waste and manure feedstocks for bioenergy • Compost production in support of Healthy Soils Initiative Natural and Working Lands • Healthy forestlands provide wood and other forest products • Restoring coastal and sub-tidal areas improves habitat for commercial and other fisheries • Sustainable management can provide biomass for electricity • Sustainable management can provide biomass for biofuels • Resilient natural and working lands provide habitat for species and functions to store water, recharge groundwater, naturally purify water, and moderate flooding. Forests are also a source of compost and other soil amendments. • Conservation and land protections help reduce VMT and increase stable carbon pools in soils and above-ground biomass 65 Low Carbon Energy The energy sector in California is composed of electricity and natural gas infrastructure, which brings electricity and natural gas to homes, businesses, and industry. This vast system is critical to California’s economy and public well-being, and pivotal to reducing its GHG emissions. Historically, power plants generated electricity largely by combusting fossil fuels. In the 1970s and early 1980s, a significant portion of California’s power supply came from coal and petroleum resources. To reduce air pollution and promote fuel diversity, the State has shifted away from these resources to natural gas, renewable energy, and energy efficiency programs, resulting in significant GHG emissions reductions. Emissions from the electricity sector are currently approximately 20 percent below 1990 levels and are well on their way to achieving deeper emissions cuts by 2030. Since 2008, renewable generation has almost doubled, coal generation has been reduced by more than half, and GHG emissions have been reduced by a quarter. Carbon dioxide is the primary GHG associated with electricity and natural gas systems. The electricity sector, which is composed of in-State generation and imported power to serve California load, has made great strides to help California achieve its climate change objectives. Renewable energy has shown tremendous growth, with capacity from solar, wind, geothermal, small hydropower, and biomass power plants growing from 6,600 megawatts (MW) in 2010 to 27,500 MW as of June 2017.171 Renewable energy adoption in California has been promoted through the RPS and several funding mechanisms, such as the California Solar Initiative (CSI) programs, Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), Net-Energy Metering (NEM), and federal tax credits. These mandates and incentives have spurred both utility-scale and small-scale customer-developed renewable energy projects. SB 350 increased the RPS requirement from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 requires publicly-owned utilities under the jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission (CEC) and all load-serving entities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to file integrated resource plans (IRPs) with the CEC and CPUC, respectively. Through their IRPs, filing entities will demonstrate how they will plan to meet the electricity sector’s share of the State’s 2030 GHG reduction target while ensuring reliability in a cost-effective manner. The CEC and CPUC have developed the guidelines that publicly-owned utilities and load-serving entities will follow to prepare and submit IRPs, and CARB is working collaboratively with CEC and CPUC to set the sector and utility and load-serving entity planning targets. The Scoping Plan provides information to help establish the range of GHG reductions required for the electricity sector, and those numbers will be translated into planning target ranges in the IRP process. The IRP processes as currently proposed by CEC and CPUC staff will grant publicly-owned utilities flexibility to determine the optimal way to reduce GHG emissions, and load serving entities some flexibility to achieve the electricity sector’s share of the 2030 goal. The CPUC has developed a Reference System Plan to help guide investment, resource acquisition, and programmatic decisions to reach the State’s policy goals, in addition to informing the development of individual load serving entities’ IRPs. Energy efficiency is another key component to reducing energy sector GHG emissions, and is another consideration in each agency’s IRP process. Utilities have been offering energy efficiency programs, such as incentives, to California customers for decades, and CEC has continually updated building and appliance standards. In the context of IRPs, utility-ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs will likely continue to play an important role in reducing GHG emissions in the electricity sector. SB 350 requires CEC and CPUC to establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. These targets can be achieved through appliance and building energy efficiency standards; utility incentive, rebate, and technical assistance programs; third-party delivered energy efficiency programs; and other programs. Achieving greater efficiency savings in existing buildings, as directed by Governor Brown in his 2015 inaugural speech, will be essential to meet the goal of doubling energy efficiency savings. In September 2015, CEC adopted the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Draft Plan, which is designed to provide foundational support and strategies to enable scaling of energy efficiency in the built environment. Pursuant to SB 350, CEC published an updated Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan prior to January 2017. More than $10 billion in private capital investment will be needed 171 California Energy Commission. August, 2017. Tracking Progress. Renewable Energy – Overview. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_progress/documents/renewable.pdf 66 to double statewide efficiency savings in California.172 Energy efficiency programs are one part of the broader green buildings strategy, which incorporates additional measures to minimize water use, waste generation, and transportation impacts. The green buildings strategy is described in further detail in Appendix I. Heating fuels used for activities such as space and water heating in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors represent a significant source of GHG emissions. Transitioning to cleaner heating fuels is part of the solution of achieving greater efficiency savings in existing buildings and has significant GHG emissions reductions potential. Examples of this transition can include use of renewable gas and solar thermal, as well as electrification of end uses in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. However, achieving significant GHG emissions reductions can only be achieved by decarbonizing the electricity sector – switching from natural gas end uses to electricity generated by burning natural gas would not be effective. Electrification can complement renewables and energy storage if implemented in an integrated, optimized manner. Other hurdles that will have to be overcome include electric equipment performance across all California climate regions, seasonal variations of renewable generation, cost-effectiveness, and consumer acceptance of different heating fuel options. Fossil-fuel-based natural gas is a significant fuel source for both in-State electricity generation and electricity imported into California. It is also used in transportation applications and in residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sector end uses. Greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of fossil natural gas decreased from 134.71 MMTCO2e in 2000 to 126.98 MMTCO2e in 2015, while natural gas pipeline fugitive emissions were estimated to be 4.0 MMTCO2e in 2015 and have been nearly unchanged since 2000.173 Greenhouse gas-reduction strategies should focus on efficiency, reducing leakage from wells and pipelines, implementing the SLCP strategy, and studying the potential for renewable gas fuel switching (e.g., renewable hydrogen blended with methane or biomethane). Moving forward, reducing use of fossil natural gas wherever possible will be critical to achieving the State’s long-term climate goals. For end uses that must continue to rely on natural gas, renewable natural gas could play an important role. Renewable natural gas volume has been increasing from approximately 1.5 million diesel gallon equivalent (dge) in 2011 to more than 68.5 million dge in 2015, and continued substitution of renewable gas for fossil natural gas would help California reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. In addition, renewable gas can be sourced by in-vessel waste digestion (e.g., anaerobic digestion of food and other organics) and recovering methane from landfills, livestock operations, and wastewater treatment facilities through the use of existing technologies, thereby also reducing methane emissions. The capture and productive use of renewable methane from these and other sources is consistent with requirements of SB 1383. Collectively, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures can result in significant public health and climate benefits by displacing air pollution and GHG emissions from fossil-fuel based energy sources, as well as by reducing the health and environmental risks associated with the drilling, extraction, transportation, and storage of fossil fuels, especially for communities living near fossil-fuel based energy operations. As the energy sector continues to evolve and decarbonize, both the behavior of individual facilities and the design of the grid itself will change, with important distributional effects. Some power plants may operate more flexibly to balance renewables, emerging technologies (examples include storage, smart inverters, renewably-fueled fuel cells, and others) will become more prevalent, and aging facilities may retire and be replaced. In turn, this may shift patterns of criteria pollutant emissions at these facilities. Because many existing power plants are in, or near, disadvantaged communities, it is of particular importance to ensure that this transition to a cleaner grid does not result in unintended negative impacts to these communities. Appendix H highlights the more significant existing policies, programs, measures, regulations, and initiatives that provide a framework for helping achieve GHG emissions reductions in this sector. 172 California Energy Commission. 2016. Existing Building Energy Efficiency Action Plan. page 61. Available at: http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-EBP-01/TN214801_20161214T155117_Existing_Building_Energy_ Efficency_Plan_Update_Deceber_2016_Thi.pdf173 CARB. 2017. CARB’s Emission Inventory Activities. www.arb.ca.gov/ei/ei.htm 67 Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Electricity Goals • Achieve sector-wide, publicly-owned utility, and load-serving entity specific GHG reduction planning targets set by the State through Integrated Resource Planning. • Reduce fossil fuel use. • Reduce energy demand. Natural Gas Goals • Ensure safety of the natural gas system. • Decrease fugitive methane emissions.• Reduce dependence on fossil natural gas. Cross-Sector Interactions The energy sector interacts with nearly all sectors of the economy. Siting of power plants (including solar and wind facilities) and transmission and distribution lines have impacts on land use in California–be it conversion of agricultural or natural and working lands, impacts to sensitive species and habitats, or implications to disadvantaged, vulnerable, and environmental justice communities. Additionally, more compact development patterns reduce per capita energy demands, while less-compact sprawl increases them. Further, efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector include electrification, such as PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs. Some industrial sources also use electricity as a primary or auxiliary source of power for manufacturing. In the future, industrial facilities may electrify their systems instead of relying on natural gas. These activities will increase demand in this sector. In addition, water is used in various applications in the energy sector, ranging in intensity from cooling of turbines and other equipment at power plants to cleaning solar photovoltaic panels. Given California’s recent historic drought, water use for the electricity sector is an important consideration for operation, maintenance, and construction activities. Continued planning and coordination with federal, State, and local agencies, governments, Tribes, and stakeholders will be crucial to minimizing environmental and health impacts from the energy sector, deploying new technologies, and identifying feedstocks. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Electricity • Per SB 350, with respect to Integrated Resource Plans, establish GHG planning targets for the electricity sector, publicly-owned utilities, and load-serving entities. • Per SB 350, ensure meaningful GHG emissions reductions by publicly-owned utilities and load-serving entities through Integrated Resource Planning.• Per AB 197, prioritize direct reductions at large stationary sources, including power-generating facilities. • Per SB 350, increase the RPS to 50 percent of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. • Per Governor Brown’s Clean Energy Jobs Plan, AB 327 (Perea, Chapter 611, Statutes of 2013), and AB 693 (Eggman, Chapter 582, Statutes of 2015), increase development of distributed renewable generation, including for low income households. • Continue to increase use of distributed renewable generation at State facilities where space allows. • Increase retail customers’ use of renewable energy through optional utility 100 percent renewable energy tariffs. • Continue GHG reductions through participation in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) Energy Imbalance Market. 68 • Per SB 350, efforts to evaluate, develop, and deploy regionalization of the grid and integration of renewables via regionalization of the CAISO should continue while maintaining the accounting accuracy and rigor of California’s GHG policies. • Per SB 350, establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. • Per SB 350, implement the recommendations of the Barriers Study for increasing access to renewable energy generation for low-income customers, energy efficiency and weatherization investments for low-income customers, and contracting opportunities for local small business in disadvantaged communities.174 And, track progress towards these actions over time to ensure disadvantaged communities are getting equal access and benefits relative to other parts of the State.• Continue implementation of the Regulations Establishing and Implementing a Greenhouse Gases Emission Performance Standard for Local Publicly Owned Electric Utilities as required by SB 1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006), which effectively prohibits electric utilities from making new long-term investments in high-GHG emitting resources such as coal power. • Per AB 802 (Williams, Chapter 590, Statutes of 2015), adopt the forthcoming CEC regulations governing building energy use data access, benchmarking, and public disclosure. • Per AB 2868 (Gatto, Chapter 681, Statutes of 2016), encourage development of additional energy storage capacity on the transmission and distribution system. • Per AB 758 (Skinner, Chapter 470, Statutes of 2009),175 implement recommendations under State jurisdiction included in the AB 758 Action Plan developed by CEC. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Natural Gas • Implement the CARB Regulation for Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities to reduce fugitive methane emissions from storage and distribution infrastructure. • Per SB 1371 (Leno, Chapter 525, Statutes of 2014), adopt improvements in investor- owned utility (IOU) natural gas systems to address methane leaks.• Implement the SLCP Strategy to reduce natural gas leaks from oil and gas wells, pipelines, valves, and pumps to improve safety, avoid energy losses, and reduce methane emissions associated with natural gas use. • Per SB 1383, CEC will develop recommendations for the development and use of renewable gas as part of its 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). • Per SB 1383, adopt regulations to reduce methane emissions from livestock manure and dairy manure management operations by up to 40 percent below the dairy sector’s and livestock sector’s 2013 levels by 2030, including establishing energy infrastructure development and procurement policies needed to encourage dairy biomethane projects. The regulations will take effect on or after January 1, 2024. • Per SB 1383, reduce methane emissions at landfills by reducing landfill disposal of organic waste 75 percent below 2014 levels by 2025, including establishing energy infrastructure development and procurement policies needed to encourage in-vessel digestion projects and increase the production and use of renewable gas. • Per SB 887 (Pavley, Chapter 673, Statutes of 2016), initiate continuous monitoring at natural gas storage facilities and (by January 1, 2018) mechanical integrity testing regimes at gas storage wells, develop regulations for leak reporting, and require risk assessments of potential leaks for proposed new underground gas storage facilities. • Per Public Utilities (PU) Code 454.56, CPUC, in consultation with CEC, (1) identifies all potentially achievable cost-effective natural gas efficiency savings and establishes gas efficiency targets for the gas corporation to achieve, and (2) requires gas corporations to first meet unmet resource needs through available natural gas efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost-effective, reliable, and feasible (PU Codes 890– 174 CEC. 2016. Low-Income Barriers Study, Part A: Overcoming Barriers to Energy Efficiency and Renewables for Low-Income Customers and Small Business Contracting Opportunities in Disadvantaged Communities. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/ PublicDocuments/16-OIR-02/TN214830_20161215T184655_SB_350_LowIncome_Barriers_Study_Part_A__Commission_Final_ Report.pdf175 AB 758 requires CEC, in collaboration with CPUC, to develop a comprehensive program to achieve greater energy efficiency in the State’s existing buildings. 69 900 provide public goods charge funding authorization for these programs). • Per SB 185 (De Leon, Chapter 605, Statutes of 2015), implement the requirement for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to sell their holdings in coal-producing companies by June 1, 2017, and explore extending divestiture requirements for additional fossil-fuel assets. Sector Measures • Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. Potential Additional Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. It is anticipated that there will be workshops and other stakeholder forums in the years following finalization of the Scoping Plan to explore these potential actions. • Further deploy fuel cells that use renewable fuels or those that generate electricity that is less carbon intensive than the grid. • Increase use of renewable energy through long-term agreements between customers and utilities (such as Sacramento Municipal Utility District Solar Shares). • Develop rules needed for the development of electricity storage technologies. • Adopt a zero net energy (ZNE) standard for residential buildings by 2018/2019, and for commercial buildings by 2030.• Through a public process, evaluate and set targets for the electrification of space and water heating in residential and commercial buildings and cleaner heating fuels that will result in GHG reductions, and identify actions that can be taken to spur market transformation in the 2021-2030 period. • Expand the State Low-Income Weatherization Program (LIWP) to continue to improve energy efficiency and weatherize existing residential buildings, particularly for low-income individuals and households. • Decrease usage of fossil natural gas through a combination of energy efficiency programs, fuel switching, and the development and use of renewable gas in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. • Accelerate the deployment of heat pumps and the replacement of diesel generators. • Consider enhanced energy efficiency (high efficiency air conditioners, light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, efficiency improvements in industrial process cooling and refrigeration, efficient street lighting).• Promote programs to support third-party delivered energy efficiency projects.• Per AB 33 (Quirk, Chapter 680, Statutes of 2016), consider large-scale electricity storage.• Support more compact development patterns to promote reduced per capita energy demand (see the Transportation sector for specific policy recommendations). Industry California’s robust economy, with the largest manufacturing sector in the United States, is supported by a variety of sub-industrial sectors, some of which include cement plants, refineries, food processors, paper products, wineries, steel plants, and industrial gas, entertainment, technology and software, aerospace, and defense companies. Together, industrial sources account for approximately 21 percent of the State’s GHG emissions–almost equal to the amount of GHG emissions from the energy sector. Emissions in this sector are mainly due to fuel combustion and, in some industries, process-related emissions. Changes in this sector strongly correlate with changes in the overall economy. For example, housing and construction growth usually increases demand for cement. Moving toward a cleaner economy and ensuring we meet the statewide targets requires us to address GHG emissions in this sector, which has the potential to provide local co-benefits in criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant reductions in immediate surrounding locations, especially in vulnerable communities. At the same time, we must ensure there is a smooth path to a cleaner future to support a resilient and robust economy with a strong job force, including training opportunities for workers in disadvantaged communities, while continuing to support economic growth in existing and new industries. 70 Greenhouse gas emissions in the Industrial sector have remained relatively flat for the last few years while the State’s economy has continued to grow, meaning the GHG emissions to produce each dollar of gross standard product is decreasing. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 10 percent of the gross state product.176 In 2016, California industry exported $163.6 billion in merchandise.177 Policies to address GHG emissions reductions must continue to balance the State’s economic well-being with making progress toward achievement of the statewide limits. As this sector is dominated by combustion-related emissions, policies and measures to supply cleaner fuels and more efficient technology are the key to reducing GHG emissions. Some sectors, such as cement and glass, also have significant process emissions, and it may be more challenging to address those process emissions, as they are related to chemical reactions and processes to meet safety, product-specific, or regulatory standards for the final products. Another important aspect for this sector is its role as the State transitions to a cleaner future. Infrastructure, including existing facilities and new facilities, can support the production of new technology to bolster the State’s efforts to address GHGs. For example, existing refineries have an opportunity to move away from fossil fuel production and switch to the production of biofuels and clean technology. As the State works to double energy efficiency in existing buildings, there will be an increased demand for efficient lighting fixtures, building insulation, low-e178 coatings for existing windows, or new windows–goods which could be produced in California. The predominant paths to reducing GHG emissions for the Industrial sector are: fuel switching, energy efficiency improvements, and process modifications. Carbon capture and sequestration also offers a potential new, long-term path for reducing GHGs for large stationary sources. Relocation of production to outside the State would also reduce emissions, but this is disadvantageous for a couple of reasons and efforts are needed to avoid this outcome. First, AB 32 requires the State’s climate policies to minimize emissions leakage, and relocation would shift GHG emissions outside of the State without the benefit of reducing pollutants that contribute to overall global warming impacts. Second, it could also reduce the availability of associated jobs and could impact a local tax base that supports local services such as public transportation, emergency response, and social services, as well as funding sources critical to protecting the natural environment and keeping it available for current and future generations. Even while we continue to seek further GHG reductions in the sector, it is important to recognize the State has a long history of addressing health-based air pollutants in this sector. Many of the actions for addressing criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants in the industrial sector are driven by California’s local air district stationary source requirements to ensure progress toward achieving State and national ambient air quality standards. Some of those actions, such as use of Best Available Control Technology, have resulted in co-benefits in the form of GHG reductions. The State must continue to strengthen its existing criteria and toxic air pollutant programs and relationships with local air districts to ensure all Californians have healthy, clean air. This is especially true in disadvantaged communities. AB 32 directed CARB to take several actions to address GHG emissions, such as early action measures, GHG reporting requirements for the largest GHG sources, and other measures. In response, the State adopted multiple measures and regulations, including regulations for high global warming potential (high-GWP) gases used in refrigeration systems and the semiconductor industry.179 These regulations apply to specific GHGs and types of equipment that can be found across the economy. For example, high-GWP gases are found in refrigeration systems in large food processing plants and chemical and petrochemical facilities, among others.180 The State has also adopted the first in the world economy-wide cap-and-trade program that applies to all large industrial GHG emitters, imported electricity, and fuel and natural gas suppliers. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the Cap-and-Trade Program is a key element of California’s GHG reduction strategy. The 176 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/011416/californias-economy-9-industries-driving-gdp-growth.asp177 U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. 2017. California Exports, Jobs, & Foreign Investment. www.trade.gov/mas/ian/statereports/states/ca.pdf178 Low-e coatings reduce the emissivity, or heat transfer, from a window to improve its insulating properties.179 CARB. Refrigerant Management Program. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/rmp/rmp.htm180 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has also enacted regulations to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions by prohibiting high-GWP refrigerants in new retail food refrigeration equipment and in chillers used for large air-conditioning applications. On the international level, the European Union F-gas regulations went into effect January 1, 2015. Those regulations prohibit high-GWP HFCs in new equipment and require a gradual phasedown in the production and import of HFCs. A similar HFC phasedown that would take place globally was the subject of international negotiations during the Montreal Protocol meeting in Rwanda in October, 2016. Those negotiations resulted in an agreement that will phase down the use of HFCs and put the world on track to avoid nearly 0.5°C of warming by 2100. 71 Cap-and-Trade Program establishes a declining limit on major sources of GHG emissions, and it creates a powerful economic incentive for major investment in cleaner, more efficient technologies. The Cap-and- Trade Program applies to emissions that cover about 85 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. CARB creates allowances equal to the total amount of permissible emissions (i.e., the “cap”) over a given compliance period. One allowance equals one metric ton of GHG emissions. Fewer allowances are created each year, thus the annual cap declines and statewide emissions are reduced over time. An increasing annual auction reserve (or floor) price for allowances and the reduction in annual allowance budgets creates a steady and sustained pressure for covered entities to reduce their GHGs. All covered entities in the Cap-and-Trade Program are still subject to the air quality permit limits for criteria and toxic air pollutants. The Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to achieve the most cost-effective statewide GHG emissions reductions; there are no individual or facility-specific GHG emissions reductions requirements. Each entity covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program has a compliance obligation that is set by its GHG emissions over a compliance period, and entities are required to meet that compliance obligation by acquiring and surrendering allowances in an amount equal to their compliance obligation. Companies can also meet a limited portion of their compliance obligation by acquiring and surrendering offset credits, which are compliance instruments that are based on rigorously verified emissions reductions that occur from projects outside the scope of the Cap-and-Trade Program. Like allowances, each offset credit is equal to one metric ton of GHG emissions. The program began in January 2013 and achieved a near 100 percent compliance rate for the first compliance period (2013–2014). Reported and verified emissions covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program have been below the cap throughout the first years of the Program.181 Allowances are issued by CARB and distributed by free allocation and by sale at auctions. CARB also provides for free allocation to some entities covered by the Program to address potential trade exposure due to the cost of compliance with the Program and address concerns of relocation of production out-of-state and resulting emissions leakage. Offset credits are issued by CARB to qualifying offset projects. Secondary markets exist where allowances and offset credits may be sold and traded among Cap-and-Trade Program participants. Facilities must submit allowances and offsets to match their annual GHG emissions. Facilities that emit more GHG emissions must surrender more allowances or offset credits, and facilities that can cut their emissions need to surrender fewer compliance instruments. Entities have flexibility to choose the lowest-cost approach to achieving program compliance; they may purchase allowances at auction, trade allowances and offset credits with others, take steps to reduce emissions at their own facilities, or utilize a combination of these approaches. Proceeds from the sale of State-owned allowances at auction are placed into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It is important to note that while the Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to reduce GHGs for the industrial sector, there are recommendations from the EJAC (or Committee) for the State to pursue more facility- specific GHG reduction measures to achieve potential local air quality co-benefits, and AB 197 directs CARB to prioritize direct reductions at large stationary sources. The Committee has expressed a strong preference to forgo the existing Cap-and-Trade Program and rely on prescriptive facility level regulations. We agree with the EJAC that more can and should be done to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. These pollutants pose air quality and related health issues to the communities adjacent to the sources of industrial emissions. Further, many of these communities are already disadvantaged and burdened by a variety of other environmental stresses. As described in Chapter 3, however, there is not always a direct correlation between emissions of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants. Also, relationships between these pollutants are complex within and across industrial sectors. The solution, therefore, is not to do away with or change the regulation of GHGs through the Cap-and-Trade Program to address these legitimate concerns; instead, consistent with the direction in AB 197 and AB 617, State and local agencies must evaluate and implement additional measures that directly regulate and reduce emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants through other programs. 181 CARB. 2016. Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/ghg-rep.htm 72 Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Goals • Increase energy efficiency. • Reduce fossil fuel use. • Promote and support industry that provides products and clean technology needed to achieve the State’s climate goals. • Create market signals for low carbon intensity products. • Maximize air quality co-benefits. • Support a resilient low carbon economy and strong job force.• Make California the epicenter for research, development, and deployment of technology needed to achieve a near-zero carbon future. • Increase in-State recycling manufacturing. Cross-Sector Interactions There are clear, direct relationships between the industrial sector and other sectors that go beyond the economic support that a strong economy provides. For instance, this sector could increase its use of renewable fuels such as biomethane, which would be sourced from landfills or dairies. Additionally, some industries could shift from raw materials to recycled materials to reduce waste and reduce GHG emissions associated with processing of raw materials. Further, addressing energy efficiency could reduce onsite heating, water, and fuel demand. Moreover, supporting mass-transit or ride share programs for employees would reduce VMT. Finally, upgrading existing facilities or repurposing existing infrastructure instead of constructing new facilities or infrastructure would support land conservation and smart growth goals. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. Ongoing and Proposed Measures • At the October 2016 annual Montreal Protocol Meeting of Parties in Kigali, Rwanda, an international amendment to globally phase down HFC production was agreed upon by more than 150 countries. Depending on the level of future HFC emissions reductions expected for California from the Kigali Agreement, California may also: (1) consider placing restrictions on the sale or distribution of refrigerants with a GWP > 2,500, and (2) consider prohibiting refrigerants with a GWP >= 150 in new stationary refrigeration equipment and refrigerants with a GWP >= 750 for new stationary air-conditioning equipment. At the time the SLCP Strategy was finalized, U.S. EPA was expected to continue implementing certain HFC reductions under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Recent litigation may result in CARB implementing similar measures as state law instead. • Develop a regulatory monitoring, reporting, verification, and implementation methodology for the implementation of carbon capture and sequestration projects.• Implement the CARB Regulation for Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities to reduce fugitive methane emissions from storage and distribution infrastructure. Sector Measures • Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. • Continue and strategically expand research and development efforts to identify, evaluate, and help deploy innovative strategies that reduce GHG emissions in the industrial sector. • Promote procurement policies that prioritize low carbon production to delivery options, including at the State and local government levels. • Identify and remove barriers to existing grant funding for onsite clean technology or efficiency upgrades. 73 Potential Additional Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. It is anticipated that there will be workshops and other stakeholder forums in the years following finalization of the Scoping Plan to explore these potential actions. • Further deploy fuel cells that use renewable fuels or those that generate electricity that is less carbon intensive than the grid. • Decrease usage of fossil natural gas through a combination of efficiency, fuel switching, and the development and use of renewable gas. • Partner with California’s local air districts to effectively use BARCT to achieve air quality and GHG reduction co-benefits at large industrial sources. • Evaluate the potential for and promote electrification for industrial stationary sources whose main emissions are onsite natural gas combustion. • Identify new funding for grants and tariff opportunities for onsite clean technology, efficiency upgrades, diesel generator replacement, or recycling manufacturing technology. • Develop an incentive program to install low-GWP refrigeration systems in retail food stores.• Evaluate and design additional mechanisms to further minimize emissions leakage in the Cap-and-Trade Program (e.g., border carbon adjustment). Transportation Sustainability California’s population is projected to grow to 50 million people by 2050. How and where the State grows will have important implications for all sectors of the economy, especially the transportation sector. Supporting this growth while continuing to protect the environment, developing livable and vibrant communities, and growing the economy is dependent on transitioning the State’s transportation system to one powered by ZEVs (including PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs) and low carbon fuels. It must also offer other attractive and convenient low carbon transportation choices, including safe walking and bicycling, as well as quality public transportation. Investments should consider California’s diverse communities and provide accessible and clean travel options to all while drastically reducing reliance on light-duty combustion vehicles. The transportation system in California moves people between home, work, school, shopping, recreation, and other destinations, and connects ports, industry, residential communities, commercial centers, educational facilities, and natural wonders.182 California’s vast transportation system includes roads and highways totaling more than 175,000 miles and valued at approximately $1.2 trillion, 500 transit agencies, 245 public-use airports, 12 major ports, and the nation’s first high-speed rail system, now under construction.183 Transportation infrastructure also includes sidewalks, bicycle paths, parking, transit stations and shelters, street trees and landscaping, signage, lighting, and other elements that affect the convenience, safety, and accessibility of transportation choices. Increasingly, technologies such as real-time, web- and mobile-enabled trip planning and ride-sourcing services are changing how people travel. In the near future, automated and connected vehicles, and unmanned aerial systems (e.g., drones) are expected to be part of our transportation landscape and to transform the way that people and freight are transported. Responsibility for the transportation system is spread across State, regional, and local levels. Through effective policy design, the State has an opportunity to guide technology transformation and influence investment decisions with a view to mitigate climate and environmental impacts while promoting economic opportunities and community health and safety. The network of transportation technology and infrastructure, in turn, shapes and is shaped by development and land use patterns that can either support or detract from a more sustainable, low carbon, multi-modal transportation future. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, therefore, must actively address not only infrastructure and technology, but also coordinated strategies to achieve development, conservation, and land use patterns that align with the State’s GHG and other policy goals. Transportation also enables the movement of freight such as food, building materials, and other consumable products, as well as waste and recyclables. The California freight system includes myriad equipment and 182 Caltrans. California Transportation Plan 2040, February 2016.183 Ibid. 74 facilities,184 and is the most extensive, complex, and interconnected system in the country, with approximately 1.5 billion tons of freight valued at $2.8 trillion shipped in 2015 to, through, and within California.185 Freight- dependent industries accounted for over $740 billion of California’s GDP and over 5 million California jobs in 2014.186, 187 Transportation has a profound and varied impact on individuals and communities, including benefits such as economic growth, greater accessibility, and transport-related physical activity, and adverse consequences such as GHG emissions, smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, traffic congestion, and sedentary behaviors. The sector is the largest emitter of GHG emissions in California. Air pollution from tailpipe emissions contributes to respiratory ailments, cardiovascular disease, and early death, with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, those with existing health conditions (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD), low-income communities, and communities of color.188, 189, 190, 191, 192 Importantly, transportation costs are also a major portion of most Californian’s household budgets.193 Additionally, dependence on cars has a direct impact on levels of physical activity, which is closely linked to multiple adverse health outcomes. Fortunately, many measures that reduce transportation sector GHG emissions simultaneously present opportunities to bolster the economy, enhance public health, revitalize disadvantaged communities, strengthen resilience to disasters and changing climate, and improve Californians’ ability to conveniently access daily destinations and nature. These opportunities are particularly important for those who are not able to, or cannot afford to, drive. In addition, a growing market demand for walkable, bikeable, and transit- accessible communities presents a significant opportunity to shift California’s transportation systems toward a lower-carbon future while realizing significant public health benefits through increased levels of physical activity (e.g., walking and bicycling). In fact, transport-related physical activity could result in reducing risks from chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, certain cancers, and more, to such an extent that it would rank among the top public health accomplishments in modern history, and help to reduce the billions of dollars California spends each year to treat chronic diseases. Just as California was the first to mitigate the contribution of cars and trucks to urban smog, it is leading the way toward a clean, low carbon, healthy, interconnected, and equitable transportation system. Continuing to advance the significant progress already underway in the areas of vehicle and fuel technology is critical to the transportation sector strategy and to reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector. The rapid technological and behavioral changes underway with automated and connected vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, and ride-sourcing services are redefining the transportation sector, and should be part of the solution for a lower carbon transportation sector. It is critical to support and accelerate progress on transitioning to a zero carbon transportation system, while ensuring VMT reductions are still achieved. The growing severity of climate impacts, persistent public health impacts and costs from air pollution,194 and rapid technology progress that supports the expectation that cost parity between some ZEVs and comparable internal combustion vehicles will be attained in a few years, underscores the need for further 184 The freight system includes trucks, ocean-going vessels, locomotives, aircraft, transport refrigeration units, commercial harborcraft and cargo handling, industrial and ground service equipment used to move freight at seaports, airports, border crossings, railyards, warehouses, and distribution centers.185 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration. Freight Analysis Framework, V 4.1, 2016.186 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. Available at: www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm, accessed March 11, 2016.187 State of California Employment Development Department. Labor Market Information by California Geographic Areas. Available at: www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/geography/lmi-by-geography.html, accessed March 21, 2016.188 CARB. May 2016. Mobile Source Strategy. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf189 Hoek, G., Krishnan, R. M., Beelen, R., Peters, A., Ostro, B., Brunekreef, B., and Kaufman, J. D. 2013. Long-term air pollution exposure and cardio-respiratory mortality: a review. Environmental Health, 12(1), 1.190 Friedman, M. S., K. E. Powell, L. Hutwagner, L. M. Graham, and W. G. Teague. 2001. “Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma.” JAMA 285(7), 897–905.191 Bell, M. L., and K. Ebisu. 2012. “Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120(12), 1699.192 Morello-Frosch, R., M. Zuk, M. Jerrett, B. Shamasunder, and A. D. Kyle. 2011. “Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: implications for policy.” Health Affairs 30(5), 879–887.193 H + T® Index website. htaindex.cnt.org/194 For example, a recent report by the American Lung Association estimates the costs of climate and air pollution from passenger vehicles in California to be $15 billion annually. Holmes-Gen, B. and W. Barrett. 2016. Clean Air Future – Health and Climate Benefits of Zero Emission Vehicles. American Lung Association in California, October. 75 action on ZEVs. Therefore, CARB is signaling the need for additional policy and technical support on strategies to move toward a goal of achieving 100 percent ZEV sales in the light-duty vehicle sector. Austria, Germany, India, Netherlands, and Norway are all taking steps to, or have indicated a desire to, move to 100 percent ZEV sales in the 2020–2030 time frame. In addition, policies that maximize the integration of electrified rail and transit to improve reliability and travel times, increase active transportation such as walking and bicycling, encourage use of streets for multiple modes of transportation, improve freight efficiency and infrastructure development, and shift demand to low carbon modes will need to play a greater role as California strives to achieve its 2030 and 2050 climate targets.195 The State’s rail modernization program has identified critical elements of the rail network where improvements, either in timing of service or infrastructure, provide benefits across the entire statewide network, furthering the attractiveness of rail for a range of trip distances.196 The State also uses the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) to provide grants from GGRF to fund transformative improvements modernizing California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, as well as bus and ferry transit systems, to reduce emissions of GHGs by reducing congestion and VMT throughout California. As the backbone of an electrified mass-transportation network for the State, the high-speed rail system catalyzes and relies on focused, compact, and walkable development well-served by local transit to funnel riders onto the system and provide alternative options to airplanes and automobiles for interregional travel. Concentrated development, such as that incentivized by the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant program, can improve ridership and revenue for the system while providing vibrant communities for all. At the same time, more needs to be done to fully exploit synergies with emerging mobility solutions like ride-sourcing and more effective infrastructure planning to anticipate and guide the necessary changes in travel behavior, especially among millennials. Uniquely, high-speed rail affects air-miles traveled, diverting, at minimum, 30 percent of the intrastate air travel market in 2040.197 While most of the GHG reductions from the transportation sector in this Scoping Plan will come from technologies and low carbon fuels, a reduction in the growth of VMT is also needed. VMT reductions are necessary to achieve the 2030 target and must be part of any strategy evaluated in this Plan. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward this goal, but alone will not provide all of the VMT growth reductions that will be needed. There is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals. At the time of this writing, adoption of the first round of SCSs by MPOs is complete, and the second round of SCS planning is underway. Three MPO regions are in the very early stages of developing their third SCSs. To date, CARB staff reviewed the final determinations of 16 MPOs, and concluded that all 16 of those SCSs would achieve their targets, if implemented, with many of the MPOs indicating that they expect to exceed their targets. CARB staff recognizes the very strong performance in this first round of SCSs as a major success. Currently adopted sustainable communities strategies achieve, in aggregate, a 17 percent reduction in statewide per capita GHG emissions relative to 2005 by 2035. Since 2014, CARB has been working with MPOs and other stakeholders to update regional SB 375 targets. At the same time, CARB has also conducted analysis for development of the Mobile Source Strategy and Scoping Plan that identifies the need for statewide per capita greenhouse gas emissions reductions on the order of 25 percent by 2035, to meet our climate goals. Many MPOs have identified challenges to incorporating additional strategies and reducing emissions further in their plans, principally tied to the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources. MPOs have submitted target update recommendations to CARB that in aggregate maintains a 17 percent reduction statewide, which includes commitments of 18 percent reduction by 2035 from each of the four largest MPOs in the State. CARB is currently reviewing each MPOs target update recommendations alongside new State policies. State agencies have been working on new State-level VMT-related Policies and Measures (see Table 17) as part of this Scoping Plan intended to provide the State, MPOs, and local agencies with additional funding resources and tools to successfully meet the State’s climate goals. CARB’s preliminary review indicates that new State- level policies and measures will help support updated SB 375 targets that achieve up to 20 percent of the 195 Morello-Frosch, R., M. Zuk, M. Jerrett, B. Shamasunder, and A. D. Kyle. 2011. “Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: Implications for policy.” Health Affairs 30(5), 879–887.196 California State Transportation Agency. 2016. 2018 California State Rail Plan factsheet and TIRCP fact sheet.197 California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2016. 2016 Business Plan. Ridership and Revenue Forecast. 76 needed statewide reduction, as well as help bridge the remaining VMT growth reduction gap. Discussions among a broad suite of stakeholders from transportation, the building community, financial institutions, housing advocates, environmental organizations, and community groups are needed to begin the process to pursue and develop the needed set of strategies to ensure that we can achieve necessary VMT reductions, and that the associated benefits are shared by all Californians. Appendix C further details potential actions for discussion that can be taken by State government, regional planning agencies, and local governments, to achieve a broad, statewide vision for more sustainable land use and close the VMT gap.198 At the State level, a number of important policies are being developed. Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013), which called for an update to the metric of transportation impact in CEQA. That update to the CEQA Guidelines is currently underway. Employing VMT as the metric of transportation impact statewide will help to ensure GHG reductions planned under SB 375 will be achieved through on-the-ground development, and will also play an important role in creating the additional GHG reductions needed beyond SB 375 across the State. Implementation of this change will rely, in part, on local land use decisions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the project level, and in long-term plans (including general plans, climate action plans, specific plans, and transportation plans) and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375. The State can provide guidance and tools to assist local governments in achieving those objectives. Appendix H highlights the more significant existing policies, programs, measures, regulations, and initiatives that provide a framework for helping achieve GHG emissions reductions in this sector. Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Vibrant Communities and Landscapes / VMT Reduction Goals • Implement and support the use of VMT as the metric for determining transportation impacts under CEQA, in place of level of service (LOS). • Promote all feasible policies to reduce VMT, including: • Land use and community design that reduce VMT, • Transit oriented development,• Complete street design policies that prioritize transit, biking, and walking, and• Increasing low carbon mobility choices, including improved access to viable and affordable public transportation and active transportation opportunities. • Complete the construction of high-speed rail integrated with enhanced rail and transit systems throughout the State. • Promote transportation fuel system infrastructure for electric, fuel-cell, and other emerging clean technologies that is accessible to the public where possible, and especially in underserved communities, including environmental justice communities. • Increase the number, safety, connectivity, and attractiveness of biking and walking facilities to increase use. • Promote potential efficiency gains from automated transportation systems and identify policy priorities to maximize sustainable outcomes from automated and connected vehicles (preferably ZEVs), including VMT reduction, coordination with transit, and shared mobility, and minimize any increase in VMT, fossil fuel use, and emissions from using automated transportation systems.• Promote shared-use mobility, such as bike sharing, car sharing and ride-sourcing services to bridge the “first mile, last mile” gap between commuters’ transit stops and their destinations. • Continue research and development on transportation system infrastructure, including: • Integrate frameworks for lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions with life- cycle costs for pavement and large infrastructure projects, and • Health benefits and costs savings from shifting from driving to walking, bicycling, and transit use. • Quadruple the proportion of trips taken by foot by 2030 (from a baseline 198 CARB. Potential State - Level Strategies to Advance Sustainable, Equitable Communities and Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) -- for Discussion. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/091316/Potential%20VMT%20Measures%20For%20 Discussion_9.13.16.pdf 77 of the 2010–2012 California Household Travel Survey). • Strive for a nine-fold increase in the proportion of trips taken by bicycle by 2030 (from a baseline of the 2010–2012 California Household Travel Survey). • Strive, in passenger rail hubs, for a transit mode share of between 10 percent and 50 percent, and for a walk and bike mode share of between 10 percent and 15 percent. Vehicle Technology Goals • Through a strong set of complementary policies–including reliable incentives, significant infrastructure investment, broad education and outreach, and potential regulation–aim to reach 100 percent ZEV sales in the light-duty sector (PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs) by 2050. • Make significant progress in ZEV penetrations in non-light-duty sectors. • Deploy low-emission and electrified rail vehicles. Clean Fuels Goals • Electrify the transportation sector using both electricity and hydrogen. • Promote research development and deployment of low carbon fuels such as renewable gas, including renewable hydrogen. • Rapidly reduce carbon intensity of existing liquid and gaseous transportation fuels. Sustainable Freight Goals • Increase freight system efficiency of freight operations at specific facilities and along freight corridors such that more cargo can be moved with fewer emissions.• Accelerate use of clean vehicle and equipment technologies and fuels of freight through targeted introduction of zero emission or near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) technologies, and continued development of renewable fuels. • Encourage State and federal incentive programs to continue supporting zero and near-zero pilot and demonstration projects in the freight sector. • Accelerate use of clean vehicle, equipment, and fuels in freight sector through targeted introduction of ZE/NZE technologies, and continued development of renewable fuels. This includes developing policy options that encourage ZE/NZE vehicles on primary freight corridors (e.g., Interstate-710); examples of such policy options include a separated ZE/ NZE freight lane, employing market mechanisms such as favorable road pricing for ZE/NZE vehicles, and developing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure along those corridors. Cross-Sector Interactions The transportation sector has considerable influence on other sectors and industries in the State. California’s transportation sector is still primarily powered by petroleum, and to reduce statewide emissions, California must reduce demand for driving; continue to reduce its gasoline and diesel fuel consumption; diversify its transportation fuel sources by increasing the adoption of low- and zero-carbon fuels; increase the ease and integration of the rail and transit networks to shift travel mode; and deploy ZE/NZE vehicles. As California’s population continues to increase, land use patterns will directly impact GHG emissions from the transportation sector, as well as those associated with the conversion and development of previously undeveloped land. Specifically, where and how the State population grows will have implications on distances traveled and tailpipe emissions; as well as on secondary emissions from the transportation sector, including emissions from vehicle manufacturing and distribution, fuel refining and distribution, demand for new infrastructure (including roads, transit, and active transportation infrastructure), demand for maintenance and upkeep of existing infrastructure. Conversion of natural and working lands further affects emissions, with the attendant impacts to food security, watershed health, and ecosystems. Less dense development also demands higher energy and water use. With the exception of VMT reductions, none of these secondary emissions are currently accounted for in the GHG models used in this Scoping Plan, but are nonetheless important considerations. Additionally, compact, lower-VMT future development patterns are essential to achieving public health, equity, economic, and conservation goals, which are also not modeled but are important co-benefits of the overall transportation sector strategy. For example, high-speed rail station locations were identified in downtown areas to reinforce existing city centers. 78 Achieving LCFS targets and shifting from petroleum dependence toward greater reliance on low carbon fuels also has the potential to affect land use in multiple ways. For example, increased demand for conventional biofuels could require greater use of land and water for purpose-grown crops, which includes interactions with the agricultural and natural and working lands sectors. On the other hand, continuing growth in fuels from urban organic waste, as well as waste biomass such as composting residues, by-processing residues and agricultural waste and excess forest biomass acts to alleviate the pressure on croplands to meet the need for food, feed, and fuel. Likewise, captured methane from in-vessel digestion, landfills or dairy farms for use in vehicles requires close interaction with the waste and farming sectors. Also, as more electric vehicles and charging stations are deployed, drivers’ charging behavior will affect the extent to which additional electric generation capacity and ancillary services are needed to maintain a reliable grid and accommodate a portfolio of 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030. Charging control and optimization technologies will determine how well integrated the electric and transportation sectors can become, including, for instance, the widespread use of electric vehicles as storage for excess renewable generation, vehicle to grid, smart charging, and/or smart grid. The GHG emissions intensity of electricity affects the GHG savings of fuel switching from petroleum-based fuels to electricity; the cleaner the electric grid, the greater the benefits of switching to electricity as a fuel. Similar to electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles have zero-tailpipe emissions and can mitigate GHGs and criteria pollutants. Greenhouse gas emissions could be further reduced with the use of renewable hydrogen, which can be produced using renewable electricity or renewable natural gas. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for the transportation sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Vibrant Communities and Landscapes / VMT Reduction Goals • Mobile Source Strategy – 15 percent reduction in total light-duty VMT from the BAU in 2050 (with measures to achieve this goal not specified; potential measures identified in Appendix C).• Work with regions to update SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies targets for 2035 to better align with the 2030 GHG target and take advantage of State rail investments.• Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward the goal of reducing total light-duty VMT by 15 percent from expected levels in 2050, but alone will not provide all of the VMT reductions that will be needed. The gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals needs to be addressed through additional VMT reduction measures such as those mentioned in Appendix C. • Implement and support the adoption and use of VMT as the CEQA metric of transportation impact, such that it promotes GHG reduction, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. • Continue to develop and explore pathways to implement State-level VMT reduction strategies, such as those outlined in the document “Potential State-Level Strategies to Advance Sustainable, Equitable Communities and Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) – for Discussion”199 – included in Appendix C – through a transparent and inclusive interagency policy development process to evaluate and identify implementation pathways for additional policies to reduce VMT and promote sustainable communities, with a focus on: • Accelerating equitable and affordable transit-oriented and infill development through new and enhanced financing and policy incentives and mechanisms, • Promoting stronger boundaries to suburban growth through enhanced support for sprawl containment mechanisms such as urban growth boundaries and transfer of development rights programs, • Identifying performance criteria for transportation and other infrastructure investments 199 Refers to the document discussed at the September 2016 Public Workshop on the Transportation Sector to Inform Development of the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Update, also available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/091316/ Potential%20VMT%20Measures%20For%20Discussion_9.13.16.pdf 79 to ensure alignment with GHG reduction goals and other State policy priorities and expand access to transit, shared mobility, and active transportation choices, • Promoting efficient development patterns that maximize protection of natural and working lands, • Developing pricing mechanisms such as road user/VMT-based pricing, congestion pricing, and parking pricing strategies, • Reducing congestion and related GHG emissions through commute trip reduction strategies, and • Programs to maximize the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, including bicycling, walking, transit use, and shared mobility options. • Finalize analysis of the results of the pilot road usage charge program, implemented pursuant to SB 1077 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 835, Statues of 2014), and evaluate deployment of a statewide program.• Continue promoting active transportation pursuant to SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) – The Active Transportation Program and beyond.• Continue to build high-speed rail and broader statewide rail modernization pursuant to the funding program in SB 862 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014) and other sources. • Encourage use of streets for multiple modes of transportation (including public transit and active transportation, such as walking and bicycling), and for all users, including the elderly, young, and less able bodied, pursuant to AB 1358 (Leno, Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008) – Complete Streets policies. • Support and assist local and regional governments, through technical assistance, and grant and other local assistance programs, to develop and implement plans that are consistent with the goals and concepts in The Second Investment Plan for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2018-2019200 and its subsequent updates, and Appendix C: Vibrant Communities and Landscapes, including the following:• California Climate Investment programs such as Transformative Climate Communities Program, ensuring promotion of GHG reductions from neighborhood-level community plans in disadvantaged communities. • AB 2087 (Levine, Chapter 455, Statutes of 2016) – Help local and State agencies apply core investment principles when planning conservation or mitigation projects. • High speed rail station area plans. • Implementation of updated General Plan Guidelines. • Per SB 350, implement the recommendations identified in the Barriers Study to accessing ZE/NZE transportation options for low-income customers and recommendations on how to increase access.201 And, track progress towards these actions over time to ensure disadvantaged communities are getting equal access and benefits relative to other parts of the State. • Take into account the current and future impacts of climate change when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining, and investing in State infrastructure, as required under Executive Order B-30-15. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Vehicle Technology • Implement the Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario of CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, which includes:• An expansion of the Advanced Clean Cars program, which further increases the stringency of GHG emissions for all light-duty vehicles, and 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030, • Phase 1 and 2 GHG regulations for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and • Innovative Clean Transit. • Periodically assess and promote cleaner fleet standards. • Deploy ZEVs across all vehicle classes, including rail vehicles, along with the necessary charging infrastructure. • Encourage State and federal incentive programs to continue supporting zero and near-zero pilot and demonstration projects.• Collaborate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate more 200 CARB. January 2016. Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds Second Investment Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-17 through 2018-19. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/16-17-updated-final-second-investment-planii.pdf201 CARB. 2017. Low-Income Barriers Study, Part B: Overcoming Barriers to Clean Transportation Access for Low Income Residents. www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/transoptions/draft_sb350_clean_transportation_access_guidance_document.pdf 80 stringent locomotives requirements,202 work with California seaports, ocean carriers, and other stakeholders to develop the criteria to incentivize introduction of Super- Low Emission Efficient Ships, and investigate potential energy efficiency improvements for transport refrigeration units and insulated truck and trailer cargo vans. • Promote research, development, and deployment of new technology to reduce GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxics. • Implement a process for intra-state agency and regional and local transportation coordination on automated vehicles to ensure shared policy goals in achieving safe, energy efficient, and low carbon autonomous vehicle deployment that also contribute to VMT reductions. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Clean Fuels • Continue LCFS activities, with increasing stringency of at least 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity (CI). • Continue to develop and commercialize clean transportation fuels through renewable energy integration goals, tax incentives, research investments, support for project demonstration, public outreach, setting procurement standards, including updating State and local procurement contracts.• Per SB 1383 and the SLCP Strategy, adopt regulations to reduce and recover methane from landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and manure at dairies; use the methane as a source of renewable gas to fuel vehicles and generate electricity; and establish infrastructure development and procurement policies to deliver renewable gas to the market. • Accelerate deployment of alternative fueling infrastructure pursuant to the following: • SB 350 – CPUC to accelerate widespread transportation electrification. • Executive Order B-16-2012 and 2016 ZEV Action Plan – call for infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs by 2020. • CEC’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP). • CPUC’s NRG settlement.• CALGreen Code provisions mandate installation of PEV charging infrastructure in new residential and commercial buildings.203 • IOU electric vehicle charging infrastructure pilot programs. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Sustainable Freight • Implement the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan:• 25 percent improvement of freight system efficiency by 2030. • Deployment of over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation, and maximize near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – California and Transportation Plan • Update every five years and implement California Transportation Plan. Sector Measures • Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program Potential Additional Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. • Develop a set of complementary policies to make light-duty ZEVs clear market winners, with a goal of reaching 100 percent light-duty ZEV sales. This could include the following: • Reliable purchase/trade-in incentives for at least 10 years. • Dealer incentives for ZEV sales. • Policies to ensure operating cost savings for ZEVs relative to internal 202 www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/docs/final_locomotive_petition_and_cover_letter_4_13_17.pdf203 Such as raceway and panel capacity to support future installation of electrical vehicle charging stations. 81 combustion engines, including low cost electricity. • Additional investments in charging and ZEV refueling infrastructure. • A broad and effective marketing and outreach campaign. • Collaborations with cities to develop complementary incentive and use policies for ZEVs. • Targeted policies to support ZEV sales and use in low income and disadvantaged communities. • Develop a Low-Emission Diesel Standard to diversify the fuel pool by incentivizing increased production of low-emission diesel fuels. This standard is anticipated to both displace consumption of conventional diesel with increased use of low- emission diesel fuels, and to reduce emissions from conventional fuels. • Continue to develop and explore pathways to implement State-level VMT reduction strategies, such as those outlined in Appendix C through a transparent and inclusive interagency policy development process to evaluate and identify implementation pathways for additional policies to reduce VMT and promote sustainable communities, with a focus on the following: • Accelerating equitable and affordable transit-oriented and infill development through new and enhanced financing and policy incentives and mechanisms. • Promote infrastructure necessary for residential development in existing communities, and ensure any urban growth boundaries are paired with significant infill promotion strategies and removal of infill development barriers. • Identifying performance criteria for transportation and other infrastructure investments, to ensure alignment with GHG reduction goals and other State policy priorities, and improve proximity, expanded access to transit, shared mobility, and active transportation choices. • Promoting efficient development patterns that maximize protection of natural and working lands.• Developing pricing mechanisms such as road user/VMT-based pricing, congestion pricing, and parking pricing strategies.• Reducing congestion and related GHG emissions through programs to maximize the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, including bicycling, walking, transit use, and shared mobility options for commute trips. • Continue to promote research and standards for new and existing technologies to reduce GHGs, including but not limited to: • Low rolling resistance tires in the replacement tire market, subject to certification standards that identify tires as low rolling resistance tires or verify emissions reductions and potential fuel savings. • Impacts on VMT of car sharing, ride-sourcing, and other emerging mobility options. • Driving behaviors that reduce GHG emissions, such as ecodriving training and real-time feedback mechanisms. Natural and Working Lands Including Agricultural Lands In his 2015 State of the State address, Governor Brown established 2030 targets for GHG emissions reductions and called for policies and actions to reduce GHG emissions from natural and working lands, including forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, and soils. The passage of SB 1386 (Wolk, Chapter 535, Statutes of 2015-16) codified this policy and emphasized the important role natural and working lands play in the State’s climate strategy. This Scoping Plan focuses renewed attention on California’s natural and working lands and the contribution they make to meet the State’s goals for carbon sequestration, GHG reduction, and climate change adaptation. California’s natural and working lands encompass a range of land types and uses, including farms, ranches, forests, grasslands, deserts, wetlands, riparian areas, coastal areas and the ocean-- as well as the green spaces in urban and built environments. These resources can be both a source and sink for GHG emissions. Policy in this sector must balance GHG emissions reductions and carbon sequestration with other co- benefits, such as clean air, wildlife and pollinator habitat, strong economies, food, fiber and renewable energy production, and water supply.204 Recent trends indicate that significant pools of carbon from these landscapes risk reversal: over the period 2001–2010 disturbance caused an estimated 150 MMT C loss, with the majority– approximately 120 MMT C– 204 www.sierranevada.ca.gov/our-region/ca-primary-watershed 82 lost through wildland fire.205 At the same time, energy use, methane, and N2O emissions from the agricultural sector accounts for eight percent of the emissions in the statewide GHG inventory. California’s climate objective for natural and working lands is to maintain them as a carbon sink (i.e., net zero or negative GHG emissions) and, where appropriate, minimize the net GHG and black carbon emissions associated with management, biomass utilization, and wildfire events. In order to achieve this objective, this Plan directs the continued development of the broad and growing understanding of carbon dynamics on California’s landscapes, statewide emission trends, and their responses to different land management scenarios. Further, in order to build a programmatic framework for achieving this long-term objective to maintain California’s natural and working lands as a carbon sink, this Plan directs the State to quantify the carbon impacts of both publicly funded (e.g., bonds, special taxes, general fund) climate intervention activities on California’s natural and working lands made through existing programs as well as potential regulatory actions on land management. This Plan proposes an intervention based reduction goal of at least 15-20 million metric tons by 2030 as a reasonable beginning point for further discussion and development based on the State’s current preliminary understanding of what might be feasible. This Plan recognizes that achieving an initial statewide goal of sequestering and avoiding emissions in this sector by at least 15-20 million metric tons by 2030 through existing pathways and new incentives would provide a crucial complement to the measures described in this Scoping Plan and will inform the development of longer-term natural and working lands goals. Achieving this ambitious climate goal will require collaboration and support from State and local agencies, which must improve their capacity to participate and benefit from State climate programs, and set the path for natural and working lands to help the State meet its long-range climate goals. Looking to the Future This section outlines how the State will achieve California’s climate objectives to: (1) maintain them as a resilient carbon sink (i.e., net zero or negative GHG emissions), and (2) minimize the net GHG and black carbon emissions associated with management, biomass disposal, and wildfire events to 2030 and beyond. Implementation will include policy and program pathways, with activities related to land protection; enhanced carbon sequestration; and innovative biomass utilization. The framework for this section is to: • Protect land from conversion to more intensified uses by increasing conservation opportunities and pursuing local planning processes in urban and infrastructure development patterns that avoid greenfield development. • Enhance the resilience of and potential for carbon sequestration on lands through management and restoration, and reduce GHG and black carbon emissions from wildfire and management activities. This enhancement includes expansion and management of green space in urban areas. • Innovate biomass utilization such that harvested wood and excess agricultural and forest biomass can be used to advance statewide objectives for renewable energy and fuels, wood product manufacturing, agricultural markets, and soil health, resulting in avoided GHG emissions relative to traditional utilization pathways. Associated activities should increase the resilience of rural communities and economies. To accomplish these objectives, the State, led by California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and CARB will complete a Natural and Working Lands (NWL) Climate Change Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan) in 2018 to evaluate a range of implementation scenarios for natural and working lands and identify long-term (2050 or 2100) sequestration goals that can be incorporated into future climate policy. The Implementation Plan will: • Include a projection of statewide emissions under business-as-usual land use and management conditions and alternative scenarios, as well as a listing and quantitative assessment of conservation and management activities the state may pursue to achieve the NWL climate objectives and the statewide goals of at least 15-20 MMTCO2e emissions sequestering and avoidance from the NWL sector by 2030; • Identify state departments, boards, conservancies, and CNRA and CDFA programs responsible for meeting the 15-20 MMTCO2e goal by 2030; and • Identify methodologies to be used by State programs to account for the 205 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/sectors/forest/forest.htm 83 GHG impacts of prior state funded land use and management interventions, and to be used to estimate the GHG impacts of future interventions. While growing trees and other vegetation, as well as soil carbon sequestration, reduce some of the carbon losses measured, climate change itself further stresses many of these systems and affects the ability of California’s landscapes to maintain its carbon sink. The State will continue to rely on best available science to support actions and incentives to slow and reverse these trends, in concert with other production and ecological objectives of land use. The Forest Climate Action Team, Healthy Soils Initiative, State Coastal Conservancy’s Climate Ready Program, various California Climate Investment programs, and CARB’s compliance offset program already undertake portions of this work. As we move towards and maximize the ability of our land base to serve as a carbon sink, it will also be important to strengthen these individual activities through the coordination and aggregation of ecoregional plans that inform these interventions. These and future additional efforts can not only protect California’s natural carbon stocks, they can also improve quality of life in urban and rural communities alike and increase the climate resilience of agricultural, forestry, and recreational industries and the rural communities they support; the State’s water supply; biodiversity; and the safety and environmental health of all who call California home. Research and Policy Needs Research is ongoing across agencies to advance the state of the science on NWL carbon dynamics, including a number of projects within the Fourth Climate Change Assessment, and a compendium of climate research being managed by the CNRA that will be completed in 2018. Additionally, California needs a well-defined reference case, or “business as usual” scenario to set a comprehensive and strategic path forward for California’s lands and ocean environments to contribute to the State’s climate goals. Finally, efforts must increase to gather, interpret, and unify best available science on the GHG and carbon sequestration impacts of land use and management practices applied across forests, cultivated agricultural lands, rangelands and grasslands, wetlands, coastal and ocean systems, desert ecosystems, and urban and other settled lands. The Implementation Plan, as summarized above, will utilize the Protect-Enhance-Innovate framework and employ projections for carbon sequestration and GHG emissions from California’s land base under reference case and increased management scenarios. The quantitative outputs of these projections, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents will drive acreage needs for implementation using CO2e/acre results from multiple modeling efforts. The Implementation Plan will also identify GHG emissions quantification within and across programs and agencies and describe implementation monitoring and emissions inventories. Natural and Working Lands Inventory In order to understand how carbon is released and sequestered by natural and working landscapes, CARB has worked extensively with other State agencies, academic researchers and the public to develop a Natural and Working Lands inventory that will guide this process. As with other sectors, the CARB Natural and Working Lands inventory represents a snapshot of emissions in recent years, using a combination of reported and measured data. A time lag exists between the last year of available data and the completion of the inventory to allow time for reporting and processing the data. For emission sources that are hard to individually measure, the CARB inventory estimates emissions based on “surrogates,” such as the typical amount of travel on unpaved roads to estimate particulate matter emissions at the county level. The most recent inventory can also be “forecast” to project prevailing conditions in a future year based on rules and programs currently in place – known as a “business as usual projection” - along with scenarios to explore the benefits of further strategies to reduce emissions. Forecasts of business-as-usual and policy scenarios guide planning efforts. As discussed below, ongoing research into forecasting emissions from Natural and Working Lands includes a project at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by CNRA. CARB is monitoring this and other research activities and will incorporate results into a proposed inventory and forecasting methodology for Natural and Working Lands. CARB will solicit public feedback and review on the resulting product prior to completing the first full Natural and Working Lands Inventory by the end of 2018, as called for in SB 859. The Natural and Working Lands Inventory is spatially-resolved, so it can be segmented by county, watershed, or other regional planning areas. This spatial resolution allows local governments and regional organizations to use the inventory, along with more granular location-specific information, to track progress from projects in their jurisdictions. 84 CARB plans to update the forest component of the Natural and Working Lands inventory to include 2012 GHG emissions estimates, followed by emissions estimates for soil carbon, urban forestry, and croplands by mid-2018. Work currently in progress applies airborne and space-based technologies to monitor forest health and quantify emissions associated with land-based carbon. California and federal agencies are working with researchers and funding studies to enhance our understanding of the roles of forests and other lands in climate change using rapidly advancing remote sensing technology.206, 207 CALAND Carbon Emissions Model CNRA is managing the development of a CALAND model through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which will include a projection of business-as-usual emissions as well as a listing and quantitative assessment of conservation and management activities the State may pursue to achieve at least 15-20 MMT sequestration and GHG avoided emissions from the NWL sector by 2030. CNRA, along with CARB and CDFA, will establish a formal public engagement process to gather external scientific expertise to inform development and finalization of the CALAND model for use in the Implementation Plan. Development of the Implementation Plan itself will also include a formal public process. Cross-Sector Interactions Strategies that reduce GHG emissions or increase sequestration in the natural and working lands sector often overlap and result in synergies with other sectors, most notably at intersections with land use, biomass and waste utilization, energy and water. It will be important for the sector to make critical linkages to other sectors, including energy, transportation fuels, and waste, and develop plans to integrate the natural and working lands sector into existing models, such as PATHWAYS and REMI. Landowner, local, and regional decisions affect land use development patterns and natural and working land conversion rates; conversely, conservation activities can support infill-oriented regional development and related transportation needs. As discussed earlier in the Transportation Sustainability section, under SB 375, Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs) aim to link transportation, housing, and climate policy to reduce per capita GHG emissions while providing a range of other important benefits for Californians. Some SCSs include policies, objectives or implementation measures relating to conservation and land protections, and to urban greening.208 Protecting natural and working lands that are under threat of conversion can promote infill development, reduce VMT, limit infrastructure expansion, and curb associated GHG emissions. An integrated vision for community development, land conservation and management, and transportation is a key component of meeting our transportation and natural and working lands goals.209 Agricultural and commercial forestry operations produce biomass as both an objective (i.e., food and fiber production) and a waste by-product. How this material is utilized can either increase or decrease emissions associated with management and restoration activities, turn waste into usable products, displace fossil fuels used in energy and transportation, and increase carbon stored in durable wood products in the built environment. Finding productive ways to use this material offers new opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, promote carbon sequestration, and generate economic resources for forest, agricultural, and waste sectors and communities. California is investigating ways to transform how organic waste from the agricultural and municipal sectors is managed to meet SLCP emissions reductions targets required by SB 1383,210 and to protect public health. Cross-sector synergies and complete waste inter-cycles, discussed further in the Waste Management section, result from conscientious treatment of these resources, including opportunities to improve soil health, increase renewable energy generation, and enhance market support for non-commercial products and waste. Productive utilization of dead and dying trees is a significant focus of the Governor’s Tree Mortality Task Force, and efforts to resolve the current shortfall in utilization capacity is addressed in that State of Emergency Declaration as well as in SB 859. Natural and working lands stewardship is essential to securing the State’s water supply along the entire 206 Asner, G. et al. (2015) Progressive forest canopy water loss during the 2012–2015 California drought. PNAS 113.2: E249-E255207 Battles, J. et al. (in progress) Innovations in measuring and managing forest carbon stocks in California. Project 2C: 4th California Climate Change Assessment. Natural Resources Agency. resources.ca.gov/climate/fourth/208 Livingston, Adam. Sustainable Communities Strategies and Conservation. January 2016. Available at: www.nature.org/ ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/sustainable-communities-strategies-and-conservation.pdf209 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/meetings.htm210 SB1383 (Lara, Chapter 396, Statutes of 2016) requires a 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 2030. 85 supply chain, from protection and management of the forested headwaters to preserving the ability of mountain meadows to retain and filter water ensuring flows and habitat in the Delta and its tributaries, end use efficiencies in agricultural and urban uses, and groundwater infiltration and utilization statewide. For example, more efficient water and energy use in farming operations could support GHG emissions reductions goals in the energy sectors. And improving forest health in the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, and other headwaters protects water quality and availability, in alignment with the California Water Action Plan. Potential Actions to Enhance Carbon Sequestration and Reduce Greenhouse Gases in NWL While agricultural and forest lands comprise the greatest acreage of NWL statewide, representing significant opportunity for achieving the State’s NWL climate goals, actions on all NWL remain critical. The land management strategies and targets included in these sections are illustrative of the types of actions that will be necessary to maintain all of California’s NWL and urban green space as a net sink of carbon, and are being used to aid in development of scenario modeling. The Implementation Plan will use this scenario modeling to scope the scale of action needed to ensure resilient future landscapes and identify key areas for advancement. Agriculture’s Role in Emissions Reductions and Carbon Sequestration In 2030 and 2050, the agricultural sector must remain vibrant and strong. California’s agricultural production is critical to global food security. It is also vulnerable to climate change. A study211 by the University of California concluded that the drought in 2015 cost the state economy $2.7 billion and 21,000 full time jobs. These losses are expected to ripple through rural communities for another several years. This illustrates the importance of strengthening agriculture while protecting resources and mitigating climate change. As the State works to meet emissions reductions goals, the agricultural sector can reduce emissions from production, sequester carbon and build soil carbon stocks, and play a role in cross-sectoral efforts to maximize the benefits of natural and working lands. Climate-smart agriculture is an integrated approach to achieving GHG reductions while also ensuring food security and promoting agricultural adaptation in the face of climate change. Conserving agricultural land, sequestering carbon in agricultural soils, employing a variety of techniques to manage manure on dairies, and increasing the efficiency of on-farm water and energy use are examples of practices that can achieve climate and food production goals across diverse agricultural systems. Climate-smart agriculture can support the Protect, Enhance, and Innovate goals. Approximately 60 percent of agricultural emissions are methane emissions from the dairy and livestock sectors. Emissions come from the animals themselves, through enteric fermentation, as well as from manure management–especially at dairies. SB 1383 and the resultant SLCP Strategy identify a mix of voluntary, incentive-based, and potential regulatory actions to achieve significant emissions reductions from these sources. A variety of techniques can attain the best results for each specific farming operation; effectively implementing a broad mix of strategies will reduce the GHG emissions from the agricultural sector significantly. CARB and CDFA and other agencies are working together to solicit input from industry, environmental, and community groups to encourage early and meaningful action to reduce emissions from the livestock sector. Over the last several years, farms have begun to optimize fertilizer applications to protect water quality, maintain high yields, and reduce emissions of N2O, a greenhouse gas. Farmers are required through the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program to manage nitrogen fertilizers to protect water quality through the use of nitrogen management plans. Nitrogen management plans are a tool designed to prevent over-applications of nitrogen through an approach that accounts for the nitrogen inputs from water, soil amendments and other sources, and also accounts for nitrogen removed from the field. CDFA’s Fertilizer Research and Education Program, in coordination with university researchers and others, has developed fertilization guidelines to optimize the rate, timing and placement of fertilizers for crops that represent more than half of the irrigated agriculture in California. Similarly, innovations in water management and the expansion of high efficiency irrigation methods also are contributing to N2O reductions. 211 Howitt, Richard E., Duncan MacEwan, Josué Medellín-Azuara, Jay R. Lund, Daniel A. Sumner. 2015. Economic Analysis of the 2015 Drought for California. Davis, CA: Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California – Davis. 86 California’s farms and ranches have the ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere through management practices that build and retain soil organic matter. Adequate soil organic matter ensures the continued soil capacity to function as a vital living ecosystem with multiple benefits, producing food for plants, animals, and humans. The Healthy Soils Initiative, announced by Governor Brown in 2015, offers an opportunity to incentivize the management of farmland for increased carbon sequestration in soil, also augmenting co- benefits including improved plant health and yields, increased water infiltration and retention, reduced sediment erosion and dust, improved water and air quality, and improved biological diversity and wildlife habitat. SB 859, signed into law in 2016, establishes the Healthy Soils Program at CDFA to provide incentives to farmers. It enables financial support for on-farm demonstration projects that “result in greenhouse gas benefits across all farming types with the intent to establish or promote healthy soils”. It defines healthy soils as “soils that enhance their continuing capacity to function as a biological system, increase soil organic matter, improve soil structure and water-and nutrient-holding capacity, and result in net long-term greenhouse gas benefits.” As noted in the Cross-Sector Interactions section, State and local efforts to manage land for carbon sequestration must work in conjunction with existing plans, incentives, and programs protecting California’s water supply, agricultural lands, and wildlife habitat. This Scoping Plan fits within a wide range of ongoing planning efforts throughout the State to advance economic and environmental priorities associated with natural and working lands. The Role of Forests in Emissions Reductions and Carbon Sequestration Decades of fire exclusion, coupled with an extended drought and the impacts of climate change, have increased the size and intensity of wildfires and bark beetle infestations; exposed millions of urban and rural residents to unhealthy smoke-laden air from wildfires; and threatened progress toward meeting the state’s long-term climate goals. Managing forests in California to be healthy, resilient net sinks of carbon is a vital part of California’s climate change policy. More than 100 million trees are dead, and recent wildfires have been among the most destructive and expensive in state history. As many as 15 million acres of California forests are estimated to be unhealthy and in need of some form of restoration, including more than 9 million acres managed by federal land management agencies and 6 million acres of State and privately managed forests. California’s urban forests also face multiple challenges, including drought and invasive exotic insects. Urban forests require maintenance to preserve the multiple values they provide and merit expansion to sequester carbon and secure other benefits to urban dwellers and the State. The California Forest Carbon Plan (FCP), being developed by the Forest Climate Action Team (FCAT), seeks to establish California’s forests as a more resilient and reliable long-term carbon sink, rather than a GHG and black carbon emission source, and confer additional ecosystem benefits through a range of management strategies.212 The FCP emphasizes working collaboratively at the watershed or landscape scale to restore resilience to all forestlands in the state. The current draft of the FCP places carbon sequestration and reducing black carbon and GHG emissions as one set of management objectives in the broader context of forest health and a range of other important forest co-benefits. California will manage for carbon alongside wildlife habitat, watershed protection, recreational access, traditional tribal uses, public health and safety, forest products, and local and regional economic development. 212 http://www.fire.ca.gov/fcat/ 87 Federally managed lands play an important role in the achievement of the California climate goals established in AB 32 and subsequent related legislation and plans. Over half of the forestland in California is managed by the federal government, primarily by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, and these lands comprise the largest potential forest carbon sink under one ownership in the state. Several regulatory, policy, and financial challenges have hindered the ability of the Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies (Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service) to increase the pace and scale of restoration needed, such as the current budget structure to fund wildland fire suppression and the procedural requirements of a number of federal environmental and planning statutes. The State of California must continue to work closely and in parallel to the federal government’s efforts to resolve these obstacles and achieve forest health and resilience on the lands that federal agencies manage. Protection of Land and Land Use California will continue to pursue development and new infrastructure construction patterns that avoid greenfield development, limit conflicts with neighboring land uses, and increase conservation opportunities for NWL to reduce conversion to intensified uses. Success will depend on working through local and regional land use planning and permitting, as well as developing incentives for participation by local governments and individual landowners. Enhance Carbon Sequestration and Resilience through Management and Restoration California will increase efforts to manage and restore land to secure and increase carbon storage and minimize GHG and black carbon emissions in a sustainable manner so that the carbon bank is resilient and provides other benefits such as water quality, habitat and recreation. One tool to demonstrate the potential for greater management and restoration on NWL is the CALAND model. As detailed in the Discussion Draft213 and discussed above, it considers a variety of management and restoration activities employed across the State. Version 1 of the CALAND model considered two potential scenarios, a “low” and a “high” rate of implementation to 2030, with resulting carbon sequestration outcomes to 2050. The acreages given in the “low” scenario all represent feasible implementation on public and private lands beyond current rates for the listed activity, given availability of additional funding and other supporting resources. The “high” scenario represents a more ambitious approach, requiring new programs and policies, including collaboration with federal partners, to support implementation. The activities presented in the Discussion Draft and Version 2 of CALAND are not inclusive of all activities under this strategy. Modeling will continue beyond finalization of the Scoping Plan. Agencies and modelers will continue to identify and analyze land management and restoration activities to advance the State’s climate goals and improvements in modeling projections or other quantification protocols. Management and restoration activities under consideration to help reduce GHG emissions beyond those identified in initial modeling include, but are not limited to the following: • Forest fuel reduction treatments, reforestation, other restoration activities, prescribed fire and managed ignition.• Restoration of mountain meadows, managed wetlands in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, coastal wetlands and desert habitat. • Increasing the extent of eelgrass beds. • Creation and management of parks and other greenspace in urban areas, including expansion of the existing urban tree canopy. • Implementation of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) management practices suitable for California agriculture including those practices identified in the Healthy Soils Incentive Program. • Compost application to irrigated cropland. Additional potential tools to encourage these activities include working with the federal government to fund more management on federal lands, mitigating for land conversion (as modeled by the High Speed Rail Authority), and revisiting the Forest Practices Act to enhance carbon sequestration benefits associated with timber production activities. 213 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030target_sp_dd120216.pdf 88 Innovate NWL Waste Utilization Pathways Excess materials generated by commercial agricultural and forestry operations, biomass and wood harvested through forest health and restoration treatments, and material that is generated in response to Tree Mortality Emergency activities, should be used in a manner that minimizes GHG and black carbon emissions and promotes public and environmental health. The Legislature and Governor Brown set an ambitious goal of 75 percent recycling, composting or source reduction of solid waste in landfills by 2020. The State and stakeholders must develop targeted policies or incentives to support durable markets for all of this diverted material. Market opportunities include production of renewable electricity and biofuels, durable wood products, compost and other soil amendments, animal feed and bedding, and other uses. Research, development, and implementation activities in energy, wood products, waste, and soil amendment fields should be spatially-scaled to better link waste generation with infrastructure development. The goals of this sector, with the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2, are described in Looking to the Future. The development of the Implementation Plan will spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. Waste Management The Waste Management sector covers all aspects of solid waste214 and materials management including reduction/reuse; recycling, and remanufacturing of recovered material; composting and in-vessel (anaerobic and aerobic) digestion; biomass management (chip and grind, composting, biomass conversion); municipal solid waste transformation; and landfilling. This sector also includes market development programs, such as the State’s recycled-content product procurement program and a range of grant and loan programs. Data from CalRecycle’s report, 2014 Disposal Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California, shows that materials, such as organics, that decompose in landfills and generate methane comprise a significant portion of the waste stream. Methane is a potent SLCP with a global warming potential 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide on a 100-year time horizon and more than 70 times greater than that of carbon dioxide on a 20-year time horizon.215 Within CARB’s greenhouse gas inventory, emissions from the waste management sector consist of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from landfills and from commercial-scale composting, with methane being the primary contributor to the sector’s emissions. The sector emitted 8.85 MMTCO2e in 2014, comprising approximately 2 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. Emissions from recycling and waste have grown by 19 percent since 2000. The majority of those emissions are attributed to landfills, despite the majority of landfills having gas collection systems in place.216 Landfill emissions account for 94 percent of the emissions in this sector, while compost production facilities make up a small fraction of emissions.217 The annual amount of solid waste deposited in California landfills grew from 37 million tons in 2000 to its peak of 46 million tons in 2005, followed by a declining trend until 2009 when landfilled solid waste stabilized to relatively constant levels. Landfill emissions are driven by the total waste-in- place, rather than year-to-year fluctuation in annual deposition of solid waste, as the rate and volume of gas produced during decomposition depends on the characteristics of the waste and a number of environmental factors. As a result, waste disposed in a given year contributes to emissions that year and in subsequent years. In addition to direct emissions, the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste materials decreases upstream GHG emissions associated with the extraction and processing of virgin materials and their use in production and transport of products. Although many of these upstream GHG emissions happen outside of California, California’s waste policies can reduce both local and global GHG emissions and create jobs within the State. 214 In general, the term solid waste refers to garbage, refuse, sludges, and other discarded solid materials resulting from residential activities, and industrial and commercial operations. This term generally does not include solids or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or other common water pollutants.215 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials. Fourth Assessment Report. www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html 216 CARB. 2013. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2013 – by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Draft Plan (based upon IPCC Fourth Assessment Report’s Global Warming Potentials). 217 CARB. 2016. 2016 Edition California GHG Emission Inventory. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000–2014. Version June 17, 2016. 89 While landfills are an effective and relatively safe way to manage some waste, disposal-centric activities result in squandering valuable resources and generate landfill gases as well as other risks. A large fraction of the organics in the waste stream can be diverted from landfills to composting or digestion facilities to produce beneficial products. Moreover, food waste is the largest component of organics disposed in landfills; a portion of this is edible and should be captured at its source and, for example, provided to food banks to feed people in need. A State waste management sector “loading order” should focus more attention on reducing how much waste we generate and recovering and recycling whatever resources we can, using landfills as a last resort. Landmark initiatives like the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) demonstrate California’s efforts to build communities that consume less, recycle more, and take resource conservation to higher and higher levels. Statewide, Californians achieved a 49 percent recycling rate in 2014, and recycling programs support an estimated 75,000 to 115,000 green jobs in California. If California were to achieve a 75 percent statewide solid waste recycling rate by 2020–a goal set out by the Legislature in AB 341 (Chesboro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011)–by recycling and remanufacturing at in-state facilities, the State could potentially generate an additional 100,000 green jobs.218 In addition to employment contributions, diversion of organic waste from landfills can generate positive environmental impacts. Compost from organic matter provides soil amendments to revitalize farmland, reduces irrigation and landscaping water demands, contributes to erosion control in fire-ravaged landscapes, and potentially increase long-term carbon storage in rangelands. Production and use of bioenergy in the form of biofuels and renewable natural gas has the potential to reduce dependency on fossil fuels for the transportation sector. For the energy sector, however, renewable natural gas faces safety, feasibility, and cost issues. The State has a robust waste management system in place, with established programs that reduce air emissions through activities such as gas collection systems from landfills219 and stringent recycling mandates. AB 939 required cities and counties to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by 50 percent in 2000, and municipalities have nearly universally met this mandate. Californians dispose about 30 million tons of solid waste in landfills each year. To further reduce landfilled solid waste, the Legislature adopted AB 341 to achieve more significant waste reductions by setting a goal that 75 percent of solid waste generated be reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and by mandating commercial recycling. AB 1826 (Chesboro, Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) added requirements regarding mandatory commercial organics recycling. Although solid waste management has evolved over the last 27 years and diversion rates (which include more than recycling) have increased more than six-fold since 1989, if no further changes in policy are made, the State’s growing population and economy will lead to higher amounts of overall disposal along with associated increases in GHG emissions. The pathway to reducing disposal and associated GHG emissions will require significant expansion of the composting, anaerobic digestion, and recycling manufacturing infrastructure in the State. To help reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and meet California’s waste reduction goals, California’s waste management sector strives to achieve in-state processing and management of waste generated in California. To carry out this vision, we must work with residents and producers to reduce the volume of waste generated overall and capitalize on technology and social changes that might enable waste reduction. Packaging comprises approximately 8 million tons of waste landfilled in California annually, or about one quarter of the State’s total disposal stream. To reduce the climate change footprint of packaging, the State is promoting the inclusion of source reduction principles in packaging and product design; fostering recycling and recyclability as a front end design parameter for packaging and products that cannot be reduced; and encouraging recycling markets and market development for recycled- content products and packaging. CalRecycle is developing a packaging policy model containing components necessary for a mandatory comprehensive, statewide packaging program in California; this would need to be legislatively enacted to achieve a packaging reduction goal, such as 50 percent by 2030. CalRecycle is also continuing to work with stakeholder organizations and industry to explore complementary voluntary activities that have the potential to significantly decrease packaging disposal in California. In addition, large-scale shifts in materials management will be necessary, including steps to maximize recycling and diversion from landfills 218 CalRecycle. 2013. AB 341’s 75 Percent Goal and Potential New Recycling Jobs in California by 2020. July. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/1463/20131463.pdf219 CARB approved a regulation to reduce methane from municipal solid waste landfills as a discrete early action measure under AB 32. The regulation became effective June 17, 2010. Additional information is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/ landfills09/landfillfinalfro.pdf 90 and build the necessary infrastructure to support a sustainable, low carbon waste management system within California. Working together, State and local agencies will identify ways to increase the use of waste diversion alternatives and expand potential markets, obtain funds and incentives for building the infrastructure and strengthening markets, and evaluate the need for additional research to achieve California’s GHG reduction and waste management goals. Additional legislation codified since the First Scoping Plan Update outlines new opportunities and requirements to reduce GHG emissions from the waste sector, with a focus on reducing organic waste sent to landfills. SB 605 (Lara, Chapter 523, Statutes of 2014) requires that CARB develop a strategy to reduce SLCPs and SB 1383 requires the strategy to be implemented by January 1, 2018. CARB’s recently adopted SLCP Reduction Strategy includes organic waste diversion targets for 2020 and 2025 consistent with SB 1383 to reduce methane emissions from landfills. It requires CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations to achieve statewide disposal targets to reduce landfilling of organic waste by: (1) 50 percent from the 2014 level by 2020, and (2) 75 percent from the 2014 level by 2025. Under SB 1383, of the edible food destined for the organic waste stream, not less than 20 percent is to be recovered to feed people in need by 2025. The regulations are to take effect on or after January 1, 2022, and CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, must analyze the progress that the waste management sector, State government, and local government have made in achieving the 2020 and 2025 goals by July 1, 2020. It is estimated that the combined effect of the food waste prevention and rescue programs and organics diversion from landfills will reduce 4 MMTCO2e of methane in 2030 (using a 20-year GWP), but one year of waste diversion in 2030 is expected to result in a reduction of 14 MMTCO2e of emissions over the lifetime of waste decomposition. Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Goals • Take full ownership of the waste generated in California. • View waste as a resource and convert waste from all sectors to beneficial uses. • Develop a sustainable, low carbon waste management system that processes collected waste within California and generates jobs, especially in disadvantaged communities. • Maximize recycling and diversion from landfills. • Reduce direct emissions from composting and digestion operations through improved technologies. • Build the infrastructure needed to support a sustainable, low carbon waste management system within California. • Increase organics markets which complement and support other sectors.220 • Capture edible food before it enters the waste stream and provide to people in need.• Increase production of renewable transportation fuels from anaerobic digestion of waste.• Recognize the co-benefits of compost application. Cross-Sector Interactions The waste management sector interacts with all of the other sectors of the State’s economy. Reducing waste, including food waste, is key to reducing the State’s overall carbon footprint. Additionally, replacing virgin materials with recycled materials reduces the energy and GHGs associated with the goods we produce and consume. California leads the United States in agricultural production in terms of value and crop diversity. Soil carbon is the main source of energy for important soil microbes and is key for making nutrients available to plants. Waste-derived compost and other organic soil amendments support the State’s Healthy Soils Initiative being implemented by CDFA. In addition, the use of compost to increase soil organic matter in the agricultural sector provides other benefits, including reduced GHG emissions, conserved water, reduced synthetic (petroleum-based) fertilizer and herbicide use, and sequestered carbon. 220 Examples may include renewable energy (biogas to renewable transportation fuels or electricity); soils (application of organics to agricultural soils for building soil organic matter and conserving water; application of organics to mulch for erosion control; application of organics to rangelands for increased carbon sequestration); and forests (support use of forest residues for erosion control; stabilization of fire-ravaged lands). 91 Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. In addition, to move forward with the goals of the waste management sector and achieve the 2030 target, certain actions are recommended to help set the groundwork. These actions affect several broad areas and are necessary for reducing the challenges facing this sector, and they are listed below as supporting actions. Ongoing and Proposed Measures • Continue implementation of the Landfill Methane Control Measure. • Continue implementation of the Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation and the Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling requirements. • As required by SB 1383: • By 2018, CARB will implement the SLCP Strategy. • CalRecycle will develop regulations to require 50 percent organic waste diversion from landfills from 2014 levels by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025, including programs to achieve an edible food waste recovery goal of 20 percent below 2016 levels by 2025. The regulations shall take effect on or after January 1, 2022. By July 1, 2020, analyze the progress that the waste sector, State government, and local governments have made in achieving these goals. • CEC will develop recommendations for the development and use of renewable gas as part of the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Based on these recommendations, adopt policies and incentives to significantly increase sustainable production and use of renewable gas. Potential Additional or Supporting Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. • Establishing a sustainable State funding source (such as an increased landfill tip fee and new generator charge) for development of waste management infrastructure, programs, and incentives. • Working with residents and producers to reduce the volume of waste generated overall and capitalize on technology and social changes that might enable waste reduction. • Increasing organics diversion from landfills, building on established mandates (AB 341’s 75 percent by 2020 solid waste diversion goal, AB 1594,221 AB 1826,222 AB 876223) and new short-lived climate pollutant targets for 2025 (SB 605, SB 1383) to be accomplished via prevention (including food rescue), recycling, composting/digestion, and biomass options. • Addressing challenges and issues associated with significant expansion and construction of organics and recycling infrastructure in California that is needed to achieve recycling and diversion goals. Challenges and issues include permitting, grid/pipeline connection, funding, local siting, markets, and research.• Developing programmatic Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and model permit and guidance documents to assist in environmental review and CEQA for new facilities. • Providing incentives for expanded and new facilities to handle organics and recyclables to meet 2020 and 2030 goals. • Providing incentives to develop and expand food rescue programs to reduce the amount of edible food being sent to landfills. • Further quantifying co-benefits of compost products and addressing regulatory barriers that do not provide for consideration of co-benefits. • Supporting existing and new clean technologies and markets for excess woody biomass from urban areas, forests, and agriculture. • Supporting the development of transportation fuel production at digestion facilities to generate renewable transportation fuels. 221 Assembly Bill 1594, Waste Management (Williams, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2014).222 Assembly Bill 1826, Solid Waste: Organic Waste (Chesbro, Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014).223 Assembly Bill 876, Compostable Organics (McCarty, Chapter 593, Statutes of 2015). 92 • Resolving issues of pipeline injection and grid connection to make renewable energy projects competitive. • Supporting the use of available capacity at wastewater treatment plants that have digesters to process food waste. • Working with local entities to provide a supportive framework to advance community-wide efforts that are consistent with, or exceed, statewide goals. • Supporting research and development and pathways to market for dairy and codigestion digesters, including pipeline injection and interconnection. • Supporting research on digestate characterization and end products. Water Water is essential to all life, and is vital to our overall health and well-being. A reliable, clean, and abundant supply of water is also a critical component of California’s economy and has particularly important connections to energy, food, and the environment. California’s water system includes a complex infrastructure that has been developed to support the capture, use, conveyance, storage, conservation, and treatment of water and wastewater. This elaborate network of storage and delivery systems enables the State to prosper and support populations, amidst wide variability in annual precipitation rates and concentration of rain north of Sacramento, through storing and moving water when and where it is needed. Local water agencies play an important role in delivering water to communities, farms, and businesses. Some purchase water from the major State and federal projects, treat the water as needed, and deliver it to their customers; others act as wholesale agencies that buy or import water and sell it to retail water suppliers. Some agencies operate their own local water supply systems, including reservoirs and canals that store and move water as needed. Many agencies rely on groundwater exclusively, and operate local wells and distribution systems. In recent decades, local agencies have developed more diversified sources of water supplies. Many agencies use a combination of imported surface water and local groundwater, and also produce or purchase recycled water for end uses such as landscape irrigation.224 The State’s developed surface and groundwater resources support a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities. California’s rapidly growing population–estimated to reach 44 million by 2030225 – is putting mounting pressure on the water supply system. In the future, the ability to meet most new demand for water will come from a combination of increased conservation and water use efficiency, improved coordination of management of surface and groundwater, recycled water, new technologies in drinking water treatment, groundwater remediation, and brackish and seawater desalination.226 One of the State’s largest uses of energy is attributed to several aspects of the water life cycle, including end uses such as heating and cooling, and water treatment and conveyance. Ten percent of the State’s energy use is associated with water-related end uses, while water and wastewater systems account for 2 percent of the State’s energy use.227 Therefore, as water demand grows, energy demand may increase concurrently. Population growth drives demand for both water and energy resources, so both grow at about the same rates and in many of the same geographic areas.228 This dynamic is further exacerbated by the precipitation-population mismatch between Northern and Southern California. Since the greatest energy consumption related to water is from delivery to end uses, the potential for energy savings also resides with water end users, where water conservation and efficiency play an important role. The principal source of GHG emissions from the water sector comes from the fossil fuel-based energy consumed for water end uses (e.g., heating, cooling, pressurizing, and industrial processes), and the fossil fuel-based energy used to “produce” water (e.g., pump, convey, treat). Therefore, emissions reductions strategies are primarily associated with reducing the energy intensity of the water sector. Energy intensity is a measure of the amount of energy required to take a unit of water from its origin (such as a river or aquifer) 224 California Department of Water Resources. Regional Energy Intensity of Water Supplies. www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/RegionalEnergyIntensity.cfm225 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/ 226 California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and California Environmental Protection Agency. California Water Action Plan.227 California Department of Water Resources. Water-Energy Nexus: Statewide. Web page accessed November 2016 at: www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/WaterEnergyStatewide.cfm.228 Ibid 93 and extract and convey it to its end use.229 Within California, the energy intensity of water varies greatly depending on the geography, water source, and end use. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) subdivides the State into 10 regions corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. An interactive map on the DWR website allows users to see a summary of the energy intensity of regional water supplies, ignoring end-use factors.230 As the energy sector is decarbonized through measures such as increased renewable energy and improved efficiency, energy intensities will also be reduced. It is also important to note that end user actions to reduce water consumption or replace fresh water with recycled water do not automatically translate into GHG reductions. The integrated nature of the water supply system means that a reduction by one end user can be offset by an increase in consumption by another user. Likewise, use of recycled water has the potential to reduce GHGs if it replaces, and not merely serves as an alternative to, an existing, higher-carbon water supply. The State is currently implementing several targeted, agricultural, urban, and industrial-based water conservation, recycling, and water use efficiency programs as part of an integrated water management effort that will help achieve GHG reductions through reduced energy demand within the water sector. Appendix H highlights the more significant existing policies, programs, measures, regulations, and initiatives that provide a framework for helping achieve GHG emissions reductions in this sector. While it is important for every sector to contribute to the State’s climate goals, ensuring universal access to clean water as outlined in AB 685 (Eng, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2012), also known as the “human right to water” bill, should take precedence over achieving GHG emissions reductions from water sector activities where a potential conflict exists. AB 685 states that it is the policy of the State that “every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” As described in this section, water supplies vary in energy intensity and resulting GHGs, depending on the source of the water, treatment requirements, and location of the end user. Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Goals • Develop and support more reliable water supplies for people, agriculture, and the environment, provided by a more resilient, diversified, sustainably managed water resources system with a focus on actions that provide direct GHG reductions. • Make conservation a California way of life by using and reusing water more efficiently through greater water conservation, drought tolerant landscaping, stormwater capture, water recycling, and reuse to help meet future water demands and adapt to climate change. • Develop and support programs and projects that increase water sector energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions through reduced water and energy use.• Increase the use of renewable energy to pump, convey, treat, and utilize water.• Reduce the carbon footprint of water systems and water uses for both surface and groundwater supplies through integrated strategies that reduce GHG emissions while meeting the needs of a growing population, improving public safety, fostering environmental stewardship, aiding in adaptation to climate change, and supporting a stable economy. Cross-Sector Interactions Water, energy, food, and ecosystems are inextricably linked, and meeting future climate challenges will require an integrated approach to managing the resources in these sectors. Water is used in various applications in the energy sector, ranging in intensity from cooling of turbines and other equipment at power plants to cleaning solar photovoltaic panels. In 2003, CEC adopted a water conservation policy for power plants to limit the use of freshwater for power plant cooling, and has since encouraged project 229 A broader definition of energy intensity could consider the “downstream” energy (i.e., wastewater treatment) as well as the upstream components. More robust data are needed, and the State is working to better quantify these upstream and downstream emissions.230 California Department of Water Resources. Regional Energy Intensity of Water Supplies. www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/RegionalEnergyIntensity.cfm 94 owners proposing to build new power plants in California to reduce water consumption with water-efficiency technologies such as dry cooling and to conserve fresh water by using recycled water. Likewise, energy is used in multiple ways and at multiple steps in water delivery and treatment systems, including energy for heating and chilling water; treating and delivering drinking water; conveying water; extracting groundwater; desalination; pressurizing water for irrigation; and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. Although GHG reduction strategies for the water sector have the closest ties to energy, the water sector also interacts with the natural and working lands, agricultural, waste management, and transportation sectors. Water flows from mountains to downstream regions through natural and working lands, which provide habitat for many species and function to store water, recharge groundwater, naturally purify water, and moderate flooding. Protection of key lands from conversion results in healthier watersheds by reducing polluted runoff and maintaining a properly functioning ecosystem. California is the United States’ leading agricultural production state in terms of value and crop diversity. Approximately nine million acres of farmland in California are irrigated.231 In addition, water use is associated with livestock watering, feedlots, dairy operations, and other on-farm needs. Altogether, agriculture uses about 40 percent of the State’s managed water supply.232 In the end, agricultural products produced in California are consumed by humans throughout the world as food, fiber, and fuel. Wastewater treatment plants provide a complementary opportunity for the waste management sector to help process organic waste diversion from landfills. Treatment plants with spare capacity can potentially accommodate organic waste for anaerobic co-digestion of materials such as food waste and fats, oil, and grease from residential, commercial, or industrial facilities to create useful by- products such as electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, and soil amendments.233 The water sector is also essential to our community health and long-term well-being, and measures must ensure that we continue to have access to clean and reliable sources of drinking water. Climate change threatens to impact our water supplies, for example, with long-term droughts leading to wells and other sources of water running dry. This can have devastating consequences, especially on communities already vulnerable and sensitive to changes in their water supply and natural hydrological systems, including rural communities who have limited options for water supplies. Water conservation and management strategies that are energy efficient can also ensure a continued supply of water for our health and well-being. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. In addition, several recommended actions are identified to help the water sector move forward with the identified goals and measures to achieve the 2030 target; these are listed as supporting actions. Ongoing and Proposed Measures • As directed by Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-37-16, DWR and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) will develop and implement new water use targets to generate more statewide water conservation than existing targets (the existing State law requires a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 [SBx7-7, Steinberg, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009]). The new water use targets will be based on strengthened standards for indoor use, outdoor irrigation, commercial, industrial, and institutional water use. • SWRCB will develop long-term water conservation regulation, and permanently prohibit practices that waste potable water. • DWR and SWRCB will develop and implement actions to minimize water system leaks, and to set performance standards for water loss, as required by SB 555 (Wolk, Chapter 679, Statutes of 2015). • DWR and CDFA will update existing requirements for agricultural water management plans to increase water system efficiency. 231 Hanson, Blaine. No date. Irrigation of Agricultural Crops in California. PowerPoint. Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis. www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf232 Applied water use is the official terminology used by DWR. “Applied water refers to the total amount of water that is diverted from any source to meet the demands of water users without adjusting for water that is used up, returned to the developed supply, or considered irrecoverable.”233 An example of a resource recovering project that can help achieve methane reductions includes fuel cells that are integrated into wastewater treatment plants for both onsite heat and power generation and the production of renewable hydrogen. 95 • CEC will certify innovative technologies for water conservation and water loss detection and control. • CEC will continue to update the State’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Sections 1601–1608) for appliances offered for sale in California to establish standards that reduce energy consumption for devices that use electricity, gas, and/or water. • California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) will oversee development of a voluntary registry for GHG emissions resulting from the water-energy nexus, as required by SB 1425 (Pavley, Chapter 596, Statutes of 2016). • The State Water Project has entered long-term contracts to procure renewable electricity from 140 MW solar installations in California. • As described in its Climate Action Plan, DWR will continue to increase the use of renewable energy to operate the State Water Project. Overall, these actions will contribute to the broader energy efficiency goals discussed in the Low Carbon Energy section of this chapter. Potential Additional or Supporting Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. • Where technically feasible and cost-effective, local water and wastewater utilities should adopt a long-term goal to reduce GHGs by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (consistent with DWR’s Climate Action Plan), and thereafter move toward low carbon or net-zero carbon water management systems. • Local water and wastewater utilities should develop distributed renewable energy where feasible, using the expanded Local Government Renewable Energy Bill Credit (RES-BCT) tariff and new Net Energy Metering (which allow for installation without system size limit).• In support of the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, encourage resource recovering wastewater treatment projects to help achieve the goal of reducing fugitive methane by 40 percent by 2030, to include: • Determining opportunities to support co-digestion of food-related waste streams at wastewater treatment plants. • Incentivizing methane capture systems at wastewater treatment plants to produce renewable electricity, transportation fuel, or pipeline biomethane. • Support compact development and land use patterns, and associated conservation and management strategies for natural and working lands that reduce per capita water consumption through more water-efficient built environments. 96 Meeting, and exceeding, our mandated GHG reduction goals in 2020 and through 2030 requires building on California’s decade of success in implementing effective climate policies. State agencies are increasingly coordinating planning activities to align with overarching climate, clean air, social equity, and broader economic objectives. However, to definitely tip the scales in favor of rapidly declining emissions, we also need to reach beyond State policy-making and engage all Californians. Further progress can be made by supporting innovative actions at the local level–among governments, small businesses, schools, and individual households. Ultimately, success depends on a mix of regulatory program development, incentives, institutional support, and education and outreach to ensure that clean energy and other climate strategies are clear, winning alternatives in the marketplace–to drive business development and consumer adoption. Ongoing Engagement with Environmental Justice Communities CARB continues seek ways to improve implementation of AB 32 and the unique set of impacts facing environmental justice communities. However, CARB’s environmental justice efforts reach far beyond climate change. In 2001, the Board approved CARB’s “Policies and Actions for Environmental Action,”234 which expresses a broad commitment to environmental justice and makes it integral to all of CARB’s programs, consistent with State directives at the time. Though over the years CARB has taken on a wide array of activities aimed at reducing environmental burdens on environmental justice communities, it has not knitted its various efforts together in a coherent narrative or maximized the impact of these activities by leveraging them off of each other. This year, CARB appointed its first executive-level environmental justice liaison. Under her leadership, CARB will lay a roadmap for better serving California’s environmental justice communities in the design and implementation of its programs, and identifying new actions CARB can take to advance environmental justice and social equity in all of its functions. The extensive legislative framework addressing climate change, air quality, and environmental justice that has emerged since the passage of AB 32 has prompted CARB to step up its environmental justice efforts and articulate a vision that reflects the current context. CARB will initiate a public process, seeking advice and input from environmental justice advocates and other key stakeholders to inform the development of a new strategic plan for further institutionalizing environmental justice and social equity. CARB understands that in addition to our programs to address climate change and reduce emissions of GHGs, more needs to be done to reduce exposure to toxic air and criteria pollutants and improve the quality of life in communities surrounding our largest emissions sources. To this end, and consistent with AB 617, AB 197, AB 1071, SB 535 and AB 1550, we will actively engage EJ advocates, communities, and relevant air districts in the development of programs that improve air quality and quantify the burdens placed on air quality in local communities. Measuring and monitoring air quality conditions over time and ongoing community engagement are integral to the success of CARB’s efforts. This engagement will include substantive discussions with EJ stakeholders, gathering their input and providing adequate time for review before matters are taken to the Board for decision. 234 www.arb.ca.gov/ch/programs/ej/ejpolicies.pdf Chapter 5 a ch I ev I ng S ucce SS 97 CARB’s approach to environmental justice will be grounded in five primary pillars: transparency, integration, monitoring, research, and enforcement. • Transparency: CARB must improve communication and engagement with environmental justice stakeholders and deepen partnerships with local communities impacted by air pollution. CARB will continue to prioritize transparency in its decision-making processes and provide better access to the air quality, toxics, and GHG data CARB collects and stewards. • Integration: Besides integrating environmental justice throughout all of CARB’s programs, those programs must complement each other. To that end, CARB will endeavor to break down programmatic silos so that it is able to leverage its work and achieve more effective and timely results. Focused resources in individual communities can accelerate reduction in emissions, proliferation of clean vehicles and creation of jobs in the clean energy economy, while concurrently improving public health. • Monitoring: Communities should be engaged in CARB’s monitoring work. They can play a critical role in collecting their own data and adding to the coverage of other air monitoring efforts (e.g., CARB, local air districts). CARB has already invested in research on low- cost monitors that are accessible by communities, and it will continue to evaluate how community monitoring can make CARB more nimble in identifying and addressing “hotspots.” Mobile monitoring projects similarly will allow CARB to better serve and protect residents of disadvantaged communities. CARB will continue to build partnerships with local communities and help build local capacity through funding and technical assistance. • Research: CARB’s research agenda is core to achieving its mission. To ensure that the research done by CARB responds to environmental justice concerns and has the greatest potential to improve air quality and public health in disadvantaged communities, CARB will engage communities groups early in the development of its research agenda and the projects that flow out from that agenda. • Enforcement: Disadvantaged communities are often impacted by many sources of pollution. In order to improve air quality and protect public health, CARB will prioritize compliance with legal requirements, including enforcement actions if necessary, in environmental justice communities to ensure emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants in these communities are as low as possible. Our inclusive approaches to further environmental justice in California’s local communities may include an array of direct regulation, funding, and community capacity-building. CARB will continue to actively implement the provisions of AB 617, AB 197, AB 1071, SB 535, AB 1550, and other laws to better ensure that environmental justice communities see additional benefits from our clean air and climate policies. Our inclusive approaches to further environmental justice in California’s local communities may include an array of direct regulation, funding, and community capacity-building. Enabling Local Action Local governments are essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. Local governments can implement GHG emissions reduction strategies to address local conditions and issues and can effectively engage citizens at the local level. Local governments also have broad jurisdiction, and sometimes unique authorities, through their community-scale planning and permitting processes, discretionary actions, local codes and ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Further, local jurisdictions can develop new and innovative approaches to reduce GHG emissions that can then be adopted elsewhere. For example, local governments can develop land use plans with more efficient development patterns that bring people and destinations closer together in more mixed-use, compact communities that facilitate walking, biking, and use of transit. Local governments can also incentivize locally generated renewable energy and infrastructure for alternative fuels and electric vehicles, implement water efficiency measures, and develop waste-to-energy and waste-to-fuel projects. These local actions complement statewide measures and are critical to supporting the State’s efforts to reduce emissions. Local efforts can deliver substantial additional GHG and criteria emissions reductions beyond what State policy can alone, and these efforts will sometimes be more cost-effective and provide more cobenefits than relying exclusively on top-down statewide regulations to achieve the State’s climate stabilization goals. To ensure local and regional engagement, it is also recommended local jurisdictions make readily available information regarding ongoing and proposed actions to reduce GHGs within their region. 98 Many cities and counties are already setting GHG reduction targets, developing local plans, and making progress toward reducing emissions. The Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative recently released a report, The State of Local Climate Action: California 2016,235 which highlights local government efforts, including: • In California, 60 percent of cities and over 70 percent of counties have completed a GHG inventory, and 42 percent of local governments have completed a climate, energy, or sustainability plan that directly addresses GHG emissions. Many other community-scale local plans, such as general plans, have emissions reduction measures incorporated as well (see Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR] Survey questions 23 and 24).236 • Over one hundred California local governments have developed emissions reduction targets that, if achieved, would result in annual reductions that total 45 MMTCO2e by 2020 and 83 MMTCO2e by 2050.237 Local air quality management and air pollution control districts also play a key role in reducing regional and local sources of GHG emissions by actively integrating climate protection into air quality programs. Air districts also support local climate protection programs by providing technical assistance and data, quantification tools, and even funding.238 Local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) also support the State’s climate action goals via sustainable communities strategies (SCSs), required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008). Under SB 375, MPOs must prepare SCSs as part of their regional transportation plan to meet regional GHG reduction targets set by CARB for passenger vehicles in 2020 and 2035. The SCSs contain land use, housing, and transportation strategies that allow regions to meet their GHG emissions reductions targets. State agencies support these local government actions in several ways: • CoolCalifornia.org is an informational website that provides resources that assist local governments, small businesses, schools, and households to reduce GHG emissions. The local government webpage includes carbon calculators, a climate planning resource guide, a Funding Wizard that outlines grant and loan programs, and success stories. It also features ClearPath California, a no-cost GHG inventory, climate action plan development, and tracking tool developed through the Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative in coordination with CARB and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). • Chapter 8 of OPR’s General Plan Guidelines239 provides guidance for climate action plans and 235 Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative. 2016. State of Local Climate Action: California 2016. californiaseec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/State-of-Local-Climate-Action-California-2016_Screen.pdf236 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2016. 2016 Annual Planning Survey Results. November. www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2016_APS_final.pdf237 These reductions include reductions from both state and local measures.238 Examples include: (1) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016 Clean Air Plan and Regional Climate Protection Strategy. Available at: www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/plans-under-development; (2) California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Available at: www.caleemod.com/; (3) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Grants and Incentives. Available at: valleyair.org/grants/; (4) BAAQMD. Grant Funding. Available at: www.baaqmd.gov/grant-funding; (5) South Coast Air Quality Management District. Funding. Available at: www.aqmd.gov/ grants-bids/funding; (6) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Incentive Programs. Available at: www.airquality.org/Residents/Incentive-Programs.239 http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/ To engage communities in efforts to reduce GHG emissions, CARB has partnered with Energy Upgrade California on the CoolCalifornia Challenge. It is a competition among California cities to reduce their carbon footprints and build more vibrant and sustainable communities. Three challenges have been completed. Most recently, the 2015–2016 Challenge included 22 cities and engaged nearly 3,200 households, each of which took actions to reduce energy use and carbon GHG emissions. In total, the participants reported savings of 5,638 MTCO2 from completed actions, equivalent to emissions from more than 1,000 cars or from electricity used by more than 2,500 California homes in a year. 99 other plans linked to general plans, which address the community scale approach outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. • OPR hosts the Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program, which is developing resources and case studies that outline the co-benefits of implementing emissions reduction strategies and addressing the impacts of climate change. • CARB is developing a centralized database and interactive map that will display the current statewide status of local government climate action planning. Users can view and compare the details of emission inventories, planned GHG reduction targets and strategies, and other climate action details specific to each local government. This information will help jurisdictions around California identify what climate action strategies are working in other, similar jurisdictions across the State, and will facilitate collaboration among local governments pursuing GHG reduction strategies and goals. This database and map will be featured on the CoolCalifornia.org website and are anticipated to be available in 2017. • Additional information on local government activities is available on Cal-Adapt (www.cal-adapt.org) and OPR (www.opr.ca.gov) Further, a significant portion of the $3.4 billion in cap-and-trade expenditures has either directly or indirectly supported local government efforts to reduce emissions, including, for example, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program and approximately $142 million for project implementation and planning grants awarded under the Transformative Climate Communities program. Climate Action through Local Planning and Permitting Local government efforts to reduce emissions within their jurisdiction are critical to achieving the State’s long-term GHG goals, and can also provide important co-benefits, such as improved air quality, local economic benefits, more sustainable communities, and an improved quality of life. To support local governments in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the following guidance is provided. This guidance should be used in coordination with OPR’s General Plan Guidelines guidance in Chapter 8, Climate Change.240 While this guidance is provided out of the recognition that local policy makers are critical in reducing the carbon footprint of cities and counties, the decision to follow this guidance is voluntary and should not be interpreted as a directive or mandate to local governments. Recommended Local Plan-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Goals CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than six metric tons CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050.241 The statewide per capita targets account for all emissions sectors in the State, statewide population forecasts, and the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 statewide target under SB 32 and the longer term State emissions reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.242 The statewide per capita targets are also consistent with Executive Order S-3-05, B-30-15, and the Under 2 MOU that California originated with Baden-Württemberg and has now been signed or endorsed by 188 jurisdictions representing 39 countries and six continents.243,244 Central to the Under 2 MOU is that all signatories agree to reduce their GHG emissions to two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050. This limit represents California’s and these other governments’ recognition of their “fair share” to reduce GHG emissions to the scientifically based levels to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius. This limit is also consistent with the Paris Agreement, which sets out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to below 2°C.245 CARB recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt robust and quantitative locally-appropriate 240 http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/ . 241 These goals are appropriate for the plan level (city, county, subregional, or regional level, as appropriate), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State. 242 This number represents the 2030 and 2050 targets divided by total population projections from California Department of Finance.243 http://under2mou.org/ California signed the Under 2 MOU on May 19, 2015. See under2mou.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ California-appendix-English.pdf and under2mou.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/California-Signature-Page.pdf.244 The Under 2 MOU signatories include jurisdictions ranging from cities to countries to multiple-country partnerships. Therefore, like the goals set forth above for local and regional climate planning, the Under 2 MOU is scalable to various types of jurisdictions.245 UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement. unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php 100 goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and the State’s sustainable development objectives and develop plans to achieve the local goals. The statewide per capita goals were developed by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to the State’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32. Numerous local governments in California have already adopted GHG emissions reduction goals for year 2020 consistent with AB 32. CARB advises that local governments also develop community-wide GHG emissions reduction goals necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals. Emissions inventories and reduction goals should be expressed in mass emissions, per capita emissions, and service population emissions. To do this, local governments can start by developing a community-wide GHG emissions target consistent with the accepted protocols as outlined in OPR’s General Plan Guidelines Chapter 8: Climate Change. They can then calculate GHG emissions thresholds by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to their community-wide GHG emissions target. Since the statewide per capita targets are based on the statewide GHG emissions inventory that includes all emissions sectors in the State, it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to derive evidence-based local per capita246 goals based on local emissions sectors and population projections that are consistent with the framework used to develop the statewide per capita targets. The resulting GHG emissions trajectory should show a downward trend consistent with the statewide objectives. The recommendation for a community-wide goal expands upon the reduction of 15 percent from “current” (2005-2008) levels by 2020 as recommended in the 2008 Scoping Plan.247 In developing local plans, local governments should refer to “The U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,”248 (community protocol) which provides detailed guidance on completing a GHG emissions inventory at the community scale in the United States – including emissions from businesses, residents, and transportation. Quantification tools such as ClearPath California, which was developed with California agencies, also support the analysis of community-scale GHG emissions. Per the community protocol, these plans should disclose all emissions within the defined geographical boundary, even those over which the local government has no regulatory authority to control, and then focus the strategies on those emissions that the jurisdiction controls. For emissions from transportation, the community protocol recommends including emissions from trips that extend beyond the community’s boundaries. Local plans should also include the carbon sequestration values associated with natural and working lands, and the importance of jurisdictional lands for water, habitat, agricultural, and recreational resources. Strategies developed to achieve the local goals should prioritize mandatory measures that support the Governor’s “Five Pillars” and other key state climate action goals.249 Examples of plan-level GHG reduction actions that could be implemented by local governments are listed in Appendix B. Additional information and tools on how to develop GHG emissions inventories and reduction plans tied to general plans can be found in OPR’s General Plan Guidelines and at CoolCalifornia.org. These local government recommendations are based on the recognition that California must accommodate population and economic growth in a far more sustainable manner than in the past. While state-level investments, policies, and actions play an important role in shaping growth and development patterns, regional and local governments and agencies are uniquely positioned to influence the future of the built environment and its associated GHG emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies in Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and other local plans can also lead to important co-benefits, such as improved air quality, local economic benefits such as green jobs, more mobility choices, improved public health and quality of life, protection of locally, statewide, and globally important natural resources, and more equitable sharing of these benefits across communities. Contributions from policies and programs, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, are helping to achieve the near-term 2020 target, but longer-term targets cannot be achieved without land use decisions that allow more efficient use and management of land and infrastructure. Local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how and where land is developed to accommodate population growth, economic growth, and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. Land use decisions affect GHG emissions associated with transportation, water use, wastewater treatment, waste generation and treatment, energy consumption, and conversion of natural and working lands. Local land use decisions play a particularly 246 Or some other metric that the local jurisdiction deems appropriate (e.g., mass emissions, per service population)247 2008 Scoping Plan, page 27, www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm248 http://icleiusa.org/publications/us-community-protocol/249 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/pillars/pillars.htm 101 critical role in reducing GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the project level, and in long-term plans, including general plans, local and regional climate action plans, specific plans, transportation plans, and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375. While the State can do more to accelerate and incentivize these local decisions, local actions that reduce VMT are also necessary to meet transportation sector-specific goals and achieve the 2030 target under SB 32. Through developing the Scoping Plan, CARB staff is more convinced than ever that, in addition to achieving GHG reductions from cleaner fuels and vehicles, California must also reduce VMT. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward needed reductions, but alone will not provide the VMT growth reductions needed; there is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals. In its evaluation of the role of the transportation system in meeting the statewide emissions targets, CARB determined that VMT reductions of 7 percent below projected VMT levels in 2030 (which includes currently adopted SB 375 SCSs) are necessary. In 2050, reductions of 15 percent below projected VMT levels are needed. A 7 percent VMT reduction translates to a reduction, on average, of 1.5 miles/person/day from projected levels in 2030. It is recommended that local governments consider policies to reduce VMT to help achieve these reductions, including: land use and community design that reduces VMT; transit oriented development; street design policies that prioritize transit, biking, and walking; and increasing low carbon mobility choices, including improved access to viable and affordable public transportation and active transportation opportunities. It is important that VMT reducing strategies are implemented early because more time is necessary to achieve the full climate, health, social, equity, and economic benefits from these strategies. Once adopted, the plans and policies designed to achieve a locally-set GHG goal can serve as a performance metric for later projects. Sufficiently detailed and adequately supported GHG reduction plans (including CAPs) also provide local governments with a valuable tool for streamlining project-level environmental review. Under CEQA, individual projects that comply with the strategies and actions within an adequate local CAP can streamline the project-specific GHG analysis.250 The California Supreme Court recently called out this provision in CEQA as allowing tiering from a geographically specific GHG reduction plan.251 The Court also recognized that GHG determinations in CEQA should be consistent with the statewide Scoping Plan goals, and that CEQA documents taking a goal-consistency approach may soon need to consider a project’s effects on meeting the State’s longer term post-2020 goals.252 The recommendation above that local governments develop local goals tied to the statewide per capita goals of six metric tons CO2e by 2030 and no more than two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050 provides guidance on CARB’s view on what would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and the State’s long-term goals. Production based inventories and emissions reduction programs are appropriate for local communities wanting to mitigate their emissions pursuant to CEQA Section 15183.5(b). Consumption based inventories are complementary to production based inventories and are appropriate as a background setting, disclosure, and as an outreach tool to show how personal decisions may change a person’s or household’s contribution to climate change. For additional information, see the OPR General Plan Guidelines.253 Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Actions and Thresholds Beyond plan-level goals and actions, local governments can also support climate action when considering discretionary approvals and entitlements of individual projects through CEQA. Absent conformity with an adequate geographically-specific GHG reduction plan as described in the preceding section above, CARB recommends that projects incorporate design features and GHG reduction measures, to the degree feasible, to minimize GHG emissions. Achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development. There are recent examples of land use development projects in California that have demonstrated that it is feasible to design projects that achieve zero net additional GHG emissions. Several projects have received certification from the Governor under AB 900, the Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership Act (Buchanan, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2011), demonstrating an ability to design economically viable projects that create jobs while contributing no net additional GHG emissions. 254 Another example is the Newhall 250 CEQA Guidelines, § 15183.5, sub. (b).251 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 229–230.252 Id. at pp. 223–224. 253 http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/.254 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Jobs. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/california-jobs.html 102 Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan,255 in which the applicant, Newhall Land and Farming Company, proposed a commitment to achieve net zero GHG emissions for a very large-scale residential and commercial specific planned development in Santa Clarita Valley. Achieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA. Lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with this Scoping Plan, the State’s long-term GHG goals, and climate change science.256 To the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize on-site design features that reduce emissions, especially from VMT, and direct investments in GHG reductions within the project’s region that contribute potential air quality, health, and economic co-benefits locally. For example, on-site design features to be considered at the planning stage include land use and community design options that reduce VMT, promote transit oriented development, promote street design policies that prioritize transit, biking, and walking, and increase low carbon mobility choices, including improved access to viable and affordable public transportation, and active transportation opportunities. Regionally, additional GHG reductions can be achieved through direct investment in local building retrofit programs that can pay for cool roofs, solar panels, solar water heaters, smart meters, energy efficient lighting, energy efficient appliances, energy efficient windows, insulation, and water conservation measures for homes within the geographic area of the project. These investments generate real demand side benefits and local jobs, while creating the market signals for energy efficient products, some of which are produced in California. Other examples of local direct investments include financing installation of regional electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, paying for electrification of public school buses, and investing in local urban forests. Local direct investments in actions to reduce GHG emissions should be supported by quantification methodologies that show the reductions are real, verifiable, quantifiable, permanent, and enforceable. Where further project design or regional investments are infeasible or not proven to be effective, it may be appropriate and feasible to mitigate project emissions through purchasing and retiring carbon credits. CAPCOA has developed the GHG Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx) for CEQA mitigation, which could provide credits to achieve additional reductions. It may also be appropriate to utilize credits issued by a recognized and reputable voluntary carbon registry. Appendix B includes examples of on-site project design features, mitigation measures, and direct regional investments that may be feasible to minimize GHG emissions from land use development projects. California’s future climate strategy will require increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities, and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Accommodating population and economic growth through travel- and energy-efficient land use provides GHG-efficient growth, reducing GHGs from both transportation and building energy use.257 GHGs can be further reduced at the project level through implementing energy-efficient construction and travel demand management approaches.258 Further, the State’s understanding of transportation impacts continues to evolve. The CEQA Guidelines are being updated to focus the analysis of transportation impacts on VMT. OPR’s Technical Advisory includes methods of analysis of transportation impacts, approaches to setting significance thresholds, and includes examples of VMT mitigation under CEQA.259 255 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=NewhallRanchFinal256 CARB provided some guidance on development project thresholds in a paper issued in October 2008, which included a concept utilizing a bright-line mass numeric threshold based on capturing approximately 90 percent of emissions in that sector and a concept of minimum performance based standards. Some districts built upon that work to develop thresholds. For example, Santa Barbara County adopted a bright-line numeric threshold of 1,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial stationary-source projects, and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for stationary source projects and a 1,100 MTCO2e/yr threshold for construction activities and land development projects in their operational phase. CARB is not endorsing any one of these approaches, but noting them for informational purposes.257 Robert Cervero, Jim Murakami; Effects of Built Environment on Vehicle Miles Traveled: Evidence from 370 US Urbanized Areas. Environment and Planning A, Vol 42, Issue 2, pp. 400-418, February-01-2010; Ewing, R., & Rong, F. (2008). The impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use. Housing Policy Debagte, 19 (1), 1-30.).258 CAPCOA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August, 2010.259 http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/ 103 Implementing the Scoping Plan This Scoping Plan outlines the regulations, programs, and other mechanisms needed to reduce GHG emissions in California. CARB and other State agencies will work closely with State and local agencies, stakeholders, Tribes, and the public to develop regulatory measures and other programs to implement the Scoping Plan. CARB and other State agencies will develop regulations in accordance with established rulemaking guidelines. Per Executive Order B-30-15, as these regulatory measures and other programs are developed, building programs for climate resiliency must also be a consideration. Additionally, agencies will further collaborate and work to provide the institutional support needed to overcome barriers that may currently hinder certain efforts to reduce GHG emissions and to support the goals, actions, and measures identified for key sectors in Chapter 4. Table 17 provides a high-level summary of the Climate Change Policies and Measures discussed in the Scoping Plan, including, but not limited to, those identified specifically to achieve the 2030 target. table 17: Climate Change poliCies and measures Recommended Action Lead Agency Implement SB 350 by 2030: • Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. • Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. • Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the above measures and other actions as modeled in IRPs to meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the IRP process. Load-serving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets through a combination of measures as described in IRPs. CPUC, CEC, CARB Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels): • At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025. • At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030. • Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Cars regulations. • Medium- and heavy-duty GHG Phase 2. • Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. • Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. • Further reduce VMT through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the document “Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion.” CARB, CalSTA, SGC, CalTrans CEC, OPR, Local agencies Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 targets).CARB By 2019, adjust performance measures used to select and design transportation facilities. • Harmonize project performance with emissions reductions, and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes (e.g. via guideline documents, funding programs, project selection, etc.). CalSTA and SGC, OPR, CARB, GoBiz, IBank, DOF, CTC, Caltrans By 2019, develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation (e.g. low-emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user, parking pricing, transit discounts). CalSTA, Caltrans, CTC, OPR/SGC, CARB 104 Recommended Action Lead Agency Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan: • Improve freight system efficiency. • Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. CalSTA, CalEPA, CNRA, CARB, CalTrans, CEC, GoBiz Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a CI reduction of 18 percent.CARB Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy by 2030: • 40 percent reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 levels. • 50 percent reduction in black carbon emissions below 2013 levels. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, Local air districts By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, Local air districts Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program with declining annual caps.CARB By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink: • Protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. • Increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity • Utilize wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments • Establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan CNRA and departments within, CDFA, CalEPA, CARB Establish a carbon accounting framework for natural and working lands as described in SB 859 by 2018 CARB Implement Forest Carbon Plan CNRA, CAL FIRE, CalEPA and departments within Identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors.State Agencies & Local Agencies A Comprehensive Approach to Support Climate Action Ultimately, successfully tipping the scales in the fight against climate change relies on our ability to incentivize clean technologies in the marketplace and to make other climate strategies clearly understood and easily accessible. We must support and guide our businesses as they continue to innovate and make clean technologies ever more attractive to ever more savvy consumers. Until the point that clean technologies become the best and lowest cost option–which is clearly on the horizon for many technologies, including renewable energy and electric cars–we must continue to support emerging markets through incentives and outreach efforts. More than just coordinating among agencies and providing institutional support as described above, we will succeed if we tackle climate change from all angles–through regulatory and policy development, targeted incentives, and education and outreach. Regulations and Programmatic Development Our decade of climate leadership has demonstrated that developing mitigation strategies through a public process, where all stakeholders have a voice, leads to effective actions that address climate change and yield a series of additional economic and environmental co-benefits to the State. As we implement this Scoping Plan, State agencies will continue to develop and implement new and existing programs, as described herein. During any rulemaking process, there are many opportunities for both informal interaction with technical staff in meetings and workshops, and formal interaction at Board meetings, Commission business meetings, monthly public meetings, and others. Each State agency will consider all information and stakeholder input during the rulemaking process. Based on this information, the agency may modify proposed measures to reflect the status of technological development, the cost of the measure, the cost-effectiveness of the measures, and other factors before presenting them for consideration and adoption. Further, to achieve cost-effective GHG reductions, California State agencies must consider the environmental impact of small businesses and provide mechanisms to assist businesses as GHG reduction measures are 105 implemented. CARB provides resources and tips for small businesses to prevent pollution, minimize waste, and save energy and water on CoolCalifornia.org. California’s small businesses and their employees represent a valuable economic resource in the State and “greening” existing businesses is not only achievable, but sets an example for new businesses which will prove significant as California transitions to a low carbon state. State agencies conduct environmental and environmental justice assessments of our regulatory actions. Many of the requirements in AB 32 overlap with traditional agency evaluations. In adopting regulations to implement the measures recommended in the Scoping Plan, or including in the regulations the use of market- based compliance mechanisms to comply with the regulations, agencies will ensure that the measures have undergone the aforementioned screenings and meet the requirements established in California Health and Safety Code Section 38562(b)(1-9) and Section 38570(b)(1-3). Incentive Programs Financial incentives and direct funding are critical components of the State’s climate framework. In particular, incentives and funding are necessary to support GHG emissions reductions strategies for priority sectors, sources, and technologies. Although California has a number of existing incentive programs, available funding is limited. It is critical to target public investments efficiently and in ways that encourage integrated, system wide solutions to produce deep and lasting public benefits. Significant investments of private capital, supported by targeted, priority investments of public funding, are necessary to scale deployment and to maximize benefits. Public investments, including through decisions related to State pension fund portfolios, can help incentivize early action to accelerate market transition to cleaner technologies and cleaner practices, which can also be supported by regulatory measures. Many existing State funding programs work in tandem to reduce emissions from GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants, and are helping to foster the transition to a clean energy economy and protect and manage land for carbon sequestration. State law, including Senate Bill 535 (De León, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012) and Assembly Bill 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016) also requires focused investment in low income and disadvantaged communities. The State will need to continue to coordinate and utilize funding sources, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (cap-and-trade auction proceeds), the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (AB 118), Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) Program, Carl Moyer Program, Air Quality Improvement Program, and Proposition 39 to expand clean energy investments in California and further reduce GHG and criteria emissions. Additionally, programs including the Bioenergy Feed-In Tariff, created by Senate Bill 1122 (Rubio, Chapter 612, Statutes of 2012), Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cap-and-Trade, Self-Generation Incentive Program, Federal Renewable Fuel Standard, utility incentives pursuant to Assembly Bill 1900 (Gatto, Chapter 602, Statutes of 2012), and others provide important market signals and potential revenue streams to support projects to reduce GHG emissions. These programs represent just a portion of the opportunities that exist at the federal, State, and local levels to incentivize GHG emissions reductions. The availability of dedicated and long-lasting funding sources is critical to help meet the State’s climate objectives and help provide certainty and additional partnership opportunities at the national, State, Tribal, regional, and local levels for further investing in projects that have the potential to expand investments in California’s clean economy and further reductions in GHG emissions. Public Education and Outreach Efforts California State agencies are committed to meaningful opportunities for public input and effective engagement with stakeholders and the public through the development of the Scoping Plan, and as measures are implemented through workshops, other meetings, and through the formal rulemaking process. Additionally, the State has broad public education and outreach campaigns to support markets for key technologies, like ZEVs and energy efficiency, as well as resources to support local and voluntary actions, such as CoolCalifornia.org. In developing this Scoping Plan, there has been extensive outreach with environmental justice organizations and disadvantaged communities. The EJAC launched a community engagement process starting in July 2016, conducting 19 community meetings throughout the State and collecting hundreds of individual comments. To enhance the engagement opportunity, CARB coordinated with local government agencies and sister State agencies to hold collaborative discussions with local residents about specific climate issues that impact their 106 lives. This effort was well received and attended by local community residents and initiated a new community engagement endeavor for CARB. Recognizing the value of the input received and the opportunity to present California’s climate strategy to communities across the State, CARB intends to continue this community involvement to generate awareness about California’s climate strategy and be responsive to specific community needs as climate programs are implemented. Conclusion This Scoping Plan continues more than a half-century of California’s nation-leading efforts to clean our air, our water and improve the environment. But, climate change poses a challenge of unprecedented proportions that will, in one way or another, impact all Californians whether they are city dwellers in Los Angeles, San Diego or San Francisco, farmers in Salinas or the Central Valley, or the millions of Californians who live in the Sierra or in the desert areas. This is the State’s climate action plan, and in a very real sense it belongs to all those Californians who are feeling, and will continue to feel, the impacts of climate change. Californians want to see continued effective action that addresses climate change and benefits California – this Plan responds to both of these goals. The Plan was developed by the coordinated consensus of State agencies, but it is really California’s Plan, because over the coming decades the approaches in this document will be carried out by all of us. In this Scoping Plan, every sector in our thriving economy plays a crucial role. Tribes, cities, and local governments are already rising to the challenge, and will play increasingly important roles with everything from low-carbon and cleaner transit, to more walkable streets and the development of vibrant urban communities. We will see a remarkable transformation of how we move throughout the state, away from cars that burn fossil fuels to cleaner, electric cars that will, in some cases, even drive themselves. Freight will be moved around the state by trucks that are vastly cleaner than those on the road now, with our ports moving towards zero- and near-zero emissions technologies. The heavily traveled Los Angeles-San Francisco corridor will be serviced by comfortable, clean and affordable high speed rail. In addition to reducing GHGs, these efforts will slash pollution now created from using gasoline and diesel fuel statewide, with the greatest benefits going to the disadvantaged communities of our state which are so often located adjacent to ports, railyards, freight distribution centers and freeways. And, thanks to the continued investment of proceeds from the Cap-and-Trade Program in these same communities, we can continue to work on bringing the benefits of clean technology – whether electric cars or solar roofs – to those in our state who need them the most. Climate change presents us with unprecedented challenges – challenges that cannot be met with traditional ways of thinking or conventional solutions. As Governor Brown has recognized, meeting these challenges will require “courage, creativity and boldness.” The last ten years proved to ourselves, and the world, that Californians recognize the danger of climate change. It has also demonstrated that developing mitigation strategies through a public process where all stakeholders have a voice leads to effective actions that address climate change while yielding a series of co-benefits to the state. This Scoping Plan builds on those early steps and moves into a new chapter that will deliver a thriving economy and a clean environment to our children and grandchildren. It is a commitment to the future, but it begins today by moving forward with the policies in this Plan. eduCation and environment initiative The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the California Department of Education, and the California Natural Resources Agency have developed an environmental curriculum that is being taught in more than half of California’s school districts. The Education and Environment Initiative (EEI) provides California’s teachers with tools to educate students about the natural environment and how everyday choices can improve our planet and save money. 107 a bbrev I at I on S AB Assembly Bill AC air conditioning AEO Annual Energy Outlook AHSC Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities ARFVTP Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program BARCT best available retrofit control technology BAU business-as-usual BC British Columbia BEV Battery-electric vehicle CARB California Air Resources Board CAISO California Independent System Operator CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen California Green Building Standards CalPERS California Public Employees’ Retirement System CalSTA California State Transportation Agency CalSTRS California State Teachers’ Retirement System CAP Climate Action Plan CARE California Alternate Rates for Energy Program CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDPH California Department of Public Health CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFT Clean Fuels and Technology CH4 Methane CI carbon intensity CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CSI California Solar Initiative dge diesel gallon equivalent DWR California Department of Water Resources EA Environmental Analysis EEI Education and Environment Initiative EIR Environmental Impact Report EJAC Environmental Justice Advisory Committee 108 EO Executive Order EPIC Electric Program Investment Charge Program F-gases fluorinated gases FCEV Fuel-cell electric vehicle FERA Family Electric Rate Assistance GCF Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force GDP gross domestic product GGRF Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund GHG greenhouse gas GoBiz Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development GWP global warming potential HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HFC Hydrofluorocarbon HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning ICAP International Carbon Action Partnership IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report IOU investor-owned utility IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRP integrated resource plan IWG Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program LDV light-duty vehicle LED light-emitting diode LIWP Low-Income Weatherization Program LOS level of service MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MOU memorandum of understanding MPO metropolitan planning organization MRR Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions MTCO2 metric tons of carbon dioxide MW Megawatt N2O nitrous oxide NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEM Net-Energy Metering NF3 nitrogen trifluoride NOX nitrogen oxide NZE near-zero emission OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 109 PEV plug-in electric vehicle PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle PFC Perfluorocarbon PM particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter PMR Partnership for Market Readiness REMI Regional Economic Models, Inc. RES-BCT Renewable Energy Bill Credit RNG renewable natural gas RPS renewable portfolio standard RTP regional transportation plan SB Senate bill SCS Sustainable Communities Strategies SC-CO2 social cost of carbon SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SGC Strategic Growth Council SGIP Self-Generation Incentive Program SLCP Short-lived climate pollutant SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TBD to be determined TCU Transportation Communications and Utilities TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program UCLA University of California, Los Angeles UHI urban heat island UIC International Union of Railways UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VMT vehicle miles traveled WWTP waste water treatment plant ZE zero emission ZEV zero emission vehicles ES20 REDUCE “SUPER POLLUTANTS” 40% reduction in methane and HFCs CLEAN ENERGY At least 50% renewable electricity CLEAN TRANSIT 100% of new buses are zero-emission Double energy efficiency in existing buildings CLEAN CARS Over 4 million affordable electric cars on the road High density, transit-oriented housing Walkable & bikable communities On-road oil demand reduced by half CLEAN FUELS 18% carbon intensity reduction California’s 2030 Vision NATURAL & WORKING LANDS RESTORATION 15-20 million metric tons of reductions SUSTAINABLE FREIGHT Transitioning to zero emissions everywhere feasible, and near-zero emissions with renewable fuels everywhere else CAP-AND-TRADE Firm limit on 80% of emissions RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWM Plan) dated October 28, 2019, and the 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan dated March 2019 (ECCCIRWM Plan); AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute documents signifying the County’s adoption and continued participation in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the BAIRWM Plan and ECCCIRWM Plan, as needed, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Some County Public Works staff time will be required on an ongoing basis. The County will benefit from coordination of its projects with those of other water, wastewater, flood management, stormwater quality, and environmental organizations in the Bay Area. (100% FC District Funds) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mark Boucher, (925) 313-2274 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Mark Boucher, Flood Control, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:County Adoption of the updated Bay Area and the East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, Countywide. Project #7505-6F-8239 BACKGROUND: Integrated Regional Water Management Planning — Water Bond History In 2002, Senate Bill 1672 created the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Act to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability. Since it’s passing, the following California propositions, which included bond funds specifically for IRWM planning and project implantation have been passed by California voters: Proposition 50 (Prop 50) — November 2002, “The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002,” $500,000,000 — funded competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan. Proposition 84 (Prop 84) — November 2006, “Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act,” — $100,000,000 — funded IRWM Planning and Implementation. Proposition 1E (Prop 1E) — November 2006, “Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act” — $300,000,000 — funded IRWM Stormwater Flood Management. Proposition 1 (Prop 1) — November 2014 — “Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014” — $510,000,000 — this proposition funded three IRWM programs: Disadvantaged Community Involvement Grant Program, Planning Grant Program, and Implementation Grant Program. The following is a history and background of the FC District’s involvement in the IRWM: Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan County Public Works staff, acting on behalf of the FC District, participated early on in 2003 in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) ABAG-CALFED Water Management Subcommittee. In a subcommittee meeting, it was noted that the State was preparing to begin the grant program for Prop 50 water bond funds. In response to this, Bay Area water agencies began outreach in order to develop an IRWM plan that identifies, coordinates, and prioritizes projects within the Bay Area. Prop 50 required for a project to be funded that it had to be in an IRWM plan. The IRWM planning outreach resulted in the several regional water resource organizations working together towards a plan. Those agencies without formal regional organizations began to collaborate in the Bay Area region like never before. Overall, four “functional areas” were identified. These four functional areas are listed below along with the organizations that coordinate their representation in the collaborative efforts related to the Bay Area IRWM planning process. 1. Water Supply and Water Quality Functional Area (FA): this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Water Management Agencies Coalition. 2. Wastewater and Recycled Water: this FA is coordinated by the existing Bay Area Clean Water Agencies. 3. Flood Protection and Stormwater Management: this FA is coordinated by the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA), which was formed in response to the need to coordinate in the IRWM planning process. BAFPAA agencies later executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to enable the pooling of funds for mutually beneficial activities. The FC District is a founding member of BAFPAA and still fully engaged in IRWM and other activities. 4. Watershed Management, Habitat Protection, and Restoration: this FA coordinated by the Bay Area Watershed Network, which is coordinated by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership and under the umbrella of ABAG. A BAIRWM Plan Coordinating Committee (Coordinating Committee) was established and later defined formally in the first Bay Area IRWM Plan. The Coordinating Committee continues to meet or conference call on a monthly basis and is the forum in which the BAIRWM Plan consensus decisions are made. In this forum, and through subcommittees that work on specific issues and funding rounds, the plan was developed, projects have been vetted, grant applications prepared, and the plan updated. A website at http://bayareairwmp.org/ is used to enhance awareness, openness, and communication of the actions and decisions that the Coordinating Committee was making for the region. On November 13, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted the first BAIRWM Plan, dated November 6, 2006, and AUTHORIZED the Chief Engineer, or designee, to continue participating in the process of updating, modifying, and revising the IRWM plan and directing the Chief Engineer to participate in an effort with other Bay Area flood control agencies to form an association for coordinating input to the IRWM plan. On April 19, 2010, County Public Works staff, acting on behalf of the FC District, requested authorization through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to increase its participation level in the Bay Area IRWM planning activities. The BAIRWM Plan was updated in 2013 and the Board of Supervisors adopted the updated plan on April 22, 2014. East Contra Costa County Integrated Water Management Plan The ECCCIRWM Group was convened under the structure of the East County Water Management Association (ECWMA), which had existing collaborative relationships related to water resources. ECWMA was formed under an MOU that provided organizational structure for IRWM planning and implementation. The ECWMA Board convened in response to the 2002 requirement for IRWM plans. ECWMA members worked together to produce a “functionally equivalent” IRWM plan that was accepted by the State by combining several existing plans. These were done in a natural, collaborative process in their respective water resources area. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan was included in the ECCIRWMP. Before the IRWM planning effort, the Contra Costa Water Agency (CCWA) was a member of ECWMA. An amendment changed the membership from the CCWA to the County and added the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy to the agreement. The FC District became recognized as a participant in the IRWM planning effort under the County’s membership due to the fact that the FC District is managed by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. On April 11, 2005, County Public Works staff, acting on behalf of the FC District, requested Board of Supervisors approval to participate in the ECCCIRWM planning effort to participate in the cost for professional services to prepare the Prop 50 grant application. This was the first of several requests for authorization to be involved in the ECCCIRWM planning effort. On April 19, 2010, County Public Works staff, acting on behalf of the FC District, requested authorization through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to increase its participation level in the Bay Area IRWM planning activities. The ECCCIRWM Plan was updated in 2013 and the Board of Supervisors adopted the updated plan on April 22, 2014. Current Actions The State continues to make funding available, most recently through Proposition 1 implementation funding, for projects that are included in an adopted IRWM plan. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) adopted the 2016 IRWM Guidelines, and requires IRWM Planning Regions to update their IRWM Plans to be consistent with the 2016 IRWM Plan Standards. The State has adjusted the focus of the IRWM grant programs rounds to ensure outreach and funding is provided to disadvantaged communities. The BAIRWM Plan ECCCIRWM Groups have worked to update their Plan to conform to the 2016 IRWM Plan Standards. The update required clarifications on regional water quality conditions, climate change, sea level rise impacts, adaptation and mitigation measures, resource management strategies, plan performance monitoring, and other planning strategies. To be eligible to receive funds allocated for Round 1 of Proposition 1 Implementation funding, agencies involved in the IRWM Plans must adopt the plans. Once all necessary agencies in each Planning Region have adopted the IRWM Plans and the IRWM Plans are approved by the State, the IRWM Regions will have access to Proposition 1 funding. A draft of the 2019 BAIRWM Plan Update was circulated to the Coordinating Committee’s broad e-mail distribution list in advance of the September 23, 2019, Coordinating Committee meeting. The Plan update was finalized and unanimously approved at the October 28, 2019, Coordinating Committee meeting. On April 14, 2020, DWR made the final determination that the Plan is consistent with the 2016 IRWM Guidelines. The full BAIRWM Plan (including the 2019 Plan Update) can be found at http://bayareairwmp.org/. The plan along with the appendix are provided as attachments. A draft of the 2019 ECCCIRWM Plan Update was posted on DWR’s website for a 30-day public review period and on July 10, 2019, announced at the ECCCIRM Group regular meeting that DWR accepted the plan as final. On June 14, 2020, DWR made the final determination that the ECCCIRWM Plan is consistent with the 2016 IRWM Guidelines. The full ECCCIRWM Plan (including the 2019 Plan Update) can be found via https://www.eccc-irwm.org/documents. The 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan is provided as attachments. County Public Works staff, acting on behalf of the FC District, are also taking the 2019 Plans to the Board of Supervisors for Contra Costa County for formal adoption. This will ensure that any County projects will also be eligible for funds through Prop 1. This would include green infrastructure projects that may be eligible for Prop 1 funding. Commitment and California Environmental Quality Act The Guidelines and the procedures developed by the DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board mandate that the IRWM plans be formally adopted, as evidenced by a resolution or other written documentation. The adoption must be done by the governing bodies of the agencies and organizations that participated in the development of the IRWM plans and have responsibility for its implementation. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors must approve the IRWM plan in order for the County’s projects in the IRWM plans to be eligible for grant funding. The IRWM plans are nonbinding documents. Adoption of the IRWM plans does not entail a direct commitment of resources. Implementation of each project identified in the IRWM plans will be the responsibility of the project proponent and any applicable project partners. There is no joint commitment or responsibility by the IRWM plan participants or adopting agencies to implement any or all of the projects. Furthermore, the project proponents and applicable project partners have discretionary authority over project design and implementation and may elect not to implement a project based on changing regional conditions or needs. Upon implementing a project, project proponents will be responsible for ensuring that all regulatory requirements for the project are met. The IRWM plans consist of planning studies and basic proposed project information collection that will not result in the disturbance of any environmental resource. Therefore, the IRWM plans are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15262. As such, programmatic environmental analysis under CEQA is not required. Each project ultimately implemented, as a result of this plan, will require independent CEQA analysis. Referral History The adoption of the previous versions of the BAIRWM Plan and ECCCIRWM Plan were presented to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on April 3, 2014, for referral to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the adoption of the IRWM plans. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not adopt the IRWM plans, projects that the County proposes for funding through IRWM grant programs will be ineligible for funding through various State water bond grant programs. ATTACHMENTS IRWM Plan 2020 2019 BA IRWM Plan Update Final PDF 2019 BA IRWM Plan Appendices Update 2019 East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan March 2019 Contra Costa County November 17, 2001 Creek and Watershed Symposium East Contra Costa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) will soon begin to update its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), originally developed in June 2006. The Update is being funded by the ECWMA agencies and a planning grant from the California Department of Water Resources. An IRWMP is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWMPs cross jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involve multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempt to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The East Contra Costa County IRWMP Update will consist of: Updating the document to the lastest guidelines and standards, including the development of new integrated projects Developing a plan for groundwater and salt/nutrient management in the Pittsburg Plain Basin Continuing public outreach, including to disadvantaged communities More information about IRWMPs may be found at http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/. If you would like more information about the IRWMP Update or would like to participate in upcoming public meetings, please contact Marie Valmores at mvalmores@ccwater.com. East County Water Management Association Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update i March 2019 East Contra Costa County Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1  1.1. Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1-1  1.1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 1-1  1.2. IRWM Process .............................................................................................................. 1-2  1.3. Document Organization ................................................................................................ 1-4  1.4. IRWM Plan Standards ................................................................................................... 1-4  Chapter 2. Region Description ............................................................................................... 2-1  2.1. The East Contra Costa County Region ......................................................................... 2-1  2.2. History of Regional Planning ........................................................................................ 2-2  2.2.1. The DWR IRWM Regional Process ........................................................................ 2-4  2.3. Governance .................................................................................................................... 2-7  2.3.1. Regional Water Management Group ....................................................................... 2-7  2.3.2. Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2-9   2.4. Description of Internal Boundaries ............................................................................. 2-11  2.4.1. Region .................................................................................................................... 2-11  2.4.2. Member Agencies .................................................................................................. 2-14  2.4.3. Other Water-Related Agencies within the Region ................................................. 2-29  2.4.4. State Agencies Collaborating with the Region ...................................................... 2-32  2.5. Description of Social and Cultural Makeup ................................................................ 2-33  2.5.1. Demographics ........................................................................................................ 2-33  2.5.2. Demographic Analysis of Contra Costa County in 2009 and 2019 ....................... 2-34  2.5.3. Age ......................................................................................................................... 2-34  2.5.4. Ethnicity ................................................................................................................. 2-35  2.5.5. Gender .................................................................................................................... 2-35  2.5.6. Economic Industry ................................................................................................. 2-35  2.5.7. Disadvantaged Communities ................................................................................. 2-36  2.6. Description of Watersheds and Water Systems .......................................................... 2-44  2.6.1. Watersheds ............................................................................................................. 2-44  2.6.2. Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 2-49  2.7. Water Supplies and Demands ..................................................................................... 2-56  Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update ii March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.7.1. Current and Projected Water Demands .................................................................. 2-56  2.7.2. Current and Projected Water Supplies ................................................................... 2-59  2.7.3. Comparison of Water Supplies and Demands ....................................................... 2-64  2.8. Emergency Drought Response .................................................................................... 2-66  2.8.1. East Contra Costa Planned Efforts to Address Drought Conditions ...................... 2-67  2.9. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................. 2-68  2.9.1. Handbook Approach .............................................................................................. 2-69  2.9.2. Water Supply ......................................................................................................... 2-71  2.9.3. Water Demand ....................................................................................................... 2-72  2.9.4. Flooding ................................................................................................................. 2-72  2.9.5. Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 2-73  2.9.6. Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerability .................................................................... 2-74  2.9.7. Energy .................................................................................................................... 2-75  2.9.8. Additional Local Data ............................................................................................ 2-75  2.9.9. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies.......................................... 2-76  2.10. Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 2-76  2.10.1. Delta Water Quality ............................................................................................... 2-76  2.10.2. Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................. 2-78  2.10.3. Recycled Water Quality ......................................................................................... 2-79  Chapter 3. Plan Development ................................................................................................... 3-1 Planning Framework .................................................................................................... 3-1 Background .............................................................................................................. 3-1 ECCC IRWM Plan 2013 Update Process ................................................................ 3-2 ECCC IRWM Plan 2015 Update Process ................................................................ 3-3 ECCC IRWM Plan 2019 Update Process ................................................................ 3-3 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3-4 Water Management Challenges ............................................................................... 3-4 Creating Measurable Objectives .............................................................................. 3-9 Living Document ................................................................................................... 3-16 Resource Management Strategies .............................................................................. 3-16 Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation .................................... 3-17 Project Review Process .............................................................................................. 3-19 Project Submission ................................................................................................. 3-19 Project Review Factors .......................................................................................... 3-20 Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update iii March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Scoring Criteria .......................................................................................... 3-21 Project Review Steps ............................................................................................. 3-26 Documenting the Projects ...................................................................................... 3-27 Implementation and Updates to Project List .......................................................... 3-30 Technical Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3-31 Incorporation of Planning Documents ................................................................... 3-32 Urban Water Management Plans and Studies ........................................................ 3-32 Groundwater Management Plans and Studies ....................................................... 3-33 CASGEM Compliance ........................................................................................... 3-34 Recycled Water Plans and Studies ......................................................................... 3-34 Stormwater and Flood Management Plans and Studies ......................................... 3-34 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan .................................................................................................. 3-35 Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Studies ............................................. 3-35 3.6 Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................................................... 3-36 3.6.1. ECCC IRWM Region Website .............................................................................. 3-37 3.6.2. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2013 IRWM Plan Update ................................ 3-39 3.6.3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2015 IRWM Plan Update ................................ 3-40 3.6.4. Stakeholder Outreach During Implementation ...................................................... 3-41 3.6.5. Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities.............................................................. 3-41 3.6.6. Native American Tribal Communities ................................................................... 3-42 3.6.7. Process to Ensure Authentic Engagement ............................................................. 3-42 Integration and Coordination ..................................................................................... 3-43 Opportunities for Integration and Coordination..................................................... 3-43 Existing Agency Relationships .............................................................................. 3-43 Water Supply Agreements ..................................................................................... 3-44 Recycled Water ...................................................................................................... 3-44 Organization Memberships .................................................................................... 3-45 Regional Planning Efforts ...................................................................................... 3-46 Neighboring IRWM efforts .................................................................................... 3-49 State Agency Assistance ........................................................................................ 3-50 Relation to Local Water Planning .......................................................................... 3-51 Relation to Local Land-Use Planning .................................................................... 3-51 Future IRWM Plan Updates ...................................................................................... 3-53 Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update iv March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 4. IRWM Plan Implementation ................................................................................. 4-1  4.1. Governance .................................................................................................................... 4-1  4.1.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-2  4.1.2. Regional Water Management Group Governance Structure ................................... 4-2  4.2. Projects for Plan Implementation .................................................................................. 4-3  4.3. Potential Benefits of IRWM Plan Implementation ....................................................... 4-9  4.3.1. Improving Water Supply Reliability and Water Quality Objective ......................... 4-9  4.3.2. Restoring and Enhancing the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Objective ................................................................................................................ 4-11  4.3.3. Positioning Water-Related Planning and Implementation for Funding Objective 4-12  4.3.4. Implementing Robust Stormwater and Flood Management Objective .................. 4-13  4.3.5. Providing Public Outreach and Building IRWM Support Objective ..................... 4-13  4.4. Potential Impacts of IRWM Plan Implementation ...................................................... 4-14  4.5. IRWM Plan and Project Financing ............................................................................. 4-15  4.5.1. Potential Funding Sources ..................................................................................... 4-16  4.5.2. Funding Certainty .................................................................................................. 4-18  4.6. Plan Performance Monitoring ..................................................................................... 4-20  4.7. Data Management ....................................................................................................... 4-21  4.8. Adaptability to Future Situations ................................................................................ 4-22  Chapter 5. References ............................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendices Appendix A. List of Grant Standards & Guidelines Appendix B. Roster of the Governing Board Appendix C. Handbook Summary Information Appendix D. ECCC Handbook Checklist Appendix E. List and Descriptions of On-Going and Planned Regional Actions Appendix F. ECCC Water Management Issues Appendix G. ECCC Resource Management Strategies Appendix H. IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes Appendix I. Regional Capacity Study Appendix J. Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin Appendix K. Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update v March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figures Figure 2-1. ECWMA Organization Chart .................................................................................... 2-8  Figure 2-2. ECCC IRWM Region and Surrounding Areas ....................................................... 2-12  Figure 2-3. ECCC IRWM Region and the Statutory Delta ....................................................... 2-13  Figure 2-4. Participating Water Supply Agencies ..................................................................... 2-16  Figure 2-5. Participating Wastewater Agencies ......................................................................... 2-17  Figure 2-6. Participating Flood Management and Environmental Agencies ............................. 2-18  Figure 2-7. Disadvantaged Communities in the Region ............................................................ 2-38  Figure 2-8. Impact of Foreclosures on Contra Costa County .................................................... 2-40  Figure 2-9. Location of ECCC Overlap in Relation to Regional Boundaries and DACs.............................................................................................................................. 2-43  Figure 2-10. Watersheds in the Region...................................................................................... 2-45  Figure 2-11. Groundwater Basins in the Region ....................................................................... 2-48  Figure 2-12. Major Water and Wastewater Infrastructure ......................................................... 2-51  Figure 2-13. Major Flood Management Infrastructure .............................................................. 2-53  Figure 2-14. Current and Projected 2035 Population for Urban Areas in the Region ............... 2-56  Figure 2-15. Current and Projected 2035 Water Demands ........................................................ 2-59  Figure 2-16. Normal Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region ................................. 2-64  Figure 2-17. Dry Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region ....................................... 2-65  Figure 3-1. IRWM Planning Process ........................................................................................... 3-3  Figure 3-2. Ecosystem Restoration can Attenuate Flooding Like that Experienced in Knightsen in 1997 ............................................................................................................ 3-7   Figure 3-3. Planning Hierarchy .................................................................................................. 3-10  Figure 3-4. Planning Hierarchy for Water Quality and Supply ................................................. 3-11  Figure 3-5. Relative Weighting Factors for Project Scoring Criteria ........................................ 3-23  Figure 3-6. ECCC IRWM Region Website ............................................................................... 3-37  Figure 3-7. ECCC IRWM Region Stakeholder Outreach Meeting in June 2012 ...................... 3-39  Figure 4-1. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Projects by Objective Category ............... 4-8  Figure 4-2. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Projects ......................................... 4-8  Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update vi March 2019 East Contra Costa County Tables Table 1-1. Location of IRWM Plan Standard .............................................................................. 1-5  Table 2-1. IRWM Regional Grant Awards .................................................................................. 2-6  Table 2-2. Regional Water Management Group Members and Primary Functions .................. 2-14  Table 2-3. ECCC Small Systems ............................................................................................... 2-31  Table 2-4. Demographics Data for the ECCC Region ............................................................... 2-34  Table 2-5. 2010 Census DAC Demographic Data for the ECCC Region ................................. 2-37  Table 2-6. Current/Projected Urban, Industriald, and Agricultural Water Demands................. 2-58  Table 2-7. Current Water Supply Availability by Source (AFY) .............................................. 2-61  Table 2-8. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Normal Year ................................................................................................................................ 2-62  Table 2-9. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Dry Year ................................................................................................................................ 2-63  Table 2-10. Water Treatment Plant Capacity vs. Projected Demands ....................................... 2-66  Table 2-11. Current Minimum Supply Projections under Existing Drought Conditions (2015) .......................................................................................................... 2-67  Table 2-12. Constituents of Concern for ECCC Source Waters ................................................ 2-77 Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics ..................................................................... 3-12  Table 3-2. ECCC Applicable RMS List .................................................................................... 3-16  Table 3-3. ECCC IRWM Plan Projects – Resources Management Strategies vs. Objective Categories ...................................................................................................... 3-17  Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria ............................................................................................ 3-20  Table 3-5. Implementation Considerations ................................................................................ 3-24  Table 3-6. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines .......................................................... 3-24  Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects ................................................................................... 3-26  Table 3-8: List of Projects Identified by IRWM Planning Studies ............................................ 3-28  Table 3-9. Data Used in the IRWM Plan ................................................................................... 3-30  Table 4-1. ECCC Region - Progress on Planning Efforts since 2005 IRWM ............................. 4-1  Table 4-2a. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Project List .............................................. 4-5  Table 4-2b. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Project List ................................... 4-6  Table 4-2c. Proposition 84 2015 Implementation Grant Round Project List .............................. 4-7  Table 4-3. Potential Impacts of a Small Set of Projects ............................................................ 4-14  Table 4-4. Potential Funding Sources ........................................................................................ 4-17  Table 4-5. IRWM Plan Financing – IRWM Grants ................................................................... 4-19  Table 4-6. Types of Monitoring ................................................................................................. 4-20 Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update vii March 2019 East Contra Costa County Abbreviations and Acronyms °F degrees Fahrenheit 1996 Study East County Water Supply Management Study in 1996 ACS American Community Survey Act Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 (Act ADWF average dry weather flow AF acre-foot AFY acre-foot per year BAB2E Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition Banks Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant BBID Bryon Bethany Irrigation District BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BIMID Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District BMO basin management objective BMP Best Management Practice BWWTP Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant CALFED California Bay-Delta Program Canal Contra Costa Canal CASGEM DWR’s California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program CCCCD Contra Costa Community College District CCCFCWCD Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCCWA Contra Costa County Water Agency CCCWP Contra Costa Clean Water Program CCFCWCD Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCRCD Contra Costa Resource Conservation District CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDPH California Department of Public Health Central Valley Water Board Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CIHC California Indian Heritage Center Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update viii March 2019 East Contra Costa County COBWTP City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council CVP Central Valley Project CWC California Water Code CWP California Water Plan DAC Disadvantaged Community DDSD Delta Diablo Sanitation District (now Delta Diablo) DEC Delta Energy Center Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta DGA Data Gap Analysis District Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District DO dissolved oxygen DRDWQMP Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan DWD Diablo Water District DWR California Department of Water Resources ECCC East Contra Costa County ECCCHC East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy ECCID East Contra Costa Irrigation District ECWMA East County Water Management Association EJ environmental justice EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEIRWM Plan 2005 Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan FOG Fats, Oils and Grease FOMCW Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed FWSS Future Water Supply Study GBR Governing Board Representatives GHG greenhouse gas GMP Groundwater Management Plan GSWC Golden State Water Company Handbook Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning HCP East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update ix March 2019 East Contra Costa County HCPA ECCC Habitat Conservation Plan Association HPWTF High Purity Water Treatment Facility I Interstate IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWM integrated regional water management ISD Ironhouse Sanitary District JMC Joint Managers Committee KCSD Knightsen Town Community Services District LMEC Los Medanos Energy Center MGD million gallons per day MHI median household income NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service PRC California Public Resources Code RAP Regional Acceptance Process RBWTP Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant RCS Regional Capacity Study RD Reclamation District Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation region East Contra Costa County region Region Regional Water Management Group and its members RMS Resource Management Strategy RWF Recycled Water Facility RWMG Regional Water Management Group RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Water Board San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SAR sodium adsorption ratio SB Senate Bill SR State Route State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board SWP State Water Project Table of Contents IRWM Plan Update x March 2019 East Contra Costa County TAF thousand acre-feet TDS total dissolved solids TOC total organic carbon ULL Urban Limit Line USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture UWMP Urban Water Management Plan Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board (formerly the RWQCB) WRWC Western Recycled Water Coalition WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant IRWM Plan Update 1-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 1 Introduction The East Contra Costa County (ECCC) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning effort is a formal collaborative process convened to support all aspects of regional water management. This includes integrated planning for water supply, water quality, watershed and habitat protection, and flood and stormwater management. The ECCC IRWM members have a long history of cooperation across political and jurisdictional boundaries that spans almost two decades. In this 2015 IRWM Plan Update, further updating the November 2013 IRWM Plan, the ECCC region creates a framework to implement integrated water management projects with multiple benefits to serve the population of the region and protect water and environmental resources for the State. This IRWM Plan articulates the challenges the ECCC region faces and defines the water resource management objectives it hopes to accomplish. The framework defined in the IRWM Plan is a living process the region can rely on to meet its current and future water management challenges. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the IRWM Plan is to provide a roadmap for the region to meet its overall water management objectives, including:  Ensuring reliable water supply under normal conditions as well as during droughts and other emergencies, achieving water quality goals and meeting related regulations.  Restoring and enhancing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) ecosystem and upstream habitat and wetland resources.  Positioning water-related planning and implementation projects for funding.  Implementing robust stormwater and flood management strategies and practices.  Providing public outreach and establishing broad support for integrated water management. This IRWM Plan addresses specific requirements, created and documented in accordance with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) IRWM Grant Guidelines.1 A summary of the requirements is listed in Section 1.4 and the full list is contained in Appendix A. 1.1.1 Background California faces multiple challenges related to water management, including water supply reliability under normal conditions as well as during droughts and other emergencies, threats to water quality, increasing flood risk, declining ecosystems, aging infrastructure, climate change, and economic challenges. To meet these challenges, DWR has established (1) State policy 1 http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/Archives/Prop84/Guidelines_PSPs/GL_2012_FINAL.pdf Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County encouraging IRWM, and (2) financial planning programs for local and regional water resources managers and their stakeholders to implement IRWM. In contrast with traditional water management sector-based approaches, IRWM deals with all water functions on equal terms within the framework of an integrated water system. This plan’s approach considers:  Scientific and technical aspects of managing water supply, treatment, and wastewater systems  Watershed resource protection  Sustainable use and planning for the future  Socioeconomic, institutional, policy, and political aspects of water decisions  Governance  Legal and institutional framework  Regional economic conditions  Public awareness and input  Cultural and social customs  Educational characteristics  Fundamental aspects of how humans behave and interact with their water resources The ECCC region capitalizes on the long history of integrated water planning and, with This IRWM Plan, defines key water management issues and objectives for ongoing water security in the region. This IRWM Plan also established the process by which the region will identify and integrate innovative projects and programs that, when implemented, will help the region to meet those objectives. 1.2 IRWM Process DWR outlines specific standards, steps, and requirements for IRWM plans created with grant funds. In 2009, DWR instituted a Regional Acceptance Process (RAP) to evaluate and accept an IRWM region into its IRWM grant program. At a minimum, a region is defined as a contiguous geographic area encompassing the service areas of multiple local agencies. It is delineated to maximize the opportunities to integrate water management activities, and effectively integrate water management programs and projects within a hydrologic region as defined in the California Water Plan (CWP), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board, formerly the RWQCB) region, or subdivision. The ECCC region was formally accepted into the RAP process in 2009. Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County DWR also encourages regions to pay attention to three concepts when incorporating planning grant standards into their IRWM plans. These concepts are: 1. Ahwahnee Water Principles – IRWM planning is not focused on a single use of a resource, but seeks to manage that resource based on all the ways that the resource can be used. As exhibited by the IRWM Plan Standards, many aspects of IRWM planning reflect the Ahwahnee Water Principles.2 Commonalities between IRWM planning and the Ahwahnee Water Principles include multi-agency collaboration, stakeholder involvement and collaboration, regional approaches to water management, water management involvement in land-use decisions, and project monitoring to evaluate results of current practices. Although IRWM Plan Standards can be seen as very separate and distinct items, regions should be aware of the broader overarching shift to resource planning as presented in the Ahwahnee Water Principles and the practice of IRWM planning, as opposed to a single planning purpose (i.e., water supply, wastewater, or watershed function). 2. Flood Management – Flood management should be integrated into IRWM plans as with other types of water management. Integrating flood management into a regional plan, as appropriate, may increase the ways a region can achieve its IRWM Plan objectives. 3. IRWM Plan Outline – The IRWM Plan Standards are intended to ensure IRWM plans include specific content. Although the IRWM Plan Standards name specific topics, explanations, and descriptions, these do not necessarily constitute an outline of an IRWM Plan. An IRWM Plan can be written in a format that is logical for the IRWM region. The IRWM Plan can use different titles for sections than those offered in these standards; hat is important is that IRWM plans contain the proper contents to ensure effective, implementable planning. The ECCC planning and project list development process was conducted to facilitate inclusion of IRWM Plan Standards. To do this, the IRWM members created a website to collect and disseminate information. They met with stakeholders and developed a process to identify, evaluate, and prioritize implementation projects. The result of the planning and project development process is an active list of IRWM Plan project priorities. With an interactive list and the planning framework established, projects may be added, removed, or updated at any time. The IRWM Plan is a living document that can adapt to the challenges of water management in the region. The updated website (http://www.eccc-irwm.org/) allows project proponents and stakeholders to view each other’s projects, helping them to identify opportunities for collaboration and integration for their projects. From time to time, the region may also initiate another formal “Call-for-Projects” to refresh their list or to prepare for a new funding opportunity. Studies and planning efforts supported by the Round 2 Planning Grant have resulted in the addition of projects to the list. Integrated planning will continue to be ongoing, open, transparent, and collaborative. 2 http://www.lgc.org/wordpress/docs/resources/water/lgc_water_guide.pdf Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 1.3 Document Organization This IRWM Plan is organized to address the Guidance for IRWM Plan Standards (Appendix C of the Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E IRWM Guidelines issued by DWR in August 2010 and in November 2012). The main chapters of this IRWM Plan are as follows:  Chapter 1, Introduction – This chapter describes the purpose of the IRWM Plan to document the region’s integrated water management planning process.  Chapter 2, Region Description – This chapter summarizes the region’s history, governance, and member agencies involved in the development of this document. It also provides a detailed description of the region’s water resources.  Chapter 3, Plan Development – This chapter presents the results of each step of the planning process, including the objectives, resource management strategies, technical analyses, stakeholder involvement, project review process, and integration and coordination. The chapter also details the planning process, including the living process that will continue after completion of the IRWM Plan Update, and relationships to local water and land-use planning, and stakeholders.  Chapter 4, IRWM Plan Implementation – This chapter discusses all the considerations for implementing this IRWM Plan, including possible benefits and impacts.  Chapter 5, References – This chapter lists the references used in the development of this document. 1.4 IRWM Plan Standards This IRWM Plan successfully meets the requirements of a DWR IRWM plan as established by the program’s planning grant. Each of the IRWM Plan Standards, including related components, has been addressed. Table 1-1 lists the various standards of a compliant IRWM Plan and indicates the chapter/section in which each component is addressed. Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 1-1. Location of IRWM Plan Standard IRWM Plan Standard Section Governance Section 2.3, Section 4.1 Region Description Chapter 2 Objectives Section 2.9, Section 3.2 Resource Management Strategies Section 3.3, Appendix G Project Review Process Section 2.9, Section 3.4 Impacts and Benefits Section 4.3, Section 4.4 Plan Performance and Monitoring Section 3.4, Section 3.8, Section 4.6 Data Management Section 4.7 Finance Section 4.5 Technical Analysis Section 3.5 Relation to Local Water Planning Section 3.5, Section 3.7.9 Relation to Local Land-Use Planning Section 3.7.10 Stakeholder Involvement Section 3.6 Integration and Coordination Section 3.7 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Section 2.8, Section 2.9, Chapter 3 Chapter 1: Introduction IRWM Plan Update 1-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. IRWM Plan Update 2-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2. Region Description 2.1. The East Contra Costa County Region ECCC contains the largest plain area in Contra Costa County, and includes much of the hilly terrain of the Diablo Range, as well as the agricultural areas adjacent and within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region. Home to more than 330,000 people and still growing, its four cities are Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg. Unincorporated communities include Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. ECCC is bounded by the ridge lines of Mount Diablo to the south and west, and nestled along the meandering banks of the complex historic Delta water system to the north and east. The landscape frames a geographically distinct region. Its unique footprint both isolates and incorporates complex urban and Delta water management issues, and brings with it a unique set of challenges and opportunities for water management. In addition to its highly diverse population, the 350 square miles of ECCC host a wide range of water-related uses, including major industrial activities, agriculture, and recreation, as well as fragile habitats and sensitive species. All are dependent on water. The Delta serves as the primary water source for the region. Originating from rivers within the Sierra Nevada, the water flows into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, eventually finding its way into the Delta. The ECCC members all share a location within and/or a hydrological connection to the statutory Delta – a legally defined, environmentally sensitive ecosystem that supports over 750 plant and animal species, provides drinking water to over two-thirds of Californians, and irrigation supplies for more than 7 million acres of the most productive agricultural land in the world. This water is supplemented to varying degrees by groundwater and recycled water. A series of special studies was conducted as part of this IRWM Plan to further explore expansion of the region’s recycled water supplies. Water use efficiency programs including conservation as well as water reuse are increasingly important as the region responds to ongoing drought conditions and plans for future drought and emergency scenarios. Residents also benefit from and rely on critical flood and stormwater infrastructure, water treatment facilities, wastewater collection systems and treatment plants, and recycled water systems. The integrated water management needs of the region are likely to grow. Although urban development has slowed since 2008 due to the housing foreclosure crisis and downturns in the economy, as of 2015 the ECCC region is beginning to see an increase in new development and anticipates increases in population and urban development over the long term as the demand for affordable housing continues to push Bay Area residents toward the eastern edges of Contra Costa Water flowing from the headwaters of the Sacramento River then stored at Lake Shasta are part of an overall water system that serves ECCC. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County and Alameda counties. The future water supplies required to reliably meet the needs of the region will come from a diverse portfolio of water management options that considers lessons learned from the ongoing severe drought, statewide programs to balance water supply and environmental needs of the Delta, and the expected longer term hydrology changes resulting from climate change. 2.2. History of Regional Planning The ECCC signatories recognize the value of coordinated regional planning and have a long history of cooperation across geographies, political boundaries, and project types. An early example of this cooperation occurred with the completion of the East County Water Supply Management Study in 1996 (1996 Study). The 1996 Study was commissioned by the East County Water Management Association (ECWMA). The Governing Board of Representatives included:  City of Antioch  City of Brentwood  Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID)  Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)  Contra Costa County (formerly Contra Costa County Water Agency [CCCWA])  Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District [DDSD])  Diablo Water District (DWD)  East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID)  Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD)  City of Pittsburg The purpose of the effort was to assess future water supply management within the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. Through this effort, the partnering agencies developed a comprehensive regional assessment of water demands and supplies through 2040, treatment and delivery options, water supply alternatives, and recommendations and implementation strategies for regional water management. This cooperative approach to resource management has served the region well and is reflected in the ECWMA, the regional water management group that has stepped forward to lead the ECCC IRWM Region. Other collaborative activities of the group members prior to the formation of the IRWM Region included multi-agency coordination for completion of multiple planning efforts, such as:  Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Future Water Supply Study (FWSS) Final Report, 1996 – A detailed analysis of the future supply and water needs for the CCWD service area, informed by a 29-member stakeholder feedback group, including members from ECCC, and an Inter-Agency Work Group consisting of planning and water management agencies within the CCWD service area.  Contra Costa County Stormwater Management Plan, 1999 – The basis for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit application to the Central Valley Water Board and San Francisco Bay Water Board. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  CCWD FWSS Final Report Update, 2002 – A review of projections and success of the 1996 FWSS, including updated 50-year water demand projections and a review of available supplies based on 2000 Census data and CCWD obligations contained in the Biological Opinion for the Multi-Purpose Pipeline and the FWSS Implementation Program. It also reflected renegotiation of CCWD’s Central Valley Project (CVP) contract, an expanded conservation program, and water transfers to provide drought reliability and to accommodate future growth.  Delta Regional Drinking Water Quality Management Plan, 2005 – Provided an understanding of water quality conditions at the urban intakes within the Delta; identified challenges and issues confronting agencies diverting water from the Delta; and developed projects and programs at the local, regional, and statewide level to address these issues and ensure that in-Delta agencies can meet their water quality goals in the future.  Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan (FEIRWM Plan), 2005 – Leveraged the planning efforts cited above and brought together water management agencies of the ECWMA, identified water management objectives and strategies, and helped prioritize a list of implementation projects.  East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), 2006 – Provided a plan to preserve and enhance native habitats that support endangered and sensitive species while providing a regional incidental take permit under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The HCP was finalized in 2007 and implementation started in 2008.  Brentwood/CCWD Joint Water Treatment Plant (WTP), 2008 – The City of Brentwood and CCWD partnered to design, finance, build, and operate a WTP to serve Brentwood. The new plant shares facilities and infrastructure with its neighbor, CCWD’s Randall Bold WTP (RBWTP). These measures reduce operational and construction costs and environmental impacts, while providing an efficient and reliable water treatment system. Other notable joint efforts, both prior to formation of the IRWM Region, and in parallel with, but separate from, IRWM efforts included:  East County Groundwater Study (1999)  ECCID-Brentwood Transfers (1999)  ECCID-CCWD Transfer (2000)  DWD-Antioch Intertie (2003)  DWD Tracy Subbasin Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) (2007)  DDSD/Pittsburg Recycled Water Project (2008)  Pittsburg Plain GMP (2012)  Pittsburg Plain Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary Report (2012)  DWD Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis Report (2012)  DDSD Recycled Water Master Plan (2013)  Regional Capacity Study for the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Martinez, and Pittsburg, CCWD, and DWD (2014) Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ECCC agencies also share and/or use interdependent facilities, such as interties between member agencies and the RBWTP, which is co-owned by CCWD and DWD. Some capacity at the RBWTP is allocated to the cities of Antioch and Brentwood, as well as the community of Bay Point (Golden State Water Company). Since CCWD is the primary surface water supply wholesaler to the ECCC region, several agencies access CCWD’s Delta infrastructure, including the Delta intakes at Rock Slough, Middle and Old River, the Contra Costa Canal (Canal) and Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and related conveyance. The same is true on the wastewater side where Delta Diablos regional wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and conveyance system serves the collection system of Antioch and Pittsburg. While the ECWMA was founded in 1995 to undertake the development of the 1996 Study, it was terminated upon acceptance of the recommended actions in the study (November 1996). Realizing how important coordination was, the regional partners reestablished ECWMA in August 1997 to facilitate continued communication, cooperation, and education among the member agencies as water supply reliability projects were implemented. Part of what makes the ECWMA such a successful regional water management group is that member agencies all share common water management challenges and a desire to pool resources to leverage results. The spirit of partnership continues to this day and member agencies coordinate on a regular basis. As described later in this section, the level of regional cooperation and coordination facilitated by the ECWMA has helped to avoid/resolve potential conflicts in the region and has resulted in several successful regional planning and implementation projects within the ECCC region over the past decade. The success of these multi-benefit regional initiatives has established a foundation of trust between ECWMA member agencies and other regional stakeholders that will enable successful implementation of future water management activities as well. 2.2.1. The DWR IRWM Regional Process In 2009, the DWR instituted a Regional Acceptance Process (RAP) to evaluate and accept an IRWM region into its IRWM grant program. At a minimum, a region is defined as a contiguous geographic area encompassing the service areas of multiple local agencies. It is intended to encompass an area in which opportunities to integrate water management activities can be optimized and to effectively integrate water management programs and projects within a hydrologic region as defined in the California Water Plan (CWP), the Water Board region or subdivision, or other region specifically identified by DWR. Per these requirements, the ECCC region successfully submitted a RAP application and was fully recognized by DWR as an IRWM region. Interestingly, the IRWM regional definition creates some complexity. As a contiguous geographic area encompassing multiple ECCC service areas, the The Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant is one example of a shared facility within the East Contra Costa County Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County region also overlaps sections of the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM region. This Bay Area region includes all or part of nine counties (including Contra Costa) and 110 cities, and is coterminous with the boundary of the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2). While the ECCC region rests primarily in the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5), it overlaps with Region 2 (the San Francisco Bay Water Board) jurisdiction in Pittsburg, Bay Point, and a small portion of Antioch within Contra Costa County. Further, under the definitions of funding areas as described in DWR grant guidelines, the overlap area is eligible for funds from both the San Francisco and San Joaquin River funding areas. The potential for leveraging multiple funding sources with the San Francisco Bay IRWM region is especially important as the overlap area includes, as defined by income, a disproportionate number of Disadvantaged Advantaged Community (DAC) members. At the same time, the requirements for coordination are increased. As part of its RAP application, the ECWMA member agencies formed a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG), responsible for navigating these jurisdictional complexities, coordinating with other planning efforts, and updating and implementing the region’s IRWM Plan. Added to the original list of 1996 partners and in recognition of the importance of integrated management, were:  Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD)  Discovery Bay Community Services District  East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC) With the first ECCC IRWM Plan (a Functionally-Equivalent IRWM Plan finalized in 2005) and the 2009 RAP, the region was able to secure various planning and implementation grants from DWR to implement and update their IRWM Plan. Table 2-1 shows each of the successful grants for the region. In 2010, the ECWMA was amended to change the name “Contra Costa County Water Agency” to “Contra Costa County.” Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-1. IRWM Regional Grant Awards Funding Opportunity Date Amount Received Projects Proposition 50 IRWM Implementation Grant, Round 2005—2006 $12,500,000  Antioch Recycled Water Implementation  DWD Well Utilization Project  Pittsburg Recycled Water Project  Alternative Intake Project  Antioch Water Treatment Plant Project  CCWD Canal Improvement Project  Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration – Phase 1  HCP Habitat and Watershed Protection/Restoration Project Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management Grant, Round 1 December 2011 $2,000,000 Awarded to CCCFCWCD  Upper Sand Creek Basin Improvements Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management Grant, Round 1 December 2011 $10,000,000 Awarded to CCWD  Contra Costa Canal Improvements Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management Grant, Round 1 December 2011 $2,997,300 Awarded to the City of Antioch  West Antioch Creek Stormwater Improvements Proposition 84 Implementation Grant, Round 1 August 2011 $1,775,000  Pittsburg Recycled Water Pipeline Rehabilitation Project  Watershed Protection and Restoration Proposition 84 Planning Grant, Round 1 February 2011 $449,843  IRWM Plan Update  Pittsburg Plain GMP  Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis Report  Pittsburg Plain Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary Report Proposition 84 Planning Grant, Round 2 November 2012 $451,818  Enhanced Website and Outreach  Regional Recycled Water Planning  Regional Capacity Study Proposition 84 Implementation Grant, Round 2 March 2013 $430,000  Rossmoor Well Replacement/ Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Key: CCCFCWCD = Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DWD = Diablo Water District GMP = Groundwater Management Plan HCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.3. Governance As noted above, the ECWMA, which operates via a cooperative agreement known as the ECWMA Agreement, is the foundation of the IRWM. Representatives from the members of the ECWMA serve as the official RWMG for the ECCC region. The ECWMA remains a consortium of 13 member agencies with a broad range of water management-related responsibilities within the region. The organizational structure is shown in Figure 2-1. 2.3.1. Regional Water Management Group The ECWMA is governed and operated by the Governing Board Representatives (GBR), composed of one elected official representative from each of the member agencies. Further, the ECWMA has a Joint Managers Committee (JMC) that is composed of managers from each of the member agencies. The term “manager” means City Manager, County Administrator, or General Manager of each of the member agencies and their respective alternates designated by the member agency, or their designees. The JMC can appoint subcommittees related to specific water management activities with which the members of the ECWMA are involved. Each member of the ECWMA appoints staff to serve as representatives on the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). Because the RWMG is comprised of members of the ECWMA, the group meets the required definition of a RWMG per DWR’s IRWM Guidelines. The staff representatives of the ECWMA that constitute the RWMG are responsible for representing their agencies and providing input on IRWM matters on behalf of their agencies. The RWMG members meet as needed to discuss IRWM and other regional matters, and are responsible for taking issues to their representatives on the JMC to resolve disputes or settle issues. Approximately two times per year the RWMG members meet with the larger ECWMA to inform the group of recent IRWM-related activities and other pertinent matters that are of interest to the ECWMA. These bi-annual meetings of the ECWMA are open to the public, noticed, and conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. As such, the ECWMA meetings provide a forum through which non-ECWMA member agencies, participants, stakeholders, and members of the public can provide input on the ECCC IRWM Program. In addition to the two regular meetings held each year, the chair or any three members of the GBR may call a special meeting as needed to discuss IRWM-related matters. A full roster of the Governing Board is contained in Appendix B. CCWD has served as the lead agency responsible for submitting any IRWM grant materials on behalf of the ECCC region. CCWD has been serving as the lead agency for the ECCC region in accordance with a February 25, 2005, letter agreement signed by all of the ECWMA member agencies. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-1. ECWMA Organization Chart Subcommittees The RWMG often forms subcommittees related to specific water management activities in which members of the ECWMA are involved. For example, there is a subcommittee of the member agencies and stakeholders that took the lead in developing the FEIRWM Plan, related grants applications, and the 2012 IRWM Plan and the 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Native American Tribal Participation During the 2015 IRWM Plan update, a review of DWR and other tribal maps, as well as a summary scan of ECCC historic literature, was conducted (described in Section 3.6.6). After this review, it was determined there are no tribal communities currently residing in the ECCC region. However, there is a rich history of Native American occupation in ECCC, including the Kellogg Creek National Historic District located on the Los Vaqueros watershed. Future IRWM projects may be proposed that benefit tribal communities. To ensure that tribal interests are represented in the East County IRWM, stakeholder groups will be invited to IRWM meetings and will be consulted. For example, the California Indian Environmental Alliance will be included on the meeting invitations and on other mailings from the IRWM group. If specific project opportunities are identified or proposed that benefit tribes, additional outreach is anticipated to organizations such as California Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County State Parks, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the California Indian Heritage Center (CIHC), the CIHC Foundation, and the Native American Heritage Commission. 2.3.2. Scope Decision Making The ECWMA is a collaborative association with member agencies each having representatives that serve on the RWMG and report regularly to the ECWMA. All actions undertaken by the ECWMA require majority vote. If one or more members do not wish to participate in an activity undertaken by the ECWMA, the member can opt out and would not have any financial responsibility for that activity. Implementation of the IRWM Plan Implementation of the IRWM Plan is conducted by the project sponsors, which typically consist of partnerships of member agencies and interested stakeholders. The project sponsors undertake specific activities related to project implementation and funding. Project development and funding is described under Implementation Grant Applications, below. Progress reports on the status of project implementation are provided at the ECWMA meetings and other regional forums. Updating the IRWM Plan This IRWM Plan will be updated when prompted by significant regional changes or by new requirements of the State. The RWMG or designated subcommittee, will monitor conditions within the East County and be apprised of statewide IRWM requirements, and will notify the RWMG if an update is needed to the IRWM Plan. Stakeholder input received at any of the stakeholder forums will also be considered when determining if an update to the Plan is required. Updates to the IRWM Plan will be performed by participating RWMG agency staff, or through use of a consulting firm, depending on the scope and scale of the needed Plan update. If a major update is anticipated, CCWD, serving as the lead agency responsible for submitting IRWM materials on behalf of the RWMG, will work with participating east county IRWM agencies to solicit support from a consulting firm to help prepare the update. In this case, funding should be available to support the cost of the Plan update from the East County IRWM, state grants, or though outside agencies. If a minor update is anticipated, the RWMG will discuss whether internal agency staff to any participating RWMG agencies have the capacity to perform the update themselves. If so, agencies may opt to provide staff services as in-kind donations to the RWMG.CCWD will provide a summary of the updated plan at an ECWMA meeting. The ECWMA meets at least twice a year and additionally, as needed. All of the ECWMA meetings are open to the public, noticed, and conducted in accordance with the Brown Act. The updated plan information will then be incorporated onto the East County IRWM website. Adopting the IRWM Plan Once an IRWM Plan update is completed, CCWD (on behalf of the RWMG) will submit the updated Plan to DWR for review. Upon DWR review and approval of the Plan, each participating agency that is a member of the ECWMA will adopt the updated IRWM Plan. Pursuant to the 2016 Guidelines, all Local Project Sponsors funded under an IRWM grant agreement must also adopt the IRWM plan. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This IRWM Plan was last updated in 2019 in anticipation of the Proposition 1 IRWM Implementation Round 1 grant. The IRWM Plan was submitted to DWR for review. Upon approval by DWR, the IRWM Plan update will be formally adopted via governing Board action by the following ECWMA agencies:  City of Antioch  City of Brentwood  Byron-Bethany Irrigation District  Contra Costa County Flood Control and Conservation District  Contra Costa County  Contra Costa Resource Conservation District  Contra Costa Water District  Delta Diablo  Diablo Water District  Discovery Bay Community Services District  East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy  East Contra Costa Irrigation District  Ironhouse Sanitary District  Any Local Project Sponsors anticipated to receive funding by an IRWM grant program. Progress Monitoring There are two levels of progress monitoring, (1) project level, undertaken by the project sponsor; and (2) IRWM Plan level, undertaken by all the plan participants under the auspices of the RWMG. Each of the projects included within the plan has specific project metrics and appropriate monitoring approaches identified to assess performance on an ongoing basis. The project proponent takes the lead on monitoring the project implementation performance, and is responsible for providing updates to the RWMG. The RWMG uses the project monitoring information, together with input from member agencies and stakeholders, to assist with periodic reviews of the progress of the region in meeting the objectives of the IRWM Plan. Review of progress and reevaluation of conditions and needs in the region feeds into the IRWM Plan updates discussed above. Implementation Grant Applications In the case of applying for a grant, the designated lead agency, with participating agency input, informs the ECWMA that the region will pursue grant funds for one or more high-priority projects that meet specific grant criteria. Each participating agency in any implementation grant request is required to pay a fair share of the consultant cost services and provide the technical information to support the grant application. CCWD has generally served as the lead agency for requesting implementation grant funding, contracted for consulting services with each agency paying their fair share and assuming grant award has administered the awarded grant assuming a fee of up to 5% of the requested grant funding. Adjustments to this structure can be made based on the level of interest by other participating agencies who may have more available resources. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.4. Description of Internal Boundaries 2.4.1. Region The region, as approved by DWR during the 2009 RAP, covers 350 square miles. The ECCC IRWM region has distinct water management circumstances that unify it as a region. The region boundary is shown in Figure 2-2. Region Quick Facts The ECCC IRWM region is a cohesive geographic area. Isolated from the remainder of Contra Costa County and the greater Bay Area by ridgelines of Mount Diablo on the southern and western boundaries, it is bounded on the north and east by the San Joaquin River and Old River, and the associated maze of waterways within an agricultural zone effectively separating the ECCC region from the Central Valley region. The entire region drains to the Delta. This occurs primarily through the Marsh Creek, Kirker Creek, and Kellogg Creek watersheds. These watersheds encompass the jurisdictional boundaries of the ECCC IRWM region participating agencies, except for Contra Costa County and the CCWD, which serve an area broader than ECCC. All or a portion of the cities and unincorporated communities within the ECCC IRWM region are located within the statutory Delta. Located within the Delta boundaries, and with Delta water as a primary source of drinking water for the ECCC IRWM region, the agencies in ECCC share a common commitment to protect and restore the Delta water quality and environment. Figure 2-3 shows the region in relation to the statutory boundaries of the Delta. The water agencies in the ECCC IRWM region all fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5). There are some agencies (CCWD, Delta Diablo , and the City of Pittsburg) that fall in both the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2) and the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5) jurisdictional areas. The remaining regional entities lie entirely within the Central Valley Water Board. These water board boundaries are shown in Figure 2-2. The water management entities in ECCC have long recognized the value of regional cooperation in integrating water management activities related to natural and constructed water systems. Ongoing regional planning initiatives, such as the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the IRWM Plan and others, are in place for the ECCC communities, urban water suppliers, agricultural water suppliers, habitat preservation and enhancement entities, watershed managers, and wastewater agencies to work on common issues. Successful resolution to past water resource conflicts has given these entities proven practices and tools to manage potential conflicts in the future. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-2. ECCC IRWM Region and Surrounding Areas Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-3. ECCC IRWM Region and the Statutory Delta Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.4.2. Member Agencies This IRWM Plan was developed under the direction and support of the RWMG and its members, as identified in the region’s RAP application. The ECCC region covers all aspects of water management within the region: drinking water supply and quality, wastewater, recycled water, flood control and stormwater, and watershed and habitat management. Table 2-2 illustrates the range of services provided by member agencies. Table 2-2. Regional Water Management Group Members and Primary Functions Member Agency Water Supply and Quality* Wastewater* Recycled* Stormwater/ Flood Management Watershed and Habitat City of Antioch √ * √ √ √ √ City of Brentwood √ * √ * √ * √ √ Byron-Bethany Irrigation District √ √ * Contra Costa County Flood Control √ √ Contra Costa County √* √ √ Contra Costa Resource Conservation District √ √ Contra Costa Water District √ * √ Delta Diablo √ * √ * Diablo Water District √ * Discovery Bay Community Services District √ * √ * East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy √ √ East Contra Costa Irrigation District √ Ironhouse Sanitary District √ * √ * City of Pittsburg √ * √ √ √ √ Note: * Agency role includes treatment; otherwise role is collection/distribution The RWMG and its members are diverse, ranging from municipalities to special districts, with large agencies employing hundreds of staff members to very small agencies with fewer than five staff members. Many of the agencies work within the same geographies, and over the years, the jurisdictions have forged cooperative efforts well in advance of being formally accepted by DWR as an IRWM region. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-15 September 2015 East Contra Costa County Figures 2-4 through 2-6 illustrate the boundaries of the region’s agencies by their service type. Figure 2-4 displays participating and supporting water agencies, Figure 2-5 displays participating wastewater agencies, and Figure 2-6 shows the participating flood management and environmental agencies. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-4. Participating Water Supply Agencies Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-5. Participating Wastewater Agencies Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-6. Participating Flood Management and Environmental Agencies Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Following are brief descriptions of the agencies and the services each provides. City of Antioch  Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater  Stormwater/Flood Management  Watershed and Habitat The City of Antioch, one of California’s oldest cities, is home to 103,833 residents. The City delivers treated water to residential, commercial, and irrigation customers. Personnel maintain approximately 387 miles of water main, 31,349 service connections and meters, and 2,329 backflow prevention devices; they maintain, repair, and flush approximately 3,449 fire hydrants, and exercise system valves. They also administer a water conservation program focused on providing residential, commercial, and irrigation customers with education, assistance, and financial incentives to conserve the City’s treated water supply. Antioch pumps water from the San Joaquin River when Delta water quality is sufficient. Antioch also purchases untreated Delta water from CCWD and has the capacity to treat 36 million gallons per day (MGD) at the Antioch WTP. In addition, Antioch has purchased a permanent capacity right (currently 5 MGD with a reservation of up to 10 MGD) in the RBWTP, a regional WTP co- owned with CCWD and DWD from CCWD’s share of the plant capacity. The City also maintains an estimated 305 miles of sanitary sewer system for wastewater collection that serves 29,943 residential and commercial sewer lateral connections. Waste flows to Delta Diablo’s Regional Treatment Plant. The City’s stormwater operations maintain, in a safe and serviceable condition, natural and constructed facilities that handle stormwater runoff in the City of Antioch’s jurisdiction. Personnel assigned to this activity remove debris and illegally dumped trash, and perform weed abatement activities. City of Brentwood Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater  Recycled Water  Watershed and Habitat  Stormwater/Flood Management The City of Brentwood delivers water to more than 52,000 residents through 18,000 connections and approximately 172 miles of water mains. The City uses groundwater and surface water for its domestic water system using entitlements from ECCID. The City's eight groundwater wells supply over 1.9 billion gallons of water each year. Surface water purchased from ECCID is treated at the City of Brentwood (COB) WTP or at RBWTP through capacity obtained from CCWD. Surface water supplies approximately 2.5 billion gallons of water annually. The City has multiple storage reservoirs located throughout the City to store water during low demand periods for use during peak consumption by the City's water customers. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The COBWTP was part of a joint venture between the City and CCWD in which CCWD designed and constructed the COBWTP on behalf of the City. The City is responsible for operational and capital costs, and CCWD operates and maintains the facility. The first phase of the COBWTP, which has been constructed and is in operation, can treat up to 16.5 MGD of surface water. However, the plant is designed so that it can be expanded to an ultimate capacity of 30 MGD to serve the City’s projected water demands through 2040. In addition, Brentwood has purchased a permanent capacity right of 6 MGD in the RBWTP. In addition, the City owns and operates a 5.0 MGD capacity tertiary wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which includes reclamation facilities for irrigation. An estimated 3 MGD treated at the WWTP is discharged to Marsh Creek, while the remaining tertiary recycled water is used for irrigation. Brentwood has been collecting and treating wastewater since 1948 and currently delivers recycled water to customers throughout the City. The City of Brentwood recently completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study that examined maximizing recycled water deliveries to existing recycled water customers, existing potential recycled water customers, and future potential recycled water customers. In sum, this report found that an additional 1,406 AFY of recycled water could be delivered to 86 new recycled water users through implementation of the recommended project. Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater The BBID operates and maintains a wastewater collection system and treatment facility for the residents of Byron and provides agricultural water to southeastern Contra Costa County. Organized in 1914, BBID originally furnished water to landowners in Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin counties, covering 24,000 acres northwest of Tracy. While BBID was owned, built, and managed by the landowners, it was not consolidated into an irrigation district until 2004. In 2004, BBID formally consolidated with the former Plain View Water District, an adjacent district of 6,000 acres located in San Joaquin County along the Delta-Mendota Canal south and west of Tracy. BBID currently supplies water to a total of just over 30,000 acres of farms, towns, and businesses, and in 2012, BBID served 5,663 acres within Contra Costa County that used 18,484 acre-feet (AF) of water. In 2014 CCWD began to coordinate with BBID to install an intertie from the CCWD Old River pipeline. By July 2015 a portion of the project had commenced implementation. BBID also maintains its own pre-1914 water right and diverts water under a settlement agreement with DWR from an intake in the Harvey O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant (Banks) intake channel, located between DWR’s Clifton Court Forebay and Banks Pumping Plant. Also, as a federal CVP contractor, BBID receives water from the Trinity and Sacramento Rivers that has been stored in In an effort to conserve water, the City of Brentwood uses recycled water to irrigate a majority of parks and golf courses, saving an estimated 2 MGD of water. Recycled water is generated at the wastewater treatment plant located on Elkins Way, above. Photo by Samie Hartley, March 12, 2009 - Source www.press.net. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Shasta Reservoir and sent toward the Delta as part of the CVP. Once in the Delta, the water is distributed by the Delta-Mendota Canal to the rest of the State. In the process, it makes a stop at the C. W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant in nearby Tracy, which then sends it on to BBID. This CVP water is delivered by BBID to Mountain House, City of Tracy, and the Tracy Hills development. Wastewater treated at the BBID Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is disposed either by percolation and evaporation in the ponds or by land application. This WWTF is permitted for 96,000 gallons per day. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD) Agency role:  Stormwater/Flood Management Created in 1951 by the CCCFCWCD Act, the CCCFCWCD is a special district that manages flood and stormwater, develops flood control plans, and establishes and collects development fees through drainage areas (DA) to fund subregional drainage improvements that support approved General Plan land uses. Plans and fee ordinances, adopted by the Board of Supervisors under the Act, are not subject to the Subdivision Map Act. The CCCFCWCD’s mission is to provide flood protection facilities while protecting environmental resources. Its jurisdiction extends throughout Contra Costa County, including incorporated areas, and it owns most of the major storm drainage facilities in the County. The CCCFCWCD works directly with cities and the County to carry out its mission including, as appropriate:  Implementing DA and zone plans  Constructing flood control projects  Maintaining facilities  Managing rights of way  Reviewing and issuing Flood Control Encroachment Permits for work within CCCFCWCD right of way Understanding Appropriative Water Rights California appropriative water rights (the right to take water) are typically referred to as either pre-1914 or post-1914. On December 19, 1914, the California Legislature adopted new Water Code that fundamentally changed the procedures for obtaining an appropriative water right. Rights obtained after the passage of this code are called post-1914 rights. Obtaining a post-1914 right begins with an Application to Appropriate Water with the State Water Resources Control Board, followed by a series of subsequent steps. Pre-1914 rights are based on laws enacted in 1872. Generally, people wanting to take water from a water body posted a notice and/or began to use it in a beneficial way. It was essentially a first come, first serve approach and the people first in line can pre-empt those following. Once acquired, a pre-1914 appropriative right can only be maintained by continuous beneficial use of the water. The right is not fixed by the amount claimed in the original notice of appropriation; the notice of appropriation only fixes the date of priority. The amount of the right is fixed by the amount that can be shown to be actually beneficially used as to both amount and season of diversion. The rights acquired under a pre-1914 water right can be lost by either abandonment or failure to use the water beneficially for five (5) years. This distinction in water rights is important to understand as it explains what is required to maintain the right and the order of priority to water the water right holder has. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The CCCFCWCD is an active partner in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, with a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and is regulated under Central Valley Water Board Order. No. R5-2010-0102. This is a joint permit for the City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, and CCCFCWCD. The CCCFCWCD is involved with several watershed groups, watershed councils, and watershed- focused agencies such as the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) and the Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed (FOMCW). In the ECCC region, the CCCFCWCD has worked cooperatively on a fish passage projects, creek and habitat restoration projects, and recreational facilities (trails and dual use parks/play fields) as part of its ongoing membership in the Region’s community. Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Agency Role:  Water Supply and Quality  Watershed and Habitat The mission of the CCRCD is to facilitate conservation and stewardship of the county’s natural resources. Under that mission, the CCRCD has worked in cooperation with landowners and agencies in the ECCC region for many years. The CCRCD is a non-regulatory agency – working with individuals, growers, ranchers, public agencies, nonprofit organizations and corporations to accomplish goals. Their federal partner, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), provides technical support for programs. The CCRCD was formed in 1941. Their service area is consistent with the political boundaries of Contra Costa County. CCRCD is one of California’s 103 Resource Conservation Districts and is governed by a voluntary Board of Directors appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and regulated under Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code. The CCRCD Board of Directors holds monthly meetings. The CCRCD has active programs in many parts of the county related to promoting watershed awareness and health and habitat. As an example the CCRCD worked with land owners and developed watershed plans. It has promoted an Adopt a Creek Program, and supports Friends of Marsh Creek and the Contra Costa Watershed Forum Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Watershed and Habitat The CCWD, covering 137,127 acres, was formed in 1936 to provide water for irrigation and industry. Since then, CCWD has expanded to serve about 500,000 people in central and eastern Contra Costa County, making it one of California’s largest urban water districts. A leader in drinking water treatment technology and source water protection, CCWD acts as both a retail and wholesale water distributor, delivering treated drinking water directly to customers and both treated and untreated water to retail water agencies and major industries. About 200,000 Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County people receive treated water directly from CCWD, and the other 300,000 receive water CCWD delivers to six local agencies. CCWD draws its water from the Delta primarily under a contract with the federal CVP. As such, it is particularly concerned about Delta water quality and the Delta environment. CCWD is the CVP's largest urban contractor. Other local sources of water used in CCWD’s service area include a Delta surplus water right, Mallard Slough water rights, recycled water, a minor amount of local groundwater, and water transfers. In 1998, CCWD completed construction of the locally-financed $450 million Los Vaqueros Project, including a 100 thousand acre-feet (TAF) reservoir designed to provide improved water quality and emergency supply reliability for CCWD customers, as well as net environmental benefits. In 2012, the reservoir was enlarged. The dam was raised 34 feet and the reservoir’s capacity was increased to 160 TAF. CCWD also manages approximately 19,000 acres Los Vaqueros Watershed, and about 5,000 acres of additional conservation lands. The backbone of the CCWD conveyance system is the Contra Costa Canal (owned by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation], and operated and maintained by CCWD). The Contra Costa Canal travels a total of 48 miles through the ECCC IRWM Region. A series of four pump stations (Pumping Plants 1 through 4) lift the water from Rock Slough to a height of 126 feet above sea level, after which gravity propels the water to its terminus in Martinez. The canal passes through many of the cities and communities in the northeastern and central county areas before ending at the Martinez Reservoir. Water is also supplied to the canal from Old and Middle Rivers via the Los Vaqueros and Middle River pipelines and from Mallard Slough. The Middle River Intake Station began operation in July 2010. CCWD owns two water treatment plants, the 40 MGD capacity Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant in Oakley (jointly with DWD) and the 75 MGD capacity Bollman Water Treatment Plant in Concord. Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District [DDSD]) Agency role:  Wastewater  Recycled Water Delta Diablo provides wastewater collection services for the unincorporated community of Bay Point, and conveyance, treatment, and disposal services for certain unincorporated areas of eastern Contra Costa County, including the community of Bay Point and the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. Delta Diablo was originally formed in 1955 and began providing subregional wastewater conveyance and treatment services in 1982. Delta Diablo now serves an estimated population of over 188,500 residents in a service area of approximately 52 square miles. Delta Diablo wastewater infrastructure includes pumping stations, conveyance systems, and equalization basins in each community, a wastewater treatment plant, and a recycled water facility (RWF) located on the Pittsburg-Antioch border. Treated wastewater is discharged in New York Slough, a section of the San Joaquin River. The WWTP has a permitted capacity of 16.5 MGD. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County In 2000, Delta Diablo began a landmark recycled water program to produce and deliver tertiary recycled water for power generation and for landscape irrigation of municipal golf courses and parks in Pittsburg and Antioch. Delta Diablo has produced and delivered over 26 billion gallons of recycled water from 2001 to 2012. Delta Diablo has been involved with household hazardous waste collection since 1995, leading a multi-jurisdictional effort involving Contra Costa County; ISD; and the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg. Delta Diablo has constructed and manages the Delta Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility, which has diverted over 4,500 tons of waste from landfills and waterways through 2012. In 2012, Delta Diablo was named Plant of the Year by the San Francisco Bay Section of the Clean Water Environment Association (5 MGD to 20 MGD facilities), and also received Platinum Peak Performance Award 9 by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies for 9 consecutive years of 100 percent compliance with its discharge permit. Delta Diablo is currently exploring opportunities in water resource recovery and is partnering with Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories on innovative pilot projects. Delta Diablo is also continuing its lead role in both the Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition (BAB2E) and the Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC). In 2013, Delta Diablo completed a Recycled Water Master Plan to examine maximizing the utilization of existing facilities and to identify both near-term and long-term projects that could be implemented to improve performance of Delta Diablo’s existing recycled water system and expand recycled water deliveries. The Recycled Water Master Plan results were incorporated into a Title XVI-compliant Feasibility Study, making Delta Diablo eligible to receive Title XVI grant funding for recycled water implementation projects. The Title XVI program that was identified and recommended in the Recycled Water Master Plan consists of a recycled water distribution system expansion project and a High Purity Water Treatment Facility (HPWTF) that would consist of a microfiltration/reverse osmosis treatment plant and related pipelines and pump stations. The HPWTF project would involve construction of an advanced treatment facility capable of removing chlorides from water that is currently available in the Delta but is too high in TDS to be usable. As such, both projects proposed under the Title XVI program would allow Delta Diablo to make use of available water supplies and increase overall water supply reliability in the region. Diablo Water District (DWD) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality The DWD was formed in 1953 as a self-governing local public agency to provide water to customers in downtown Oakley. Today, DWD obtains, treats, and supplies water for about 35,000 people and the parks, schools, and businesses throughout a 21-square-mile area consisting of Oakley, Cypress Corridor, and Hotchkis Tract, as well as Summer Lakes, and portions of Bethel Island and Knightsen. It provides approximately 9.5 MGD of water, on a maximum day, to residents. Most of the water delivered by DWD is surface water supplied by CCWD. DWD purchases untreated Delta water from CCWD and treats it at the RBWTP, which DWD owns jointly with CCWD. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County DWD’s surface water source has been supplemented by groundwater from the Glen Park municipal well since 2006 and the Stonecreek well since 2011. DWD uses up to 4 MGD of local groundwater, which is blended with the Delta water to maintain consistent water quality for its customers. The water is then distributed through the main municipal system serving the City of Oakley. Expanded use of groundwater is an objective of DWD under its Well Utilization Project in which it seeks to develop 6 MGD to 7 MGD of well capacity to supplement surface water and improve reliability, drought supply, and operating flexibility of its system. Outside of its main distribution system, in unincorporated areas, DWD owns and/or operates a number of small community wells. DWD is in the beginning stages of converting its water meter reading system to a remote FlexNet radio read system, through which DWD staff are able to read water meters from the central office and automatically check customer accounts for leaks. It is expected that DWD will have fully converted its 11,000 meters to the FlexNet system within 10 years. If grant funding is available, the conversion could be completed sooner, depending on the amount of funding awarded. Discovery Bay Community Services District Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater The Town of Discovery Bay is located adjacent to the Delta, approximately six miles southeast of the City of Brentwood along the Highway 4 corridor, just east of Byron Highway (J-4). A significant portion of Discovery Bay is situated within a network of constructed lakes and channels that are connected to the Delta. The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (District) was formed in 1998 to provide Discovery Bay’s over 15,000 residents with water treatment, distribution, and storage. The community is largely residential with some commercial and irrigation uses. The District owns water supply wells, treatment plants, storage tanks, and distribution system pipelines that serve water through 6,116 service connections for residential, commercial, and irrigation uses in an approximate 9-square-mile area. Many of the residential properties have docks with backyard access to the constructed channels and Delta waters. The levees and waterways of Discovery Bay are managed and maintained by Reclamation District (RD) 800 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The system is defined by relatively flat topographies with mean sea level elevations ranging from 5 feet to 15 feet across the entire system. The District derives all of its water supply from six active groundwater supply wells. Raw water from the wells is delivered and treated at two WTPs, known as the Newport WTP and the Willow Lake WTP, with a water storage capacity of 2.5 million gallons of treated water. Two storage tanks are located at each plant to provide operational equalization and reserves for fire safety. Booster facilities pump water from storage to provide the flow and pressure required in the distribution system. On a summer day, the District will pump approximately 4 MGD to 5 MGD of which a large portion of that is being used for irrigation. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County In addition, the District owns two WWTFs that treat an average of 1.4 million gallons of wastewater per day using advanced tertiary treatment. The system also includes 15 wastewater lift stations that transport/move the raw wastewater to the main WWTF and 60 miles of water and wastewater mains. The water and wastewater facilities are operated and maintained by Veolia North America under a multi-year contract. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Watershed and Habitat Originally formed in 2007, the ECCCHC is a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County to implement the ECCC HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP provides a framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species. Within the 174,018-acre inventory area, the NCCP will provide permits for between 8,670 and 11,853 acres of development and will permit impacts on an additional 1,126 acres from rural infrastructure projects. The Preserve System to be acquired under the NCCP will encompass about 24,000 to 30,000 acres of land that will be managed for the benefit of 28 species, as well as the natural communities that they, and hundreds of other species, depend upon. The NCCP will allow Contra Costa County, the CCCFCWCD, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (collectively, the Permittees) to control endangered species permitting for activities and projects in the region that they perform or approve. The NCCP also provides for comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation and contributes to the recovery of endangered species in Northern California. The NCCP was approved in 2007. The permit program will be in effect until 2037. The lands acquired will be preserved and managed for species in perpetuity. East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality The ECCID is an independent special district established in 1926 under the Irrigation District Law. The primary purpose of ECCID is to provide agricultural irrigation water to properties within ECCID. ECCID’s boundaries encompass approximately 40 square miles and include the City of Brentwood, the unincorporated community of Knightsen, portions of the cities of Oakley and Antioch, and a large area of unincorporated territory south and east of Brentwood. ECCID supplies irrigation water for agricultural and landscape use as well as raw water for treatment and delivery to urban areas. ECCID has a 1912 appropriative right to divert water from Indian Slough on Old River, and therefore has infrastructure and delivery costs but no water supply costs. ECCID also operates nine groundwater wells. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County From the Indian Slough intake water is conveyed through the Main Canal that extends from the Indian Slough intake area northwest of Discovery Bay to approximately 8,000 feet west of Walnut Boulevard in Brentwood. Seven pump stations are located along the canal. A grid of open canals and pipelines runs throughout ECCID. Deliveries to approximately 50 percent of the agricultural accounts are measured. ECCID has an ongoing program to add measuring devices for all customers. ECCID’s drainage system includes ditches for surface drainage, a subsurface drainage system, and pumps. The original irrigation and drainage system was built in 1911. In 2012, ECCID diverted approximately 37 TAF of which 15 TAF were provided to CCWD and the City of Brentwood, and 22 TAF were used for agriculture. Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) Agency role:  Wastewater  Recycled Water Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) provides sewage collection and treatment and disposal services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated area of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated areas including the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan Area. In existence in some form since 1945, ISD utilizes a staff of 33 field and office personnel to maintain sanitary services for over 38,000 customers. The ISD provides sewage collection, treatment, and disposal services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated area of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Bounded by the San Joaquin River to the north, Delta Diablo to the west, the City of Brentwood to the south and unincorporated area in the Holland Tract to the east; its service area is approximately 37 square miles. ISD’s infrastructure includes gravity and pressure pipelines, pumping stations, and the Ironhouse Water Recycling Facility (WRF). Effluent from the WRF is applied to agricultural lands on Jersey Island and discharged into the San Joaquin River. The District treats approximately 2.5 million gallons of wastewater every day at their treatment facility located north of Highway 4 in Oakley. In October 2011, ISD began operation of a new 4.3 MGD membrane bioreactor Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). Effluent from the WRF is used to irrigate 334 acres of agricultural land on Jersey Island for the production of hay, or is discharged into the San Joaquin River. The WRF has a design capacity of 4.3 MGD and an ultimate capacity of 6.8 MGD. ISD participated in a regional water recycling study looking at providing recycled water to industry outside of the ISD service area. In addition, ISD completed a Recycled Water Master Plan and a Recycled Water Feasibility Study looking at potential users of recycled water within the ISD service area and the economic feasibility of developing a separate non-potable water system that could supply recycled water to offsite users. The preliminary results of ISD’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study demonstrate that in the immediate-term (less than 2 years), recycled water use could increase by 20 AFY with implementation of a fill station that is currently operable. Further, in the near-term (less than 10 years), ISD could increase recycled water use by 2,350 AFY by providing recycled water for industrial reuse along the Wilbur corridor and the Northern Waterfront Area, and by including Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County recycled water uses for sustainable farming practices. In the long-term (more than 20 years), recycled water in ISD’s service area could be increased by between 2,200 and 6,500 AFY through implementation of indirect or direct potable reuse. Upon completion of its new membrane bioreactor WRF, ISD began additional efforts to determine ways in which the high-quality recycled water produced at the WRF could be used within its service area. In 2012, ISD completed a Recycled Water Master Plan that evaluated the feasibility of various alternatives that could be implemented to serve irrigation needs at parks, schools, medians, vineyards, and future industrial facilities. To refine the alternatives developed in the Recycled Water Master Plan, ISD began preparing a Recycled Water Feasibility Study to evaluate additional (ten) alternatives and address cost and feasibility issues identified in the Recycled Water Master Plan. The Feasibility Study identifies immediate-term, near-term, and long-term projects that could be implemented to increase water reuse in ISD’s service area, including:  Immediate term projects: recycled water fill station, higher-value crop farming  Near-term projects: industrial reuse, sustainable farming practices,  Long-term projects: direct potable reuse The Feasibility Study complies with Title XVI requirements and was submitted to the United States Bureau of Reclamation in January 2015; upon final completion of the Title XVI-compliant Feasibility Study, ISD will be eligible to receive Title XVI grant funding for recycled water implementation projects. City of Pittsburg Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Wastewater  Stormwater/Flood Management  Watershed and Habitat The City of Pittsburg was incorporated in 1903 as a General Law City and has an estimated current population of around 66,000. Pittsburg is bounded by Suisun Bay to the north, the unincorporated community of Bay Point to the west, the City of Antioch to the east, and the Mount Diablo Recreation Area to the south. The Pittsburg Water Service Area comprises all of the area within the city limits, around 10,000 gross acres (15.6 square miles), and a very small number of individual residents outside. The Bay Point area outside the service area is served by Golden State Water Company (GSWC). Originally a coal shipping port in the 1940s and early 1950s, the City was a major commercial and industrial center for the County and the eastern ports of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Pittsburg experienced rapid population growth during the 1970s and 1980s, evolving into a bedroom community for employment centers in west and central Contra Costa County. Today, the City is part of the second largest industrial center in the County. Located within the CCWD service area, the City obtains roughly 85 percent of its water supply wholesale from CCWD. CCWD provides untreated surface water pumped from the Delta and delivered through the Canal. The remainder of the City’s water supply is obtained from groundwater wells located within the City. In 2015 the City of Pittsburg began drilling a new water Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County well using Proposition 84 IRWM funding from Round 2. Surface water from CCWD and groundwater from the City’s wells are blended at the City’s WTP and delivered to customers within the City. The City’s water system includes a 32 MGD WTP, two municipal wells, seven pump stations, and eight drinking water storage reservoirs. Delta Diablo treats wastewater from Pittsburg, and also provides recycled water for industrial and irrigation use within the City service area. The City and its residents are increasingly focused on quality-of-life issues. Pittsburg has been designated both a Healthy City by California Healthy Cities and Communities Project, and a Tree City U.S.A. 2.4.3. Other Water-Related Agencies within the Region A variety of other related local and regional groups are stakeholders of the IRWM effort even if they do not maintain a formal role in its governance. The following are agencies in this category. Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality  Stormwater/Flood Management Created in 1960, BIMID maintains the levee that protects Bethel Island and provides stormwater, seepage, and drainage control services. Its charter includes not only maintaining the levee that surrounds and protects the island, but allows for many other activities, including the distribution of water for public and private purposes, parks and playgrounds, airports, and works to provide for drainage. BIMID owns 100 acres of land in the center of the island between Bethel Island Road and Piper Road. This property is used to remove sand, which is placed on the levee, and also as a mitigation site. The state requires that for every tree BIMID removes from the island levee areas, three trees must be replanted, and they must survive for at least 2 years. New trees are planted on the mitigation site as trees are removed from the levee and drainage ditches. Golden State Water Company Agency role:  Water Supply and Quality GSWC provides retail water service for the unincorporated Bay Point community. GSWC is a wholly owned subsidiary of American States Water Company, an investor-owned utility publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol AWR. GSWC provides water service to approximately 1 out of every 36 Californians located within 75 communities throughout 10 counties in Northern, coastal, and Southern California (approximately 256,000 customers). As of December 2011, the Bay Point Customer Service Area is a single, interconnected system with 4,918 service connections. Water delivered to customers in the Bay Point system is a blend of groundwater pumped from wells and treated surface water purchased from CCWD. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The company operates under the oversight of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Customers living in the community of Bay Point receive service from the local employees of the Bay Point Customer Service Area. Knightsen (Town of) Community Services District Agency role:  Stormwater/Flood Management The Knightsen Town Community Services District (KCSD) was created in 2005, and encompasses approximately 5,100 acres serving 1,500 people. It was formed to provide flood control and water quality (drainage services) for the community of Knightsen, which is a low area that receives runoff flow from nearby areas. KCSD is authorized to provide only flood control and water quality (drainage services). KCSD is not actively providing these types of services at this time, but is in the planning stages to do so. Other types of services, if desired, can be provided by KCSD only with the Local Agency Formation Commission’s approval. Mutual Water Companies and Small Water Systems Agency role:  Water supply and quality There are a number of mutual water companies and privately owned water systems providing service within the County. Mutual water companies (also called water companies, cooperative company, water system, water association, and water works) are a legal entity with no specific requirement for the size of the system or number of connections. It essentially means that there are shared interests in the water system and service by customers of the system. Water systems may also be investor owned, meaning that the owners, whether it be an individual or group, are not customers of the water system. Investor-owned systems are regulated by the CPUC. In ECCC, the small mutual companies supply drinking water to communities between 2 and 199 service connections; or serve 25 or more people at least 60 days out of the year. Small water systems are required to meet water quality standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Contra Costa Environmental Health permits and regulates all Small Water Systems in Contra Costa County, which include small Public Water Systems (Community, Non-Transient Non-Community, and Transient Non-Community Systems) and Non-Public Water Systems (State Small and County Small Systems). The CDPH also oversees systems of greater than 15 connections. Table 2-3 lists the ECCC small systems. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-31 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-3. ECCC Small Systems Water System Service Connections Population Bethel Island Willow Mobile Home Park 173 350 Beacon West Water System 17 45 Farrar Park Water System 56 140 Flamingo Mobile Manor Water System 80 200 Angler’s Subdivision #4 70 168 Frank’s Marina 120 290 Pleasantimes Mutual Water Company 190 380 Angler’s Ranch #3 Water System 45 100 Bethel Island Mutual Water Company 23 56 Riverview Water Association 86 230 Sandmound Mutual 65 160 Marina Mobile Manor Water System 24 75 Russo’s Mobile Park 35 110 Oakley Willow Park Marina Water System 125 380 Oakley Mutual Water Company 65 170 Delta Mutual Water Company 75 180 Sandy Point Mobile Home Park 24 94 Dutch Slough Water Works 18 49 In the ECCC region, all of the Mutual Water Companies rely on groundwater as a major water supply source. Reclamation Districts Agency role:  Stormwater/Flood Management There are several reclamation districts (RDs) within ECCC that provide flood protection services, including: RD 799 (Hotchkiss Tract); RD 800 (Byron Tract), RD 830 (Jersey Island), RD 2024 (Orwood and Palm Tracts), RD 2025 (Holland Tract), RD 2026 (Webb Tract), RD 2059 (Bradford Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-32 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Island), RD 2065 (Veale Tract), RD 2090 (Quimby Island), RD 2117 (Coney Island), RD 2121, RD 2122 (Winter Island), and RD 2137. 2.4.4. State Agencies Collaborating with the Region State agencies, the DWR and the California State and regional water boards, have provided grants and technical assistance to the region. The water boards also maintain oversight over water quality and water allocation. Following is additional information on these key partners. California Department of Water Resources In 1956, the Legislature passed a bill creating the DWR to plan, design, construct, and oversee the building of the nation's largest State-built water development and conveyance system. Today, DWR protects, conserves, develops, and manages much of California's water supply, including the State Water Project (SWP), which provides water for 25 million residents, farms, and businesses. The mission of DWR is to manage the water resources of California in cooperation with other agencies, to benefit the State's people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments. Working with other agencies and the public, DWR fosters public safety, environmental stewardship, and economic stability statewide by developing strategic goals, and near-term and long-term actions to conserve, manage, develop, and sustain California's watersheds, water resources, and management systems. DWR also works to prevent and respond to floods, droughts, and catastrophic events that would threaten public safety, water resources and management systems, the environment, and property. DWR has a number of IRWM grant program funding opportunities. The 2013 IRWM grant programs include planning, implementation, and stormwater flood management. Additional IRWM grant funding will be available through Proposition 1, which was passed by voters in November 2014. It is anticipated that Proposition 1 will include IRWM grant programs for planning and implementation. Balancing the State's water needs with environmental protection remains a long-term challenge. The Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program is a key initiative currently underway to promote the recovery of endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish and wildlife and their habitats in the critically important Delta in a manner that will also ensure water supply reliability for the State. Water Boards The State Water Resources Control Board (the State Water Board) was created by the Legislature in 1967. The mission of the State Water Board is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the State while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables the State Water Board to provide comprehensive protection for California's waters. There are nine regional water boards under the State Water Board. The mission of the each regional water board is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans for their designated hydrologic region that will best protect the beneficial uses of the State’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-33 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The water agencies in the ECCC IRWM region all fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5). There are some agencies (CCWD, Delta Diablo, and the City of Pittsburg) that fall in both the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2) and the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5). The remaining regional entities lie entirely within the Central Valley Water Board. 2.5. Description of Social and Cultural Makeup Based on 2010 Census and California Department of Finance data, UWMPs1 , industry data projections, and other related sources, such as topical research studies, ECCC is a complex mix of races, ages, education, and prosperity. Composed of approximately 330,000 people, the residents of Antioch, Bay Point, Brentwood, Byron, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, Oakley, and Pittsburg do not fully mirror the rest of California. The community is highly diverse and has a large population of children. This trend is so pronounced, regional post-secondary schools have commissioned studies to monitor a future influx of students, who at the time of this report, are all under the age 10.2 There are minor variations in the population studies and reported numbers due to the time of collection, boundaries of the study areas, and limitations with the collection processes; however, there is general consistency. As such, it is possible to identify trends and discern the implications that can be drawn. 2.5.1. Demographics Table 2-4 below provides key demographic facts and illustrates how ECCC compares to the State and nation. 1 UWMPs are in the process of being updated, with 2015 UWMPs finalized by July 2016. Data collected from 2010 UWMPs is therefore anticipated to be updated in the near future, but not prior to finalization of the 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Therefore, the best available UWMP information was used in this document. 2 Projected Population Changes in Contra Costa County and Their Implications for Contra Costa Community College District, Prepared for Contra Costa Community College District Office by Hanover Research Council, January 2010. Contra Costa. Includes full district boundaries, including eastern Contra Costa County. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-34 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-4. Demographics Data for the ECCC Region People Quick Facts1 ECCC California USA Population, 2010 330,000 37,253,956 308,745,538 Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011 29% 24.6% 23.7% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2011 9% 11.7% 13.3% Females 51% 50.3% 50.8% Whites 53%% 74.0% 78.1% Blacks 13% 6.6% 13.1% American Indian and Alaska Native persons 0.1% 1.7% 1.2% Asians, percent 10% 13.6% 5.0% Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% Hispanics or Latinos (of any race) 35% 38.1% 16.7% Persons reporting two or more races 7% 3.6% 2.3% Other 15% n/a n/a Bachelor's degree or higher, 19.1%% 29.4% 28.2% High school graduate or higher 80.7% 80.8% 85.4% Note: 1 Where appropriate, figures are rounded to whole numbers and for that reason may not total 100%. Some ECCC numbers are based on 2009 and 2010 data sets, rather than the 2011 projection used for national and statewide numbers. Additional calculations will be needed if this chart is used for more than illustrative purposes. Key: ECCC = East Contra Costa County n/a = data not available USA = United States of America 2.5.2. Demographic Analysis of Contra Costa County in 2009 and 2019 In 2010, the Contra Costa Community College District (CCCCD) retained the Hanover Research Council to analyze demographic trends in Contra Costa County. They specifically focused on age, race/ethnicity, nationality, and gender. While the analysis considered potential implications of the changes for CCCCD, some aspects of the information have direct utility for ECCC. 2.5.3. Age Contra Costa County is expected to experience significant population growth over the 10 years between 2009 and 2019, with much of the County growth occurring in ECCC. The proportion of residents in some age groups will diminish or increase only slightly, while the relative proportion of other age groups will increase substantially. Both the decreases and increases are concentrated among a few adjacent age groups. According to the Hanover report, “overall Contra Costa will experience a significant decrease in the number of residents aged 40 to 54 years. Indeed, from 2009 to 2019, the total population in this age group was anticipated to decrease by over 23,000, or 9 percent. Furthermore, the proportion of residents in this age group, relative to the total population, was also expected to decline markedly, from 22.7 percent to 18.2 percent. This demographic shift represents a significant loss of working-age residents.” At the same time, models predict larger numbers of children under the age of 10 living in the County. While age per se is not a water management issue, the profile of a community has many implications for competing interests for service, Also to be considered is the degree of flexibility Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-35 March 2019 East Contra Costa County of those on fixed incomes and the ability to adjust to rate changes or support investments in infrastructure. A large number of children may change service demands and at the same reduce discretionary income. 2.5.4. Ethnicity Also projected for significant change is the racial-ethnic composition with those originating from Hispanic and Asian heritage becoming a larger percentage of the population. This trend indicates a need for service models able to accommodate more than one language. Some additional research may be also needed on the best ways to communicate with multiple cultures on water use efficiency or other water policy initiatives. Additional thinking will be needed on all forms of public outreach and engagement. 2.5.5. Gender No significant trends were seen in County data for gender. 2.5.6. Economic Industry Industry and agriculture are important to the ECCC economy. Approximately 30 percent of water use is attributable to major industry within the region, including USS-Posco (steel finishing plant), Delta Energy Center (electric generation), LMEC (electric and steam generation), and Gaylord Container and Inland Paperboard & Packaging (corrugated boxes, shipping materials) as major contributors. The Milken Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, with the support of Chevron, the Contra Costa Economic Partnership, and the Contra Costa Council, completed an assessment of the Contra Costa economic climate in October 2012. The Milken report outlined key economic challenges the County faces. Of particular interest is contraction in its industrial base and unbalanced economic growth across the County. In the early 1990s, manufacturing was the key driver of the economy. Over 12 percent of private-sector jobs were concentrated in manufacturing in 1990, compared to less than 7 percent in 2010. Petrochemical, steel, and confectionery products still maintain a good jobs outlook but the local manufacturing base has shed more than 10,000 jobs since 1990. As heavy manufacturing diminished, former workers faced challenges in acquiring new skills and adapting to new industries, contributing to rising unemployment. In the early 1990s, the jobless rate was much lower in Contra Costa than in the wider Bay Area. However, over the past 2 decades, that trend has reversed. Antioch and Pittsburgh are among 2 of the 19 cities in the county responsible for 95 percent of employment. Both continued to add jobs to the service sector, however slowly, during the 2008 to 2014 recession. The availability of land and relatively low business costs, combined with proximity to San Francisco and Oakland, makes them ideal choices for land-intensive businesses. Pittsburg is a prominent manufacturing center and assets include an enterprise zone where business incentives are available. Pittsburgh’s recent economic development plan has the city promoting strategies that capitalize on this. However, Antioch, along with Pittsburg, faces a severe shortage of high-skilled labor, which helps explain its weak performance in knowledge-based industries, compared to the Bay Area and to Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-36 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Contra Costa overall. This shortcoming will likely continue to impede the development of a more diverse economy. Southern portions of ECCC are predominantly unincorporated and agricultural lands. More than 80,000 acres in ECCC are designated for agricultural use, and 99 percent of this land is located in unincorporated areas. Agricultural lands are generally used for crops, vineyards, and rangelands. Crops grown in ECCC include nursery crops, vegetables, fruits, and nuts, with nuts being the most profitable. Because of the region’s dependence upon Delta water supplies, events that threaten the quality or quantity of this supply, such as the ongoing droughts, water quality events, and levee failures, could have significant ramifications on the economic viability of the entire region. 2.5.7. Disadvantaged Communities Like the State of California, the ECCC region is committed to promoting equitable distribution of IRWM Plan project benefits, and especially to addressing the critical water supply needs of disadvantaged areas. A DAC is a term defined by the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 75005(g): “Disadvantaged community" means a community with a median household income (MHI) less than 80% of the statewide average. "Severely disadvantaged community" means a community with an annual MHI less than 60% of the statewide average. Related but somewhat different are environmental justice (EJ) concerns. As defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The ECCC region faces special challenges as many residents reside in DACs. A lack of community resources can impact the ability of ECCC members to obtain additional resources for water-related needs. Yet, even with the recent economic downturn and the attendant issues of disproportionate DAC numbers, growth is still occurring. All indications point to an increased need for water-based infrastructure and services, now and into the future. The current DWR guidelines for IRWM funding, allocated through voter-approved Propositions 84 and 1E, identify statewide priorities among which is a goal to “ensure equitable distribution of benefits.” For implementation grants, DWR has prioritized proposals that:  Increase the participation of small communities and DACs in the IRWM process  Develop multi-benefit projects with consideration of affected DACs and vulnerable populations  Address safe drinking water and wastewater treatment needs of DACs Delineating DACs Delineating the DACs is often done by census tract, as data and boundaries are available. Even so, the California Public Resources Code (PRC) is not specific as to how DACs are delineated, so different methods of determining the boundaries of a DAC can be considered valid by DWR. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-37 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) includes MHI data compiled for the 5-year period from 2009 to 2013. A community with an MHI of $48,875 or less is considered a DAC. The U.S. Census collects and compiles data for multiple census geographies including Place, Block Group, and Tract. A census tract is a region defined for the purpose of taking a census and usually coincides with city boundaries, towns, or other administrative areas. The United States defines census tracts as “relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions, census tracts average about 4,000 inhabitants.” Figure 2- 7 shows the census tracts within the ECCC region that are considered DACs. These include the census tracts containing the Beacon West community on Bethel Island, as well as portions of Bay Point, and the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. Census tract groups that qualify as DACs cover an area of 10,588 acres, or approximately 5 percent of the geographic area of the region and approximately 18 percent of the total population. The MHIs of the DACs identified in Figure 2-7 range from $28,672 to $48,269, with an average MHI of $40,896. Census data also demonstrates that each of the municipalities within the ECCC region contain a proportion of persons living below the poverty level (which varies by household size), and that in addition, some of the municipalities include populations that are classified as DACs per DWR’s definition. Note that DACs are not necessarily below poverty levels. Data for each municipality are summarized below in Table 2-5. Additional information on DACs within specific communities is provided under Overlap Area, below. Data is also included for the entire State of California; as demonstrated in Table 2-5, the percentage of persons living below the poverty level in the ECCC region ranges from 5.7% to 16.8% of the total population. Table 2-5. 2010 Census DAC Demographic Data for the ECCC Region Municipality 2010 Total Population Median Household Income 2009-2013 Persons Below Poverty Level 2009-2013* Population Living in a DAC % Population Living in a DAC City of Antioch 102,372 $65,254 14.9% 17,803 17.4% City of Brentwood 51,481 $91,475 5.7% N/A N/A City of Oakley 35,432 $77,043 9.4% N/A N/A City of Pittsburg 63,264 $58,866 16.8% 23,488 37.1% Contra Costa County 1,049,025 $78,756 10.5% 167,087† 15.9% State of California 37,253,956 $61,094 15.9% 12,274,010 32.9% Notes: *Poverty level varies by household size, and is not equivalent to DACs, which here are defined by DWR as communities with MHIs 80% or less of statewide MHI †This is the total number of DAC residents in Contra Costa County, including those in municipalities. 19,588 people live in DACs located in the unincorporated areas of the ECCC Region. Source: State and County QuickFacts. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06013.html; American Community Survey, Contra Costa County. Available (Search criteria: 2013 ACS 5-year estimates, All Census Tracts within Contra Costa County, California): http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t# IRWM PlanUpdate 2-38 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description Figure 2-7. Disadvantaged Communities in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-39 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Other Vulnerability Factors As described in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, the region already experiences potential vulnerabilities related to the age and education of citizens and the future employment picture, which exacerbates the situation for DACs. In addition to those already mentioned, ECCC was disproportionately affected by the foreclosure crisis during the economic downturn and housing market crash in 2007- 2009. While access to adequate housing is a continual crisis in California, homes lost to foreclosure increased over 200 percent in 2007, compared to 2006. Contra Costa County had an even more alarming foreclosure rate of 290 percent with 3,500 County homeowners receiving Notices of Default in the fourth quarter of 2007.3 For a variety of reasons related to the housing boom and widespread predatory lending, ECCC was especially impacted. Foreclosures in one ZIP Code in Antioch affected one of every 18 homes. For comparison, ZIP Codes in Richmond’s Iron Triangle had a comparative rate of one of every 25 homes. Despite this setback, the region appears to have begun recovering as of 2013. The plight of the DACs cannot be untangled from those of the water utilities. Issues related to foreclosure and neighborhood blight are particularly hard hitting for utilities as rate structures and bond repayment schedules depend on infrastructure being used, maintained, and paid for. Figure 2-8 illustrates the relative impact of foreclosures on the County for foreclosures occurring between 2005 and 2012. 3 The Geography of Foreclosure in Contra Costa County California, Kristin Perkins, UC Berkeley, July 2008. Master’s Thesis. IRWM PlanUpdate 2-40 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description Figure 2-8. Impact of Foreclosures on Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-41 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Water Supply and Water Quality Needs Many of the critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs in eastern Contra Costa County are typical of communities throughout the state. The primary water supply and water quality issues facing DACs relate to a strong reliance on Delta supplies, a need to maintain compliance with applicable drinking water standards, and the threat of damage from flooding. Critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs in the ECCC region include:  Improved water supply reliability/reduced reliance on Delta supplies  Water quality of groundwater supplies used to supplement Delta supplies (including meeting new drinking water regulations)  Infrastructure renovations necessary to assure continued reliability of the minimum quality and quantity of water  Affordability programs to offset the rising costs of water service All of the water suppliers within the ECCC region rely on Delta supplies. The three water suppliers in eastern Contra Costa County that purchase untreated/treated Delta supplies from CCWD provide supplies to the bulk of the DACs in the region. Because of the region’s heavy dependence upon Delta water supplies, events that threaten the quality or quantity of this supply could have significant ramifications on the economic viability of the entire region. This may be of particular concern for DACs, where economic conditions are below the statewide average. Further, the rising cost of water in the region is a critical water supply-related issue for DACs. Agencies must continually balance the need to improve supply reliability through implementation of aggressive conservation, water recycling, potentially expensive groundwater treatment, and even desalination with a need to maintain water affordability for DACs. With the rising cost of service, access to drinking water threatens to become a luxury for DACs in eastern Contra Costa County. Some of the more remotes areas of the ECCC region, including the DAC of Bethel Island (which the Beacon West community is located on), are entirely reliant on groundwater for potable water supplies. Beacon West is supplied with drinking water from a well operated and maintained by DWD. The Beacon West well has arsenic levels exceeding standards issued by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Work is progressing towards addressing the Beacon West well issue, and DWD is pursuing State Revolving Fund (SRF) and other funding to help move this project forward. Similarly, the Rossmoor Well Replacement, Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion (funded under a Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant) is necessary to correct severe capacity deficiencies due to biofouling of a groundwater well serving a DAC. The area benefiting from this project includes DAC census tracts within the City of Pittsburg. Flood Still another concern is the exposure of regional DACs to flood events and a need for flood and stormwater management projects designed to protect DACs from flooding impacts. In general, DACs often have more overall risks (lack of flood insurance and flood proofing, and historic land- use patterns placing communities in floodplains) and fewer resources available to recover from inundation. Recovery from a flood event can have catastrophic economic consequences for a DAC even if immediate life/safety issues are managed. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-42 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Overlap Area As described in Section 2.4, Pittsburg and portions of Antioch and the County are located in an area that partially overlaps the ECCC IRWM region and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM region. Figure 2-9 shows the location of the overlap with respect to the San Joaquin and San Francisco Bay funding areas. The map also shows the DAC locations in the vicinity. As shown in Figure 2-9 approximately 2 percent of the City of Pittsburg is located wholly within the San Joaquin Funding Area, with the remaining 98 percent located in the overlap area. Conversely, approximately 99 percent of the City of Antioch is located wholly within the San Joaquin River Funding Area, with only 1 percent located in the overlap area. The Bay Point Area, which sits west of Pittsburg, is fully in the overlap with the San Francisco Bay Funding Area. According to 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data (which provides demographic and economic estimates for non-census years, using data compiled over 5-year periods), approximately 27 percent of the City of Pittsburg (by geographical area) is a DAC, and 45 percent of the City of Pittsburg is a DAC based on population (27,849 people out of 61,723). Of the portion of the City of Pittsburg classified as a DAC, approximately 98 percent (by population) is located in the overlap area and 2 percent is located in the San Joaquin River Funding Area. Similarly, 16 percent of the City of Antioch is a DAC based on geographic area, or 19 percent by population. Of the DACs located in the City of Antioch, 4 percent (by population) are located in the overlap area and 96 percent are located in the San Joaquin River Funding Area. Approximately 71 percent of the geographical area of Bay Point is DACs (or 73 percent of its total population). Because Bay Point is fully contained within the overlap area, coordination with the San Francisco Bay IRWM will be essential to ensure the needs of this community are met. These estimates were used to determine DAC-project status for the Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Grant and Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Grant. Note that estimates differ from Census data presented in Table 2-5, above. As the economy has begun to recover from the recent recession, DACs have decreased in the region as a whole from approximately 23 percent of the population to approximately 18 percent of the population, according to updated 2009-2013 ACS data. Engagement The ECCC region has maintained a transparent and open process in which DAC representatives are always welcome, and an easily navigated project website allows 24-hour access to information. Further, in 2015, the website was updated to include an additional DAC page that provides information about the location and water resources-related needs of DACs in the region. Cities such as Pittsburg and Antioch maintain close connections with the DACs through elected local leadership and consolidated planning processes. Further, outreach to DACs included the Municipal Advisory Councils. Contra Costa County has various Municipal Advisory Councils whose purpose is to advise the County Board of Supervisors on land use and planning matters affecting their communities of interest. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-43 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-9. Location of ECCC Overlap in Relation to Regional Boundaries and DACs Description Chapter 2: Region IRWM Plan Update 2-44 March 2019 East Contra Costa County All four of the Municipal Advisory Councils in the region–Bay Point, Bethel Island, Knightsen, and Byron–contain DACs within their boundaries or in their adjacent Special Notification Areas, and are therefore a natural conduit for the IRWM process to reach DACs outside incorporated areas such as the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch. Targeted outreach to Municipal Advisory Councils allows for direct and structured engagement with the greater parts of the unincorporated areas of the region. 2.6. Description of Watersheds and Water Systems Watersheds and water systems within the ECCC region are defined by hydrological features, geological conditions (in the case of groundwater basins), and meandering Delta waterways. This section describes the region’s major watersheds and water systems. 2.6.1. Watersheds Watershed Management Areas The ECCC region is defined by natural watershed boundaries. The western boundary is the ridgelines of Mount Diablo and the northern boundary is the Delta. The eastern boundary is Old River/San Joaquin River. The southern boundary is the county line with Alameda County. The ECCC region spans two State-defined hydrologic regions–the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region (regulated by the San Francisco Bay Water Board) and the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (regulated by the Central Valley Water Board). The majority of the region lies within the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.4 Figure 2-2 displays the boundaries between the two hydrologic regions and regional water board jurisdictional areas. Watersheds The agencies participating in and supporting this effort span nine watersheds,5 all entirely within the ECCC region. These watersheds are the Willow Creek, Kirker Creek, East Antioch Creek, West Antioch Creek, Upper Marsh Creek, Lower Marsh Creek, East County Delta Drainages, Kellogg Creek, and Brushy Creek watersheds. Drainage from several watersheds intersects Delta waterways to the north and east. Major creeks in these watersheds generally flow from south to north, discharging into Suisun Bay and the Delta. The boundaries of these watersheds, and their proximity to the Bay and Delta, are presented in Figure 2-10, and additional information on each watershed is provided below. Willow Creek Watershed The Willow Creek Watershed is found in the northwestern ECCC region, bounded by the Sacramento River to the north. Bay Point and the City of Pittsburg are within the Willow Creek Watershed. This watershed drains into the Delta and is approximately 23.6 square miles in size (11,370 acres). All drainages in this watershed are ephemeral. Its landscape is diverse and includes grasslands, wetlands, and municipal and industrial uses. 4 For water planning and conservation purposes, DWR and the State Water Board divided the State into 10 hydrologic regions. These 10 hydrologic regions are geographic areas that contain the DA of a major river or series of rivers. Source: CWP, Update 2009, Hydrologic Regions Map, DWR. 5 A watershed is an area of land that drains precipitated waters to a given reference point, typically a confluence with another major creek or large water body. Source: Contra Costa County Watershed Atlas (2003). Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM PlanUpdate 2-45 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-10. Watersheds in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-46 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Kirker Creek Watershed The Kirker Creek Watershed lies east of the Willow Creek Watershed. The City of Pittsburg falls within the Kirker Creek Watershed. Kirker Creek originates in Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and drains to the Delta and is approximately 15.8 square miles in size (9,500 acres). The drainages in this area are mostly ephemeral, though in some lower reaches of the watershed the creeks are perennial due to artificial inputs. This watershed includes regional parkland, ranchland, urban, and municipal and industrial uses. Its landscape is diverse and includes grasslands, wetlands, and urban areas. The lower portion of this watershed includes channelized conditions connected with an extensive stormwater drainage system to accommodate areas of suburban development. A community watershed group, Partners for the Watershed, is active in the area and organizes creek cleanups and creek monitoring. Two projects funded through the IRWM Plan grant process have been funded in this watershed, and have contributed to approximately 460 acres of conservation open space and restoration of wetlands and creeks in the upper watershed. West and East Antioch Creek Watersheds The West and East Antioch Creek watersheds lie east of the Kirker Creek Watershed and are bounded by the San Joaquin River to the north. The City of Antioch falls within these watersheds. These watersheds drain the north side of the Mount Diablo foothills into the Delta. The East Antioch Creek Watershed is approximately 11.4 square miles in size (7,261 acres). This area is heavily urbanized and numerous detention basins have been installed to manage and control flood flows. The Dow Wetland Preserve is at the mouth of the creek along the San Joaquin River and is an area that has been restored and is maintained by volunteers. The area is used for environmental education and outreach in the area. The West Antioch Creek Watershed is approximately 12.8 square miles in size (8,180 acres). West Antioch Creek originates in Contra Loma and Black Diamond Mine Regional Preserve. The Contra Loma Reservoir and the Antioch Reservoir capture most of the water that leaves the foothills. Most of the drainages in these watersheds are ephemeral with lower parts flowing perennially due to artificial inputs The lower portion of this watershed includes channelized conditions connected with an extensive stormwater drainage system to accommodate areas of suburban development. Upper and Lower Marsh Creek Watersheds South of the Antioch Creek Watershed is the Marsh Creek Watershed, which contains portions of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, as well as unincorporated areas south and west of Brentwood in the ECCC region. This is the second largest watershed in the County, and the largest in eastern Contra Costa County. The watershed drains into the Delta through the Dutch Slough area and is approximately 94 square miles in size (60,066 acres). The Upper Marsh Creek Watershed drains parts of Mount Diablo and includes steep, rocky conditions. Though this area is predominantly undeveloped, historical land uses have impacted this area, including an abandoned mercury mine. The upper watershed drains to the Marsh Creek Reservoir. The Lower Marsh Creek Watershed includes agricultural and urban centers. The creek channel in the lower watershed has been altered to protect the surrounding land uses. The lower watershed also includes grasslands, wetlands, and municipal and industrial uses. The Friends of Marsh Creek is an active community group that meets regularly, organizes creek cleanups, monitors the creek and are stewards of the watershed. A fish ladder was constructed in lower Marsh Creek to support anadromous fish that use Marsh Creek. This project was funded in part by IRWM Plan grant funds. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-47 March 2019 East Contra Costa County East County Delta Drainages East of the Marsh Creek Watershed is the East County Delta DA. This area includes eastern Oakley, Bethel Island, and Knightsen, as well as the District. This watershed flows into Old River and the San Joaquin River. It is approximately 88 square miles in size (56,223 acres). This watershed includes the County’s agricultural core. Numerous irrigation canals and channels crisscross the area, dramatically altering the natural hydrology. The region supports more alkali habitats than the western watersheds. The comparatively flat topography, seasonal flooding, and agricultural (active and passive) support a different collection of flora and fauna. For many species, eastern Contra Costa County is the northwestern reach of their range. The landscape is a mix of grasslands, wetlands, agriculture, and municipal and industrial. Kellogg Creek Watershed South of the East County Delta Drainages is the Kellogg Creek Watershed, which includes Byron. The 160,000 TAF Los Vaqueros Reservoir is located within the Kellogg Creek Watershed. CCWD owns and operates the reservoir, along with approximately 20,000 acres of protected watershed lands managed for water quality, conservation, and recreation. This watershed flows into Old River (and eventually into the San Joaquin River). It is approximately 20,863 acres in size. Kellogg Creek has been heavily altered due to its historical use for agriculture. Mallory Creek and several small unnamed creeks are tributaries to Kellogg Creek. Kellogg Creek inflows of up to 5 cubic feet per second are required to be passed through the reservoir as outflow to meet downstream water rights that were in place before construction of the reservoir in 1998. Reservoir releases are also made to support constructed wetlands that were created by CCWD as mitigation for the original Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project. Brushy Creek Watershed The Brushy Creek Watershed is found east of the Kellogg Creek Watershed in the southeastern corner of the ECCC region. There is no urban development in this area; the watershed is currently used for agriculture. This watershed flows into Old River and the Clifton Court Forebay (and eventually into the San Joaquin River). It is approximately 24,422 acres in size. Brushy Creek is the principal creek and has numerous unnamed tributaries connected to it. Groundwater Basins The groundwater basins underlying ECCC can be seen in Figure 2-11. The ECCC region partially overlies the Pittsburg Plain and Clayton Valley groundwater basins, and partially overlies the Tracy Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater is an important source of supply for agricultural and domestic uses, and to a lesser extent, municipal and industrial uses. Groundwater use throughout the ECCC region, relative to surface water use, is small and on the order of about 10 percent of total water demands, or approximately 10 TAF. More information about groundwater use in the region is discussed in Section 2.7 and is available in Groundwater Management Plans (GMPs), the Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis, and Salt and Nutrient Management Plans. Groundwater will continue to be an important resource for the region as a principal supply for agricultural and rural areas, and as a supplemental supply for the developed areas. IRWM Plan Update 2-48 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 2: Region Description Figure 2-11. Groundwater Basins in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-49 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin The Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin Number 2-4) is located along the southern shore of Suisun Bay. It is bounded by Suisun Bay to the north, the Tracy Subbasin (DWR Subbasin 5-22.15) to the east, and the Clayton Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2-5) to the west, and includes the overlying City of Pittsburg and the community of Bay Point. Aquifer units beneath the city consist of north-dipping sand and gravel material under confined to semi-confined conditions. To the south, a deeper zone, where most of the basin groundwater production occurs, is close to the ground surface and appears to interbed with the sandy clay surface layer. Similar hydrogeological conditions are expected in the western portion of the basin near Bay Point, though the ability to characterize the hydrogeology of this portion of the basin is limited by a lack of data. Groundwater flow appears to be generally to the north-northeast toward Suisun Bay, which defines the northern border of the basin. The City of Pittsburg prepared the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin GMP in 2012 (Section 3.5.1). The City of Pittsburg also prepared a Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary in 2012 (Section 3.5.2) that reported groundwater quality conditions of the basin. DWR classifies the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin as low priority. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin: Tracy Subbasin The Tracy Subbasin (DWR Basin Number 5-22.15) makes up the northwestern most portion of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin around the Delta and extends south into the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Subbasin boundaries are defined by the Mokelumne and San Joaquin Rivers on the north, the San Joaquin River on the east and the San Joaquin-Stanislaus County line on the south. The western subbasin boundary is defined by the contact between the unconsolidated sedimentary deposits and the rocks of the Diablo Range. DWD prepared a GMP for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin underlying their service area in 2007. In 2012, DWD completed a Data Gap Analysis (Section 3.5.3) to determine the data needed to calculate the basin’s safe groundwater yield. DWR classifies the Tracy Subbasin as medium priority. In 2014 CCWD worked with DWD, City of Antioch, Discovery Bay and Byron Bethany Irrigation District to ensure that the Tracy Subbasin is in compliance with DWR’s CASGEM requirements. In 2014 DWR confirm that the East County IRWM is in compliance with CASGEM. Clayton Valley Groundwater Basin The Clayton Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin Number 2-5) underlies a small portion of the region, in its northwestern corner along the south shore of Suisun Bay. It is bounded by Suisun Bay on the north, Mount Diablo Creek on the east, the Concord Fault on the west, which divides and separates this basin from the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin, and the foothills of Mount Diablo on the south. Marsh Creek flows through the basin before emptying into Suisun Bay. The basin is underlain by thick alluvial deposits that cover a faulted and folded complex of consolidated Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks. The water-bearing units in the basin can be found in the Recent Alluvium and the Older Alluvium valley fill deposits. DWR classifies the Clayton Valley Groundwater basin as low priority. 2.6.2. Infrastructure Major Water Supply Infrastructure A variety of water infrastructure is located within the ECCC region, including water bodies, reservoirs, conveyance facilities, pumping plants, and WTPs and WWTPs. Major water supply and wastewater infrastructure within the ECCC region is shown on Figure 2-12. Among the major Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-50 March 2019 East Contra Costa County water infrastructure are the Clifton Court Forebay (DWR), the Contra Costa Canal (Reclamation and CCWD), and Los Vaqueros Reservoir (CCWD). Clifton Court Forebay Located in ECCC, the Clifton Court Forebay is a regulated reservoir located at the head of the SWP’s California Aqueduct, with intake facilities located on Old River. The SWP, managed by the California Department of Water Resources, is the nation's largest State-built water and power development and conveyance system, conveying Delta supplies from the ECCC region to 23 million Californians and 755,000 acres of irrigated farmland throughout California. Contra Costa Canal The Contra Costa Canal (Canal) is the oldest unit of Reclamation’s CVP. It was originally constructed to serve agricultural needs, and now comprises the backbone of CCWD’s untreated water conveyance system. The Canal conveys water from the Delta to CCWD’s treatment facilities and untreated water customers. The Canal spans 48 miles, starting at Rock Slough in the ECCC region, passing through several communities including the Cities of Oakley, Antioch, Pittsburg, and Bay Point, and ending at the Terminal Reservoir in Martinez. Water is drawn from Rock Slough near Knightsen (8 miles east of Antioch). Water travels from Rock Slough through a 4- mile stretch of unlined channel before entering the concrete-lined section of the Canal in Oakley. CCWD is implementing a plan to convert the unlined portion of the Canal (Canal Project) into a pipeline as a means of improving water quality, public safety, and reducing flood risks. Approximately 2 miles of the unlined Canal is adjacent to the proposed DWR Dutch Slough Tidal Restoration Project (Restoration Project). CCWD is working with DWR to coordinate the construction of the Restoration Project and the Canal Project. The Canal can also receive untreated water from Old and Middle rivers or the Los Vaqueros Reservoir around Milepost 7 in Antioch via the Los Vaqueros Pipeline. Los Vaqueros Reservoir CCWD owns and operates the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, which stores up to 160 TAF of high- quality water. The reservoir is supplied from the Delta at Old River and on Victoria Island off of Victoria Canal (Middle River). The reservoir is surrounded by nearly 20,000 acres of protected watershed, providing more than 55 miles of recreational trails. CCWD expanded the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from 100 TAF to 160 TAF in 2012. Current Los Vaqueros Expansion Studies are examining the feasibility of expanding the reservoir to provide water quality and water supply reliability benefits to regional partners while providing ecosystem benefits to the Delta. Los Vaqueros Reservoir is not operated to provide flood protection, but has reduced the watershed area that drains to Kellogg Creek, which has a significant floodplain, since is it operated not to spill during large storm events. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-51 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-12. Major Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Description Chapter 2: Region IRWM Plan Update 2-52 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Antioch Municipal Reservoir The 735 AF (240 million-gallon) Antioch Municipal Reservoir provides supply reliability and volume for equalization storage for water pumped from the Canal. The reservoir also serves the secondary purposes of flood control and impoundment of local runoff. Water production from the small (1,300-acre) tributary watershed, however, is of negligible importance, particularly since most stormwater runoff from residential areas (about 600 acres) is now diverted around the reservoir. Preserve System for ECCC HCP/NCCP More than 12,000 acres have been acquired since 2008 for the Preserve System to fulfill conservation requirements of the HCP/NCCP. These lands were acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District in partnership with the ECCC Habitat Conservancy. Natural resources on these properties will be restored, enhanced, and managed in perpetuity. When acquisition is complete, the Preserve System is anticipated to consist of 24,000 to 30,000 acres. It will build on approximately 45,000 acres of existing public watershed and park land. The Preserve System will protect water bodies and hydrological processes in nearly every major watershed in ECCC. Within the approximately 12,000 acres acquired to date, approximately 277,000 linear feet (52 miles) of streams and 71 acres of wetlands and ponds are managed to protect and enhance natural functions and values. Water Treatment Infrastructure Water treatment plants and facilities that are owned, operated, or supply water to agencies and communities in the region are described under the activities described for individual RMWG member agencies in Section 2.4.2 Member Agencies, above. Major Flood Management Infrastructure The CCCFCWCD manages most of the major flood management infrastructure in ECCC to provide regional flood protection. The facilities it plans and manages are described below. Major flood management infrastructure within the ECCC region is shown on Figure 2-13. Marsh Creek Reservoir, Dry Creek Reservoir, and Deer Creek Reservoirs The Marsh Creek Reservoir is located approximately 4 miles southwest of Brentwood. It and the smaller Dry and Deer Reservoirs were built in early 1960s with funding from the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) to protect the then predominantly agricultural land uses in ECCC from a 5- year storm. The CCCFCWCD manages these facilities and has planned and built a number of other large, regional detention basins in the watershed to increase system capacity and protect rapidly urbanizing area from a 100-year storm. Sediments in the Marsh Creek Reservoir contain elemental mercury washed down from an old mine in the upper watershed. Marsh Creek Flood Control Channel, Dry Creek Flood Control Channel, Sand Creek Flood Control, and Deer Creek Flood Control Channel Approximately 12 miles of Marsh Creek, Deer Creek, Dry Creek, and Sand Creek were widened and channelized as part of the 1960s Soil Conservation District flood control project. Other channel capacity work has been planned and constructed by the CCCFCWCD to improve the level of flood protection in the Marsh Creek Watershed. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-53 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-13. Major Flood Management Infrastructure Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-54 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Drainage Area Infrastructure The CCCFCWCD established DAs to plan subregional drainage infrastructure and collect development fees to fund subregional drainage infrastructure. The DAs infrastructure is either built by the CCCFCWCD or by developers who then receive credit for their fees or enter a reimbursement agreement to be reimbursed for costs of constructing the infrastructure that are in excess of their fees. Once constructed, most of these facilities are turned over to the local jurisdiction for ownership and maintenance. Some of the major DAs facilities are owned and maintained by the CCCFCWCD using property tax revenues it receives in the Marsh Creek Watershed, also known as Flood Control Zone 1. East Antioch Creek East Antioch Creek improvements and their associated basins, (Lindsey Basin and Oakley Basin), are major flood management infrastructure that serve the City of Antioch. Currently, the system is partially owned and managed by the City of Antioch, and the remainder of the improvements will be handed over to the City for ownership and maintenance in the near future. West Antioch Creek West Antioch Creek is also a DA funded facility with improvements in various stages of completion, design, and planning. Facilities in this watershed are owned and managed by the City of Antioch. Major Wastewater Infrastructure The major wastewater agencies in the region (servings greater than 5,000 customers) include Delta Diablo, ISD, and Brentwood. Their respective WWTP locations are shown in Figure 2-13. Below are summary descriptions of their systems. Delta Diablo Delta Diablo provides wastewater collection services for the unincorporated community of Bay Point, and conveyance, treatment, and disposal services for Bay Point and the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. Since 2001, Delta Diablo has provided recycled water to the Delta Energy Center and the Los Medanos Energy Center (LMEC), and has expanded recycled water conveyance to Pittsburg and Antioch for irrigation of local public parks and median landscapes. Delta Diablo has been producing and delivering recycled water for cooling tower use at two Calpine power plants since 2001. The Delta Energy Center (DEC) and the Los Medanos Energy Center (LMEC) together use an average of 6.5 MGD (7 TAF per year) of recycled water, resulting in one of the largest industrial uses of recycled water in California. In 2012 these two centers used a combined 8,132 AF of recycled water and have an average annual demand of 7,010 AFY. In total, Delta Diablo has produced and delivered approximately 17,500 million gallons, or 53,700 acre-feet, of recycled water to 15 different use sites since the system was established in 2001. The existing Delta Diablo wastewater infrastructure includes conveyance systems, pumping stations, equalization basins, and a WWTP and RWF located on the Pittsburg-Antioch border. Treated wastewater is discharged in New York Slough through a deep water outfall. The WWTP has a rated average dry weather flow capacity of 16.5 MGD and a peak wet weather flow treatment capacity of 26.0 MGD; the average dry weather flow (ADWF) for 2012 was 12.7 MGD. It is anticipated that the build-out ADWF for Delta Diablo’s service area will be 25.3 MGD in 2057. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-55 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Delta Diablo’s 2013 Recycled Water Master Plan identified a Title XVI program that will be implemented through two projects: a recycled water distribution system expansion project that will deliver an additional 4,461 AFY of recycled water, and a HPWTF implementation project that will reduce TDS concentrations from Delta water entering the Antioch intake to below 30 mg/L, which will create up to 5,600 AFY of high-purity water that is suitable for industrial demands. Ironhouse Sanitary District The ISD provides sewage collection, treatment, and disposal services to the City of Oakley, the unincorporated area of Bethel Island, and other unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. ISD’s infrastructure includes gravity and pressure pipelines, pumping stations, and the Ironhouse Water Recycling Facility (WRF). Effluent from the WRF is applied to agricultural lands on Jersey Island and into the San Joaquin River. The WRF has a design capacity of 4.3 MGD and an ultimate capacity of 6.8 MGD. ISD participated in a regional water recycling study looking at providing recycled water to industry outside of the ISD service area. In addition, ISD completed a Recycled Water Master Plan and a Recycled Water Feasibility Study looking at potential users of recycled water within the ISD service area and the economic feasibility of developing a separate non- potable water system that could supply recycled water to offsite users. The preliminary results of ISD’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study demonstrate that in the immediate-term (less than 2 years), recycled water use could increase by 20 AFY with implementation of a fill station that is currently operable. Further, in the near-term (less than 10 years), ISD could increase recycled water use by 2,350 AFY by providing recycled water for industrial reuse along the Wilbur corridor and the Northern Waterfront Area, and by including recycled water uses for sustainable farming practices. In the long-term (more than 20 years), recycled water in ISD’s service area could be increased by between 2,200 and 6,500 AFY through implementation of indirect or direct potable reuse projects. Brentwood The City of Brentwood owns and operates its wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system. The collection system, with approximately 138 miles of sewer main, conveys wastewater to the Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (BWWTP) located on approximately 70 acres on the northeast side of the city adjacent to Marsh Creek. The BWWTP provides tertiary treatment and has an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.0 MGD and discharges over 3 MGD recycled water into Marsh Creek. The plant is to be expanded to 7.5 MGD by 2019. Effluent is pumped through the BWWTP as process water and discharged into Marsh Creek. The City of Brentwood completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study in 2013. The Feasibility Study examined ways to maximize recycled water deliveries to current recycled water customers, existing potential recycled water customers, and future potential recycled water customers. In summary, this report recommended implementation of a proposed project that would expand the recycled water system to supply 1,406 AFY of recycled water to 86 new recycled water users. The proposed project would involve upgrades to the BWWTP pump station, additional storage, and approximately 17,000 lineal feet of additional pipelines to deliver recycled water to new users. Ultimately, the City of Brentwood is looking to pump this effluent off site as recycled water to be used for irrigation for landscaped areas in accordance with the City’s Master Reclamation Permit issued by the Central Valley Water Board/NPDES Permit. The City is aggressively expediting Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-56 March 2019 East Contra Costa County implementation of recycled water citywide; however, the peak daily recycled water supply (morning and evenings) do not align with the peak recycled water demand (night). The City needs an adequate storage facility to maximize utilization of this valuable resource and must demonstrate active efforts to effectuate this vision for NPDES compliances. As part of this effort, the City currently has a 3.0 MGD storage reservoir design underway with construction anticipated by the end of 2015. Any remaining treated wastewater is discharged into Marsh Creek per the terms of the City’s Waste Discharge Requirements Permit. Brentwood is also exploring the possible transfer of a portion of its recycled water to ECCID for agricultural irrigation. 2.7. Water Supplies and Demands Water management in the region is driven by a highly diverse population base with a wide range of water needs, including urban and agricultural uses; major industrial activities; recreation; and environmental systems. Water demand for these uses is met primarily by water supplies from the Delta. Detailed descriptions of water demands and supplies are provided below. 2.7.1. Current and Projected Water Demands According to the Interim Population Projections for California and its Counties 2010–2050 (California Department of Finance, 2012), the Contra Costa County 2010 population is projected to increase by 20 percent by 2030 and by 42 percent by 2050. With that growth, water demands are also expected to increase. Figure 2-14 presents population projections for the region’s urban areas from 2010 through 2035, as contained in recently completed UWMPs. The ECCC region urban population is projected to increase 38 percent by 2035 from 294,000 people in 2010 to 406,000 people in 2035. Figure 2-14. Current and Projected 2035 Population for Urban Areas in the Region Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-57 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Agriculture in Bay Area counties has declined in recent years. Some changes are a result of changing market conditions, and some are a result of suburban growth like that described above. Cropland acreage in Contra Costa County alone has declined approximately 19 percent between 1990 and 2008 according to a 2011 report led by the American Farmland Trust.6 Present cropland acreage for the county is approximately 23,000 acres (irrigated and non-irrigated). The American Farmland Trust reports that there are over 275 irrigated farms in Contra Costa County and most are in eastern Contra Costa County.5 A majority of this acreage is located within BBID and ECCID. BBID and ECCID reported 5,663 and 7,071 irrigated cropland acreage respectively for 2012. This is a total 12,734 irrigated acres in 2012. Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15 show current and projected water demands for urban, industrial, and agricultural water uses in the region. Urban demands within the region are met by public and private water utilities. The normal year urban demand in these areas is expected to increase from 50 TAF per year in 2010 to 79 TAF per year in 2035, which represents a 66% increase. The use of recycled water and air-cooled condensers for power facilities in the region is significant since the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Pittsburg and Antioch power plants along the San Joaquin River had been using once-through cooling water from the Delta.. Using recycled water for cooling towers lessens environmental impacts from entraining and impinging sensitive aquatic species associated with once through cooling systems as well as lowers the heat input into the Delta from the discharge of power plant cooling water. An additional benefit is reducing potable water demands during drought, while allowing normal operations at the power plants, which could potentially be limited by potential water use restrictions during prolonged drought. Most of the agricultural demands in the region are met by irrigation district supplies (BBID and ECCCID). A small percentage of agricultural demand is for small-scale farm operations that rely upon privately owned wells or individual surface water rights. While other special districts may have powers that allow for distribution of water, such as BIMID, they are not exercised. Agricultural water use reported by BBID and ECCID was about 38 TAF in 2012. (This does not account for agricultural water use by small private farms located outside these districts. Data for these uses is not available on a regional scale.) Estimates of projected agricultural water use for the region are not available. Recent trends suggest future agricultural water use would be similar. The ECCC region includes a richly diverse environmental landscape, including grassland, oak woodland, chaparral, streams, and wetlands. Each of these environmental systems has specific water requirements for the maintenance of the ecosystem and its dependent species. A majority of the environmental water requirement is associated with river- and wetland-dependent aquatic ecosystems, and is often referred to as environmental flow requirements or habitat conservation requirements. These flow requirements can be defined by magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, or some combination of those factors. CCWD provides up to 5 cubic feet per second to Kellogg Creek downstream from the Los Vaqueros Reservoir dam. The City of Brentwood currently discharges treated effluent to Marsh Creek estimated to be approximately 5,000 TAF per year. Brentwood is seeking to reduce this discharge by using this treated effluent within the City of Brentwood. 6 Sustaining Our Agricultural Bounty–A White Paper, American Farmland Trust, Greenbelt Alliance, and Sustainable Agriculture Education, March 2011. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-58 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-6. Current/Projected Urban, Industriald, and Agricultural Water Demands (AFY) Major Water Retailer 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Change (2010 to 2035) Increase by Year 2035 City of Antiocha 17,843 22,677 21,301 22,400 23,049 23,717 33% 5,874 City of Brentwooda 10,802 11,564 11,521 12,659 13,334 13,982 29% 3,197 City of Pittsburga 7,784 9,461 10,192 10,980 11,828 12,743 64 4,959 Diablo Water District (Oakley)a,b 5,389 7,893 10,076 12,417 14,759 17,100 217% 11,711 Golden State WC - Bay Pointa 2,190 2,955 3,139 3,298 3,376 3,474 59% 1,284 Town of Discovery Baya,c 4,097 4,569 5,041 5,041 5,041 5,041 23% 944 Subtotal 48,105 59,119 61,269 66,795 71,387 76,057 58% 27,951 Calpine Power Plantsd,e 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 0% 0 Subtotal 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 7,010 0% 0 Byron Bethany IDf,e 18,484 18,484 18,484 18,484 18,484 18,484 0% 0 East Contra Costa IDg,e 20,038 20,038 20,038 20,038 20,038 20,038 0% 0 Subtotal 38,522 38,522 38,522 38,522 38,522 38,522 0% 0 Total 93,637 104,651 106,801 112,327 116,919 121,589 30% 27,951 Notes: a 2010 demand from Urban Water Management Plans. b Includes the City of Oakley, and areas served outside the City of Oakley which includes portions of Knightsen and Bethel Island. c Water Master Plan (from 2012) projects build-out conditions will be reached in 10 years (about 2020). d Calpine Power Plant average annual demand is 7,010 AFY. Results from Delta Diablo’s Recycled Water Master Plan show that in the future, Calpine demands for recycled water are anticipated to drop due to water quality improvements of the Delta Diablo’s recycled water and water management system; in the Recycled Water Master Plan, a 10% demand reduction is assumed for modeling purposes. e Demand is assumed to be constant. f 2012 demand based on District Crop Production Report of 2012 irrigation, Byron Bethany Irrigation District. g 2012 demand based on District Crop Production Report of 2012 irrigation, East Contra Costa Irrigation District. Key: AFY = acre-foot per year ID = Irrigation District WC = Water Company n/a = data not available Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-59 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Source: 2010 Urban Water Management Plans, 2012 District Crop Reports, and 2012 DDSD recycled water use records. Figure 2-15. Current and Projected 2035 Water Demands 2.7.2. Current and Projected Water Supplies Water supplies for urban and industrial uses originate from surface water purchased from CCWD and, to a lesser extent, recycled water, groundwater, and local surface water supplies. This pattern is expected to continue. Agricultural water needs are met mostly by surface water supplied by BBID, ECCID, and individual water rights for small farm operations. Some small farm operations use groundwater from privately owned wells. ECCID also uses groundwater when demand exceeds their surface water supply. Detailed descriptions of both existing and projected water supplies are provided below. Existing water supplies are summarized based on 2010 UWMPs, irrigation district irrigated crop reports, recycled water planning documents, and other agency records. Table 2-7 summarizes water supply by specific source for municipal agencies, irrigation district, and large industry in the region. On average, surface water provides approximately 78.2 percent of existing water supplies in the region. Groundwater and recycled water supply approximately 9.4 percent and 12.4 percent of total water supplies, respectively. Tables 2-8 and 2-9 present the current and projected water supplies for urban, industry, and agriculture in the region. Water supplies are categorized by source to distinguish surface water from groundwater from recycled water. Table 2-8 represents normal (average hydrology) conditions as reported in individual agency planning documents. The region’s supplies originating from the Delta are subject to variable hydrologic conditions, which can significantly reduce the availability of this supply. Table 2-9 represents what water supplies would be under dry hydrologic 33% 29% 64%217% 59% 23% 30% 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Demand (AFY)Demand (AFY)Year 2010 (2012 for IDs and Calpine) Increase by Year 2035 (and % change) Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-60 March 2019 East Contra Costa County conditions. Specifically, information in Table 2-9 represents supplies in the third year of a multiple dry-year scenario. Comparing water supplies under normal and dry hydrologic conditions helps identify potential water supply shortfalls. Under dry year hydrologic conditions, reductions in total surface water supplies to the region are projected to be less than 2,000 TAF per year. However, this is subject to change, depending upon future decisions that may affect how the Delta is managed that in turn may impact, positively or negatively, the availability and quality of water provided to the region from the Delta, and management of the groundwater basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. As shown in Table 2-8 and Table 2-9, any potential supply shortfalls, by agency, will be accounted for with conservation. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-61 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-7. Current Water Supply Availability by Source (AFY) City of Antioch City of Brentwood City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District (Oakley) Golden State WC-Bay Point Town of Discovery Bay Delta Diablo Sanitation District (for industry) Ironhouse Sanitary District Byron Bethany ID East Contra Costa ID TOTAL Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers, Delta – Purchase from CCWD 17,770 0 7,815 8,402 1,954 0 0 0 0 0 35,941 Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers, Delta – Purchased from ECCID 0 8,175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,175 Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers, Delta – Water Right 7,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,500 20,000 46,050 Local Municipal Reservoir 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 Groundwater 0 3,535 1,500 2,062 235 4,097 0 0 0 0 11,429 Recycled Water 0 0 459 0 0 0 12,000 2,700 0 0 15,159 Total 25,700 11,710 9,774 10,464 2,189 4,097 12,000 2,700 18,500 20,000 117,134 Note: This information was summarized based on 2010 UWMPs, irrigation district irrigated crop reports, and other agency records. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-62 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-8. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Normal Year Source Projected Available Supplies (Thousand AFY) 2010 (1) 2015 2020 2025 2030 Surface Water 90.6 98.7 104.4 107.9 113.4 City of Antioch (CCWD/River) 25.7 31.1 30.2 31.8 32.5 City of Brentwood (CCWD/ECCID) 8.2 8.8 8.7 9.6 10.6 Diablo Water District – Oakley (CCWD) 8.4 8.4 14.0 14.0 16.8 City of Pittsburg (CCWD) 7.8 9.2 10.1 11.0 11.9 Golden State Water Co Bay Point (CCWD) 2.0 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 Byron Bethany ID (River water right) 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID (River water right) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Small Private Farms (River water right) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Recycled Water (2) 15.2 17.4 17.7 20.3 22.6 City of Antioch (Delta Diablo) 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 City of Brentwood 0.0 0.053 0.25 0.5 1.4 City of Pittsburg (Delta Diablo) 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 Delta Diablo (industrial) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Groundwater 9.8 12.3 13.4 13.7 14.8 City of Brentwood 3.5 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.4 Diablo Water District – Oakley 1.0 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.6 City of Pittsburg 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Town of Discovery Bay 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 East Contra Costa ID (district wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Small Private Farms (private wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Conservation 4.4 5 5.1 5.6 5.7 Voluntary and Mandatory Conservation 4.4 5 5.1 5.6 5.7 Total Supplies (2) 120.0 133.4 140.6 147.5 156.5 City of Antioch (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 25.7 33.3 32.4 34 34.7 City of Brentwood 11.7 12.7 12.75 14.2 16.4 Diablo Water District – Oakley 9.4 10.5 16.8 16.8 20.4 City of Pittsburg (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 9.4 11.2 12.1 13 13.9 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 2.2 3 3.2 3.3 3.4 Town of Discovery Bay 4 4.6 5 5 5 Delta Diablo (industrial) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Byron Bethany ID 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Small Private Farms unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Source: Urban supplies from 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Irrigation district supplies from 2012 Crop Reports; Recycled water supplies verified against and updated with recycled water planning documents where applicable. Notes: (1) 2010 values reflect actual supply numbers derived from applicable planning documents. (2) Delta Diablo supplies recycled water to the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch as well as the power generating facilities within Pittsburg. Ironhouse Sanitary District uses recycled water for irrigating row crops. Presently, Brentwood discharges its tertiary treated water into Marsh Creek. Over time, Brentwood expects to reduce the discharge of treated water into Marsh Creek and instead use these supplies to water parks, golf courses, schools playfields, landscape areas etc. Key: AFY = acre-feet per year CCWD = Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo = Industrial Supplies ECCID = East Contra Costa Irrigation District ID = Irrigation District Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-63 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-9. Projected Urban, Industrial, and Agricultural Water Supplies in a Dry Year (1) Source Projected Supplies (Thousand AFY) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Surface Water 79.1 88.2 93.9 95.0 99.5 City of Antioch (CCWD/River) 15.2 19.3 18.1 19 19.6 City of Brentwood (CCWD/ECCID) 8.3 11.9 12.8 12.9 14.4 Diablo Water District – Oakley (CCWD) 2.5 2.5 4.2 4 4.7 City of Pittsburg (CCWD) 7.8 8.5 9.3 9.7 10.1 Golden State Water Co Bay Point (CCWD) 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 Byron Bethany ID (River water right) 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID (River water right) 20 20 20 20 20 Small Private Farms (River water right) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Recycled Water (2) 15.2 17.4 17.7 20.3 22.6 City of Antioch (Delta Diablo) 0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 City of Brentwood 0 0.053 0.25 0.5 1.4 City of Pittsburg (Delta Diablo) 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.48 Delta Diablo (industrial) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Groundwater 7.3 9.7 10.9 11 11.9 City of Brentwood 1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Diablo Water District – Oakley 1 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.6 City of Pittsburg 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Town of Discovery Bay 4 4.6 5 5 5 East Contra Costa ID (district wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Small Private Farms (private wells) unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Conservation 4.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.7 Voluntary and Mandatory Conservation 4.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.7 Total Supplies 101.6 115.3 122.5 126.3 134.0 City of Antioch (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 15.2 21.5 20.3 21.2 21.8 City of Brentwood 9.3 13.2 14.4 14.8 17.3 Diablo Water District – Oakley 8.6 9.8 15.6 15.1 17.9 City of Pittsburg (including Delta Diablo recycled water) 9.4 10.5 11.3 11.7 12.1 Golden State Water Co Bay Point 1.9 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 Town of Discovery Bay 4 4.6 5 5 5 Delta Diablo (DD) 13.7 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.7 2.7 2.8 5.1 6.5 Byron Bethany ID 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 East Contra Costa ID 20 20 20 20 20 Small Private Farms unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Source: Urban supplies from 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Irrigation district supplies from 2012 Crop Reports; Recycled water supplies verified against and updated with recycled water planning documents where applicable. Notes: (1) Numbers represent supplies available in the third year of a multiple dry year scenario. (2) Delta Diablo supplies recycled water to the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch as well as the power generating facilities within Pittsburg. Ironhouse Sanitary District uses recycled water for irrigating row crops. Presently, Brentwood discharges its tertiary treated water into Marsh Creek. Over time, Brentwood expects to reduce the discharge of treated water into Marsh Creek and instead use these supplies to water parks, golf courses, schools playfields, landscape areas etc. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-64 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.7.3. Comparison of Water Supplies and Demands Figures 2-16 and 2-17 compare the projected demands and supplies out to year 2030 for normal and dry year conditions, respectively. Projected industrial and agricultural demands are not available and for purposes of this analysis, projections were assumed equal to 2012 demands. As shown in these figures, water supplies appear to be sufficient to meet urban, industrial, and agricultural needs on an annual basis under both normal and dry year conditions. The current drought emergency has presented water management challenges beyond those evaluated in the dry year analyses shown here. How the region is addressing these challenges, and the lessons learned going forward, are discussed in Section 2.8 below. Figure 2-16. Normal Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Supplies (Thousand AFY)Year   Surface Water Supplies   Groundwater   Recycled Water   Projected Demands Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-65 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 2-17. Dry Year Projected Supply and Demand in the Region In late 2012, the retail urban water suppliers of the region, along with the City of Martinez and water wholesaler CCWD, began developing a Regional Capacity Study (RCS) to look at strategies and projects to optimize the region’s water supplies, facilities, and operations. The RCS was completed in August 2014 and is included as Appendix I to this IRWM Plan. The RCS along with other efforts, including recycled water planning and feasibility studies for Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood, further demonstrate the region’s commitment to long-term water supply and demand planning to secure the reliability of supplies into the future. The RCS looked at supply and demand under normal and dry conditions as well as under two different regional emergency scenarios. It also looked at regional treatment plant capacity versus demand under various conditions and found that, even after supplementing supplies with groundwater, the City of Brentwood and DWD may not have sufficient treatment capacity to fulfill all future maximum daily demands (MDDs) through 2035. However, the RCS also found that several treatment plants have excess capacity compared to MDDs, and therefore recommended that additional interties and system connections be made to link treatment plants with excess capacity to those systems with potential capacity shortfalls. Table 2-10 below provides an overview of excess capacity and potential capacity shortfalls identified in the RCS, indicating potential intertie opportunities. Specific early action projects and other projects that are recommended in the RCS to maximize supply reliability and potentially reduce supply shortfalls in the future are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this IRWM Plan. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Supplies (Thousand AFY)Year   Surface Water Supplies   Groundwater   Recycled Water   Projected Demands Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-66 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-10. Water Treatment Plant Capacity vs. Projected Demands Treatment Capacity (MGD) Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2010 2035 % Increase 2010 2035 % Increase Antioch 36 15.9 21.4 35% 27.0 32.3 20% Brentwood 16 9.6 12.5 30% 16.1 26.2 63% Martinez 14.7 3.7 4.5 22% 7.5 8.9 19% Pittsburg 32 7.9 13.4 70% 15.1 25.4 68% CCWD 110 42.1 54.6 30% 84.3 103.5 23% DWD 15 5.0 10.7 114% 9.9 21.4 116% TOTAL 223.7 84.4 117.0 39% 159.9 217.9 36% Source: 2014 Regional Capacity Study Indicates potential capacity shortfall (2035 MDD>Treatment Capacity) Indicates excess capacity (2035 MDD<Treatment Capacity 2.8. Emergency Drought Response Water supply projections included in the previous sections are derived from water supply planning efforts completed in the ECCC region, including projections from applicable Urban Water Management Plans. Per information from CCWD’s 2010 UWMP, CCWD’s primary supply is CVP water obtained under contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The M&I Water Shortage Policy defines the reliability of CCWD’s CVP supply and provides for a minimum shortage allocation of 75% of adjusted historical use until irrigation allocations fall below 25%. CCWD's minimum public health and safety allocation from the CVP as reported in CCWD’s 2010 UWMP is 65% of normal demand, which includes a 10% reduction to key industries, minimum interior residential water allocations (55 gallons per capita per day), necessary institutional and commercial uses, fire protection, and average system losses. Currently, California is in the fourth year of a major drought. As a result of the drought, agencies in the ECCC region are experiencing substantial water supply cutbacks that are more extreme than the worst-case-scenarios assumed in previous planning efforts. Table 2-11 shows actual 2015 minimum supply projections under current drought conditions. As shown in Table 2-11, the region’s CVP allocations have been substantially reduced, below the previously-assumed public health and safety minimum, with increased supplies from Los Vaqueros Reservoir offseting this drastic reduction. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project expanded the capacity of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from a 100,000 acre-feet to 160,000 acre-feet, which allows the reservoir (when full) to provide enough storage for approximately 14 to 28 months of normal use. As a result of this expanded capacity, the United States Bureau of Reclamation has further reduced CVP supplies provided to CCWD to 50,500 AFY. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-67 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 2-11. Current Minimum Supply Projections under Existing Drought Conditions (2015) Source Normal (AFY) Previous Year 3 Health and Safety Assumption 2015 Dry Year Supply (AFY) CVP 170,000 112,700 50,500 ECCID 6,000 10,000 10,000 Industrial Diversions 10,000 0 0 Mallard Slough 3,100 0 0 Antioch Diversions 6,700 0 0 Groundwater 3,000 3,000 3,000 LV Supply 10,000 10,000 30,000 Recycled Water 8,500 8,500 8,500 Total 217,300 144,200 102,000 2.8.1. East Contra Costa Planned Efforts to Address Drought Conditions The region is responding to potential supply shortfalls resulting from the drought by increasing voluntary and mandatory conservation efforts. In addition, several agencies are increasing water recycling efforts to further offset potable water demands with recycled water. These projects and regional efforts require substantial planning and financial investments, and therefore often require additional funding to implement. Additional funding is especially important within disadvantaged communities in the ECCC region, given that water rate increases and other potential methods used to finance projects may not be feasible in those areas. Specific efforts that are being considered in the ECCC region to address the current drought are listed below: 1. City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District Intertie Projects: Two potential intertie projects were identified in the RCS. One would add a booster pump that would allow Antioch to provide water into the Multi-Purpose Pipeline (MPP) through an existing intertie. The second would include a second connection between Antioch and the MPP that would more efficiently distribute water to the west side of Antioch’s system. Although not specifically designed as drought projects, both of these projects could increase water delivery and system efficiencies that could help address drought-related impacts. 2. Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant: The Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant provides service to the City of Brentwood. The majority of treated effluent is discharged to Marsh Creek, and recycled water is currently supplied to a small number of customers. Upgrades to the Plant that would increase storage and pumping capacity would allow for the expansion of recycled water delivery in the City of Brentwood. Expanding recycled water would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 3. Delta Diablo Distribution System Expansion Project: This project would include implementation of pipeline, pump station, and storage improvements to the Recycled Water Facility in order to provide recycled water to additional users. Expanding recycled Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-68 March 2019 East Contra Costa County water would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 4. Delta Diablo High Purity Water Treatment Facility Implementation Project: This project would construct an advanced water treatment plant and related pipelines and pump stations to expand water reuse and provide additional supplies to supplement cutbacks resulting from the drought. 5. Ironhouse Sanitary District Short-Term Implementation Projects: Two short-term projects are being considered by ISD; one would include the construction of a fill station that would allow for the provision of additional recycled water. The second would include planting and growing alternative crops to allow for additional reuse of water. Both projects would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 6. Ironhouse Sanitary District Near-Term Implementation Projects: In the near-term, ISD plans to provide recycled water for industrial reuse along the Wilbur corridor, expand industrial reuse to the Northern Waterfront area, and use recycled water for sustainable farming practices. All three of these projects would help to offset potable water demands, and therefore respond directly to drought conditions. 2.9. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Over the coming decades, California’s Bay-Delta system will feel impacts of global climate change with shifts in biological communities, a rising sea level, and modified water supplies. Together, the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Watershed, and the Delta form an interconnected and valuable resource system. Evidence confirms the San Francisco Bay is already rising, this is impacting the Delta, and this is projected to continue. In fact, today's flood is expected to be the future's high tide. Areas that currently flood every 10 to 20 years during extreme weather and tides will begin to flood regularly. The consequences may be severe. ECCC is composed of substantial low-elevation acreage, is within the drainage of Mount Diablo, and sits adjacent to the Delta; both localized floods from stormwater runoff and regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure are real and present threats. Of the past 11 president-declared natural disasters in the region, all but one involved storms and flooding. Climate change is only likely to increase these risks. The Bay-Delta system is also the primary ECCC water supply. Sea-level rise and extreme weather can impact water quality through introduction of salinity into freshwater supplies, increased runoff and pollutants entering the system, increased turbidity and sediments, and the potential for low- elevation critical infrastructure to be inundated. Beyond the immediate concerns of managing altered and increased flows, the timing and volume of flows are likely to change due to changing temperature patterns in upper elevations. The entire interconnected State and federal water projects and other systems are designed and operated on basic assumptions about snow pack and predictable weather patterns. This means it is likely that ECCC water supply and water quality will be impacted by both floods and drought and changes Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-69 March 2019 East Contra Costa County in the timing of the hydrological cycle, and that traditional systems for water delivery will be less reliable. Deciding how best to meet the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) interests of those who value the resources of the Bay-Delta system already poses challenges to area resource managers. As the climate changes, the intensity of the challenges they face is likely to increase. Therefore, as resource managers develop strategies to protect the Bay-Delta system–and the critical services it provides–they need to understand how global climate change will affect the system. The ECCC region must also implement adaptation actions that will reduce the vulnerability of the built and natural environment to the effects of climate change. State and local agencies are already engaged in a number of efforts designed to improve California’s ability to cope with a changing climate. IRWM planning efforts are collaborative and include many entities dealing with water management. These aspects make IRWM a good platform for addressing issues like climate change where multiple facets of water management are affected. To this end, DWR developed a standard to ensure that IRWM plans describe, consider, and address the effects of climate change on their regions and disclose, consider, and reduce when possible greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when developing and implementing projects (DWR, 2010). To provide guidance for implementing the IRWM Climate Change Standard and incorporating climate change analyses into the IRWM planning processes, DWR and its partners USACE, EPA, and Resources Legacy Fund developed the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning (Handbook) (DWR, 2011). 2.9.1. Handbook Approach In accordance with the Handbook, vulnerabilities of the region to future climate change impacts were assessed and member agencies efforts taken to adapt to climate change and to reduce GHG emissions in the region are described. The approach for assessing climate change in the region involved the following steps:  Characterize the region  Review literature on regional climate change impacts  Assess and prioritize climate change vulnerabilities using the Handbook checklist  Compile ongoing member agency efforts to address climate vulnerabilities The full summary of information required for Handbook compliance is contained in Appendix C. Highlights of that summary include the following: Characterize Region Sections 2.5 through 2.7 of this IRWM Plan, characterize the social/cultural makeup and water resources, supplies, and demands of the region. Review Climate Change Impacts Multiple studies of climate change impacts on water resources specific to the western United States and California are available. A literature review was conducted to survey existing information and to determine the potential regional impacts of climate change. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-70 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Despite predictions for somewhat less overall precipitation over the long term, the region is also predicted to have more extreme storms. The region is also projected to have more frequent, longer, and more extreme heat waves and longer periods of drought. Additionally, river runoff patterns are anticipated to change as a result of earlier springtime runoff of the Sierra snowpack, which will have implications for changes to Delta flows and water quality. Mean sea level is expected to rise by approximately 12.3 to 60.8 centimeters by the year 2050 at the Golden Gate Bridge (NRC, 2012). The Delta in the northern portion of the ECCC region is tidally influenced, and would be affected by rising sea levels, both in terms of Delta flows and water quality. These predicted climatic shifts would have an impact on the region’s water supply, water demand, flooding, water quality, ecosystems and habitats, and hydropower. Identify and Prioritize Key Regional Areas of Potential Vulnerability The next step was to identify and prioritize areas of potential vulnerability to climate change impacts. This allows the region to better plan adaptation actions to target specific high-priority climate vulnerabilities in the region. Defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation (the climate hazard) to which a system is exposed, as well as of non-climatic characteristics of the system, including its sensitivity, and its coping and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2001). The Handbook provides a useful checklist for qualitatively determining areas of potential vulnerability within the region. Indicators of potential vulnerability include currently observable climate impacts, presence of climate sensitive features, and adaptive capacity of regional resources. The complete set of checklist responses can be found in Appendix D. The checklist responses also include indications of the level of priority for each vulnerability. Prioritization was accomplished qualitatively, with issues assigned a low, medium, or high priority based on the potential impacts to the region’s water resources, assessed likelihood, and regional values. The highest priority vulnerabilities in the region are related to the Delta. The region is reliant on the Delta for most of its water supply, and the Delta serves as an important habitat for endangered and threatened species. Therefore, changes to seasonal water supplies, water quality, and sea levels represent some of the most critical impacts. All of the vulnerabilities related to the health of the Delta have the highest priority. Ongoing Member Agency Efforts to Address Climate Vulnerabilities As part of the IRWM Plan monitoring process, member agencies will report on ongoing efforts to address climate change vulnerabilities. Sections 2.9.2 through 2.9.9 provide a description of the ongoing member agency efforts to address climate change vulnerabilities and provide insight on the feasibility for the region to address identified priority vulnerabilities. The following sections also provide an additional assessment of the primary climate change impacts to which the IRWM Plan must consider and respond. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-71 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2.9.2. Water Supply Surface Water Most of the water suppliers in the ECCC region are dependent on surface water supplies from the Delta to meet the majority of regional demand. CCWD, ECCID, and the City of Antioch maintain surface water intakes in the Delta. Delta Diablo and City of Brentwood supply recycled water to residential, industrial municipal customers in their respective regions. As discussed in Section 2.7, water supply in the Delta is already unreliable and changes in seasonal runoff patterns from climate change are likely to lead to reduced water supply reliability. Changes in precipitation and temperature in the Sierra Nevada region affect the timing and quantity of tributary flows. This affects the availability of fresh surface water for the region. Contributing factors include a reduced Sierra snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and extended drought periods punctuated by intense precipitation events. Climate change could result in less storage in upstream CVP/SWP reservoirs, which in turn could reduce flows into the Delta during the summer and fall. Although some agencies in the ECCC region are not CVP/SWP contractors and divert from the Delta under their own water right, the availability of high-quality freshwater in the Delta is heavily dependent on the operation of CVP/SWP reservoirs; therefore, surface water supply for the region could be affected by changes in snowpack and upstream reservoir operations. There is concern from the region’s water supply agencies that two of their six water supply intakes could become threatened by climate change-related sea-level rise. The two intakes of concern are CCWD’s Mallard Slough intake and the City of Antioch’s intake. Sea-level rise has the potential to inundate infrastructure (making it unusable) and causing increasingly brackish or saline water to reach the Delta intakes (reducing water quality) more frequently and for longer periods of time throughout the year. The region has implemented adaptation measures that address the impacts of climate change to its surface water supplies. CCWD operates the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, described further in Section 2.6.2 Infrastructure, as a blending water source to offset saline water conditions that may get more frequent with climate change impacts. CCWD also operates its multiple Delta intakes strategically to maximize water quality and pumping costs, including consideration of seasonal pumping limitations. Other Delta users are pursuing diversifying their supplies or creating more robust supply options. For example, the City of Antioch intends to construct a desalination plant to be able to use its water right and Delta supply year-round, thereby adapting to the effects of climate change on its Delta surface water supply. Delta Diablo and City of Brentwood are additionally expanding their abilities to supply recycling water to appropriate users. Proposition 84 IRWM funding has been used to benefit and build these projects, further supporting the region’s adaptation measures against impacts of climate change. As additional impacts of climate change to the region are identified, agencies may implement additional adaptations to water management systems as necessary. Groundwater Many of the agencies in ECCC rely on groundwater to blend with surface water to augment local water supply. The City of Brentwood, ECCID, DWD, and the City of Pittsburg use groundwater Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-72 March 2019 East Contra Costa County wells to supplement surface supplies and increase reliability. Changes in local hydrology could affect natural recharge to the local groundwater aquifers and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped sustainably over the long term. Decreased inflow from runoff, increased evaporative losses, and warmer and shorter winter seasons can alter natural recharge of groundwater. Potential reductions in surface water availability in the Delta as described above could lead to more reliance on local groundwater. Furthermore, sea-level rise may impact groundwater quality due to impacts from saline groundwater intrusion from the Delta. Recharge projects and active participation in Sustainable Groundwater Management Planning Act requirements will assist the region in determine actions to mitigate for and adapt to climate change impacts to groundwater supplies. 2.9.3. Water Demand It is likely that water demand (agricultural, municipal, industrial, recreational, and environmental) in the region will increase as a result of more frequent, longer, and more extreme heat waves; increased air temperatures; increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels; changes in precipitation, winds, humidity, atmospheric aerosol and ozone levels; and population growth. Increased water demand would put even greater strain on the region’s limited water supply. Regional water shortages could occur if the region’s supply is not able to keep up with demand, a problem exasperated from both the supply and demand sides by a changing climate. Much of the region’s seasonal pattern of demand is due to higher agricultural and landscaping irrigation demands during the summer months. Warming temperatures and heat waves will likely intensify the need for summer irrigation and exacerbate the seasonal demand differential. Agricultural water demands include those associated with crop irrigation and livestock consumption, both of which represent important business interests in the region. Changes in temperature along with changes in the atmosphere’s composition have the potential to either increase or decrease irrigation water needs. Elevated carbon dioxide levels may increase crop growth as photosynthesis responds positively to extra carbon dioxide. However, this positive response is not sustained because photosynthesis is eventually reduced. Additionally, elevated carbon dioxide levels also generally cause stomata to close (Baldocci and Wong, 2006); this effect leads to water savings by reducing transpiration at the leaf scale. At the field scale, however, these savings become much less significant and larger crops growing in a warmer climate are expected to use more water (Reclamation, 2011). 2.9.4. Flooding ECCC is especially vulnerable to flooding due to levee overtopping or failure. Much of the infrastructure in the region is at or below mean sea level, while land protected by independently maintained levees are at risk for increased levee failure and flood damage. Failures could lead to disruption or changes in water supply reliability, water treatment, and wastewater treatment and disposal. CCWD, ECCID, and the City of Antioch have water intake facilities that could be at risk if sea level increases significantly. Similarly, some wastewater treatment plant (Delta Diablo and ISD’s) facilities are located in regions that could be at risk of flooding given sea-level rise. In recent decades, the mean sea level trend has been an increase of 2.08 millimeters/year at the nearest tidal gauge to the region (Port Chicago, located in the San Francisco Bay) (NOAA, 2012). Mean sea level is expected to rise by approximately 12.3 to 60.8 centimeters by the Year 2050 at the Golden Gate Bridge (NRC, 2012). Because the Delta is tidally influenced, it would be affected by rising sea levels. A rise in sea level would increase hydrostatic pressure on levees currently Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-73 March 2019 East Contra Costa County protecting low-lying land in the Delta, much of which is already at or below sea level7. These effects threaten to cause potentially catastrophic levee failures that could inundate communities, damage infrastructure, and interrupt water supplies throughout the region and statewide (Hanak and Lund, 2008). Where levee and flood protection projects are identified, the region may prioritize funding for these projects to assist the region in adapting to these climate change impacts. Additionally, it is common for flood channels and drains to sit adjacent to disadvantaged communities, further magnifying the need to identify proactive projects to prevent catastrophic flooding impacts. 2.9.5. Water Quality A changing climate will likely create challenges for the management of water quality in the region. The majority of water supply in the region is from the Delta, which has several water quality concerns, as described in Section 2.9.1. These water quality challenges could be exacerbated by climate change. There may be potential water quality problems associated with sea-level rise, such as increased salinity in receiving waters and areas serving drinking water intakes. There may also be issues associated with higher river and stream flows caused by increased storm events, such as an increase in turbidity and in the pollutants transported by mobilized sediment. Disinfectant byproduct precursors tend to spike during storm events (DWR 2001) and this problem could be more common if storm frequency increases. A decrease in annual precipitation would result in higher concentrations of contaminants during droughts and lower dissolved oxygen (DO). As noted in Section 2.9.1, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir is used as a blending facility to improve the quality of water delivered to customers in the late summer and fall, when Delta water quality is lowest. If the amount of water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir during summer and fall decreases, this could limit the blending capabilities of the reservoir. As noted as well in Section 2.9.1, failure of the Delta levee system could dramatically increase levels of chloride, bromide, and total organic carbon in Delta water and potentially render that water supply unusable for municipal or agricultural purposes. As noted earlier in this section, the risk of Delta levee system failure increases under climate change conditions. Potential changes in Delta water quality associated with climate change could increase the disinfection byproducts such as bromate. Bromide in the source water is transformed into bromate during ozonation. The level of bromate formation is largely dependent on the amount of total organic carbon and bromide concentration in the source water. Bromate is suspected of contributing to kidney and thyroid cancer in humans. Sea-level rise could increase the intrusion of sea water and the bromide concentration of the Delta. Additionally, decreased freshwater flows into the Delta could increase organic matter. Combined, these two potential outcomes of climate change could increase bromate formation during the treatment of Delta waters; minimization or avoidance may necessitate changes to treatment technologies in ECCC. Warmer temperatures associated with climate change could also lead to increased taste and odor events triggered by algal blooms; which are characterized by water quality changes during the spring and summer, such as increases in DO and DO saturation, pH, and total organic nitrogen. 7 Many Delta islands have subsided 15 to 25 feet below sea level (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2011). Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-74 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Many of the surface water treatment plants in the region are designed to address taste and odor events through preozonation. Although use of higher ozone dosages to control taste and odor events must also consider the need to control bromate formation. 2.9.6. Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerability The Delta is listed as one of the top 10 habitats to save for endangered species in a warming world in a report prepared by the Endangered Species Coalition (Endangered Species Coalition, 2011). The Delta provides habitat for hundreds of species of fish, birds, and other wildlife and enables the migration of Pacific salmon from spawning grounds in the upper reaches of cold-water rivers to the saline oceans and back again (Endangered Species Coalition, 2011). Regional climate- sensitive populations include salmonid species, migratory bird species, and wetland species (CEC, 2008). Projected climate changes are likely to result in a number of interrelated and cascading ecosystem impacts. At present, most projected impacts are primarily associated with increases in air and water temperatures and include increased stress on fisheries that are sensitive to a warming aquatic habitat. Warmer temperatures can compromise the health and resilience of aquatic and terrestrial species and make it more challenging for them to compete with nonnative species for survival. Competition for habitat and food will intensify with climate change. Further, climate change effects could compound with non-climate stressors, such as land-use changes, wildfire, and agriculture to cause habitat fragmentation at increasing rates, thus contributing to species extinction (USFWS, 2009). Changes in seasonal runoff patterns may place additional stress on native species by affecting, for example, adult and juvenile migrations. Increasing temperatures are likely to increase challenges for providing suitable habitat conditions for salmonid populations. Of specific concern within the region are Chinook salmon and steelhead, which prefer temperatures of less than 64.4 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in mountain streams, although these anadromous fish may tolerate higher temperatures for short periods (Bennett, 2005). Increased water temperatures could reduce the habitat suitability of California rivers for these species (Reclamation, 2011). Additionally, warmer air and water temperatures potentially could improve habitat for invasive species that outcompete natives. Invasive species, including various nonnative fish and plant species, are an ongoing issue within the region. Some invasive species, such as quagga mussels, may additionally impact maintenance of hydraulic structures. Further, climate changes could decrease the effectiveness of measures currently used to control invasive species (Hellman et al., 2008). Warmer water temperatures also could spur the growth of algae, which could result in eutrophic conditions in lakes and reservoirs, declines in water quality (Lettenmaier et al., 2008), and changes in species composition. Other warming-related impacts include northward shifts in the geographic range of various species, impacts on the arrival and departure of migratory species, amphibian population declines, and effects on pests and pathogens in ecosystems (Reclamation, 2011). Impacts on terrestrial ecosystems have also been observed, including changes in the timing and Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-75 March 2019 East Contra Costa County length of growing seasons, timing of species life cycles, primary production, and species distributions and diversity (CEC, 2009c). Additionally, the region’s significant recreational economy (boating, fishing, biking, and hiking) could be affected by changes to the ecosystem and wildlife habitat. 2.9.7. Energy In general, electricity production from hydroelectric power generation and other sources tend to be effected by weather patterns and temperature changes. Increases in peak energy demands throughout California and decreases in supply may decrease power supply reliability which in turn could alter or disrupt water diversions, water treatment, and wastewater disposal. The western U.S. energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, although not caused by climate change, demonstrated the gravity of unreliable supply. The portion of the region’s power supplies that come from systems with hydropower generation and hydroelectric generation as part of the utility portfolio is sensitive to potential climatic changes affecting the timing and magnitude of precipitation, runoff, and reservoir water levels. Direct impacts for ECCC may be energy reliability (brown outs) and cost. Water demands and production from conventional power plants located in the ECCC area can be expected to increase if out of area hydroelectric production decreases. Energy reliability is especially important for treatment and pumping operations. In addition to sensitivity to water based generation concerns, reduced reliability could occur with a variety of other climate change and climate change mitigation variables such as:  Availability of power supply sources (coal, other fuels) due to market availability or impediments to use (such as emissions concerns).  Extreme temperatures driving intense competition among power users.  Diminished local supplies (wind).  Damages to the delivery system and grid caused by fires and flood. 2.9.8. Additional Local Data The Regional Capacity Study, which was completed in 2014 by several agencies in the ECCC region, evaluated ways to optimize regional water treatment plant operations and untreated water supply, improve water supply reliability, and reduce treatment costs. The RCS included a water supply reliability evaluation that considered probable drought scenarios, including those that could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. Of the scenarios that were evaluated, the RCS determined that failures within the western delta levee system and a regional power outage would be most likely to create critical impacts to water quality and treated water supplies. Although prolonged droughts are a potential impact resulting from climate change, the RCS determined that a scenario that looked at drought conditions (loss of untreated water supply) was not necessary to carry forward in the analysis, because CCWD’s long-term water planning scenarios already outline alternative untreated water sources that would be required in the event of a three-year prolonged drought. Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-76 March 2019 East Contra Costa County As a result of the water supply reliability evaluation, the RCS recommended that operational changes and additional studies be pursued to potentially address regional issues, including those that could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. The results and recommendations of the RCS have been incorporated into this IRWM Plan. 2.9.9. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies ECCC IRWM Plan participants recognize the importance of managing for climate change in the region. Management strategies include both mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation involves actions to reduce GHG emissions, while adaptation involves responding to the effects of climate change. Mitigation strategies attempting to reduce production of GHG emissions already in place in the region include:  Consumer education  Conservation  Water and wastewater management  Green buildings  GHG reductions  Expansion of recycled water systems  Community involvement A potential adaptation strategy to increase water supply reliability is to develop infrastructure to tie into the water supply systems of nearby water agencies, such as East Bay Municipal Utility District, to reduce reliance on the Delta. Additionally, increasing recycled water usage will improve water supply reliability, since recycled water is not affected by hydrologic conditions. This will provide additional dry-year reliability for irrigation customers and other industrial users. Appendix E includes a detailed list and descriptions of ongoing and planned mitigation and adaptation actions in the region. Climate change mitigation and adaptation actions are also an important part of the IRWM planning process. GHG emissions were an important consideration in the project selection process, which is described in greater detail in Section 3.4.3. 2.10. Water Quality This section provides an overview of water quality concerns for the region’s Delta water supplies and groundwater supplies. A summary of the constituents of concern for these supplies is included in Table 2-12 and discussed in more detail in the paragraphs following. 2.10.1. Delta Water Quality Delta water quality is highly variable depending upon the season, the water year, and the intake location. During dry years and seasons, Delta supplies contain high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, and bromide. Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations in Delta supplies are also highly variable, with increases generally corresponding to periods of increased runoff. These concerns are discussed in detail in the Delta Region Drinking Water Quality Management Plan (DRDWQMP). The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is owned and operated by CCWD, and is used to improve the water quality delivered to its customers. Water is pumped into Los Vaqueros Reservoir during spring and early summer months when Delta water quality is good. During the late summer and fall, when Delta water quality is poor, Delta supplies are blended with the high-quality water stored in Los Vaqueros Reservoir to improve the water quality delivered to Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-77 March 2019 East Contra Costa County CCWD’s untreated and treated water customers. CCWD expanded the Los Vaqueros Reservoir capacity in 2012 from 100 TAF to 160 TAF. Table 2-12. Constituents of Concern for ECCC Source Waters Constituent of Concern Reason Regulatory Standard1 (Goal) Location Total Dissolved Solids Taste and odor Agricultural and industrial impacts Secondary Standard: 500 mg/L Delta Supplies, Groundwater, Recycled Water Total Organic Carbon Disinfection byproducts- THM, HAA precursor (public health concern) MCLs – THM: 80 µg/L HAA5: 60 µg/L Delta supplies Bromide Bromate precursor (public health concern) (CALFED Goal: 50 µg/L) Delta supplies Chloride Taste, corrosion Secondary Standard: 250 mg/L Delta supplies Iron and Manganese Filter deposits Rusty color Taste and odor Secondary Standards: Iron: 0.3 mg/L Manganese: 0.05 mg/L Groundwater Arsenic Bladder cancer Lung cancer MCL: 10 µg/L Groundwater Boron Reproductive toxicity Action level: 1 mg/L Groundwater Nitrate (as NO3) Public health concerns MCL: 45 mg/L Groundwater Note: 1 MCLs and Secondary Standards are found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations Key: µg/L = micro grams per liter CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ECCC = East Contra Costa County HAA = Haloacetic acid MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level mg/L = milligrams per liter NO3 = Nitrate THM = Trihalomethane The quality of Delta water is dependent on maintaining the Delta levee system as well as land and water management activities throughout the Delta and its larger watershed. Failure of the Delta levee system could dramatically increase levels of chloride, bromide, and TOC in the water and potentially render the water supply unusable for municipal or agricultural purposes. Similarly, changes in Delta land-use and water management practices, including many identified by CALFED and the BDCP (discussed below), could increase levels of undesirable constituents at ECCC intake locations. ECCC is particularly vulnerable to these changes since Delta water makes up the majority of the region’s water supply. The RCS analyzed potential operational impacts that could take place in the region as a result of Delta levee failure, including water quality impacts. The RCS recommended that additional studies be conducted to analyze potential impacts of TOC and bromide on treatment capabilities as these water quality constituents could potentially impact the region’s ability to treat and deliver water in the event of a Delta levee failure. Delta Operations The majority of the ECCC region’s water supply comes from the Delta. Changes in Delta operations by the State or federal government may impact water supply and water quality within the ECCC area. Therefore, the RWMG is tracking the progress of efforts in the Delta, including the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP is a planning document that addresses Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-78 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ecosystem and water management challenges in the Delta. The BDCP included an analysis of potential Delta levee failure scenarios (four-island and fourteen-island failure analysis), which could impact or interrupt supplies in the region. DWR is considering requiring that 2015 UWMPs analyze the impacts of a potential 36-month supply interruption resulting from a 14-island failure. While the 14-island failure is an extreme condition, it is possible that 2015 UWMPs will include such an analysis if required by DWR. 2.10.2. Groundwater Quality Several agencies, including the City of Pittsburg, DWD, and the City of Brentwood, use groundwater supplies to supplement Delta surface water supplies. Additionally, the Town of Discovery Bay and Bethel Island both utilize groundwater wells as their primary source of drinking water. Groundwater quality generally meets drinking water quality standards with some exceptions. For example, high concentrations of manganese and TDS have been observed in wells in the City of Pittsburg and DWD. Also, the City of Brentwood has experienced significant degradation of groundwater quality due to nitrate contamination. Small water systems on Bethel Island also report that arsenic is present at varying – and sometimes high – levels throughout the island. Key Constituents of Concern Nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, and hexavalent chromium are contaminants of primary concern for the State of California. As indicated in Table 2-12, nitrate and arsenic are present in some locations within the region’s groundwater supply and are considered to be contaminants of concern for the region. Hexavalent chromium is also present within the region but at levels low enough that the contaminant is not listed as a major constituent of concern. Nitrate and arsenic are both present in the region, though generally at very low levels relative to the regulatory Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) allowable for drinking water. Throughout the IRWM region, arsenic (with an MCL of 10 micrograms per liter) concentrations range from non- detectable levels to 5 micrograms per liter in Discovery Bay. On Bethel Island, the Beacon West small water system has reported arsenic levels of 26 micrograms per liter, which greatly exceeds the MCL. As a result, the Beacon West community abandoned its water supply well and in 2017 was connected to the DWD distribution system. Nitrate concentrations in the IRWM region are below the 45 mg/L MCL, with concentrations ranging from non-detectable to 23 mg/L in the City of Brentwood. Hexavalent chromium levels in the IRWM region are below the 10 microgram per liter, with maximum reported concentrations of 0.49 micrograms per liter from DWD and 8.2 micrograms per liter for the City of Brentwood. Perchlorate is not detected in the region. Impacts Caused by Contamination Currently, there are no water sources in the IRWM region that exceed the MCL of nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, and hexavalent chromium. As a result, there are no measureable or recorded impacts resulting from the constituents where they are present. Efforts to Address Contamination and Impacts The groundwater suppliers in the region continue to manage the groundwater basins and their supplies. Methods used to improve groundwater quality include blending with surface water, Chapter 2: Region Description IRWM Plan Update 2-79 March 2019 East Contra Costa County targeting deeper aquifers, and designing future wells with deep seals extending to confining zones to ensure source water protection. As with the example of the Beacon West community (described above), local water purveyors and IRWM participants collaborate with each other to resolve major water quality issues. To address potential groundwater quality degradation that could take place as a result of salt and nutrient loading from use of recycled water, agencies in the region have completed salinity analyses (Salt and Nutrient Management Plans) and others have participated in regional salinity management efforts such as the Central Valley Salinity Coalition. Information from the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary suggest that TDS and chloride levels are elevated in shallow groundwater wells closer to the shoreline, likely as a result of seawater intrusion. Quality of deep zone groundwater is similar to that of shallow groundwater, with higher TDS concentrations closer to Suisun Bay. However, because the deep groundwater wells are located further inland than the shallow aquifers, TDS concentrations appear somewhat lower in the deep aquifers than in the shallow aquifers. Given limited available groundwater quality data for the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin, the SNMP Summary recommends additional monitoring to determine the basin’s assimilative capacity, identify potential loading sources, manage recycled water and fertilizer use, and prepare a full SNMP for the basin. 2.10.3. Recycled Water Quality Recycled water is engineered for safety and reliability so that the quality of the water is more predictable than many existing surface water and groundwater sources. In general, recycled water contains higher salinity content (reported as TDS) than potable water and is treated to suit its end use. For irrigation purposes, the rate at which salts accumulate in soils is an important factor in determining acceptable TDS levels. In addition, the salinity, sodium hazard (as determined by sodium adsorption ratio [SAR]), and potential toxicity to plant foliage and roots from other specific constituents are potential concerns. Sampling data for Delta Diablo recycled water supplies shows that these supplies are within acceptable ranges for landscape irrigation. For industrial users, specifically those that use cooling towers, improved recycled water quality, through advanced treatment, would lower water demand resulting in chemical and water purchase cost savings. In 2014 ISD completed a Salinity Pollution and Prevention Plan (SPPP) for its WRF, which analyzed potential sources of salinity (TDS and electrical conductivity [EC]), feasibility of source control methods, and ways of reducing salinity in WRF source water. The analysis found that self- regenerating water softeners (SRWS) are significant contributors to EC in ISD’s service area. As a result of this analysis, the SPPP recommended development of an ordinance to ban installation of new SRWS and outreach to help local residents understand salinity issues. With regards to water supply, the analysis found that high salinity in local groundwater wells (for Oakley and Bethel Island) are a large source of EC to ISD’s WRF; as such, the SPPP recommends working with water purveyors in the area to develop a better potable water supply for Bethel Island that will reduce salinity loads to the WRF. IRWM Plan Update 3-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 3. Plan Development This chapter presents the steps of the planning process and the outcomes for each. These outcomes include: objectives, resource management strategies, technical analyses, stakeholder involvement, project review process, and integration and coordination. The chapter describes the intention for the plan to be part of an ongoing process. It is considered by the ECWMA and regional stakeholders as a living document that will continue to be updated after the 2015 version. Planning Framework Background With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 1672, the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 (Act), the State of California affirmed the importance of IRWM. In this Act,1 the Legislature found and declared: “(a) Water is a valuable natural resource in California, and should be managed to ensure the availability of sufficient supplies to meet the state's agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs. It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage their available local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability of those supplies. (b) Improved coordination among local agencies with responsibilities for managing water supplies and additional study of groundwater resources are necessary to maximize the quality and quantity of water available to meet the state's agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs. (c) The implementation of the Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act of 2002 will facilitate the development of integrated regional water management plans, thereby maximizing the quality and quantity of water available to meet the state's water needs by providing a framework for local agencies to integrate programs and projects that protect and enhance regional water supplies.” The Act authorized regional water management groups to prepare and adopt a regional plan that addresses programs, projects, reports, or studies relating to water supply, water quality, flood protection, or related matters, over which any local public agency, that is a participant in that group, has authority to undertake. It also required the DWR, the State Water Board, the State Department of Health Services, or CALFED,2 as appropriate, to include in any set of criteria used to select the projects and programs they administer under specified provisions of law or under a specified Delta program a criterion that provides a benefit for qualified projects or programs. 1 Division 6 of the Water Code, Section 1. Part 2.2 (commencing with Section 10530) 2 CALFED responsibilities have transitioned to the Delta Stewardship Council, Resources Agency, and others Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The voters similarly affirmed the importance of these efforts via passage of four significant bond measures:  November 2002 – California voters pass Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, which provides $500 million (California Water Code [CWC] Section 79560-79565) to fund competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan.  November 2006 – California voters pass Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act, which provides $1 billion (PRC Section 75001-75130) for IRWM planning and implementation.  November 2006 – California voters pass Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act, which provides $300 million (PRC Section 5096.800- 5096.967) for IRWM stormwater flood management.  November 2014 – California votes pass Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which provides $7.5 billion statewide and $510 million to fund competitive grants for IRWM projects. California Water Plan Update 2005 featured IRWM as its Number 1 Initiative, describes its implementation as essential to the State’s future, and listed the following IRWM principles:  Use a broad, long-term perspective  Identify broad benefits, costs, and trade-offs  Promote sustainable resource management  Increase regional self-sufficiency  Increase regional drought preparedness  Use open forums that include all communities  Promote coordination and collaboration among local agencies and governments  Use sound science, best data, and local knowledge ECCC IRWM Plan 2013 Update Process As described in Section 2.2, ECWMA and its members understood, well before the passage of the 2002 Act, the importance of regional integrated planning. The preparation of the 2013 IRWM Plan Update evolved from this strong foundation and incorporated the process and required components of DWR’s IRWM Guidelines. Figure 3-1 illustrates the IRWMP update activities. During the update process, the ECWMA focused on setting regional objectives and establishing a transparent project review process. California Water Plan Update 2005 featured Integrated Regional Water Management Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This chapter describes in more detail how each component of the planning process was developed and how the components can be used into the future, to ensure a vital plan. Figure 3-1. IRWM Planning Process ECCC IRWM Plan 2015 Update Process After completion of a comprehensive update to the IRWM Plan in 2013, several of the ECWMA members finalized planning studies and technical documents of regional importance. The ECCC IRWM has received DWR funding for these technical studies as part of the Round 2 Planning Grant process and CCWD executed an agreement with DWR in early 2014. As such, in 2015 the IRWM Plan was once again updated, to include information about the results of regional planning studies and comprehensively include the results of these studies into the IRWM Plan. To honor the region’s commitment to stakeholder involvement and transparency, the 2015 IRWM Plan Update process also involved stakeholder outreach and refinement of the IRWM website to ensure that information about the 2015 Update is made publicly available for stakeholders and for DACs. ECCC IRWM Plan 2019 Update Process After passage of Proposition 1 in 2014, DWR updated the IRWM Guidelines in 2016. The 2016 IRWM Guidelines contain the general process, procedures, standards, and criteria that DWR will use to implement the Proposition 1 grant programs and review IRWM Plans. The 2016 IRWM Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Guidelines contain additional requirements for content of the IRWM Plan. As such, the East Contra Costa County IRWM Plan was updated in 2019 to satisfy the revised Guidelines. Because the region’s 2015 IRWM Plan update was so comprehensive, the 2019 update was minor, and focused on meeting the revised requirements of the 2016 IRWM Guidelines. The update was circulated to the IRWM region representatives and stakeholders for review and comment. The DWR approved, updated IRWM Plan will be available on the ECCC IRWM website. Objectives The ECCC IRWM region is almost entirely dependent on Delta water supply and all or a portion of the cities and unincorporated communities are located within the statutory Delta. This distinction is important as the Delta is a physical place with legally defined boundaries and requirements, which add to ECCC water management complexity. The Delta is a highly regulated and managed system providing both significant water supply and environmental benefits that are often in conflict. The Delta is also vulnerable to water quality impacts from a variety of natural and man-made causes such as drought, chemical spills, levee failure, and salt water intrusion. In 2015, the fourth consecutive dry year and a declared State-wide drought emergency, the ECCC IRWM participants all experienced severely reduced Delta supplies both from contractual reductions as well as poor water quality that limits use of intakes in the western Delta. ECCC IRWM goals and objectives reflect water management needs under normal, dry, and emergency conditions. Water Management Challenges The ECWMA explored water management issues that the region’s water resources managers and stakeholders face. ECWMA reached out to members of the public, local agencies and other stakeholders with an invitation to participate in the discussion and learn more about the update process. During a workshop in February 2012, participants identified regional and local problems, challenges, resource conflicts, and opportunities to collaborate. During the session, five broad categories of issues were identified. The 2015 IRWM Plan Update has been discussed with participating agencies at East County coordinating meetings. Within each broad category, participants identified both issues and regional needs. The information gathered during the session was then compiled for review and refinement by the ECWMA. Objectives Categories Ultimately, five overarching issues and needs, listed below, were refined into objectives categories for use by the ECWMA in preparing detailed planning objectives and metrics, and establishing project selection criteria. 1. Ensuring reliable water supply during normal, dry, and emergency conditions including droughts, achieving water quality goals and meeting water quality regulations. 2. Protection, restoration, and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources including upstream wetland and habitat restoration. 3. Funding for water-related planning and project implementation. 4. Stormwater and flood management. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 5. Water-related outreach and equitable distribution of resources in the region. In presenting the objectives in a list, the group expressly states the order does not imply that one issue or need is more important than another. The IRWM planning group views all objectives as important and to some extent inseparable. However, in 2015 a key priority has been the ongoing drought and the availability of water supply. The five objectives are discussed in more detail below. Water Quality and Reliable Supply The ECCC IRWM region is almost entirely dependent on Delta water supply. The CCWD has made substantial investments in water storage and water quality by expanding the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, constructing the Old and Middle rivers water intakes, and improving the Rock Slough Intake. Unreliable surface water supply, especially in dry years and during drought, continues to be a concern. Delta water supplies are subject to future Delta-wide influences (not controlled by the ECCC region) and can dramatically impact the quality and availability of surface water supplies for the region. As the most downstream user of Delta water supplies, the region is even more vulnerable to changes in water quality than other regions with Delta dependencies. In 2015 Antioch has not been able to take any surface water supply from its Delta intake due to poor water quality as a result of drought-impacted Delta flows. Similarly, water quality at CCWD’s Mallard Slough intake has rendered it unusable. Uncertainty in future water quality and supply for the region is associated with proposed future projects (such as the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan or BDCP), a fragile and somewhat unpredictable Delta ecosystem, climate change, and potential levee failure. An associated concern is the ability of the region to meet future water quality treatment and discharge regulations. A secure and reliable supply of water is a priority for the ECCC region. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan established strategies for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) targets and identified priority actions to help the State achieve those goals. Among these strategies was a goal to invest in communities to reduce emissions. There are several water supply challenges in the ECCC region where targeted objectives and financial investments – such as from the IRWM grant programs – would facilitate the region in meeting its water supply reliability and GHG emissions goals. Current regional challenges include:  Availability and utilization of water conservation programs for residential, commercial, and industrial water users,  Aging infrastructure,  Implementation of agricultural efficiency measures, and  Operational energy use and use of renewable energy. A small group enjoys a hike on the levee at the Dutch Slough Wetlands Restoration Project. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The IRWM Plan objectives will consider these challenges and identify metrics to support CARB’s effort to reduce greenhouse gases. IRWM projects may also be developed to target these challenges, and the project scoring criteria and review factors developed in this IRWMP will consider how projects address these objectives. Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Protection, restoration, and enhancement of the watersheds that drain to the Delta, the Delta ecosystem, and other environmental resources are important objectives for the region. The conservation of the region’s watersheds protects the local hydrology. Protected, restored, and enhanced ecosystems provide important services to the built and natural communities in the region. The watersheds naturally attenuate flooding, reduce stormwater and polluted runoff, and limit creek erosion and sediment loading into downstream water bodies (the Delta). Additionally, these protected habitats support State- and federally protected plant and animal species. Tree and plant growth in these protected environments also promotes biological carbon sequestration. Water-infrastructure-related projects within the Delta often require wetland mitigation and these credits can be difficult and costly to obtain. Delta infrastructure projects are not covered by the ECCC HCP. That said, the region has several integrated ecosystem efforts already underway and CCWD has been able to self-mitigate for a number of its projects or use third-party mitigation companies. ECWMA agencies participated in the ECCC HCP/NCCP. This Regional Conservation Plan was the basis for the biological/environmental components of the Functionally Equivalent IRWMP the ECCC region previously adopted. This HCP/NCCP provides regional conservation and development guidelines to protect and restore natural resources while improving and streamlining the permit process for endangered species and wetland regulations. By proactively addressing the long-term conservation needs, the HCP/NCCP strengthens local control over land use and provides greater flexibility in meeting other needs such as housing, transportation, and economic growth in the area. Some environmental protection and restoration projects are isolated, but they have the ability to have regional benefits on water quality, special status species, and recreation, as well as targeted locations where carbon sequestration is an opportunity for reducing greenhouse gases. The ECCC IRWMP identifies a number of multi-objective projects are closely tied to other IRWMP objectives. These projects protect the region’s ecosystem while providing other benefits. Two examples of these multi-objective projects are: 1. The Dutch Slough Wetlands Restoration3 project, a collaborative effort of DWR and others, offers an opportunity for large-scale tidal marsh restoration, habitat enhancement, and open space preservation in the rapidly urbanizing area of eastern Contra Costa County and adjacent to the unlined portion of the Canal. 3 Photos: http://www.dutchslough.org/events_meetings.html Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2. The Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Control project is an effort of CCCFCWCD, ECCCHC, and Knightsen to acquire property and restore wetlands that will function to attenuate flood waters. Flood waters regularly inundate the community of Knightsen, such as in 1997 shown in Figure 3-2. The project will protect and restore habitat, address flooding, and provide recreational opportunities. Figure 3-2. Ecosystem Restoration can Attenuate Flooding Like that Experienced in Knightsen in 1997 Funding for Water‐Related Planning and Project Implementation Funding for water resources planning and implementation is a challenge for the region. In the mid- 2000s the ECWMA began to more actively work together understanding significant State bond funds may become available via grants to support projects in integrated regional water management plans. In 2007, the region received a significant $12.5 million Proposition 50-based grant that supported numerous projects within the region. The region has also obtained close to $15 million in Proposition 1E-based grant funding. The region has not been as successful seeking Proposition 84-based implementation grants. The bond language for this proposition allocated funds by the macro DWR regions described in the CWP. The ECCC IRWMP is within the allocation for the San Joaquin Region and there are 12 other IRWMPs within the region (including four IRWM regions that overlap into the San Joaquin funding region). Funds from Proposition 84have been limited, with two ECCC IRWMP entities receiving approximately $1.7 million from Round 1 grant funding and one of the ECCC entities receiving approximately $0.43 million from Round 2 grant funding. The region submitted a drought grant request (2014) and a final round IRWM Proposition 84 Implementation grant request (2015). The group will also work to consider applying for Proposition 1 funding made available for IRWM programs. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County For water service providers, the drought has resulted in lower retail water demands. The reduced water usage has impacted revenues for these agencies, creating variable or insufficient revenue streams. While the voters have approved Proposition 1, constituents have been largely unwilling to support new tax or bond measures for water infrastructure-related funding. Additional funding issues are a result of the competitive nature of receiving State and federal funding, limited available funds, and potential schedule delays associated with grant funding. Stormwater and Flood Management The ECCC IRWM region is located between the western Delta and Mount Diablo. It includes substantial low-elevation acreage. The 2013 California Future Report a joint report of DWR and the USACE identified eastern Contra Costa as having a significant acreage of floodplains subject to 100-year flood events. A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4 percent chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100- year period. Both localized floods from stormwater runoff and regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure are real threats to communities and the region as a whole. Of the past 11 president-declared natural disasters in the region, all but one (an earthquake) involved storms and flooding. Increasing urbanization has also increased the consequences of flood and a changing hydrograph resulting from more intense storm events has put pressure on the flood control infrastructure. The flood control facilities protect communities, businesses, and agriculture and are integral to the built environment in ECCC. Flood infrastructure is reaching or exceeding its expected life and is likely to need significant repair or rebuilding over the next 40 years. Climate change is projected to even future increase these risks, particularly related to more extreme weather events potentially swamping existing flood control systems. Earthquakes, which are already a known regional risk, pose an additional risk to the ECCC levees that are essential for both water supply and flood protection. Water‐Related Outreach and Equitable Distribution of Resources in the Region A final set of concerns relates to water-related outreach within the area. Outreach is essential for building voluntary citizen action that is necessary for the successful implementation of many of the IRWM programs. For example, community action is integral to water conservation programs, reducing pollutants entering storm drains, and volunteer creek restoration activities. Selected Major ECCC Flood Events 1861–1862 Winter, The Great Flood 1955–1956 December–January, Christmas Flood 1962–1963 December–February 1968–1969 December–February, Winter '69 Storms 1970 April 1980 January–February, Delta Levee Break, Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta 1982–1983 November–March, Winter Storms 1990 May 1995 January–April, 1995 Christmas Flood 1998 January–March, El Niño Floods 2006 February 3–April 1, Spring Storms Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County For example, the FOMCW conducts an annual Marsh Creek Cleanup Day at seven locations along Marsh Creek and its tributaries. Volunteers clean trash and debris from nearly 15 miles of the creek in partnership with the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the California Coastal Commission. In 2012, more than 600 volunteers turned out to remove approximately 8,500 pounds of debris from the creek, and recycled more than 1,000 pounds of debris. Beyond building an environmental stewardship ethic, outreach is necessary for residents to fully understand the regional water context, and particularly the regional dependence on the Delta. Ongoing efforts for communication and engagement will allow residents to better evaluate the need for investments in water infrastructure improvements and participate in water governance. It is also important to recognize the substantial (18 percent, recently down from 23 percent) regional DAC population of the East Contra Costa County Region. One example is feedback related to ways to overcome limited access to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation or infrastructure needs. Special steps are needed to ensure disadvantaged communities have access to the regional water decision-making process. Appendix F includes additional details about the issues and regional needs. Creating Measurable Objectives With an understanding of the regional water management issues, the ECWMA had the necessary information to set objectives for the IRWM Plan (see related planning hierarchy in Figure 3-3). Objectives establish the desired outcomes of the IRWM Plan. Clearly defined and measurable objectives inform development of appropriate, innovative actions and project selection criteria. A measureable objective describes an outcome that can be either quantitatively or qualitatively evaluated. Measureable objectives allow the region to determine if progress is being made and/or an objective has been reached. A preliminary list of potential objectives and metrics was generated from the outreach meeting held in January, discussions with member agencies, the 2005 Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan (FEIRWM Plan), other regional, and local plans. A volunteer adds trash to a growing stack of debris collected during the 2011 Marsh Creek Cleanup Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 3-3. Planning Hierarchy In March 2012, ECWMA conducted a second workshop to refine the regional objectives. No single objective was determined to be higher priority than the others. However, there are multiple sets of related objectives. Related objectives were grouped into topics to represent one priority for implementation. A single objective could fall into several topics, for example, maintaining Delta levees could assist with multiple topics, including flood control and Delta ecosystem protection. The ECWMA and its members felt that this list of objectives was comprehensive enough that, when implemented, the objectives would help them address their water management issues. The objectives and metrics for the Water-Quality-Related Regulations and Water Supply Reliability Category are illustrated in Figure 3-4. A full list of the categories, objectives, and metrics is shown by topic in Table 3-1 on the following pages. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 3-4. Planning Hierarchy for Water Quality and Supply Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics Topic Objective Metric (Quantitative or Qualitative) Water Quality and Related Regulations  Protect/improve source water quality  Meet SMCLs for salts in (blended) raw water at all times  Action level for Giardia in source water to treatment plants is 1 cyst/liter  Understand how Los Vaqueros Reservoir affects hardness and other water quality parameters of water stored in the reservoir  Extend treated water service to areas using poor quality groundwater, especially DAC areas  Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality  Meet all drinking water quality requirements (e.g., MCLs, distribution system monitoring)  Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality  Meet all recycled water quality requirements in accordance with the intended use (Title 22 or advanced treatment)  Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality  Comply with CASGEM  Complete GMP  Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Comply with:  NPDES permits for individual dischargers  East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit (Order R5-2010-0102)  San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order R2-2009-0074)  Likely future nutrient limits in discharge permits for the Delta  Likely future salinity limits in discharge permits for Central Valley Water Board (Region 5)  Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta  Reduce stormwater discharges to the Delta Stormwater and Flood Management  Manage local stormwater  Compliance with ECCC Municipal NPDES Permit (Order R5-2010-0102)  Compliance with Contra Costa Clean Water Program  Consistency with Contra Costa County’s 50-Year Plan  Inspect or conduct condition assessment of 5-10% of existing stormwater infrastructure per year  Improve regional flood risk management  Achieve a 200-year level of protection for urban areas  Achieve a 100-year level of protection for small communities  Improve level of protection for Ag/rural  Coordinate with county Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics (contd.) Topic Objective Metric (Quantitative or Qualitative) Water Supply Reliability  Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination  Increase recycled water deliveries  Investigate desalination  Increase water conservation and water use efficiency  Increase residential, commercial and industrial water conservation programs  Comply with SB X7-7 20 x 2020 conservation goal  Repair and/or replace 2% of aging infrastructure per year  Determine whether Ag efficiency measures are relevant, and if so, increase Ag water efficiency  Increase water transfers  Contribute to CCWD’s water supply reliability goal to meet 100% of demands in normal years and a minimum of 85% of demands during extended droughts  Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure  Enhance understanding (location, availability, blending, etc.) of existing interties (such as was done in the 2014 Regional Capacity Study)  Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use)  Develop additional groundwater capacity within basin safe yields, once they are determined  Estimate Ag groundwater pumping  Comply with CASGEM  Complete GMP Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources  Protect, restore and enhance habitat in the Delta and connected waterways4  Protect, restore and enhance the watersheds that feed and contribute to the Delta Ecosystem  Achieve wetland restoration and preservation goals of ECCC HCP/NCCP  Consider climate change adaptation in all enhancement/restoration strategies  Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources  Work collaboratively with ECCC HCP/NCCP on development of all future IRWM Plan projects  Comply with CEQA/NEPA for all applicable projects  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions  Reduce operational energy use by 5%  Consider climate change adaptation in all mitigation strategies  Protect Delta ecosystem against habitat disruption due to emergencies, such as levee failure  [See flood management]  Increase shoreline access for subsistence fishing and recreation”  Reduce illegal activities (trespassing) related to subsistence fishing and recreation 4 This includes all waterways, not just those in the statutory Delta, as all the waterways drain to the Delta. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-1. ECCC Region Objectives and Metrics (contd.) Topic Objective Metric (Quantitative or Qualitative) Funding for Water-Related Planning and Project Implementation  Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water  Maintain or reduce unit cost of treating and conveying water  Maximize use of existing infrastructure  Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding  Collaborate on projects, inter- or intra-regionally  Update prioritization process regularly to keep it relevant (regional, integrated, project readiness, fundability, available cost share)  Encourage cooperation from smaller entities and stakeholders, including assistance with matching funds  Use financial resources strategically to maximize return on investment on grant applications for project development/implementation  Implement decision-making process in pursuing grant opportunities (regional, integrated, project readiness, fundability, available cost share, and stated DWR priorities)  Develop a funding pool to self-fund regional efforts such as grant applications, outreach, website development, and other planning activities  Reinitiate program to collect annual regional fees using ECWMA funding mechanism  Implement decision-making structure for using the funds  Increase public awareness of project importance to pass ballot measures or obtain matching funds through other means that require public support  Ensure projects with existing matching funds are prioritized to maximize regional funding opportunities.  [see Other Aspects topic] Outreach  Identify and engage DACs  Regularly refine DAC maps and outreach strategies based on new available data.  Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process  Increase number of projects in the IRWM Plan that benefit DACs  Promote equitable distribution of proposed projects across the region  Increase geographic distribution of IRWM Plan projects  Increase awareness of water resource management issues and projects with the general public  Develop educational/outreach material for the website and other venues Key: Ag = agriculture CASGEM = California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CCWD = Contra Costa Water District CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act DAC = Disadvantaged Community Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ECCC = East Contra Costa County ECCC HCP/NCCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan ECWMA = East County Water Management Association GMP = Groundwater Management Plan IRWM = integrated regional water management MCL = maximum contaminant level NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SB X7-7 = Senate Bill X7-7 SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Living Document Using the established, published objectives, the region’s stakeholders can work to find synergies and efficiencies in water resources planning and project development. The 2015 IRWM Plan Update is designed to produce a living document intended to add/delete projects from funding lists, adjust goals and objectives, and add member agencies as the region changes and the plan is implemented. Over time the ECWMA will need to reexamine regional objectives in light of changed conditions in the economy, environment, or changes in the region’s priorities. The need for this in the ECCC region is perhaps more pronounced than might be found in other regions due to the evolving context of Delta management and the extent to which the future of the region is tied to its water source. Objectives may need to be revised as a result of:  Shifts in environmental conditions or water quality  To address new regulations or shifts in State policy (such as state mandates for water conservation requirements during periods of drought)  It becomes evident, during implementation, that the region is unable to realistically or reasonably achieve the established objectives. It is anticipated that the 2015 ECCC IRWM Plan will be further updated to capture implementation grant work once funded projects have been completed. Beyond that, until the next formal update or amendment to the IRWM Plan, the objectives and the intent of the region are established and available to help guide project development. Resource Management Strategies The ECWMA considered the strategies and approaches required to address the region’s objectives. DWR guidelines require the IRWM Plan to document the range of Resource Management Strategy(ies) (RMS) considered to meet the IRWM objectives and identify which RMSs were incorporated into the IRWM Plan. The effects of climate change on the IRWM region must factor into the consideration of RMSs. To be considered, RMSs must include those found in Volume 2 of the CWP Update 2009. Additionally, in October 2014 DWR released initial volumes of the CWP Update 2013, which includes three new RMSs, all of which are incorporated into this ECCC IRWM Plan Update. RMSs are defined as “a project, program, or policy that helps local agencies and governments manage their water, and related resources.” These are referred to as the tool kit of the CWP. The goal of the toolkit is to encourage a region to consider and, if possible, build a diversified portfolio of water management strategies to address needs and objectives. DWR understands these RMSs are already being used, but wants to encourage a methodical assessment of how regional options for diversification have been considered. The list of RMSs was shared with the ECWMA and stakeholders to consider when developing projects. Of the 335 individual tools described in the CWP 2009 RMS section, the ECWMA identified 24 with potential for use in meeting the IRWM Plan objectives, plus the three new CWP 2013 RMSs. Appendix G includes the full list of resource management strategies, the assessment 5 There are 28 Resource Management Strategies in CWP 2009; however, several of the strategies contain multiple tools. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County of applicability to the region, and the analysis of why or why not the tools could be applied. The RMSs moved forward for consideration in the ECCC IRWM Plan are listed in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. ECCC Applicable RMS List 1. Agricultural Lands Stewardship 2. Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 3. Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage 4. Conveyance – Delta 5. Conveyance – Regional/local 6. Desalination 7. Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution 8. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing) 9. Ecosystem Restoration 10. Flood Risk Management 11. Irrigated Land Retirement 12. Land Use 13. Matching Quality to Use 14. Pollution Prevention 15. Recharge Area Protection 16. Recycled Municipal Water 17. Salt and Salinity Management 18. Surface Storage – CALFED 19. Surface Storage – Regional/Local 20. System Reoperation 21. Urban Runoff Management 22. Urban Water Use Efficiency 23. Water Transfers 24. Water-Dependent Recreation 25. Watershed Management 26. Sediment Management 27. Water and Culture 28. Outreach and Education Key: CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program ECCC = East Contra Costa County RMS = Resource Management Strategy Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation As described in the Handbook, the CWP RMS can be used to help the region adapt to climate change impacts and implement mitigation strategies to reduce and minimize GHG emissions. The results of the climate change vulnerability assessment performed for the region are described in Section 2-9 of this IRWM Plan; vulnerabilities and potential impacts to the region due to climate change are described in that section. The applicable RMS were evaluated for their potential to help the region prepare and respond to climate change through adaptation and mitigation actions. The RMS evaluation provided in Appendix G provides an analysis of how each applicable RMS addresses region-specific climate change impacts, including adaptation strategies and GHG reduction and mitigation efforts. Through implementation of the IRWM projects, the applicable RMS will assist the region and participating agencies with accomplishing the objectives of the IRWM plan and addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. A review of the IRWM Projects was performed, which were then compared to the applicable RMS identified by the region and grouped by IRWM objective. Table 3-3 illustrates the relationship between the RMSs and proposed ECCC projects. This type of analysis can illustrate the concentration of RMSs that projects support, and alternatively can be used to identify where gaps exist in IRWM objective coverage. As indicated by Table 3-3, the IRWM-identified projects adequately represent the IRWM objectives, and are supported by the RMSs applicable to the region. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-3. ECCC IRWM Plan Projects – Resources Management Strategies vs. Objective Categories6 6 Table 3-3 represents the Objectives vs Resource Management Strategies analysis of the ECCC IRWM projects that were adopted into the 2015 IRWM Plan update. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Review Process The DWR IRWM Plan Guidelines require a process or processes to select projects for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. The selection process(es) must include the following components:  Procedures for submitting a project to the RWMG (ECWMA)  Procedures for reviewing projects considered for inclusion into the IRWM Plan  How the project contributes to the IRWM Plan objectives  How the project is related to resource management strategies selected for use in the IRWM Plan  Technical feasibility of the project  Specific benefits to DAC water issues  Environmental justice considerations  Project costs and financing This section describes the ECWMA process to collect, review, and maintain the region’s list of projects to address all the requirements set forth in the IRWM Guidelines. The process was presented and accepted at a workshop attended by the ECWMA and stakeholders on July 11, 2012. Project Submission To be considered in the IRWM Plan, project proponents initially submitted candidate projects using the region’s website (described in Section 3.6, Stakeholder Involvement) in 2012. The website contains information about why submitting a project could be beneficial, how projects will be evaluated, and instructions for how to submit. Submitting a new project requires providing a valid e-mail address and completing an online form with information about the project; the form may be saved, revisited, and edited until the user clicks “Submit.” Once submitted, an IRWM administrator acknowledges the project and the information is moved into the project database. Select information about the projects in the database can be viewed by website visitors in map or list format. The online project submission form was developed in accordance with DWR’s IRWM Guidelines, with the purpose of collecting information needed to comply with the specified project review process. The requested information included:  Project sponsor/proponent information  Location  Description  Partners  Stakeholder involvement  Regional objectives met  Program preferences met Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Statewide priorities met  RMSs used  Status  Costs and funding  Addressing needs of DACs, EJ, climate change  Data management To get an initial list of projects, the ECWMA held a formal “Call for Projects” from May 31 through September 20, 2012. The ECWMA met to discuss the projects on September 25, 2012, and agreed that projects may continue to be submitted through the region’s website. For the IRWM Plan Update, an October 2012, date was used for evaluation and analysis of the 54 projects. With the list of projects gathered during this period, 54 projects, from 14 different proponents, were included for this plan analysis. Additional calls for projects will occur as needed and additional plans were added for consideration as part of the Round 2 Implementation Grant process. This flexibility is encouraged as packages of projects are more likely to result in integrated and multi- objective approaches. Note: During 2014-2015 the East County IRWM website has not allowed participants to submit projects through the website. Instead, interested parties are asked to review the project at an East County coordinating meeting or to prepare a project form that can be submitted to all East County participants. Assuming no objections or issues with a proposed project, it can then be included as part of the East County IRWM Plan. The website is being upgraded and will again include a feature allowing interested parties to submit projects via an electronic database. Project Review Factors Many project review factors are considered for evaluating projects for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. As noted above, the IRWM Guidelines prescribe certain review factors, and the ECWMA and its members include additional factors that reflect its regional planning priorities. Review factors are grouped into three categories: 1. Project Score – Projects are given points by how well they met the region’s objectives, the State’s program preferences and statewide priorities, and a set of additional review factors, including improvements for DACs, EJ, and GHG reductions. 2. RMS Diversification Score – Projects are given points by their ability to diversify the number of RMSs considered. 3. Implementation Considerations – Information about the projects’ readiness and economic feasibility is also collected. Each of the review factors are described below and shown in Figure 3-5. Each category of review factors (score, RMS diversification, and implementation considerations) needs to be considered in tandem when evaluating projects to get a complete picture of the merit of a particular project. As grant or other funding opportunities arise, the ECWMA and its members will use all three factors to determine its highest priority projects. For instance, if there is an IRWM implementation grant Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County funding opportunity, it is not as simple as taking the projects with the highest scores because they may not be geographically diverse, they all may be a similar type of project, they all may be from one proponent, or they may not all be ready to proceed. Therefore, a project’s score is only one- third of the story and a “high” score does not guarantee a project will advance, just as a “low” score does not eliminate a project from future considerations. Project Scoring Criteria Each project will be evaluated based on its contributions to meet the following regional objectives and statewide priorities and preferences with regional significance:  Regional Objectives – Section 3.2.2 describes the region’s objectives. Some objectives will be implemented through the IRWM Program as a whole and are not relevant to individual projects, but most of the objectives were used to evaluate candidate projects.  IRWM Program Preferences – The IRWM Program Preferences are published in the IRWM Guidelines. These are preferences for selecting proposals for grant funding, and therefore represent what the State ultimately prefers to implement through its IRWM Program. Certain preferences are relevant to individual projects, while others are relevant to the IRWM planning process. Projects that address more preferences are more likely to align with the State’s IRWM goals and rank favorably in grant funding opportunities.  Statewide Priorities – A subset of the IRWM Program Preferences, Statewide Priorities were included in the review criteria for the same reasons.  Other IRWM Guideline Review Factors – Several review factors suggested in the IRWM Guidelines are not explicitly covered in the above considerations, but are appropriate to consider when scoring project merits. These project scoring criteria are shown in Table 3-4, followed by a discussion of the numeric approach used to score each project. Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria Topic Project Scoring Criteria Regional Objectives Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Increase water transfers Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria (contd.) Topic Project Scoring Criteria Protection, restoration and Enhancement of Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Protect, enhance, and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Protect, restore, and enhance habitat in the watersheds that contribute to the delta ecosystem Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Protect Delta ecosystem against habitat disruption due to emergencies, such as levee failure Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water. Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding Increase public awareness of project importance to pass ballot measures or obtain matching funds through other means that require public support Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Improve regional flood risk management Regional Objectives Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public IRWM Program Preferences and Statewide Priorities IRWM Program Preferences Effectively resolve significant water-related conflicts within or between regions Contribute to attainment of one or more CALFED objectives:  Improve the State's water quality from source to tap  Reduce the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion  Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources  Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Effectively integrate water management with land-use planning Statewide Priorities Drought preparedness Use and reuse water more efficiently Climate change response actions Expand environmental stewardship Protect surface water and groundwater quality Improve tribal water and natural resources Ensure equitable distribution of benefits Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-4. Project Scoring Criteria (contd.) Topic Project Scoring Criteria Other Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines Other Guideline Review Factors Environmental justice considerations Contribution of the project in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as compared to project alternatives Key: CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program DAC = Disadvantaged Community Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management Using the above list of scoring criteria, each project was scored based on its merit and its ability to help the region meet its planning priorities. A project received a numeric score for each of the four categories of scoring criteria as follows: 1. Regional Objectives – One point was given for each objective that was met by the project. In determining how to score projects against the region’s objectives, several numeric methods were evaluated, including assigning equal significance to each objective (one point per objective), assigning equal significance to each topic (a fraction of a point per objective, where the fraction relates to the number of objectives in a topic), and rewarding projects that address multiple topics. A sensitivity analysis was run with a suite of diverse projects from the 2005 FEIRWM Plan to compare the outcome of the three different scoring approaches, and the outcomes were all similar with respect to ranking and relative score. The region decided to use the approach of awarding each project one point per objective that the project meets. A project’s ability to meet regional objectives was self- reported in the project submission form. 2. IRWM Program Preferences – One point was given for each IRWM Program Preference that was met. One program preference is the project’s contribution to the following CALFED objectives:  Water Quality  Levees  Water Supply  Ecosystem Restoration One point was given to each CALFED objective addressed by the project. A project’s ability to meet IRWM Program Preferences was self-reported in the project submission form. 3. Statewide Priorities – One point was given for each statewide priority that was met. A project’s ability to meet statewide priorities was self-reported in the project submission form. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4. Other factors from IRWM Guidelines – Three factors in the IRWM Guidelines were not explicitly addressed in the above categories, so they were evaluated separately: DAC and EJ considerations and contribution of the project in reducing GHG emissions as compared to project alternatives. Assessment of EJ impacts and avoidance or mitigation of any adverse effects is completed through the National Environmental Policy Act/ California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) process. It was therefore assumed that all projects would meet this criterion adequately before implementation. However, a project was given a point if it went above and beyond the requirements, or consisted of a study that included EJ considerations. A project’s ability to address these factors was self-reported in the project submission form. Each of the four categories of scoring criteria was assigned a weighting factor (shown in Figure 3-5), representing the relative importance to the region in the scoring process. Figure 3-5. Relative Weighting Factors for Project Scoring Criteria As shown above, regional objectives have the highest weighting factor of 50 percent, indicating the relative importance of addressing local water management issues. IRWM Program Preferences and statewide priorities together make up 45 percent, and the remaining 5 percent is allocated to other factors from the IRWM Guidelines. Using this distribution, an overall score was generated for each project. Resource Management Strategies Section 3.3, Resource Management Strategies, and Appendix G describe in more detail the evaluation of the RMS portfolio. All the RMSs were considered when project information was collected to understand the greatest potential range of strategies a project could address. A project’s ability to meet an RMS was self-reported in the project submission form. Projects were evaluated to determine which RMS it would satisfy and then given a total RMS score based on the number of RMS diversification criteria satisfied. Projects that included a greater number of strategies were considered to contribute more to a diversified water management portfolio for the ECCC region. RMS diversification did not contribute to the project score, but was 50% 30% 15% 5%Regional Objectives IRWM Program Preferences Statewide Priorities Other Factors from IRWM Guidelines Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County given as a separate consideration for the region in identifying implementation priorities or proposals for grant funding. Implementation Considerations In addition to the project score and RMS diversification criterion, implementation considerations are also collected for each project. These considerations are shown in Table 3-5. The implementation consideration information are self-reported in the project submission form. Table 3-5. Implementation Considerations Implementation Consideration Information Collected Readiness to Proceed The status and competition date of planning, design, and construction/implementation. Project Financing Total project cost and total project amount funded, which allowed a percent of project funded to be calculated, as well as the current availability of a project economic feasibility analysis. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines As noted above, the IRWM Guidelines specify certain review factors to be considered in the project review process and for use in selecting for inclusion in the IRWM Plan. These are listed in Table 3-6, and for each criterion, a description is provided of how it will be considered in the project evaluation process. Table 3-6. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines Topic Approach in Project Evaluation Process Technical Feasibility Technical feasibility is a review factor in project screening. All projects were evaluated for technical feasibility in early project screening, and projects were eliminated if they were not technically feasible. Therefore, technically unfeasible projects needed no additional review. No projects lacking technical feasibility were submitted in this Call for Projects during the first submission round. Benefits Critical DAC Issues Benefit to DACs is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address additional IRWM guideline review factors. There are many opportunities for projects to benefit DACs. Native American Tribal Communities Benefit to Native American tribal communities is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address statewide priorities. However, there are no tribal communities in the ECCC region. A future proposal may include something benefiting tribal communities; for example, enhancement of habitat suitable for plants that may be used for cultural purposes. Environmental Justice Considerations Environmental justice considerations are included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address additional IRWM Guidelines review factors. Project Costs and Financing Project costs and financing are included as implementation considerations. Economic Feasibility Economic feasibility is included as an implementation consideration. Project Status Project status is included as an implementation consideration. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-6. Project Review Factors in IRWM Guidelines (contd.) Topic Approach in Project Evaluation Process Strategic Considerations for IRWM Plan Implementation Strategic considerations were considered as part of the project screening. Strategic considerations for combining or modifying local projects into collaborative regional projects were considered after the projects were submitted; The region identified opportunities for such modifications and initiated discussions directly with the project proposer(s). If project modifications were agreeable, the project was resubmitted. This occurred before this phase of the evaluation. Project Adaptations for Climate Change Climate change adaptation is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address regional objectives and statewide priorities. Climate change is also its own standard in the IRWM Plan. Greenhouse Gases Reduction of greenhouse gases is included as a project scoring criterion, as part of assessing the project’s ability to address additional IRWM Guideline review factors. Key: DAC = Disadvantaged Community ECCC = East Contra Costa County IRWM = integrated regional water management Project Review Steps After projects are received, the process for prioritizing projects and programs within the ECCC region involves the following sequential steps: 1. Perform initial screening of projects for inclusion – Projects are screened for their relevance to water management and technical feasibility before being included in the IRWM Plan. No projects are eliminated at this step. 2. Review benefits claimed by each project – Text entries are required in the project submission form to justify why certain benefits are claimed, for those related to the regional objectives and the IRWM Program Preferences. The region can meet to review these explanations to verify that the project proposers understand the intent and that their benefit claims are reasonable before the benefits are accounted for in the evaluation of projects. After reviewing rationale for claimed benefits, project proposers are permitted to modify their submissions to have consistent evaluations. For example, if a project claims meeting an ecosystem objective based on compliance with CEQA/NEPA, this will be eliminated as a project differentiator because all projects would follow that same process. 3. Project integration and coordination – Opportunities are sought to combine, evaluate, expand, and/or modify projects to achieve multiple benefits, expand local benefits to a regional scale, and/or enhance projects to address more regional objectives. For example, two similar projects that are geographically adjacent could be combined into a single effort to maximize implementation efficiency, or a project could be modified to include more comprehensive DAC benefits and outreach. 4. Evaluate and score projects – Each project will be evaluated, based on the process described above, to arrive at a project score, RMS diversification, and a set of implementation considerations. The resulting data allowed the region to create multiple lists prioritizing or sorting the projects based on a number of factors, including project type, primary ECCC IRWM Plan objective category, project score, RMS diversification, project Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County status (determined by design date), total cost, and percent funded. Creating a variety of lists sorted or prioritized by multiple criteria gave the region a better understanding of where different projects excelled and laid a framework for a more comprehensive view of the suite of projects, in particular which projects might be strongest under the diverse possible grant alternatives. 5. Iterate – After the first round of project scores, further opportunities can be considered for project integration and coordination. Upon improving projects, projects can be reevaluated and rescored. 6. Develop implementation plan – The implementation plan is a suite of priority projects that, when implemented, will help the region to meet its objectives. Documenting the Projects For the purposes of this IRWM Plan, an initial list of projects was submitted and reviewed in October 2012. The reviewed projects are listed by sponsoring agency/organization summarized in Table 3-7 and are shown on the IRWM website. Full details about these projects may be found in Appendix E. Note that the numbering of the projects in the table below bears no relationship to rank or priority, instead the numbers are related to the order in the database. Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title Antioch Youth Sports Complex 1. Recycled Water for American Youth Soccer Organization Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 2. BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project City of Antioch 3. Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements 4. Viera Water and Sewer Service, Northeastern Antioch City of Pittsburg 5. City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project 6. Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion Contra Costa Clean Water Program 7. Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa County 8. East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network 9. Knightsen Biofilter – Flood Control Project Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 10. Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) 11. Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) 12. East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) 13. Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) 14. Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) 15. Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) 16. Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) 17. Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects (contd.) Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title 18. West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) 19. Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) 20. Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) 21. Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 22. Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 23. Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Water District 24. BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie 25. Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project 26. Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation 27. Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon 28. Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Delta Diablo 29. Advanced Wastewater Treatment 30. DDSD Advanced Water Treatment 31. DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion 32. DDSD Salinity Reduction -- Softener Rebate Program 33. Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System 34. Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management 35. Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Diablo Water District 36. Allowable Maximum Level of Demand Project 37. Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well 38. Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline 39. High-Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation 40. Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 41. Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis 42. Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 43. Leak Detection and Repair East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 44. Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District 45. Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B 46. Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C 47. Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A 48. Oakley Sewers Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 3-7. Initial List of IRWM Projects (contd.) Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title 49. Salinity Reduction 50. Septage Receiving Station Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 51. Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Reclamation District 830 52. Jersey Island Cutoff Levees 53. Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 54. Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Key: BBID = Bryon Bethany Irrigation District BIMID = Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DDSD = Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District) IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management In 2014, Discovery Bay, Diablo Water District, and Ironhouse Sanitary District presented projects that were included as part of the IRWM Plan project list. These projects included the Discovery Bay Reclamation Project, Diablo Water District Leak Detection and the ISD Well (Jersey Island) and Fill Station. Since electronic submissions could not be submitted through the IRWM website, participants completed the project submission forms. CCWD then circulated the forms to all ECCC IRWM participants. There were no objections to any of these projects, which were then added to the list of IRWM Plan projects. A number of additional projects were identified in the planning studies completed as part of the 2015 IRWM Plan Update, which are presented in Table 3-8. These projects will be submitted to the IRWM project database, and the projects listed in the table may or may not reflect all of the projects that will eventually be submitted to the IRWM project database. Table 3-8: List of Projects Identified by IRWM Planning Studies Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP City of Brentwood Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Contra Costa Water District Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Emergency Backup Power City of Pittsburg  Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Basinwide Groundwater Condition and Quality Analysis and SNMP Refinement Pursue funding for full SNMP Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Sponsoring Agency / Proponent Project Title Full SNMP Antioch/Pittsburg Intertie Analysis City of Pittsburg/Diablo Water District  Monitor Existing Wells Delta View Golf Course Water and Fertilizer Application Assessment Diablo Water District Groundwater monitoring network expansion Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Land Use Map Updates Water Budget Ironhouse Sanitary District Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Regional1 Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing Program and Documentation Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks 1 Projects are regional in nature and a potential project sponsor has not yet been identified Implementation and Updates to Project List As stated previously, Table 3-7 presents only an initial list of projects, and the projects presented in Table 3-8 have not yet completed the IRWM project evaluation process. With the IRWM website and Planning Framework established, projects may be added, removed, or updated at any time. With a living process, project proponents and stakeholders now have a venue to collaborate and integrate their projects. Getting a project on the list is important, even if there isn’t an imminent funding opportunity. From time to time, the ECWMA and its members may feel it is necessary to have another formal “Call-for-Projects” to refresh their list or to prepare for a new funding opportunity. Although funding is important, it should merely be a reward for good planning. Proper integrated planning should be ongoing, open, transparent, and collaborative. The IRWM region intends to perform regular reviews of the project list in the IRWM Plan. The review process will involve dissemination of the current project list to agencies and stakeholders for review, comment, and editing. The review process will provide an opportunity for project proponents to update the project information, including its status for compliance with applicable rules, laws, and permit requirements. Because many of the projects on the list are still in the conceptual planning phase, much of the compliance status may not be known. However, the opportunity for regular review will result in a project list that is frequently monitored for compliance updates. This way, when funding opportunities do arise, projects will be better Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County prepared to meet program requirements if compliance requirements are already met or can be met quickly. Technical Analysis The projects included in this IRWM Plan are intended to provide multiple benefits to both the individual project proponents and the RWMG as a whole. With an understanding of the region’s water management issues and objectives, the RWMG was able to identify and develop an initial list of several implementation projects. Project and IRWM Plan development is rooted in the data and information, reports, studies, and plans describing water management issues, objectives, and projects of participating agencies and overall region. Table 3-9 provides a summary of the data sources and planning documents that were used in development of this IRWM Plan and to develop the identified projects. Table 3-9. Data Used in the IRWM Plan Data Source Population and demographic data 2010 Census; 2014 Regional Capacity Study. Hydrologic data 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Groundwater management plans/Studies. Water demand information 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Groundwater management plans/studies; 2014 Regional Capacity Study. Water supply data 2010 Urban Water Management Plans; Groundwater management plans/studies; 2014 Regional Capacity Study. Dry year supply reliability 2010 Urban Water Management Plans (ongoing) Water quality data Agency data; Groundwater management plans/studies. Cost information for potential water management alternatives Capital Improvement Plans1 Recycled water supplies and demands Recycled water master plans Groundwater data Groundwater management plans/studies Stormwater data Stormwater master plans, Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan Ecosystem and habitat data East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community Conservation Plan Land-use data City and County General Plans Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies 2014 Regional Capacity Study Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-31 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Note: 1 Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg, CCWD, CCFCWCD, DDSD, DWD, and ISD Key: CCFCWCD = Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DDSD = Delta Diablo (formerly Delta Diablo Sanitation District) DWD = Diablo Water District IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management ISD = Ironhouse Sanitary District Incorporation of Planning Documents Since completion of the region’s first IRWM in 2005, the region has continued to invest in regional integrated and coordinated water management planning to the benefit of urban, agricultural, and environmental needs. The updated IRWM Plan increases the opportunity to coordinate and integrate regional planning efforts and should allow the region to more efficiently and effectively accomplish its IRWM goals. As new studies and plans are developed, the RWMG will evaluate whether the content of the documents impacts the conclusions and recommendations in the IRWM Plan. If new or contradictory information is presented, the RWMG will determine whether an IRWM Plan update is necessary to include more up-to-date information. The most relevant application for incorporation of studies and planning documents is in relation to project development and selection. As new regional information is discovered, participating agencies will incorporate relevant conclusions and recommendations into project selection criteria and into IRWM Plan objectives. If existing IRWM Plan objectives and analysis are insufficient to reflect the information and recommendations of emerging studies and plans, the RWMG should evaluate how IRWM Plan objectives may be adjusted to more appropriately reflect regional needs. The following sections describe recent and ongoing water management planning efforts, including planning and technical studies conducted in coordination with the IRWM Plan update. Urban Water Management Plans and Studies Documents that provide information about the Region’s water supply outlook and related management strategies include 2010 UWMPs and the 2014 Regional Capacity Study (RCS). These are described below. The 2010 UWMPs were prepared by each of the region’s urban water suppliers with greater than 3,000 connections or that serve 3 TAF annually. In ECCC, these suppliers included CCWD, Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, and DWD. UWMPs are updated every 5 years and include historical water use information and 20-year projections of water demands, water supplies, recycled water use, and a water shortage contingency plan. Additionally, the 2010 UWMPs contained each supplier’s water conservation targets to meet the requirements of SB X7-7 requirements of 20 percent water conservation by 2020. Completion of UWMPs is also required by the various DWR grant funding opportunities. The RCS was initiated in the fall of 2012, completed in September 2014, and complements IRWM planning efforts. It is a collaborative effort among Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Martinez, and Pittsburg, CCWD, and DWD. Its purpose is to evaluate and optimize regional untreated water supply, water treatment plant operations, and delivery processes to improve water supply reliability and reduce the cost of water for urban areas within the region. The RCS is an important Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-32 March 2019 East Contra Costa County element of various ongoing water management planning activities in the region. One of the results of the RCS was a summary of potential improvement projects that could be implemented to address key observations regarding water supply risks and shortfalls; information about those projects has been incorporated into this IRWM Plan in Section 3.4, Project Review Process. The findings of the RCS increase the understanding of water management and operations in the region and will advance the region’s efforts toward achieving the IRWM objectives. Groundwater Management Plans and Studies The region is actively managing its groundwater resources through planning and monitoring efforts. Recent groundwater plans and studies providing technical data and improving the understanding of groundwater resources in the region are described below. Two GMPs were completed within the region: the Pittsburg Plain GMP completed by the City of Pittsburg in 2012 and the Tracy Subbasin GMP completed by the DWD in 2007 (these basins can be seen in Chapter 2, Figure 2-11). The Tracy Subbasin GMP was completed in conjunction with the original IRWM. The Pittsburg Plain GMP was completed in parallel with the 2015 IRWM Plan update. These plans define critical basin management objectives (BMO) necessary to maintain the quality, reliability, and sustainability of groundwater resources on local and regional scales. These BMOs complement the IRWM Plan objectives. These plans further identify actions and associated implementation plans to achieve the BMOs. Actions that take the form of groundwater studies and monitoring programs will provide additional technical data to support local planning needs and regional planning efforts (i.e., future IRWM updates). The City of Pittsburg and DWD each have implemented groundwater monitoring programs7 for their respective basins. The City of Pittsburg recently completed a Salt and Nutrient Management Program Summary (developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update) to provide a preliminary evaluation of groundwater quality and salt and nutrient loading potential to assist in future groundwater planning and development efforts. DWD recently completed the Tracy Subbasin Data Gap Analysis Report (developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update) to identify data needs to determine safe yield of the portion of the Tracy Subbasin underlying the region. These efforts are all considered essential to increase the success of management and protection of groundwater resources in the region. On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three-bill legislative package, composed of AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley), collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA, effective January 1, 2015, establishes a framework of priorities and requirements to facilitate sustainable groundwater management throughout the State. The intent of SGMA is for groundwater to be managed by local public agencies and newly-formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to ensure that a groundwater basin is operated within its sustainable yield through the development and implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP). Through this planning process, basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. 7 The City of Pittsburg and DWD participate in DWR’s California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program as designated monitoring entities for the Pittsburg Basin and Tracy Subbasin areas, respectively. The Town of Discovery Bay, ECCID, and the City of Brentwood provide support to DWD. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-33 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The Tracy Subbasin, referred to as DWR Basin 5-22.15 San Joaquin Valley, is a Medium priority groundwater basin according to the Groundwater Basin Prioritization by DWR and is located in eastern Contra Costa County as well as in San Joaquin and Alameda Counties. Eight local agencies that overlay a portion of the Basin in Contra Costa County, referred to at East Contra Costa Basin, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on May 9, 2017 to collaborate and develop a single GSP for the East Contra Costa Basin. With the exception of Contra Costa Water District, each member agency has become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to be the local agency to manage the Basin within their respective management areas. The member agencies to the East Contra Costa Basin MOU include City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District, Town of Discovery Bay, and East Contra Costa Irrigation District. In 2018, East Contra Costa Basin MOU members submitted a basin boundary modification request to DWR to modify the boundaries of existing Tracy Subbasin to split the subbasin into two independent basins. DWR approved the request in November 2018, which effectively separates the subbasin at the county line. This basin boundary modification will be a useful delineation for the East Contra Costa Basin MOU members in implementing the requirements of SGMA in the region. Additional information regarding development of the Tracy Subbasin GSP can be found at the program’s website: https://www.eccc-irwm.org/sgma/sgma-news-meetings/. CASGEM Compliance In July 2014, the region worked collaboratively to ensure California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Compliance including Diablo Water District (DWD), City of Brentwood, City of Antioch, Town of Discovery Bay, ECCID, and BBID as required by SB X7- 6. DWR approved the program in 2014 and DWD was designated as the monitoring agency for the Contra Costa County portion of the Tracy sub-basin that is considered medium priority. Recycled Water Plans and Studies To achieve the IRWM objective of improving the reliability of water supplies, the region is diversifying its water supply portfolio through the use of recycled water. Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood, supply recycled water that offsets potable water use or provides other beneficial uses. These agencies completed studies and projects over the past decade. Past and more recent planning and study efforts contributed technical data used in the IRWM Plan Update. These efforts include the Pittsburg/DDSD Recycled Water Project Facilities Plan (2005), the Antioch/DDSD Recycled Water Project Facilities Plan (2007), the East County Industrial Recycled Water Facilities Plan (2009), the ISD Recycled Water Feasibility Report (2015, which was developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update), DDSD Recycled Water Master Plan (2013, which was developed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update), the City of Brentwood Recycled Water Feasibility Study (2013), Stormwater and Flood Management Plans and Studies The 50-Year Plan “From Channels to Creeks” (2009) was completed by the CCFCWCD. This strategic planning document identifies opportunities and benefits for enhancing storm and flood management systems. Planned enhancements would be to modify these systems to behave more like natural creek systems. The document establishes a framework for long-range planning efforts toward achieving these actions, actions that complement IRWM objectives. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-34 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) provided $200 million for a Storm Water Grant Program, which provides matching grants to public agencies, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, state and federally recognized Native American tribes, and mutual water companies for multi-benefit stormwater management projects. Grant funds are for multi-benefit storm water management projects which may include, but shall not be limited to: green infrastructure, rainwater and storm water capture projects and storm water treatment facilities. Prior to the passage of Proposition 1, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 985, the Storm Water Resource Planning Act. SB 985 amended the Water Code to require the development of a Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP), or functionally equivalent plan(s), to receive grants from a bond act approved after January 1, 2014 for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects. In 2016, the SWRCB awarded planning grant funds to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program to develop the Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan: Greening the Community for Healthy Watersheds on behalf of Contra Costa municipalities and stakeholders. The SWRP used a watershed-based planning approach to compile stormwater management project opportunities and develop potential project concepts designed to improve Contra Costa watersheds and communities. The potential project opportunities identified in the SWRP will help clean water in creeks and bays while providing additional community and environmental benefits. Due to the requirements of SB 985, any stormwater or runoff capture projects seeking bond funding through the IRWM program must also be included in the SWRP. Because goals of the Contra Costa Watersheds SWRP are consistent with those of the East County IRWM Plan, the IRWM Plan incorporates by reference the findings, analysis, and projects included in the SWRP. Appendix K provides the currently available version of the Contra Costa Watersheds SWRP for reference. Future and updated versions of the Contra Costa Watersheds SWRP, along with the latest list of project opportunities, can be found at the program website: https://www.cccleanwater.org/resources/stormwater-resource-plan. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The ECCC HCP /NCCP is an integral critical source of environmental and habitat technical data that informs the Region’s IRWM planning efforts. The HCP/NCCP describes the mission, goals, and objectives for environmental and habitat management in the region, and includes extensive technical data in its appendices, including an aquatic resources inventory, species profile, priority acquisition areas, and urban-wildlife interface design guidelines. The HCP/NCCP establishes regional conservation and development guidelines to protect natural resources while improving and streamlining the permit process for endangered species and wetland regulations. By proactively addressing the region’s long-term conservation needs, the HCP/NCCP strengthen local control over land use and provides greater flexibility in meeting water management and other needs in the region. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Studies The Regional Capacity Study (RCS), which was completed in 2014 by several agencies in the ECCC region, evaluated ways to optimize regional water treatment plant operations and untreated water supply, improve water supply reliability, and reduce treatment costs. The RCS included a water supply reliability evaluation that considered probable drought scenarios, including those that Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-35 March 2019 East Contra Costa County could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. Of the scenarios that were evaluated, the RCS determined that failures within the western delta levee system and a regional power outage would be most likely to create critical impacts to water quality and treated water supplies. Although prolonged droughts are a potential impact resulting from climate change, the RCS determined that a scenario that looked at drought conditions (loss of untreated water supply) was not necessary to carry forward in the analysis, because CCWD’s long-term water planning scenarios already outline alternative untreated water sources that would be required in the event of a three-year prolonged drought. The RCS is further described in Section 3.7.6. As a result of the water supply reliability evaluation, the RCS recommended that operational changes and additional studies be pursued to potentially address regional issues, including those that could take place as a result of, or be exacerbated by, climate change. The results and recommendations of the RCS have been incorporated into this IRWM Plan. 3.6 Stakeholder Involvement As noted in previous sections, ECCC’s long-standing commitment to collaboration was leveraged in the plan preparation and will be an integral part of any further updates to the plan. The region views identifying and involving stakeholders as an important aspect of the local and regional planning processes. Beyond building a broader water ethic and advocacy for good water stewardship, now and into the future, engagement provides opportunities to gain better insight into potential planning approaches. For example, stakeholders can identify new issues, objectives, or projects others had not previously been aware of, describe the need for projects, discuss the benefits anticipated, solicit feedback from interested and/or affected individuals and agencies, and assist with making decisions. The region seeks to involve others from the early planning stages so that a project, potential concerns and/or opposition can be addressed early, and projects can be planned in a way to minimize negative impacts and maximize benefits. The composition of participating stakeholders has included the members of ECWMA and other interested parties, including:  Wholesale and retail water purveyors*  Wastewater agencies*  Flood management agencies* Many people have a stake in the ECCC IRWMP, which promotes multi-benefit projects and partnerships. One example of a multi-benefit project is the Dow Wetlands in Pittsburg, set aside as an industrial buffer zone and now dedicated to preservation and student learning. Students from throughout the region have a chance to explore estuaries, freshwater ponds, and grasslands. They can also hike the newly constructed path that links the Antioch Marina to the 471-acre wetland area. This photo is from a California State University summer program. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-36 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Municipal and county governments and special districts*  Environmental stewardship organizations*  State agencies*  General public  Community organizations  DACs  Small Community Systems * Active ECWMA members/planning participants Outreach can also be conducted with industrial and utility stakeholders via interaction of ECWMA members during regularly scheduled meetings of those groups and through the website. Historically, The ECWMA and its members have regularly conducted stakeholder outreach for their various water resources planning and implementation projects. For the 2015 IRWM Plan Update, the ECWMA and its members used various methods to identify and reach out to stakeholders. These methods have included the development of a website, e-mails, mailings, and public meetings. 3.6.1. ECCC IRWM Region Website Starting in 2010-2012, in order to support the update and outreach of the IRWM Plan, the ECWMA and its members developed a website (screen shot shown in Figure 3-6). The website serves as a portal to disseminate information about the IRWM Plan, the region, the ECWMA, and meeting notices. It also serves as the main tool for collecting project information from member agencies and stakeholders. The website, however, requires ongoing maintenance. By 2014, the website could no longer update projects electronically. The website is being renewed for the 2015 Plan Update, and with support from the ECWMA, will be maintained and updated as required in the future. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-37 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 3-6. ECCC IRWM Region Website The website can be viewed at http://www.eccc-irwm.org/, and has the following structure:  Home. Describes IRWM Plan, the region, and lists upcoming opportunities for participation.  ECWMA Member Agencies. Provides a brief description of each member agency, their role in water management, and a link to their websites.  About IRWM. Summarizes the IRWM planning process, provides an overview of the region, and highlights successes of the IRWM program.  Timeline. Presents the IRWM region’s timeline of major milestones.  Projects: o About Projects. States the importance of projects, explains how to submit projects, and clarifies how submitted project information will be used. o Projects Map. Displays the projects submitted and reviewed by an IRWM administrator to-date in an interactive map. Clicking on a project displays additional information. o Project List. Displays the projects submitted and reviewed by an IRWM administrator to date in a list. Clicking on a project displays additional information. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-38 March 2019 East Contra Costa County o Submit New Project. Upon entering a valid e-mail address, the user will be e- mailed a link to a project submission form. This form can be filled in with project information, saved, revisited, and edited until the user submits the project. After submission, an IRWM administrator will approve the project, after which it will enter the project database and show up in the View Map and View List functions above.  Disadvantaged Communities. Provides additional information about the location and water quality and water supply needs specific to disadvantaged communities in the region.  Related Documents. Provides downloads of the region’s previous collaborative studies, materials from public meetings, and links to other neighboring IRWM websites.  Frequently Asked Questions. Answers common questions about the IRWM program, IRWM projects, and the website. 3.6.2. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2013 IRWM Plan Update In 2012/2013, three public meetings were held that focused on scoping and crafting the IRWM Plan, were conducted at different stages of the update process and held at various locations to support accessibility to the region’s stakeholders and the public. All meetings were advertised on the IRWM website, announcements were made in local newsletters, through the Contra Costa County Watershed Forum, and in emails or mailings from agencies to their involved stakeholders. After the meetings, all materials were posted on the IRWM website. The Public Workshops held were:  June 14, 2012, at Delta Diablo – IRWM Plan Kickoff and Call for Projects (see Figure 3- 7) o The kickoff meeting included an introduction of the IRWM Planning process and a demonstration of the website and all its features were demonstrated, including how to submit a project.  September 6, 2012, at the City of Antioch – Progress Update and Final Call for Projects o The second public meeting included an orientation for those that missed the first meeting, and an overview of water management issues, regional objectives, RMSs, and the process that will be used for prioritizing projects.  May 8, 2013, District III East County Joint MAC/AC – Update on IRWM Plan  May 14, 2013, at the City of Pittsburg – Presentation of the Public Draft IRWM Plan Update 2013 o This third public meeting presented the Public Draft IRWM Plan Update 2013 and allowed stakeholders the opportunity to provide their comments. In addition to Public Workshops, six additional semi-regular phone-web working meetings were conducted with key stakeholders to review and provide input to specific sections of plan text. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-39 March 2019 East Contra Costa County These meetings were open to attendance by any interested party, and email invitations were sent to the entire interested party list. These 2013 sessions occurred: January 8; January17; January 25; March 15; April 8; and April 26. Altogether 20 different stakeholders were engaged in the early public meetings with 12 new participants joining as the planning progressed. All interested parties were routinely advised by email of work sessions and other opportunities for participation. All interested groups have been welcome to participate in discussions, project submissions and for providing comment in both the drafting and public comment stages of plan development. Since the May 14, 2013 Public Workshop, member agencies of ECWMA have shared the document with their own stakeholders and each will conclude the process with a public meeting adoption of the plan. Figure 3-7. ECCC IRWM Region Stakeholder Outreach Meeting in June 2012 3.6.3. Stakeholder Outreach Meetings – 2015 IRWM Plan Update Upon completion of several planning studies that were conducted under the Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant process, the ECWMA began updating the IRWM Plan in early 2015. In accordance with the region’s commitment to transparency and stakeholder involvement, additional stakeholder outreach meetings were conducted for this additional update effort. After the meetings, all materials were posted on the IRWM website. Outreach meetings were held with the following communities in September 2015:  Bay Point: September 1, 2015  Bethel Island: September 8  Byron: September 16  Knightsen: September 22 Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-40 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 3.6.4. Stakeholder Outreach During Implementation As the IRWM Plan is implemented, stakeholders throughout the region will be involved in decision making and encouraged to provide feedback. The precise mechanism for stakeholder involvement will be determined based on the needs of an individual project or program being implemented. However, mechanisms for involving stakeholders and encouraging feedback are anticipated to include the following, as appropriate:  Updates on the IRWM website to provide information on the status and progress of projects being implemented and other upcoming events or grant funding opportunities.  Public forums, workshops, and meetings in which stakeholders are kept apprised of project progress and status, and are encouraged to provide feedback.  Speakers Bureau composed of ECWMA representatives available to present at the meetings and convenings of related groups. 3.6.5. Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities As outlined throughout this document, the region, like the State of California, is committed to promoting equitable distribution of project benefits, and especially to addressing the critical water supply needs of underprivileged areas. Section 2.43 addresses the significance of this community to the regional and outreach efforts undertaken to ensure representation. For the 2015 IRWM Plan Update, additional outreach was conducted to target DACs and ensure that DACs were informed about the Plan and the update process. Communities targeted for DAC Outreach were either those that had been identified as DAC using Census and/or ACS data, or those communities that could provide support to neighboring DACs. The stakeholder outreach meetings listed above were selected specifically due to those communities’ abilities to convey IRWM Program and Plan information to DACs within those communities or nearby. As such, the stakeholder outreach meetings conducted under Section 3.6.3 were also DAC-specific meetings conducted for the 2015 IRWM Plan Update. The Big Break Regional Trail, operated by East Bay Regional Parks runs through the Ironhouse Sanitary District. It is operated using integrated resource management. Not long ago, this culvert was thick with blackberries. To bring it back to a wetland state, the channel was graded, letting water in from the delta. Shorebirds found the wetland the very next day. Visitors on the trail can see tule and cattails and even small fish. The trail connects to the northern end of the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, providing access to Brentwood and Oakley. The Marsh Creek Regional Trail connects to the Delta de Anza Regional Trail. Often, simple, low-budget restorations can achieve multiple benefits. For example, this new habitat is also more resilient in floods and storms. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-41 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 3.6.6. Native American Tribal Communities Because benefit to Native American tribal communities is included as a DWR IRWMP project scoring criterion, the team closely assessed the best way to achieve compliance. The team reviewed DWR and other tribal maps and conducted a summary scan of ECCC historic literature. After this review, it was determined there are no tribal communities currently residing in the ECCC region. However, there is a rich history of Native American occupation in ECCC, including the Kellogg Creek National Historic District located on the Los Vaqueros watershed. A future IRWMP proposal may include something benefiting tribal communities; for example, enhancement of habitat suitable for plants that may be used for cultural purposes. If project opportunities are identified, outreach is anticipated to organizations such as California State Parks, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the California Indian Heritage Center (CIHC) and the CIHC Foundation and the Native American Heritage Commission. Additional outreach may also be conducted with the basket weaving community, through the California Indian Basketweavers Association. 3.6.7. Process to Ensure Authentic Engagement Chapter 2, Section 2.3 more fully describes decision making within the ECCC IRWM Plan process and Chapter 4, Section 4.1, also addresses governance. The ECWMA, as the RWMG, is a formal body directed by a wide range of agencies. That said, and while provisions for voting are provided, the body is largely consensus driven with participants seeking to find wide agreement on plan approaches, priorities and projects. The opinions, suggestions and requests of all stakeholders are given the highest consideration and managed in an open and transparent way. All parties with an interest have been included in deliberations. With the development of the IRWM website, the establishment of the planning framework, and the various outreach activities, stakeholders may continue to be identified and added to the IRWM planning and implementation process. By being open with information and providing various venues, the ECWMA and its members are hoping to provide greater benefits to the region, while also keeping up with all of the region’s water management issues, priorities, needs, and objectives. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-42 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Integration and Coordination Opportunities for Integration and Coordination DWR, by promoting integrated regional water management, encourages local water resources managers to cooperate, coordinate, and, where possible, integrate the strategies, projects, and programs they implement. This approach has encouraged water resources managers to think outside their immediate political boundaries, watershed, or primary water management responsibility. With an understanding that water should be managed as ONE resource, water suppliers, wastewater, flood and stormwater, watershed and environmental resources managers, community organizations, and other interests have a real stake in IRWM planning. There are several ways in which the IRWM is providing the venue for integration to occur. The ways include:  Regular meetings during the development of the update of the IRWM Plan and ongoing implementation activities.  The IRWM website, which provides the opportunities for project proponents to upload, update, and review project information. Users are also kept apprised of other happenings, including upcoming and past meetings. The project information is important in that it may introduce an issue or solution that others had not thought of and it also shows the many capabilities and interest of those in the region.  Existing relationships among ECWMA members. There may already be existing agreements, authorities, organizations, or programs, in which the ECWMA are partnering together. These relationships would support and fit under the umbrella of the IRWM Program. There are many ways in which project proponents may collaborate and integrate their projects, including project funding, in-kind labor, sharing of other resources, statements of support, or joint outreach. Existing Agency Relationships The members of the ECWMA have strong working relationships and often work together to solve regional water management issues. The original ECWMA was formed in 1995 and expired in 1996, then was re-constituted in March 1997, and amended in 2010 to update some agency names, add East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as a new member, include language about the IRWM Plan in the purpose statement and make a few other conforming changes. A copy of these documents is contained in (Appendix H). The Delta Diablo Sanitation District is a leader in working with others on water recycling. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-43 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The agencies work together in a number of ways, including through water supply agreements, recycled water collaborations, shared treatment facilities, participation in regional organizations, and collective efforts to strengthen regional water resources. Water Supply Agreements CCWD provides wholesale treated water to the City of Antioch, the GSWC in Bay Point, DWD in Oakley, and the City of Brentwood. CCWD sells untreated water to the ECCC Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg, as well as to industrial and irrigation customers. According to CCWD’s 2010 UWMP, CCWD wholesaled 58,020 AF (adjusted to account for drought and economy) in 2010 and is projected to wholesale 82,200 AF by 2035. CCWD also has an agreement with ECCID to purchase surplus irrigation water to be used for M&I purposes in ECCID’s service area. Recycled Water Recycled water is becoming more of a resource in the Region. The region recognizes the value of recycled water as a reliable, drought-proof supply. Agencies within the region plan to continue development of recycled water projects to help meet water needs, and will also evaluate expanding recycled water use more regionally. In 2000, Delta Diablo and CCWD entered into an agreement for Delta Diablo to provide up to 8,600 AF/year of tertiary treated recycled water to the DEC and the LMEC. Treated wastewater from Delta Diablo is used for turbine cooling at the energy facilities. This project is one of the largest industrial recycled water projects in California. In 2004, Delta Diablo and CCWD reached a General Agreement for Delta Diablo to supply up to 1,654 AF/year of recycled water for urban landscape and golf course irrigation in Pittsburg and Antioch. In 2004, Delta Diablo and CCWD executed general recycled water agreements whereby both districts can develop a joint project or each district can develop its own individual project(s) by cooperating with the other agency in planning, design, and construction activities. The agreements are intended to address and resolve legal issues, namely duplication of service, arising from the purveying of recycled water by a sanitation district in CCWD's service area. CCWD, Delta Diablo, ISD, Pittsburg, Antioch, PG&E, Mirant Corporation, and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District prepared the ECCC Regional Industrial Recycled Water Facilities Plan in 2009. The purpose of this plan was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing regional industrial recycled water projects in the Pittsburg/Antioch industrial corridor. City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-44 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Most recently in November 2012, the region was award a Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant, which included funding for expanded regional recycled water planning. This work continues to develop recycled water planning to better define the regional recycled water setting, better develop potential projects for implementation through the IRWM process, and help the ECWMA meet it objectives. The work would involve coordination of Delta Diablo Recycled Water Master Plan, ISD’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study, and City of Brentwood’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study. The wastewater agencies would participate in monthly conference calls to:  Identify and develop recycled water projects  Discuss opportunities for regional efficiency  Discuss stakeholder and DAC outreach strategies and lessons learned  Discuss regulatory aspects  Discuss implementation challenges Shared Facilities In addition to providing descriptions of individual agencies, Chapter 2, provides a history of joint planning efforts and a discussion of shared facilities such as the RBWTP. DWD and CCWD jointly own the RBWTP, which is operated and maintained by CCWD. In 2004, CCWD and the City of Brentwood entered into an agreement for the design, construction and operation of the City of Brentwood Water Treatment Plant (COBWTP), adjacent to the RBWTP. The COBWTP and the RBWTP share facilities improving efficiency and reducing costs for customers served from the two plants. Organization Memberships Beyond the ECWMA, many of the members of the ECWMA also belong to and participate in other water and environmental organizations, including the ECCC Habitat Conservancy, California Urban Water Conservation Council, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, and water resource conservation districts. The ECCC Habitat Conservancy was formed to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), and comprises the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, along with Contra Costa County, operating as a joint exercise of powers authority. The HCP/NCCP allows for development while remaining protective of native, threatened, and endangered species and habitat through creation of a Preserve System. Both the ECCC Habitat Conservancy and Contra Costa County are active participants in local water resource conservation groups. The ECWMA agencies use a range of tools and best practices to address water concerns. Simple tools, like rain barrels, are promoted on the CCWD website. Rain barrels can help conserve outdoor irrigation water and reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-45 March 2019 East Contra Costa County The Cities of Brentwood and Pittsburg, and CCWD, are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The CUWCC strives to integrate urban water conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) into the planning and management of California’s water resources through development of statewide partnerships among urban water agencies, public interest organizations, and private entities. Contra Costa Flood Control District, Contra Costa County, and the Cities of Brentwood, Antioch, and Pittsburg are all participating members of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP). The CCCWP facilitates the NPDES stormwater permit for Contra Costa County and organizes activities on a program level to implement best management practices to protect waterways from pollution. The CCCWP assists all municipalities within Contra Costa to come into compliance with their mandated stormwater permit issued by the regional water boards (under the California Environmental Protection Act). Regional Planning Efforts The ECWMA and its members also participate in several regional planning efforts. Regional Capacity Study CCWD, Antioch, Pittsburg, DWD, Brentwood, and the City of Martinez completed a RCS in September 2014. The RCS is partially funded through a Reclamation System Optimization Review grant and the Proposition 84 Round 2 Planning Grant. Acknowledging that the study area is primarily dependent on water supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the study determined how best to optimize water supplies and facilities for the region to improve water supply reliability. The RCS evaluated ways in which to optimize regional water treatment plant operations and untreated water supply and delivery processes to improve water supply reliability and reduce the cost of water treatment for the project participants in the ECCC region. Recycled water and groundwater focus groups helped gather information, such as potential opportunities for recycled water use and additional opportunities for groundwater use. The RCS involved several analyses, including: treatment plant capacity vs. projected demands, an analysis of water system interties, and regional water supply reliability evaluations. The water supply reliability evaluations focused on water supply impacts that could result from a failure of the Western Delta Levee and from a regional power outage. The analysis of treatment plant capacity and demands demonstrated that there is excess treatment capacity in several treatment plants, and linked the excess treatment capacity to potential users that could benefit from this available supply. The analysis of system interties determined that while all agencies can meet emergency supply needs from existing interties and alternate supplies, there are potential opportunities to implement new interties that would improve reliability. The analysis of water supply reliability associated with a potential Western Delta Levee failure found that in most scenarios there would be sufficient supply for entities within the region; however, the City of Brentwood has a higher probability of supply shortages in the event of a failure due to anticipated spikes in chloride levels. Lastly, the analysis of water supply reliability associated with a regional power outage demonstrated that there could be shortages to some entities in the event of an outage, but that such shortages could be improved with interties and other water supply reliability projects. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-46 March 2019 East Contra Costa County As an early implementation action, the Participating Agencies in the RCS worked together on a Regional Emergency Preparedness Plan to improve emergency and routine assistance and response among the agencies. The Plan is a separately bound appendix to the RCS. The RCS resulted in a list of potential improvement projects that could be implemented to meet regional goals pertaining to supply reliability and affordability of supplies. The high-priority projects determined in the RCS have been integrated into this IRWM Plan and are listed in Table 3-8. Regional Conservation Program A regional alliance was created to meet SB X7-7, the Water Conservation Act of 2009, which set a goal for water agency’s to have 20 percent water conservation by 2020 requirements. The regional alliance is led by CCWD and includes CCWD’s retail service area and its wholesale municipal customers–the Cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and Martinez, the GSWC, and DWD. Each agency will meet the requirements of SBx7-7 if it achieves the reductions on its own, or if the region meets the requirement as a whole. Related to the regional alliance is CCWD’s Water Conservation Program designed to achieve reductions in long-term water demand in an environmentally responsible and cost-effective manner. As a wholesaler, CCWD develops and implements this regional conservation program on behalf of its retail water agencies and their customers. This regional approach enables economies of scale, ensures a consistent message to the public, and assists in the acquisition of grant funding for program implementation. Western Recycled Water Coalition Since 2006, Delta Diablo has served as the lead agency for the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, a regional partnership of agencies seeking Federal funding to develop recycled water projects. Coalition members prepare Feasibility Studies under the Title XVI Program (the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act). In 2013, membership was opened to interested agencies across the State, and the name was changed to the Western Recycled Water Coalition. There are currently 22 member agencies, which include ECCC members Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood. Recently, ECC members of the Coalition (Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood) moved forward with recycled water planning, and have completed Feasibility Studies under the Title XVI Program. Water Forum To foster collaboration among agencies and share information across watersheds, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District worked with partner agencies and organizations to establish the Contra Costa Watershed Forum, which brings together a variety of groups and individuals monthly to address watershed issues in Contra Costa County. The forum provides a vehicle to advance integrated watershed planning initiatives and projects that achieve multiple objectives from water supply and water quality protection to flood management and ecosystem restoration. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-47 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Potential Regional Efforts In addition to the existing regional efforts of the ECWMA and its members, several regional planning studies have identified potential regional efforts that could be implemented. The RCS specifically notes that there are efficiency and funding benefits to implementing projects at a regional level, especially considering that entities may be more competitive for grant funding for integrated regional efforts than for individual agency-by-agency efforts. Potential regional efforts listed in the RCS include:  2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan  Regional Compliance with SB X7-7 Goals  Regional Grant Funding of Water Treatment Plant Improvements  Regional Portable Emergency Booster Pump Stations  Regional Recycled Water Coordination The Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin (Appendix J), which was completed by the ECWMA, identifies multiple action items that should be taken to fill data gaps in order to determine the safe yield of the portion of the Tracy Sub-basin that is used in the region as a water supply. Given that groundwater is a regional resource for the ECWMA and its members, the action items listed below could be implemented regionally for maximum benefit:  Temporarily expand existing groundwater monitoring network to include additional sites outside of the primary pumping centers  Obtain surface water data for Marsh Creek  Conduct an isotopic analysis of groundwater in the region  Update the most recent detailed regional land use map  Develop a preliminary water budget for the Tracy Sub-basin Efforts of the Western Recycled Water Coalition in the region have resulted in Title XVI Feasibility Studies for Delta Diablo, ISD, and the City of Brentwood. These Feasibility Studies can be used to leverage additional funding under both federal and state programs to fund design and construction of recycled water systems, and will therefore help to expand recycled water throughout the region. While the Feasibility Studies themselves were completed by individual agencies, it is anticipated that in coordination with the efforts of the Western Recycled Water Coalition, regional agencies will work together to implement regional recycled water projects to the extent feasible. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-48 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Neighboring IRWM efforts Overlapping Regions As discussed in previous document sections, the northwestern portion of the ECCC IRWM region overlaps with the Bay Area IRWM region. The overlapping area includes the community of Bay Point and most of the City of Pittsburg. This overlap arises from the location of the San Francisco Funding Area boundary (contiguous with the Bay Area IRWM region boundary), which has been aligned with the San Francisco Bay Water Board (Region 2) boundary in this area. The ECCC IRWM region boundary in this area is based on the hydrologic divide created by the Mount Diablo ridgeline. Two watersheds that drain to the east of the Mount Diablo hydrologic divide (Willow Creek and Kirker Creek) are included the San Francisco Bay Water Board Region 2 boundary and thus were also included within the Bay Area IRWM region. To confirm that there is no duplicative planning for regional water resource management issues in these watersheds, the ECCC IRWM region and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM region collaborate to identify and prioritize any project that would be located in the overlap area. As mutually agreed to by the parties in March 2009, specific projects identified through this collaboration will only be included in funding proposals for a single funding region. Additionally, several members of the ECCC region participate as needed in the Bay Area IRWMP meetings. Despite this overlap, the ECCC region has distinct water management differences from the Bay Area that justify preserving a separate IRWM region. The shared geographic, environmental, and water resource conditions combined with an established successful history of coordinating planning and implementation of water resources projects distinguishes the ECCC area as a logical unit for continued, contiguous regional planning efforts (refer to Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2 for a map of the overlap area and associated DACs). Adjacent IRWM Regions The ECCC IRWM region is geographically adjacent to only two other IRWM regions, the Eastern San Joaquin IRWM region to the east and the Westside (Sacramento Valley) IRWM region to the north. The Westside IRWM region is in the Sacramento River Funding Area and is located on the north of the Delta. The East San Joaquin IRWM region is located in the San Joaquin Valley and its current primary water management focus is the underlying groundwater basin, specifically the Eastern San Joaquin and Consumes groundwater subbasins, which are separate and distinct from ECCC’s groundwater basins. There does not seem to be any obvious connections between the ECCC IRWM region and these neighboring regions. The ECWMA will monitor the progress of these IRWM regions and coordinate if the opportunity presents itself. There are also links to these IRWM regions’ websites on the ECCC website (http://www.eccc-irwm.com/related.html). Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-49 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Interregional Relationships The dominant interregional water management issues for the ECCC IRWM region are related to protecting the multiple beneficial uses of the Delta. ECCC IRWM region stakeholders have a long history of working collaboratively in a comprehensive manner on Delta issues. ECWMA member agencies have been actively involved in broad Delta planning processes including CALFED, the Delta Risk Management Study, development of a Central Valley Drinking Water Policy, Delta Vision process, and the Delta Region Water Quality Management Plan, as well as project-related stakeholder processes for projects such as San Luis Drain, Sacramento Regional WWTP, BDCP and Frank’s Tract Two Gate project. Through these processes, participants and stakeholders have exchanged information, built understanding, developed relationships, and worked to find mutually beneficial solutions to water management issues and avoid conflict (with varying degrees of success). Having these relationships and participating in Delta interregional planning processes ensures that while the ECCC IRWM region remains distinct, it is not isolated. Beginning in 2016 with DWR’s solicitation for proposals for the Proposition 1 Disadvantaged Community Involvement Grant Program, the ECCC IRWM region has been engaging with the other IRWM regions within the San Joaquin River Funding Area (SJRFA). Of the ten IRWM regions in the SJRFA, seven are active. The three inactive regions are situated primarily in the Mountain Counties Funding Area, and have only small overlapping sections into the SJRFA with little to no population. The SJRFA regions have been meeting regularly to coordinate efforts on the DAC Involvement Grant Program, and more recently on the Proposition 1 Implementation Grant Program. With the Proposition 1 IRWM grant programs, DWR has taken a more funding area-wide coordination approach that has resulted in beneficial relationships formed between the participating regions. Each region presents its own priorities, strengths, and needs, resulting in a collaborative process and integrated projects that span across the funding area, particularly related to DACs. State Agency Assistance The ECWMA and its members coordinate with State and Federal agencies to gain assistance and support in implementation. DWR and the Water Boards have always been invited to IRWM meetings for their input and guidance. The Region has a long-standing working relationship with the State in implementing various projects, most recently through grants from Propositions 1E, 50, Many ECCC families enjoy visiting local orchards to pick their own fruit. Agriculture remains an important part of the region. With rich Delta soils, ideal growing weather and a good water supply, areas like Brentwood have grown fresh food for the Bay Area since the Gold Rush days. Local farms provide more than food. In addition to food sales, agricultural tourism supports the local economy. The agricultural community also provides green jobs, open space and a connection to the history of the region. In recent years farm land has been lost to urban development; however ECCC still has significant acreage of prime, irrigated farmland. This important land use must be considered in planning the region’s water future. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-50 March 2019 East Contra Costa County and 84. Also, all projects will need to go through the proper CEQA/NEPA documentation process before construction or completion, which requires a certain amount of coordination and consultation with State and Federal agencies. As different types of projects are implemented, the ECCC IRWM agencies will work and coordinate with State and Federal agencies, where appropriate. The region anticipates working with DWR and the Water Boards on IRWM funding efforts associated with Proposition 1. Relation to Local Water Planning The IRWM Plan serves as a unifying document of regional objectives and projects, but it is not meant to supersede the autonomy or authority of a local agency. The IRWM Plan incorporates and is consistent with all local water planning documents including UWMPs, water master plans, GMPs, recycled water master plans, habitat conservation plans, stormwater management plans, and other water resources plans and studies. As local water planning is updated, the ECWMA may also update the IRWM Plan, in recognition that the plan is a living document and information and circumstances evolve. Conversely, local planning should also be consistent with the findings and results of the IRWM Plan. With a wide ranging membership on the ECWMA, achieving this consistency will be less onerous than in situations where the parties are less accustomed to working together. As described previously, the ECWMA and its members have conducted and plan on continuing to conduct regional efforts, especially with regards to recycled water and groundwater management. The RCS identified opportunities for interties and identifying ways in which existing treatment capacity and supplies could be served to meet demands, thereby maximizing the use of local supplies. Similarly, the Data Gap Analysis for the Tracy Subbasin identified additional action items that should take place to fill data gaps and ensure the sustainable use of local groundwater resources. Given the Region’s commitment to reducing demands on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Region’s focus on exploring and increasing water reuse and maximizing the use of groundwater, it is anticipated that local water planning agencies will continue to work together to maximize reuse and implement projects that reduce potential water supply reliability vulnerabilities. Relation to Local Land-Use Planning Land-use planning can often be improved by a careful review of the linkages between land use and development decisions and water supply availability and reliability. The availability of water supplies; protection of water resource features such as streams, wetlands and recharge areas; potential climate change impacts to infrastructure; and policies and regulations about water quality, drainage, and flooding all play a role in future development. Significant assessment of land use was conducted during the 2005-6 preparation of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. A review of this assessment may be found in Chapter 2, Land Use and Covered Activities, of the HCP/NCCP. Some significant considerations of the plan that relate to the IRWM plan include findings regarding general land-use patterns and designations, and potential conflicts. According to the HCP/NCCP, until the mid-1980s, much of the growth in Contra Costa County was concentrated in the western and central communities along the shoreline and along the I-680 corridor. When those communities began to reach their boundaries, development pressure increased on the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. As a result, the Eastern County Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-51 March 2019 East Contra Costa County experienced rapid residential growth during the mid-1980s, particularly in Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley along the corridor of State Route (SR) 4. The Eastern County continued to develop rapidly throughout the 1990s and is expected to be the fastest growing area of the County for the foreseeable future. The City of Brentwood experienced the most significant increase (152 percent) making it, for a time, the fastest growing city in the United States. Much the early urban development in ECCC involved converting crop, grazing, or irrigated pasture lands into residential and other urban uses (Contra Costa County, 2005). These lands are highly desirable for housing development as they are typically flat, which makes building easier, and often have some infrastructure already in place. Agricultural land conversion can have a major impact on water planning. This extends beyond water supply to flood and stormwater management, to water quality and groundwater considerations. Many became concerned about the rapid changes to the landscape. Contra Costa County votes adopted Measure C in 1990 to put the brakes on. The measure established a Land Preservation Standard, which limited urban development while preserving land for open space, agriculture, parks, wetlands, and other nonurban uses. Measure C also created an Urban Limit Line (ULL), which prohibits the County from approving urban land uses beyond the ULL (Contra Costa County, 2005).” Over time the ULL standard has been amended by the County and different ECCC local governments moved forward with varying approaches to growth Today, general patterns of land-use designations in ECCC begin with northern focus. That area is primarily designated for development. The remainder of land is primarily designated as agricultural land, open space, and parks. Housing is the major form of development projected to occur in the growth areas. Development trends for the inventory area include the buildout of southern Pittsburg, southern Antioch, and southern and eastern Clayton; the urbanization of Brentwood and Oakley; development of the Cypress Road Corridor east of Oakley, development of Discovery Bay West adjacent to the existing Discovery Bay; and development between the already urbanized cores of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley. The unincorporated areas of ECCC are primarily rural agricultural and public lands used principally for grazing, natural parks, and watershed protection. With the economy beginning to recover, new housing is starting to be constructed in ECCC. Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-52 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Water resource planning efforts in the region must take into consideration land-use plans identified in the HCP/NCCP and general plans for each city and the county. Land-use planning projections provide the basis for establishing water supply projections and identifying habitat areas that will need to be protected against impacts associated with urban development and climate change. Land-use plans will continue to play an important role in developing effective projects to meet the objectives of the region. The region will continue to collaborate with land use planning and decision-making efforts to help manage water supplies and resources, protect water infrastructure, and guide water use. As needed or as available, new information regarding land use planning or analysis may be incorporated in the Plan during future informal or formal updates. Responsible land use planning can help build community resilience to climate change and prepare and protect water infrastructure from climate change impacts. Regional water suppliers continuously work together to adapt to regional water supply and quality conditions, as well as to adapt to State-wide water restrictions and mandates on water use that occur due to climate change. The nature of water supply management and land use management in East Contra Costa County is integrated, and agencies are often dependent on each other to mitigate for and respond to climate change impacts. In doing so, water management agencies work together to offset climate change impacts to water supplies locally and State-wide. Future IRWM Plan Updates In preparing this plan, the ECCC region seeks to establish a strong foundation for future planning and implementation activities. The intent of the ECWMA is that the current IRWM Plan will meet the requirements prescribed in the latest IRWM Guidelines. IRWM plans do not have regular update schedules as do UWMPs, which must be updated every 5 years. Instead, the ECWMA has adopted a “living document” policy that makes the process of updating the IRWM Plan a more routine practice. In an effort to maintain the currency and applicability of the IRWM Plan, the IRWM region intends to perform a regular review of the projects in the Plan. At the time of the project review, agencies and stakeholders will have an opportunity to review existing projects and make updates as needed. New projects may also be added at this time. The ECWMA’s “living document” policy also serves to maximize the adaptive management capacity of this IRWM Plan. As new information becomes available, sections of the Plan may be updated to reflect significant changes to water management in the region, including changes to the regional characteristics described in Chapter 2. Some significant changes may trigger a need for a more formal, comprehensive update to the Plan to take into account major new information or a changing situation, at which point the ECWMA will determine the appropriate the scope and timing of the update. Circumstances triggering an informal or formal update – depending on the significance of the information – to the IRWM Plan may include:  New IRWM Guidelines or requirements and more certainly of long term IRWM funding;  New stakeholders or participants; Chapter 3: Plan Development IRWM Plan Update 3-53 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  A need to change to the region’s boundary, such as contraction, expansion, or consolidation with another region;  Significant environmental changes, the ongoing drought continuing, or other catastrophic events;  Development of new tools to assist or analyze regional water management; and  Climate change impacts manifesting in the region. The 2015 update to the IRWM Plan was a significant one that included performance and incorporation of the climate change vulnerability assessment, and recommended analysis in the Handbook. Barring significant changed circumstances, the region anticipates using the IRWMP well at least through 2025. However, the ECWMA’s “living document” policy and plan to regularly update the project list will help regional water managers’ efforts to adaptively manage water resources under changing circumstances and climate change impacts. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 4. IRWM Plan Implementation The ECCC IRWM participating agencies work together across geographies, political boundaries, and project types. Each agency also continues to invest in its own planning efforts. These various efforts are highlighted in Table 4-1. Consistent with past regional planning efforts, this update does not aim to duplicate efforts of local agencies and regional partnerships. This regional plan complements those efforts. It provides a venue for regional coordination, collaboration, outreach, and identification of projects and actions that will create mutually beneficial water management outcomes and produce projects with multiple benefits to the region. This section discusses implementation elements important to advancing these projects and actions. Implementation elements discussed include plan and project financing, performance monitoring, data management, impacts and benefits of plan projects and actions, and plans and general processes for updating the IRWM Plan in the future. Table 4-1. ECCC Region - Progress on Planning Efforts since 2005 IRWM Regional integrated and coordinated water management planning since completing the ECCC IRWM Plan in 2005:  Regional Acceptance Process was completed in 2009. Approved by DWR  2010 UWMP Updates (Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, CCWD, DWD, GSWC – Bay Point) and various related water conservation plans, programs, and projects  Regional-scale water supply optimization planning (municipal water purveyors)  Regional water recycling and desalination planning (Delta Diablo, ISD)  Groundwater management plans, CASGEM plans, and salinity/nutrient management planning (DWD, Pittsburg)  Regional habitat conservation planning and implementation (ECCCHC)  Long-range regional flood management planning (CCCFCWCD)  Active participant in integrated regional water management grant programs (all ECWMA member agencies)  Improved outreach, collaboration, and communication (all ECWMA member agencies) Key: CCCFCWCD = Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District CCWD = Contra Costa Water District DWD = Diablo Water District ECCCHC = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy ECWMA = East County Water Management Association GSWC = Golden State Water Company ISD = Ironhouse Sanitary District 4.1. Governance The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) is governed and operated by the Governing Board Representatives (GBR), composed of one elected official representative from each of the member agencies. Further, the ECWMA has a Joint Managers Committee (JMC) that is composed of managers from each of the member agencies. The term “manager” means City Manager, County Administrator, or General Manager of each of the member agencies and their respective alternates designated by the member agency, or their designees. The JMC can appoint subcommittees related to specific water management activities with which the members of the ECWMA are involved. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Each member of the ECWMA appoints staff to serve as representatives on the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG). The staff representatives of the ECWMA that constitute the RWMG are responsible for representing their agencies and providing input on IRWM matters on behalf of their agencies. The RWMG members meet as needed to discuss IRWM and other regional matters, and are responsible for taking issues to their representatives on the JMC to resolve disputes or settle issues. Approximately two times per year the RWMG members meet with the larger ECWMA to inform the group of recent IRWM-related activities and other pertinent matters that are of interest to the ECWMA. These bi-annual meetings of the ECWMA are open to the public, noticed, and conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et seq. As such, the ECWMA meetings provide a forum through which non-ECWMA member agencies, participants, stakeholders, and members of the public can provide input on the ECCC IRWM Program. In addition to the two regular meetings held each year, the chair or any three members of the GBR may call a special meeting as needed to discuss IRWM-related matters. The CCWD has served as the lead agency responsible for submitting any IRWM grant materials on behalf of the ECCC region. CCWD has been serving as the lead agency for the ECCC region in accordance with a February 25, 2005, letter agreement signed by all of the ECWMA member agencies. 4.1.1. Introduction The ECWMA governance structure was originally established by a 1997 agreement between member agencies, and later amended in 2010 to update agency membership and language based on new 2010 DWR IRWM Plan Guidelines. The ECWMA facilitates communication and cooperation between member agencies on matters affecting the existing and potential water supplies of the ECCC region. The ECWMA also guides the preparation of plans such as the IRWM Plan Update. The RWMG has a proven history of working together to resolve water management- related issues within the ECCC region. The RWMG successfully implemented a State Water Board Proposition 50 IRWM Implementation Grant that was completed in 2012. In addition, the RWMG received DWR approval for the Regional Acceptance Process in 2009. The RWMG is familiar with the DWR IRWM planning and implementation grants process and has been working together on a variety of projects since 1997. 4.1.2. Regional Water Management Group Governance Structure Management and Operations Over the past several years staff of the ECWMA member agencies has served as the RWMG working on ECCC reports, plans, and IRWM implementation and planning grants. CCWD has served as the authorized agency submitting grant applications, entering into grant agreements, and administering IRWM grants for the RWMG. However, each agency has been responsible for implementing its own projects that have received state funding as part of an IRWM grant request. Staffing Each participating entity designates staff to attend meetings and work together as a RWMG on implementation and planning grants. CCWD holds a primary role to organize meetings among the RWMG as needs arise. For example, in 2011 through 2013 RWMG members met frequently to discuss the 2013 IRWM Plan update as well as to seek approval for projects to be included in Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Proposition 84 planning and implementation grant applications. Consulting staff have been used by the group to prepare grant materials.. Committees Generally the RWMG staff members work collectively on IRWM grant requests of interest. CCWD serves as the grant administrator and generally has contracted for consultant services to support grant applications. Members of the RWMG have formed subcommittees to manage groundwater studies, salt and nutrient management studies, and recycled water studies. CCWD and Contra Costa County Flood Control District staff are involved with the Bay Area IRWM and attend Bay Area Coordinating Committee meetings. CCWD and Contra Costa County Flood Control District staff have also worked closely with the Bay Area IRWM region to vet projects and address overlap concerns. Communications Staff from the RWMG encourages open and new participation in the ECCC IRWM Program. Meeting minutes generally are circulated after the RWMG meetings. Staff from the RWMG routinely works together on a variety of planning and implementation projects that require frequent and regular communication. Meeting and communicating on a frequent basis affords the opportunity to create synergies across agencies and across potential projects. In 2012, a new website was created to facilitate improved communication among the agencies, stakeholders in the community, and interested parties, such as adjacent IRWM regions (http://www.eccc- irwm.org/index.html). 4.2. Projects for Plan Implementation The ECCC IRWM region is almost entirely dependent on the Delta for water supply and all or a portion of the cities and unincorporated communities are located within the statutory Delta. This distinction is important as the Delta is a physical place with legally defined boundaries and requirements, which add to ECCC water management complexity. Substantial investments have been made in the region in water storage and water quality by constructing the expanded Los Vaqueros Reservoir, improving and expanding intakes, developing recycled water systems, and planning for coordinating conjunctive management of surface water and groundwater supplies. Even so, regional dependence on Delta water supplies is a continuing concern for the following reasons:  Issues associated with proposed future projects such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a fragile Delta ecosystem, climate change, and/or potential levee failure are expected to impact water quality and water supply reliability within the ECCC IRWM region. An associated concern is the ability of the region to meet future water quality treatment and discharge regulations.  Closely linked to Delta water quality and water supply reliability is protection, restoration, and enhancement of the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources. Water- infrastructure-related projects within the Delta often require wetland mitigation and these credits can be difficult and costly to obtain.  Given that the ECCC IRWM region includes substantial low-elevation acreage, is within the drainage of Mount Diablo, and sits adjacent to the Delta, both localized flood from Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County stormwater runoff and regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure are real and present threats. Of the past 11 president-declared natural disasters in the region, all but one involved storms and flooding. Climate change is only likely to increase these risks.  Outreach to discuss these water-related issues, and how they may be addressed, is a challenge for all communities. ECCC has additional challenges; the DACs (18 percent of the population) are not concentrated in one area. The DACS are spread across urban centers and rural areas. There isn’t a strong existing information distribution network that targets these stakeholders, and thus extra effort needs to be made to communicate with representatives from these areas. With an understanding of these water management challenges, the RWMG and its members had the necessary information to set its objectives (presented in Chapter 3) for the IRWM Plan. This set of objectives, when combined, addresses the region’s priority water management issues of water supply and quality, environmental concerns, storm and flood management, and outreach and equitable distribution of resources. To determine what projects and actions are required to meet these objectives, the RWMG collected and disseminated information, met with stakeholders, and developed and implemented an evaluation and prioritization process. The final result of this process is a suite of priority projects that, when implemented, will help the region to meet its objectives. This plan identifies 54 projects for consideration (see Appendix E). Each project has an identified lead agency, and has been demonstrated to be economically and technically feasible. An additional 29 projects have been identified by the 2015 IRWM Plan Update’s associated planning studies to be implemented in the short-term or near future. As noted in Chapter 3, these additional projects are currently being developed and have not completed the project evaluation process described in that chapter. Table 4-2a, Table 4-2b, and Table 4-2c list the projects identified for near-term implementation that were submitted in the Region’s application package for Proposition 84 Round 2, Proposition 84 Drought Round, and Proposition 84 2015 Implementation Grant requests. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the location of projects that were included in the Round 2 and Drought Round funding applications. Projects identified for inclusion in funding proposals address IRWM Plan objectives, provide multiple regional benefits, have broad stakeholder support, and are implementation ready. Should IRWM grant proposals not receive full funding, the projects included within the proposals will remain within the IRWM Plan, and likely will remain relevant to address priorities for the region. However, decisions regarding whether or not to move forward with project implementation will be up to the discretion of individual project proponents. Given that projects included in IRWM grant proposals are priority projects in the region, many project proponents seek out alternative or supplemental funding sources, including State Revolving Fund (SRF) grants and loans, local funds, federal funds, or other financial options to move the projects forward. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-2a. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Project List (Adapted from Table 8 – Summary Budget from PSP) Proposal Title: East Contra Costa County Region Proposition 84 Round 2 Grant Proposal (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Individual Project Title Requested Grant Amount Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source Cost Share: Other State Fund Source Total Cost % Funding Match Grant Award (a) Beacon West Arsenic Well & Tank Replacement Project1 $136,262 $0 $0 $136,262 0% $0 (b) Rossmoor Well Replacement/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Project $430,000 $917,200 $0 $1,347,200 68% $430,000 (c) Integrated Regional Flood Protection and Water Quality Improvement Borrow Area Project $675,000 $803,587 $0 $1,478,587 54% $0 (d) Knightsen Wetland Restoration and Flood Protection Project $500,000 $4,958,750 $0 $5,458,750 91% $0 (e) Recycled Water Salinity Reduction and Distribution System Expansion Project $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $3,000,000 50% $0 (f) East Contra Costa County Prop 84 Round 2 Grant Administration $149,984 $0 $0 $149,984 0% $0 (i) Proposal Total (Sum rows (a) through (h) for each column) $3,391,246 $8,179,537 $0 $11,570,783 71% $430,000 (j) DAC Funding Match Waiver Total $136,262 0% $0 (k) Grand Total $3,391,246 $8,179,537 $0 $11,434,521 72% $430,000 1Project located in the Overlap Area with San Francisco Bay Funding Area. Grant award from the San Francisco Bay Area Funding Area. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-2b. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Project List (Adapted from Table 8 – Summary Budget from PSP) Proposal Title: East Contra Costa County 2014 IRWM Drought Grant Proposal (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Individual Project Title Requested Grant Amount Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source Cost Share: Other State Fund Source Total Cost % Funding Match Grant Award (a) CCWD-BBID Regional Intertie $569,000 $501,000 $0 $1,070,000 47% $0 (b) DWD Leak Detection and Repair $150,000 $50,000 $0 $200,000 25% $0 (c) ISD Irrigation and Recycled Water Fill Station $75,000 $25,000 $0 $100,000 25% $0 (d) Proposal Total (Sum rows (a) through (c) for each column) $794,000 $576,000 $0 $1,370,000 42% $0 (e) DAC Funding Match Waiver Total - - - - - - Grant Administration $30,000 $0 $0 $30,000 0% $0 (f) Grand Total $824,000 $576,000 $0 $1,400,000 41% $0 Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-2c: Proposition 84 2015 Implementation Grant Round Project List (Adapted from Table 8 – Summary Budget from PSP) Proposal Title: ECCC Sustainable Delta Water Management Individual Project Title (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Requested Grant Amount Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source (Funding Match) Cost Share: Other State Funding Sources Total Cost % Funding Match (Col b/Col d) Grant Award (a) East Contra Costa County Lawn to Garden Rebate Program $100,000 $35,059 $0 $135,059 26% TBD (b) Brentwood Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III $1,125,000 $393,691 $0 $1,518,691 26% TBD (c) Delta Diablo Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project $1,162,234 $451,215 $0 $1,613,449 28% TBD (d) Grant Administration $119,000 $0 $0 $119,000 0% TBD (e) Proposal Total $2,506,234 $879,965 $0 $3,386,199 - TBD (f) DAC Funding Match Waiver Total - - - - - TBD (g) Grand Total $2,506,234 $879,965 $0 $3,386,199 26% TBD Note: Funding awards anticipated to be announced December 2015, after adoption of this 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Figure 4-1. Proposition 84 Round 2 Implementation Projects by Objective Category Figure 4-2. Proposition 84 Drought Round Implementation Projects Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.3. Potential Benefits of IRWM Plan Implementation By their nature, IRWM plans are implemented through projects. These projects are designed to produce benefits but may also have impacts to the region. Impacts are evaluated in light of benefits for each project prior to implementation to meet the requirements of CEQA and NEPA, and other local, State, or Federal permits. A summary of potential impacts is presented in section 4.4. The focus of this discussion is the potential benefits to the region from implementing the IRWM Plan to achieve the Plan objectives. The region identified multiple benefits from achieving its five objectives. 4.3.1. Improving Water Supply Reliability and Water Quality Objective Projects that provide reliable water supply are essential to future viability of all aspects of the region’s environment, economy, and culture. Additionally, because the regional supply is tied to the Delta, projects to reduce Delta influences and anticipate climate change impacts, such as drought and extreme weather, will greatly increase the region’s resilience and ability to adapt to changing conditions. Water supply and quality are linked as improving and maintaining water quality contributes to supply (for humans and the environment) and is a critical factor in cost. Benefits associated with water supply projects or water quality projects (or both) determine what water may be available for appropriate uses. Specific projects proposed to achieve reliable supply and quality aim to provide the following benefits: Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination: These projects will seek to increase the utilization of recycled water, create access to desalination water as well as other alternative water supplies, such as groundwater sources, which would not be subject to the water quality variability or environmentally based water supply constraints that characterize Delta waters. Additionally, these supplies would not be impacted by levee breaches or other emergency conditions in the Delta, adding reliability to the ECCC region.. Increasing supply diversification improves water supply and quality resiliency, and reduces reliance on the Delta, an important statewide goal. . Also, by increasing the water quality of currently recycled water, the industrial and irrigation uses of this water supply can be expanded further, contributing to the aforementioned benefits. Providing a drought-tolerant supply that is less subject to Delta influences is a critical goal for the region. Reduce per capita consumption through increases in water recycling, water conservation and water use efficiency The benefits from projects that reduce per capita water consumption include reducing demand for treated drinking water through increased recycled water use, increased water conservation across all customer classes, improved treatment plant water-use efficiency, and by minimizing leaks and water loss due to root damage from trees and vegetation, damaged concrete liners, and repairable system and customer leakages. Increase water transfers and regional interties The projects that increase water transfers and regional interties will benefit the region by increasing regional water sharing, while also decreasing leaks and water losses, which will increase the efficiency of water distributed within the system. Intertie projects help create system redundancies and back-ups, better preparing the region for potential emergencies, leverages existing water storage, distribution, and treatment assets, and may reduce operational costs or benefit DACs. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure The main benefits provided by the projects fulfilling this objective are to minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply, particularly in the event of a levee failure within the Delta and to provide interconnection redundancy for existing pipelines. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Projects studying regional groundwater will benefit the region by improving how groundwater is managed, reducing Delta water use and threats to groundwater quality. In addition, these projects will identify subbasin yield, and areas with contamination (i.e., high arsenic levels). Improved groundwater management could increase supply reliability, and potentially lower costs to users, which in turn benefits DACs using groundwater. Protect/improve source water quality The projects that fulfill this objective will provide many benefits to the region, such as improved stormwater and flood management and enhanced Delta water quality through reduced pollution, including reduced discharges of noncompliant wastewater, trash, road runoff, salinity, silt, and sediment levels. Many regional and downstream municipalities use the Delta as a drinking water source, so protecting this resource is an important regional and statewide goal. Providing public water and sewer service to new customers that are currently using private wells and septic systems will help to protect and improve regional surface and groundwater sources. Also, by reducing the region’s reliance on Delta supplies and improving levees, saltwater intrusion and salinity levels would be reduced and higher quality water would be available for environmental use and for other water users statewide. Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality Many of the projects that are improving source water quality will also have the added benefit of improving treated drinking water quality as well. In addition to those benefits, some of the projects propose to add advanced treatment processes, such as through reverse osmosis, to their systems to enhance drinking water quality and meet regulatory requirements. Also, by repairing leaks in drinking water mains, customers’ water quality at the tap will be higher. Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality Similar to those projects that are improving treated drinking water quality, improving source water quality will also benefit the region by helping to improve the quality of its recycled water. A number of projects will improve and increase the region’s recycled water supply by implementing advanced water and wastewater treatment processes and improve the quality of drinking water effluent and wastewater influent from the collection system. Additionally, by expanding the recycled water distribution system, these projects would increase the region’s use of recycled water for irrigation and industrial purposes. Diversified supplies provides benefits such as improved supply reliability, resiliency, and can reduce costs to customers, including agricultural customers and DACs. Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta By achieving this objective, these projects will benefit the Region by reducing pollutant loads to the Delta. Projects that improve wastewater quality for effluent that will be discharged to the Delta, through advanced wastewater treatment process, higher quality source water and drinking Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County water treatment, and increased recycled water production and usage are prime opportunities. Additional projects, such as increasing trash capture, green streets projects, salinity reduction, reservoir sediment mitigation, and reduced noncompliant wastewater discharges can further improve Delta water quality. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta The benefits to the region from projects fulfilling this objective include increasing detention of peak storm flows, controlling downstream discharge, and decreasing reservoir sediment buildup in order to increase capacity, water retention, and infiltration. Additional projects will improve the water quality of regional stormwater discharges by reducing mercury and turbidity levels through the removal of silt, sediment, trash, and road runoff, by minimizing mixing with septic overflows and noncompliant wastewater discharges, and by using natural treatment aspects of constructed wetlands. 4.3.2. Restoring and Enhancing the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Objective Projects focused on the Delta ecosystem and environmental resources recognize the importance of investments in watershed health and sustainability. Specific proposed projects will: Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Projects that meet this objective will provide both local and statewide benefits by enhancing and restoring habitat in the Delta and connected waterways, as well as providing valuable ecological habitat for local flora and fauna and protecting the area’s valuable watersheds. The restoration and enhancement of wetland habitats immediately adjacent to the Delta and connected waterways will protect groundwater and surface water, and provide habitat for special-status species. Additionally, restoring and improving historical and constructed wetland and marsh areas will provide valuable breeding and foraging habitat for State- and federally listed species. Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources The benefits from projects satisfying this objective include maintaining Delta water quality and the health of the surrounding ecosystem by reducing regional flooding and road runoff impacts, lowering salinity in effluent discharges, minimizing Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG)-related sewer overflows, curtailing disruptive earth movements, decreasing the amount of water removed from the Delta, protecting watersheds, and restoring sensitive aquatic habitats. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions The projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to the State’s goals for addressing climate change, as outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Additionally, these projects will benefit the region by reducing carbon-intensive cleanup efforts due to flooding damage, offsetting energy needs by using recycled water or local groundwater sources on site rather than pumping and treating additional Delta water supplies, increasing operating efficiencies, reducing fossil fuel-based energy use, and decreasing trucking miles by providing a local FOG receiving facility for the region’s use. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation The projects that fulfill this objective will provide many fishing-related benefits to the region, such as reducing mercury levels in fish that will, over time, increase the amount of fish that can be Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County safely consumed and allow the reopening of a reservoir for recreation, which had been closed due to concerns about consumption of fish caught in the reservoir. Additionally, non-fishing-related recreational uses will be increased through the building of bird watching platforms and other passive public access facilities. 4.3.3. Positioning Water-Related Planning and Implementation for Funding Objective Projects that strive to improve funding for planning and implementation fall into several categories. The ultimate benefit of this focus is to make sure funds are available to implement projects delivering the benefits already described above and to ensure the public is receiving the best possible value from its investments. Projects meeting this objective: Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water The projects that meet this funding objective would provide many benefits to the region, including increasing recycled water use and local groundwater supplies, both of which would decrease water supply and treatment costs and reduce reliance on Delta water, a critical issue for the region. Additionally, these projects would decrease sediment loads currently in regional source waters and decrease TDS, salinity, and FOG levels in wastewaters, which would lead to a decrease in required water/wastewater treatment and associated system and maintenance costs. Increasing water conservation and reducing leaks improves delivery efficiency and conserves water, which reduces costs associated with treatment and delivery. Reduced costs for treating water can help reduce costs to consumers, including DACs. Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding The benefits from the projects meeting this objective include improving stormwater and flood management, reducing pollution to the Delta, reducing reliance on Delta water supplies, protecting aquatic habitat in the Delta, and increasing the efficient use of regional resources. Furthermore, some projects will produce excess material that can be reused in other projects in the region. A number of projects would capture runoff, or ensure that it continues to be captured, which reduces flow rates and provides flood protection to the project site and downstream regional areas. Improved potable and recycled water quality will provide region-wide health benefits as well as expand the water supply and the uses of recycled water. Also, increasing conservation efforts and alternative water supplies will decrease current water demands and take pressure off the region’s water supplies, particularly the Delta water supplies. Additional benefits include increasing renewable energy use, which would reduce demand on regional energy generation from conventional sources and reduce GHG emissions, and habitat restoration, which will provide region-wide environmental benefits and recreation opportunities. Integrate and increase opportunities for partnering with others to get more outcomes for the same dollar The benefits from projects meeting this objective involve coordinating efforts to implement projects more cost effectively, optimize use of materials, and increase benefits to more parties; for instance, projects that will produce excess material that can be reused in other projects in the region. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Improve stability of operations Projects that meet this objective will ultimately result in reduced cost; for example, regularly scheduled maintenance is less costly than system failures caused by a lack of maintenance. These projects will plan and design systems that are more efficient, easier to operate, and cost less to maintain. Reduced costs benefits consumers by protecting water rates from large or unexpected increases, and benefit DACs, which are more vulnerable to raising water and sewer rates. Leveraging Existing Awarded Funds Agencies in the ECCC region support water infrastructure and habitat planning and implementation projects that are integral to local, State, and federal goals related to water and special-status species/habitat protection. Because local projects address federal goals and priorities, funding may be secured from non-IRWMP sources. Federal grant funds often need to provide a match of non-federal funds. Without the non-federal match, such funds are at risk of being lost. IRWMP State funding can provide the critical match that will enable agencies in the east county region to leverage federal funding, increasing the opportunity for more funds for the region for completing important planning and implementation projects that address local, State and federal priorities. 4.3.4. Implementing Robust Stormwater and Flood Management Objective The benefits of proposed stormwater and flood management projects are multiple. Proposed projects will provide benefits such as: Improve regional flood risk management By achieving this objective, these projects will benefit the region by protecting areas, including DACs, that currently experience flooding and its related issues through maintenance of existing and construction of new levees and through the expansion of existing and the construction of new storage reservoirs and stormwater detention basins. In addition, these projects will improve resiliency and speed up recovery from storm and flood events. Reduced risk and damages from excess water flows from storms and flood will result in better economic, social, and environmental outcomes. Manage local stormwater within the region As described previously in the water quality section, benefits from the projects meeting this objective include measures that will reduce trash, sediment, mercury, and other pollutant discharges to the Delta, reducing impacts to water quality. Furthermore, these projects will also decrease current flooding overflows and road runoff, as well as their associated problems. 4.3.5. Providing Public Outreach and Building IRWM Support Objective The ECCC believes engagement with the community is essential to ongoing support for IRWM projects. Outreach also educates and promotes actions that residents and businesses can take in support of IRWM goals. For example, individuals and businesses can reduce pollutants entering waterways and practice water use efficiency. Finally, the community at large is benefited when DACs have access to decision making and the work of the ECCC is transparent. Some other benefits of this approach include: Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process The projects satisfying this objective would specifically benefit DACs by improving project identification and selection through enhanced collaboration. As a result of improved projects, these projects would reduce annual flood damages, provide public water and sewer services to communities that are currently underserved, remediate a hazardous waste site, and reduce water supply arsenic levels, which will provide direct community health benefits. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public The projects fulfilling this objective will seek to increase public awareness of water resources management issues, such as the importance of salinity reduction and climate change impacts, and will expand public knowledge of water resource issues by involving communities and small water systems in the projects, and increase appreciation for the environment through access to areas made available. Expanded outreach programs to the public Expansion and creation of renewable energy sources, FOG programs, and recycled water will be accompanied by outreach programs so that citizens will understand how to properly dispose of FOG and the associated environmental and community benefits of these projects and regional water resource management. Specific outreach methods will include project signage, stakeholder meetings, water system newsletters, and city council presentations. 4.4. Potential Impacts of IRWM Plan Implementation Based on the initial project evaluation, anticipated impacts are primarily local, temporary, and associated with construction. A smaller set of projects may also result in impacts as described in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Potential Impacts of a Small Set of Projects Project Type Potential Impacts Water supply projects Projects that increase water supply takes from the Delta have the potential to: • Negatively impact statewide water supplies • Harm endangered and protected species, including the Delta smelt • Projects that increase recycled water use could detrimentally decrease the amount of wastewater returning to the environment and impact species that rely on this water. • Recycled water projects could increase salt and nutrient loading to groundwater basins. Water quality projects • Advanced water quality treatment may lead to an increase in chemical use and additional treatment costs for the Region’s WTPs and consumers. • Projects that alter the quality or quantity of water discharged into the Delta might have unintended consequences that could harm sensitive aquatic species. Restoration and related projects Tidal marsh restoration projects have a potential to: • Increase mercury methylation. This happens when projects increase dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in Delta water. Several studies indicate that methylmercury can damage developing embryos and exposure in adults has been linked to increased risk Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Type Potential Impacts of cardiovascular disease, tremors, gingivitis, damages to the immune system and other ailments. Humans are primarily exposed by eating mercury-contaminated fish. • Increase DOC loads in drainage water • Create temporal impacts from excavation and restoration of marsh area Desalinization projects Create issues associated with brine discharge/disposal issues, and potential fisheries impacts Groundwater projects If improperly implemented can: • Damage the aquifer • Introduce contaminates or allow salinity intrusion • Increase greenhouse emissions (through energy use for pumping) Flood and stormwater management projects • May reallocate risk from the project location to another area in the watershed by changing flow patterns and/or increasing contaminants • May minimize understanding of actual risks from flood by the public 4.5. IRWM Plan and Project Financing Financing planning and implementation of projects has historically been a major obstacle for ECCC IRWM member agencies. A lack of funding for planning and implementation because of slower economic development and reduced water usage has impacted agency revenues, creating insufficient or variable revenue streams. Additional funding issues are a result of the increasing competitive nature of receiving State and federal grant funding, the limited availability of these funds, and the common schedule delays associated with these funds. In the case of projects that benefit the environment but do not provide a measureable improvement to water supply reliability and/or water quality, this challenge becomes further intensified, as funding options become more limited. Without ratepayer willingness to fund a project, project survival depends wholly upon grants or subventions for implementation. This region faces additional special challenges as many residents (18 percent, formerly 23 percent) reside in economically DACs. Smaller agencies, such as those in the ECCC region, have smaller reserves and fewer staff resources, making it more difficult to meet cost share and in-kind service grant funding requirements. These special challenges are compounded by increasing construction costs, aging infrastructure, and increased regulations. Grant funds are often contingent upon certain conditions being met. These factors can affect the flow and timing of funding, and make project implementation less effective, sometimes preventing projects from proceeding to implementation. Allocation of project payments for regional (or multi-agency) projects are often proportioned based upon the benefits expected. Under this principle, recipients of water from project implementation would bear the financial burden, rather than taxpayers overall, shifting the financial burden to the local level. Certain ECCC region members, like water districts or cities, have the ability to raise project funds through development fees or user rates. Others, like nongovernmental organizations, must rely on grants or volunteer contributions. The IRWM Plan identifies objectives tied to funding intended to make project planning and implementation more successful in the future. These objectives are: Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water  Develop projects with regional benefits that are implementable and competitive for grant funding  Increase public awareness of project importance to pass ballot measures or obtain matching funds through other means that require public support All types of appropriate funding mechanisms would be considered for project funding. The sections below discuss potential funding sources and funding certainty. 4.5.1. Potential Funding Sources The region has historically relied upon a range of funding mechanisms to help support planning and implementation projects. While the primary source of funds is generally from the more traditional sources, other sources of funds have also helped successfully move projects into the implementation phases. Provided in Table 4-4 is a summary of the types of funding sources the region will consider as it implements projects and actions identified in this IRWM Plan. Further detailed information about these funding sources can be found in the CFCC Handbook available at: http://cfcc.ca.gov/res/docs/2012%20Handbook%20.pdf. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-4. Potential Funding Sources Source Type Relevance to ECCC IRWM Plan Update State Funding Proposition 50 and 84 Integrated projects for water supply/quality/flood. CDPH Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Finance long-term loans for construction projects and short-term planning grants. Special consideration and rates for DACs apply. California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Drinking water and wastewater treatment and distribution/collection systems are eligible under this program. Department of Housing and Community Development Community Development Block Grant provides funding to cities/counties for public water programs and improvements, project feasibility studies, environmental reviews. Department of Water Resources Grants and funding opportunities from Propositions 84, 1E, 50, and 204 for water supply/quality/ efficiency, ecosystem restoration, flood. State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, which provides loans to wastewater, water recycling, and expanded use projects. Water Recycling Funding Program loans and research grants for use of treated wastewater to offset water supplies. Small Community Wastewater Program aids DACs with wastewater project financing. Proposition 1 Water quality, supply, and infrastructure projects under a variety of programs. Proposition 1 was passed in 2014, and funding details are still being developed at the time of this 2015 IRWM Plan Update. Funds will be administered by various agencies depending on the program. Federal Funding Department of Rural Development For water-related programs, towns under 10,000 population. Grants used for construction, land acquisition, sewer collection system improvements. Environmental Protection Agency Grants to support research, standards, and policies for air pollution, climate change, toxic waste, and drinking water. Bureau of Reclamation B-D Restoration Water Use Efficiency Grants, WaterSMART Grants (Water and Energy Efficiency Program and Title XVI Program), Title XVI for conservation or water management, Water management Improvement Grant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 6 ESA funding for habitat preservation Mitigation/Settlement Funds Project Mitigation or Settlement of Lawsuit For water supply, flood management, habitat restoration. Special Assessment Districts Non-County local government districts Method of collecting projects funds related to a specific service (like flood management). Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-4. Potential Funding Sources Source Type Relevance to ECCC IRWM Plan Update New Development Fees Water Agencies Used to pay for new water pipeline, large water facilities, or other projects to support additional service area needs. User Fees Water Agencies Used to pay for new water pipeline, large water facilities, or other projects to support services benefiting existing users. User Rates Water Agencies User rates pay for the operations and maintenance of a water agency or public utility’s system. Municipal Bonds Water Agencies Includes revenue bonds, general obligation bonds, certification of participation. Bonds could be used to supplement other funding sources. Large facility is needed to support current and future growth. Volunteer Contributions nonprofit/nongovernme ntal organizations Used for preservation of native land and implementation of public outreach programs. General Funds County and local governments Used to pay for projects included in agency budgets where costs not covered by other means. 4.5.2. Funding Certainty Historically, the ECCC region has had good success seeking funding through DWR’s IRWM grant programs. Table 4-5 summarizes project planning and project implementation activity dating back to the completion of the first IRWM in 2005, along with IRWM grants received by the region. Since that regional planning effort the region has been accepted as an official IRWM region through DWR’s RAP, and been awarded two planning grants through the Proposition 84 planning grant program. As a result of the regions successful collaboration in regional planning, a Proposition 50 implementation grant application prepared by the region in 2007 was successfully awarded for grant funding totaling $12.5M. These projects focused on water supply, water quality, and ecosystem restoration. In 2011, three agencies in the region submitted Proposition 1E stormwater grant applications and were awarded a total of approximately $15M. In 2013, the region, with CCWD as the lead agency, submitted a Proposition 84 Implementation Round 2 grant application, and was awarded $430,000 to help fund one of the projects included in the application. Projects included in this application were identified through the IRWM Plan Update (discussed previously in Section 4.1). Agencies in the region, including members of the ECWMA, have applied for, and received, funding for water projects that, although they are outside of the IRWM program, help address some of the region’s IRWM objectives. These include recycled water projects and plans funded through USBR (primarily Title XVI dollars). Other potential funding mechanisms that may be pursued for projects related to the IRWM program or that help achieve objectives of the IRWM program include State Revolving Funds, agency connection fees, and other funds described in Table 4-4, above. Projects that are regional in nature may be more attractive for competitive funding applications, and funds from one funding program may be able to be used to leverage funds from another program, depending on the individual program requirements and guidelines. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table 4-5. IRWM Plan Financing – IRWM Grants Activity Description Approximate Total Cost Grant Amount Requested (%) Local Match/Other Funds Committed (%) Funding Certainty (Match; Grant) O&M Finance Certainty1 (Match; Grant) IRWM Plan Development 2005 Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan $100,000 $0 (0%) $100,000 (100%) Secure N/A 2009 Region Acceptance Process $50,000 $0 (0%) $50,000 (100%) Secure N/A 2011 IRWM Plan Update – Proposition 84 Planning Round 1 $600,000 $450,000 (75%) $150,000 (25%) Secure Awarded N/A N/A 2012 IRWM Plan Update – Proposition 84 Planning Round 2 $1,493,045 $447,914 (30%) $1,045,131 (70%) Secure Awarded N/A N/A IRWM Plan Project Implementation 2006 Proposition 50, Chapter 8 – IRWM Implementation Grant $12,500,000 $2,125,000 (17%) $10,375,000 (83%) Secure Awarded Secure N/A 2011 Proposition 1E – Stormwater Flood Management Grant Round 1 (CCFC&FCD) $2,000,000 $280,000 (14%) $1,720,000 (86%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2011 Proposition 1E – Stormwater Flood Management Grant Round 1 (CCWD) $10,000,000 $5,000,000 (50%) $5,000,000 (50%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2011 Proposition 1E – Stormwater Flood Management Grant Round 1 (Antioch) $2,997,300 $1,498,650 (50%) $1,498,650 (50%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2011 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Round 1 $1,775,000 $1,331,250 (75%) $443,750 (25%) Local CIP Budget Awarded Rates and other grants N/A 2013 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Round 2 $18,726,330 $4,681,583 (25%) $14,044,747 (75%) $430,000 Awarded to fund one of the included projects Rates and other grants N/A 2014 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Drought Round $824,000 $486,160 (59%) $337,840 (41%) Not awarded by DWR Rates and other grants 2015 IRWM Projects – Proposition 84 Implementation Round $2,506,234 $1,854,613 (74%) $651,621 (26%) Under review by DWR Rates and other grants 1 O&M Costs are the responsibility of the project sponsors and are covered through rates, fees, charge and other operating cost funding sources. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.6. Plan Performance Monitoring The ECWMA will be responsible for periodically reviewing the progress of the plan in achieving the regional objectives, and reassessing project priorities as needed. Additional project oversight committees will be established as necessary. As noted earlier, the region’s objectives included qualitative or quantitative metrics. These metrics give the RWMG and its members a way to determine if the region is meeting its intent and to assess the IRWM Plan’s performance. There may be two levels of monitoring: at the project level and at the IRWM Plan level. Levels of monitoring will be reported and shared with the RWMG so it can determine how well the IRWM Plan implementation is proceeding. The reporting is also valuable because it will provide needed signals of implementation progress that will allow the region to reconsider what objectives and approaches may need to be changed, updated, refined, eliminated, or supplemented. The types of monitoring that may be undertaken are shown in Table 4-6 and categorized by objective topic. Table 4-6. Types of Monitoring Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation  Utility rates  Unit water costs  O&M costs  Grant successes Water Supply  Stream flow monitoring  Surface water deliveries  Recycled water deliveries  Groundwater elevation and pumping monitoring Water Quality and Related Regulations  Water quality monitoring (surface water, groundwater, recycled water)  Discharge monitoring Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and other Environmental Resources  HCP monitoring  GHG monitoring  CEQA/NEPA compliance Stormwater and Flood Management  Discharge monitoring  Improving level of flood protection Outreach  Increase participation  DAC projects  Geographic distribution Key: CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act DAC = Disadvantaged Community GHG = greenhouse gas HCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act O&M = operations and maintenance ECCC IRWM member agencies developed a website to collect and disseminate information. This website will be used to manage up-to-date information about planning and implementation activities. The website is being updated in 2015. Agencies and stakeholders will have continuous access to this site for monitoring and review purposes. Occasionally, the ECWMA may discuss current project information on the website and determine if specific actions are required to update the information, summarize the information, or modify the way information is maintained on the website. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.7. Data Management The data and information needs of the region are regularly changing depending on the grant cycle and regional activities occurring at any point in time. Technical information on project planning, design, construction, operation, and monitoring is typically collected through the grant administration task of specific grant programs. When the region is preparing grant applications, data and information is collected through the project solicitation process, which is typically facilitated by CCWD or a consultant. When grant opportunities arise, data needs are often driven by the requirements of any particular proposal solicitation package. For example, in addition to project scope, budget, and schedule, information about project benefits, climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, greenhouse gas reduction, DAC and tribal impacts and benefits are often requested. For the 2019 update to this IRWMP, there are no outstanding data needs at this time. Data and information about the IRWM Plan and its implementation will be managed using the region’s IRWM website (http://www.eccc-irwm.com). The CCWD has served as the lead agency responsible for maintaining the data and website on behalf of the ECCC region. The website provides accessibility to the IRWM process for stakeholders and the general public, including DACs, and is updated periodically to reflect up-to-date information. Information on the website includes project information, interactive maps, and enhanced context and background information on the IRWM Program, all in a user-friendly interface. The website is the way in which the region can collect, disseminate, and store data and information about the IRWM process. Information and data on the website is being updated to be consistent with this 2015 IRWM Plan Update, as well as on-going funding opportunities and successes, applicable planning studies, and updated Guidelines from DWR. With these improvements, the website will facilitate better information dissemination to the RWMG, stakeholders, DWR, and the general public. The website’s best data management feature is with its management of project information. Project proponents can enter projects at any time using a detailed project form with information about project type, status, objectives met, and funding. The project form has been updated consistent with the 2015 IRWM Plan Update and the most recent IRWM Program Guidelines from DWR. Submitted project information is stored in a database, and a limited amount of information is available to the public to encourage collaboration, integration, and transparency. Project information can be updated by the project proponents at any time, by simply making a request to the website administrator. The interface will also prove to be cost efficient over time because the online project form is easily updated to reflect the latest IRWM Guidelines or region’s priorities. Finally, the interface will ensure that regional planning is a living process by allowing for continued adding, evaluating, and prioritizing of projects. The ECCC IRWM region administrator is responsible for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) practices related to the information on the website. Other QA/QC of regional data becomes relevant particularly when proposals are being developed for IRWM funding opportunities. Agencies participating in proposal development are typically responsible for QA/QC of their own data. Similarly, during grant agreement implementation, local project sponsors are responsible for QA/QC of supplied deliverables to support project benefits and completed work. The grant administrator also takes on some QA/QC responsibilities when reviewing progress reports and submitted documentation. Chapter 4: IRWM Plan Implementation IRWM Plan Update 4-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 4.8. Adaptability to Future Situations As part of the region’s 2009 Region Acceptance Process application, the ECCC IRWM member agencies formed a RWMG, responsible for navigating jurisdictional complexities, coordinating with other planning efforts, and updating and implementing the ECCC Region’s IRWM Plan. This IRWM Plan establishes a strong foundation for future planning and implementation activities. The latest IRWM Program guidelines were followed and all requirements met. While IRWM plans do not have regular update schedules, the RWMG and its members will use monitoring and be responsive to regional and statewide needs to determine the best time to update the IRWM Plan. An IRWM Plan update could be triggered by:  New IRWM Program guidelines or requirements  New stakeholders or participants  A need to change the region’s boundary, such as contraction, expansion, or consolidation with another region  Significant environmental changes or other catastrophic events  Significant updates to local water planning or local land-use planning, such as the completion of planning efforts soon to be underway associated with the Proposition 84 DWR Round 2 Planning Grant awarded to the region in late 2012  IRWM Plan monitoring results indicating needed changes The region plans to follow the established IRWM Plan until there is a significant change in circumstance. The planning framework allows for results and outcomes of future planning efforts to be incorporated into an update of the IRWM Plan. The planning framework will support future requests for implementation grant funding in the final Proposition 84 Round (August 2015) if awarded and other DWR implementation grant programs, as appropriate (e.g., Proposition 1). Furthermore, the RWMG and it members will reexamine the planning process and its components, as needed, to determine if the IRWM Plan or any of its components (e.g., objectives) need updating or revising, and to determine if recent plan enhancements warrant formal adoption of a revised plan. Moving forward, the framework created through this IRWM Plan will continue as a living process the region can rely on it to meet its current and future water management challenge. IRWM Plan Update 5-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Chapter 5. References 1974. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Understanding the CDBG Program Fact Sheet Contra Costa Consortium. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/CDBG%20101%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 1974. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Race & Ethnicity. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Race%20and%20 Ethnicity.pdf 1974. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Severely Disabled Adult. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Severely%20Disa bled%20Adults.pdf 1991. Ahwahnee Water Principles – http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/h2o_principles.html 1996. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Future Water Supply Study (FWSS) Final Report. http://www.ccwater.com/files/FWSSExecutiveSummary.pdf 1996. East County Water Supply Management Study 1999. Contra Costa County Stormwater Management Plan 2000. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2001. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Volume I, Third Assessment Report: The Scientific Basis, eds. Houghton, J.T. et al. 2001. Sanitary Survey Update Report. California Department of Water Resources. (December). Division of Planning and Local Assistance, and Municipal Water Quality Investigations Program. Sacramento, California. 2002. California Water Code - CWC §79560-79565, Competitive Grants Funding 2002. Future Water Supply Study 2002 Update, Contra Costa Water District, 2002. Proposition 50 Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 2002. Senate Bill 1672 Integrated Regional Water Management Act, Division 6 of the Water Code 2005. ECCC Functionally Equivalent Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2005. Critical Assessment of the Delta Smelt Population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. Bennett, W.A., San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, Art. 1. 2005. Delta Regional Drinking Water Quality Management Plan 2005. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Draft), (Contra Costa) 2005. Functionally Equivalent IRWM Plan (FEIRWM Plan) 2006. An Assessment of the Impacts of Future CO2 and Climate on Californian Agriculture (Baldocci and Wong), http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005- 187/CEC-500-2005-187-SF.PDF 2006. California Public Resources Code - PRC §5096.800-5096.967 IRWM Stormwater Flood Management funding 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) 2006. Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act 2006. Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act 2008. California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 75005(g): Disadvantaged community 2008. Adapting California’s Water Management to Climate Change. Hanak, E., and J. Lund San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. 2008. Brentwood/CCWD Joint Water Treatment Plant (WTP) 2008. Multiple papers on snow pack and climate, Lettenmaier, D.P, University of Washington, et al., (see CV for full listing, http://www.ce.washington.edu/people/faculty/cv/Lettenmaier_Dennis.pdf) 2008. The Geography of Foreclosure in Contra Costa County California, Kristin Perkins, UC Berkeley. Master’s Thesis. 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22(3): 534- 543, Hellman, J. J., Byers, J. E., Bierwagen, B. G. and Dukes, J. S 2008. The Future is Now, An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response 2009. Proposition 84 Regional Acceptance Process Documents - http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/archive.cfm#RAP Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2009. A Framework for Categorizing the Relative Vulnerability of Threatened and Endangered Species to Climate Change (USFWS) http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/USEPA_2009.p df 2009. California Water Plan Update (DWR). http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/cwpu2009/index.cfm, Vol 1., Strategic Plan, Vol. 2, Resource Management Strategies 2009. ECCC Region Acceptance Process. IRWM Grant Program Application. 2009. The Impact of Climate Change on California’s Ecosystem Services. Draft Paper. California Climate Change Center. California Energy Commission CEC-500-2009-025- D. 2010. California Department of Water Resources, Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM), Climate Change Document Clearinghouse) http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/IRWM-ClimateChangeClearinghouse.pdf 2010. California Public Resources Code - PRC §75001-75130, IRWM Planning and Implementation funding 2010. Projected Population Changes in Contra Costa County and Their Implications for Contra Costa Community College District, Prepared for Contra Costa Community College District Office by Hanover Research Council. January. 2010. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2010. California Urban Water Management Plans http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/ 2010-2013. US Census. American Community Survey. http://www.census.gov/acs/www 2011. Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning (Handbook), CA. Department of Water Resources 2011. It’s Getting Hot Out There: Top 10 Places to Save for Endangered Species in a Warming World, (Endangered Species Coalition, 2011; http://www.itsgettinghotoutthere.org/). 2011. Managing Water in the West, Secure Water Act, Section 9503(c) -Reclamation Climate Change and Water 2011. Sustaining Our Agricultural Bounty. A White Paper, American Farmland Trust, Greenbelt Alliance, and Sustainable Agriculture Education. 2011. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2011. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6024 2012. Contra Costa County Crop Reports. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2207 2012. Data Gap Analysis – Tracy Subbasin, San Joaquin Groundwater Basin (DWD) 2012. Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios Report for the United States National Climate Assessment (NOAA) 2012. Infrastructure Financing for the 21st Century. 2012 Funding Fairs. California Financing Coordinating Committee, http://cfcc.ca.gov/res/docs/2012%20Handbook%20.pdf 2012. IRWM Grant Program Guidelines, CA. Department of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/Guidelines/GL_2012_FINAL.pdf 2012. Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Salt and Nutrient Management Program (DWD) 2012. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2013. CALEPA. CA State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights FAQ. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/faqs.shtml#toc1787610792012. Sea- Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (National Research Council) 2013. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Understanding The CDBG Program Fact Sheet Contra Costa Consortium. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/CDBG%20101%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 2013. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Race & Ethnicity. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Race%20and%20 Ethnicity.pdf 2013. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Definition of Severely Disabled Adult. http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CitySvcs/CDBGdocs/Definition%20of%20Severely%20Disa bled%20Adults.pdf 2013. Contra Costa County Community Development, 2013 Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative 2013. Recycled Water Feasibility Study for the City of Brentwood (Brentwood) Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County 2013. Recycled Water Master Plan – A Title XVI Feasiblitiy Study Report , Final Draft (DDSD) 2013. US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 2013. US EPA Environmental Justice Information: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej 2014. Final Regional Capacity Study (Antioch, Brentwood, Martinez, Pittsburg, CCWD, and DWD) 2014. Salinity Pollution Prevention Plan for the Ironhouse Sanitary District Water Recycling Facility (ISD) 2015. Recycled Water Draft Feasibility Study (ISD) Chapter 5: References IRWM Plan Update 5-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Page intentionally left blank. IRWM Plan Update i March 2019 East Contra Costa County List of Appendices Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board Appendix C - Handbook Summary Information Appendix D - ECCC Handbook Checklist Appendix E - List and Descriptions of On-Going and Planned Regional Actions Appendix F - ECCC Water Management Issues Appendix G - ECCC Resource Management Strategies Appendix H - IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes  Appendix I - Regional Capacity Study   Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin Appendix K - Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan List of Appendices IRWM Plan Update ii March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) Standards are used to describe what must be in an IRWMP and can be used as criteria in Implementation Grant applications. The IRWMP must include the following:  Governance  Region Description  Objectives  Resource Management Strategies (RMS)  Integration  Project Review Process  Impact and Benefit  Plan Performance and Monitoring  Data Management  Finance  Technical Analysis  Relation to Local Water Planning  Relation to Local Land Use Planning  Stakeholder Involvement  Coordination  Climate Change Guidance, including the intent of each standard and additional reference, can be found in Appendix C of the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Grant Program Guidelines (2012 Guidelines). Following is the list of Grant Standards & Guidelines and what section in the ECCC IRWMP fulfills the DWR requirements. Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) A. Governance 1. Description of RWMG responsible for development and implementation of the plan. Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Chapter 4, Section 4.1 2. The RWMG and individual project proponents who adopted the plan. Section 2.3 3. Description of IRWM governance structure including discussion of how Native American tribes will participate in the RWMG. Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Chapter 4, Section 4.1 4. Description of how chosen governance addresses and ensures the following: a. Public outreach and involvement processes. Section 3.6 b. Effective decision making. Section 2.3, 3.6 c. Balanced access and opportunity for participation in the IRWM process. Section 2.2, 3.6 d. Effective communication both internal and external to the IRWM region. Section 3.6 e. Long-term implementation of the IRWM Plan. Section 3.4 f. Coordination with neighboring RWMG efforts and State and federal agencies. Section 3.7 g. Collaborative process used to establish Plan objectives. Section 3.2 h. How interim changes and formal changes to the IRWM Plan will be performed. Section 3.2 i. Process for updating or amending the IRWM Plan. Section 3.2 B. Region Description 1. Description of watersheds/water system Section 2.6 2. Description of internal boundaries within the region. Section 2.4 3. Water supply and demand projections for a minimum 20-year planning horizon. Section 2.7 4. Description of the social and cultural makeup of the regional community and the identification of important cultural or social values. Section 2.5 5. Description of economic conditions and important trends within the region. Section 2.5 6. Description of major water-related objectives and conflicts Section 3.2 7. Explanation of how the IRWM regional boundary was determined. Section 2, 2.1, 2.2 8. Identification of neighboring or overlapping IRWM regions Section 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.7 9. Explanation of how plan will help reduce dependence on the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta for water supply Section 1.1, 4.3 10. Current and future water quality conditions, including a description of location, extent, and impacts of the contamination; actions undertaken to address the contamination, and a description of any additional actions needed to address the contamination from nitrate, arsenic, perchlorate, or hexavalent chromium. Section 2.10 11. Description of likely Climate Change impacts on their region as determined from the vulnerability assessment. Section 2.9 C. Objectives 1. Description of measureable regional planning objectives. Section 3.2 2. Description of objective development process. Section 3.1, 3.2 Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 3. Identify quantitative or qualitative metrics and measureable objectives. Table 3-1, Section 3.2 4. Objective prioritization process. Section 3.2 5. Reference specific overall goals for the region. Section 3.2 6. Address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of runoff and recharge. Section 2.9 7. Consider the effects of sea level rise (SLR) on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures. Section 2.9 8. Reducing energy consumption, especially the energy embedded in water use, and ultimately reducing GHG emissions. Section 3.2 9. Consider the strategies adopted by CARB in its AB 32 Scoping Plan. Section 3.2 10. Consider options for carbon sequestration and using renewable energy where such options are integrally tied to supporting IRWM Plan objectives. Section 3.2 D. Resource Management Strategies 1. Description of RMS consideration process. Section 3.3 2. Range of RMS considered to meet the IRWM objectives. Section 3.3, Appendix G 3. Description of RMSs incorporated into IRWM Plan. Section 3.3, Appendix G 4. Consideration of the effects of climate change in the RMS. Section 2.8, 3.3, Appendix G D. Integration 1. Description of stakeholder/institutional integration Section 3.6, 3.7 2. Description of resource integration Section 3.7 3. Project implementation integration. Section 3.7 E. Project Review Process 1. Procedures for submitting a project to the RMWG. Section 3.4 2. Procedures for review of projects considered for inclusion into the Plan. Section 3.4 3. Procedures for displaying the list of selected projects. Section 3.6 4. Contribution to climate change adaptation. Section 2.9, 3.3 5. Contribution of project in reducing GHGs compared to project alternatives. Section 3.3 6. Specific benefits to critical water issues for Native American tribal communities. Section 2.3, 3.6 F. Impacts and Benefits 1. Discussion of potential impacts and benefits within the region from ECCC IRWMP implementation. Section 4.3, 4.4 2. Discussion of benefits and impacts between regions. Section 4.3, 4.4 3. Impacts and benefits directly affecting disadvantaged communities. Section 4.3, 4.4, 2.5 4. Impacts and benefits directly affecting environmental justice concerns. Section 4.3, 4.4, 2.5 5. Impacts and benefits directly affecting Native American tribal communities. Section 4.3, 4.4, 3.6 G. Plan Performance and Monitoring 1. Group(s) responsible for IRWM implementation evaluation. Section 4.1 2. Frequency of evaluating project implementation performance. Section 4.6 Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 3. Tracking via Data Management System. Section 4.7 4. Description of process for using "lessons learned." Section 4.8 5. Responsibility for development of project-specific monitoring plans and activities, Section 4.2, 4.3, 4.6 6. Stage of project development that a project specific monitoring plan will be prepared. Chapter 4 7. Typically required contents of a project-specific monitoring plan. Section 4.6 8. Project applicability to all rules, laws, and permit requirements Section 3.4 9. Policies and procedures that promote adaptive management and updates as effects of Climate Change manifest and new tools are developed. Section 3.8 H. Data Management 1. Overview of data needs. Section 4.7 2. Description of typical data collection techniques. Section 4.7 3. Description of stakeholder data contributions to a DMS. Section 4.7 4. Entity responsible for maintaining data in the DMS. Section 4.7 5. Description of the validation or QA/QC measures. Section 4.7 6. Explanation of how data collected for project implementation will be transferred or shared between members of the RMWG and other interested parties. Section 4.7 7. Explanation of how the DMS supports the RWMG’s efforts to share collected data. Section 4.7 8. An outline of how the data saved in the DMS will be distributed and remain compatible with State databases. Section 4.7 I. Finance 1. List of known, as well as, possible funding sources, programs, and grant opportunities for the development and ongoing funding of the IRWM Plan. Section 4.5 2. List of funding mechanisms for projects that implement the IRWM Plan. Section 4.3, 4.5 3. Explanation of the certainty and longevity of known or potential funding for the IRWM Plan and projects. Section 4.5 4. Explanation of how O&M costs for projects that implement the IRWM Plan would be covered and the certainty of O&M funding. Section 4.5 J. Technical Analysis 1. Description of the technical information sources and data sets used to develop the water management needs in the IRWM Plan. Section 3.5 2. Description of studies, models, or other technical methodologies used to analyze the technical information and data sets. Section 3.5 K. Relation to Local Water Planning 1. List of local water plans used in the IRWM Plan. Section 3.7, 3.5 2. Discussion of how the IRWM Plan relates to planning documents and programs established by local agencies. Section 3.7, 3.5, 2.2 3. Description of the dynamics between the IRWM Plan and local planning documents. Section 3.7 Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 4. Describe how the RWMG will coordinate its water management planning activities. Section 3.7 5. Consider and incorporate water management issues and climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies from local plans into the IRWM Plan. Section 3.5, Table 3-9 L. Relation to Local Land Use Planning 1. Description of current relationship between local land use planning, regional water issues, and water management objectives. Section 3.7 2. Description of future efforts to establish a proactive relationship between land use planning and water management. Section 3.7, 3.6 3. Demonstrate information sharing and collaboration with regional land use planning in order to manage multiple water demands throughout the state, adapt water management systems to climate change, and potentially offset climate change impacts to water supply in California. Section 3.7 M. Stakeholder Involvement 1. Description of the public process that provides outreach and an opportunity to participate in IRWM Plan development and implementation to the appropriate local agencies and stakeholders. Section 3.6 2. The process used to identify, inform, invite, and involve stakeholder groups in the IRWM process during development and implementation of the IRWM Plan. Section 3.6 3. A discussion on how the RWMG will identify and involve DACs and Native American tribal communities in the IRWM planning effort Section 3.6 4. Description of the decision making process, including IRWM committees, roles, or positions that stakeholders can occupy and how a stakeholder goes about participating in those committees, roles or positions, regardless of their ability to contribute financially to the Plan. Section 3.6, 3.7 5. Discussion regarding how stakeholders are necessary to address the objectives and resource management strategies of the IRWM Plan Section 3.6, 3.7 6. Discussion of how collaborative processes will engage a balance of interest groups in the IRWM process regardless of their ability to contribute financially to the IRWM Plan's development or implementation Section 2, 3.6, 3.7 N. Coordination 1. Process for coordination of projects and activities with local participants and stakeholders. Section 2, 3.6, 3.7 2. Identification of neighboring IRWM efforts and description of coordination between efforts. Section 3.7.7 3. Discussion of any ongoing water management conflicts with adjacent IRWM efforts. Section 3.7.7 4. Discussion of State, federal, and local agencies important to the development of the IRWM plan and implementation of projects. Sections 2.4.2-2.4.4, 3.7 O. Climate Change 1. Description of plan for further data gathering and analysis. Section 2.8 2. Include climate change as part of the project review process. Table 3-6 3. Discussion of the IRWM region's vulnerabilities to the effects of climate change. Section 2.8, Appendix D & E Appendix A - List of Grant Standards & Guidelines IRWM Plan Update A-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table A-1. Location of DWR Grant Standards & Guidelines and Location in ECCC IRWMP # Description Location in ECCC IRWMP (Chapter/Section) 4. Process that considers GHG emissions when choosing between project alternatives Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Section 2.9, 5. List of prioritized vulnerabilities based on the vulnerability assessment and the IRWM's decision making process. Section 2.9, Appendix D 6. Address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality, and variability of runoff and recharge. Section 2.9 7. Consider the effects of sea level rise (SLR) on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures. Section 2.9 Key: DAC = disadvantaged community DMS = Data Management System GHG = greenhouse gas IRWM = Integrated Regional Water Management O&M = Operations and Maintenance QA/QC = Quality Assurance/Quality Control RMS = Resource Management Strategy RWMG = Regional Water Management Group State = state of California Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board IRWM Plan Update B-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board East County Water Management Association - Governing Board AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE City of Antioch Lamar Thorpe, Mayor Pro Tem 925-779-6952 P.O. Box 5007 925-779-6897 F Antioch, CA 94531-5007 lthorpe@ci.antioch.ca.us City of Brentwood Bob Taylor 925-516-5440 150 City Park Way 925-516-5441 F Brentwood, CA 94523-1164 btaylor@brentwoodca.gov Diane R. Williams, Executive Assistant (contact) dwilliams@brentwoodca.gov Byron-Bethany Russell Kagehiro 209-835-0375 Irrigation District Timothy Maggiore 209-835-2869 F 7995 Bruns Road Byron, CA 94514 admin@bbid.org Contra Costa County Supervisor Diane Burgis 925-252-4500 3361 Walnut Boulevard, Ste. 140 925-240-7261 F Brentwood, CA 94513 Dist3@BOS.CCCounty.us Supervisor Federal D. Glover (Alternate) 925-427-8138 315 E. Leland Road Pittsburg, CA 94565 FGlov@bos.cccounty.us Contra Costa Bette Boatmun 925-689-9255 H Water District 4004 Salem Street 925-676-0346 F Concord, CA 94521 bboatmun@yahoo.com Constance Holdaway (Alternate) 925-726-7781 102 Cherry Way Oakley, CA 94561 choldawaywaterdistrict@gmail.com Town of Discovery Bay Robert Leete, Board Director 925-634-1131 Community Services 1800 Willow Lake Road District Discovery Bay, CA 94505 rleete@todb.ca.gov Bill Pease, Board Director (Alternate) bpease@todb.ca.gov Sue Heinl (staff) sheinl@todb.ca.gov Appendix B - Roster of the Governing Board IRWM Plan Update B-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Delta Diablo Sean Wright, Antioch Mayor/Board Member 925-756-1927 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway 925-756-1965 F Antioch, CA 94509 drseankwright@gmail.com Diablo Water Ken Crockett 925-625-3798 District 4370 Live Oak Avenue 925-625-0814 F Oakley, CA 94561 Howard Hobbs (Alternate) 4370 Neroly Road Oakley, CA 94561 Christine Belleci (staff) cbelleci@diablowater.org East Contra Costa County Randy Pope, Vice Mayor 925-625-7007 Habitat Conservancy City of Oakley 925-625-9859 F 3231 Main Street Oakley, CA 94561 randypope@ci.oakley.ca.us Joel Bryant, Council Member (Alternate) City of Brentwood 150 City Park Way Brentwood, CA 94513 jbryant@brentwoodca.gov East Contra Costa Kenneth W. Smith 925-634-5951 Irrigation District P. O. Box 140 Knightsen, CA 94548 Ironhouse Sanitary Dawn Morrow 925-625-2279 District 450 Walnut Meadows Drive Oakley, CA 94561 dmorrow@isd.us.com Doug Scheer (Alternate) dscheer@isd.us.com City of Pittsburg D. Pete Longmire, Council Member 925-252-4850 65 Civic Avenue 925-252-4851 F Pittsburg, CA 94565 plongmire@ci.pittsburg.ca.us Governing Board Chair: Bob Taylor, City of Brentwood Governing Board Vice-Chair: Lamar Thorpe, City of Antioch Governing Board Secretary: Robert Leete, Town of Discovery Bay Joint Manager’s Committee Chair: Chad Davisson, Ironhouse Sanitary District Joint Manager’s Committee Vice-Chair: Ron Bernal, City of Antioch Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix C - Handbook Summary Information C.1 Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning Developed cooperatively by DWR, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resources Legacy Fund, and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning provides a framework for considering climate change in water management planning. Key decision considerations, resources, tools, and decision options are presented that will guide resource managers and planners as they develop means of adapting their programs to a changing climate. The handbook uses DWR's IRWM planning framework as a model into which analysis of climate change impacts and planning for adaptation and mitigation can be integrated. The Handbook includes:  The science of climate change, tools and links;  Evaluating the energy-water connection and greenhouse gas emissions;  Assessing regional vulnerability to climate change;  Measuring regional impacts;  Evaluating projects, resource management strategies, and Integrated Regional Water Management Plans with respect to climate change;  Implementing and quantifying uncertainty; and  Case studies illustrating a range of climate change adaptation and mitigation issues within and outside of California. Individual Report Sections  Front Matter  Section 1: Overview of IRWM Planning and Climate Change  Section 2: The Science of Climate Change  Section 3: Evaluating the EnergyWater Connection and Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Section 4: Assessing Regional Vulnerability to Climate Change  Section 5: Measuring Regional Impacts  Section 6: Evaluating Projects, Resource Management Strategies, and IRWM Plan Benefits with Climate Change  Section 7: Implementing Under Uncertainty  Section 8: References  Appendix A: Climate Change Literature Review  Appendix A: Climate Change Literature Review  Appendix B: Vulnerability Assessment Checklist  Appendix C: Quantifying Uncertainty in Climate Change Analysis  Appendix D: Climate Change Analysis Tool Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County C.2 Vulnerability Assessment Checklist (DWR Appendix B) I. Water Demand   Are there major industries that require cooling/process water in your planning region?   As average temperatures increase, cooling water needs may also increase.   Identify major industrial water users in your region and assess their current and  projected needs for cooling and process water.       Does water use vary by more than 50% seasonally in parts of your region?   Seasonal water use, which is primarily outdoor water use, is expected to increase as  average temperatures increase and droughts become more frequent.   Where water use records are available, look at total monthly water uses averaged over  the last five years (if available).  If maximum and minimum monthly water uses vary by  more than 25%, then the answer to this question is "yes."   Where no water use records exist, is crop irrigation responsible for a significant (say  >50%) percentage of water demand in parts of your region?       Are crops grown in your region climate sensitive?  Would shifts in daily heat patterns,  such as how long heat lingers before nighttime cooling, be prohibitive for some crops?   Fruit and nut crops are climate sensitive and may require additional water as the  climate warms.       Do groundwater supplies in your region lack resiliency after drought events?   Droughts are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future.  Areas  with a more hardened demand may be particularly vulnerable to droughts and may  become more dependent on groundwater pumping.       Are water use curtailment measures effective in your region?   Droughts are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future.  Areas  with a more hardened demand may be particularly vulnerable to droughts.       Are some instream flow requirements in your region either currently insufficient to  support aquatic life, or occasionally unmet?   Changes in snowmelt patterns in the future may make it difficult to balance water  demands.  Vulnerabilities for ecosystems and municipal/agricultural water needs may  be exacerbated by instream flow requirements that are:  1. not quantified,  2. not accurate for ecosystem needs under multiple environmental conditions  including droughts, and  3. not met by regional water managers.     Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County II. Water Supply    Does a portion of the water supply in your region come from snowmelt?   Snowmelt is expected to decrease as the climate warms.  Water systems supplied by  snowmelt are therefore potentially vulnerable to climate change.   Where watershed planning documents are available, refer to these in identifying parts  of your region that rely on surface water for supplies; if your region contains surface  water supplies originating in watersheds where snowpack accumulates, the answer to  this question is "Yes."   Where planning documents are not available, identify major rivers in your region with  large users.  Identify whether the river's headwaters are fed by snowpack.    Does part of your region rely on water diverted from the Delta, imported from the  Colorado River, or imported from other climatesensitive systems outside your region?   Some imported or transferred water supplies are sources from climatesensitive  watersheds, such as water imported from the Delta and the Colorado River.      Does part of your region rely on coastal aquifers?  Has salt intrusion been a problem in  the past?   Coastal aquifers are susceptible to salt intrusion as sea levels rise, and many have  already observed salt intrusion due to overextraction, such as the West Coast Basin in  southern California.      Would your region have difficulty in storing carryover supply surpluses from year to  year?   Droughts are expected to become more severe in the future.  Systems that can store more  water may be more resilient to droughts.    Has your region faced a drought in the past during which it failed to meet local water  demands?   Droughts are expected to become more severe in the future.  Systems that have already  come close to their supply thresholds may be especially vulnerable to droughts in the  future.      Does your region have invasive species management issues at your facilities, along  conveyance structures, or in habitat areas?   As invasive species are expected to become more prevalent with climate change, existing  invasive species issues may indicate an ecological vulnerability to climate change.    III. Water Quality Are increased wildfires a threat in your region?  If so, does your region include  reservoirs with firesusceptible vegetation nearby which could pose a water quality  concern from increased erosion?   Some areas are expected to become more vulnerable to wildfires over time.  To identify  whether this is the case for parts of your region, the California Public Interest Energy  Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Research (PIER) Program has posted wildfire susceptibility projections as a Google Earth  application at: http://caladapt.org/fire/.  These projections are only the results of a single  study and are not intended for analysis, but can aid in qualitatively answering this question.   Read the application's disclaimers carefully to be aware of its limitations.      Does part of your region rely on surface water bodies with current or recurrent water  quality issues related to eutrophication, such as low dissolved oxygen or algal blooms?   Are there other water quality constituents potentially exacerbated by climate change?   Warming temperatures will result in lower dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies, which  are exacerbated by algal blooms and in turn enhance eutrophication. Changes in  streamflows may alter pollutant concentrations in water bodies.    Are seasonal low flows decreasing for some waterbodies in your region?  If so, are the  reduced low flows limiting the waterbodies’ assimilative capacity?   In the future, low flow conditions are expected to be more extreme and last longer.  This  may result in higher pollutant concentrations where loadings increase or remain constant.      Are there beneficial uses designated for some water bodies in your region that cannot  always be met due to water quality issues?   In the future, low flows are expected decrease, and to last longer.  This may result in higher  pollutant concentrations where loadings increase or remain constant.      Does part of your region currently observe water quality shifts during rain events that  impact treatment facility operation?   While it is unclear how average precipitation will change with temperature, it is generally  agreed that storm severity will probably increase.  More intense, severe storms may lead to  increased erosion, which will increase turbidity in surface waters.  Areas that already  observe water quality responses to rainstorm intensity may be especially vulnerable.     IV. Sea Level Rise  Has coastal erosion already been observed in your region?   Coastal erosion is expected to occur over the next century as sea levels rise.    Are there coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, in your region?   Coastal structures designed for a specific mean sea level may be impacted by sea level rise.    Is there significant coastal infrastructure, such as residences, recreation, water and  wastewater treatment, tourism, and transportation) at less than six feet above mean  sea level in your region?   Coastal flooding will become more common, and will impact a greater extent of property,  as sea levels rise.  Critical infrastructure in the coastal floodplain may be at risk.   Digital elevation maps should be compared with locations of coastal infrastructure.       Are there climate sensitive low‐lying coastal habitats in your region?  Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County  Low‐lying coastal habitats that are particularly vulnerable to climate change include  estuaries and coastal wetlands that rely on a delicate balance of freshwater and salt water.       Are there areas in your region that currently flood during extreme high tides or storm  surges?   Areas that are already experiencing flooding during storm surges and very high tides, are  more likely to experience increased flooding as sea levels rise.       Is there land subsidence in the coastal areas of your region?   Land subsidence may compound the impacts of sea level rise.       Do tidal gauges along the coastal parts of your region show an increase over the past  several decades?   Local sea level rise may be higher or lower than state, national, or continental projections.   Planners can find information on local tidal gauges at  http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=ca.  Appendix C –Handbook Summary Information IRWM Plan Update C-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix D - ECCC Handbook Checklist Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization Question Response Priority Justification I. Water Demand  Are there major industries that require cooling/process water in your planning region? Yes High Major water-intensive industries include power production.  Does water use vary by more than 50% seasonally in parts of your region? Yes High Summer months are as much as 50% higher than the average month and winter months are as much as 50% lower than the average month. Warming temperatures and increased extreme events will likely exacerbate summer demand.  Are there climate-sensitive crops grown in your region? Would shifts in daily heat patterns, such as how long heat lingers before nighttime cooling, be prohibitive for some crops? Yes High A variety of crop types are grown in the region, including row crops, tree crops, and irrigated grains. Agricultural production in Contra Costa County has a value of approximately $92 million dollars (2011 Annual Crop and Livestock Report for Contra Costa County). Many of these crops are sensitive to climate.  Do groundwater supplies in your region lack resiliency after drought events? No – Groundwater supplies in the region have proved resilient after drought events.  Are water use curtailment measures effective in your region? Yes Low Water conservation BMPs are used effectively throughout the region, as detailed in various UWMPs.  Are some instream flow requirements in your region either currently insufficient to support aquatic life, or occasionally unmet? No – Climate change is expected to place additional stress on low summer flows. II. Water Supply  Does a portion of the water supply in your region come from snowmelt? Yes Medium Runoff from April through July is dominated by snowmelt.  Does part of your region rely on water diverted from the Delta, imported from the Colorado River, or imported from other climate-sensitive systems outside your region? Yes High The majority of water supplies in the region are from the Delta.  Does part of your region rely on coastal aquifers? Has salt intrusion been a problem in the past? No – There are coastal aquifers within the region, but these have not shown to have significant problems with salt intrusion in the past. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Would your region have difficulty in storing carryover supply surpluses from year to year? Yes Medium Current operating conditions limit storage opportunities during winter runoff season; increased winter runoff would not necessarily translate into increased storage of water leading into the spring season. Conversely, storage capture of snowmelt runoff has traditionally occurred during the late spring and early summer seasons. Reductions in runoff during this season likely would translate into reductions in storage capture and, likewise, reductions in water supply for warm season delivery (Reclamation 2011)  Has your region faced a drought in the past during which it failed to meet local water demands? No – The region has not failed to meet local water demands during drought years. However, the potential effects of climate change make this a possibility.  Does your region have invasive species management issues at your facilities, along conveyance structures, or in habitat areas? Yes Medium Invasive species, including various nonnative fish and plant species, are an ongoing issue within the region. III. Water Quality  Are increased wildfires a threat in your region? If so, does your region include reservoirs with fire-susceptible vegetation nearby that could pose a water quality concern from increased erosion? No – Wildfires are only a moderate hazard in eastern Contra Costa County (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (2011).  Does part of your region rely on surface water bodies with current or recurrent water quality issues related to eutrophication, such as low dissolved oxygen or algal blooms? Are there other water quality constituents that are potentially exacerbated by climate change? Yes High The majority of water supply in the region is from the Delta, which has several water quality concerns, which would be exacerbated by climate change.  Are seasonal low flows decreasing for some water bodies in your region? If so, are the reduced low flows limiting the water bodies’ assimilative capacity? No – Seasonally low flows are not currently decreasing, but this is a potential impact from climate change. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Are there beneficial uses designated for some water bodies in your region that cannot always be met due to water quality issues? Yes Low Beneficial uses on surface water bodies throughout the region are listed as impaired on the Clean Water Act 303 (d) list for water quality constituents, such as mercury and pesticides.  Does part of your region currently observe water quality shifts during rain events that impact treatment facility operation? Yes Medium Disinfectant byproduct precursors tend to spike during storm events (DWR 2001). IV. Sea-Level Rise  Has coastal erosion already been observed in your region? Yes Medium A portion of the region is in the Delta, which has experienced erosion.  Are there coastal structures, such as levees or breakwaters, in your region? Yes High There are tidally influenced levees on the Sacramento River on the western boundary of the region.  Is there significant coastal infrastructure (residences, recreation, water and wastewater treatment, tourism, and transportation) at less than 6 feet above mean sea level in your region? Yes High There is infrastructure adjacent to the Delta that is at or near 6 feet above mean sea level.  Are there climate-sensitive low-lying coastal habitats in your region? Yes Medium The northern boundary of the region is adjacent to the Delta.  Are there areas in your region that currently flood during extreme high tides or storm surges? No – There are areas in and adjacent to the Delta that flood during extreme weather events.  Is there land subsidence in the coastal areas of your region? Yes High Many Delta islands have subsided 15 feet to 25 feet below sea level (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update [2011]).  Do tidal gauges along the coastal parts of your region show an increase over the past several decades? Yes Low In recent decades, the mean sea level trend has been an increase of 2.08mm/year (at the nearest tidal gauge to the region (Port Chicago, located in the San Francisco Bay [NOAA 2012]). V. Flooding  Does critical infrastructure in your region lie within the 200-year floodplain? DWR’s best floodplain maps are available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/best_available_maps/. Yes High Major Infrastructure in floodplains includes major interstate highways and water/wastewater infrastructure (DWR 2012).  Does part of your region lie within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District? Yes High The eastern portion of the region lies within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Does aging critical flood protection infrastructure exist in your region? Yes High Major metropolitan areas, small communities, and rural areas are protected by aging levees, weirs, bypasses, and other flood management infrastructure. These are detailed in the Flood Control System Status Report (DWR 2012).  Have flood control facilities (such as impoundment structures) been insufficient in the past? Yes Medium Contra Costa County is vulnerable to five flood types: localized flooding, riverine flooding, flash flooding, levee overtopping/failure, and dam failure.  Are wildfires a concern in parts of your region? No – Only a small area on the western boundary of the region has moderate fire danger (Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2011). VI. Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerability  Does your region include inland or coastal aquatic habitats vulnerable to erosion and sedimentation issues? Yes Medium Wetland and riverine habitats are vulnerable to erosion and sedimentation issues.  Does your region include estuarine habitats that rely on seasonal freshwater flow patterns? Yes Low The Delta portion of the region relies on seasonal freshwater flow patterns.  Do climate-sensitive fauna or flora populations live in your region? Yes High Climate-sensitive populations include salmonid species, migratory bird species, and wetland species (CEC 2008).  Do endangered or threatened species exist in your region? Are changes in species distribution already being observed in parts of your region? Yes High A number of State-listed and federally listed threatened and endangered species exist in the region.  Does the region rely on aquatic or water-dependent habitats for recreation or other economic activities? Yes Low Boating, hunting, fishing, and bird watching are important recreational and economic activities that rely on aquatic or water-dependent habitats in the region.  Are there rivers in your region with quantified environmental flow requirements or known water quality/quantity stressors to aquatic life? Yes Low Rivers and creeks in the region do not have flow requirements. Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table D-1. Climate Change Vulnerability Checklist and Prioritization (contd.) Question Response Priority Justification  Do estuaries, coastal dunes, wetlands, marshes, or exposed beaches exist in your region? If so, are coastal storms possible/frequent in your region? Yes Low The Bay-Delta estuary, marshes, and seasonal and emergent wetland habitats exist in the region, particularly in the southwestern portion; however, coastal storms are not frequent in the region.  Does your region include one or more of the habitats described in the Endangered Species Coalition’s Top 10 habitats vulnerable to climate change (http://www.itsgettinghotoutthere.org/)? Yes High The region contains portions of the Bay-Delta, which is on the Endangered Species Coalition’s Top 10 vulnerable habitats.  Are there areas of fragmented estuarine, aquatic, or wetland wildlife habitat within your region? Are there movement corridors for species to naturally migrate? Are there infrastructure projects planned that might preclude species movement? Yes, sometime, Yes Medium The combined effect of various stressors has fragmented and/or eliminated extensive areas of wetland and riparian habitat and impeded movement corridors (DWR 2012). VII. Hydropower  Is hydropower a source of electricity in your region? Yes Low Yes, a portion of PG&E’s power supply is from hydropower.  Are energy needs in your region expected to increase in the future? If so, are there future plans for hydropower generation facilities or conditions for hydropower generation in your region? Yes, No Low The population is expected to grow in the future. Future power supply projects would need to be considered, including hydropower sources. Key: BMP = best management practice Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta DWR = California Department of Water Resources PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan Appendix D – ECCC Handbook Checklist IRWM Plan Update D-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix E - List and Descriptions of On-Going and Planned Regional Actions A list and description of on-going and planned regional actions can be found on the ECCC IRWM Plan web site here: http://www.eccc-irwm.org/ A table of ECCC IRWM Plan regional projects sorted by different project attributes can be found on the following pages. This table was generated from the project database maintained by the ECCC IRWM Plan web site. The table is titled ‘ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Sorted by Different Project Attributes’ and includes the following sorted lists:  Projects Sorted by Project Type  Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category  Projects Sorted by Project Score  Projects Sorted by Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification  Projects Sorted by Project Status: Design Date  Projects Sorted by Total Cost  Projects Sorted by Percent Funded A table of detailed project data for each of the ECCC IRWM Plan regional projects can be found on the following pages. This table was generated from the project database maintained by the ECCC IRWM Plan web site. This table is titled ‘ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Detailed Data’ and includes the following information for each regional project:  Project Name  Sponsoring Agency/Organization  Project ID #  Project Description  ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) (how the project relates)  Program Preferences (how the project relates)  Statewide Priorities (how the project relates)  Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations (how the project relates)  Project Status – Implementation  Project Costs – Implementation  Project Funding – Implementation  Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) (how the project relates)  Environmental Justice (how the project relates)  Climate Change /Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (how the project relates) Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Sorted by Different Project Attributes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Type            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Type 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Environmental (e.g., habitat) 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Environmental (e.g., habitat) 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District Environmental (e.g., habitat) 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Environmental (e.g., habitat) 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 Environmental (e.g., habitat) 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 Infrastructure - Stormwater / Flood Management 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Type            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Type 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District Infrastructure - Wastewater / Recycled Water 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District Infrastructure - Water / Water Quality 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District Monitoring 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Monitoring 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District Monitoring 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District Other 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District Other 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District Other 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program Research Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category              Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Minimize impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category              Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District Stormwater and Flood Management Improve regional flood risk management 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater within the region 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County Water Quality and Related Regulations Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional recycled water quality 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg Water Quality and Related Regulations Maintain/improve regional treated drinking water quality 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Quality and Related Regulations Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category              Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective Category Primary ECCC IRWM Plan Objective 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/improve source water quality 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District Water Supply Increase water conservation and water use efficiency 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Score            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Score 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 26.00 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 25.00 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 24.00 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 24.00 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 22.00 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 21.00 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 19.00 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 19.00 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 17.00 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District 17.00 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 17.00 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 16.00 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 16.00 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 15.00 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 14.00 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District 14.00 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 14.00 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 14.00 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 13.00 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 11.00 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 11.00 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 11.00 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 10.00 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch 10.00 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 10.00 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 10.00 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 10.00 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 10.00 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 9.00 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9.00 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 9.00 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Score            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Score 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 9.00 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 9.00 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 7.00 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 7.00 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7.00 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7.00 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 7.00 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 6.00 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 6.00 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5.00 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5.00 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5.00 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 5.00 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 5.00 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 5.00 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex 4.00 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4.00 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 4.00 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 4.00 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 2.00 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 10 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 9 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 7 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 7 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 6 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 6 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 5 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 5 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 5 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 5 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 5 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 5 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 5 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 4 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 4 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 4 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 4 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 4 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 4 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 4 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District 4 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 4 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 4 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 3 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch 3 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Resource Management Strategies (RMS) Diversification 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 3 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 3 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 3 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 3 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 3 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 3 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 3 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 2 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex 2 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 2 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 2 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 2 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 2 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 2 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District 2 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 2 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 2 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 1 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 1 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 1 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 1 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 1 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Status:   Design Date            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Project Status: Design Date 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 7/1/2012 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 8/1/2012 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 9/1/2012 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 9/1/2012 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 9/1/2012 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 9/1/2012 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 9/1/2012 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 9/1/2012 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 4/1/2013 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 4/1/2013 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 5/1/2013 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 6/1/2013 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 6/1/2013 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 6/1/2013 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 9/1/2013 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 10/1/2013 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 12/1/2013 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 1/1/2014 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 4/1/2014 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 7/1/2014 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 7/1/2014 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 7/1/2014 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 7/1/2014 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 9/1/2014 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 9/1/2014 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Project Status:   Design Date            29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 10/1/2014 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 10/1/2014 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 12/1/2014 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 1/1/2015 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 6/1/2015 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 9/1/2015 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 9/1/2015 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 9/1/2015 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 6/1/2016 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9/1/2017 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 9/1/2017 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 8/1/2020 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 8/1/2020 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 8/1/2020 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9/1/2020 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 9/1/2020 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex - 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District - 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch - 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District - 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District - 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District - 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District - 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Total Cost            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Total Cost 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 80,000,000 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District $ 58,500,000 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 50,000,000 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District $ 30,000,000 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 $ 27,300,000 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 25,000,000 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District $ 20,000,000 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 11,813,000 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg $ 10,580,000 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 10,243,800 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation -Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 10,243,800 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 10,051,000 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 $ 9,751,000 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch $ 9,263,600 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 9,220,000 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District $ 8,100,000 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County $ 7,525,000 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District $ 7,080,000 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 $ 7,000,000 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District $ 6,720,000 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch $ 6,625,000 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 6,215,000 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 6,200,000 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 5,356,000 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 4,906,000 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 4,043,000 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 3,800,000 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 3,664,000 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 3,000,000 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 2,500,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Total Cost            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Total Cost 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 2,500,000 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District $ 2,469,000 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association $ 2,200,000 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 2,094,000 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District $ 2,010,000 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy $ 1,670,000 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District $ 1,460,000 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg $ 1,300,000 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District $ 1,200,000 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District $ 1,150,000 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program $ 1,000,000 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict $ 638,000 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County $ 500,000 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 500,000 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District $ 500,000 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 471,000 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District $ 420,000 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District $ 363,004 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District $ 337,000 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District $ 253,002 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District $ 209,800 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District $ 200,000 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District $ 110,000 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex $ 100,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Percent Funded            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Percent Funded 3 Drainage Area 55 - West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements City of Antioch 66% 10 Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 50% 4 City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project City of Pittsburg 50% 5 Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System expansion City of Pittsburg 50% 27 Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Contra Costa Water DIstrict 50% 18 Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 48% 26 Stormwater Management at Meadows Siphon Contra Costa Water District 47% 42 Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 45% 19 Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 43% 12 Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 37% 13 Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 37% 2 BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 34% 20 Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 32% 16 Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 30% 23 BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Water District 25% 25 Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Contra Costa Water District 25% 21 Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Contra Costa County Flood Control District 20% 6 Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development Contra Costa Clean Water Program 20% 22 Marsh Ceek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District 15% 40 Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Diablo Water District 13% 34 Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Diablo Water District 10% 39 Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Diablo Water District 10% 35 Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Diablo Water District 9% 14 Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 7% 15 Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 6% 41 Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Diablo Water District 5% 37 High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Diablo Water District 5% 36 Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline Diablo Water District 3% 38 Leak Detection and Repair Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District 2% 11 East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 2% Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Projects Sorted by Percent Funded            Project ID # Project Name Sponsoring Agency / Organization Percent Funded 17 West Antioch Creek Improvements: 10th Street to 'L' Street (#203) Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 2% 9 Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District 1% 30 DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Delta Diablo Sanitation District 1% 1 Recycle Water for AYSC Antioch Youth Sports Complex 0% 53 Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Antioch 0% 7 East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Contra Costa County 0% 8 Knightsen Biofilter/Weltand Habitat Restoration Contra Costa County 0% 24 Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Contra Costa Water District 0% 28 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 29 DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 54 DDSD Salinity Reduction - Softener Rebate Program Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 31 Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 32 Total Dissolved Solids Reduction / Salinity Management Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 33 Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Delta Diablo Sanitation District 0% 43 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase B Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 44 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 45 Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation - Phase A Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 46 Oakley Sewers Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 47 Salinity Reduction Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 48 Septage Receiving Station Ironhouse Sanitary District 0% 49 Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association 0% 50 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Reclamation District 830 0% 51 Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Reclamation District 830 0% 52 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Reclamation District 830 0% Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County ECCC IRWM Plan Projects Detailed Data Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Project ID # 1 2 3 53 4 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure - Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project Use recycled water to irrigate the 20 acres of youth sports fields. This will reduce the cost of water for AYSC and allow AYSC to keep the fields green during drought years. To ensure the continued safety of the island residents and maintain property values, the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID) developed a Bethel Island Levee and Drainage Revitalization Plan with the following goals: raising the Bethel Island levee to meet current height standards, place riprap on the entire 11.5 miles of Bethel Island levee, and clean and re-grade 19.1 miles of Bethel Island drainage ditches to improve proper water flow. To meet these goals, the following capital projects are needed: 1) placement of riprap on 11.5 miles of levees, 2) installation of an all-weather surface for the entire levee crown, 3) completing levee raising to Public Law 84-99 Standards, 4) culvert replacement, and 5) elevation of two (2) pump stations with trash capture components (screens). These projects, when combined with special maintenance projects, will upgrade the flood protection for Bethel Island to current standards. The City of Antioch is partnering with the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD) to replace an undersized concrete trapezoidal channel & arch culverts, & desilt 3,000 feet of West Antioch Creek to eliminate flooding to properties adjacent to the channel and within a DAC. In 1993 CCCFCD constructed channel improvements for West Antioch Creek and improved flood capacity to a 25-year level of protection. The project extended from the San Joaquin River to 8th St. in Antioch; as a result, a 650 foot gap exists between the 1993 improvements and the earthen canal on the Antioch Fairgrounds property. The project will install 4 14’x7’ Caltrans Standard Box Culverts, 620’ long to address the chronic flooding at the gap. The project will prevent the chronic problem of flood waters leaving West Antioch Creek, flooding local residential, commercial and industrial areas, and then returning to San Joaquin River basin and ultimately the Delta, as a contaminated source. City of Antioch project to install sewer and water infrastructure for the Viera area, a residential area of 120 homes included in proposed Antioch NE Annexation. Area is a DAC. The City owns & operates a 32 mgd Water Treatment Plant (WTP) that was last expanded/upgraded in 1990 & is in need of improvements to mitigate current operating problems, prepare to reliably treat the flow rates for which it was originally designed, & meet current and future drinking water regulations. CDPH sent a letter to the City in 12/2010 requesting the City seek solutions to mitigate the filter backwash recycled water turbidity problem as it often exceeds 2 NTU, the turbidity limit recommended by the Cryptosporidium Action Plan. The City prepared a WTP Improvements Study (July 2011) identifying 3 phases of high priority improvements to the City’s WTP to be implemented as part of the proposed Project. Phase 1: influent blending & chlorine dioxide contact, chlorine dioxide generation and chemical storage and chlorinator modification, ammonia feed relocation, & spent filter backwash treatment. Phase 2: sludge management improvements. Phase 3: add a 0.5 MG backwash basin. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - Contra Costa County Contra Costa Flood Control & Water Conservation District - - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Additional: The Project would allow the City to comply with the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, increasing the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, more effectively pretreat the well water supply, and reducing reliance on Delta supplies. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - Additional: The project will provide significant benefits to the region including improving stormwater/flood management, reducing pollution to the Delta, and protecting aquatic habitat in the Delta. - Additional: The Project would provide significant benefits to the region, including improving stormwater management, reducing pollution to the Bay-Delta, reducing reliance on Delta supplies, and protecting aquatic habitat in the Delta. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Additional: Allow AYSC to keep the fields green during drought years - - - Additional: The Project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, reducing reliance on Delta supplies. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Primary: Reduce the amount of drinking water that the complex uses - - - Additional: The Project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, improving water use efficiency. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Additional: Trash screens that can capture trash down to the size of cigarette butts are proposed for the two pump stations to reduce the trash. The Delta waters are used by some downstream municipalities as a drinking water source. Additional: The project will improve stormwater/flood management and reduce pollution to the Delta, improving source water quality for Delta users statewide. Primary: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system in this area will protect/improve surface and groundwater sources in this area. Additional: The Project would improve stormwater management and reduce pollution to the Bay-Delta, improving source water quality for Delta users statewide. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Primary: Upgrading the WTP is necessary in order to improve drinking water quality, improve system reliability and meet regulatory requirements. Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Additional: The project would improve source water quality. Improved source water quality will, in turn, result in improved wastewater and recycled water quality for the region. Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - Additional: The trash capture component of this project will contribute to Contra Costa County’s compliance with the trash load reduction requirements in its MS4 NPDES Permits. Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading to the Delta. - Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: The intent is to include measures that will reduce the trash and other pollutants discharging via the pumps to Delta waters. Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading resulting from the elimination of flooding. - Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading resulting from the elimination of stormwater overflows of the lagoon. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Additional: Reduction in the trash loads improves habitat quality. Additional: By eliminating flooding, the project will reduce pollutant loading to the Delta, improving Delta water quality and associated aquatic habitat. - Additional: The Project would reduce pollution to the Bay-Delta, improving Delta water quality and associated aquatic habitat. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - Additional: Reduction in trash loads will reduce impacts to the Delta ecosystem and environmental resources. Additional: The project will eliminate flooding in an urbanized area and subsequent introduction of polluted flood waters into the Delta, resulting in benefits to the Delta ecosystem. Additional: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system will protect Delta ecosystem and environmental resources. Additional: There will be reduced pollutant loading resulting from the elimination of stormwater overflows to Willow Creek, resulting in benefits to the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - Additional: By reducing flooding impacts, this project will also reduce the major cleanup efforts necessary to repair damages caused by flooding. It will prevent greenhouse gas emissions associated with cleaning up flood damage. - Additional: The Project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process. Energy needs and GHGs generated by water recycled onsite are less than those of pumping and treating additional Delta supply. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Additional: The intent is to include measures that will reduce the trash and other pollutants discharging via the pumps to Delta waters. Primary: This project will improve the flooding problems along the 620’ gap by replacing an inadequate trapezoidal concrete ditch and will be able to pass ~10 times more stormwater than the existing system. - Additional: The project will improve stormwater management by constructing a new 0.5 mgd backwash basin designed to eliminate stormwater overflows of the lagoon. Improve regional flood risk management - Primary: The levee improvements and pump station upgrades will reduce the flood risks on Bethel Island. Additional: The project will eliminate flooding in the area and provide flood protection up to the 25-year storm - Additional: The project will reduce flood risks by eliminating stormwater overflows of the lagoon which could exacerbate flooding issues during wet weather. Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: Bethel Island is a DAC per the 2010 Census. BIMID serves the entire island and will provide opportunities for involvement by all members of the community. Additional: The DAC will see benefits through project implementation & be involved through public outreach efforts during project development/ implementation. Without the project, DAC customers would continue to face damages caused by floods on an annual basis. Additional: This project would provide public water and sewer to a DAC. Additional: DACs within the City's service area will see benefits through project implementation and be involved with the public outreach efforts during project development. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: The project will involve outreach to stakeholders and DACs, assisting in educating the public about regional water resources management issues and projects. - Additional: The project will involve outreach through the IRWMP, City Water System newsletters, City e-mails and Council presentations, and other vehicles. This will assist in educating the public about regional water management issues. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - The primary purpose of the project is to upgrade the City’s WTP to mitigate current operating and regulatory compliance problems, and also prepare the Plant to handle higher flow rates (for which it was originally designed) reliably while meeting current and anticipated future drinking water regulations, and protecting downstream habitat. Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 CALFED Objectives Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - Yes: By increasing the quantity of water recycled within the plant, the project will reduce dependence on Delta supplies. Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Yes: This will be accomplished by reducing overland flooding that washes pollutants into the drainage system and then is pumped to the Delta. Trash screens will also reduce pollution of the state’s water. Yes: The project will reduce pollutant loading to the Delta, improving the source water quality for Delta users statewide. Yes: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system in this area will protect/improve surface and groundwater sources in this area. Yes: The WTP Improvements Project will improve water quality and allow the City of Pittsburg to meet necessary regulatory requirements. In addition, it will reduce pollutant loading to the Delta, improving water quality for Delta users statewide. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Yes: The levee improvements will guard against levee failure. - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - - Yes: The Project would allow the City to comply with the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, increasing the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process, improving process efficiency, and reducing reliance on Delta supplies. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - Yes: Overland flooding washes pollutants to the pump station, if the pumps upgrade will reduce the frequency of overland flooding. Removal of trash will reduce the degree of trash impairment of receiving waters. Yes: Reducing pollutant loading to the Delta will improve its ecological health. Yes: Providing public water and sewer in place of private wells and septic system will protect Delta ecosystem and environmental resources. Yes: The Project would reduce pollution to the Bay-Delta, improving Delta water quality and protecting aquatic habitat. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - Yes: Currently, development within the project area is subject to frequent, severe flooding. This project integrates water management and land use planning by eliminating the annual damages caused by development within an area of flooding. Yes: Provides City water and sewer infrastructure to residents in urban area. Yes: Improvements to the WTP will help improve water supply reliability and provide necessary treatment capacity to meet the needs of the community as projected based on land use planning. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - Yes - Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - Yes Yes - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - Yes Yes - Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - - - Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Yes - System Reoperation - - - - Yes Water Transfers - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water Yes - - - Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - Yes Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Yes Pollution Prevention - Yes Yes Yes Yes Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management - Yes Yes - Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Yes Yes - Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - Yes - Ecosystem Restoration - - Yes - Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - Yes - Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Planning Project Status Not Started Completed Completed Not Applicable Completed Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Est. Completion Date 7/1/2013 9/1/2012 1/1/2012 - 1/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Completed Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 7/1/2013 - 1/1/2012 - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Completed Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 9/23/14 - 3/1/2014 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable In Progress Not Applicable Not Started 7/1/2014 Est. Completion Date - - 12/31/15 - 6/1/2015 8/15/2015 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable In Progress Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 11/1/15 - 3/1/2014 10/5/210 5 Phase 2 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - 12/31/15 - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started 7/1/2014 Phase 1 October 2015 Phase 2 Est. Completion Date - - 10/6/17 - 12/1/2016 7/1/2017 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - 10/6/20 - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Environmental Permits Describe any required - Permits related to working in local drainage ditches will likely be required. Research into the permitting requirements has not been started. Nationwide Permit 31-Clean Water Act, Section 404 from ACOE; Section 7 Consultation with USFWS and NOAA NMFS; NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities from Central Valley RWQCB; Streambed Alteration Agreement and Section 7 Consultation with CDFG. - A permit from the California Department of Public Health will be required. Status? - It is unknown if permits have been applied for yet. Permitting acquisition has begun for the ACOE 404 permit. The process for obtaining the other permits has not been initiated. An EIR was completed in 1985 for the West Antioch Creek Improvement Project & several were constructed in 1993, the CEQA documentation for this project has been completed for the 620’ gap or desilting portion of the project. Streambed alteration agreement w/CDFW has been obtained. - The permit has not yet been obtained. Applying for and receiving the necessary permit is expected to be straightforward. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - Grading, encroachment, and building permits will likely be different phases of this project. Encroachment permit from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad; Tree removal permit from City of Antioch Planning Dept. - N/A Status? - It is unlikely that any of these permits have been applied for yet. The process for obtaining these permits has been initiated. - N/A Project Schedule Available? - - Yes - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties Whether or not the City of Antioch decides to continue paying for water for AYSC. Whether or not the recycled water line is extended past AYSC so that AYSC can tie into it at minimal cost. Whether or not AYSC decides to use groundwater to irrigate its fields. Unknown - - There are no significant data gaps that could affect project feasibility; the City prepared a Water Treatment Plant Improvements Study detailing the phases of the project and its feasibility which was finalized in July 2011. Project Costs - Implementation LandPurchase/EUnknown Unknown $2,300,000 Unknown NA PlanningUnknown Unknown $400,00 Unknown NA DesignUnknown Unknown $1,000,000 Unknown $1,000,000 EnvironmentalRUnknown Unknown $400,000 Unknown $2,000 PermitsUnknown Unknown $200,000 Unknown $1,000 Construction/IUnknown Unknown $6,050,000 Unknown $9,577,000 EnvironmentalMiUnknown Unknown $800,000 Unknown NA OtherUnknown $6,720,000 $1,400,000 $6,625,000 NA TotalProjectCo$100,000 $6,720,000 $12,550,000 $6,625,000 $10,580,000 CostEstimateAv- Yes Yes - - Project Funding - ImplemeAgency; funds or in kind contributAmount - $40,000 $4,100,000 - $5,290,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - Yes User Fees - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Recycle Water for AYSC BIMID Levee and Pump Station Improvement Project Drainage Area 55 – West Antioch Creek Channel Improvements Viera Water and Sewer Service, NE Antioch City of Pittsburg Water Treatment Plant Improvements Projects Sponsoring Agency/Organization Antioch Youth Sports Complex Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District City of Antioch City of Antioch City of Pittsburg Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - Yes Yes - - Existing grants Amount - $2,250,000 $2,997,300 - - State Grants - - Yes - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - Yes - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currentlyunfund$100,000 $4,430,000 $4,500,000 $6,625,000 $5,290,000 EconomicFeasibi- - Yes - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: The project will reduce the occurrence of overland flooding and pollution of the storm water. Yes: Implementing the project will eliminate severe flooding in the DAC which occurs on an annual basis and poses public health implications associated with degraded water quality of flood water in urbanized areas. Yes: This project would provide public water and sewer to a DAC currently on septic systems and private wells. Yes: DACs within the City’s service area will have improved water supply reliability & increased water quality protection as the WTP will comply with State/federal requirements. What Community(ies)? - Bethel Island City of Antioch NE Antioch, Viera area Communities within the City boundaries. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - The project outreach has been to the entire population of Bethel Island. Outreach to DACs will be performed through the East Contra Costa County IRWM planning process and through individual outreach efforts. Part of annexation planning Outreach to DACs will be performed through the East County IRWM planning process, the City Water System newsletters, and/or City email distribution lists. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - Yes: By eliminating flooding and improving water quality in the DAC, the project corrects the environmental justice issue for the DAC. - Yes: By allowing the WTP to comply with water quality regulations, the project corrects any environmental justice issue for disadvantaged communities in the City of Pittsburg. Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - -- - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - Yes: Climate change may increase the frequency of severe storms; this project will improve stormwater capacity and help be better prepared for uncertain storm patterns frequency, and severity. It will also eliminate GHG impacts from flood cleanup. - Yes: By improving operational efficiency at the WTP, improving water supply reliability and reducing dependence on the Delta, there will be more flexibility in the future for water supply planning. Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: The project will also eliminate GHG impacts from flood cleanup. - Yes: The project would allow the City to increase the quantity of water recycled within the treatment process. Energy needs and GHGs generated by water recycled onsite are less than those of pumping and treating additional Delta supply. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-31 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Project ID # 5 6 7 8 9 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Water/ Water Quality Research Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Describe the project In order to meet future water demands, the City of Pittsburg will replace the existing Rossmoor Groundwater Well with a larger capacity well (~1,200 gallons per minute [gpm]), and about 1,500 feet of the 8-inch pipeline will be replaced with 10- or 12-inch pipeline to allow for increased use of the Pittsburg Groundwater Basin. The City currently relies mostly on purchased raw surface water from the Delta from Contra Costa Water District, and supplements the remaining water demands with groundwater (GW). These two supplies are treated at the City’s water treatment plant prior to delivery to its residents. The City produces GW from two wells, one of which, the Rossmoor well, has experienced biofouling which has caused a noticeable decline in the GW production. By replacing the existing well, and expanding the GW monitoring system, the City will obtain a more reliable GW supply and will be able to meet customer demands now and in the future, while reducing dependence on the Delta. The goal of this project is to evaluate the treatment benefits of LID for reducing mercury and methylmercury discharges from stormwater to the Bay. Contra Costa County has established a policy making low-impact development (LID) the preferred method of treatment to meet requirements for stormwater treatment established under NPDES Permits for Urban Stormwater. Although LID-type treatment devices are known to be highly effective at removing sediment from urban stormwater, to date very little information is available on the effectiveness of LID for reducing mercury and methylmercury. Monitoring information would be developed to evaluate the concentrations and forms of mercury in urban stormwater before and after treatment by LID. This project will implement Low Impact Development (LID) “Green Street” retrofits to treat stormwater runoff from roads in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Streets will be retrofitted with bioretention facilities and/or infiltration measures to remove pollutants from runoff. Monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate the treatment and flow control effectiveness of the projects. Educational signage will be posted to provide a public education component. Green Streets projects will demonstrate several approaches to managing street runoff, such as within medians, “bump-outs” and sidewalk raingardens. This project will be especially informative since some retrofits will be conducted in areas that lack a piped storm drain infrastructure. Disadvantaged Communities (including Bay Point and Bethel Island) will be prioritized for Green Streets projects. Where appropriate, pedestrian and bicycle improvements (where appropriate) will also be incorporated into Green Street retrofits. This is a much-needed restoration project with substantial water quality benefits to the town of Knightsen. It would capitalize on the opportunity to integrate: a) long-standing interest in treatment wetlands near Knightsen, b) new information on historical ecological conditions in the area, c) renewed interest in restoring tidal wetlands in the Delta, and d) the opportunity to purchase a 645-acre property ideally situated to achieve all these goals on a large scale. This project will construct a tidal wetland to treat stormwater before being discharged to the Delta. This will reduce flooding in Knightsen, improve local water quality, and improve drinking water quality to residents in Contra Costa County. This project seeks to reuse surplus material from the Upper Sand Creek Basin construction. Upper Sand Creek Basin is currently in an interim condition and is set to be expanded to contain about 1,000 acre-feet of storage under a separate project in summer 2013. The construction of the basin is expected to result in approximately 500,000 cy of surplus material stockpiled onsite for future reuse. This Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material project will find a permanent home for some or all of this surplus material. Likely end users of this material include contractors, developers and other agencies needing high quality fill material. If integrated into another project, this project can be the borrow source for some or all of this material. If this remains a standalone project, the project consists of loading, hauling, placing and compacting the surplus material at an appropriate, permanent disposal site. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, United States Environmental Protection Agency - Knightsen Town Advisory Committee, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Game - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: The project will decrease water supply costs by enhancing the City’s ability to utilize local groundwater supplies, a lower-cost alternative to Delta supplies. Increased groundwater capacity will also provide improved operational flexibility. - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: The project will reduce the City’s dependence on Delta supplies. As such, it provides benefits to the Delta; the East County Region which is located in the Delta and relies heavily on Delta supplies; and statewide Delta water user. - - - Additional: Excess material from this project can be reused in another project in the region. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Primary: This project will reduce the City’s dependence on Delta supplies, providing a reliable groundwater supply that is not subject to Delta influences and minimally affected by drought. - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-32 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: By increasing the City’s ability to use groundwater supplies, the project will provide operational flexibility, enabling more efficient conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies. - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Additional: Data collected from the well, additional groundwater monitoring wells and pressure transducers will help better understand potential for conjunctive use projects in the future. - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would, in turn, provide water quality benefits for Delta supplies. - Additional: This project will remove pollutants from road runoff prior to its discharge to receiving waters, will replenish groundwater (where appropriate), and will reduce erosion/sediment impacts related to road runoff within project watersheds. - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality Additional: Replacing the existing Rossmoor well will improve the quality of drinking water provided to City of Pittsburg residents. Leaving more water in the Delta will improve Delta water quality for users statewide. - - Additional: Contaminated stormwater from this area drains to Rock Slough and adjacent Delta waterways. Rock Slough is the location for the intake to the Contra Costa Canal, a primary source of drinking water for central and eastern Contra Costa County. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality Additional: This project will increase water supply reliability while maintaining quality. - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Additional: Data collected from the well, additional monitoring wells, and pressure transducers will increase knowledge regarding Pittsburg Plain groundwater quality. - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: This project will increase water supply reliability while maintaining quality, thus maintaining the quality of wastewater conveyed to DDSD and discharged to the Delta. - Additional: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES permits regulating Contra Costa County require implementation of “Green Street Pilot Projects”. This project is expected to reduce loads of some pollutants of concern, and will capture trash. - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - Primary: This project will remove pollutants from road runoff prior to its discharge; replenish groundwater (where appropriate); reduce runoff volumes, flow rates and durations; Additional: Constructed wetlands will improve the quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta from the Knightsen area. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-33 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District and reduce erosion/sediment impacts related to road runoff. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Additional: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would, in turn, provide water quality benefits for Delta supplies, resulting in higher quality aquatic habitat in the Delta. - Additional: The project will remove pollutants; reduce road runoff volumes, rates, and durations; and reduce erosion/sedimentation impacts. This will improve habitat value in receiving waters and surrounding environs. Primary: This project will take advantage of new scholarship about historical ecological conditions in the Delta to restore wetlands which will provide valuable habitat. - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project minimizes impacts to the Delta ecosystem and environmental resources that could be generated by an increased dependence on Delta supplies. - Additional: This project will reduce impacts (related to road runoff) to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources. This will be accomplished by removing pollutants from runoff and providing hydrograph modification management to the extent feasible. - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: This energy use and associated GHG emissions needed to pump and treat local groundwater supplies are estimated to be less than the energy use and GHG emissions associated with expanded use of Delta supplies. - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - Additional: Reducing mercury loads through LID is part of an overall regional strategy to reduce mercury levels in fish. - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Primary: This project will develop information needed to guide future design and implementation of LID, and to evaluate the benefits of LID to attain TMDL goals. Additional: This project will provide treatment and flow control for street runoff in watersheds where retrofits are implemented. Additional: This project will create drainage system for stormwater from Knightsen to a constructed wetland. Additional: The basin detains high storm flow events and meters out the water downstream. This reduces the likelihood of flooding downstream of the basin. Use the excess material from the basin for someone else’s project? Improve regional flood risk management - - Additional: Although it is not a primary driver of this project, since the project will reduce the volume of flows from impervious surfaces (streets) it will serve to slightly reduce flood risks downstream of projects. Additional: Knightsen has had historical problems with flooding. This drainage system/constructed wetland will prevent future flooding in the area. Primary: The basin detains high storm flow events and meters out the water downstream. Removing the surplus material expands the storage capacity of the basin and thus reduces the likelihood of flooding downstream for the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley. Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: DACs will be involved in public outreach efforts for the Rossmoor Well Replacement/ Groundwater Monitoring Well Project and will see benefits from implementation of the project. - Additional: This project will prioritize projects located within DACs, including Bay Point and Bethel Island. Other DACs may subsequently be identified (other than by census block) and prioritized. - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: The project will involve public outreach through the IRWQMP, City Water System newsletters, and/or City e-mails and Council presentations. This will assist in educating the public about water management issues in the Delta and the City of Pittsburg. - Additional: This project will include signage to educate members of the public about issues related to stormwater runoff, methods of providing treatment and flow control, and other ways the public can help protect water quality. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - This project will introduce landscape features where they currently do not exist, which will improve the - This project seeks to find a partner that needs up to 500,000 cy of high quality fill material. Can be used for levee Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-34 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District communities in which retrofits are conducted (including DACs). Related pedestrian/bicycle improvements will enhance alternative transportation opportunities. Monitoring of runoff from project areas before and after the retrofit projects are implemented will help build the base of knowledge of how effectively LID retrofit projects remove pollutants and (if possible) provide flow control. construction/raising, building pads (the pad for the Kaiser hospital campus came from this site), or for other purposes. Want to avoid hauling to landfill for use as cover material and instead find a reuse opportunity for this material Dirt has been tested and is clean. Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: If the Rossmoor well is not replaced with a new well, capacity will continue to decline, reducing water supply available to the City. The City would otherwise need to increase the Delta supplies purchased from Contra Costa Water District. - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would improve the quality of Delta supplies, resulting in improved water quality for Delta users statewide. - Yes: This project will remove pollutants from stormwater runoff from roads prior to that runoff entering receiving waters (the Delta). Delta waters serve as a drinking water source. Yes: Contaminated storm water drains to Rock Slough and adjacent Delta waterways. Rock Slough is the location for the intake to the Contra Costa Canal, a primary source of drinking water for central and eastern Contra Costa County. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Yes: 500,000 cy of material available for use to strengthen or augment levees. Located in Antioch and can be transported to delta levees starting in late 2013 and beyond. A past project brought material to Jersey Island and was used in levee project. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: By increasing the City’s ability to use groundwater supplies, the project will provide operational flexibility, enabling more efficient conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies. - - - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: By reducing the City’s reliance on Delta supplies, the project could result in additional supply left in the Delta. This would, in turn, provide water quality benefits for Delta supplies, resulting in higher quality aquatic habitat in the Delta. Yes: Reducing mercury loads and understanding how management actions affect methylmercury in receiving waters is an identified goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration Program. Yes: This project will remove pollutants from stormwater runoff from roads prior to that runoff entering receiving waters. This will avoid deleterious impacts of the pollutants to which the pollutants may have contributed. Yes: The constructed wetlands will improve the quality of water being discharged directly into the Delta. - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Yes: Replacing the well will help improve water supply reliability and provide necessary treatment capacity to meet the needs of the community as projected based on land use planning. Yes: Guiding LID implementation with sound science related to pollutant loads and impacts is essential to effective land use planning that accounts for long-term water quality goals. Yes: This project will implement stormwater treatment and flow control in already-developed areas, thereby reducing runoff volumes and flow durations, and improving the quality of runoff, while improving streetscapes in existing urbanized areas. - Yes: The basin yielding this excess material is part of a master planned drainage system. The surrounding area was planned to accommodate this basin, and the basin was planned to accommodate surrounding land uses. Statewide Priorities – Drought Preparedness - - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-35 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Climate Change Response Actions Yes - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - Yes Yes Yes Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - Yes - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - Yes Yes - - Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation Yes - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Yes - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - Yes - - Pollution Prevention - - Yes - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management - Yes Yes Yes Yes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-36 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - Yes Yes Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration Yes Yes - Yes Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - Yes - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - Yes Yes Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status Not Started In Progress Not Started In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date 4/1/2014 6/1/2013 9/1/2014 7/1/2013 6/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2014 7/1/2013 1/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 3/1/2014 - 9/1/2014 7/1/2014 1/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date - 9/1/20-13 5/1/2015 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-37 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Design Project Status Not Started In Progress Not Started Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 7/1/201 9/1/2015 1/1/2014 9/1/215 7/1/2014 8/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Complete Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 3/1/2014 6/1/2014 9/1/2015 7/1/2014 2/1/2013 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 6/1/2014 - 7/1/2014 - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started 9/2/2104 Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2015 5/1/2106 9/1/2014 9/1/2016 7/1/2016 4/1/2014 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 2/1/2015 5/1/2020 7/1/2016 - Environmental Permits Describe any required A permit from the California Department of Public Health will be required as well as a Well Construction Permit from the County. Depending on project scope for new LID facilities, some CEQA analysis may be needed. Neg Dec or Mitigated Neg Dec anticipated for projects contemplated. None anticipated. CEQA and NEPA documents will need to be submitted for this project. The 2013 basin construction project will place the surplus material in a designated temporary stockpile site, for later off haul and reuse. Full permits will be secured to build the basin and create this stockpile. Status? These permits have not yet been obtained. Applying for and receiving the necessary permits is expected to be straightforward. Not started yet. N/A Work on these permits has not yet begun. Full permits expected in spring of 2013 before basin construction. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required An IS/MND will be prepared for the Project. In parallel, planning & design will be completed. Currently, there is no specific design for the well beyond the size & materials. Well design (intervals & lengths of well screen/casing) will be completed following drilling & will be based on site-specific hydrogeology as observed in the field. File NOI under Construction General Permit. None anticipated. N/A Project is covered under East CC HCP. Status? - Not started yet. N/A N/A PSR (project study report) completed, project approved by HCP board for 2013 construction. Partial fees paid. Balance to be paid prior to construction. Stockpile covered by HCP PSR. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-38 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District Project Schedule Available? - - - - Yes Describe any data gaps or uncertainties There are no data gaps or uncertainties that could impact the technical feasibility. The existing Rossmoor Well will be replaced with proven technologies. - This project has not yet selected specific locations where Green Street retrofits will be implemented. Although this constitutes an uncertainty, it does also impart the project with a degree of flexibility that increases the probability that a number of retrofit projects will be successfully implemented. - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA $6,000,000 NA Planning NA $50,000 Unknown $150,000 $20,000 Design $98,800 $150,000 Unknown $150,000 NA Environmental Review Unknown $25,000 Unknown $100,000 $25,000 Permits $1,000 $25,000 NA $75,000 $10,000 Construction/Implementation $1,200,000 $750,000 Unknown $1,000,000 $7,000,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA NA $50,000 $10,000 Other NA NA $500,000 NA NA Total Project Cost $1,300,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $7,525,000 $7,080,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $ 900,000 $200,000 - - $80,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - Yes User Rates - - - - - User Fees - Yes - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - Yes Contributions - - - - - Other Yes - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants -$430,000 - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $800,000 $500,000 $7,525,000 $7,000,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Yes Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: The project addresses a critical water supply need for DACs within the City of Pittsburg service area by ensuring a consistently high quality, reliable water supply at a relatively low cost. - Yes: This project will beautify streetscapes and will improve water quality, habitat value, and recreational value in and around DACs. - - What Community(ies)? Communities within City boundaries - Bethel Island, Bay Point, possibly other communities (not designated as DACs by census block). - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Outreach to DACs will be conducted during completion off the Pittsburg Plain GWPM, through East County - The DACs have not yet been engaged in the process; this would be premature until specific locations - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-39 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Rossmoor Well Replacement Project/Groundwater Monitoring Well System Expansion Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network Knightsen Biofilter/ Wetland Habitat Restoration Upper Sand Creek Basin Surplus Material (#220) Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Contra Costa Clean Water Program Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood & Water Conservation Control District IRWM planning outreach, through City Water system newsletters, and City email distribution lists. for Green Street retrofit projects have been selected. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? Yes: By improving drinking water quality delivered to disadvantaged communities within the City’s boundaries, the project will assist in correcting an environmental justice issue. Yes: Mercury in fish for subsistence fishers has been identified as an environmental justice issue. Yes: This project will improve surface water quality within DACs. - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: The project will improve the City’s operational flexibility and will allow the City to expand use of climate-resilient groundwater supplies in lieu of vulnerable Delta supplies. - Yes: This project will consider the effects of climate change. It is not anticipated to exacerbate climate change in any way, and the (secondary) flood control benefits associated with the project may be magnified by climate change. - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: The energy use and associated GHG emissions needed to pump and treat local groundwater supplies are estimated to be less than the energy use and GHG emissions associated with expanded use of Delta supplies. - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-40 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Project ID # 10 11 12 13 14 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Environmental (e.g., habitat) Environmental (e.g., habitat) Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Describe the project This project assesses the seismic performance of an existing dam embankment and recommends retrofit improvements, if needed. It includes a two-phase approach: starting with a hazard assessment, and then proceeding to more detailed geotechnical analysis if warranted. The dam was constructed in the 1960s and is unlikely to withstand an earthquake under today’s more stringent standards. The actual seismic retrofit of the dam, if warranted, is scoped as a separate project. Design and construct marsh and floodplain improvements on East Antioch Creek downstream of Cavallo Road. Includes marina outlet channel (or equivalent), hazardous material clean-up of affected portion of Hickmont cannery site, and three new box culverts under Wilbur Avenue. Marsh Creek Reservoir was constructed in the early 1960s as a dry reservoir, namely that it only fills and stores water during large storm events. 99%+ of the time, the reservoir stands empty except for a few acre feet of water stored below the elevation of the primary spillway. After construction, willows grew up around the main stem of Marsh Creek and around the wet pool. With 50+ years of intensive grazing, the only habitat is provided by the 50-year old willows that are nearing the end of their lifespan. Because of the grazing, there have been no new trees to replace those that are aging. The restoration plan maintains or improves level of flood protection, improves surrounding habitat, is compatible with surrounding state park uses, deals appropriately with accumulated mercury and accommodates mercury that will arrive at the basin in the next 50 years. The project assesses seismic performance of an existing earthfill dam and recommends retrofit improvements, if needed. It includes a two-phase approach: start with hazard assessment, and proceed to more detailed geotechnical analysis if warranted. The dam was constructed to “modern” seismic standards in 1964 and is unlikely to withstand an earthquake by today’s more stringent standards. The actual seismic retrofit of the dam, if warranted, is scoped as a separate project. A 2010 Flood Control District study identified portions of Marsh Creek that will not have sufficient capacity upon general plan buildout of the watershed. The regional drainage master plan calls for construction of a number of upstream reservoirs and detention basins to store and hold back storm flows. But even when all of these basins are constructed, Marsh Creek will still have portions of its channels that do not have sufficient capacity. This project will selectively raise channel banks and levees, and constructed floodwalls at various locations to contain 100-year flood flows and contain 50-year flood flows with freeboard along Marsh Creek. Optional project upgrades (not included in current budget) would increase the level of protection to containment of a 200-year flood event. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the flow rates downstream to include the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley and Unincorporated Contra Costa County. - - Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the flow rates downstream in the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley and unincorporated Contra Costa County. - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-41 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the turbidity in the creek by acting as a trap for sediment. Additional: This will improve the quality of stormwater discharge to the Delta by improving the function of a degraded and polluted marsh. Additional: This project will improve the quality of stormwater discharged to the Delta. Marsh Creek has a mercury TMDL, and significant quantities of mercury are impounded in sediment behind the reservoir. Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the turbidity in the creek by acting as a trap for sediment and mercury from the upstream mine. Marsh Creek has a TMDL for mercury. Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Primary: Restore the marsh habitat at the mouth of East Antioch Creek. Primary: This project will prepare and implement a plan to restore various habitats located in the Marsh Creek Reservoir. - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - Additional: Cleans up a hazardous waste site that has not been remediated to date. Additional: Restores upland and wetland habitat and examines methods of minimizing mercury methylation and downstream transport. - Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - Additional: Local stakeholders have proposed adding a recreation component to the project that includes bird watching platforms and other passive public access. Additional: Long-term goal is to reopen the reservoir for recreation. Has been closed to the public since mid-1970s due to elevated mercury levels in fish and concern about fishing and eating these fish. - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Additional: Basin capture and meters stormwater flows to prevent downstream flooding. Additional: Increase the conveyance of flows to the delta. Additional: Project may also improve basin capacity and stormwater detention. - Additional: This project will increase creek capacity to handle storm runoff and reduce the potential of flooding of neighboring communities along the creek. Improve regional flood risk management Primary: Ensure the structural stability of the dam embankment of a vital flood control facility. Additional: Increase the conveyance of flows to the delta. Additional: Project may also improve basin capacity and stormwater detention. Primary: Ensure the structural stability of the dam embankment of a vital flood control facility. Primary: This project to reduce the potential of flooding of neighboring communities along the creek. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-42 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: This project is located within the large DAC in Antioch and that DAC is the primary beneficiary of the reduced flood risk and remediation of a hazardous waste site. - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: Public will be involved in the planning process. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives The seismic safety of this dam is especially critical because a very large (2,100 student) high school is located immediately downstream of the dam. The emergency spillway actually passes through the sports fields of the high school. - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - Yes: Cleans up un-remediated hazardous waste site located adjacent to the Delta. Yes: Restoration of this important portion of the watershed will improve the area’s ecological health and will limit the amount of mercury available for bioutilization. - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Yes: Creek hydrology model assumes an infiltration rate based on GIS and the land use. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - Yes Yes - - Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes - Yes Yes Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-43 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention - Yes Yes Yes Yes Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - Yes - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes Yes - - Forest Management - - Yes - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-44 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 7/1/2014 8/1/2020 9/1/2014 6/1/2015 9/1/2016 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2014 - 1/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 7/1/2014 8/1/2020 9/1/2016 - 9/1/2020 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2017 - 9/1/2020 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2017 - 9/1/2020 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 - - 9/1/2020 Construction/ ImplementaProject Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-45 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Est. Completion Date 7/1/2014 8/1/2020 9/1/2017 6/1/2015 9/1/2020 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2020 9/1/2020 - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600 ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600 ECC HCP (PSR needed) - USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECCHCP coverage (PSR needed) Status? - Permitting has not begun. Permitting has not begun, but will occur closer to construction. - They have not been started yet. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required DSOD will need to be involved in any assessment and will ultimately need to issue a permit for any dam reconstruction or modification. N/A None DSOD will need to be involved in any assessment and will ultimately need to issue a permit for any dam reconstruction or modification. N/A Status? DSOD is familiar with the dam and inspects it annually. Specific permit application will follow seismic assessment. - N/A DSOD is familiar with the dam and inspects it annually. Specific permit application will follow seismic assessment. - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Funding is an issue. Funding may be an issue. - Funding is an issue. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA $815,000 NA NA $230,000 Planning $215,000 $200,000 $515,000 $425,000 $160,000 Design $1 $576,000 $70,000 NA $130,000 Environmental Review $15,000 $576,000 $80,000 $15,000 $100,000 Permits Unknown Unknown NA Unknown $65,000 Construction/Implementation $1 $4,728,000 $3,580,000 NA $2,645,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance Unknown Unknown $560,000 NA $283,000 Other $23,000 $1,700,000 $491,000 $31,000 $51,000 Total Project Cost $253,000 $9,220,000 $5,356,000 $471,000 $3,664,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $127,000 $200,000 $2,000,000 $175,000 $250,000 Regional Assessments - - - Yes - Developmental Fees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax Yes - Yes Yes Yes Contributions - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-46 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Deer Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#212) East Antioch Creek Marsh Restoration (#206) Marsh Creek Reservoir Capacity and Habitat Restoration (#213) Marsh Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#210) Marsh Creek Supplemental Capacity and Basin Development (#215) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $126,000 $9,020,000 $3,356,000 $296,000 $3,414,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Cit i #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-47 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Project ID # 15 16 17 18 19 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Describe the project The master plan for Marsh Creek included a series of detention basins as well as selective widening of the channel. This project is one of the selective widening projects. It extends from the Dainty Road crossing of the creek downstream to the creek’s confluence with Sand Creek. The project is needed to contain 100-year flood flows and 50-year flood flows with freeboard in the creek and prevent damaging, polluted overflows into adjacent areas. Oakley and Trembath Basins are important components of the master planned drainage infrastructure for the East Antioch Creek watershed in Antioch. The main stern of East Antioch Creek features three main detention basins which temporarily store stormwater and release it slowly once the storm has passed. One of these basins (Lindsey) is functionally complete. Of the other two, Oakley Basin is partially constructed and Trembath Basin, located just downstream of Oakley Basin, has yet to be constructed. This project will complete Oakley Basin and construct Trembath Basin. Trembath Basin will consist of a 20-foot high earthen dam and appurtenant structures, and wetland enhancement and mitigation. Oakley Basin work would consist of excavating material to expand the impound volume. The projects are needed to reduce flood risk to communities in Antioch within the East Antioch Creek watershed. Design and construct channel improvements from the downstream end of “L” Street Crossing to the upstream end of the 10th Street culverts in conjunction with the City of Antioch. Project includes selective channel widening and floodwalls, and additional culverts under the Union Pacific Railroad. The project assesses seismic performance of existing earthfill dam embankments and recommends retrofit improvements, if needed. It includes a two-phase approach: start with hazard assessment, and proceed to more detailed geotechnical analysis if warranted. The dam was constructed in the 1960s and is unlikely to withstand an earthquake by today’s more stringent standards. The actual seismic retrofit of the dam, if warranted, is scoped as a separate project. This project proposes to construct an approximately 4-acre biofilter to treat flows and removed sediment from Kellogg Creek before entering Discovery Bay. Dredging Discovery Bay near Newport Drive is very expensive and also it has been difficult to secure the needed regulatory permits. This project will remove a minimum of 50 percent of the sediment load and associated pollutants from Kellogg Creek. A majority of the sediment load in Kellogg Creek comes from agricultural tailwater return in the summer irrigation season. As such, the basin will capture more summertime flows and pass most winter storm flows. Sediment will settle out and pollutants will be treated in the biofilter using natural processes. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - City of Antioch City of Antioch - Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - Additional: This project has flood risk reduction benefits not only at the project site, but all the way down to the confluence with the San Joaquin River. - Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the flow rates downstream to include the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley and Unincorporated Contra Costa County. Additional: The sedimentation basin will operate to serve 10,900 acres of agricultural farmland and open space downstream of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Erosion from the upper watershed would be contained in the basin versus Discovery Bay and the Delta Sloughs. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-48 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District using existing infrastructure Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Additional: Improves the Delta water quality by passively removing the silt from the creek flow. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. Additional: The detention basins in this project will trap significant amounts of sediment as well as trash, resulting in cleaner stormwater reaching the Delta. - Additional: Ensure the structural stability of the basin that captures the runoff from the upstream watershed to reduce the turbidity in the creek by acting as a trap for sediment. Additional: Improves the Delta water quality by passively removing the silt from the creek storm flows. Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Keeping water in Marsh Creek keeps the Delta cleaner. When floods occur, escaped floodwaters flow east (towards Knightsen), mix with septic overflows and the resulting polluted water is pumped over the Rock Slough levee into the Delta for disposal. - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Additional: This project will increase creek capacity to handle storm runoff and reduce the potential of flooding for the neighboring communities along the creek. Additional: The detention basins will retain storm flows and meter storm flows out of the basin at a lower rate. Additional: Improvement of the existing channel to handle and prevent storm water flows from overbanking the creek and flooding the adjacent properties/DAC. Additional: Basin capture and meters stormwater flows to prevent downstream flooding. Primary: Manages stormwater within the region by passively removing the silt from the Kellogg Creek storm flows. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-49 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Improve regional flood risk management Primary: This project will reduce the potential of flooding for the neighboring communities along the creek. Primary: The detention basin will retain storm flows and meter storm flows out of the basin at a lower rate. Primary: Improvement of the existing channel to handle and prevent stormwater flows from overbanking the creek and flooding the adjacent properties/DAC. Primary: Ensure the structural stability of the dam embankments of a vital flood control facility. - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: This project is located directly upstream of the large DAC in Antioch and that DAC is the primary beneficiary of the reduced flood risk. Additional: This project will significantly reduce the flooding potential for the adjacent DAC area. - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - Yes: This project includes regional detention basin facilities that provide floodwater storage as well as traps for sediment and trash. Wetland restoration is also a project component; all of this improves the quality of stormwater in the watershed. - - Yes: Construction of the basin will reduce the sediment and associated pollutant load to Kellogg Creek before it enters Discovery Bay and the Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes Yes Yes Yes - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - Yes Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-50 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - Yes - - - Resource Management Strategies – Diversification Considerations Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local Yes - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention Yes Yes Yes - Yes Salt and Salinity Management Urban Runoff Management Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Yes Yes Yes Yes - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Yes Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes - - - Forest Management - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-51 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management Yes - - Yes Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Est. Completion Date 9/1/2016 8/1/2014 8/1/2017 7/1/2014 8/1/2013 Feasibility Project Status Completed Completed Completed Not Applicable In Progress Est. Completion Date 1/1/2012 8/1/2012 1/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 Environ- mental Assess. Project Status Not Started In Progress Not Started Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 8/1/2014 8/1/2020 7/1/2014 8/1/2013 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 9/1/2014 8/1/2020 - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 12/1/2014 8/1/2020 - 8/1/2020 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 4/1/2015 8/1/2020 - 8/1/2020 Building/Other Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-52 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 - 8/1/2020 - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 4/1/2015 8/1/2020 7/1/2015 8/1/2020 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 8/1/2016 - - 8/1/2020 Environmental Permits Describe any required USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) USACE 404, DFG 1600, RWQCB Water Quality Cert. - USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) Status? They have not been started yet. Many baseline studies have been completed in support of the HCP Project Study Report (PSR). Other applications will be submitted closer to project advertise. Permits have not been started. Will commence process when closer to construction and funding has been secured. - Preliminary studies have been started. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required N/A Approval of Division of Safety of Dams for dam construction. - DSOD will need to be involved in any assessment and will ultimately need to issue a permit for any dam reconstruction or modification. N/A Status? - Initial meeting with DSOD completed. Design guidance received from DSOD. - DSOD is familiar with the dam and inspects it annually. Specific permit application will follow seismic assessment. N/A Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties Funding is an issue. Funding is an issue. Fiscal ability of maintenance entity (City of Antioch) to assume ownership may become an issue. Local match is a challenge in this area. Another project located just downstream on West Antioch Creek is under design and will be implemented soon. - Funding is an issue. Mitigation requirements by environmental agencies have increased project costs. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement $420,000 $1,280,000 $155,000 NA NA Planning $295,000 $842,000 $345,000 $315,000 $134,000 Design $90,000 $1,560,000 $180,000 $1 $237,000 Environmental Review $545,000 $250,000 $80,000 $15,000 $168,000 Permits $65,000 Unknown $90,000 $1 $30,000 Construction/Implementation $2,325,000 $5,009,000 $3,240,000 $1 $325,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $283,000 Unknown $370,000 $1 $1,200,000 Other $20,000 Unknown $446,000 $33,000 NA Total Project Cost $4,043,000 $10,051,000 $4,906,000 $363,004 $2,094,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-53 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Marsh Creek Widening Between Dainty Avenue and Sand Creek (#216) Oakley and Trembath Detention Basins (#207) West Antioch Creek Improvements; 10th Street to “L” Street (#203) Dry Creek Reservoir Seismic Assessment (#211) Kellogg Creek Sedimentation Basin (#226) Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $250,000 $3,000,000 $100,000 $175,000 $894,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees Yes Yes Yes Yes - User Rates - - - - Yes User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax Yes - - Yes - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $3,793,000 $7,051,000 $4,806,000 $188,004 $1,200,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: This project will reduce flood risk to the Antioch DAC. If the project was not implemented and the area was to flood, the residents of the DAC would be exposed to toxic stormwater. Yes: This project will reduce the amount of flooding and the damages associated with the flooding. It further prevents public health risks associated with exposure to bacterial or chemical pollutants that are present in floodwaters. - - What Community(ies)? - City of Antioch DACs within the City of Antioch - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - The project EIR included public notification of project alternatives. City of Antioch has performed community outreach. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-54 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Project ID # 20 21 22 23 24 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Infrastructure – Stormwater/ Flood Management Monitoring Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project This project will construct a 300 ac-ft regional detention basin on Sand Creek. The existing 40 ac-ft basin will be expanded into a 300 ac-ft offline basin with the addition of a new intake structure, primary and emergency spillways, a low flow channel, and a riparian mitigation area. This will reduce the flood potential downstream of this facility. This project will excavate and expand the storage area of the existing Deer Creek Reservoir to increase stormwater holding capacity and reduce flood flows downstream. The Deer Creek Reservoir dam was built in 1960 for a 50-year capacity. The expansion of the facility is needed to provide 100-year capacity to the developing areas of Brentwood downstream, including Heritage High School, which is immediately downstream from the facility. This project will also acquire additional land rights over an area currently encumbered by only a flowage easement, which is insufficient. The project will upgrade the flowage easement to a drainage easement. Marsh Creek Reservoir is located downstream of the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. Remedial actions for the mine are being investigated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); however, the scope of the USACE assessment is limited to the mine site, Marsh Creek above the reservoir, and the reservoir. This project will investigate whether low dissolved oxygen conditions exist seasonally within the reservoir and whether the presence of legacy mercury contamination in reservoir sediments and/or low dissolved oxygen conditions in the reservoir promote the production of methylmercury within the reservoir or downstream in Marsh Creek. Low dissolved oxygen in reservoirs has been shown to cause elevated mercury concentrations in other reservoirs. This project would monitor mercury and methylmercury in water and sediments of the reservoir and downstream, as well as DO profiles in the reservoir. The project would also monitor mercury in sentinel species (e.g., crayfish) and small fish. BBID and CCWD are working together to connect their water systems with an intertie that will improve the ability to sustain adequate water supply for drought preparedness and after catastrophic events such as earthquakes, while also increasing the ability for these agencies to develop and share water resources more efficiently. Water can be shared between these two ECWMA members as well as delivered from CCWD through BBID and to agencies that have access to water supplies from the South Bay Aqueduct. The immediate project consists of approximately 200 feet of 48” pipeline to interconnect the two agencies and will be designed to allow for the installation of temporary pumps. A pump station may be added in a future phase to increase capacity. The full, five-phased Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project (Project) will replace 21,000 feet of the unlined Contra Costa Canal (the Canal) with a pipeline to improve source water quality by preventing intrusion of poor quality groundwater; eliminate up to 8 miles of 1930’s Canal embankments not designed for flood protection; and improve security and public safety by preventing access to the open water Canal. Phase 1 included 1,900 feet of pipeline, and was completed in 2009. Phase 2 will commence as early as 2013 and will install 7,000 feet of pipeline and a Canal flood isolation structure. The ultimate project includes improvements to the Canal Pumping Plant No. 1 to maintain existing flows to CCWD and its regional partners. The project will also require approximately 225,000 cubic yards of fill material. At this time, the expectation is that this borrow material can be obtained from the Sand Creek Detention Basin that is an IRWM Project. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Brentwood - BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition, Contra Costa Clean Water Program Byron Bethany Irrigation District Department of Water Resources, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Public Health ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - Primary: The project increases water supply reliability while also increasing the opportunities for water agencies in both the East Contra Costa & Bay Area regions to develop and share water resources more efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way. Additional: Encasing the unlined Canal improves water quality since this eliminates high TDS shallow groundwater from entering the Contra Costa Canal. All downstream water users benefit from improvements in source water quality including recycled water. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: This basin will help to provide flood protection downstream for the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley. This basin is planned to be part of Brentwood’s recreational park systems by having soccer fields in the bottom of the basin, next to a public park. Additional: This project will reduce flood risk in Deer Creek and Marsh Creek, the largest stream in the area. Additional: This study may lead to control measures addressing TMDLs for mercury established by both the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 9 Marsh Creek discharges to the Delta just upstream of the Region 2 boundary. Additional: The project increases water supply reliability while also increasing the opportunities for water agencies in both the East Contra Costa & Bay Area regions to develop and share water resources. Additional: Benefits all water users within Central and Eastern Contra Costa County, DWD, City of Brentwood, Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, Concord, Martinez and portions of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - Additional: The intertie could facilitate the transfer of water between agencies participating in the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-55 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - Additional: Placing the unlined Canal within a pipeline serves water by minimizing evaporation and loss of canal water to the ground. Increase water transfers - - - Additional: The intertie could facilitate the transfer of water between CCWD and BBID, agencies participating in the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project, and between CCWD and agencies connected to the South Bay Aqueduct. - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - Additional: The intertie is a short interconnection between two existing pipelines in close proximity to each other. - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Primary: The full, 5-phased CCWD Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project will replace 4 miles of the unlined Contra Costa Canal with a pipeline to improve source water quality available to CCWD by preventing intrusion of poor quality groundwater. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - Primary: This study may lead to control measures addressing TMDLs for mercury established by both the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boards. - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta Additional: Basin will have an in-line treatment wetlands for low flows and stormwater. Most of the urban watershed does not have modern stormwater BMPs because it was developed in the 1980s and 1990s. The Basin can serve this role to improve SW quality. - Additional: This is part of an overall mercury control strategy implemented as a requirement of stormwater dischargers in Eastern Contra Costa County. - - Restoration and Enhancement of Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Additional: Can enhance habitat within the basin by having a mitigation/low flow area designated for planning and habitat. - Additional: Reducing mercury sources and addressing processes that contribute to mercury methylation is a stated goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration - Additional: The Project is identified as Early Action by the Delta Stewardship Council in the Interim Delta Plan. If the Project doesn’t move forward, DWR’s Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-56 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Program. Mercury accumulation in fish is a known threat to wildlife habitat. Project (mandated, SBX7-1 Section 85085) will be delayed. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - Additional: Reducing mercury sources and addressing processes that contribute to mercury methylation is a stated goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration Program. Additional: The intertie would support the transfer of water via existing facilities that have state-of-the-art fish screens. This will minimize and avoid impacts on sensitive aquatic species and improve the Delta ecosystem. - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - Additional: Reducing mercury levels in fish will, over time, increase the amount of fish that can be safely consumed by subsistence fishers. - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater Additional: This off-line detention facility is to reduce the flow rate in Sand Creek by detaining flow within the basin and metering the outflows. This action will provide flood protection downstream of the basin. Additional: This project will increase the available capacity in Deer Creek Reservoir behind the existing dam by selectively excavating the storage area. The expanded reservoir will store runoff and meter flows out of the basin, preventing flooding downstream. Additional: This is part of an overall mercury control strategy implemented as a requirement of stormwater dischargers in Eastern Contra Costa County. - - Improve regional flood risk management Primary: This basin will help to provide flood protection downstream for the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley. The basin is an important component of the regional flood master plan for the Marsh Creek watershed. Primary: This project will increase the available capacity in Deer Creek Reservoir by selectively excavating the storage area. It will reduce the flood risk on Deer Creek and downstream communities along Marsh Creek, including Heritage High School. - - Additional: The project will also eliminate up to 8 miles of aging canal embankments that were not intended to provide flood protection, yet are currently relied upon for that purpose. Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - Additional: DACs surround the fishable receiving waters that would benefit from any methylmercury reduction measures applied to Marsh Creek. - Additional: The project improves source water quality to all of CCWD customers, many of which are located in DAC areas. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: Conducting this project with regional stakeholders will increase awareness of the impacts due to legacy mercury mines and potential control measures available to downstream reservoir owners. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - Investigating the potential linkages between low dissolved oxygen in a reservoir and methylmercury production could provide valuable lessons learned applicable to lakes and reservoirs throughout the state. This would be important to the Mercury in Lakes Policy currently being scoped by the State Water Resources Control Board. - The project further improves source water quality by eliminating direct access and stormwater intrusion into a water supply. It will improve security and public safety by preventing access to the open water canal. Program Preferences – Ranking Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - Yes: The intertie would facilitate the transfer of water between the ECCC and Bay Area IRWM regions with minimal environmental effects. Yes: Replacement of the Contra Costa Canal with a pipeline allow DWR Dutch Slough Tidal Restoration Project to proceed, and provides available upstream supplies to support CVP and SWP. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-57 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - Yes: The Project improves source water quality by preventing intrusion of saline groundwater and by eliminating access and stormwater intrusion into the open water canal. Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Yes: Without the Project, the risk of flood-related damages under catastrophic failure of the earthen embankments, Delta levee failure, or a significant seismic event will persist, inundating adjacent areas, damaging property, and endangering the public. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - - Yes: The project increases water supply reliability for two IRWM regions, facilitates water transfers, and pre-empts the need for duplicative conveyance facilities. Yes: The Canal is a compliance point for water quality in the Delta; improved water quality reduces required upstream releases and increases available water supplies. Encasing the Canal eliminates groundwater infiltration and water quality degradation. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Yes: Contribute to mercury methylation is a stated goal of the Calfed Ecosystem Restoration Program. Mercury accumulation in fish is a known threat to wildlife habitat. Yes: Using a state-of-the-art fish screen to export water from the Delta minimizes impacts to sensitive habitat. Yes: The completion of DWR’s Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project is legislatively mandated (SBX7-1) and is dependent on the construction of 11,000 ft of the pipeline adjacent to the Dutch Slough project site. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: Uses existing pipelines to convey water minimizes the need for new pipeline right-of-ways. Yes: The project strives to create a more compatible land use with adjacent housing projects. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - Yes - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes Yes Yes - Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes - Yes - Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - Yes - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - Yes - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - Yes - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - Yes - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Yes - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - Yes - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-58 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - Yes - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Yes Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - Yes - - Pollution Prevention Yes Yes Yes - Yes Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Yes Urban Runoff Management Yes Yes - - Yes Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Yes Yes - - Yes Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - Yes - Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management Yes Yes Yes - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Planning Project Status In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Completed Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-59 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 12/1/2013 6/1/2013 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Completed Completed Not Applicable In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date 1/1/2012 1/1/2012 - 1/1/2013 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Completed Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 1/1/2012 9/1/2014 - 1/1/2014 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - - 12/1/2016 - 9/1/2012 Design Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2017 1/1/2015 - 9/1/2014 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2017 3/1/2015 - 9/1/2014 9/1/2012 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - - - - 9/1/2012 Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2017 7/1/2015 - 9/1/2014 - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2020 - - 9/1/2015 - Environmental Permits Describe any required USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP Coverage (PSR in progress) USACE 404, RWQCB Water Quality Cert., DFG 1600, ECC HCP coverage (PSR needed) CDFG permits may be required for collection of biological samples and working in streams. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Exemption (NOE) CEQA was satisfied through filing a Notice of Determination in November 2006. NEPA was satisfied through an EA/FONSI in July 2007. All applicable federal, state, and local permit applications were obtained in 2007. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-60 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Status? Baseline studies for the basin are underway. These permits have not been initiated yet. Not yet applied for but can be obtained in relatively short timeframes. CEQA NOE pending receipt of conceptual design and approval to proceed. For future phases, permits will be updated or amended to reflect changed field conditions. For example, implementation of the Rock Slough Fish Screen should allow for more flexible work windows since sensitive aquatic species are no longer able to enter the Canal. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - Encroachment permits may be needed from Contra Costa Flood Control and Water District. Sampling on private lands would require owner permission. TBD. Expect that no additional permits are required. MP 620, Bureau of Reclamation. Obtained in Spring 2007, update for each segment. WAPA Power Line Relocation Agreement, update for each segment. Status? - - Not yet applied for but can be obtained in relatively short timeframes. - DFG 1600 permit 25 years. File amendments as new segment commence. DFG 2081 GGS Take Permit, needed for each segment. Army Corps 404 Permit, renew for an additional 10 years on August 1, 2017. CVRWQCB 401 Permit, good for the life of the project. Provide notification. Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties Funding is an issue. Funding is an issue. - Unknown - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement $130,000 $214,000 NA NA $430,000 Planning $340,000 $180,000 $50,000 NA $200,000 Design $530,000 $100,000 NA NA $750,000 Environmental Review $50,000 $240,000 NA NA $100,000 Permits $25,000 $145,000 NA NA $20,000 Construction/Implementation $3,140,000 $1,340,000 $450,000 NA $55,000,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $1,750,000 $250,000 NA NA NA Other $250,000 NA NA $200,000 $2,000,000 Total Project Cost $6,215,000 $2,469,000 $500,000 $200,000 $58,500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $2,000,000 $500,000 $75,000 $50,000 - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees Yes - - - Yes User Rates - - - - Yes User Fees - - Yes Yes - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Yes Property Tax Yes - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - Yes Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-61 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Lower Sand Creek Basin Construction (#222) Deer Creek Reservoir Expansion (#217 and #218) Marsh Creek Methylmercury and Dissolved Oxygen Assessment BBID-CCWD Regional Intertie Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control District Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $4,215,000 $1,969,000 $425,000 $150,000 $58,500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - Yes: DACs surround the fishable receiving waters that would benefit from any methylmercury reduction measures applied to Marsh Creek. - Yes: Supports higher quality water service to DAC areas within Contra Costa County, Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, and Concord. What Community(ies)? - - Solano County, Sacramento County, Antioch, Pittsburg, Bethel Island/Franks Tracts - Portions of Contra Costa County, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - This project is still in the planning/development phase. - The CCWD service area includes Antioch, Pittsburg, and Bay Point which are largely composed of DACs. CCWD regularly communicates with these communities through the ECWMA and targeted outreach activities via the environmental review process. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - Yes: Reducing mercury concentrations in fish will increase available food supplies and reduce potential health risks for subsistence fishers. - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: Should DO management of Marsh Creek Reservoir be identified as a potential control measure, that action may also reduce methane emissions from the reservoir. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. - Yes: Lowers the amount of pumping from CCWD’s alternative supply sources. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-62 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project ID # 25 26 27 28 29 Project Description Project Type Environmental (e.g., habitat) Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project Los Vaqueros (LV) Pond E-7 is man-made and is used to promote red legged frog and California tiger salamander habitat in the Los Vaqueros Watershed. The Pond’s earthen embankment is 150 feet long by 12 feet high. The embankment has failed on CCWD property, which was caused by one or more storm events that could not be passed by the existing undersized and clogged spillway culvert. The failed embankment does not support objectives of the pond and the embankment could further erode during future storms causing damage and further limiting use of the pond. The Contra Costa Canal meadows siphon is located below a low-lying area north of Buchanan Road in the City of Pittsburg. The low-lying area functions as an accidental detention basin which accepts stormwater from the Highlands Ranch development fed from multiple storm drain pipes as well as runoff from nearby drainage areas. Water collected in this low area flows out through a 48-inch pipe that feeds an existing detention basin downstream. The terrain of the low lying area does not provide for positive drainage resulting in year-round ponding. The growth of trees and vegetation in the year-round wet environment of the low area directly over the canal siphon is a major concern. Tree roots can damage the siphon and wetlands prevent routine maintenance. This project may include the corrective option to install a junction box to connect all storm drains. The junction box would allow overflow to utilize the low area for water storage during peak flows. The 48 mile long Contra Costa Canal transports water from the Delta at Rock Slough to industrial, municipal, commercial, residential customers, and water treatment plants in Contra Costa County. The uphill embankment of the Contra Costa Canal near Milepost 23.03 in Bay Point experienced visible movement last winter causing a significant bulge in the liner. Temporary sheet pipes were installed for winter slope protection. This project will provide permanent repairs to stabilize the slope and prevent further movement of the Canal liner and replacement of the bulging liner. Bypass pumping or piping will be implemented to facilitate the repair work. The State has indicated that excess nutrients may be impacting Delta species, and is currently evaluating the role of ammonia in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. DDSD discharges wastewater into the New York Slough, and has an exemplary record of eight consecutive years of 100% compliance with permit requirements. As regulations get more stringent or constituents of emerging concern (CECs) are identified, planning and engineering are needed to design advanced treatment facilities that may be needed to improve effluent quality and ensure that receiving water quality and beneficial uses are maintained. This project involves the planning, design and construction of advanced wastewater treatment facilities in order to address future treatment needs for reduction of nutrients and emerging constituents of concern in wastewater effluent. DDSD is currently studying advanced treatment alternatives to determine suitability for consideration during the project planning phase. This project involves the planning, design, and construction of an advanced water treatment facility at DDSD designed to take wastewater secondary effluent or brackish water and treat it to high-purity water standards. New facilities will include microfiltration and reverse osmosis treatment units, as well as pumps, storage, and piping. This treatment facility will have capability to expand using modular units; the current project is sized for a 5 MGD facility. Advanced treatment of secondary effluent will significantly reduce TDS, ammonia, and other constituents. When this high-purity water is used for cooling water, it will reduce chemical usage and increase the number of cycles at the power plant, thus freeing up recycled water capacity for other users. A drought-tolerant, available high-purity supply can provide water for clean industrial manufacturing and other uses. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name East Contra Costa Agricultural Trust (ECCAT), East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) City of Pittsburg - - City of Antioch ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Additional: Damage to the siphon from tree roots would allow for infiltration and increase sediment load in the canal which carries source water to treatment plants. Increased sediment requires greater treatment. Additional: Prevent debris resulting from earth movement from increasing sediments in the canal which carries source water to the treatment plants. Increased sediment in source water requires greater treatment at the plants. - Additional: The project has the potential to increase regional cost efficiencies. A high-quality supply can result in decreased chemical use and cost when used in cooling towers. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Three agencies (Contra Costa Water District, East Contra Costa Agricultural Trust, and East Bay Regional Park District) are beneficiaries to this project. - - Additional: DDSD treatment plant serves Antioch, Pittsburg, and Bay Point, providing regional wastewater treatment. Improved water quality will provide region-wide benefits. Improved recycled water quality will expand supply and uses. Additional: This project will increase water supply for the region, providing a high purity supply for many potential uses. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - Additional: Advanced treated effluent that is sent to the recycled water facility will result in improved recycled water quality, expanding supply and use. Primary: This region relies heavily on water from the Delta. Advanced treatment of secondary effluent and brackish water will provide an increased, drought-tolerant supply for the region that is less subject to Delta influences. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - Primary: Eliminating the year-round storage of surface run-off at the low lying area at the canal siphon would Primary: Stabilizing the slope will minimize future ground movement in the vicinity of the canal. Repair of the - Additional: Increasing recycled water supply and availability can offset urban water use and help water suppliers to Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-63 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo eliminate trees and other vegetative growth that can cause root damage to the siphon resulting in leaks and water loss. damaged concrete liner will prevent further leaks and water loss. meet 20% by 2020 potable water conservation targets. Increase water transfers - - Additional: Repair of the damaged concrete liner will prevent leaks and water loss allowing more to be distributed within the canal system. - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Additional: Damage to the siphon from tree roots would allow for infiltration and increase sediment load in the canal which carries source water to treatment plants. Additional: Among many industries, the canal delivers raw water to municipal water treatment plants. Slope stabilization will minimize earth and debris to slough into the canal causing higher source water sediment. Additional: While DDSD meets all discharge standards, advanced wastewater treatment will further reduce nutrients, TDS, and constituents of emerging concern. The discharge to NY Slough is mixed with receiving waters that serve as source water. Additional: Treating secondary effluent with advanced treatment will reduce mass loadings in discharge water, helping to protect source water quality. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - Additional: Damage to the siphon from tree roots would allow for infiltration and increase sediment load in the canal which carries source water to treatment plants. Increase sediment requires greater treatment. - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - Additional: Advanced treatment of wastewater effluent will improve the recycled water quality that is produced at DDSD’s recycled water facility. Additional: This project will implement advanced treatment to improve regional recycled water quality. Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - Primary: The purpose of this project is to plan, design and construct advanced wastewater treatment facilities to meet future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta. Additional: Increased use of advanced treated secondary effluent will decrease wastewater discharges and associated mass loading to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: The project would provide for detention of peak storm flows and settlement of debris and controlled downstream discharge. - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Primary: Lessen impact to egg mass and larvae stage of red legged frog and California tiger salamander. - Additional: The project will provide protection against further earth movement that would disrupt habitats along the hillside. Additional: Improved wastewater discharge quality to the Bay/Delta would minimize impacts to the Additional: Expanded recycled water use may offset delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-64 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo ecosystem and other environmental resources. instream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Additional: By allowing the peak storm runoff to overflow and detained locally, the impact to the downstream detention basin at Los Medanos College downstream is minimized. - - - Improve regional flood risk management - Additional: By allowing the peak storm runoff to overflow and detained locally, the impact to the downstream detention basin at Los Medanos College downstream is minimized. Additional: The project will reduce further damage to the concrete canal liner that may blow out if a landslide occurs and causes flooding to properties downhill. - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - Additional: Census tracts with DACs as defined by the State are located across the DDSD service area in Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. The community will have opportunities for involvement in this project and the IRWM process. Additional: There are DACs within DDSD’s service area in Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch, and water supply and treatment planning will involve these DACs. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - Additional: The public will be informed and have opportunities to be involved in this project as it proceeds towards planning. Information will also be provided to increase awareness of water resource management issues. Additional: Development and distribution of public information through DDSD’s website, print materials, or through the CEQA process will increase awareness of water resource management issues and projects with the general public. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: This project if grant funded will resolve a conflict within the ECCC Region. The East Contra Costa Agricultural Trust (ECCAT) indicated they have no funding for the LV Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation. - - Yes: Water supply, water quality and habitat are issues of concern across the Bay-Delta. This project seeks to further improve effluent quality, reducing loadings to the Delta and expanding recycled water supply and use opportunities across the region. Yes: This project can improve water supply, quality, and reliability for the region, helping to address potential water-related conflicts resulting from climate change or increasing Delta constraints. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Yes: Reduce sediment from entering the canal system from cracks caused by trees and heavy vegetation. Yes: Earth movement causes earth and debris to fall into the canal resulting in high sedimentation of this source water that is delivered to the local water treatment plants. - Yes: An advanced treatment facility that takes in brackish water from existing intakes can improve water quality from source to tap. Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-65 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - Yes: Minimizes damage to the canal system from tree roots that can cause leaks and water loss. Yes: Replacement of the bulging concrete liner will reduce or eliminate leaks in this section of the canal, thus increasing supplies for downstream users. Yes: Expanded recycled water use increases the region’s water supplies. Combined with improved quality, this source also allows more efficient and flexible use of water resources. Yes: This facility will increase water supplies, and will provide more efficient and flexible use of water resources as it will be capable of treating water of varying quality and producing high purity water for expanded uses. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - Yes: Improved effluent quality, recycled water quality and quantity can contribute to improvement in ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed. Yes: Improved water quality may improve ecological health. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: This project will identify water resource availability and quality, fostering communication with land use planners and informing land use plans. Yes: The planning process will foster increased communication and collaboration of planners and water managers. Information on increased water supply and quality will inform land use plans and provide increased opportunities for use of this water. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - Yes Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - Yes Yes Yes Yes Climate Change Response Actions - - - Yes Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes - - Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes Yes Yes Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - Yes Yes - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - Yes Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - Yes - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - Yes Yes - Yes System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - Yes Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - Yes Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-66 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Yes Yes - Yes Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - Yes Yes Pollution Prevention - - Yes Yes - Salt and Salinity Management - - - Yes Yes Urban Runoff Management - Yes Yes - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Yes Yes - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Yes Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - Yes Yes Ecosystem Restoration Yes - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - Yes - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Project Status - Implementation Planning Project Status Not Applicable In Progress In Progress Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date - 7/1/2013 9/1/2012 6/1/2016 12/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environ-mental Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started In Progress Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-67 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Est. Completion Date 2/1/2013 7/1/2014 4/1/2013 6/1/2016 10/1/2013 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 4/1/2013 7/1/2014 5/1/2013 6/1/2016 10/1/2014 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 2/1/2013 7/1/2014 5/1/2013 - - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 2/1/2019 - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 8/1/2013 7/1/2015 12/1/2013 9/1/2020 3/1/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Permits include a DFG streambed alteration permit, USACE Nationwide 404 permit, and RWQCB 401 water quality certification. 1. United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CEC). 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of Exemption (NOE). 1. United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CEC). 2) Notice of Exemption (NOE) under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). - - Status? Permits not yet submitted. NEPA and CEQA will be finalized in the first half of 2013. NEPA and CEQA will be completed in the first half of 2013. - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required Contra Costa County Grading Permit. MP 620 approval by USBR for modification and improvements to the Contra Costa Canal. 1. MP 620 Permit. Issued by USBR for modifications/repairs to the Contra Costa Canal. - - Status? Permit not yet submitted. MP 620 will be submitted once engineering design and NEPA are prepared. MP 620 can be issued once NEPA is completed and engineering design is approved. - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-68 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA Unknown Unknown Planning $2,800 $27,000 NA Unknown Unknown Design $29,000 $60,000 $70,000 Unknown Unknown Environmental Review $3,000 Unknown $8,000 Unknown Unknown Permits $5,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Construction/Implementation $145,000 $250,000 $550,000 Unknown Unknown Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $25,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other NA NA $10,000 $80,000,000 $50,000,000 Total Project Cost $209,800 $337,000 $638,000 $80,000,000 $50,000,000 Cost Estimate Available? Yes - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $52,000 $160,000 $319,000 - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates Yes Yes Yes - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $157,800 $177,000 $319,000 $80,000,000 $50,000,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - Yes: Water supply benefits to DACs include improved water reliability through recycled water expansion, which can reduce dependence on Delta supplies. Water quality improvements will also benefit the region and may provide economic improvements. Yes: Census tracts show significant areas in Pittsburg, Bay Point, and Antioch meeting the DAC definition. Adequate water supply and quality is a critical issue for this region. This project seeks to expand water supply and improve water quality. What Community(ies)? - - - DAC census tracts in Bay Point, Pittsburg and Antioch. Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - TBD – planning has not yet started. DACs will be involved as the project moves into planning. Environmental JusticDoes (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - Yes: This project improves water quality and expands water supply, which provides greater access to clean water and recreation. Yes: Will provide greater availability and access to clean water. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-69 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Los Vaqueros Pond E-7 Embankment Rehabilitation Stormwater Management of Meadows Siphon Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 Advanced Wastewater Treatment DDSD Advanced Water Treatment Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - Yes: Climate change is expected to result in drought and decreased water supply. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Yes: Climate change is expected to result in droughts and declining water supplies. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant, reliable supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-70 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project ID # 30 54 31 32 33 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Other Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project This project helps to meet water demands and reduce dependence on the Delta by expanding the recycled water system to serve industrial and irrigation users within the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg. The expansion project involves the installation of pipelines, storage, pumps and retrofits that can be implemented in phases to serve demands as opportunities arise. Facilities in this expansion include the construction of a storage tank (0.9 MG), approximately 47,000 LF of new recycled water pipeline, rehabilitation of 48,200 LF of existing pipeline, a pump station, control and isolation valves, and site retrofits to serve 22 irrigation and industrial customers. This project will be capable of meeting recycled water average annual demands of 4,200 AFY. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration and salinity management are potential water quality concerns in the region. Water softeners from residences in the service area can contribute to higher salinity and TDS concentrations in the wastewater influent. This project involves implementation of a water softener rebate program for residents in order to reduce salinity and TDS loading to the wastewater treatment plant. Reducing TDS in the influent will improve recycled water quality and help reduce salinity. In California, water-related energy use consumes a significant percent of the State’s electricity and natural gas. In addition, there is a substantial water requirement for non-renewable forms of electricity generation. This is the basis of the water-energy nexus. This project will install a 1.1 MW PV solar energy system to offset 50-60% of the energy use and associated costs at the recycled water facility. This project is part of a Regional Renewable Energy Procurement Project, which provides additional cost savings through volume pricing. This project will improve recycled water facility sustainability, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and providing energy cost savings through cost control/stability of on-site renewable energy generation. Total dissolved solids concentrations and salinity management are potential water quality concerns in the region. DDSD operates a recycled water facility, and closely monitors the TDS concentration. Water with higher TDS concentrations has limits to its usefulness, and conventional treatment facilities have limited ability to significantly reduce TDS. Therefore, TDS management at treatment facilities is an important factor for producing high-quality recycled water. This project involves the installation of 10,500 LF of HDPE pipe to carry high TDS-containing water from Dow in Pittsburg to the optimal location at the treatment plant in order to reduce TDS concentration in the water produced at the recycled water facility. By improving water quality, this project can also increase water supply by increasing reuse and freeing up capacity for other users. Fats, oils and greases (FOG) that are improperly disposed into the sanitary sewer system are a major contributor to pipe blockages and sewer overflows. FOG that makes its way to the headworks of the treatment plant can negatively impact equipment and treatment. FOG discharges can come from both residences and commercial facilities within DDSD’s 42 sq. mile service area of Antioch, Bay Point, and Pittsburg. This project will design and construct a facility to accept up to 20,000 gallons of FOG per day from waste haulers, which will then be fed into digesters for treatment and biogas production. Construction involves modifying concrete pad, removing and replacing tank, and installing piping. This project will help keep greasy wastes out of the sanitary sewer collection system and the environment, reducing overflows, while enhancing biogas production at the treatment plant. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Pittsburg, City of Antioch, U.S. DOI, Bureau of Reclamation - - Dow - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: This project will incorporate efficiencies to reduce system operating cost. Also, DDSD recycled water rates are lower than raw/treated water rates, and provide landscape irrigation users with a source of nutrients, saving money for City parks. Additional: By reducing the amount of TDS/salinity in wastewater influent, DDSD can improve wastewater and recycled water treatment cost efficiencies. Improved recycled quality can reduce chemical usage and cost for cooling tower use. Primary: On-site generation of electricity will provide cost savings for recycled water production and distribution. Additional: By controlling the introduction of high TDS wastewater into the treatment plant, DDSD can improve wastewater and recycled water treatment cost efficiencies. Improved quality can reduce chemical usage and cost for cooling towers. Primary: Keeping FOG discharges out of the sewer system decreases system and equipment maintenance costs. A regional FOG receiving facility provides increased efficiency for waste haulers. Biogas enhancement decreases cost to purchase additional natural gas. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: This project expands recycled water use in Pittsburg and Antioch, helping to meet the region’s water supply needs. Recycled water system expansion across the region is also being coordinated with Ironhouse Sanitary District and City of Brentwood. Additional: Decreasing salinity of recycled water used for irrigation can benefit salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. Additional: This project can reduce demand on regional energy generation and transmission infrastructure. Region-wide benefits include addressing impacts of climate change. The regional energy procurement program is available to public agencies in Contra Costa. Additional: Decreasing TDS concentrations of recycled water used for irrigation can benefit salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. Additional: This project will expand a regional FOG collection facility, of benefit to DDSD’s 42 square mile service area and the surrounding communities. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Primary: Delta water is the major supply for Pittsburg and Antioch. This project will expand recycled water service to irrigation and industrial users in Antioch and Pittsburg, providing a drought-tolerant supply that is less subject to Delta influences. Additional: Improving recycled water quality can potentially expand its use for industrial and irrigation purposes. - Additional: This project seeks to improve recycled water quality, thus potentially expanding its use for industrial and irrigation purposes. - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: Switching irrigation and industrial uses from potable supplies to recycled water can offset urban water use and help water suppliers to - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-71 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo meet 20% by 2020 potable water conservation targets. Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Expanded recycled water use can replace Delta supplies, which can offset demands and reduce diversions; this may help reduce salinity/saltwater intrusion and protect source water quality. - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality Additional: This project expands recycled water distribution in the region for irrigation and industrial uses, and maintains recycled water quality. Primary: This project will improve recycled water quality by decreasing salinity/TDS concentration of the water entering the treatment facility. Additional: Providing on-site renewable energy for the recycled water facility will improve sustainability and help to maintain the recycled water facility. Primary: This project will improve recycled water quality by decreasing TDS concentration of the water entering the treatment facility. - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: While DDSD expects to remain in compliance with water quality and discharge regulations, increasing recycled water production and use reduces wastewater discharges and mass loading to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Additional: Increased recycled water production and use will decrease effluent discharges to the Delta. - Additional: Increased recycled water production and use will decrease effluent discharges to the Delta. - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Expanded recycled water use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Additional: Improved recycled water quality and expanded use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Additional: Solar power is clean energy. Switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources generated on-site may help minimize impacts to environmental resources. Additional: Improved recycled water quality and expanded use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Additional: Sewer overflows are detrimental to the environment. Providing a local FOG receiving facility may reduce improper discharges of FOG into the sewer system, thus reducing blockages and overflows. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-72 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Greater use of local, recycled water can be less energy intensive than conveying and treating imported water. This project will increase operating efficiency resulting in lower energy use and the associated GHG emissions from fossil fuel sources. - Additional: Switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources will reduce GHG emissions. This project will reduce GHG emissions by up to 642 annual metric tons of CO2. - Additional: Providing a local/regional FOG receiving facility can minimize trucking miles for waste haulers, thus reducing associated vehicle/greenhouse gas emissions. The nearest FOG collection facility is over 35 miles away. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: There are DACs within DDSD’s service area, and recycled water project planning will include involvement of these DACs in Pittsburg and Antioch. - Additional: Census tracts with DACs as defined by the State are located across the DDSD service area. The community will have opportunities for involvement in this project and the IRWM process. - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: DDSD website and project flyers will include information on the benefits of recycled water and its role in water management. - Additional: DDSD will provide project information to the general public and seek to increase awareness on water resource management issues, including the water energy nexus. - Additional: This project will be widely publicized to promote use and understanding of proper FOG disposal, and associated benefits to the environment. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Regional recycled water planning can improve water supply reliability through more effective use of resources, and cooperative planning to address future water supply related conflicts related to climate change and increasing Delta constraints. - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Expanded recycled water use increases the region’s water supplies, allowing more efficient and flexible use of water resources. Yes: Improved recycled water quality can expand the uses for industrial purposes, providing more efficient and flexible use of this recycled water supply. Improved quality can increase cycles/reuse in cooling towers, freeing up capacity for other users. Yes: There may be indirect water increase through the offsetting of water loss from fossil fuel energy production. Yes: Improved recycled water quality can expand the uses for industrial purposes, providing more efficient and flexible use of this recycled water supply. Improved quality can increase - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-73 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo cycles/reuse in cooling towers, freeing up capacity for other users. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Increased use of recycled water can positively impact Bay-Delta water supply and water quality, by potentially reducing Delta diversions, and decreasing wastewater discharges. These contribute to Bay-Delta ecological health. Yes: Better control and reduction of TDS concentration in the recycled water that is used for irrigation purpose can help salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. - Yes: Better control and reduction of TDS concentration in the recycled water that is used for irrigation purposes can help salinity management programs in Pittsburg and Antioch. Yes: Prevention of sewer overflows helps to protect human health, wildlife and water quality in the watershed. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Yes: Recycled water distribution expansion planning will identify water resource availability and quality, fostering communication with county and city land use planners and informing their land use plans. - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes - Yes - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes Yes - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Yes - Yes Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits Yes - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes Yes - Yes - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local Yes - Yes - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water Yes Yes - Yes - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-74 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use Yes Yes - Yes - Pollution Prevention - - - - Yes Salt and Salinity Management - Yes - Yes - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) Yes - Yes - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status In Progress Not Started In Progress Not Started Completed Est. Completion Date 12/1/2012 5/1/2013 9/1/2012 4/1/2013 - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Completed Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - 6/1/2013 9/1/2012 - - Environ-mental AssProject Status In Progress Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Completed Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-75 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Est. Completion Date 10/1/2013 - 6/1/2013 - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 10/1/2014 - 6/1/2013 10/1/2013 4/1/2016 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 3/1/2016 7/1/2015 6/1/2014 4/1/2014 10/1/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - - Status? Not started. - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-76 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties The list of potential water users and water demands was developed through the DDSD Recycled Water Master Plan. There are no expected impacts related to technical feasibility; the only uncertainties are related to the timing of recycled water connection for some users. Therefore, it is expected that users will be added in phases based on readiness and water demand. - - Changing the entry point of the high-TDS, low-volume waste stream into the treatment process requires review and approval by the SWRCB. This review is underway to confirm the feasibility of the proposal and identify any regulatory issues and requirements. - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Planning Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Design Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Environmental Review Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Permits Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Construction/Implementation Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Environmental Mitigation/Compliance Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other $25,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Total Project Cost $25,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount $270,000 - - - - State Grants Yes - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants Yes - - - - Currently unfunded $24,730,000 $3,000,000 $3,800,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: The water supply benefits to DACs in this project include improved water reliability through recycled water expansion. This project will reduce dependence on Delta supplies, is drought tolerant, and has the potential to improve economic development. - - - - What Community(ies)? Census tract areas in Pittsburg and Antioch, esp. north of Hwy. 4. - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-77 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion DDSD Salinity Reduction – Softener Rebate Program Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo Delta Diablo How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Outreach and involvement are underway, as this project is in the early planning stages. - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? Yes: DDSD’s recycled water is a reliable, affordable resource, resulting in water and fertilizer cost savings compared to current irrigation. This can be a benefit to cities when used on parks which provide recreation access to the community. - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: Climate change is expected to result in drought and decreased water supplies. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Yes: Will allow more efficient use/reuse of water, expanding a drought-tolerant supply for the region. Yes: Potential impact of climate change include decreased water supplies and increased energy demand. Switching from distributed energy/fossil fuel to on-site renewable energy can reduce/offset water and energy demand over current power generation. Yes: Will allow more efficient use/reuse of water, expanding a drought-tolerant supply for the region. - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: This expansion project evaluates system operation, identifying efficiencies and optimization to reduce power use. Reduction of power use will decrease the associated greenhouse gas emissions generated from conventional power production. - Yes: The renewable energy project (solar) will reduce GHG emissions over current energy sources for the recycled water facility. The project is expected to reduce GHG emissions by up to 642 annual metric eTons of CO2. Yes: Improved operational efficiency/reduced treatment will reduce energy consumption at the wastewater treatment plant and recycled water facility, resulting in subsequent GHG emission reduction for energy sources derived from fossil fuels. Yes: A FOG collection facility in this region will reduce trucking miles for waste haulers, thus reducing associated greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-78 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Project ID # 34 35 36 37 38 Project Description Project Type Monitoring Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Other Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project The Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project will assist the Diablo Water District improve its water management practices by converting 10,000 outdated meters to “smart” meters. The project will help the District conserve water and better manage its water issues by providing the technology necessary to mitigate customer leaks through real-time meter reading capabilities. Existing meters are more than a decade old and have diminished capabilities to accurately meter or report water usage. This has led to undetected leaks and unaccounted-for water and loss for the District’s customers. Some of the meters have even stopped turning. The new meters are magnetic read with no moving parts and are capable of alerting the District when a customer has water flowing 24 hrs/day which is an indication of a leak. Beacon West Well serves a Disadvantaged Community of approximately 22 homes and has arsenic levels of more than double the current Primary Drinking Water Standards. This project would be for the construction of a new well into an aquifer with water having arsenic levels that are below the Primary Drinking Water Standards. In September 2009, Diablo Water District received a Non-Compliance Order from the Contra Costa County Department of Environmental Health, for exceeding the arsenic MCL in the Disadvantaged Community’s supply well. Since that time, Diablo Water District has been working to find funding to help this community come into compliance with the drinking water standards. Extend treated water service onto Bethel Island to replace poor quality groundwater supply for approximately 1,000 island residents. Provide rebates for the installation of high efficiency toilets (HET) including cost of installation in addition to landscape conservation incentives. Third phase of groundwater utilization project for the Oakley area. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Primary: AMR will help customers better control their water usage. - - Additional: Reducing water conservation improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. Primary: Reduces cost of delivering drinking water as opposed to pumping and treating surface water. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - - Additional: Using less water will help other agencies in the region with more available supply. Additional: Reduces demand on Delta water supplies which leaves more supply for others in the region and the State. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: AMR system detects customer leaks that can be repaired, reducing water consumption and increase efficiency. - - Primary: Reducing water consumption improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - Additional: Project looks to utilize additional groundwater supply in the District’s conjunctive use program. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-79 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Primary: Provides source water to the DAC with arsenic levels below Primary Drinking Water Standards. Primary: Replace poor groundwater that does not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards with high quality treated surface water. - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Additional: Replace poor groundwater that does not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards with high quality treated surface water. - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - Additional: Project will identify areas of high and low arsenic levels in drinking water supplies. - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - Additional: Improved source water quality will improve wastewater quality by lowering salt content of waste discharges from Ironhouse Sanitary District. - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Customer leaks waste power needed to pump water into distribution mains. Less power utilized by the District will reduce greenhouse gasses. - - Additional: Excessive toilet water use wastes power needed to pump water. Less power utilized by the District will reduce greenhouse gasses. - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: Letters have been sent to the members of this Disadvantaged Community advising them of the high arsenic levels and the District’s efforts to find funding to resolve the problem. Additional: Letters have been sent to the members of this Disadvantaged Community advising them of the high arsenic levels and the District’s efforts to find funding to resolve the problem. Meetings have been held with Island residents explaining the project. - - Increase awareness of water resources - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-80 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District management issues and projects with the general public Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Yes: Improved water quality to residents of Bethel Island. - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies and a more efficient use of resources. - - Yes: Reducing water consumption will reduce the quantity of water that Diablo Water District will need to use from the Delta which benefits the region and the State. Yes: Provides use of groundwater during times of drought and augments the District’s surface water supply. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Yes: Reduces salt loading on wastewater system and discharges to the Delta. Yes: More water left in the Delta improves the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed. Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies that will improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Yes: Impacts on growth and land use planning were a part of the project EIR. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - Yes Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes - - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions Yes - - Yes - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes Yes - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - Yes - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - - Yes Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-81 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - Yes Yes Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Yes Yes - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - Yes Yes - - Pollution Prevention - - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - Yes - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Completed Not Started Completed Completed Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-82 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2013 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Completed Completed Not Started Completed Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2014 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 7/1/2012 9/1/2014 - 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status In Progress Completed Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2014 9/1/2013 9/1/2014 Design Project Status Completed In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 7/1/2012 9/1/2015 12/1/2013 9/1/2015 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - 7/1/2012 9/1/2015 - 9/1/2015 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable In Progress Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - 7/1/2012 9/1/2015 - 9/1/2015 Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2015 7/1/2012 12/1/2016 6/1/2015 12/1/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 12/1/2015 7/1/2012 9/1/2017 9/1/2015 9/1/2017 Environmental Permits Describe any required Project will fall under CEQA Categorical Exemption. Preparation of a Negative Declaration. Mitigated Neg. Dec. or EIR will most likely be required. Project is exempt. EIR for the project was completed in December 2018. NOD filed 12/18/2008. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-83 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Status? Yet to be adopted and NOD filed. Not started. Not started. - NOD filed 12/18/2008. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - County Encroachment Permit and County Environmental Health Permit. County Encroachment Permit. Homeowners may need to secure individual building permits. City of Oakley Encroachment Permit will be required for pipeline construction. Status? - County Environmental Health has indicated that they are ready to issue a permit. Not started. - Will be secured just prior to start of construction. Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Uncertain about the exact water quality we will encounter at the depths we are targeting. - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA $1,000,000 NA $150,000 Planning NA $3,000 $400,000 NA NA Design $8,000 $10,000 $1,000,000 $20,000 $400,000 Environmental Review $2,000 $15,000 $200,000 Unknown NA Permits NA $2,000 $500,000 Unknown $50,000 Construction/Implementation $2,000,000 $80,000 $26,400,000 $400,000 $7,000,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA $500,000 NA $500,000 Other NA NA NA NA NA Total Project Cost $2,010,000 $110,000 $30,000,000 $420,000 $8,100,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $210,000 $10,000 $1,000,000 $20,000 $810,000 Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - Yes User Rates Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes User Fees - - Yes - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $1,800,000 $100,000 $29,000,000 $400,000 $7,290,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: Project will allow the DAC served by this groundwater to receive water meeting the current drinking water standards for arsenic. Yes: Provides improved water quality to DACs on Bethel Island. - - What Community(ies)? - North area of Bethel Island Beacon West and Bethel Island - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-84 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Advanced Metering and Leak Detection (AMLD) Project Beacon West Arsenic Replacement Well Bethel Island Water Supply Pipeline High Efficiency Toilets and Landscape Water Conservation Phase 3 Well Utilization Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - Letters have been sent to the DAC informing them of the options the District is pursuing to resolve the high arsenic issue in their water supply. Public meetings informing them of the proposal. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - Yes: Project will allow the DAC served by this groundwater to receive water meeting the current drinking water standards for arsenic. - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: Less water consumption reduces the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: Less water consumption reduces the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. - - Yes: Lower pumping due to water conservation will reduce power consumption which reduces greenhouse gasses. Yes: Groundwater pumping utilizes 666 kWh/Mg less power as compared to utilizing treated surface water which is a reduction of 237,187 lbs of CO2 emissions/Mg. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-85 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Project ID # 39 40 41 42 43 Project Description Project Type Monitoring Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Environmental (e.g., habitat) Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project Determine the safe yield of the Tracy Subbasin for the District’s municipal water system and to preserve the safety and reliability of sources, of supply for other small water systems within its sphere of influence. Construct reverse osmosis system for treatment of brackish groundwater. Project will identify and prioritize leaks in drinking water distribution system water mains (DWD) and untreated water laterals (CCWD) and provide funding to make repairs including water mains and laterals in DAC areas. Project costs are $425,000 for DWD and $1 million for CCWD. This project will be implemented by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as part of the implementation to the HCP/NCCP. The proposed project will have 3 primary tasks: Land acquisition, Habitat Restoration Design, and Construction. Land acquisition will occur in pre-identified priority areas in eastern Contra Costa County. The project will include primarily creek, pond or wetland habitats. The specific project/acquisition that the funding will be used for depends on the timing of the award. The location of this project could be exclusively in the ECCC IRWMP area, or in the area of overlap with the SF Bay Area IRWMP. The project involved installation of 24,600 feet of 12-inch and 6-inch recycled water piping along city streets and ROW’s to provide 809 acre-feet per year of recycled water to a proposed power plant, parks, medians, and vineyards. The project also involves construction of a new recycled water pump station. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - East Bay Regional Park District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA Department of Fish and Game - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: Use of groundwater is less costly than treated surface water, and uses less chemicals and power. - Additional: Reducing leaks in water mains and laterals improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Primary: Reduces the amount of water that needs treatment and delivery for potable uses. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Understanding the groundwater basin yield will benefit the communities of Oakley, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Brentwood, and Discovery Bay. Additional: Reduced use of Delta water has regional benefits. Additional: Project is proposed to cover the areas of Brentwood, Oakley, Antioch, Discovery Bay and Pittsburg. Additional: The HCP/NCCP is a regional project that when implemented will create a preserve system that will provide regional environmental benefits as well as recreation opportunities for people in the region. Additional: Benefits all of California by reducing demand for Delta water supplies. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Additional: Groundwater is not impacted by levee breaches that severely affect Delta water quality. Primary: Reduced use of Delta water has regional benefits. - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - Primary: Reducing leaks in water mains and laterals improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Additional: Allows potable supplies to be available for other potable uses. Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a Additional: Determining subbasin yield is critical to identifying the maximum amount of groundwater that can be relied upon for the District’s conjunctive use program. Additional: Reduced use of Delta water has regional benefits. - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-86 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Overdrafting a groundwater basin would damage groundwater quality. Additional: RO water has higher quality. - Additional: Headwaters of creeks in the ECCC IRWMP area are within the high priority acquisition zones identified in the plane. Protecting these areas helps preserve water quality in the Delta. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality Additional: Overdrafting a groundwater basin would damage groundwater quality. Additional: RO water has higher quality. Additional: Reduces possibility of ground contaminants from entering into drinking water mains. - Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta for 23 million Californians. Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - Additional: Higher drinking water. Quality improves wastewater available to improve recycled water quality. - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Primary: Subbasin yield is directly linked to groundwater quality. - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: Groundwater quality impacts customer treated water quality which in turn impacts the quality of the water being discharged by the Ironhouse Sanitary District into the Delta. - - - Additional: Would decrease the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - Primary: This project will protect watersheds and restore aquatic habitats within the IRWMP area. - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - Additional: This project will protect watersheds and restore aquatic habitats within the IRWMP area. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Energy required to pump groundwater uses 666 kWh/Mg less than treated surface water resulting in 237,793 CO2 lb/Mg less of equivalent carbon dioxide. - Additional: Distribution and untreated water system losses waste power needed to pump water into distribution mains and keep pressure up. Less power utilized by the Districts will reduce greenhouse gasses. - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: DACs rely on groundwater in the basin area and will be involved with the basin yield analysis. - Additional: Part of the program will monitor and repair water mains in the Beacon West DAC community. - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-87 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: Several mutual water companies and other small water systems rely on the basin as their only source of water and will be included in the public outreach portion of the project. - - - Additional: The project would provide recycled water for uses that currently use potable water which would address water resource management issues. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - Yes: Please see explanations in previous IRWMP documents that explain the relationship of the HCP/NCCP to CCWD’s water allotment from the Delta. Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Yes: Leaks in watermains can be sources of contamination. - Yes: Reduce the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. Yes: Overpumping could lead to seawater intrusion. - - - Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Understanding limits on groundwater basin yields will solidify actual groundwater pumping limits. Yes: Treatment of brackish supplies provides greater flexibility of water resources. Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies and a more efficient use of resources. Yes: Please see explanations in previous IRWMP documents that explain the relationship of the HCP/NCCP to CCWD’s water allotment from the Delta. Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Yes: Using less water from the Delta will provide for an increase of water supplies that will improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta. Yes: Preservation, restoration and management of lands within the Bay-Delta watershed will improve the quality of water that runs off into the Bay-Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: The HCP/NCCP is a regional plan for permitting development, mitigating that development and above those basic mitigation requirements, contributing to the recovery of special status species in the region. - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes Yes - Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - Yes Yes - Yes Climate Change Response Actions - - Yes - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - Yes - Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes - - - Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-88 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - Yes - Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - Yes - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Yes Yes - - - Desalination - Yes - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Yes Yes - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - Yes - - Pollution Prevention - - - - - Salt and Salinity Management Yes Yes - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - Yes - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - Yes - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - Yes - OtheCrop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-89 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status In Progress Not Started Completed In Progress Completed Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 1/1/2014 5/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started In Progress Est. Completion Date 6/1/2013 9/1/2013 9/1/2012 1/1/2014 1/1/2014 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2014 3/1/2013 1/1/2014 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2013 - 6/1/2014 9/1/2012 Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2014 6/1/2013 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2015 - 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 9/1/2015 - 7/1/2014 9/1/2012 Construction/ ImpleProject Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-90 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2015 9/1/2016 6/1/2014 11/1/2014 9/1/2012 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 12/1/2016 9/1/2017 7/1/2014 12/1/2015 9/1/2012 Environmental Permits Describe any required Unknown at this time. Unknown at this time. Project will fall under CEQA Categorical Exemptions. U.S. Army Corps., DFG streambed alteration agreement, USFWS, 401 Certification. - Status? - - Yet to be adopted and NOD filed. Not started. - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - Unknown at this time. Standard City of Oakley Encroachment Permits. Contra Costa Grading Permit. - Status? - - Will be secured just prior to construction. Not started. - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Unknown at this time. None. Standard leak detection and repair methods will be used. - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement $200,000 $500,000 NA $1,000,000 Unknown Planning $150,000 $500,000 $15,000 NA Unknown Design $150,000 $1,000,000 $35,000 $120,000 $2,240,800 Environmental Review $50,000 $500,000 $5,000 NA Unknown Permits $50,000 $100,000 $2,000 $50,000 Unknown Construction/Implementation $500,000 $15,400,000 $403,000 $500,000 $8,003,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance $50,000 $2,000,000 NA NA Unknown Other Unknown Unknown $1,000,000 NA Unknown Total Project Cost $1,150,000 $20,000,000 $1,460,000 $1,670,000 $10,243,800 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $150,000 $1,000,000 $35,000 - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - Yes Yes - - User Fees - Yes - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-91 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Tracy Subbasin Safe Yield Analysis Treatment of Brackish Groundwater Leak Detection and Repair Watershed and Habitat Protection/Restoration Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase B Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Diablo Water District/Contra Costa Water District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Ironhouse Sanitary District Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - $750,000 - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - Yes - Federal Grants - - - Yes - Currently unfunded $1,000,000 $19,000,000 $1,425,000 $920,000 $10,243,800 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: DACs utilize the same groundwater basin as the project area. - Yes: Repairing watermain and lateral leaks in DAC areas will improve supply and water quality for that community. - - What Community(ies)? Beacon West Bethel Island - Beacon West at the north end of Bethel Island. - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Not yet. - DWD owns and operates the DAC water system. The DAC residents will be informed of the water main leak detection and repairs prior to commencing the project. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - Yes: Climate change will be addressed during environmental review. Yes: Fewer watermain and lateral leaks reduce the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. Yes: The HCP/NCCP considered climate change in the Plan and associated environmental documents. - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: Fewer watermain and lateral leaks reduce the power required for pumping and thus greenhouse gasses which affects climate change. - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-92 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Project ID # 44 45 46 47 48 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Other Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project The project involves installation of 33,000 feet of 12-inch, 8-inch and 6-inch recycled water piping along city streets to provide 377 acre-feet per year of recycled water to parks and medians. The project also involves construction of a new recycled water pump station. The project involves installation of 65,800 feet of 16-inch, 10-inch and 6-inch recycled water piping along city streets to provide 695 acre-feet per year of recycled water to parks, medians, and vineyards. The project also involves construction of a new recycled water pump station. The project involves sewering areas in the City of Oakley currently on septic systems. Salinity management is of utmost importance in the Central Valley and our region. To assist Ironhouse Sanitary District meet salinity requirements imposed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, a rebate program to remove discharging water softeners from homes and businesses will be established. The project involves construction of a septage receiving facility at Ironhouse Sanitary District’s Water Recycling Facility. The purpose is to provide a place for septage haulers to dispose of their wastes at a local facility. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - Diablo Water District, Oakley Generating Station - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Primary: Reduces the amount of water that needs treatment and delivery for potable uses. Primary: Reduces the amount of water that needs treatment and delivery for potable uses. - Additional: Reducing salinity in the wastewater influent improves the effluent quality providing the following benefits: Better quality effluent for recycled water, improved Delta water quality. Primary: A septic receiving station at the ISD Water Recycling facility will provide a more local means for discharge of septic waste, which means less travel time for the septic hauler. Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Benefits all of California by reducing demand for Delta water supplies. Additional: Benefits all of California by reducing demand for Delta water supplies. - Additional: The Delta is a region-wide resource. Reducing salinity will improve the water quality in the Delta and provide a better wastewater effluent for recycled water users. Additional: A septic receiving station at the ISD Water Recycling Facility will provide a more local means for discharge of septic waste, which means less travel time for the septic hauler. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: Allows potable supplies to be available for other potable uses. Additional: Allows potable supplies to be available for other potable uses. - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta. Primary: Groundwater quality will be improved. Primary: Less salinity in the wastewater effluent means better source water quality in the Delta. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality for 23 million Californians. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality of the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Additional: Less salinity in the wastewater effluent means better source water quality in the Delta. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-93 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - Additional: Lower salinity levels will improve recycled water quality opening up more uses for the recycled water. - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: Would decrease the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Additional: Would decrease the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Additional: Ironhouse Sanitary District has very stringent salinity requirements for discharge into the San Joaquin River. Lower the salinity of the influent will assist ISD in meeting the discharge requirements. - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - Additional: Lower salinity in the effluent discharged to the Delta will enhance and restoring habitat present in the Delta. - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Additional: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. - Additional: Lower salinity in the effluent discharged to the Delta will enhance and restoring habitat present in the Delta. - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: The project would provide recycled water for uses that currently use potable water which would address water resource management issues. Additional: The project would provide recycled water for uses that currently use potable water which would address water resource management issues. - Additional: Through ISD’s newsletters the general public has been informed on why salinity reduction is important. By implementing the rebate program the public will become aware of how important it is to reduce salinity in wastewater influent. - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Pref Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. Yes: Free up potable water for other uses. - Yes: The project will provide better quality wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-94 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces that amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Yes: Project will improve groundwater quality. Yes: The project will provide better quality wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Frees up potable water for other uses. Yes: Frees up potable water for other uses. Yes: Improving groundwater quality will enhance the groundwater used for potable water use. Yes: A decrease in salinity in source water will allow for more uses. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces the amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. Yes: Reduces the amount of water that is taken from the Delta thereby improving the water quality and ecosystem of the Delta. Reduces that amount of wastewater effluent discharged to the Delta. - Yes: A lower salinity effluent will improve the ecological health of the Delta. - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes Yes Yes - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes Yes - Yes - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes - Yes - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes Yes - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - Yes System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water Yes Yes - Yes - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-95 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention - - Yes - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - Yes - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Completed Not Started In Progress In Progress Est. Completion Date 5/1/2012 5/1/2012 9/1/2012 1/1/2012 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status In Progress In Progress Not Started In Progress In Progress Est. Completion Date 1/1/2014 1/1/2014 9/1/2012 6/1/2013 9/1/2012 Environ-meProject Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-96 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - None. Status? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-97 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Planning Unknown Unknown Unknown NA Unknown Design $2,559,000 $2,240,800 $1,240,000 NA Unknown Environmental Review Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Permits Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Construction/Implementation $9,254,000 $8,003,000 $4,960,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Other Unknown Unknown Unknown NA NA Total Project Cost $11,813,000 $10,243,800 $6,200,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - Yes - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $11,813,000 $10,243,800 $6,200,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-98 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase C Ironhouse Sanitary District Recycled Water Implementation – Phase A Oakley Sewers Salinity Reduction Septage Receiving Station Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Cit i #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-99 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Project ID # 55 49 50 51 52 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Environmental (e.g., habitat) Describe the project Create an earthen berm within a 17-acre wastewater storage pond to create a smaller area for wastewater storage. This will minimize cleanup and odors when the pond is used during small events. For large flow events the entire storage pond will still be available for usage. Lake Alhambra is a residential lake completed in the late 1950’s as part of a housing subdivision that includes 240 single family homes in north central Antioch. The lake is at the end of E Antioch Creek that drains an area of 7,000 acres from the foothills of Mt. Diablo to the Delta. A study done around 1981 indicated that approximately 50,000 cubic yards of sediment had been deposited in the lake and the depth of the lake had gone from 10.5 to 7 or 8 feet as a result. According to the Lake Alhambra POA an equal amount has been deposited since for a total of 100,000 cubic yards of sediment deposited in the lake since its completion. The lake depth is now at 3 or 4 feet. This drainage area has experienced growth of light industrial and residential land use resulting in reduced permeable area, increased stormwater flow, and sediment from poor erosion controls. The project involves dredging to remove sediment to increase lake capacity (flood/sediment control) and restore beneficial uses. The project is constructed of two cut-off levees, one approximately 8,000 feet and the other approximately 3,000 feet on Jersey Island to divide the island into three parts. Jersey Island is one of the 8 western islands critical to protection of water quality for 23 million Californians. Construction of these levees would limit the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply. The project entrails raising and widening a levee section on Jersey Island from Station 333+00 to 470+00 for levee stability to prevent flooding of the island. The Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project would create up to 100 acres of marsh, riparian, and upland habitats on lands adjacent to the Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Antioch, Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Dirt from the Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin project will be used for the Wastewater Storage Pond Management Project. - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. Additional: Creation of up to 100 acres of marsh, riparian, and upland habitats will improve the Delta which benefit the region. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - Additional: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-100 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Eliminates discharge of non-compliance wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. - Primary: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. Primary: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Additional: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. The salinity in the Delta has a direct correlation to quality of recycled water provided to end users. - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Primary: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Additional: The capacity of the lake has been reduced by 50% decreasing the sediment removal capability of the lake by 50% and increasing the sediment load to the Delta. Other projects upstream and downstream should also be considered to reduce sediment to the lake. - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: Removing sediment will increase the lake capacity by 50% decreasing the sediment load to the Delta and increasing water retention and infiltration. Other projects upstream and downstream should also be considered. - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways Additional: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Additional: The capacity of the lake has been reduced >50% and increasing sediment load to the Delta. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last infiltration mechanism before the Delta. Additional: Construction of the levees would allow intentional flooding of a portion of Jersey Island. This flooded portion could be used for habitat restoration. Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain habitat in the Delta. Primary: Restore mosaic habitats. Restore tidal marsh. Provide habitat for a broad range of sensitive species. Provide up to 600,000 cubic yards of material for the Dutch Slough Property. Restore a complex Delta system at the mouth of Marsh Creek. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. - - Additional: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain the Delta ecosystem. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-101 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - Additional: Construction of the levees would allow intentional flooding of a portion of Jersey Island. This flooded portion would reduce greenhouse gasses by sequestering carbon production from peat oxidation. - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Primary: Lake Alhambra has lost >50% of its capacity due to siltation with similar decrease in flood control. With development, stormwater flows will increase. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last filtration mechanism before the Delta. - - - Improve regional flood risk management - Additional: Removing sediment increases capacity of the lake. Storm flows are held in the lake, then slowly released to the marsh area downstream of the lake and then to the Delta. Lake Alhambra protects residences in the flat downstream area of the watershed. Additional: Construction of the levees would prevent complete flooding of a critical western Delta island. Additional: Maintaining the levees on Jersey Island will help prevent the flooding of Jersey Island. - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - Additional: The Lake Alhambra subdivision is a DAC. - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - Additional: Construction of the levees would minimize the amount of salt water intrusion into the drinking water supply for 23 million Californians in the event of a levee failure on Jersey Island. - Additional: The project once completed will be open to the public for viewing of the created habitat. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - The aesthetics of the lake have been deteriorated by the presence of shallow sediment that is at the surface in many areas. The beneficial uses have been severely impacted. The shallower water is also heated to higher temperatures resulting in increased algal growth rates (and likely mosquitoes and other potential vectors) requiring increased maintenance by the POA. The presence of sediment and shallower lake bottom has also reduced the recreational benefits of the lake. - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - Yes: The POA has been discussing this issue with the City and the Flood Control Agency (incl. litigation). The POC believes the City and Flood Control Agency have allowed or caused the deposition of sediment and - Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-102 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 impairment to the lake and should be responsible. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Yes: Reduce the sediment load to the Delta which is a surface water drinking supply. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last filtration mechanism before the Delta. Sediment and contaminants are settled out and retained in the lake. Yes: Provides water supply protection and reliability from a levee failure in the western Delta. Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta for 23 million Californians. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - Yes: Provides water supply protection and reliability from a levee failure in the western Delta. Also, a portion of the island could intentionally flood. Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain the Delta ecosystem. - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources - - Yes: In the event a levee fails on Jersey Island, the water supply amount available for use would be impacted. If the cut-off levees were constructed, a less amount of water supply would be impacted. - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Eliminates discharge of non-compliant wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River and land application areas. Yes: Reduce the sediment load to the Delta. Because the lake is at the end of the watershed, it is the last filtration mechanism before the Delta. Sediment and contaminants are settled out and retained in the lake. Yes: If the cut-off levees were installed and a portion of Jersey Island was intentionally flooded, the flooded area could provide habitat restoration, help with subsidence reversal and provide the ability to sequester carbon production from peat oxidation. Yes: Protecting Jersey Island from flooding will help maintain water quality in the Delta and help to maintain the Delta ecosystem. Yes: Restore mosaic habitats. Restore tidal marsh. Provide habitat for a broad range of sensitive species. Provide up to 600,000 cubic yards of material for the Dutch Slough property. Restore a complex Delta system at the mouth of Marsh Creek. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - Yes: Land use has exceeded the capacity of the stormwater system. The sediment load is too high and the current system is unsustainable. Upstream and downstream measures need to be considered to stop sediment depositing in the lake (not POA controlled). - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - Yes - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - Yes - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - Yes Yes - Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management - - Yes Yes - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Yes Yes Yes - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Yes Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - Yes - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-103 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - - Desalination - - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - - Pollution Prevention Yes - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - Yes Yes - Urban Runoff Management - Yes - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Yes Yes Yes - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes - - Yes Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - Yes Yes - Yes Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-104 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Not Started Not Started Completed In Progress Est. Completion Date 11/1/2012 12/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Feasibility Project Status Completed Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date 11/1/2012 12/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date - 3/1/2013 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Completed Not Started Est. Completion Date - 6/1/2013 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started In Progress Not Started Est. Completion Date - 3/1/2013 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2012 - 9/1/2012 Construction/ Implementation Project Status In Progress Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date 11/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Post Project MoProject Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-105 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Est. Completion Date - - 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 9/1/2012 Environmental Permits Describe any required - Potential permits include USACE 404, CDF&G 1602, and RWQCB water quality certification 401. Army Corps of Engineers DF&G Streambed Alteration - Status? - Not started, funding is needed to begin. Not started. - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - Evaluating re-use or disposal options for the dredged and dewatered sediment is a major component of the project planning. - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA Unknown Planning NA $20,000 Unknown NA Unknown Design NA $40,000 Unknown NA Unknown Environmental Review NA $100,000 Unknown NA Unknown Permits NA $40,000 Unknown Unknown Unknown Construction/Implementation $144,000 $2,000,000 $27,300,000 $7,000,000 $9,751,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Other NA NA Unknown NA Unknown Total Project Cost $144,000 $2,200,000 $27,300,000 $7,000,000 $9,751,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $8,000 - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded $136,000 $2,200,000 $27,300,000 $7,000,000 $9,751,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-106 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Wastewater Storage Pond Management Lake Alhambra Sediment Mitigation Antioch Drainage Area 56 Jersey Island Cutoff Levees Jersey Island Levee Raising and Widening from Stations 333+00 to 470+00 Marsh Creek Delta Restoration Project Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Lake Alhambra Property Owners Association Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Reclamation District 830 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Yes: Reduce/eliminate impairment of quality. Manage flood flows that threaten the habitability of dwellings. Yes: Provides water supply protection and reliability for 23 million Californians, some of which are from disadvantaged communities. - - What Community(ies)? - Lake Alhambra Whatever communities that currently receive their potable water supply from the Delta. - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - The Lake Alhambra POA is submitting this project. The City of Antioch and Contra Costa Flood Control District are listed as partners, but have not yet agreed to any form of collaboration. No planning or development started. - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - Yes: Sediments and contaminants from urban runoff within the 11.4 square mile East Antioch Creek drainage area are deposited in Lake Alhambra burdening the residents of this disadvantaged community (DAC). Sediment is from development and ongoing land use. - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - Yes: The project improves flood control. Additional measures downstream should be considered to address sea level rise. - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - Yes: Sequestering carbon production from peat oxidation reduces greenhouse gas emissions. - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-107 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Project ID # 56 57 58 59 60 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Planning – Emergency Preparedness Describe the project This project would analyze the feasibility of, and develop preliminary pipeline size and alignment alternatives for, a brine disposal pipeline from central Brentwood, through Diablo Water District, across Antioch to reach the Delta Diablo Sanitation District effluent outfall to New York Slough. This would assist in evaluating the potential development of potential groundwater desalination facilities. The purpose of this project is to determine the appropriate size and location of an Antioch to MPP intertie booster pump station. With one WTP offline, CCWD can meet a majority of its demands through interties with Antioch and Pittsburg; however, these intertie supplies required boosting to meet CCWD minimum system pressure. The Pittsburg/CCWD intertie on the MPP was constructed with flanges that could be adapted for pumping to CCWD when necessary. The Antioch to MPP intertie was not constructed with a booster pump or with flanges that could be adapted for pumping to CCWD when necessary. The Antioch to MPP intertie would need to be retrofitted with a booster pump station that could be used in emergencies and potentially during other operational conditions that may occur more often than during an emergency. Project description and purpose: The purpose of this project is to analyze improvements to Brentwood’s supply portfolio to address the need for reliable supplies when Delta water quality is negatively impacted and during short-term emergencies. Based on the regional emergency scenario conducted in the Regional Capacity Study for a western Delta levee failure having increased chloride levels over a six month period with a 14-island failure, almost all supply for the region would be from Los Vaqueros, and Brentwood’s supply shortfall ranges from 40 percent to 55 percent due to the high chloride levels in its supply which is from Rock Slough. Brentwood could improve emergency supply reliability with additional reliable supply sources such as additional supply capacity from Los Vaqueros or an additional supply source that would not be impacted by Delta levee failure as well as increasing supply reliability through an intertie with the City of Antioch. In addition, there is no backup pumping power supplies for the segment of the Canal that conveys the ECCID supply from Rock Slough to Brentwood in the event of a regional power outage. The need for backup power to improve supply reliability will also be evaluated. The project includes upgrades to the Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the recycled water distribution system to increase deliveries of recycled water. Improvements include the addition of five 50-hp pumps to the existing Brentwood WWTP pump station, construction of two 1.5 MG storage tanks (for a total storage increase of 3 MG) at the Brentwood WWTP and the Roddy Ranch Pump Station, and a total of 17,143 linear feet of new recycled water pipelines. It would retrofit 36 users and add 86 new recycled water users for a total increase in recycled water deliveries of 1,406 AFY. The purpose of this project is to improve the region’s ability to provide aid and assistance and respond adequately and in a timely manner during an emergency that impacts water supply. While some PAs have existing emergency aid agreements with one another, there is still a need for mutual aid agreements between other PAs. Current and accurate mutual aid and assistance agreements are important so that agencies can quickly respond during an emergency. This preparation is also important so that agencies can be appropriately reimbursed by one another, as well as by other potential reimbursement agencies such as FEMA, following an emergency. The ultimate goal of this project is to increase physical and administrative preparedness for an emergency so that impacts from water supply emergencies are limited. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Diablo Water District City of Martinez, Contra Costa Water District - - City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Diablo Water District - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Additional: Improves efficiency of water conveyance through interties between Antioch to MPP. - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: A brineline would allow both DWD and Brentwood to utilize high-salinity groundwater as a water supply source. - - - Establishes regional emergency preparedness plans and cooperative agreements between agencies and organizations to allow them to efficiently assist one another during water-related emergencies. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-108 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Additional: A feasible brineline would help assess the feasibility of groundwater desalination, which may be less subject to Delta influences and drought. - Additional: Project would evaluate water supply and supply diversification options for Brentwood, which could include supplies less subject to Delta influences and drought. Primary: Project would increase recycled water deliveries. Recycled water is les subject to Delta influences and is a drought-proof supply. - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - Additional: Project would increase the use of recycled water, conserving potable water for potable uses. - Increase water transfers - - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - Additional: Construction of booster pump station improves interties between CCWD and Antioch and Pittsburgh - - Enables efficient water transfers during emergencies. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Additional: A feasible brineline would allow for use of high-salinity groundwater through groundwater desalination. - Additional: Supply options evaluated by this project could include groundwater supplies. - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: The analysis included in the feasibility study would include an assessment of potential water quality impacts of brine disposal and ensure any potential brineline would be designed and operated to meet water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta. - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - -. - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Evaluates potential impacts to Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources from a potential brineline and its alternatives to allow for consideration of minimization of impacts. - - Additional: Increase recycled water use could reduce pumping from the Delta due to reduced potable demands, thereby providing benefit to Delta ecosystems. - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-109 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Project would allow for development of potential groundwater desalination facilities, reducing pumping from the Delta, thereby reducing Delta-related conflicts. - Yes: Project would analyze improvements that would increase water supply reliability, reducing potential conflicts resulting from emergency scenarios. Yes: Reducing potable water demand through increased recycled water use could reduce conflicts related to potable water supplies. Yes: Helps to reduce water-related conflicts in the event of an emergency CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap Yes: Project supports development of future groundwater desalination facilities, which would provide high quality potable water to customers. - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - Yes: Analyzes options for water supply reliability in the face of potential levee failures and other emergencies. - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Supports development of future groundwater desalination facilities, increasing available supplies, and diversifying the water supply portfolio in the region. Yes: Improves intertie between systems in the region, allowing for increased flexibility in supplies and for infrastructure to be taken offline (e.g., for upgrades or in the event of an unplanned outage) while continuing to meet customer demands. Yes: Analyzes water supply options and improvements to increase water supply reliability. Yes: Project would increase recycled water use, thereby increasing water supplies and providing for bother more efficient and more flexible use of water resources Yes: Enables efficient water transfers during emergencies and create flexibility in providing assistance during water related emergencies Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Would support future groundwater desalination, potentially reducing pumping from the Delta, while evaluating brineline alternatives that could meet - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-110 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District discharge requirements to the Delta. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes: By supporting future groundwater desalination, this project would allow use of groundwater, providing an alternative to surface water supplies that experience greater fluctuations during drought than groundwater. - Yes: Analyzes water supply options and improvements to increase water supply reliability. - Yes: Allows for transfers between agencies during water emergencies, including drought. Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes: Project supports the use of future groundwater desalination to more efficiently use existing groundwater supplies that currently experience high salinity. - - Yes: Increasing recycled water use conserves potable water for potable uses. - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - Yes: Project would provide recycled water to urban users. - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - Yes: Pump station allows for improved use of intertie between local conveyance systems. Yes: Water supply options may include regional and local conveyance projects. Yes: Project constructs recycled water conveyance pipelines. - System Reoperation - - - - - Water Transfers - Yes: Pump station allows for improved water transfers between local agencies. - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - Yes: water supply options may include consideration of groundwater and conjunctive use. - - Desalination Yes: Supports future groundwater desalination. - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - Yes: Project increases recycled water use. - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-111 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - Yes: water supply options may include increased storage. Yes: Project constructs an additional 3 MG recycled water storage. - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Yes: Supports future groundwater desalination for new potable supplies. Yes: Improves intertie between local potable water distribution systems. - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - Yes: Project increases recycled water use for non-potable purposes, such as irrigation. - Pollution Prevention Yes - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - - Forest Management - - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - - Watershed Management - - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - - Fog Collection - - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - - Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Completed Not Applicable Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-112 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Est. Completion Date - - - 10/2013 - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - - Status? - - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Describe any required - - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-113 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Status? - - - - - Project Schedule Available? Yes Yes Yes - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA NA Planning $200,000 NA $75,000 Unknown $225,000 Design NA $697,300 NA Unknown NA Environmental Review NA $140,900 NA Unknown NA Permits NA $140,900 NA Unknown NA Construction/Implementation NA $3,800,000 $50,000 $843,629 NA Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA Unknown NA Unknown Other NA NA NA $253,089 NA Total Project Cost $200,000 $4,200,000 $125,000 $1,096,717 $225,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - - User Rates - - - - - User Fees - - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - - Property Tax - - - - - Contributions - - - - - Other - - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - - State Grants - - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - - Local Grants - - - - - Federal Grants - - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - Project would provide benefits to all residents in the region, including DACs. What Community(ies)? - - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-114 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Coordinated Brine Disposal Pipeline Feasibility Study Booster Pump from Antioch to MPP Brentwood Reliable Supply Analysis Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Regional Emergency Aid, Assistance, and Response Preparation Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Antioch/City of Brentwood/Diablo Water District City of Antioch/Contra Costa Water District City of Brentwood City of Brentwood Contra Costa Water District Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Project ID # 61 62 63 64 Project Description Project Type Planning – Emergency Preparedness Water Quality Planning – Groundwater/Water Quality Water Quality Describe the project The Regional Capacity Study (RCS) presents a comparison of the supply versus demand impacts as a result of a regional power outage. That comparison indicated the need for increased backup power at the Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant (RBWTP) or Bollman Water Treatment Plant (BWTP) to meet 2010 maximum day demands (MDDs). Because RBWTP has a diversified power supply it is recommended to analyze the need for increased backup power supply at BWTP. In the event of a regional power outage, the region has a treated water supply shortfall of MDD using emergency power for treated water supplies. Fuel supply for the Participating Agencies’ (PAs’) backup power generators could be the limiting factor in a regional power outage. Most of the PAs have a limited amount of backup power fuel supply on-site. In a regional emergency where regional power loss is experienced, access to generator fuel supplies could ultimately impact the PAs ability to meet water demands. The purpose of this project is to assess the backup fuel supply needs and potential regional supply agreements with vendors. This project would also analyze the need for increased backup power supply at BWTP. This project would develop a complete Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin. This proejct would expand the exisitng groundwater monitoring through increasing the frequency of groundwater quality samply/testing in the existing monitoring network, identification of existing wells in data limited areas that could be used to expand the existing network, and installation of monitoring wells as needed (potentially at the City's Ball Park Well site and/or a site along the Bay Front). Where possible, existing wells should be used to manage costs. This City would review water and fertilizer application rates in areas of recycled water use to ensure maximum efficiency and minimal salt/nutrient loadings. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits SNMPs protect groundwater quality, benefitting all groundwater users. - Project would protect groundwater quality in the groundwater basin. Project would analyzes backup power systems to determine needs that must be met in order to maintain service during power outages. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Project improves groundwater quality protection, which may be less subject to Delta influences and drought. - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - Would improve reycled water use efficiency. - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) SNMPs improve understanding of groundwater resources and how to protect groundwater quality. Groundwater quality data could be used to improve understanding of groundwater as a possible supply. - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality SNMPs provide a plan to protect groundwater quality. Improved groundwate rmonitoring would provide additional data to use in the protection of groundwater supplies. Project would protect groundwater quality in the groundwater basin. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality An SNMP would identify potential threats to groundwater quality and plan for how to address such threats. Project would increase groundwater monitoring and data collection, thereby increasing the City's understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality. Reduces threats to groudnwater quality - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood ManagemManage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - Coordinating the use of existing wells with well owners could help increase awareness of water resource management issues and projects in the general public. Evaluation of water and fertilzer application rates in areas of recycled water use would increase awarenss of water resources management issues with recycled water customers, which includes members of the general public. - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts An SNMP would help to protect gorundwater quality, reducing potential conflicts related to sources of groundwater contamination and groundwater quality. Improved groundwater monitoring could reduce water-related conflicts associated with incomplete understanding of groundwater conditions. Improves recycled water use efficiency and protects groundwater quality, helping to resolve potential conflicts over water use and groundwater. Yes: would help determine backup power supply options to meet water demands during power outages, thereby avoiding water-rleated conflicts associated with power outages. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap The project would protect groundwater quality helping to preserve the quality for potential customer use. Project would inform efforts to protect groundwater quality. Protects groundwater quality, thereby protecting a potential source of water for the region. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Monitoring wells from this project could be used as an early warning for seawater intrusion. - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Groundwater protection enables future groundwater use, helping to diversity supply options. Further, SNMPs can help ease the regulatory burden for recycled water, expanding the City's ability to use recycled water. - Increased recycled water use efficiency allows for more customers to use recycled water, reducing overall potable demands. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - Reducing nutrient and salinity loading to the watershed. - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - Improves recycled water use efficiency. - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality SNMPs help protect groundwater quality. Project would increase data available to inform efforts to protect groundwater quality. Improved recycled water use and fertilizer application will protect surface and groundwater from nutrient and salt loading. - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - Recycled water use efficiency would benefit all recycled water customers, including agricultural customers. - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - Recycled water use efficiency would benefit all recycled water customers, including urban customers. - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - - System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - Project improves efficiency of recycled water use. - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention An SNMP would help prevent groundwater degredation. - Project prevents groundwater degredation from over application of fertilizer in concert with recycled water. - Salt and Salinity Management SNMPs are designed to manage salt and salinity for groundwater basins. Monitoring wells from this project could be used as an early warning for seawater intrusion. Project protects againt salt and nutrient loading in the region through efficient recycled water use and appropriate fertilizer application for recycled water users. - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 11/2012 - - - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - The extent of the need for new wells, and the potential to use existing wells in the monitoring network is uncertain. - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA - NA - Planning $100,000 - - - Design NA NA NA - Environmental Review NA NA NA - Permits NA NA NA - Construction/Implementation NA - - - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA - Other NA NA NA - Total Project Cost $100,000 - - - Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Emergency Backup Power Fertilizer Application Rate Assessment Full SNMP Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg City of Pittsburg Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Project ID # 65 66 67 68 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Water Supply Water Quality Water Supply/Water Quality Groundwater Quality Describe the project Pittsburg has sufficient emergency supply from its existing MPP interties. However, enhancing the connections (existing and future) with Antioch will also improve the overall reliability of Pittsburg’s supply. This project would study the benefits of these interties. In addition, Antioch may achieve more efficient distribution of the water into Antioch’s system through a second MPP connection in the western portion of its system. This project is further analysis of the Antioch and Pittsburg emergency interties to improve emergency supply reliability as well as efficient distribution of supplies received through the interties from one another and from the MPP. Project would assist in estimating the safe yield of the basin, by creating a preliminary water budget and conducting additional monitoring within an dsurrounding the primary groundwater production centers. To optimize the efficiency and efficacy of future data collection related to the estimation of safe yield, a preliminary water budget should be calculated using existing data. Where data gaps exist, a range of possible values should be estimated and incorporated into the water budget. Evaluating the sensitivity of the final safe yield determination to the range of estimated values for each component will provide valuable information on which components have the greatest impact on the final determination. Results from the sensitivity analysis can then be used to focus future data reducing uncertainty in the most influential components of the water budget. A distributed network of groundwater levels and quality monitoring points is necessary to more fully understand the source and movement of groundwater through the aquifer system. Expansion of existing monitoring should be accomplished using a combination of existing and newly constructed facilities. Existing facilities within the study area include private wells which are dispersed throughout the area and some public wells/monitoring wells which are not fully utilized for monitoring purposes. Delta Diablo Sanitation Districat and the City would coordinate with Delta View Golf Course to ensure efficient water and fertilizer application at the golf course. Marsh Creek appears to be an important source of groundwater recharge within the study area. As such, changes to water quality in Marsh Creek could impact the reliability of portions of the aquifer system, affecting the overall safe yield of the study area. Limited water quality monitoring is currently performed for Marsh Creek by CCWD near Dutch Slough. Other water quality sampling may also be performed by other entities in the study area. All possible surface water quality data for Marsh Creek should be requested from CCWD and any others who may be monitoring. Additional water quality samples should also be collected upstream of the City of Brentwood’s wastewater outfall and at the boundary between the city of Brentwood and DWD service areas. Three samples should be collected in the summer and/or fall when natural flows are at their lowest and the influence of anthropogenic sources (e.g., irrigation runoff/drainage and wastewater discharge) is the greatest. New and historical data should be used to investigate potential changes to water quality in Marsh Creek related to changes in water resource development and use within the study area. Any changes should also be compared to groundwater quality trends to investigate the interaction of these two systems. Following this analysis, the need for/frequency of this surface water monitoring should be revisited. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - City of Antioch - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - - Project would analysis improvements to interties between two cities within the region. Benefits would be realized by both Pittsburg and Antioch. Water SuppPursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta Project would improve safe yield estimates for the Tracy Subbasin of the - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, helping to protect the basin from overdraft, and allowing its sustainable use. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - Would improvereyccled water efficiency at the golf course. - - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - Project would study improvements to emergency entities for Antioch and Pittsburg. Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Project would improve safe yield estimates for the Tracy Subbasin of the San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, helping to protect the basin from overdraft, and allowing its sustainable use. - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - Improved recycled water use efficiency and fertilizer application will reduce TDS and nutrient levels in groundwater. - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Increased groundwater monitoring would increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to quality. Reducing TDS and nutrient loading to groundwater protects groundwater against potential threats of recycled water and fertlizer application at the golf course. Marsh Creek is an important groundwater recharge site but poor water quality in the creek could impact groundwater quality. This proejct would increase the understanding of the potential threat to groundwater quality represented by water quality issues in the creek. - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related OutrCollaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - Project would improve water resource management at the golf course. - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Improved groundwater monitoring could reduce water-related conflicts associated with incomplete understanding of groundwater conditions. The project would improve safe yield calculations, also helping to reduce potential conflicts over groundwater use. Reduces water quality conflicts related to improper recycled water and fertilizer application at the golf course. - Yes: Helps to reduce water-related conflicts in the event of an emergency CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Protects groundwater quality. - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Accurate safe yield calculations will allow for sustainable groundwater use by Diablo Water District. Improveds efficint use of recycled water at the golf course. - - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness - - - - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - Improves recycled water use efficiency. - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Improved recycled water and fertilizer application at the golf course will help to protect groundwater quality. Improved understanding of the role of water quality in Marsh Creek on water quality in the groundwater basin could improve efforts to protect surface water quality in creek, thereby also protecting groundwater quality. - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - Will improve recycled water use efficiency at a golf course. - - Improve OConveyance – Delta - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Yes: Project analyzes improvements to local conveyance and interties between local conveyance systems. System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - Marsh Creek is an important groundwater recharge site. - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - Project includes recycled water use efficiency. - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - Yes: Improved interties between agencies would improve potable water distributions, especially during emergencies. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - Project would reduce groundwater contamination from improper application of recycled water in conjunction with fertilizer use. Improved understanding of the role of water quality in Marsh Creek on water quality in the groundwater basin could improve efforts to protect surface water quality in creek, thereby also protecting groundwater quality. - Salt and Salinity Management - Project would reduce TDS in groundwater that results from improper application of fertilizer when using recycled water. - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - Improved understanding of the role of water quality in Marsh Creek on water quality in the groundwater basin could improve efforts to protect surface water quality in the creek, which is an important recharge site. - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Not Applicable Completed Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 10/2012 - 10/2012 - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA - NA - Planning 66000 - NA - Design NA NA NA NA Environmental Review NA NA NA NA Permits NA NA NA NA Construction/Implementation NA - - - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Total Project Cost 66000 - - - Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - ExistAmount - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Anitoch-Pittsburg Intertie Analysis Delta View Golf Course Water and Ferilizer Application Assessment Safe Yield Calculation using a Water Budget and Expanded Groundwater Monitoring Marsh Creek Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Sponsoring Agency/Organization City of Pittsburg Delta Diablo Sanitation District and City of Pittsburg Diablo Water District Diablo Water District State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Project improves ability to meet water demands even in the face of emergencies, and would benefit all Antioch and Pittsburg residents, including DACs. - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Project ID # 69 70 71 72 Project Description Project Type Other Infrastructure - Recycled Water Infrastructure – Recycled Water Infrastructure – Water Supply Describe the project Detailed land-use information is needed in the water budget calculation to estimate agricultural demand (to estimate agricultural pumping), groundwater recharge from agricultural irrigation, and ET losses. DWR produced its most recent detailed land-use map in 1995 for the study area. Since this publication, the populations of the cities and towns within the study area have increased, resulting in the conversion of irrigated agricultural lands to urban land-uses. Also, in the 17 years since the last published map, crop types and irrigation practices may have shifted. ISD proposes to construct a recycled water fill station for internal use by ISD for sewer cleaning, dust control for on-site construction projects, and for irrigation of landscaping around the administration office. In the future ISD hopes the fill station can be used to provide recycled water for off-site dust control for contractors and landscape irrigation for ISD rate payers. This project would involve installation of approximately 2,000 feet of pipeline, a hydrant, an aboveground storage tank, and piping changes at the WRF. It would offset 20 AFY potable water use. It would also implement higher value crop farming. This project would involve ISD providing 3.5 mgd of recycled water to the Antioch Power Plant site. This project involves four components: (1) approximately 21,200 LF of 14” PVC recycled water pipeline from the ISD RWF to the Antioch power plant. The general alignment of the pipe is from the ISD RWF along Walnut Meadows Drive to Main Street to Bridgehead Road to Wilbur Avenue at the power plant site. Major crossings along this alignment include two railroads (BNSF twice) and one across Main Street. (2) a new 150-hp pump station, which is assumed to be located at ISD’s WRF, (3) a blowdown system consisting of 27,100 LF of 10” PVC pipe from the power plant to DD WWTP and aligned parallel to the recycled water pipeline, as well as a new 40-hp booster station, which is assumed to be located at the power plant site, and (4) a backup water supply: the Canal water will be conveyed from CCWD Lateral 7.3 to the power plant via gravity through 4,000 LF of 12” PVC pipeline along Vineyard Drive. No pump station is needed but one major railroad crossing (BNSF) is necessary. This project would determine the feasiblity of full advanced treatment (FAT) for ISD's tertiary effluent to provide supplemental water supply to the canal. Facilites required for this proejct include equipment for a FAT system including some combination of reverse osmosis (RO), granular activated carbon (GAC), hydrogen peroxide injectsion, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, as well as conveyance pipeline and discharge outfall to the canal. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - - - - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - - - - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Project would increase recycled water use. Project would expand recycled water use in the District. Potable reuse is a drought-proof supply that is not subject to Delta influences. - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Recycled water would offset potable water demands. Recycled water would offset potable water. The project would increase water conservation by increasing the amount of water that can be recycled and the potential uses for water reuse. - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District using existing infrastructure Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Advanced treated water would allow for potable reuse, and would meet all applicable drinking water quality standards. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - The project would decrease wastewater effluent discharges to the creek, which ultimately discharges to the Delta. - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - The project would decrease wastewater effluent discharges to the creek, which ultimately discharges to the Delta. - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives Project would assist in completing the water budget calculation for agricultural depamdn, as well as groundwater recharge from agricultural irrigation and evapo-transpiration losses. Project would increase the value of the water used for farming by converting to high value farming. This represents an economically efficient use of the water. - - Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Increased recycled water use reduces conflicts related to potable water demands by reducing potable demands. Increased recycled water use reduces conflicts related to potable water demands by reducing potable demands. The project would create a new potable water supply through potable reuse, helping to reduce conflicts related to water diversions, pumping, or imported water supplies. Would help improve water budget calculations, thereby helping to reduce water-related conflicts that may arise from an inaccurate water budget. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Increased recycled water use helps to diversify the water supply portfolio. Increased recycled water use helps to diversify the water supply portfolio. Project would create a new potable water supply and diversify the water portfolio in the region. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Project would reduce discharges from the wastewater treatment plant by increasing the volume of recycled water delivered to customers. Project would reduce discharges from the wastewater treatment plant by increasing the volume of recycled water delivered to customers. - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Changing agricultural land uses to high value farming represents an economically efficient use of water supplies, and integrated land use with water management. - - Proejct would allow for improved water budget calculations, and better integrate water managemnet with land uses. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Recycled water offsets potable supplies, which can be stored for droughts. A diverse water portfolio helps to buffer the impacts of drought. Recycled water offsets potable supplies and diversifies the water portfolio, which helps to buffer the impacts of drought. Potable reuse is a drought-proof supply that can help meet potable and health demands during times of drought. - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Converting to high value crops is a more economically efficient use of water. - Project would implement potable reuse. - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Converting to high value crops is a more economically efficient use of water. - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - Improve OConveyance – Delta - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Conveyance – Regional/Local The recycled water fill station helps to make recycled water more accessible to appropriate users. Project would construct recycled water conveyance system to serve the Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfron areas. Project would install cenvyance piping. - System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water The fill station would increase recycled water use within the district. The project would deliver recycled water to customers. Potable reuse is a form of recycled water. - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local Project would increase surface storage for recycled water. - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - Project would produce drinking water in the form of potable reuse. - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use Recycled water would be more available for non-potable uses through the fill station, helping to match quality to use. The project would allow for recycled water to be delivered for non-potable uses. - - Pollution Prevention - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - Project would update land use mapping, with an emphasis on agricultural lands. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) High value farming is an economically efficient use of water, and could present economic incentives for farmers. - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - Project improves water budget calculations, helping to better inform watershed management decisions. Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Completed Completed Completed Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 1/2015 1/2015 1/2015 - Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date July, 2015 - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status - Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Notice of Exemption (CEQA). Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) - Status? - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required Recycled Water Agreement with Diablo Water District; Water recycling permit (RWQCB) Recycled Water Agreement with DD; (Recycled Water Permit; Construction permits Recycled Water Agreement with CCWD or other potable water supply agencies; Permits consistent with as-yet known potable reuse regulations - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties There is uncertainty whether DWD would be able to use the water from the fill station. - Permitting for potable reuse are uncertain because regulations have not yet been finalized. - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA - - - Planning NA - - - Design NA - - - Environmental Review NA - - - Permits NA - - - Construction/Implementation - - - - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA - - - Other NA - - - Total Project Cost - $814,000 $29,310,000 - Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Land Use Map Updates Fill Station and High Value Farming Wilbur Corridor and Northern Waterfront Industrial Reuse and Recycled Water for Agricultural Use in ISD Mainland Property Management Plan Advanced Treatment and Potable Reuse Investigation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Diablo Water District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Ironhouse Sanitary District Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Project ID # 73 74 75 76 Project Description Project Type Water Quality – Wastewater Infrastructure – Water Supply Other Infrastructure – Water Supply Describe the project The project would reduce the use of self-regenerating water softeners (SRWS), which are a source of salts discharged to the sewer system. The purpose of this project is to improve the reliability of the Martinez water system during an emergency by adding an intertie with the adjacent EBMUD system. The purpose of this project is to leverage the benefit of economy of scale through a regional approach to procuring and purchasing specific and rare equipment. This project is for the regional coordination for centralized inventory tracking for critical items, regional sludge handling contracting coordination, and identifying spare parts for purchasing. The dewatering and transport of sludge from the Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) is a costly operational expense that could potentially be reduced if coordinated in a regional manner. This project would summarize the solids handling features of each WTP and define the current sludge handling approach by each Participating Agency (PA). Cost-saving opportunities would then be identified. This project would also include identifying common equipment, e.g., 12-inch butterfly valves, to obtain better pricing for larger orders. Costly and spare equipment will also be identified, such as PLCs that can be shared between PAs in an emergency. The recommendations would use an approach similar to the one used for bulk chemical purchasing currently implemented as a region by the PAs. The purpose of this project is to develop standard operating procedures to document intertie valve information including location, layout, activation approach, and capacity. The activation approach includes documenting who is responsible for operating the intertie, as well as who should be contact in the event the intertie is required to be activated. As a result of the initial testing any required improvements or repairs will be documented. The testing will also confirm the assumed capacities and available head determined from the hydraulic modeling. This project will arrange a time for initial testing of the interties and develop a routine testing plan schedule for the interties so that they will operate reliably when necessary. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District - - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Project would find cost-savings for operation and maintenance of WTPs and water/wastewater infrastructure through a regional approach to procuring and sharing equipment. - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits - This is a regional project, and benefits would be realized by all participating agencies. Improved documentation of region-wide interties, responsibilities, and testing, will provide region-wide benefits - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - - - Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - - Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure Project would add an intertie between Martinez's system and East Bay Municipal Water District's system to provide supplies during emergencies. - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - Reducing sources of salinty discharges to the sewer system reduces the level of salts in wastewater effluent. This reduces the amount of salts that must be removed, helping to avoid discharges of excessively salty brine to the Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - Reducing salinity sources in wastewater helps to reduce the amount of salts added to the Delta and connected waterways through WWTP effluent, helping to protect Delta habitat. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - Reducing salinity sources in wastewater helps to reduce the amount of salts added to the Delta and connected waterways through WWTP effluent, minimizing impacts to the Delta ecosystem. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions - - - Removal of SRWS would reduce the number of vehcle trips to dispose of SRWS, reducing GHG emissions. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - Reduces need for capital improvements; reduces operational costs; avoids stranded assets; leverages assets - Reduces the need for capital improvements, reduces operational costs, leverages assets. Program Preferences – Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Helps to reduce potential water-related conflicts during emergencies by improving ability to meet demands during emergencies. Provides for coordinated use and purchase of equipment to maintain and operate water and wastewater systems in the region, reducing potential Project prepares for emergencies, reducing potential water-related conflicts during emergencies and outages. - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional conflicts regarding costs and imrpoving maintenance to reduce potential system failures and associated water rela CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - - - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - - - - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Interties allow for greater flexibility in water distribution systems. Regional equipment purchases and a coordinated approach to use allows for flexible use of water-relate equipment, and more efficient use of budgets allocated for water agencies. Improved management of interties will help maintain connections between agencies, allowing for more efficient and flexible use of water resources during emergencies. - Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - Reduced salinity discharges to the Delta helps to protect the ecological health of the watershed. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Interties could be used to deliver water during drought when Martinez supplies may be insufficient. - Interties allow for exchanges between agencies in emergencies, including drought. - Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - - Climate Change Response Actions - - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - Reduce discharge of salts to the sewer system will reduce the salinity of treated WWTP effluent, protecting water quality in receiving waters. Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local The intertie would improve local and regional conveyance systems. - Improves regional emergency conveyance system. - System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers Intertie would allow for water transfers from EBMUD. - Interties allow for water transfers between agencies. - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Intertie would allow for water deliveries from EBMUD. - Interties will allow for potable water distribution across and between agencies, especially during emergencies. - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - - - Salinity source control prevents high levels of salts. Salt and Salinity Management - - - Salinity source control prevents high levels of salts. Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - Coordinated purchases and joint inventories provide cost efficiencies for participating agencies. Project will improve operation and maintenance efficiencies for the interties, providing cost savings to participating agencies. - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Completed Est. Completion Date - - - 9/2014 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental AssesProject Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Est. Completion Date - - - - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Categorical Exemption (CEQA), categorical exclusion (NEPA), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA - Planning - NA $110,000 $48,000 Design - $75,000 NA NA Environmental Review - $15,000 NA NA Permits - $15,000 NA NA Construction/Implementation Variable $595,000 NA $16,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance - - NA NA Other - - NA $6,000 Total Project Cost Variable $700,000 $110,000 $70,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - - - Project benefits DACs in the region through its regional benefits. What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Self-Regenerating Water Softener Source Control Intertie from EBMUD to Martinez Regional Joint Inventory and Purchasing Coordination Intertie Testing program and Documentation Sponsoring Agency/Organization Ironhouse Sanitary District Martinez Regional Regional Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Project could reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle trips for disposal of SRWS. - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-0 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Project ID # 77 78 79 80 Project Description Project Type Planning – Infrastructure Optimization Planning – Water Supply Planning – Emergency Preparedness Water Quality Describe the project Several of the treatment plants in the region have excess capacity compared with the MDDs. This excess capacity can be viewed as a stranded asset and may present an opportunity to find additional uses for the plants. Three potential end users that could benefit from using the Participating Agencies’ (PAs’) excess treatment plant capacity are:  EBMUD/Sacramento River Pre-treatment. EBMUD has a new emergency supply from the  Sacramento River that will likely require pretreatment prior to treatment in EMBUD’s Walnut Creek or Orinda direct filtration plants. A combination of the PAs’ treatment plants may be able to provide side-stream treatment of EBMUD’s emergency drought supply to reduce the turbidity to a point that allows effective use of direct filtration.  Bay Area Regional Desalination (BARD) Project Pretreatment. The BARD Project will require removing turbidity and other constituents prior to the desalination process, which can be accomplished with a conventional treatment plant. The BARD project may also present the possibility of co-locating the desalination facility at one of the existing PA’s treatment plants, which has the following potential benefits: o Reduced capital costs by sharing infrastructure, e.g., electrical facilities, chemical facilities, roads, etc. o Reduced labor costs by sharing operations staff. o Proximity to existing transmission piping infrastructure.  Antioch San Joaquin River intake. Another potential for the project may be to augment the BARD project from the proposed Mallard Slough intake with Antioch San Joaquin River intake. Antioch’s rights allow them to take as much water as Antioch can use within its limits. Antioch’s ability to use the water is often limited not by quantity but by quality. Antioch could use more water if the water could be treated to remove TDS during part of the year. This treatment would be less frequent This purpose of this project is to continue the ongoing work by the current users to confirm the availability of groundwater and to expand the understanding of the groundwater supply. Groundwater in the region may require additional treatment to reduce dissolved salts to meet drinking water standards and to maximum recycled water opportunities. The project includes an analysis of the ability of supplemental treatment of groundwater to provide an emergency resource for the region. If emergency groundwater treatment is determined feasible as a backup supply, an assessment of the regional groundwater capacity and quality will be performed. The project will also determine how the groundwater capacity would be conveyed back into the system if needed to be relied upon in an emergency and will determine the type of treatment required, if needed, for it to be used. The purpose of this project is for the PAs is to track and understand the regional impacts regarding the Delta modeling results that are being presented by other agencies such as DWR as part of the BDCP. Increased analysis of Delta levee failure impacts in recent years as a result of the BDCP has resulted in the availability of modeling data projecting water quality impacts of potential Delta levee failure scenarios. The water quality data used for the RCS analysis is based on a three-month modeling duration. The analysis for the RCS assumed a six-month service interruption based on interpolating the extension of the chloride water quality of the three-month modeled period. It is assumed for the RCS analysis that chloride levels would return to normal after six months. Due to the currently limited chloride modeling data available, it is recommended that this analysis be updated when additional Delta levee failure modeling results are available with a modeled duration beyond the original three-month modeling scenarios duration or as other modeling assumptions are made and modeling analysis updated. Supply impacts due to changes in water quality may occur more frequently in the future due to factors such as increased demand and climate change. These potential water quality risks should be identified as well as the resulting impact on supply and the Participating Agencies’ (PAs’) ability to treat the supply. One example of an issue is high TOC levels that may occur during a Delta levee failure. An increase in TOC can become a treatment problem in a short amount of time. If TOC elevates above 10 mg/L for a period of time in the untreated water supply, treatment capacity may be limited. If TOC levels elevate, the untreated water TOC may become more of a decision-making driver than other water quality concerns. Elevated TOC levels may require future use of Los Vaqueros storage or activation of emergency interties with EBMUD. Supplies diverted from Rock Slough are likely to be most susceptible to TOC concerns. This project would evaluate the potential water quality impacts, including TOC, to water treatment plant treatment capabilities to determine which treatment plants are better equipped to treat changed water quality constituent levels, what those constituent, including TOC, level limitations would be, and what WTP improvements are needed to meet minimum demand requirements during an emergency. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional and less extensive than the anticipated BARD treatment on Mallard Slough. The projects to use the PAs’ excess treatment plant capacity described above appear to have a great potential for collaborative improvements that would enhance the reliability of the PAs’ supplies in emergency conditions as well as improve efficiencies by making more use of existing infrastructure. Treatment, pumping, and transmission system improvements would be needed to implement these projects. The purpose of this plan is to identify costs and benefits and potential features of an excess treatment plant capacity optimization project. There are projects that should be implemented by the PAs in order to ultimately enable the PAs to optimize the use of existing infrastructure such as excess treatment plant capacity to provide water to others outside the PAs’ service areas. This plan will identify costs and benefits and potential features of excess treatment capacity optimization projects. This plan would also include an analysis of the treatment improvements required for reliability as well as pumping and transmission system improvements to allow water to be delivered to the potential end user outside the region Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, Martinez, City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District - Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - - - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Project will evaluatae the potential for groundwater as an emergency supply for the region, as well as expand understanding of groundwater in the region. Imrpvoes understanding of Delta levee failure modeling, allowing for regional planning. Water quality issues that would be identified by this proejct affect the entire region, so benefits of the project will be realized by the entire region. Benefits would be realized by participating agencies and beyond the region. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Groundwater is less subject to Delta influences and could be less subject to drought. - - Allow excess capacity to be utilized for more efficient water supply and treatment purposes, potentially utilizing sources less subject to Delta influences and drought more efficiently. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency - - - Reduces stranded assets, allowing for improved water use efficiency. Increase water transfers - - - Could create additional water transfers to agencies whose capacities are insufficient to meet demands. Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - Excess capacity could be used to help meet demands during emergencies experienced by other regions and agencies. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) Project increases understanding of groundwater and its possible use as a water resource for the region. - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - Project would evaluate potentail threats to water quality, including water quality impairment of source water that could prevent its treatment and use. - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - Project will help protect against water quality impacts to drinking water. - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality Project analyzes groundwater and groundwater quality. - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - - - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - - - - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - - - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Project reduces the need for pumping outside sources across long distance, reducing GHG emissions associated with long-distance conveyance. - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives Utilizes stranded assets; leverages assets Leverages assets; benefits DACs by lowering costs and improving reliability. - - Program Preferences – Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Project increases local supplies and reducing potentail water-related conflicts over imported or surface water. - Project would plan forpotential water quality risks that could result in water-related conflicts. Improved water supply reliability and efficient use of water supplies and capacities helps to reduce water-related conflicts. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Project evaluates water quality risks at the source that could affect agencies' ability to treat water. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Improves understanding of Delta levee failure modeling, improving understanding of levee failure impacts and improving emergency planning to address such impacts. Water quality is threatened by potential levee failure. This project would evaluate these risks to identify which treatment facilities are most appropriate to protect water quality in the event of an emergency, including levee failure. - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Project evaluates the potential for groundwater use, increasing water supplies and diversifying the supply portfolio. - - Project allows for utilization of excess capacity and provides for more efficient and flexible use of water resources for connected agencies. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed - - - - Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - - Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Water supply diversification helps protect against the impacts of drought. - Project plans for treatment needs during emergencies, including drought, which may impair source water quality. Improved water supply reliablity and use of assets helps protect against the effects of drought on an agency's ability to meet demands. Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently - - - Provides for more efficient use of water infrastructure. Climate Change Response Actions - - Project plans for treatment needs during emergencies, including climate change, which may affect source water quality. - Expand Environmental Stewardship - - - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - - - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency - - - - Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - - Would allow for improved conveyance systems in a regional context. System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - Would allow for water transfers to support Bay Area needs. Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - - - Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve WDrinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - Project would plan for appropriate treatment options for water quality Would allow for export of drinking water to support Bay Area needs. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional degredation in the event of emergencies or in the face of altered conditions. Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - - - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - - - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - - - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Started Not Started Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Design Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Building/ Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - - - - Environmental Permits Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - - - - Status? - - - - Project Schedule Available? - - - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Excess Regional Capacity Optimization Plan Evaluate Groundwater Supply Additional Analysis of Levee Failure Impacts on the Region Evaluate Potential Water Quality Risks Sponsoring Agency/Organization Regional Regional Regional Regional Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - - - Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA Planning $149,500 $110,000 $50,000 $53,400 Design - NA NA NA Environmental Review - NA NA NA Permits - NA NA NA Construction/Implementation - $150,000 NA NA Environmental Mitigation/Compliance - NA NA NA Other - $30,000 NA NA Total Project Cost $149,500 $300,000 $50,000 $53,400 Cost Estimate Available? - - - - - Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - - - - Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - - User Rates - - - - User Fees - - - - Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - - - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - - - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - - - - Federal Grants - - - - Currently unfunded - - - - Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - Project would benefit DACs in the region by increasing supply options; local groundwater supplies are cheaper than pumping water from long distances, providing cost savings to residents, including DACs - - What Community(ies)? - - - - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - - - - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - - - - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Project ID # 81 82 83 84 Project Description Project Type Other Infrastructure – Stormwater/Flood Management Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure – Wastewater/Recycled Water Describe the project Provide rebates for landscape water conservation incentives. This project will enable rangeland restoration and watershed health improvements in Contra Costa County. Federal matching funds have created a rare opportunity to restore up to 67 degraded livestock ponds on public and private lands in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and evaluate benefits of rural upland ponds for species recovery and stormwater management. The project is scalable; requested funds could restore 12 ponds, monitor species response, and evaluate range and watershed hydrology impacts. This program offers incentives to ranchers to restore livestock ponds and manage surrounding rangelands in a manner that benefits wildlife. Incentives include streamlined permitting assistance, project planning and design, cost share assistance, and engineering/biological assistance during project implementation. Project components include pond de-sedimentation, spillway repair, invasive species control and implementation of rangeland best management practices. Enhancements such as plant establishment, riparian fencing, and erosion control are implemented when necessary. Where riparian areas or springs show excessive livestock impacts, or livestock diminish the hydro-period of a pond, we work with willing ranchers to develop off-stream water troughs and/or riparian fencing. We design and implement all projects in accordance with NRCS standards and specifications for wildlife habitat improvement and stream restoration. Alameda County RCD (ACRCD) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) pioneered the technical and permitting innovations necessary to complete these projects, and have implemented more than 20 pond restoration projects since 2006. ACRCD and Contra Costa RCD (CCRCD) have partnered over the past two years to extend the program from Alameda to Contra Costa County. We anticipate adding projects each year through 2019. This project involves the planning, design, and construction of an emergency back-up generator for Delta Diablo’s Recycled Water Facility and installation of recycled water fill stations for residential irrigation uses. Delta Diablo’s existing Recycled Water Facility consists of several treatment processes and a 2 million gallon storage tank. The treatment facility does not have backup power, so when main utility power is interrupted, the treatment facility is unable to produce recycled water. To ensure recycled water is available for its customers, Delta Diablo keeps its storage tank full at all times in order to temporarily gravity-feed water stored in its tank until main power is restored. By providing backup power, the treatment facility will remain operational during power outages to reliably meet customer water demands. In addition, the recycled water that was stored in the tank is no longer needed during power outages and can now be used to serve additional customers. While the tank volume is 2 million gallons, the District conservatively estimates 1.5 million gallons per day of recycled water will be available for industrial and irrigation demands. This project will implement a new service, adding fill stations at Delta Diablo’s treatment facility for trucked residential irrigation uses. This project will extend the existing non-potable water line on Grant Street from O’Hara Avenue west to Fairview Avenue. Extension of the non-potable water line will allow the City to convert existing park and landscape irrigation from potable to non-potable water. Project Partners Agency/Organization Name - Contra Costa RCD; Alameda County RCD; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS); Contra Costa County Flood Control District - - ECCC IRWM Plan ObjectivFunding for Water-Related PlanninIncrease regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water Additional: Increasing water conservation improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. - Additional: Optimization of flows and new supplies created - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: Using less water will help other agencies in the region with more available supply. - - - Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination - - Primary: This project makes additional recycled water available, which is the most drought-tolerant supply available for the region. Primary: This project will allow the City to use non-potable water for landscape irrigation Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Primary: Reducing water consumption improves delivery efficiency and conserves water. Additional: The proposed project will restore deteriorating stock ponds, providing supplemental water to improve livestock distribution. This enables ranchers to optimize for utilization and manage grassland resources for multiple goals, including habitat, soil health, and water retention. Additional: Expanded use of recycled water increases efficiency (appropriate water quality for the use) and reduces reliance on Delta and groundwater supplies Additional: This project will reduce the amount of potable water that is used by the City of Brentwood Increase water transfers - - - - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - - - - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - - - - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - - - - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality - - - - Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - - - - Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta - - - - Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Additional: Stockponds provide stormwater management benefits by decreasing peak runoff and increasing infiltration. Numerous distributed stockponds can have a significant cumulative benefit. Rangeland management practices such as prescribed grazing and cranial vegetation establishment can substantially increase the stormwater retention capacity of rangeland soils and the hydroperiod of local waterways. - - Restoration and Enhancement of the Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Primary: This project meets an urgent need for species recovery for CA tiger salamander (CTS) and CA red-legged frog (CRLF). CTS is state-listed and CRLF is federally-listed as threatened in Alameda and Contra Costa. Much of their habitat - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood has been altered or lost to development and cropland. Private ranches and grazed public lands hold the majority of remaining habitat for these species in the East Bay region. Their survival and recovery increasingly depends on existing livestock ponds and the efforts of local cattle ranchers. Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources - Additional: Ponds that are failing due to spillway and/or dam erosion may contribute to increased levels of sedimentation within the watershed. Restoring these ponds through de-sedimentation improves the storage capacity for sediment capture. Associated practices such as fencing and installation of off stream water troughs enables ranchers to control livestock access to sensitive pond and riparian areas and manage for multiple benefits. - - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Excessive water use wastes power needed to pump water. Less power utilized by CCWD will reduce greenhouse gasses. - - - Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - - - - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - - - - Improve regional flood risk management - - - - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process - - - - Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public - - - - Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - - - This project is part of a larger project that will expand the City’s non-potable water system to the north eastern part of the City which has plans for future development. This improvement will not only allow future landscaping to be irrigated with non-potable water, it will also allow the developer to use non-potable water for construction. Program Preferences – Ranking Criteria #2 Resolves Water-Related Conflicts - - - - CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - - Yes: Increase recycled water supplies can result in less reliance on Delta water and potentially more water left in upstream storage. - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, - Yes: The proposed project will restore deteriorating stock ponds, providing supplemental water to improve livestock - - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. distribution. This enables ranchers to optimize for utilization and manage grassland resources for multiple goals, including habitat, soil health, and water retention. Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Reducing water consumption will reduce the quantity of water that CCWD will need to use from the Delta which benefits the region and the State. - Yes: This project will make available about 1.5 MGD of recycled water for use in the system. Yes: This project will help reduce the amount of potable water that is being used for landscaping which will increase the supply of potable water that is available to serve other needs. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: More water left in the Delta improves the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed. Yes: Although well-managed rural watersheds and uplands may be taken for granted, they remain essential to the health of our creeks. The benefits of managed grazing on private and public lands within Bay Area watersheds can be multiplied by expansion of practices that demonstrably improve watershed functions: reduce peak flows, increase surface and ground water supply, and extend the hydroperiod of seasonal creeks. - Yes: This project will help reduce the amount of potable water that is being used for landscaping which will reduce the amount of water that needs to be supplied from the Bay-Delta watershed. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning - - - Yes: This project is part of a larger project that will expand the City’s non-potable water system to the north eastern part of the City which has plans for future development. This improvement will not only allow future landscaping to be irrigated with non-potable water, it will also allow the developer to use non-potable water for construction. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Yes Yes Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes - Yes Yes Climate Change Response Actions Yes - - - Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Yes - - Practice Integrated Flood Management - - - - Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality - Yes - - Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - - - - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits - - - - - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - - - - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes - Yes Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - - - - Conveyance – Regional/Local - - Yes Yes System Reoperation - - - - Water Transfers - - - - Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Yes - - - Desalination - - - - Precipitation Enhancement - - - - Recycled Municipal Water - - Yes Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - - - - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - - - - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - - - - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - - - - Matching Quality to Use - - - - Pollution Prevention - - - - Salt and Salinity Management - - - - Urban Runoff Management - - - - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - - - - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - Yes - - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) - - - - Ecosystem Restoration - Yes - - Forest Management - - - - Recharge Area Protection - - - - Water-Dependent Recreation - - - - Watershed Management - Yes - - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - - - - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - - - - Fog Collection - - - - Irrigated Land Retirement - - - - Rainfed Agriculture - - - - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - - - - Planning Project Status Not Started Not Started Complete Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 2015 - Feasibility Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Complete Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 - - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status Not Applicable Complete Not Started Complete Est. Completion Date - 3/31/2015 2016 - Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Applicable Complete Est. Completion Date 9/1/2013 - - Design Project Status Not Started Not Started Complete Est. Completion Date 12/1/2013 2016 - Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Underway Not Started Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - 8/90/2020 2016 - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Underway Not Started Pending Funding Est. Completion Date - 8/30/2020 2016 2/26/2016 Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Pending Funding Est. Completion Date 12/31/2017 12/31/2020 2016 6/24/2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Started Not Started Not Applicable Not Applicable Est. Completion Date 12/31/2018 6/30/2021 - - Environmental Permits Describe any required Project is exempt. CEQA/NEPA, and Programmatic CESA and FESA take permits. RWQCB and 1600 permits are required for each pond restoration. TBD as project may be exempt or ND. Fish and Wildlife fees have already been paid to Contra Costa County. HCP fees have already been paid to Contra Costa County Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Status? - CEQA/NEPA and Programmatic CESA take permits are complete. FESA take permits are in review by USFWS. RWQCB and 1600 permits are applications are submitted for each individual pond restoration project. Not started, but permitting is anticipated to be minimal and therefore move quickly. All payments have been made. Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required Homeowners may need to secure individual building permits. - TBD, though none anticipated The City executed an agreement with Union Pacific Railroad to construct the non-potable water line through their right-of-way. The City will obtain a construction permit before construction begins. City will need to obtain a permit from EBMUD. EBMUD has approved the project plans. Status? - - Not started, but permitting is anticipated to be minimal and therefore move quickly. The City will obtain a permit from UPRR and EBMUD before construction begins. Project Schedule Available? - - - - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties - - None. None. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement NA NA NA NA Planning NA NA $65,000 NA Design $20,000 $224,900 $135,000 $150,000 Environmental Review Unknown NA $10,000 NA Permits Unknown NA $15,000 $30,000 Construction/Implementation $140,000 $607,000 $1,090,000 $1,320,000 Environmental Mitigation/Compliance NA $67,200 NA NA Other NA $71,900 $235,000 NA Total Project Cost $140,000 $971,000 $1,550,000 $1,500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - - - Yes Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount $40,000 $60,000 - $375,000 Regional Assessments - - - - Developmental Fees - - - Yes User Rates Yes - - - User Fees - - Yes Yes Bonded Debt Financing - - - - Property Tax - - - - Contributions - Yes - - Other - - - - Existing grants Amount - $445,000 - - State Grants - - - - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - - - - Local Grants - Yes - - Federal Grants - Yes - - Currently unfunded $100,000 $466,000 TBD $1,125,000 Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Landscape Water Conservation Contra Costa Livestock Pond and Rangeland Watershed Stewardship Program Recycled Water Supply Expansion and Residential Fill Station Project Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase III Sponsoring Agency/Organization Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Delta Diablo City of Brentwood Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - - - - Disadvantaged Communities (DAs) Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? - No Yes: Use of recycled water for residential landscaping and park irrigation can have benefits to DACs in the area by replacing/offsetting potable supplies. - What Community(ies)? - - Pittsburg and Antioch - How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? - - - - Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? - No Yes: Making this recycled water available for residential and park landscaping will increase water supply and improve access to Parks, as the City will not have to use freshwater supplies for irrigation, or discontinue irrigation during drought and impact use of park turf areas. - Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - No No - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? - Yes: Restored stockponds will capture peak stormwater runoff from extreme events and augment livestock water supplies during drought. We will monitor and assess water resource benefits from site evaluations and post-project monitoring. Yes: Increasing the recycled water supply improves the ability of the communities to plan for climate change, which in this region is marked by increasing and extended drought. - Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: Lower pumping due to water conservation will reduce power consumption which reduces greenhouse gasses. - Not known at this time - Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Project ID # 85 Project Description Project Type Infrastructure – Water/Water Quality Describe the project The Pittsburg Recycled Water System Expansion Project will meet water demands and reduce dependence on the Delta by expanding service to new users in the City of Pittsburg, CA. The project consists of installing approximately 5,000 LF of 6-inch to 8-inch PVC pipe and adding recycled water service connections to five new user sites. The user sites to be added include Buckley Square, Law Enforcement Training Center, Bay Harbor HOA, median at 3rd Street & Railroad Avenue, and landscape along Railroad Avenue at Highway 4. Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Project Partners Agency/Organization Name City of Pittsburg ECCC IRWM Plan Objective(s) – Ranking Criteria #1 Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Increase regional cost efficiencies in treatment and delivery of water, wastewater, and recycled water - Implement projects that have region-wide benefits Additional: This project expands recycled water use in Pittsburg, helping to meet the region’s water supply needs. Water Supply Pursue water supplies that are less subject to Delta influences and drought, such as recycled water and desalination Primary: Delta water is a major supply source for Pittsburg. This project will expand recycled water service to irrigation users in Pittsburg, providing drought-tolerant supply that is less subject to Delta influence. Increase water conservation and water use efficiency Additional: Switching irrigation use from potable to recycled water can offset urban water use and help water suppliers to meet 20% by 20020 potable water conservation targets. Increase water transfers - Pursue regional exchanges for emergencies, ideally using existing infrastructure - Enhance understanding of how groundwater fits into the water portfolio and investigate groundwater as a regional source (e.g., conjunctive use) - Water Quality and Related Regulations Protect/Improve source water quality Additional: Expanded recycled water use can replace Delta supplies, which can offset demands and reduce diversions; this may help reduce salinity/saltwater intrusion and protect source water quality. Maintain/Improve regional treated drinking water quality - Maintain/Improve regional recycled water quality Additional: This project expands recycled water distribution in the region for irrigation use, and maintains recycled water quality. Increase understanding of groundwater quality and potential threats to groundwater quality - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Meet current and future water quality requirements for discharges to the Delta Additional: While DDSD expects to remain in compliance with water quality and discharge regulations, increasing recycled water production and use reduces wastewater discharges and mass loading to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Limit quantity and improve quality of stormwater discharges to the Delta - Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Enhance and restore habitat in the Delta and connected waterways - Minimize Impacts to the Delta ecosystem and other environmental resources Additional: Expanded recycled water use can offset Delta supplies, which may offset demands and reduce diversions; this may allow greater in-stream flows and improve Delta ecosystem health. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Additional: Greater use of local, recycled water can be less energy intensive than conveying and treating imported water. This project will increase operating efficiency resulting in lower energy use and the associated GHG emissions from fossil fuel sources. Provide better accessibility to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation - Stormwater and Flood Management Manage local stormwater - Improve regional flood risk management - Water-Related Outreach Collaborate with and involve DACs in the IRWM process Additional: There are DACs within Delta Diablo’s service area, and recycled water project planning will include involvement of these DACs in Pittsburg. Increase awareness of water resources management issues and projects with the general public Additional: Delta Diablo’s website and project flyers will include information on the benefits of recycled water and its role in water management. Please elaborate on any benefits that your project may provide outside of the stated objectives - Program Preferences – Ranking Resolves Water-Related Conflicts Yes: Regional recycled water planning can improve water supply reliability through more effective use of resources, and cooperative planning to address future water supply related conflicts related to Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo climate change and increasing Delta constraints. CALFED Objectives Improve the state’s water quality from source to tap - Protect water supplies needed for ecosystems, cities, industry and farms by reducing the threat of levee failures that would lead to seawater intrusion. - Allow for the increase of water supplies and more efficient and flexible use of water resources Yes: Expanded recycled water use increases the region’s water supplies, allowing more efficient and flexible use of water resources. Improve the ecological health of the Bay-Delta watershed Yes: Increased use of recycled water can positively impact Bay-Delta water supply and water quality, by potentially reducing Delta diversions, and decreasing wastewater discharges. These contribute to Bay-Delta ecological health. Effectively Integrate Water Management with Land Use Planning Yes: Recycled water distribution expansion planning will identify water resource availability and quality, fostering communication with county and city land use planners and informing their land use plans. Statewide Priorities – Ranking Criteria #3 Drought Preparedness Yes Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Yes Climate Change Response Actions Yes Expand Environmental Stewardship Yes Practice Integrated Flood Management Yes Protects Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Yes Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources - Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits Yes - Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency - Urban Water Use Efficiency Yes Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta - Conveyance – Regional/Local Yes System Reoperation - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Water Transfers - Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage - Desalination - Precipitation Enhancement - Recycled Municipal Water Yes Surface Storage – CALFED - Surface Storage – Regional/Local - Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution - Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation - Matching Quality to Use Yes Pollution Prevention - Salt and Salinity Management - Urban Runoff Management - Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management - Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship - Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and Water Pricing) Yes Ecosystem Restoration - Forest Management - Recharge Area Protection - Water-Dependent Recreation - Watershed Management - Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers - Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination - Fog Collection - Irrigated Land Retirement - Rainfed Agriculture - Waterbag Transport/ Storage Technology - - Planning Project Status In Progress Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Est. Completion Date December 2015 Feasibility Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Environ-mental Assess. Project Status In Progress Est. Completion Date December 2015 Pre-Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Design Project Status Not Started Est. Completion Date March 2016 Environ-mental Permits Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Building/Other Permits Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Construction/ Implementation Project Status Not Started Est. Completion Date June 2016 Post Project Monitoring Project Status Not Applicable Est. Completion Date - Environmental Describe any required - Status? - Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Other Permits (e.g., Encroachment, Building) Describe any required - Status? - Project Schedule Available? - Describe any data gaps or uncertainties The list of potential water users and water demands was developed after the District’s Recycled Water Master Plan. There are no expected impacts related to technical feasibility; the only uncertainties are related to the timing of recycled water connection for some users. Therefore, it is expected that users will be added in phases based on readiness, water demand and environmental documentation. Project Costs - Implementation Land Purchase/Easement - Planning - Design - Environmental Review - Permits - Construction/Implementation - Environmental Mitigation/Compliance - Other $1,500,000 Total Project Cost $1,500,000 Cost Estimate Available? - Project Funding - Implementation Agency; funds or in kind contributions Amount - Regional Assessments - Developmental Fees - User Rates - User Fees - Bonded Debt Financing - Property Tax - Contributions - Other - Existing grants Amount - State Grants - State funding for flood control/flood prevention projects - Local Grants - Federal Grants - Currently unfunded $1,500,000 Economic Feasibility Analysis Available? - Disadvantaged Communities Does (will) the project help to address critical water supply and water quality needs of DACs within the ECCC region? Yes: The water supply benefits to DACs in this project include improved water reliability through recycled water expansion. This project will reduce dependence on Appendix E – List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Upda E-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Project Name Pittsburg Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Sponsoring Agency/Organization Delta Diablo Delta supplies, is drought tolerant, and has the potential to improve economic development. What Community(ies)? Census tract area in Pittsburg. How were the DACs included in the planning or development of the project? Outreach and involvement are underway, as this project is in the early planning stages. Environmental Justice – Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project help to address any environmental justice concerns? Yes: Delta Diablo’s recycled water is a reliable, affordable resource, resulting in water and fertilizer cost savings compared to current irrigation. This can be a benefit to Pittsburg when used on parks which provide recreation access to the community. Does (will) the project create/raise any environmental justice concerns? - Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction - Ranking Criteria #4 Does (will) the project consider and/or address the effects of climate change on the region? Yes: Climate change is expected to result in drought and decreased water supplies. Recycled water is the most drought-tolerant supply available. Expansion of recycled water use will help the region address this aspect of climate change. Does (will) the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes: This expansion project evaluates system operation, identifying efficiencies and optimization to reduce power use. Reduction of power use will decrease the associated greenhouse gas emissions generated from conventional power production. Appendix E– List and Descriptions of On-going and Planned Regional Actions IRWM Plan Update E-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix F– ECCC Water Management Issues IRWM Plan Update F-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix F - ECCC Water Management Issues The East County Water Management Association (ECWMA) explored water management issues and regional needs during deliberations in February 2012. Concerns were organized into six broad topics.  Topic: Water Quality and Related Regulations  Topic: Water Supply  Topic: Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources  Topic: Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation  Topic: Stormwater and Flood Management  Topic: Access to Resources Following is a recap of the broad issues and needs. Table F-1. Topic: Water Quality and Related Regulations Water Management Issues Regional Need  Delta water quality impairment, especially due to future Delta-wide actions, such as Delta Plan/BDCP  Treated water quality impairment  Groundwater quality impairment  Stormwater runoff entering receiving water  Uncertainty in future regulations  Protection of Delta water quality (to the greatest extent possible), and options for managing raw water quality through storage/blending  Protection of public health  Protection of groundwater supply  Control of water quality of discharges entering the Delta  Anticipation of future regulations, with measures in place before enforcement of new regulations Table F-2. Topic: Water Supply Water Management Issues Regional Need  Unreliable surface water supply, especially in dry years and when considering future growth  Regional dependence on Delta water supplies, which are subject to future Delta-wide influences, such as the BDCP/Delta Plan, climate change, and/or potential levee failure  Reliable water supply in the future, even in dry years by expanding water portfolio  Regional self-sufficiency in water supply and reduced dependence on the Delta Appendix F– ECCC Water Management Issues IRWM Plan Update F-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table F-3. Topic: Restoration and Enhancement of the Delta Ecosystem and Other Environmental Resources Water Management Issues Regional Need  Fragile Delta ecosystem  Environmental impacts  Historical decline of wetland habitats  Lack of access to waterways for subsistence fishing and recreation  Balanced water management that enhances and restores Delta ecosystem habitat, minimizes negative impacts to the ecosystem, and mitigates unavoidable impacts  Reduced environmental impacts and a planning process that minimizes environmental impacts  Restoration of wetland habitats  Accessible waterways for subsistence fishing Table F-4. Topic: Funding for Water-Related Planning and Implementation Water Management Issues Regional Need  Lack of funding for planning and implementation because of slower development and reduced water usage (insufficient or variable revenue stream)  Competitive nature, limited available funds, and potential schedule delays associated with grant funding  Money for direct funding and grant match funding.  Grant funding, when appropriate, to support planning and project implementation. Table F-5. Topic: Stormwater and Flood Management Water Management Issues Regional Need  Localized flooding  Regional/catastrophic flooding due to levee failure  Limit occurrences of and damages from localized flooding  Delta levee integrity and an understanding of other factors that could induce regional flooding, such as climate change Table F-6. Topic: Access to Resources Water Management Issues Regional Need  Inequitable distribution of resources in the region  Equitable distribution of resources in the region Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix G - ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Standards describe what must be in an IRWM Plan and can be used as criteria in Implementation Grant applications. One of the requirements is that the plan must document the range of Resource Management Strategies (RMS) considered to meet the IRWM objectives and identify which RMS were incorporated into the IRWM Plan. The RMS to be considered must include the RMS found in Volume 2 of the State of California’s Water Plan (CWP) Update 2009. At the time of issuance of the 2012 Guidelines, DWR was in the process of developing CWP Update 2013. Update 2013 will include additional or different RMS. Consideration of such alternate RMS is encouraged, but not mandated. A key objective of the State’s CWP Update is to present a comprehensive and diverse set of RMSs that can help meet the water-related resource management needs of each region and statewide. The RMS narratives are developed by subject matter experts from the CWP State Agency Steering Committee members with considerable input from other experts and stakeholders. The list of RMSs was shared with the ECWMA and stakeholders to consider when developing projects. Of the 33 individual tools described in the CWP 2009 RMS section, the ECWMA identified 24 with potential for use in meeting the IRWM Plan objectives, plus the three new CWP 2013 RMS. Following is the list of resource management strategies, the assessment of applicability to the region, and the analysis of why or why not the tools could be applied. Also included is an assessment of how each RMS addresses region-specific climate change adaptation strategies and GHG reduction and mitigation efforts. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Table G-1. Resource Management Strategies and Applicability to ECCC Region Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Applicable Agriculture is prominent in the ECCC region. The region is evaluating agricultural water use and current practices to determine whether or not agricultural water use efficiency measures are appropriate. Improving water efficiency through agricultural operations and increasing urban water conservation efforts reduces GHG emissions through reduction of energy use with pumping, operating equipment, and water treatment. Permanent changes that reduce water demand similarly reduce impacts and use of infrastructure, thereby prolonging the useful life of infrastructure and stretching financial investments. Urban Water Use Efficiency Applicable Water conservation is an important component of the ECCC region’s approach to water management. The current conservation programs being implemented are in accordance with Best Management Practices established by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. The agencies are committed to ongoing demand management as a cornerstone to meeting future supply needs and to implement conservation measures to account for a decrease of 20% in per capita water use of 20% of demand by 2020. Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers Conveyance – Delta Applicable How and whether Delta conveyance moves forward is crucial to water management for the ECCC region. Delta conveyance could impact the ECCC region’s water supply availability, timing, and quality. Although the member agencies would not implement a project for Delta conveyance, it remains an important activity for the region to track. Optimal use and operation of the region’s conveyance infrastructure and transfer capabilities helps increase regional resiliency to climate change impacts. With adequate planning and smart operational decisions, the region is able to respond to a variety of water scenarios to will provide water supply during drought, emergency, or limited use conditions. Improving operational flexibility provides resources and solutions to regional agencies, and will help prevent climate-change impacts to public health and safety. Conveyance – Regional/Local Applicable Conveyance of water resources is essential to diversify the region’s water portfolio, use storage options for water quality and timing of deliveries, and promote the use of recycled water. The region wishes to maximize use of existing conveyance infrastructure and construct new conveyance infrastructure where needed. System Reoperation Applicable System operational efficiency is a high priority for the region’s water agencies. CCWD and its retail customers are undertaking an optimization study to determine how best to operate their water treatment, storage, and conveyance facilities. Water Transfers Applicable The ECCC region’s water supply is subject to hydrology, constraints on Delta resources, and complex statewide water operations. Water transfers are part of the portfolio of supplies that will be needed to meet CCWD’s water supply reliability goal to meet 100% of demands in normal years and a minimum of 85% of demands during extended droughts. Within the ECCC region, water transfers are strategic for water agencies to cope with emergency situations. The region is undertaking an inventory and evaluation of agency interties. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Applicable The member agencies recognize conjunctive use as a potential future water supply alternative. As the local groundwater basins become more fully described and safe yields are established, conjunctive use may become an increasingly viable water supply alternative. Regional supply evaluations that are planned or ongoing will yield information that will be critical to identifying sustainable, viable options to diversify the region’s supply portfolio. The region’s commitment to evaluating supply alternatives and implementing projects to increase supply volumes will increase the region’s resiliency to climate change impacts. Opportunities like recycled water and use of surface storage facilities for blending water can result in reduced operating costs and energy use, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Improving access to surface water storage and water transfer abilities also provide resiliency in the event that sea level rise impacts coastal infrastructure. Desalination Applicable Desalination is regarded as a potential water supply alternative for the participating agencies. Feasibility-level projects are underway to evaluate the feasibility of brackish water desalination as a viable water supply alternative within the region and to provide interregional benefits with the Bay Area region. Precipitation Enhancement Not Applicable The majority of the ECCC region’s water comes from the Delta, which is subject to statewide hydrology. Precipitation enhancement within the region would not have a significant influence over Delta conditions, and therefore would not have a significant impact on the region’s water supplies. Recycled Municipal Water Applicable ECCC is a leader in recycled water production. Continued commitment to water reuse is a major component of the future water supply programs of these agencies. Many projects and programs within the study area focus on water reuse. Surface Storage – CALFED Applicable Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion was named as one of the CALFED storage projects. CCWD currently owns and operates Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and the expansion study is ongoing. An expansion could benefit the region by providing more local storage to improve water supply reliability and, potentially, water quality. Surface Storage – Regional/Local Applicable Some of the participating agencies currently own and operate surface water storage facilities. Region-wide optimization of these storage facilities is planned for evaluation. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Applicable Water treatment and distribution are important elements of protecting public health. Ongoing projects and programs within ECCC aim to improve and optimize water treatment and distribution to enhance public health protection. The region’s actions to protect water quality testing and treatment facilities and protect conveyance and storage infrastructure from pollution are critical steps in improving the region’s resiliency to climate change impacts. Key vulnerabilities for the region are related to introduction of new and increased levels of existing contaminants from outside sources, and weather-related changes that can impact organic content and algae activity in source waters. Each of these water quality improvement RMSs target a key source of pollution that would otherwise cause public health issues for the region if not pre-emptively managed. Groundwater Remediation/ Aquifer Remediation Not Applicable Groundwater contamination requiring remediation is not a known problem in the ECCC region. Matching Quality to Use Applicable Source water quality varies within the region. Water agencies are working together to determine the most suitable and efficient end use of different source waters. One example is an investigation to determine whether groundwater can be better managed through understanding its current application to agriculture. Pollution Prevention Applicable Non-point source pollution control is a key element of the County’s stormwater management plan, which identifies a variety of strategies including public education and industrial outreach, new development, and construction controls, and watershed management activities, including wetland restoration. Contra Costa County, 19 of its incorporated cities and the Contra Costa Flood Control & Water Conservation District have joined together to form the CCCWP. The CCCWP strives to eliminate stormwater pollution and has partnered with the ECWMA to help implement these strategies in the ECCC region. Salt and Salinity Management Applicable Salt and salinity management is important for water management agencies across the ECCC region. Ongoing salinity management efforts within the region include source water salinity management (Delta salinity varies with season, location, and statewide water operations), salt and nutrient management plan for Pittsburg Plain Groundwater Basin, and salinity management for treated wastewater disposal. Urban Runoff Management Applicable The Contra Costa County Stormwater Management Plan contains detailed county-wide objectives for management of stormwater. A variety of projects and programs being conducted within the study area include stormwater capture and management elements. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management Applicable The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has a mandate to protect infrastructure, property, and public safety from flooding. In an effort to improve habitat, water quality, and stormwater management, the district has worked with a number of participating agencies to identify strategies and projects that improve or maintain flood protection while advancing other regional objectives. Flood management efforts directly improve resiliency to sea level rise for coastal areas and infrastructure, and temper impacts to facilities and health and safety from future extreme weather events. Practice Resources Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship Applicable With projected regional growth, land-use planning is critical for protecting water quality, sensitive habitats, and open space as well as maintaining water supply reliability. The County General Plan and urban limit line establish guidelines for land-use planning. Implementation of these RMSs to protect the environment and habitat resources throughout the region and in the Delta will help protect the region’s water supply, water quality, natural management and sequestration of greenhouse gases, and improve resiliency against impacts like sea level rise. With warmer temperatures resulting from climate change, competition with non-native and invasive species may become prevalent, reducing the ability of natural environments to protect sensitive species and manage runoff. Watershed management, ecosystem restoration, and utilization of economic incentives will be particularly important manage these climate change impacts. Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants, and Water Pricing) Applicable Economic incentives that influence water management are critical to the ECCC region. With the economic slowdown and the disparity between revenue projections and actual revenue, the region has relied heavily on State-funded economic incentives to accomplish certain water management activities. In turn, water agencies have established economic incentives for their customers to address critical water supply needs of disadvantaged communities and promote water conservation. Ecosystem Restoration Applicable Participating agencies have identified and advanced a variety of ecosystem restoration and habitat protection alternatives. These projects will help protect a variety of threatened and endangered species identified in the HCP. The ECCCHC implements integrated habitat recovery above and beyond mitigation requirements in a manner that protects water quality and ecosystem function. Forest Management Not Applicable Forested watersheds are not prevalent in the ECCC region. Land Use Planning Applicable Water managers work closely with their land use counterparts on floodplain issues and evaluating lands for use in meeting ecosystem goals. Recharge Area Protection Applicable Groundwater in the ECCC region is overlaid by urban development, rural lands, and open space. Groundwater is fed by natural recharge. Recent regional groundwater activities, such as a basin management plan and a salt/nutrient management program, have aided in the region’s understanding of groundwater quality and quantity, identification of potential threats, and plans for managing groundwater and protecting recharge areas. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts Water-Dependent Recreation Applicable Integrating recreation and public access into project and facilities management allows the public to access and enjoy open space lands on the Delta shoreline and throughout the Diablo range. It also provides agencies with an effective vehicle for educating the public about the region’s water supply and ecosystem. Multiple projects and programs for the ECCC region explicitly include recreation and public access elements. Watershed Management Applicable The IRWM planning process promotes integrated watershed management that crosses jurisdictional and political boundaries. Collaborative, regional water management remains a top priority for the ECCC region. Other Strategies Crop Idling for Water Transfers Not Applicable The region does not currently recognize a need for crop idling for water supply. If implemented within the region, irrigated land retirement may support the goals of similar RMSs such as improving agricultural water use efficiency practices by reducing water use and potentially reducing greenhouse gas emission production, depending on the existing practices of the irrigation operation. Dew-vaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination Not Applicable The technologies are still under development and are not yet cost effective. Under the current portfolio of regional projects and programs, desalination is considered a more feasible technology to implement at the current time. Fog Collection Not Applicable The technologies are high cost and low production, and most relevant to areas where little or no other water sources are available. Irrigated Land Retirement Applicable Irrigated land retirement occurs naturally when economic growth drives the market for development. It does not occur in times of economic downturn. Forced retirement of irrigated land for water management purposes is not being considered by water agencies at this time because irrigated land leads to agricultural productivity and local revenue. Rain-fed Agriculture Not Applicable Crops that get their full water supply from rainfall are generally impractical in the ECCC region due to the lack of significant rainfall in the summer and fall months. Waterbag Transport/Storage Technology Not Applicable This strategy is not currently used in California, and would require new coastal infrastructure to divert and offload the water. Freshwater supplies statewide are largely allocated; unallocated freshwater supplies would be far away, reducing the cost effectiveness of transporting water. Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Topic RMS Applicability to Region Reason for Applicability How RMS Minimizes Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts CA Water Plan 2013 Sediment Management Applicable Sediment management is a particular concern for stormwater and flood management, and a potential concern for regional surface storage. The Contra Costa Clean Water program a collaboration of many agencies and led by Contra Costa County has issued a stormwater guide that specifically offers direction on sediment. Sediment management practices will reduce the region’s vulnerabilities related to surface water storage and ecosystem restoration, and will protect against impacts to these operations from climate change. Climate change has the potential to affect culturally-sensitive areas. Awareness of these areas and identifying methods to protect them from sea level rise, temperature impacts, flooding, and water quality concerns will reduce the region’s vulnerability in these areas. Outreach and education are priority methods for regional water managers to provide critical information and gain feedback from customers, residents, and business owners on topics that relate to almost all the RMSs listed here. With this RMS, there is an opportunity to increase the implementation of resiliency actions throughout the region by increasing participation in management activities. Water and Culture Applicable The ECWMA is aware of cultural practices related to fishing, Delta as place, and potentially some water-related historic infrastructure (in some cases pre-dating statehood) that should be considered in planning. Additionally, while it is not a current use or historically recorded use, some restored habitat locations maybe suitable for cultural practices, such as gathering materials for basket weaving. Current day examples include one in Antioch that is on the National Register of Historic Places, and was a building occupied by the Bureau of Reclamation during the design and construction of the Central Valley Project. Outreach and Education Applicable The ECWMA has identified outreach and education as a major concern of the region. Key: CALFED = California Bay-Delta Program CCCWP = Contra Costa Clean Water Program CCWD = Contra Costa Water District CWP = California Water Plan Delta = Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ECCC = East Contra Costa County ECCCHC = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy ECWMA = East County Water Management Association HCP = East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan IRWM = integrated regional water management RMS = Resource Management Strategies Appendix G – ECCC Resource Management Strategies IRWM Plan Update G-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H - IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-3 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-4 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-5 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-6 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-7 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-8 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-9 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-10 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-11 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-12 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-13 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-14 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-15 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-16 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-17 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-18 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-19 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-20 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-21 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-22 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-23 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-24 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-25 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-26 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-27 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-28 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-29 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix H – IRWM Plan Purpose and Conforming Changes IRWM Plan Update H-30 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix I – Regional Capacity Study IRWM Plan Update I-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix I - Regional Capacity Study Appendix I – Regional Capacity Study IRWM Plan Update I-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin IRWM Plan Update J-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin Appendix J - Data Gap Analysis of the Tracy Sub-basin IRWM Plan Update J-2 March 2019 East Contra Costa County This page left blank intentionally. Appendix K – Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan IRWM Plan Update K-1 March 2019 East Contra Costa County Appendix K – Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan Integrated Regional Water Management Plan San Francisco Bay Area October 2019 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Governance Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7 East Bay Municipal Utility District ......................... 1-9 1.2.3.8 Marin Municipal Water District .............................. 1-9 1.2.3.9 City of Napa ......................................................... 1-9 1.2.3.10 North Bay Watershed Association ...................... 1-10 1.2.3.11 City of Palo Alto .................................................. 1-10 1.2.3.12 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ......... 1-10 1.2.3.13 City of San Jose ................................................. 1-11 1.2.3.14 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative .............................................................. 1-11 1.2.3.15 Santa Clara Valley Water District ....................... 1-12 1.2.3.16 Solano County Water Agency ............................ 1-13 1.2.3.17 Sonoma County Water Agency .......................... 1-13 1.2.3.18 State Coastal Conservancy ................................ 1-13 1.2.3.19 Zone 7 Water Agency ......................................... 1-14 1.2.4 Functional Areas .................................................................. 1-14 1.2.5 Subregions ........................................................................... 1-15 1.2.5.1 North Subregion ................................................. 1-18 1.2.5.2 East Subregion ................................................... 1-18 1.2.5.3 South Subregion ................................................ 1-18 1.2.5.4 West Subregion .................................................. 1-19 1.2.6 Other Stakeholders .............................................................. 1-19 1.2.7 Subcommittees .................................................................... 1-20 1.3 Procedures for IRWMP Development .............................................. 1-21 1.3.1 Public Outreach and Involvement Process ........................... 1-21 1.3.2 Decision-Making Process ..................................................... 1-24 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Governance 1.3.3 Document Review Process .................................................. 1-24 1.4 Balanced Access and Opportunities ................................................ 1-26 1.4.1 Effective Communication with Stakeholders and the Public .................................................................................. 1-26 1.4.2 Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities and Native American Tribes .................................................................. 1-28 1.4.3 Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Efforts and State and Federal Agencies .......................................................... 1-28 1.5 Collaboration Process Used to Establish Plan Objectives ............... 1-29 1.6 Long-term implementation of the Plan ............................................. 1-30 1.7 Interim and Formal Changes to the Plan and Plan Updates ............ 1-31 1.8 Plan Adoption .................................................................................. 1-32 List of Tables Table 1-1: Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) Members ........................................... 1-7 Table 1-2: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Members .............. 1-8 Table 1-3: North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) Agencies .......................................... 1-10 Table 1-4: Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) Signatories ..... 1-12 List of Figures Figure 1-1: IRWMP Governance Structure ............................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2: IRWM Subregions .............................................................................................. 1-17 Figure 1-3: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures ............. 1-30 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-1 Governance Chapter 1: Governance This chapter of the 2019 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or Plan) Update describes the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG), stakeholders, and the IRWMP governance structure. This chapter also covers the evolution of the structure and function of the governance since 2004 through the current Plan update process. 1.1 Background The IRWMP is an outgrowth of a collaborative process that began in 2004, when regional and local associations, agencies, groups, and organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area signed a Letter of Mutual Understandings (LOMU) to develop an IRWMP for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. To facilitate development of the 2006 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (2006 Plan), the participants agreed to organize into four Functional Areas (FA): ● Water Supply & Water Quality, ● Wastewater & Recycled Water, ● Flood Protection & Stormwater Management, and ● Watershed Management & Habitat Protection and Restoration. Representatives from agencies that represented the FAs formed a Technical Coordinating Committee which served as the original governing body and provided oversight for the IRWMP process. In January 2007, following completion of 2006 Plan, this group became known as the San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC). During the development of the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) in 2009, the CC developed an additional organizational structure based on demographic and geographic divisions in order to address the challenges of integrated management at the scale of the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region (Bay Area Region or Region). Four Subregions were defined: East, West, South, and North. The Subregions have subsequently become the focal points for outreach and project solicitation and integration in the IRWMP. The CC still includes representatives from the FAs and the FAs continue to address IRWM issues as needed. 1.2 Governance Team and Structure This section describes roles and responsibilities of the IRWMP participants. As Figure 1 illustrates, regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations, environmental groups, business groups, the public and other interested parties participated in the development of the IRWMP, serving in an advisory role at the CC and Subregion levels. The participants and their roles are described in the following sections. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-2 Governance Figure 1-1: IRWMP Governance Structure 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee The CC is the “RWMG” for the IRWMP. The role of the CC is to provide leadership, oversight and administrative support for the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM process. The CC is composed of representatives from Bay Area water supply agencies, wastewater agencies, flood control agencies, ecosystem management and restoration agencies, regulatory agencies, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), and members of the public. Any interested person may participate on the CC. The CC is responsible, directly or through participating agencies, for decision-making and actions including, but not limited to, establishing IRWMP goals and objectives, prioritizing projects, identifying financing for CC and IRWMP activities, implementing Plan activities, making future revisions to the IRWMP, hiring and managing consultants, coordinating, authorizing and/or approving grant proposals and managing funding agreements. The CC has no independent fiscal responsibility or capability except via the participating organizations. Legal actions such as contracting and submitting grant funding applications are carried out by individual participating agencies on behalf of the CC, and cost sharing agreements are developed on a case-by-case basis as necessary. Costs associated with administrative functions of the CC, IRWMP development, and Plan implementation are covered in a variety of ways, including grants, multi-agency contributions through FA associations, funds from individual project proponents, and in-kind contributions of staff time from participating entities. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-3 Governance The CC is composed of a Chair and Vice Chair, individuals from resource and regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations and other interested stakeholders, including members of the public. There are 12 voting representatives made up of three representatives from each of the four FAs, many of which have statutory authority over water resources. Guidelines for the CC established in June 2007 defined two-year terms for the Chair and Vice Chair and stipulate that the Chair and Vice Chair cannot be from the same water/wastewater and flood/watershed combined FAs (see Appendix A-1: Chair and Vice Chair Roles). For more information on the CC’s decision-making process, see Section 1.3.2. The CC meets monthly. Agendas are distributed in advance via listserv (about 314 contacts as of this IRWMP) and are posted to the IRWMP website. After each meeting, summaries are posted on the IRWMP website. The listserv is open to anyone who signs up on the IRWMP website. The following subsections identify the stakeholders that make up the full CC, which include water resource management agency and other stakeholders, LOMU signatories, FA representatives – statutory (voting) members of the CC, and subcommittees. 1.2.2 Stakeholders The goals in promoting stakeholder engagement are to:  Develop a broader understanding of the water resources management needs of the Bay Area Region;  Expand the scope of the IRWMP (from the 2006 version) to define in more detail the relationship between land use planning decisions and water resources management decisions;  Engage NGOs, resource management agencies, and other stakeholder groups in a more comprehensive manner in the IRWMP update process; and  Identify and address the needs of disadvantaged and tribal communities. A broad stakeholder outreach process is crucial to ensure that this IRWMP identifies local issues, reflects local needs, promotes the formation of partnerships, and encourages coordination with state and federal agencies. One of the benefits of this planning process is that it brings together a broad array of groups into a forum to discuss and better understand shared needs and opportunities. Residents of the Region are facing rapidly changing conditions, mainly related to urban growth, that create challenges in water resources management and the stewardship of environmental resources. Agencies and planning jurisdictions must work closely together in order to assure the delivery of clean, reliable water supplies while maintaining the quality of life and environmental values in the Region. If sufficient planning is not undertaken, the consequences for the Region could be significant. The IRWMP benefits from active participation by a wide range of Stakeholders. Stakeholders are defined as any person or organization interested in or affected by provisions of the IRWMP and more broadly by water resources management decisions. Members of the CC and other Stakeholders have participated in periodic Stakeholder meetings, reviewed draft document materials, and provided collaborative input to shape the formation of this IRWMP. Stakeholder 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-4 Governance comments are recorded and the CC responds to these comments by indicating how they were reflected in the IRWMP or if not, why not. By participating in Stakeholder meetings to develop this IRWMP, participants have created opportunities for establishing and developing mutually beneficial partnerships. All water resources management agencies in the Bay Area Region are represented in the IRWM planning process either directly or indirectly through membership in a participating association or other business relationship, such as membership in Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC), Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) and Bay Area Flood Protection Agency Association (BAFPAA). 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types During the development of the IRWMP, targeted stakeholder outreach activities involved a diverse group of water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood control, watershed, municipal, environmental, and regulatory groups. These outreach activities sought to inform, educate, and engage constituents, stakeholders, and interested parties throughout the nine- county Bay Area. Targeted outreach was conducted via stakeholder workshops, Subregional and individual County/Agency outreach to stakeholders in their particular area, and a new website. The list of IRWMP stakeholders is maintained by the CC; stakeholders for the IRWMP have been identified through the following mechanisms: ● Development of the 2006 Plan Stakeholders were initially identified during the development of the 2006 Plan through collection of information directly from water resources management agencies and through outreach efforts and public meetings. Some information about stakeholders was also collected during the development of the four Functional Area Documents (FADs) that served as a baseline to the 2006 Plan. As development of the IRWMP progressed, additional stakeholders were identified through workshops, local government meetings, the project website and several other forums. The Stakeholder database was updated to reflect additional stakeholder groups identified through the 2013 IRWMP outreach activities. ● Development of Local Planning Documents Stakeholders were also identified from the public involvement process that occurred during the development of the individual agency planning documents used to develop the FADs (e.g., General Plans, Urban Water Management Plans, Water Supply Master Plans, Wastewater Master Plans, Recycled Water Master Plans, Flood Protection Management Plans, Stormwater Management Plans, Watershed Management Plans, etc.). ● Subregional Workshops and Regional Outreach and Meetings The Subregional leads organized and facilitated community workshops using an updated listserv and other notifications to publicize the meetings. The workshops provided an overview of the value of regional water management planning, examples of successful grant applications, an overview of the update process, and highlights of the new climate 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-5 Governance change element of the Plan. Stakeholders were able to ask questions and were invited to consider local water resources management challenges that could be addressed through collaboration with partners. ● Disadvantaged Communities The 2013 IRWMP update process targeted Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) for inclusion in the development of the IRWMP and identification of potential water resources management projects. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines DACs as communities in which the Median Household Income (MHI) is less than 80% of the statewide average. Using 2010 Census data, communities that fit the economic threshold were identified. Subregional leads and other CC stakeholder members identified potential regional water resources management challenges that affected these communities in particular and/or other agencies and resources that would know about water supply and water quality challenges in those communities. Subregions have targeted agencies and organizations specific to those communities and engaged in concerted outreach to make them aware of the IRWMP update process, solicit their participation, help identify water resources management problems, and offer assistance so DACs could understand their opportunities to have their needs and concerns addressed by the Plan and its list of proposed projects for state funding. The outreach and engagement team will assist Subregions to make continued progress with these DAC outreach efforts. In 2016, the Bay Area began its IRWM Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP) process, funded through the 2014 Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act (Proposition 1) and administered by The CA Department of Water Resources. The Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee endorsed the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) to be the Grant Administrator and Program Manager for the Bay Area, who partnered with the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) to coordinate outreach, capacity building, and a needs assessment for Bay Area Tribes. The mandate of the program is to include underrepresented populations (including Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), Under- represented Communities (URCs), Economically Disadvantaged Areas (EDAs), and Tribes) into IRWM and other water-related decision making processes. The ultimate goal is to build the capacity of communities and community-based groups to develop and submit IRWM-eligible projects for implementation to address priority water issues identified through tailored outreach and needs assessment processes. EJCW originally partnered with 17 community-based groups and agencies located in DACs around the Bay Area to conduct these tailored outreach and needs assessment processes. In 2019, grant administration for the program was transferred to the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). See Chapter 14 Section 6 and 7 for additional information on the DACTIP. ● Native American Tribes Tribal members are dispersed into the Bay Area population and in some cases do not live in Tribal-specific communities. With that as a challenge, the initial outreach and engagement team for the 2013 Plan Update worked with Tim Nelson, DWR Tribal Liaison for the North Central Region Office and the state Native American Heritage Commission to identify tribal members in the Bay Area Region. Beginning with the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-6 Governance Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP), the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW), contracted with the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) to coordinate outreach and capacity-building for Bay Area Tribes. The ultimate goal of the Tribal process is to include Bay Area Tribes and Bay Area Tribal communities in the local IRWM decision-making bodies directly and for those Tribes and Tribal organizations to be prepared to submit and implement IRWM eligible projects. CIEA first conducted outreach to Tribes and Tribal organizations whose members are descended of the first people of the Bay Area. Several regional Tribes have been identified. Of these, CIEA has partnered with five Tribal Program Partners to receive support and develop their own capacity to work on water stewardship and planning in the Bay Area. Tribal Program Partners include the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Association of Ramaytush, Him-R^n, Indian People Organizing For Change (IPOC), and the Muwekma Ohlone. CIEA’s initial effort of identifying Tribal interests involved outreach to Ohlone gatherings, reaching out to Tribal Chairmen and Chairwomen to discuss the opportunity of the DACTIP and conducting interviews with Tribal representatives about their water resources management needs, concerns, interests and ability to participate in the development of Tribal-specific projects that could be addressed through IRWM. See Chapter 14 Sections 6 & 7 for additional information on the DACTIP. 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories The following organizations are signatories to the 2004 LOMU and continue to be involved: 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) is a retail water purveyor supplying drinking water to more than 320,000 people living in the Cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. The District also provides conservation/protection of the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, one of its sources of water supply. 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) serves as the council of governments and comprehensive planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area. It was established in 1961 to protect local control, plan for the future, and promote cooperation on area-wide issues. ABAG’s region comprises the nine Bay Area counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma—and the 101 cities within those counties, serving over 7 million people in a 7,000 square mile area. ABAG committees also include representatives from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Economic Forum, and more. ABAG programs include conducting research and analysis and providing planning and outreach. ABAG projects range from job and population research, data analysis, earthquake preparedness research, green business strategies to on-line training classes. In addition, ABAG administers the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies BACWA is a joint powers authority (JPA) formed in 1984 comprised of local governmental agencies that operate publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) which discharge to the waters of San Francisco Bay Estuary. Together, BACWA’s members serve more than 7 million people 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-7 Governance in the nine-county Bay Area, treating all domestic and commercial wastewater and a signif icant amount of industrial wastewater. BACWA is governed by a five person Executive Board comprised of one representative from each of the joint powers agreement signatory agencies: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), East Bay Dischargers Authority, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the City and County of San Francisco, and the of San Jose. BACWA and its members support committees and groups that facilitate communication about key issues affecting the municipal wastewater community, keep agency staff apprised of important regulatory and policy developments, and provide a venue for establishing regional collaboration. BACWA served as the fiscal agent for development of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Project Master Plan. BACWA members that are located in the Bay Area Region are listed in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) Members1 Public Agencies Table 1: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Table 2: Central Marin Sanitation Agency Table 3: City of Belmont Table 4: City of Benicia Table 5: City of Brisbane Public Works Table 6: City of Burlingame WWTP Table 7: City of Fairfield Table 8: City of Livermore Table 9: City of Millbrae Table 10: City of Palo Alto Figure 1: City of Petaluma Figure 2: City of Piedmont Figure 3: City of Pleasanton Figure 4: City of Redwood City Figure 5: City of Richmond WPCP Figure 6: City of San Carlos Table 11: City of San Jose Table 12: City of San Mateo Figure 7: City of St. Helena Table 13: City of Sunnyvale Table 14: Delta Diablo Sanitation District Table 15: Dublin-San Ramon Services District Table 16: East Bay Dischargers (City of San Leandro, Oro Loma Sanitary District, Castro Table 20: Napa Sanitation District Figure 8: North San Mateo Sanitation District Figure 9: Novato Sanitary District Figure 10: Pinole/Hercules WPCP Figure 11: San Francisco International Airport Table 21: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Figure 12: San Mateo County Figure 13: Sanitary District of Marin County No. 1 (Ross Valley) Figure 14: Sanitary District of Marin County No. 2 (Corte Madera) Figure 15: Sanitary District of Marin County No. 5 (Tiburon) Figure 16: Santa Clara County Sanitation District No. 2-3 Figure 17: Sausalito/Marin City Sanitary District Figure 18: Sewage Agency of Southern Marin Figure 19: Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Figure 20: Sonoma County Water Agency Table 22: South Bayside System Authority (South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP, City of Belmont, City of Redwood City, City of San Carlos, West Bay Sanitary District) Figure 21: Stege Sanitary District Figure 22: Tamalpais Community Services District 1 The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District is also a BACWA Member, but its service area falls outside of the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (it is in the Central Valley RWQCB), which defines the Bay Area region for this IRWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-8 Governance Public Agencies Valley Sanitary District, City of Hayward, Union Sanitary District) Table 17: East Bay Municipal Utility District Table 18: Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Table 19: Mt. View Sanitary District Figure 23: Town of Yountville Table 23: Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Figure 24: West Bay Sanitary District Table 24: West County Agency Figure 25: West Valley Sanitation District 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) was created in 2003 to represent the interests of 26 cities and water districts, as well as two private utilities that purchase water from the San Francisco Regional Water System. BAWSCA’s goals are to ensure high-quality, reliable water supply for the 1.7 million people residing in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties that depend on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) regional water system. BAWSCA has the authority to coordinate water conservation, supply and recycling activities for its agencies; acquire water and make it available to other agencies on a wholesale basis; finance projects, including improvements to the regional water system; and build facilities jointly with other local public agencies or on its own to carry out the agency’s purposes. BAWSCA’s member agencies are listed in Table 1-2. Table 1-2: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Members Cities and Water Districts 1 Alameda County Water District 2 City of Brisbane 3 City of Burlingame 4 Coastside County Water District 5 City of Daly City 6 City of East Palo Alto 7 Estero Municipal Improvement District 8 Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District 9 City of Hayward 10 Town of Hillsborough 11 Los Trancos County Water District 12 City of Menlo Park 13 Mid-Peninsula Water District  City of Millbrae  City of Milpitas  City of Mountain View  North Coast County Water District  City of Palo Alto  Purissima Hills Water District  City of Redwood City  City of San Bruno  City of San Jose  City of Santa Clara  Skyline County Water District  City of Sunnyvale  Westborough Water District Private Utilities  California Water Service Company  Stanford University 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCC FC&WCD) manages the flood- and stormwaters in city and county areas of Contra Costa County, develops 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-9 Governance flood control plans, and establishes and collects development fees. CCC FC&WCD is an active partner in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, which jointly holds a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit containing a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District Formed in 1936, the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) is a retail and wholesale water distributor, delivering treated drinking water directly to customers in central and eastern Contra Costa County. In addition, wholesale treated water is provided to the City of Antioch, the Golden state Water Company in Bay Point, the Diablo W ater District in Oakley, and the City of Brentwood. CCWD provides raw (untreated) water to the Cities of Antioch, Martinez and Pittsburg, as well as to industrial and irrigation customers. CCWD serves approximately 500,000 people and is one of the larger urban water districts in northern California and a leader in the protection of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. CCWD serves as the contract administrator for the East Contra Costa County IRW MP. 1.2.3.7 East Bay Municipal Utility District Formed in 1923, EBMUD provides water for approximately 1.3 million people in a 331-sq-mile area in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, extending from Crockett on the north, southward to San Lorenzo (encompassing the major cities of Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco to Walnut Creek, and south through the San Ramon Valley. EBMUD’s wastewater system serves approximately 685,000people in an 88-sq-mile area in Contra Costa and Alameda counties along the Bay’s east shore, extending from Richmond on the north, southward to San Leandro. 1.2.3.8 Marin Municipal Water District The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) has been providing drinking water to residents in Marin County since 1912. MMWD currently serves approximately 190,000 people in a 147 square mile area of Marin County. 1.2.3.9 City of Napa The City of Napa has been operating a municipal drinking water system since 1922. Located at the northeast end of San Pablo Bay in the lower Napa Valley, the City currently serves more than 86,000 people in and around the City limits and Upvalley along the Conn Transmission Main. The City also provides treat-and-wheel service of State Water Project (SWP) supplies to the Cities of American Canyon and Calistoga, and makes retail water available for the Town of Yountville and the City of St. Helena. Within the City of Napa’s service territory, recycled water is supplied by the Napa Sanitation District. Steelhead and Chinook in the Napa River 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-10 Governance 1.2.3.10 North Bay Watershed Association The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) is a partnership of 16 public agencies in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties dedicated to facilitating projects and activities across political boundaries to promote the stewardship of the San Pablo Bay watershed. Agencies participate in the NBWA to discuss issues of common interest, explore ways to work collaboratively on water resources projects of regional concern, and share information about projects, regulations, and technical issues. The partner agencies of the NBWA are listed in Table 1-3. Table 1-3: North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) Agencies Partner Agencies  Bel Marin Keys Community Services District  Central Marin Sanitation Agency  City of Petaluma  City of San Rafael  City of Sonoma  County of Marin  County of Sonoma  Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District  Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program 1. Marin Municipal Water District 2. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 3. Napa Sanitation District 4. North Marin Water District 5. Novato Sanitary District 6. Sonoma County Water Agency 7. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Associate and Group Associate Members  City of Mill Valley  Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin 8. City of Novato 9. The Bay Institute 10. Tomales Bay Watershed Council 1.2.3.11 City of Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto operates city-owned utility services that include electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater services. The City of Palo Alto provides water supply for approximately 60,000 people living in the City of Palo Alto and has received all of its potable water supply from the SFPUC since 1962. The City of Palo Alto is a member of BAWSCA, and works through BAWSCA to manage its SFPUC contract and to interact with the SFPUC. In addition to water supply, the City of Palo Alto provides wastewater and recycled water services for over 200,000 residents of Palo Alto and its surrounding areas. The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant treats wastewater from the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford. 1.2.3.12 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission The SFPUC provides retail water, wastewater service and municipal power to the City and County of San Francisco. The SFPUC also owns and operates the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System that delivers water to 28 wholesale customers. The SFPUC serves approximately 2.5 million residential, commercial, and industrial customers in the Bay Area. Approximately one-third of the water deliveries go to retail customers in San Francisco, while wholesale deliveries to agencies in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties comprise the other 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-11 Governance two-thirds. The SFPUC is currently implementing an extensive capital improvement program to repair, replace, and seismically upgrade the water system’s aging infrastructure to ensure reliable delivery of its water supply. BAWSCA member agencies are served wholly or in part by the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy Water System. 1.2.3.13 City of San Jose The City of San Jose’s Environmental Services Department provides drinking water supply, wastewater treatment, water pollution prevention, and recycled water supply services to local residents. Created in 1961, the San Jose Municipal Water System serves four different neighborhoods in the City of San Jose: North San Jose/Alviso, Evergreen, Edenvale and Coyote. The San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is one of the largest advanced wastewater treatment facilities in California. It treats and cleans the wastewater of over 1,500,000 in the 300-square mile area encompassing San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno. About 10 percent of the treated water is recycled through South Bay Water Recycling pipelines for landscaping, agricultural irrigation, and industrial needs around the South Bay. 1.2.3.14 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) was formed in 1996 as a collaborative effort of representatives from Santa Clara County and South Bay. Its members include representatives from businesses and industrial sectors; professional and trade organizations; civic, environmental, resource conservation, and agricultural groups; regional and local public agencies; and the general public. The SCBWMI addresses issues in water rights and water supply reliability, flood management, regulatory compliance, land use, and public awareness and involvement. Table 1-4 provides a list of member organizations are SCBWMI signatories. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-12 Governance Table 1-4: Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (SCBWMI) Signatories Public Agencies 1. California Department of Fish & Game 2. City of Cupertino 3. City of Palo Alto 4. City of San Jose 5. City of Santa Clara 6. City of Sunnyvale 7. Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District 8. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 9. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 1. Santa Clara County 2. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority 3. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 4. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 5. Santa Clara Valley Water District 6. US Army Corps of Engineers 7. US Environmental Protection Agency 8. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Business and Trade Associations 1. California Restaurant Association/Dairy Belle Freeze 2. Home Builders Association of Northern California 3. San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce ● Santa Clara Cattlemen's Association ● Santa Clara County Farm Bureau ● Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Environmental and Civic Groups ● CLEAN South Bay ● Greenbelt Alliance ● Leagues of Women Voters of Santa Clara County ● Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Group ● San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory ● San Francisquito Watershed Council ● Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society ● Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter ● Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition ● Stevens and Permanente Creeks Watershed Council ● Western Waters Canoe Club 1.2.3.15 Santa Clara Valley Water District The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) manages an integrated water resources system that includes the supply of clean, safe water, flood protection and stewardship of streams on behalf of Santa Clara County's 1.8 million residents in 1,300 square miles. SCVWD effectively manages 10 dams and surface water reservoirs, three water treatment plants, a state-of-the-art water quality laboratory, nearly 400 acres of groundwater recharge ponds and more than 275 miles of streams. SCVWD also provides wholesale water and groundwater management services to local municipalities and private water retailers who deliver drinking water directly to homes and businesses in Santa Clara County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-13 Governance 1.2.3.16 Solano County Water Agency Formed in 1951, the Solano County Water Agency (Solano CWA) provides water supply and flood control services for cities and irrigation districts in Solano County and parts of Yolo County. Solano CWA leads efforts to protect rights to existing sources of water and works to secure new sources of water for water supply reliability and future growth. In addition to its irrigation customers, Solano CWA delivers untreated water to its wholesale customers, who serve more than 400,000 residents. These wholesale customers include:  City of Benicia  City of Fairfield  Maine Prairie Water District  Solano Irrigation District  City of Suisun City  City of Vacaville  City of Vallejo 1.2.3.17 Sonoma County Water Agency Created in 1949, the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma CWA) is a water wholesaler that provides drinking water to approximately 570,000 residents of Sonoma and Marin counties. In addition, Sonoma CWA provides sanitation and flood control services to residents of Sonoma County. Sonoma CWA wholesales water to the following agencies:  City of Cotati  City of Petaluma  City of Rohnert Park  City of Santa Rosa  City of Sonoma  Town of Windsor  North Marin Water District  Valley of the Moon Water District  Forestville Water District  MMWD 1.2.3.18 State Coastal Conservancy The State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), established in 1976, is a non-regulatory state agency whose goal is to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the shore. The legislature created the SCC as a unique entity with flexible powers to serve as an intermediary among governmental agencies, NGOs, citizens, and the private sector in recognition that creative approaches would be needed to preserve California’s coast and San Francisco Bay lands for future generations. The San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Rinconada Water Treatment Plan, SCVWD 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-14 Governance Program, administered by the SCC, was established in 1998 to address the natural resource and recreational goals of the nine-county Bay Area in a coordinated and comprehensive way. 1.2.3.19 Zone 7 Water Agency The Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) was formed in 1957 to manage groundwater, flood control, and water supplies for the Livermore-Amador Valley. Zone 7’s service area includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and the surrounding unincorporated areas, providing roughly 215,000 residents with a reliable supply of high quality water. Zone 7 also supplies water supplies to the Dougherty Valley area of Contra Costa County. By pursuing multiple water supply strategies and state-of-the-art technologies, Zone 7 is committed to ensuring the needs of its customers are met, even in times of drought. Zone 7’s wholesale customers include:  Dublin San Ramon Services District  City of Pleasanton  City of Livermore  California Water Service Company 1.2.4 Functional Areas The 2006 Plan included four FADs whose purpose was to (1) identify specific needs and challenges relating to the specific FA; (2) describe water management strategies and approaches to address these needs; and (3) develop a list of potential strategies and implementation projects that would maximize benefits and enhance opportunities for regional cooperation within a given FA. Each FA has responsibility for a particular type of regional water management, and responsibilities extending beyond IRWM planning activities. The IRWMP maintains the four FAs and the three purposes described above. The four FAs are: ● Water Supply & Water Quality. The Water Supply-Water Quality (WS-WQ) FA addresses water supply and water quality opportunities and challenges throughout the Region and is led by BAWAC and its member agencies. ● Wastewater & Recycled Water. The Wastewater-Recycled Water (WW -RW) FA addresses wastewater treatment and discharge and recycled water treatment and distribution within the Bay Area, and is led by BACWA. ● Flood Protection & Stormwater Management. The Flood Protection-Stormwater Management (FP-SM) FA addresses regional issues in management of flood- and stormwaters, led by BAFPAA and coordinated with BASMAA. ● Watershed Management-Habitat Protection & Restoration. The Watershed Management-Habitat Protection and Restoration (WM-HPR) FA addresses management of hydrologic systems with emphasis on habitat protection and enhancement and is led by the SCC, in partnership with SFEP, Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) and NBWA. The four FAs are represented in the CC by three designated individuals, or their alternates, and are considered the “voting representatives.” Voting representatives are appointed by their 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-15 Governance respective FA groups and may change over time. If the CC is not able to reach consensus on an item that needs a decision, the Chair or Vice Chair may ask for a vote from this body. However, this situation has yet to arise and the group has been successful in achieving consensus in all cases. The CC’s FA representatives receive direction from their corresponding FA agencies and interests. For example, the three voting representatives of the Flood Protection and Stormwater Management FA receive direction from BAFPAA. BAFPAA policy is reflective of policies adopted by elected officials related to BAFPAA members such as County Supervisors or Boards of Directors. For some other participants, policy direction is aligned with elected officials (e.g., Water District Boards, Sanitary District Boards, City Councils, Agency Boards, County Supervisors, etc.) or NGOs. FA representatives also take into consideration the interests of other stakeholders and the public. The FA representatives, or their designated alternates, are responsible for attending all CC meetings, reviewing matters in advance for discussion at the meetings, helping give direction to consultants, participating in CC subcommittees, and reporting back to their FAs, agencies and constituents. 1.2.5 Subregions A “Subregional” approach was developed to facilitate truly integrated projects with smaller geographical areas and better address the diversity of needs and ideas across the Bay Area Region, and provide better local access to the IRWM process. Between submittal of the IRWMP in 2006 and the RAP in 2009, the CC evaluated five different scenarios seeking to balance populations and areas and decided on a Subregional approach which established four geographic Subregions – North, East, South and West (Figure 1-2). In contrast to FAs that function across the IRWM Region, Subregional activities are focused on a local scale. The Subregional approach has the following benefits:  Facilitate project integration;  Local governmental entities and NGOs are more aware of their own constituents’ concerns regarding water management issues and can better represent the needs of their particular DACs;  Projects can be better identified from smaller organizations, citizens’ groups and DACs whose projects might otherwise not be recognized by a larger regional body;  Using a designated Subregion lead, the IRWMP information can be disseminated to local groups who might not otherwise travel outside their geographic area to voice their concerns, needs, or ideas; and  The system attempts to provide for equitable distribution of funding for projects. The four Subregions were established, in part, to ensure local participation and ownership of the outcomes from the process. Each of these Subregions is essentially several DWR detailed analysis units (DAUs), or small watersheds. Once the DAUs were identified, political boundaries 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-16 Governance were used to adjust the Subregion boundaries to maintain the integrity of counties and agencies within a Subregion. This Subregional approach, focused on more localized issues and outreach, was designed to increase the participation of stakeholders who had not previously been involved in the IRWM process, and facilitated the development of integrated projects. Stakeholders who may be better able to engage at the Subregional level include NGOs, watershed and conservation groups, representatives of DACs, community-based organizations, environmental justice groups and communities, industry and agricultural organizations, park districts, educational institutions, and local general governments where many land-use decisions are made. Calculations of area and population within each Subregion were used to establish ‘Target Allocations’ for funding. Areas and population were weighted as follows:  50% distribution based on number of Subregions (4)  25% distribution based on population in each Subregion  25% distributed based on area of each Subregion Based on these calculations the following allocation targets were established:  North Bay 25%  East Bay 29%  South Bay 25%  West Bay 22% Subregion groups meet regularly and each establishes its own schedule for meetings and other activities. Information on Subregions and materials for stakeholders can be found on the IRWMP website (http://bayareairwmp.org/). While the Subregional approach will bring new parties into the IRWM process, final decisions concerning IRWMP plans, priorities and funding continue to occur at the regional level. While much of the Plan development effort is now at the Subregional level, regional efforts may include, but may not be limited to:  Regional discussion and actions concerning water supply and imports;  Actions and policies to improve the water quality of San Francisco Bay;  Oversight and integration of Subregional processes;  Coordination of grant proposals for regional scale activities;  Efforts to address impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise;  Actions to address regional flood protection, including with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather prediction programs and the sediment reduction/transport effort; and  Regional habitat protection for tidal, riparian and estuarine habitats 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-17 Governance The Subregions are described below. Figure 1-2: IRWM Subregions 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-18 Governance 1.2.5.1 North Subregion The North Subregion consists of portions of Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties and the majority of Marin County. These counties have the smallest populations in the Bay Area Region, the largest land area, the most individual counties, and are projected to grow the least (ABAG 2009). Solano County has the largest projected growth and contains the largest number of DACs within the North Subregion. The Lead for the North Subregion is the NBWA. Meetings held within the Subregion are Joint County meetings and county-specific stakeholder meetings organized by the County lead. County lead meetings are conducted to update stakeholder lists and develop preliminary lists of projects, with subsequent input review. 1.2.5.2 East Subregion The East Subregion consists of the majority of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties which includes a large continuous urban area from Richmond to Fremont, making up one of the major metropolitan areas in the Bay Area Region. This Subregion makes up over 35% of the total population and has among the highest growth rates in the Bay Area Region. DACs are primarily concentrated within the continuous urban area that spans the two counties. This Subregion includes an overlap area with the East Contra Costa County IRWM region. The East Subregion is led by at least one representative from each county, which makes up an informal executive committee that presides over Subregional meetings, coordinates outreach efforts, and represents the Subregion at CC meetings. Each county representative is responsible for disseminating information on upcoming grant rounds and other Subregional activities and for conducting regular outreach to all stakeholders across FAs for inclusion in the IRWMP process. Outreach mechanisms in this Subregion include County Watershed Forums that include members from various watershed groups, state and local agencies and private citizens. Additionally, water supply agencies coordinate fairly regularly with their customers and with each other on their common objectives, and with landowners for flood protection. 1.2.5.3 South Subregion The South Subregion consists of the portion of Santa Clara County that drains to the San Francisco Bay. This Subregion includes the City of San Jose, one of the three major metropolitan areas in the Bay Area Region, as well as 13 other cities and towns. Santa Clara County has the highest population of all the counties included in the Bay Area Region, with a high growth rate, and clusters of DACs in areas of high urban concentrations. SCVWD serves as the lead for the South Subregion. SCVWD conducts its own regular outreach to all stakeholders across FAs. Outreach mechanisms include IRWM-specific workshops to solicit input on projects and priorities, participation in the Countywide stormwater management program, joint planning efforts with water recyclers, ongoing collaboration with water retailers, Napa River Watershed 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-19 Governance extensive on-going newsletter outreach and coordination with cities on flood protection projects and environmental stewardship activities. SCVWD also has its own functional master plans and grant programs. For each, it provides outreach to the community and interested parties. 1.2.5.4 West Subregion The West Subregion consists of the County of San Francisco and the majority of San Mateo County. The City of San Francisco, which coincides with the County boundaries, is one of the three major metropolitan areas in the Bay Area Region. The two Counties in this Subregion have populations and growth rates in the mid-range, compared to other Counties within the Bay Area Region. Both San Francisco and the portion of San Mateo County within the Bay Area Region include clusters of DACs. 1.2.6 Other Stakeholders In addition to the LOMU signatories, many organizations and agencies with roles in water resources planning and/or management in the Bay Area previously participated in development of the FADs and/or the IRWMP. These entities included:  Environmental Water Caucus  Clean Water Action  The Bay Institute  Sierra Club  Environmental Justice Coalition for Water  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)  Napa County Resource Conservation District  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission  League of Women Voters  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SF RWQB) In addition, representatives of small areas within the San Francisco Bay Area that have been engaged in their own concurrent planning efforts also attend CC meetings for the Bay Area IRWMP. These include East Contra Costa County which is participating in the East Contra Costa IRWMP and Napa County, which is participating in the Westside Sacramento IRWMP. All members of the CC contribute to reaching decisions at CC meetings, serve on subcommittees, participate in Subregional activities, identify and evaluate projects for inclusion in the Plan and grant applications, assist in drafting documents, and participate in various meetings and workshops at the state level. Stakeholder activities and the CC’s role in coordinating with other stakeholders during the IRWMP development are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Involvement. These stakeholders include the following state and federal agencies:  SCC  DWR  State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)  SF RWQB  BCDC 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-20 Governance  SFEP (SFEP has an Implementation Committee that meets four times a year and which includes many listed regulatory and resource agencies. IRWMP updates are provided at these meetings.)  California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)  USACE  NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)  California Environmental Protection Agency (CALEPA)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)  California Department of Transportation (DOT) Additional discussion on coordination with state and federal agencies, and effective communication and coordination, both internal and external to the Bay Area Region, can be found in Chapter 15: Coordination. 1.2.7 Subcommittees Subcommittees are work groups established by the CC as needed in order to accomplish specific tasks on behalf of the CC and the Region. The subcommittees are used to frame the issues, develop options and make recommendations through a collaborative process, which are then forwarded to the full CC for discussion and resolution. The following subcommittees are active for the IRWMP: Plan Update Team (PUT). The PUT subcommittee includes various FA representatives and Subregion leads, and is a subset of the CC, committed to the day-to-day managing of the IRWMP update process. The PUT subcommittee currently serves as the primary “work group” for the IRWMP, addressing tasks as requested by the CC and bringing forward material for discussion and decision. CC Chair and Vice Chair participate as needed. Project Screening Committee (PSC). The PSC was established to facilitate the process of incorporating new project ideas and processing/updating existing projects, as well as making recommendations to the CC, for the IRWMP and future funding applications, such as the Round 2 IRWM Implementation Grant. The PSC works with Subregions to receive and organize project proposals, identify synergies and encourage collaboration, review projects and ensure that projects are in accordance with DWR IRWM Grant Program Guidelines and the parameters of specific funding opportunities. Website. The Website Subcommittee is tasked with ensuring that the website provides a reasonable communication and information tool, and is appropriately updated. Planning and Process. The Planning and Process subcommittee was established to analyze issues, perform specific work tasks as needed, and recommend potential actions to the CC. As noted above, these subcommittee work groups have been established by the CC as needed in order to accomplish specific tasks on behalf of the CC and the region. As such, they will remain active, become re-activated, or additional subcommittees will be established as needed during Plan implementation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-21 Governance 1.3 Procedures for IRWMP Development The following sections describe the IRWMP development process. 1.3.1 Public Outreach and Involvement Process A broad stakeholder outreach process is crucial to ensure that the IRWMP identifies local issues, reflects local needs, promotes the formation of partnerships, and encourages coordination with state and federal agencies. One of the benefits of a regional planning process is that it brings together a broad array of groups into a forum to discuss and better understand shared needs and opportunities. The IRWMP process invites active public participation of all interested stakeholders. The main forum for IRWM planning, discussion and decisions is the CC. Anyone who wants to participate in the monthly meetings can do so. Because the CC meetings encourage broad participation, non-voting attendees usually outnumber voting participants. These “non-voting” members include: (1) Chair and Vice Chair of the CC, (2) additional individuals representing agencies involved in one or more FAs, (3) staff of resources and regulatory agencies, (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations, and (5) individuals representing other interested organizations or simply themselves. Many of these stakeholders are listed in Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.6, above. Participants in the CC collaborate in a number of ways:  Subcommittees: Agencies, non-governmental organizations, regional planning organizations, and other stakeholders serve on subcommittees where policies and other recommendations are developed and forwarded to the full CC for consideration and discussion.  Functional Area group: This collaboration is particularly the case between two of the FAs – Flood Protection and Stormwater Management and Watershed Management and Habitat Protection and Restoration (here, for example, stakeholders with specific interests in environmental issues contribute significantly to the development of multi- purpose projects). The Water Supply and Water Quality and Wastewater and Recycled Water FAs also routinely collaborate.  Subregional activities: Participants work together at the local level to reach out to local organizations and encourage and enable their participation in the IRWMP process. They work with local communities to help identify and evaluate projects for inclusion in the Plan and for grant applications, may assist in drafting documents.  Representation at the state level: The CC is the venue where representatives of the Bay Area are selected to represent the region in various meetings and workshops at the state level. The public involvement process is built upon the success of the collaborative efforts within the region and with the surrounding IRWMP regions. Stakeholders were identified through their involvement or interest in water, environment, and similar projects in the past; interviews and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-22 Governance brainstorming sessions were used to identify potential stakeholders and their interests. These entities were contacted and invited to participate in the IRWMP and to identify other potentially interested groups. By this process, a varied and broad group was encouraged to become stakeholder participants, including entities that were not necessarily involved with any past efforts. Past and potential stakeholders were identified as environmental groups, conservancy groups, DACs, water suppliers, municipalities, sanitation districts, flood control districts, Native American tribes and their representatives, developers, landowners, adjacent IRWM areas, state agencies, elected representatives, and interested individuals. Methods used to do outreach include direct emails, mailings, face-to-face interaction, event participation, flyers, notices, surveys, notices in organization newsletters and presentations. Outreach also takes place at the local agency level during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other project approval processes. With the involvement of the stakeholders, facilitation of meetings to ensure inclusive processes, tracking of stakeholder comments, and efforts to incorporate those comments into the Plan document, the IRWMP has been able to consider and utilize a broad range of inputs and ideas. Every stakeholder was and continues to be able to add projects to the list of candidate projects for implementation of the IRWMP, projects that pertain to water resources management and contribute to the goals and objectives of the Plan. During the development of the IRWMP, outreach efforts included:  Conducting interviews with IRWMP participants — public agencies and NGOs — to document their experiences in developing the 2006 Plan, expectations and desires with regards to project outreach, including obtaining their recommendations on the best methods for communicating with their constituencies to ensure awareness and involvement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-23 Governance  Updating the website (http://www.bairwmp.org/) to provide information to the IRWMP participants, as well as a broader public audience. The website provides access to documents, project forms, IRWMP chapters, and documents for review, and notices about opportunities to review them.  Stakeholder workshops and meetings were conducted at key milestones during the IRWMP development to ensure an inclusive and transparent planning process, promote open communication between participating entities and other stakeholders, identify stakeholder interests and concerns, and incorporate stakeholder comments into the IRWMP.  Stakeholder workshop notices were distributed via email using the IRWMP database consisting of approximately 2,000 contacts.  Notices were also posted on the IRWMP website and distributed to local newspapers in advance of the scheduled meeting time.  Meetings were held in different parts of the San Francisco Bay Area to encourage participation throughout the Region. Specific outreach activities since Plan completion in 2006:  Updated website to allow for easier maintenance, document sharing, access to and submittal of forms and review process.  Listserv email access to allow public to sign up for update emails.  Continued monthly CC meetings, open to all interested parties.  Created Subregional planning level to facilitate better access for smaller or local organizations.  Created BAFPAA.  Created subcommittee for Planning and Process to accomplish specific tasks on behalf of the CC, including writing the RAP document, and proposing a process for inclusion of future projects.  Created the PSC.  Created the PUT for purposes of managing the IRWMP update process. Stakeholder Workshop 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-24 Governance  Created the Website Subcommittee for purposes of managing updates to the IRWMP website.  Created BAWN.  DAC and tribal outreach associated with the DAC Involvement Program. 1.3.2 Decision-Making Process The CC is a consensus-based organization that strives to get the consent, not necessarily the total agreement, of the members for direction and decisions and attempts to resolve conflicts before proceeding. The CC’s decision-making process typically follows these steps: ● Frames the issue. ● Develops facts and options. Usually the CC delegates research and development tasks to a working subcommittee with broad representation. ● Develops criteria to evaluate options consistent with IRWMP goals and objectives. This role is usually delegated to the same working subcommittee with broad representation. ● Presents the subcommittee analysis and evaluation for consideration by the CC. ● For major issues, seeks additional input from regional FA groups that also provide broad geographic representation. ● Delegates next steps back to the subcommittee. ● Finalizes decisions, work efforts, or direction. The CC operates through consensus-based decision making and has succeeded in reaching consensus on all decisions during the past. If an issue needing a firm decision cannot be resolved via consensus, the Chair or Vice Chair of the CC shall call for a vote (See Appendix A-2: Voting Principles2). 1.3.3 Document Review Process The document review process was designed to promote efficiency and maximize stakeholder and public involvement. Reviews are performed and drafts are released as they are developed. Drafts remain on the website and are available for public review for the duration of the IRWMP update process. The process, which applies to all chapters, is as follows: DRAFT #1: Review to identify major issues and errors. 2 The Voting Principles were drafted in 2009 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-25 Governance Reviewers: PUT, CC chair, CC vice-chair, FA reps and Subregion leads.  Consultant team updates 2006 IRWMP materials with RAP and other new information.  Documents are made available to the reviewers.  Review occurs through process of simultaneous collaboration.  Consultant goes through final document from reviewers, creates list of conflict areas to be resolved, tracks substantive changes or comments to reflect origin and works with PUT to determine how to incorporate comments.  If a significant rewrite is required, the PUT will review the document again before it goes to the next stage of review.  Reviewers provide recommendations for additional reviewers with particular interests in the draft that are not on the targeted reviewers list.  Consultant incorporates comments into Draft #2. DRAFT #2: Targeted Review to solicit comments from select agency and organization staff on adequacy of the draft. Reviewers: Draft #1 Reviewers, agency and stakeholder representatives who have been identified to review IRWMP materials, key people in FAs, Subregions and other stakeholder groups who want to review the draft and recommended reviewers from Draft #1 review process.  Document is sent to Targeted Reviewers.  Reviewers provide comments.  Consultant processes all comments. ■ Consultant team compiles consensus comments and incorporates into Draft #3. ■ Consultant team consolidates substantive comments, tracks substantive changes or comments to reflect origin and creates a list of any conflict areas to be resolved.  PUT+ provides resolution of conflict areas as direction for inclusion in Draft #3 DRAFT #3: Public Review. Reviewers: All interested parties, organizations and individuals.  Document, in PDF, will be available for download through the website and at physical locations. The draft will be available until such time as all sections are compiled into draft IRWMP document.  Reviewers will provide comments via form or letter. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-26 Governance  Consultant processes all comments. ■ Consultant team compiles consensus comments and incorporates into Final ■ Consultant team consolidates substantive comments, tracks substantive changes or comments to reflect origin and creates a list of any conflict areas to be resolved.  PUT+ provides resolution of conflict areas, with support from Consultant team, as direction for inclusion in the Final document. Throughout the review process, notifications of opportunity to review the documents along with instructions on comment submissions were disseminated via website notice, email to the listserv and via media release. 1.4 Balanced Access and Opportunities CC meeting participants include a broad and balanced representation of community sectors and environmental and water resources interests. In addition to representatives from water supply, recycled water and wastewater agencies, flood control and stormwater-related agencies, and watershed and habitat protection organizations, participants in CC meetings include staff from regional planning agencies such as SFEP, regulatory agencies such as DWR, and representatives from NGOs such as the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). Participation in the IRWMP process is inclusive. There are no requirements for participation in the CC and monthly meetings are open to all stakeholders and members of the public. Meeting notices are posted on the IRWMP website prior to each meeting, as are agenda materials, monthly CC meeting notes and associated announcements. Agenda packages are also sent via e-mail to the CC IRWMP email notification list, which is open and inclusive. Individuals may subscribe to receive emails notifying them of postings to the website via the website (http://www.bairwmp.org/). 1.4.1 Effective Communication with Stakeholders and the Public The IRWMP update process utilizes regularly agendized meetings of public agencies and NGOs in the Bay Area Region’s four Subregions, as well as its monthly, public CC meetings, as well as updates to its website, to inform the public about IRWMP efforts and the opportunity to affect the content of the document as well as identify potential projects for funding. The website allows for members of the public to track upcoming and recent meetings, review draft chapters and provide comment, sign up for email updates, contact the administrator, find a contact list of CC representatives, and submit project ideas and/or proposals via the secure web portal. Regular email updates on upcoming and recent CC meetings are sent to all subscribers of the IRWMP listserv. The website also serves as a key vehicle for communication among the CC. Meeting agenda and information is posted on the website at least one week in advance of the CC meetings. Meeting notes are generated from each monthly CC meeting to record comments, decisions, agreements and action items. Draft and Final CC meeting minutes are distributed to attendees and are published on the Plan website. In addition, each Subregion has a page on the BAIRWMP website to post presentations, meeting agendas, minutes, and local contacts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-27 Governance The “listserv” function allows members of the public and other stakeholders to sign up for email updates regarding IRWMP activities. In addition direct emails, the stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts will include mailings, face-to-face interaction, event participation, classroom instruction, flyers, notices, surveys, and presentations to communicate with the public and stakeholders. Members of the public may also contact their local CC representative through the email contact information listed in the website for questions regarding regional water management efforts or IRWM planning and implementation in the Bay Area Region. The public has access to the IRWMP process through several avenues including:  http://www.bairwmp.org  Monthly CC meetings  Subregional meetings  Press releases regarding IRWMP updates  Agendized meetings of various associations and coalitions throughout the Bay Area, including: a. ABAG b. BAWN c. BAFPAA IRWMP Website, Contact Page 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-28 Governance d. BACWA e. BAWAC f. BASMAA g. BAWSCA For members of the public who may not have web access, local outreach is conducted by each Subregion through local water resources management agencies and other local organizations who can reach customers and constituents. This ensures that smaller stakeholder groups and the public at-large have an opportunity to learn about the IRWM process close to home and in a forum designed to initiate new participants in the IRWMP process. This Subregional outreach includes efforts to bring local NGOs, municipalities, and any other member of the public. The outreach efforts were conducted prior to project list updates to allow time for the identification and integration of new and existing projects on the Subregional level. All projects identified on the Subregional level were screened for potential integration and regionalization. Subregional meetings began as early as 2010 to alert the public about the IRWMP update process, the project list, and future grant opportunities for project implementation. 1.4.2 Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities and Native American Tribes Outreach to these specifically identified stakeholders is addressed in Section1.2.2 and Chapter 14.6 & 4.7. 1.4.3 Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Efforts and State and Federal Agencies The Bay Area Region is adjacent to five planning regions that are currently in the process of developing or updating IRWMPs (See Chapter 2, Figure 2-23). These consist of North Coast, Westside Sacramento, East Contra Costa County, Pajaro River Watershed and Santa Cruz County. During the RAP the Bay Area Region CC directly contacted and coordinated efforts with water supply, wastewater, flood protection, watershed, and habitat restoration agencies in adjacent and overlapping IRWM regions. After initial contact and as appropriate, adjacent regions were given the opportunity to consider partnering and integrating with the Bay Area Region. For more information on the region description and neighboring IRWM efforts, see Chapter 2. The collective efforts of these interconnected IRWMPs will not only benefit their respective regions, but each other and the watersheds of northern California as a whole. The efforts are coordinated in the following ways:  Attending CC meetings  Inclusion of interested parties in listserv for email updates  Information available on the IRWMP website  Items on participating agency agendas  Updates to interested organizations and agencies 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-29 Governance The Region also participates in the statewide "Roundtable of Regions" that shares information and often meets with DWR to give a more generalized and broad-based view of IRWM-related issues. 1.5 Collaboration Process Used to Establish Plan Objectives Development of objectives for the IRWMP was an iterative and consensus-based process. Led by the PUT, the process also included review by the FAs and the CC. Stakeholder outreach and involvement, discussed in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Involvement was critical to this process. Proposed goals, objectives and suggested measures for the IRWMP were discussed at the first Workshop where stakeholders were given opportunity to provide input. At the workshop, the PUT members described the development process for the goals and objectives, and provided a list of deleted objectives, as well as opportunity for stakeholders to submit comments. Based on discussion at the workshop and stakeholder input, the PUT refined and finalized the list of goals and objectives, which were approved by the CC This open and transparent decision-making process was important to ensure that all perspectives within the Region were considered in the IRWMP. Additionally, many of the local planning documents that serve as the basis for this IRWMP involved extensive stakeholder involvement as well. Figure 1-3 shows the steps in the goals and objectives development process. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-30 Governance Figure 1-3: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures 1.6 Long-term implementation of the Plan Participants are planning to adopt the IRWMP by the end of 2019. Following adoption, the Plan will be implemented through execution of projects by their respective project proponents. Progress toward attaining the regional goals and objectives will be reviewed periodically and additional work will be completed on the IRWMP as needed through an adaptive management framework. The IRWMP governance structure supports IRWMP implementation into the future. The CC, as the institutional structure for overseeing IRWMP development, will continue to be responsible for the IRWM planning and Plan management. The CC will continue to meet on a regular, as needed, basis to:  Review the IRWMP with DWR to ensure DWR standards are met  Receive updates on regional efforts relevant to IRWMP implementation 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-31 Governance  Oversee the evaluation and prioritization of projects for future grant rounds  Communicate on behalf of the CC to others including DWR, other IRWM Regions, DACs and tribes, other water resource management programs of interest (e.g., US EPA and other federal and state programs). The CC will also oversee Website Development and Data Management. The website (bayareairwmp.org) will continue to be used to support the IRWMP in a variety of ways including making the Plan, CC meeting materials, project descriptions and progress reports for projects funded via Prop 1 IRWM grants accessible to the public as well as a library of Bay Area Climate Change and other resources. Additionally, web tools, such as collaborative mapping, information collection tools and more, may be developed for collaboration and project development. In addition to the CC, the subcommittees will meet as needed. For more information on Plan implementation, monitoring and adaptive management, see Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring. 1.7 Interim and Formal Changes to the Plan and Plan Updates The planning horizon of this IRWMP will be 20 years from initial adoption. Formal re- assessment which will require readoption of the Plan will occur every five years within that 20-year timeframe, provided IRWM planning funds are available, unless one of the following events triggers an assessment prior to the scheduled five -year interval:  Significant change in conditions as defined by the CC with input from the Stakeholders  Achievement of an objective which necessitates setting a revised or replacement regional objective  The need, as determined by the CC with Stakeholder input, to set new regional objectives  Availability of new information, which may be particularly relevant with respect to the Climate Change Chapter. Since its development, interim updates have occurred. For example, the 2006 Plan was updated to include additional projects for funding. The added projects were placed in Appendices, approved by consensus after project proponents filled out the template and some presented their projects in more detail at the CC meeting. Additionally, the Chair/Vice Chair Roles, Subregions, and Voting Principles were all developed between the 2006 the 2013 Plans and approved at the CC. The 2019 Plan Update is in response to the 2016 IRWM guidelines. The update also includes more substantive information on Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal communities through the Proposition 1 Disadvantaged and Tribal Communities Involvement Program.Addressing interim changes will continue through the term of the Plan by the CC, subject to available resources. Further details on IRWMP implementation, including long-term implementation and adaptive management, are found in Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 1-32 Governance 1.8 Plan Adoption Upon the completion of the IRWMP, the CC will publish a notice of intention to adopt the Plan in accordance with §6066 of the Government Code and shall adopt the Plan in a public meeting of the CC. The governing bodies of each agency that is part of the CC will formally adopt the IRWMP. Additionally, each project proponent named in an IRWM Grant application will also adopt the IRWMP. For purposes of Plan adoption, the CC consists of the Chair, Vice Chair, and FA representatives (formal members). The formal members of the CC, along with all project proponents included in grant funding agreements and applications, will bring the IRWMP and future IRWMP updates to their governing bodies for adoption. Currently, the following agencies and organizations have formal members in the CC:  ABAG – Most members are local agencies  BACWA – Local agency  CCC FC&WCD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  CCWD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  EBMUD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  MMWD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  NBWA – Most members are local agencies  SFEP – Includes local agencies, some with statutory authority of water supply or water management  SFPUC – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  SCVWD – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  Sonoma CWA – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management  SCC – State agency with statutory authority over water management  Zone 7 – Local agency with statutory authority over water supply or water management All the agencies listed above have signed the LOMU. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxiii San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table of Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... xxxv List of Figures........................................................................................................................ xxxv Chapter 2: San Francisco Bay Area Region Description ............................ 2-1 2.1 Bay Area Region Description ............................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Region Boundaries ................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Region Watersheds ................................................................ 2-4 2.1.3 Region Service Agencies ....................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.1 Water Agencies .................................................... 2-6 2.1.3.2 Wastewater Agencies ........................................... 2-7 2.1.3.3 Flood Protection Agencies .................................... 2-9 2.1.3.4 Land Use Agencies .............................................. 2-9 2.1.4 Importance of the Bay Area Region and IRWM Planning ....... 2-9 2.2 Region Characteristics .................................................................... 2-12 2.2.1 Climate ................................................................................. 2-12 2.2.2 Geography and Topography................................................. 2-13 2.2.3 Flood Plains and Flood Zones .............................................. 2-14 2.2.4 Geologic Setting ................................................................... 2-17 2.2.5 Hydrology and Geomorphology ............................................ 2-17 2.2.6 Groundwater Basin Boundaries ............................................ 2-21 2.2.7 Biodiversity and Protected Lands ......................................... 2-23 2.2.8 Biologic and Aquatic Resources ........................................... 2-23 2.2.9 Land Use .............................................................................. 2-33 2.2.10 Social and Cultural Makeup.................................................. 2-38 2.2.11 Economic Conditions and Trends ......................................... 2-40 2.2.12 Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities ..... 2-41 2.2.13 Native American Tribal Communities ................................... 2-46 2.3 Overview of Bay Area Region Water Supplies ................................ 2-46 2.3.1 Imported Water Supplies ...................................................... 2-47 2.3.1.1 Mokelumne River Watershed ............................. 2-47 2.3.1.2 Tuolumne River Watershed ................................ 2-47 2.3.1.3 State Water Project ............................................ 2-48 2.3.1.4 Federal Water Projects ....................................... 2-48 2.3.1.5 Russian River Watershed ................................... 2-49 2.3.2 Local Water Supplies ........................................................... 2-49 2.3.3 Other Water Supplies ........................................................... 2-49 2.3.3.1 Recycled Water .................................................. 2-49 2.3.3.2 Desalinated Water .............................................. 2-52 2.3.3.3 Water Transfers and Interties ............................. 2-53 2.3.3.4 Groundwater Banking ......................................... 2-53 2.3.4 Water Supply Reliability ....................................................... 2-53 2.4 Water Demand and Conservation ................................................... 2-53 2.4.1 ACWD .................................................................................. 2-55 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxiv San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.4.2 BAWSCA ............................................................................. 2-55 2.4.3 CCWD .................................................................................. 2-56 2.4.4 EBMUD ................................................................................ 2-56 2.4.5 MMWD ................................................................................. 2-57 2.4.6 City of Napa ......................................................................... 2-57 2.4.7 SFPUC ................................................................................. 2-58 2.4.8 SCVWD................................................................................ 2-59 2.4.9 Solano CWA ........................................................................ 2-59 2.4.10 Sonoma CWA ...................................................................... 2-60 2.4.11 Zone 7 .................................................................................. 2-60 2.5 Water Quality .................................................................................. 2-61 2.5.1 General Bay Area Region Water Quality Issues ................... 2-61 2.5.2 Specific Source Water Quality Issues ................................... 2-63 2.5.2.1 Surface Water Quality ........................................ 2-63 2.5.2.2 Groundwater Quality .......................................... 2-64 2.5.2.3 Recycled Water Quality ...................................... 2-64 2.5.2.4 Desalinated Water Quality .................................. 2-65 2.5.3 Water Quality Regulations .................................................... 2-65 2.5.3.1 TMDLs ............................................................... 2-65 2.5.3.2 Salt and Nutrient Management ........................... 2-67 2.5.3.3 Drinking Water ................................................... 2-68 The Technical Programs Branch consists of the Quality Assurance Section, the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program Section, and the Technical Operations Section. ............................................ 2-68 2.5.3.4 Recycled Water .................................................. 2-68 2.6 Major Water Related Infrastructure ................................................. 2-69 2.6.1 Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................ 2-69 2.6.2 Major Wastewater Infrastructure .......................................... 2-72 2.6.3 Flood Protection Infrastructure ............................................. 2-72 2.6.4 Infrastructure Reliability ........................................................ 2-73 2.7 Regional Issues, Needs and Challenges ......................................... 2-75 2.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Challenges ..................................... 2-75 2.7.2 Flood Protection Challenges ................................................ 2-76 2.7.2.1 Floodplain Management ..................................... 2-76 2.7.2.2 Stream Ownership and Maintenance.................. 2-77 2.7.3 Financial and Funding Challenges ....................................... 2-77 2.7.4 Environmental and Watershed Challenges ........................... 2-77 2.7.5 Dependence on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ............ 2-78 2.7.5.1 Reducing Dependence on the Delta ................... 2-78 2.7.6 Interagency Coordination Challenges ................................... 2-78 2.7.7 Challenges to Expanding Recycled Water Use .................... 2-79 2.7.8 Climate Change ................................................................... 2-79 2.8 Relationship to Other Regional Water Management Efforts ............ 2-79 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxv San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.9 References ...................................................................................... 2-82 List of Tables Table 2-1: Threatened and Endangered Species in the Bay-Delta ....................................... 2-25 Table 2-2: Bay Area Critical Coastal Areas .......................................................................... 2-26 Table 2-3: Bay Area Marine Protected Areas ....................................................................... 2-33 Table 2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution ................................................... 2-34 Table 2-5: Demographic Characteristics for the San Francisco Bay Area ............................. 2-38 Table 2-6: Current and Projected Age Distribution for the San Francisco Bay Area.............. 2-39 Table 2-7: Current and Projected Employment Characteristics for the Bay Area .................. 2-40 Table 2-8: Definition of Disadvantaged Communities by Income Factor(a) ............................ 2-42 Table 2-9: Bay Area Recycled Water Programs ................................................................... 2-51 Table 2-10: Summary of Bay Area Region Water Supply and Demand ................................ 2-55 Table 2-11: ACWD Water Supply and Demand .................................................................... 2-55 Table 2-12: BAWSCA Water Supply and Demand ............................................................... 2-56 Table 2-13: CCWD Water Supply and Demand .................................................................... 2-56 Table 2-14: EBMUD Water Supply and Demand .................................................................. 2-57 Table 2-15: MMWD Water Supply and Demand ................................................................... 2-57 Table 2-16: City of Napa Water Supply and Demand ........................................................... 2-58 Table 2-17: SFPUC Water Supply and Demand – Retail and Wholesale Water System ...... 2-58 Table 2-18: SCVWD Water Supply and Demand ................................................................. 2-59 Table 2-19: Solano CWA Water Supply and Demand(a) ........................................................ 2-60 Table 2-20: Sonoma CWA Water Supply and Demand ........................................................ 2-60 Table 2-21: Zone 7 Water Supply and Demand .................................................................... 2-60 Table 2-22: Water Quality Constituent Concentrations for Major Bay Area Supplies(a) ......... 2-63 Table 2-23: TMDL Projects – Completed and in Development ............................................. 2-67 14 List of Figures Figure 2-1: RWQCB Region 2 Boundary and Bay Area Region Counties ............................... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Major Cities of the Bay Area Region ..................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3: Watersheds of the Bay Area Region .................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4: Major Water Agencies of the Bay Area Region..................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-5: Major Flood District Boundaries in the Bay Area Region .................................... 2-11 Figure 2-6: Bay Area Region Topography ............................................................................ 2-15 Figure 2-7: 100 and 500-year Flood Zones .......................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-8: Bay Area Region Vegetation Land Cover ........................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-9: Significant Bay Area Region Groundwater Basins .............................................. 2-22 Figure 2-10: Critical Coastal Areas in the Bay Area .............................................................. 2-32 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan xxxvi San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-11: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution ................................................ 2-34 Figure 2-12: Bay Area Region Land Use Patterns ................................................................ 2-37 Figure 2-13: Population Growth in Bay Area Counties .......................................................... 2-39 Figure 2-14: Job Growth in Bay Area Counties ..................................................................... 2-41 Figure 2-15: Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................................ 2-43 Figure 2-16: Concentration of Minority Populations .............................................................. 2-44 Figure 2-17: Environmental Justice Communities and Infrastructure .................................... 2-45 Figure 2-18: Bay Area Water Use by Supply Source ............................................................ 2-47 Figure 2-19: Historical Population and Water Use in the Bay Area ....................................... 2-54 Figure 2-20: Major Water Infrastructure Serving the Bay Area Region ................................. 2-71 Figure 2-21: Major Bay Area Region Wastewater Facilities .................................................. 2-74 Figure 2-22: Surrounding IRWM Regions ............................................................................. 2-81 15 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-1 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Chapter 2: San Francisco Bay Area Region Description This chapter describes the physical, environmental and hydrologic features of San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Region (Bay Area Region or Region), it’s social and demographic characteristics and provides an overview of the Region’s water system. 2.1 Bay Area Region Description The Bay Area Region was approved as an Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) region by DWR in 2009 through the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) to maximize opportunities to integrate local water management activities and promote partnerships and multi-objective projects that benefit local communities and the natural environment. 2.1.1 Region Boundaries While the overall contributing watershed of the San Francisco Bay (Bay) extends far into the interior of California, the Bay Area Region boundary corresponds to the Bay watershed as defined by the SF Regional Water Quality Control Board (SF RWQCB), Region 2. The watershed functions as the sole drainage outlet for waters of the Central Valley, conveying the flows of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers that enter the Bay system through the Delta at the eastern end of Suisun Bay (Figure 2-1). Coastal regions that drain to the Pacific Ocean range from Marin County’s Stempel Creek in the north to San Mateo County’s Pescadero- Butano Creek Watershed in the south. The Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta is excluded from the Bay Area Region; it is managed by other IRWM regions and independent multi‐purpose programs. The Bay Area Region’s relationship to the Delta is further discussed in Section 2.1.4. The Bay Area Region includes all or portions of the nine counties which surround San Francisco Bay (known as the Bay Area), including Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Marin, Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties. Many counties are divided between the Bay Area Region and other IRWM regions to better coincide with natural watershed boundaries. The East Contra Costa County IRWM region is the only neighboring IRWM planning region that overlaps with the Bay Area Region boundaries. It is also the only area within the Bay Area Region where the organizational and physical infrastructure boundaries are not consistent with the state‐defined hydrologic basin boundaries, as discussed further in Section 2.8. The Region includes three major metropolitan cities—San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland— and a total of approximately 100 smaller cities and towns (Figure 2-2). Rainbow in Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-2 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-1: RWQCB Region 2 Boundary and Bay Area Region Counties 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-3 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-2: Major Cities of the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-4 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.1.2 Region Watersheds The San Francisco Bay Area is a complex network of watersheds, marshes, rivers, creeks, reservoirs, and bays predominantly draining into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. The largest bodies of water in the Bay Area Region are the San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay. The San Francisco Bay is one of the largest bays in the world. Many inlets on the edges of the three major bays are designated as bays in their own right, such as Richardson Bay, San Rafael Bay, Grizzly Bay, and San Leandro Bay. Nearby bays along the Pacific Coast include Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, Drakes Bay, Bolinas Bay, and Half Moon Bay. The largest rivers are the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers which drain into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and thence to Suisun Bay. Other major rivers of the North Bay are the Napa River, the Petaluma River, the Gualala River, and the Russian River; the former two drain into San Pablo Bay, the latter two into the Pacific Ocean. The Bay Area has a broad network of streams, creeks, and arroyos. Due to low rainfall in the summer months (May–October), many Bay Area creeks are intermittent, flowing above ground only during part of the year. Resulting from this extensive network of waterways, the Bay Area Region covers numerous watersheds ranging in size from a few square miles to several hundred square miles. Figure 2-3 depicts the principal watersheds in the Bay Area Region based on the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) standardized hydrologic unit system. This system delineates watersheds based on surface hydrologic features and generally single outlet drainage points. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-5 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-3: Watersheds of the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-6 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.1.3 Region Service Agencies The Bay Area Region includes all, or part of the service areas of all water agencies, flood protection agencies, and wastewater agencies in the Bay Area. These agencies conduct the full range of water resources management activities, including supplying water, protecting and enhancing water quality, flood protection, and environmental stewardship. They work together through regional associations such as Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC), Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), Bay Area Flood Protection Agency Association (BAFPAA), Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). In addition, they work in partnership with watershed groups, state agencies and federal agencies, such as the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA), SF RWQCB, San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP), State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), Tomales Bay Watershed Council, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2.1.3.1 Water Agencies The following water agencies serve the majority of the water demands in the Bay Area Region:  Alameda County Water District (ACWD)  Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency3 (BAWSCA)  Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)  East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)  Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD)  City of Napa  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)  Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)  Solano County Water Agency (Solano CWA)  Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma CW)  Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) The service area boundaries of these agencies are illustrated in Figure 2-4. Several of these agencies have service area boundaries that extend outside the Bay Area Region but only the service area within the Region is included. The portions of the service areas outside the Bay Area Region boundary are included in other IRWM regions and/or water management efforts (described in Section 2.8). The San Francisco Bay Area water supply agencies have a history of working together on water resource management issues through BAWAC. Regional efforts enable Bay Area water agencies to capitalize on collective resources, expertise, and knowledge in order to achieve 3 BAWSCA member agencies include the SFPUC regional system customers and are served wholly or in part by the SFPUC regional system. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-7 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description water quality and supply reliability goals. Additional information on these agencies is included in Chapter 1. 2.1.3.2 Wastewater Agencies There are numerous wastewater management agencies in the Bay Area Region, including cities, sanitation districts, community services districts, water agencies, counties, and other local agencies. Like water supply agencies, wastewater agencies have recognized the value in regional cooperation and collaboration as means of advancing shared interests and resolving common issues. While not every wastewater management agency actively participates in the IRWM effort, their service areas are included within the Region. Many wastewater agencies are represented by BACWA, which has a long history of providing a forum for coordination on region‐wide wastewater management issues. Wastewater agencies represented in this effort through participation in BACWA are listed in Chapter 1. Sonoma Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant, Clarifier 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-8 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-4: Major Water Agencies of the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-9 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.1.3.3 Flood Protection Agencies In California, flood protection is provided by various government entities, including USACE, DWR, the State Reclamation Board, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), counties, cities, special districts (such as flood control and water districts), and local Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs). In the Bay Area Region, flood protection primarily is provided by countywide flood control districts. These agencies create standards, rules, ideas, and concepts that are developed into comprehensive countywide flood control plans and design and construct projects to improve flood protection. The Bay Area flood protection agencies have a history of working together on water resource management issues, largely through BAFPAA, which promotes the sharing of ideas, technologies, experiences, legislative approaches and funding strategies. BAFPAA also provides a forum for regional coordination and collaboration with state and federal regulatory and resource agencies. The ten Bay Area agencies that are signatories to BAFPAA include the Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa and San Mateo Counties Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts (FCWCD), the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Works, SCVWD, Solano CWA, Sonoma CWA, and Zone 7. As shown in Figure 2-5, most of the flood district boundaries coincide with County boundaries and extend outside the Bay Area Region. 2.1.3.4 Land Use Agencies Land use planning in the Bay Area Region typically takes place through local city and county governments, as well as the following regional planning organizations: • Association of Bay Area Governments: ABAG is the primary regional land use planning agency for the Bay Area representing nearly all of the region’s population. ABAG strives to enhance cooperation and coordination between local governments to reach regional planning goals. • Metropolitan Transportation Commission: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and other major Bay Area transit systems (MTC, 2012). • Joint Policy Committee: The Joint Policy Committee (JPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and MTC, and pursues implementation of the Bay Area's Smart Growth Vision as expressed in the Smart Growth Preamble and Policies and the Smart Growth Strategy / Regional Livability Footprint Project. Chapter 13 provides detail on the relationship between land use planning and IRWM planning. 2.1.4 Importance of the Bay Area Region and IRWM Planning The Bay Area Region is an appropriate area for IRWM planning for many reasons. The Region boundary is consistent with the RWQCB Region 2 boundary and water resource management agencies within the Region have longstanding relationships and have historically coordinated 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-10 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description planning efforts to varying degrees. Establishing the Bay Area IRWM Region builds upon these existing historical efforts and provides context for increased integration and coordination. The San Francisco Bay is an important ecological, recreational, and commercial resource. The San Francisco Bay is located at the downstream end of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which is the largest estuary on the west coast (and second in the nation), conveying nearly 40 percent of the state’s surface water from the Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley to the Pacific Ocean. The Delta is both a rich and diverse ecological habitat and a major water supply source for the entire state. Precipitation falling in the Sierra Nevada flows downriver to the Delta where it is pumped into the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) to supply 25 million Californians with drinking water and irrigate 750,000 acres of farmland. Two-thirds of the state’s salmon pass through the Bay and Delta each year, as do an estimated half of the waterfowl and shorebirds migrating along the Pacific Flyway (SFRWQCB, 2004). This extensive watershed (60,000 sq. miles) drains nearly half the area of inland California to the Bay, which also is the receiving water for the many local drainage basins of the Bay Area Region. In addition to its ecological importance, the San Francisco Bay is an important recreational and commercial resource. Sailing and other boating, windsurfing and kite surfing, kayaking, and fishing are popular sporting activities in the bay. The San Francisco Bay serves as a major international shipping port, with major facilities including the Ports of Oakland and Richmond, as well as smaller facilities that include the Ports of San Francisco and Redwood City. Salt is harvested in evaporation ponds and commercially sold to food companies and other industries. Photo Credit: Jitze Couperus The San Francisco Bay and Golden Gate Bridge 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-11 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-5: Major Flood District Boundaries in the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-12 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In addition to the hydrologic connection of the Bay Area Region, several other features help to create a unique regional connection: Distinctive Identity. The Bay Area has a strong regional identity, tied together by connections to the Bay, interdependent economies, shared natural resources, and common cultural experiences. Ecologic Connection. The Bay estuary and its supporting local watersheds host a distinct natural environment and ecology that includes many important habitats for significant species. Nationally and Internationally Renowned. The Bay Area is a nationally and internationally recognized region. It is a global center for innovation and technology, home to more Fortune 500 companies than almost any other region in the United States, and is the fifth largest metropolitan region in the United States. The San Francisco Bay itself is a famous water body. History of Regional Planning. Water management agencies throughout the Bay Area have a long history of regional cooperation and planning through groups such as BAWAC, BACWA and Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). The ABAG, MTC, and BART also have regional planning programs in the Bay Area. The SF RWQCB and San Francisco Bay Conservation and BCDC have regulatory purview over most of the Bay Area Region. Through these programs and others, Bay Area Region water resources management agencies have been collaborating for years to develop regional solutions to water resources issues throughout the region. The Bay Area Region IRWM planning efforts are crucial to preserving the unique characteristics of the Bay Area. The following sections provide a more detailed description of Bay Area Region’s characteristics and water supply. 2.2 Region Characteristics 2.2.1 Climate Climate is the basic driver of stream flow and other hydrologic factors, and determines the ecology of the Bay Area Region. Climatic conditions are generally characterized as Mediterranean with moist, mild winters and hot, dry summers. The Region’s varied topography creates numerous microclimates dependent upon elevation, proximity to the Bay or coast, orientation with respect to the ocean, and wind patterns. The microclimates of the Bay Area Region also cause differences in rainfall amounts and evapotranspiration rates across the region and contribute to varied vegetation and habitats. Like most of Northern California, the Bay Area Region is largely governed by weather patterns originating in the Pacific Ocean. In the winter, the southern descent of the Polar Jet Stream brings mid-latitude cyclonic storms. Over 90 percent of the Bay Area Region’s precipitation falls between November and April, delivering an annual rainfall of between 15 and 20 inches in the South Bay and between 20 and 25 inches in the North Bay. Higher elevations in the Region, particularly along the north or west facing slopes of the North Bay, may receive over 40 inches of rain per year. In the summer, the Hawaiian High Pressure cell over the northern Pacific creates mild and dry weather for inland areas of the region. Conversely, coastal and bay areas 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-13 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description often are covered by a thick marine fog layer, which forms off the coast and moves eastward through gaps and passes into the bay. Watersheds in the northern part of the Bay Area Region receive the highest amount of precipitation, primarily due to topographic effects of Mt. Tamalpais and proximity of the marine layer. The Suisun Bay area watersheds are influenced by pressure systems in the Central Valley and the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta) system; high winds develop in the summer as warm low pressure systems in the Central Valley draw cooler marine air from the Bay eastward through the Carquinez Straits. Areas east of the East Bay Hills receive less precipitation and have higher temperatures than areas west of the hills. Similarly, southern Alameda County and the Santa Clara Valley experience drier and warmer climatic conditions since they are further removed from marine influences than the North Bay. The Santa Cruz Mountains create a rain shadow effect over the South Bay, resulting in the lowest annual precipitation rates in the Bay Area Region. Temperature and precipitation on the Peninsula are influenced by wind patterns associated with the east and west sides of the Coast Ranges and Santa Cruz Mountains. Gaps in the mountains allow marine air and fog to cool temperatures in some locations, particularly in San Bruno and Redwood City. Evapotranspiration rates in the Bay Area Region are influenced by the distribution, type, and percent cover of vegetation, as well as factors such as temperature and humidity. Evapotranspiration rates in the South Bay, for example, are higher than in the North Bay due to lower precipitation, less vegetative cover, and higher temperatures. 2.2.2 Geography and Topography The Bay Area Region is located in the central Coast Range mountains and is distinct in California as the only location where streams interior to the Coast Range drain directly to the coast. The Bay is the tidal estuary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system. Figure 2-6 illustrates the topographic variation within the region. Fog in Napa County 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-14 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.3 Flood Plains and Flood Zones Bay Area Region watersheds typically are characterized by urbanized valleys and bayside alluvial plains that are surrounded by steep, less developed uplands. Valley flooding tends to occur when large, widespread storms follow several days of rainfall. The most widespread flood damages occur in urbanized, low-gradient, low elevation areas when the capacity of natural or engineered channels is exceeded and floodwaters spread through urban neighborhoods. In low- lying areas near the Bay, flooding may be exacerbated by high tides and storm surges that back up riverine flows. Figure 2-7 illustrates the 100-year and 500-year flood zones mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program. The 100-year flood zone represents the area with at least 1 percent chance of flooding in any year. The 500-year flood zone illustrates urbanized valleys and Bay plains with the potential for shallow, overland flooding of less than 1 foot, or that are protected from the 100-year flood zone by levees. Local flooding may occur following intense, short-duration storm bursts that can cause storm drain surcharges. Because of the topography of alluvial plains, floodwaters escaping some stream channels may flow away from the flooding stream, crossing open areas or flowing through city streets until reaching an adjacent watercourse. This type of flooding compounds and exacerbates local flooding that occurs when storm drains and small channels become blocked or surcharged during storms. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-15 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-6: Bay Area Region Topography 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-16 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-7: 100 and 500-year Flood Zones 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-17 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.4 Geologic Setting Identifying a watershed’s general location and placement within the overall Bay Area Region in relation to basic structural features is important to understanding watershed function, sediment delivery, watershed hydrology, water quality, and resulting habitat opportunities. The San Francisco Bay lies in a basin that extends from the Santa Clara Valley in the south to the Napa, Sonoma, and Petaluma valleys in the north. The Bay is generally oriented northwest/southeast between the San Andreas Fault zone to the west and the Hayward and Calaveras Fault zones to the east. The Bay is a relatively recent feature (estimated to be approximately 10,000 years old) that was inundated by sea-level rise associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum. The Bay is relatively shallow, with 85 percent of its area less than 30 feet deep. Much of the perimeter of the Bay is occupied by shallow tidal mud flats, tidal marshes, diked or leveed agricultural areas, and salt ponds. These tidal baylands support important aquatic and wetland habitats and have been the focus of many restoration activities over the past 30 years. In the future, the physical extent of the Bay will depend on the balance between the continually rising sea level, the rate of sediment delivery to the Bay, and potential tectonic subsidence (or uplift) that may affect the depth of the Bay. In the North Bay, the Petaluma River, Sonoma Creek, and Napa River watersheds are generally north/south oriented, somewhat elongated basins that are aligned in parallel with the dominant tectonic structure. In these watersheds, central trunk streams collect flows and sediment from east/west oriented tributaries emerging from adjacent uplands, fans, and canyons. Similarly, in the South Bay, the Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River watersheds are generally north/south aligned systems parallel to the strike of the tectonic structure. Central trunk streams assimilate smaller local tributaries that emerge from the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west of the Santa Clara Valley or the Mt. Hamilton segment of the Diablo Range to the east of the Santa Clara Valley. The central lowland valleys of these watersheds house the region’s important alluvial aquifers. Several other Bay Area Region watersheds are oriented perpendicular to the generally northwest/southeast alignment of Bay faults and geologic structure. This is observed in watersheds of the East Bay and Peninsula whose headwaters originate in the hills above the Bay and whose major tributaries flow generally east or west out of the steeper headwaters, across a transitional alluvial fan zone, and across a more gently sloping bay plain before reaching the Bay. 2.2.5 Hydrology and Geomorphology The San Francisco Bay watershed and its sub-basins are complex hydrologic systems with multiple and concurrent water inputs and outputs. In addition to the San Francisco Bay itself, surface water bodies located in the Bay Area Region include:  Ocean bays and lagoons, such as Bolinas Bay and Lagoon, Half Moon Bay, and Tomales Bay  Urban lakes, such as Lake Merced and Lake Merritt 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-18 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description  Large lakes and reservoirs, such as Anderson Reservoir, Briones Reservoir, Calaveras Reservoir, Crystal Springs Reservoir, Kent Lake, Lake Chabot, Lake Hennessey, Nicasio Reservoir, San Andreas Lake, San Antonio Reservoir, San Pablo Reservoir, Upper San Leandro Reservoir, Lake Del Valle  Numerous smaller lakes and reservoirs  Rivers and creeks (listed by watershed in Table 2-1 and by CCA in Table 2-3) Due to local topography and geology, surface runoff can cause a range of geomorphic functions – including erosion, transport, or deposition – throughout the Bay watershed. Tectonic, faulting, and structural controls are of particular importance, as they often influence the relative distribution of sediment source, transport, or depositional areas in the region. The majority of human impacts to watershed systems are linked to land use or land cover alterations, as well as channelization and alteration of waterways. Land use and channel modifications alter the fundamental hydrologic cycle by impacting infiltration rates and capacity. Land development that uses impermeable surfaces reduces infiltration, resulting in increased surface runoff. Surface runoff from some disturbed upland and urbanized areas collects and transports pollutants and organic materials into Bay Area Region streams and wetlands. Surface runoff carries a variety of dissolved materials including: minerals dissolved from bedrock deposits (calcium carbonate); metals derived from bedrock (iron and aluminum) or human activities (zinc and lead); pesticides, herbicides, toxic pollutants, and industrial waste materials; phosphorus and nitrogen; and oxygen (Holdren, 2001). Concentration of these surface pollutants can degrade water bodies until they are no longer able to serve beneficial purposes. The hydrologic function of Bay Area Region watersheds has been greatly affected through surface land cover and land practice alterations. As shown in Figure 2-8, a broad band of urbanization surrounds the Bay, covering much of the gently sloping bay plain terrain. In the last few decades, urbanization has extended beyond the immediate Bay plain to the interior valleys and foothills of the North Bay, East Bay, and South Bay. Increased stream flows that have resulted from Bay Area Region urbanization have been associated with increased bed and bank erosion and potential for increased downstream sediment transport and deposition. Geomorphic effects of urbanization can be less obvious since urbanization includes construction of reservoirs, stormwater management systems, and channel engineering which mitigate some direct impacts. However, such systems often introduce secondary geomorphic impacts, such as the “hungry stream” effect associated with Campbell Creek, Napa County 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-19 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description reduced sediment source areas and streams that have increased erosive competence. The hungry stream effect results in a reduction in sediment delivery to the Bay and coastal areas and shoreline erosion. Ranching practices, most notably cattle and sheep grazing, also have impacted watersheds and have resulted in soil compaction and the replacement of a wide variety of native grasses with lower coverage non-natives. These changes increased surface runoff, gullying, channel incision and the severe destabilization of creek banks and beds from direct animal activity. Effects of grazing in several sub-basins of the Bay watershed are still evident today. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-20 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-8: Bay Area Region Vegetation Land Cover 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-21 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.6 Groundwater Basin Boundaries The Bay Area Region has 28 identified groundwater basins, which underlie approximately 30 percent of the region (California’s Groundwater, 2003) as shown in Figure 2-9. Groundwater is an important part of the water supply for several parts of the Bay Area Region. The major groundwater basins used for supply are described below: Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin: The Santa Clara Valley basin runs parallel to the Coast Ranges and is bounded by the Diablo Range to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The basin contains a large inland valley drained by tributaries to San Francisco Bay including Coyote Creek, the Guadalupe River, and Los Gatos Creek. The Santa Clara Groundwater Basin includes four sub-basins – the East Bay Plain, San Mateo Plain, Santa Clara, and the Niles Cone. Napa-Sonoma Valley Groundwater Basin: The Napa-Sonoma Valley basin consists of the Sonoma Valley and Napa-Sonoma Lowlands sub-basins. The Sonoma Valley Sub-basin is located in the southeastern corner of Sonoma County and extends over an area of 70 square miles. The cities of Sonoma, Schellville, and Valley of the Moon are located in the recharge area of the sub-basin. The Napa-Sonoma Lowlands Sub-basin covers 65 square miles located north of San Pablo Bay. The sub-basin consists of two main water-bearing formations: Recent and Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits and the Pleistocene Huichica Formation. Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin: The Petaluma Valley Groundwater Basin, located south of Rohnert Park, drains to the southeast towards San Francisco Bay. Alluvial-fan deposits and stream-valley alluvium compose the major part of the aquifer. Estuarine deposits of sand beneath are an important local source of ground water (USGS, 2006). Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin: The Livermore Valley groundwater basin is located in the Livermore-Amador Valley. It extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills and from the Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland. Principal streams draining the Livermore Valley include Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo Las Positas; minor streams include Alamo Creek, South San Ramon Creek, and Tassajara Creek. These streams converge on the west side of the basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley (DPLA2, 2006). Westside Groundwater Basin: The Westside Basin is the largest groundwater basin on the San Francisco Peninsula, bounded by Golden Gate Park to the north, the San Bruno mountains to the east, the San Andreas Fault and Pacific Ocean to the west, and the San Mateo Plain groundwater basin to the south. The basin is comprised of unconsolidated sediments of the Colma formation of Pleistocene age and the Merced Formation of Pleistocene/Pliocene age. As described in Section 2.5, in general, groundwater in the Bay Area Region is of good quality and suitable for most purposes, with some locally high concentrations of certain constituents. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-22 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-9: Significant Bay Area Region Groundwater Basins 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-23 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.7 Biodiversity and Protected Lands The Bay Area is an internationally recognized biodiversity hotpot, nationally one of the six most important. It is recognized for its abundance of birds, plants, insects and other species, and known for a high diversity of endemic species which thrive in the Mediterranean-type climate. The metropolitan nature of the region and continuing urban sprawl, have prompted major efforts to conserve this biodiversity. The Bay Area is a leader in open space protection with 1.2 million acres currently under permanent protection and habitat conservation plans that cover the entire Bay Area. There were three significant milestones in this effort: 1. The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project (1999) featured a consortium of public agencies and focused on the conservation of historic tidelands. This Project became a model for subsequent habitat protection efforts. 2. The Bay Area Open Space Council initiated the first regional plan for conserving the Bay Area’s biological diversity in 2004, with development of the San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project. This study established the Conservation Lands Network and outlined actions needed to sustain the diversity and health of the ecological community in the nine county Bay Area. 3. The San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project, completed in 2011 developed a framework for the protection and restoration of submerged habitats in the San Francisco Bay. The network of protected lands and more information can be found on the Conservation Lands Network website at http://www.bayarealands.org/. In addition, the Bay Area acknowledges that the relationship between Tribes and their land and natural resources is complex, extending from time immemorial to the present day and beyond. Tribal governments demonstrate excellence in caring for their lands and natural resources with respect and minimal financial resources. Tribes look to their land and natural resources to provide and support essential elements of Native life and culture—from subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering, to sources of economic development and Tribal sacred places. 2.2.8 Biologic and Aquatic Resources The Bay estuary is the largest estuary of the West Coast and one of North America’s most important. It is an environmentally sensitive and biologically diverse ecosystem made up of freshwater streams, tidelands, marshlands, wetlands, mudflats, farmland and other unique systems. Bay Area watersheds and their associated habitats provide a myriad of water resource and ecological benefits to both humans and wildlife. Napa Marshlands 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-24 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Watersheds provide freshwater sources for humans and wildlife; floodplains and wetlands can reduce flood impacts and improve water quality and groundwater resources; diverse habitats allow wildlife to flourish; and vegetation can reduce water temperatures and minimize erosion and sedimentation. Native habitats include: Riparian: Montane riparian areas in the region are associated with lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs and meadows, as well as rivers, streams and springs. In these systems water may be permanent or ephemeral. Valley foothill riparian habitats are found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, slightly dissected terraces, lower foothills, and coastal plains. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography. Lacustrine: Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed river channels containing standing water. Typical Bay Area lacustrine habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, intermittent lakes, and shallow ponds (including vernal pools) in which rooted plants can grow. Additionally, relic or maintained stock ponds often provide important wetlands habitats in many parts of the East Bay, South Bay, and Peninsula. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life, while intermittent types usually do not. Wetlands: Freshwater wetlands in the region occur in tidal areas with low salinity due to mixing and are populated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens. Tidal wetlands are characterized as salt or brackish marshes consisting mostly of perennial graminoids and forbs, along with algal mats on moist soils and at the base of vascular plant stems. The Bay Area is home to over 90 animal and plant species that have been designated by state and federal agencies as threatened or endangered (Center for Biological Diversity 2012), including the ones listed in Table 2-1. The Bay Area provides an important wintering site for migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway, as well as a spawning area for anadromous fish. Two-thirds of the state’s salmon population passes through the Bay and Delta each year, however populations continue to undergo significant decline and are the focus of ongoing recovery efforts. In September 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released the final Recovery Plan for the Central California Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit, which focuses on the recovery of populations from Punta Gorda in northern California to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County, including the San Francisco Bay estuary and its tributaries. Several streams in the Bay Area have been identified for recovery actions, including Pescadero Creek and Lagunitas Creek where focus populations for recovery exist. Persistence of Lagunitas Creek coho populations is due in large part to long- term dedicated coordination and action among local citizens and agencies (NMFS 2012). California Clapper Rail Photo Credit: USFWS 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-25 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-1: Threatened and Endangered Species in the Bay-Delta Classification Species Mammals San Joaquin kit fox, Salt-marsh harvest mouse, Southern sea otter Birds California least tern, California Ridgway’s rail, Western snowy plover, Marbled Murrelet, Northern spotted owl Reptiles Giant garter snake, Alameda whipsnake, Green sea turtle, Leatherback sea turtle, Olive ridley sea turtle, San Francisco garter snake Fish Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead trout, Delta smelt, Tidewater goby Amphibian California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander Crustaceans California freshwater shrimp, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Longhorn fairy shrimp, Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, black abalone Insects Callippe silverspot butterfly, Delta green ground beetle, Lange’s metalmark butterfly, Mission blue butterfly, Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly, San Bruno elfin butterfly, Bay checkerspot butterfly, Smith’s blue butterfly, Ohlone tiger beetle, Zayante band-winged grasshopper, Plants Antioch Dunes evening-primrose, Baker’s larkspur, Beach layia, Calistoga allocarya, Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch, Clousa grass, Contra Costa wallflower, Coyote ceanothus, Few-flowered naverretia, Fountain thistle, Keck’s Checker- mallow, Lake County stonecrop, Loch Lomond coyote thistle, Many-flowered navarretia, Marin dwarf-flax, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, Bapa bluegrass, Pallid Manzanita, Palmate-braced bird’s beak, Pennel’s bird’s beak, Pitkin Marsh lily, Presidio clarkia, Presidio Manzanita, San Francisco lessingia, San Joaquin Orcutt grass, San Mateo thornmint, San Mateo woolly sunflower, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Sebastapol meadowfoam, Soft bird’s-beak, Solano grass, Sonoma alopecurus, Sonoma spineflower, Sonoma sunshine, Suisun thistle, Tiburon jewelflower, Tiburon mariposa lily, Tiburon paintbrush, Vine Hill clarkia, White sedge, White-rayed pentachaeta, Yellow larkspur Source: USFWS 2012, sfbaywildlife.info 2012. Given the setting of the Bay Area Region, the areas adjacent to the coast and Bay are extensive and have high ecological significance. Critical Coastal Areas (CCAs) are specially designated land areas of the California coast where state, federal and local government agencies and other stakeholders have agreed to improve degraded water quality or protect exceptional coastal water quality from the impact or threat of nonpoint source pollution by coordinating expertise and resources. The SF RWQCB jurisdiction has a total of 32 designated CCAs, including several that have been proposed as high priority CCA planning and implementation areas. Table 2-2 lists Female Chinook Salmon in the Napa River 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-26 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description each of the Bay Area CCAs and describes each one’s importance. The CCAs span across seven Bay Area regions, as shown in Figure 2-10. More information on the listed CCAs can be found on the California Coastal Commission website by following the individual hyperlinks in the table. Table 2-2: Bay Area Critical Coastal Areas CCA Name Description Walker Creek The Walker Creek watershed covers 73 square miles in West Marin County, an area of rolling hills to steep gullies. The majority of the watershed is private property, and the major land uses are livestock ranching and dairies. The creek is a protected habitat for coho salmon (the native run is generally extirpated, but CDFW has recently reintroduced coho on an experimental basis), steelhead trout, and California freshwater shrimp. Major tributaries are Chileno Creek and Keys Creek. Tomales Bay Tomales Bay, a 28-km2 bay on the west coast of Marin County, is one of the major estuaries on the Pacific Coast of California, supporting abundant wildlife, including marine mammals and migratory wildfowl. It is a very popular recreation area for kayaking, fishing, hiking, and sightseeing, and the Bay is one of four commercial oyster-growing areas in the state. Tomales Bay Ecological Reserve is located in the Bay. Lagunitas Creek The 103 square mile Lagunitas Creek watershed is the largest watershed in Marin County. Primary tributaries are San Geronimo, Devil’s Gulch, Nicasio Creek, and Olema Creek. A large part of the watershed is within state and federal parklands; the largest landowner is the National Park Service. The second largest landowner is Marin Municipal Water District, and Marin County Open Space District holds about 2,000 acres in the watershed. There are a number of small towns along the San Geronimo Creek tributary. Bird Rock The remote ‘Bird Rock’ Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) has only 0.3 miles of coastline. The National Park Service manages the wilderness shoreline of this CCA (Point Reyes National Seashore), and a portion of the ASBS lies in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Point Reyes Headlands Reserve and Extension ‘Point Reyes Headlands’ ASBS in Marin County has 4.8 miles of coastline. This ASBS lies within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary; the National Park Service (Point Reyes National Seashore) manages the shoreline. Offshore of this CCA is the Point Reyes Headlands State Marine Conservation Area and Extension. On the peninsula leading to the headland are historical working dairy ranches, but these do not drain directly into the ASBS. A road follows the entire ASBS, but the slope of the headland is such that any road run-off also flows away from the ASBS. Double Point ‘Double Point’ State ASBS, located in Marin County, has only 0.7 miles of coastline; a portion of the ASBS lies in the Gulf of the Farallones 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-27 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description National Marine Sanctuary. This area is in a rural part of the Point Reyes National Seashore, and the National Park Service manages the shoreline of this CCA. The area surrounding Double Point is accessible only to hikers, and has primitive trail camps to the north and east of this ASBS. Duxbury Reef Reserve and Extension ‘Duxbury Reef’ ASBS in Marin County has 3.4 miles of coastline. This ASBS lies entirely within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Offshore of this CCA is the Duxbury Reef State Marine Conservation Area and Extension, which is managed by CDFW. James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve This watershed flows into the ‘James V. Fitzgerald’ ASBS in San Mateo County, which has 5.5 miles of coastline. Offshore of this CCA is the James V. Fitzgerald State Marine Park. San Mateo County manages the Marine Park, which was preserved for its unique underwater habitat and extensive tide pools. This ASBS lies entirely within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. San Gregorio Creek San Gregorio Creek and its tributaries are impaired by accelerated rates of erosion and sedimentation resulting from natural geologic and climatic processes, augmented by human land use practices. The largest anthropogenic sources of sediment are believed to be active and abandoned roads on unstable slopes near stream channels; and hillside gullies on agricultural and range lands in the lower watershed, formed primarily as a result of hillside row-cropping in the 1930s. Pescadero Creek With an extensively wooded upper watershed, willow-alder riparian corridors, and a large estuarine marsh, this 80 square mile watershed supports one of the largest remaining runs of steelhead within the San Francisco Bay region. It also supported a large coho salmon run as recently as the late 1960s, although few if any coho have returned to spawn in recent years. Pescadero Marsh is the largest wetland habitat between San Francisco Bay and Elkhorn Slough. Butano Creek With an extensively wooded upper watershed, willow-alder riparian corridors, and a large estuarine marsh, this 80 square mile watershed supports one of the largest remaining runs of steelhead within the San Francisco Bay region. It also supported a large coho salmon run as recently as the late 1960s, although few if any coho have returned to spawn in recent years. Pescadero Marsh is the largest wetland habitat between San Francisco Bay and Elkhorn Slough. Alameda Creek and Flood Control Channel Alameda Creek drains the largest watershed in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region, about 700 square miles. The creek historically supported anadromous fisheries of steelhead trout, coho salmon, and Pacific and river lamprey, and still supports one of the best native stream fish assemblages in the San Francisco Bay Region. Although dammed in a number of locations, much of Alameda Creek remains natural, with the exception of a large earthen channel Army Corps project in the lower end of the creek. Alameda Creek is a high quality creek with the potential to support significant anadromous fish populations, if restored. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-28 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description Calabazas Creek Calabazas Creek extends approximately 13.3 miles from the confluence with the Guadalupe Slough to the Saratoga foothills. The watershed drains approximately 21 square miles within the cities of Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Saratoga. Three major tributaries include Regnart Creek, Rodeo Creek, and Prospect Creek. The creek channel has been significantly modified, yet retains large sections of natural channel. Fish are rare due to limited habitat, extreme stormwater flows, and barriers associated with the modified channel. There are many road crossings, including stormwater outfalls that likely contribute to extreme stormwater flows in the creek. High stormwater flows have contributed to a high level of channel instability and stream bank scour that has created a sediment problem in the stream channel. Corte Madera Creek The Corte Madera Creek watershed is a 28 square mile watershed in central eastern Marin County. The creek, which has a number of tributaries including Cascade Creek, San Anselmo Creek, Larkspur Creek, and Ross Creek, flows from open space headwater areas through a highly urbanized area to San Francisco Bay. The watershed supports a number of aquatic species including steelhead trout, and has significant salt marsh wetlands at the mouth of the creek where it flows into the Bay, at the Corte Madera Marsh State Marine Park. Coyote Creek (Santa Clara Co.) Sixteen major creeks drain this 322-square-mile watershed. The county's largest watershed, it extends from the urbanized valley floor upward to the vast natural areas of the Mt. Hamilton range. The watershed’s main waterway, Coyote Creek, is the longest creek in the county. The watershed is home to over 1,000,000 people and provides aquatic and riparian habitat for plants and animals, including threatened or endangered species such as the California red-legged frog, bank swallow, steelhead, and Chinook salmon. Gallinas Creek Gallinas Creek runs from the upper slopes of San Rafael open space areas in an open channelized stretch through an urban residential area, then winds through the Santa Margherita Island and Santa Venetia preserves, and discharges into San Pablo Bay. Guadalupe River The Guadalupe River is surrounded by dense urban development, and passes through the heart of the City of San Jose. This river supports an important anadromous fishery, and is used for recharge of public water supply aquifers. The lower river reach flows into the former Cargil Salt Ponds, which are in the process of wetland restoration. Lake Merritt Lake Merritt, also known as the jewel of Oakland, is a 140-acre tidal estuary in the City of Oakland. With an average depth of eight to ten feet and 3.4 miles of shoreline, it is home to migratory waterfowl, aquatic life, and is a significant public recreation resource for Oakland. Matadero Creek Matadero Creek originates near the town of Los Altos Hills and flows in a northeasterly direction through the residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the City of Palo Alto and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Downstream of the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. Highway 101), Matadero Creek discharges into the Palo Alto Flood Basin, which outfalls into the Bay. Matadero Creek has a total watershed area of about 14 square miles, of which approximately 11 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-29 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description square miles are mountainous land, and 3 square miles are gently sloping valley floor. Miller Creek Miller Creek runs east from Big Rock Ridge in central Marin County through the Las Gallinas Valley and into San Pablo Bay. The Miller Creek watershed has been grazed continuously since the 1800s, and the creek has experienced severe widening and down-cutting as a result. The creek maintains more of its natural channel than other eastern Marin County streams, and supports a variety of native fish. The majority of the creek is in agricultural uses in the upper and lower reaches, with suburban residential areas in the middle reaches. Napa River The Napa River watershed encompasses an area of approximately 426 square miles at the northern end of San Pablo Bay in the San Francisco Estuary. The Napa River and its tributaries support an unusually diverse community of native fishes including two salmonid species: steelhead and Chinook Salmon. The Napa River basin has been identified as an “anchor watershed” with the highest potential for maintaining and restoring current and historic salmonid populations in the San Francisco Bay Area and it appears to support the largest remaining run of steelhead in the streams that discharge directly to San Francisco Bay. Novato Creek Novato Creek is a perennial stream that extends about 17 miles from its headwaters at Stafford Dam to San Pablo Bay. Areas near the Bay are largely salt marsh and leveed wetlands. The stream system supports steelhead and other native fishes. Petaluma River The Petaluma River, located in southern Sonoma and Northern Marin counties, drains an area of approximately 146 square miles into San Pablo Bay. The river is tidally influenced in the lower 11 miles, up to downtown City of Petaluma, and it is used for navigation by commercial and recreational vessels. Considerable open space remains in the watershed, and the watershed supports an unusually diverse community of native fish and wildlife species in its stream, riparian, and wetland habitats. San Francisquito Creek The San Francisquito Creek Watershed is approximately 42 square miles, extending from Skyline Boulevard at the top of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the San Francisco Bay. The watershed includes public lands and numerous private landowners in the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Portola Valley and Woodside, unincorporated land areas of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and Stanford University. San Francisquito Creek and Los Trancos (a large tributary) represent the boundary between the two stated counties. Stanford University is the largest landowner in the watershed owning over 8,000 acres in both counties. San Leandro Creek San Leandro Creek is a significant East San Francisco Bay creek. Its headwaters are in watershed and public parklands, and include drinking water reservoirs; downstream, it flows through urban areas. San Leandro Creek supports a diverse range of fish, native and non- native vegetation, and recreational opportunities. With good restoration, San Leandro Creek has the potential for reintroducing fish spawning. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-30 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description San Lorenzo Creek The lower portion of the 48-square mile San Lorenzo Creek watershed is urbanized, and the headwaters are located in rural, agricultural, and low-density residential areas. San Lorenzo Creek supports diverse wildlife, including anadromous fish, although a concrete-lined creek section and other barriers block fish passage. Two shallow reservoirs (Cull and Don Castro) are also in this system. San Mateo Creek San Mateo Creek flows from the Peninsula watershed through the Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir at Crystal Springs Dam, through Hillsborough and San Mateo out to San Francisco Bay. The watershed provides wildlife habitat and fish spawning habitat, including preservation of rare and endangered species. The Crystal Springs Reservoir is used for municipal and domestic water supply. San Pablo Creek The San Pablo Creek Watershed covers 27,640 acres and includes approximately 109 miles of creek channel. The headwaters of San Pablo Creek run through the City of Orinda before entering drinking water reservoirs (San Pablo and Briones) managed by the EBMUD. The lands in the upper watershed are largely undeveloped watershed and parklands managed by the East Bay Regional Park District and EBMUD. As water leaves San Pablo Reservoir, it flows through the heavily urbanized, residential, and commercial areas of the cities of Richmond and San Pablo before reaching salt marshes adjacent to San Pablo Bay. San Rafael Creek San Rafael Creek in eastern Marin County is fed by several small creeks that run through a primarily urban residential area, then through industrial areas where the creek is channelized into a canal, and thence into San Francisco Bay. The canal area is heavily impacted by urban Nonpoint Source runoff, including from several marinas and light industry. Sonoma Creek Sonoma Creek drains a 170-square mile area from the Sonoma and Mayacamas Mountains into the Valley. Land cover in the watershed as of 2000 was as follows: 12 percent urban (concentrated along Highway 12 in the central part of the watershed), 2 percent other paved area, 14 percent vineyard, 15 percent other agricultural (primarily hayfields and pasture), and 56 percent non-agricultural, undeveloped open space. About 18 percent of the watershed was protected open space, generally in upland State Parks and private conservation easements. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-31 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description CCA Name Description Suisun Slough Suisun Slough flows through Suisun Marsh, the largest contiguous brackish water marsh on the west coast. It is a resting and feeding ground for waterfowl migrating on the Pacific Flyway, and provides essential habitat for many bird, mammal, amphibian, and fish species, as well as endemic plants. Marsh management influences salt water intrusion into the San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta. Wildcat Creek The Wildcat Creek watershed covers 6,848 acres and includes approximately 22 miles of creek channel. The upper watershed in contained in Wildcat Canyon, and the land use is parkland. Wildcat Regional Park and Tilden Regional Park, both managed by the East Bay Regional Park District, cover the upper watershed. In the lower reaches, Wildcat Creek flows through the heavily urbanized, residential, and commercial areas of the cities of Richmond and San Pablo before reaching salt marshes adjacent to San Pablo Bay. Source: California’s Critical Coastal Areas website (http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/cca-nps.html). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-32 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-10: Critical Coastal Areas in the Bay Area Source: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_sfbay1.htm 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-33 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In addition to CCAs, some areas of the coast are considered to be Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), in which human activity is restricted to protect the sensitive area. The MPAs are listed in Table 2-3. Table 2-3: Bay Area Marine Protected Areas MPA Name Limitations Double Point/Stormy Stack Special Closure Closed to the public. Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, with the exception of limited clam harvesting and permitted shellfish operations. Duxbury Reef SMCA Take of all living marine resources is prohibited except the recreational take of finfish from shore and abalone. Egg (Devil’s Slide) Rock to Devil’s Slide Special Closure Transit in between the rock and the mainland between these points is prohibited at any time. Closed to the public. Estero de Limantour State Marine Reserve (SMR) Take of all living marine resources is prohibited. Montara SMR Take of all living marine resources is prohibited. Pillar Point SMCA Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, with the exception of limited fishing and seafood harvesting. Point Resistance Rock Special Closure Closed to the public. Point Reyes SMR and SMCA Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, with the exception of limited fishing and crabbing. Point Reyes Special Closure Transit on the south side of Point Reyes headlands in between the mean high tide line to a distance of 1,000 feet seaward of the mean lower low tide line is prohibited at any time. Closed to the public. 2.2.9 Land Use Rangeland, forest land and agriculture combined occupy almost 70 percent of the Bay Area Region’s 4.7 million acres (Table 2-4 and Figure 2-11). Land use patterns within the Region are illustrated in Figure 2-12 and described below.4 4 While the Bay Area region is defined by the boundaries of RWQCB Region 2 for this IRWMP, the land use data presented here is based on data available for the entire nine-county region, due to difficulty isolating data for the hydrologic region. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-34 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution Land Use Acreage Percent of Total Rangeland 1,222,236 27.8% Forestland 963,464 21.9% Agriculture 943,100 21.5% Residential 555,620(a) 12.7% Industrial(b) 278,451 6.3% Urban Open Space 159,881 3.6% Commercial/services 110,778 2.5% Other(c) 122,735 2.8% Military 30,581 0.7% Mixed Use(d) 5,122 0.1% Total 4,391,968 100% Notes: (a) More recent estimates indicate 618,000 acres (ABAG 2009). (b) Includes industrial and major infrastructure. (c) Includes sparsely vegetated and wetlands. (d) Includes residential/commercial and commercial/industrial. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2006. Existing Land Use 2005. Figure 2-11: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Distribution Rangeland Forestland Agriculture Residential Industrial Urban Open Space Commercial/Services Other Military Mixed Use 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-35 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Rangeland: Rangeland includes herbaceous, shrub and brush, and mixed rangeland areas and is prominent on Coast Range foothills throughout the region. Southeastern Santa Clara County contains the highest proportion of rangeland in the Bay Area (24 percent). Much of the remaining rangeland is distributed among the rolling grasslands of Alameda (15 percent), Contra Costa (13 percent), Marin (13 percent), and Sonoma Counties (14 percent). Forest Land: Forest lands include deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forested areas. Nearly one third of the Bay Area Region’s forested lands are located in the Santa Cruz Mountains in southwestern Santa Clara County. An additional 20 percent of the region’s forested lands are in northern Napa County, while 18 percent are located in northern Sonoma County. Agriculture: Agriculture includes croplands, vineyards, orchards, nurseries, confined feeding areas, and farmsteads. Agricultural areas in Solano (31 percent) and Sonoma (46 percent) counties make up the majority of active cropland in the region. Agricultural areas are also concentrated in Napa County and the southern edge of Contra Costa County. Residential: Residential land includes rural and single family homes, mobile homes, apartments and multifamily residential and group quarters. The counties with the region’s highest concentration of residential areas include Sonoma (25 percent) and Santa Clara (18 percent), likely due to rural and semi-rural development patterns. Other concentrations of the region’s residentially developed land are located in the counties of Alameda (13 percent), Contra Costa (15 percent), and San Mateo (10 percent). Industrial: Industrial includes light and heavy industrial land uses, as well as major infrastructure, such as roads, airports, power facilities, municipal wastewater and water supply facilities, communication facilities and other land uses. Santa Clara County (22 percent) and Alameda County (18 percent) have the highest industrial land use acreage of the region. Urban Open Space: Urban open space includes areas that have been affected by urban development but contain minimal paving and buildings. These areas include golf courses, racetracks, campgrounds, cemeteries, urban parks, and vacant lands. Alameda (18 percent), Contra Costa (19 percent), and Santa Clara (17 percent) counties contain the majority of urban open space within the Region. Commercial/Services: This land use classification includes retail and wholesale, educational facilities, hospitals and health centers, prisons, local government and other public facilities, offices, research centers and emergency services. In addition to the three major metropolitan centers, smaller urban centers and vast highway corridors lined with commercial and services land uses occur throughout the region. Santa Clara Alameda County Vineyard and Golf Course 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-36 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description County, home of Silicon Valley, contains the highest percentage of this land use (23 percent), followed by Alameda County (18 percent). Other: The Other land use classification includes the sparsely vegetated and wetland acreages reported by ABAG, though this “other” land use classification is not comprehensive for these features. The Bay Area Region is home to several thousand acres (more than included in the ABAG “other” land class) of wetland habitats, including tidal marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian, seeps, pools, springs, and others. Military: After major closures occurred in the 1990s, the major active duty military installations that remain in the Region are the Travis Air Force Base in Solano County and Coast Guard Island in Alameda County. Mixed Use: Mixed use describes urban centers that contain a diverse mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The counties with the region’s highest concentrations of mixed use include Alameda (29 percent), San Francisco (19 percent), and San Mateo (33 percent). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-37 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-12: Bay Area Region Land Use Patterns 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-38 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.10 Social and Cultural Makeup The San Francisco Bay Area consists of 9 counties (whole and partial), 101 municipalities, 2.6 million households and a population of 7.15 million (Bay Area Census, 2010), making the metropolitan region the second largest in California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Table 2-5 provides an overview of key Bay Area demographic characteristics. Note that as mentioned in Section 2.1.1, some counties are divided between the Bay Area Region and other IRWM regions to better coincide with natural watershed boundaries; census information cited is, however, only available to describe the larger Bay Area. Table 2-5: Demographic Characteristics for the San Francisco Bay Area Existing 2010 (a) Projected 2030 (b) Percent Change Total Population 7,150,739 8,719,300 18% Total Households 2,608,023 3,171,940 18% Residential Acreage(c) 618,302 646,376 5% Average Residential Density 4.22 4.91 16% Median Household Income $ 102,000 $ 126,400 19% Notes: (a) Bay Area Census, 2010. (b) ABAG projections, 2009. (c) The projected 2030 residential acreage is less than projected in the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP, likely in response to the economic downturn. Growth projections show a continuation of existing trends. Currently, almost half of the region’s population resides in Santa Clara and Alameda counties, which continue to grow at the fastest rates. Despite large proportions of residential areas compared with other land use types, North Bay counties, including Marin, Sonoma, and Napa, have the lowest population densities and are also projected to change the least. Figure 2-13 shows existing and projected populations in each of the Bay Area counties. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-39 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-13: Population Growth in Bay Area Counties5 Source: ABAG, Census 2010, ABAG 2012. A significant shift in the age distribution of Bay Area residents is anticipated to occur over the next 20 years (Table 2-6). The population of working-age residents is expected to drop from about 62 percent to 57 percent of total, while the proportion of seniors is expected to increase from about 14 percent in 2010 to 21 percent by 2030. Table 2-6: Current and Projected Age Distribution for the San Francisco Bay Area Existing 2010(a) Projected 2030 Percent Change 0-4 years 455,384 543,296 19% 5-19 years 1,349,783 1,459,408 8% 20-44 years 2,587,300 2,979,078 15% 45-64 years 1,930,198 1,948,310 1% 65+ years 1,018,994 1,789,187 76% Note: (a) ABAG 2009. The Bay Area is a racially diverse region. Approximately 58 percent of the Region’s population was of a race other than white. Hispanics/Latinos and Asians make up the two large minority groups in the Region at 24 percent and 23 percent, respectively, and African Americans represent approximately 6 percent of the population (ABAG, 2010). The Native American population in the Bay Area according to the 2010 census is 48,493 or 0.7 percent of the total population. 5 The One Bay Area / Sustainable Communities Strategies projections have been identified as a “preferred alternative” but have not yet been adopted. This is expected to occur in 2012. They are included because they may better reflect the impact of current economic conditions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-40 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.11 Economic Conditions and Trends The Bay Area is among the largest metropolitan areas in the United States and the second- largest in California. With a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $535 billion, the Bay Area is the 19th largest economy in the world. On a per capita basis, it has the highest GDP in the United States at $74,815 (Bay Area Economic Forum, 2012). The region is at the cutting edge of global technology and is a leader in many key indicators of regional, national and global competitiveness. Water supply reliability and water quality have a tremendous effect on the continuing success of the Bay Area’s economy. The Bay Area’s productivity stems from a variety of factors, including a concentration in high value-added activities, a well-educated workforce, and a spirit of innovation. The Bay Area leads most other U.S. metropolitan regions in its employed share of management, technology, and engineering occupations. The Bay Area also plays a leading role in delivering innovation to the U.S. economy, with more than one third of the nation’s overall venture capital investments occurring here and the highest economic productivity of the nation. The Bay itself is an important economic resource, providing commercial and sport fishing, and other tourist and recreational economic opportunities. Table 2-7 lists current and projected employment characteristics for the Bay Area. Table 2-7: Current and Projected Employment Characteristics for the Bay Area Existing 2010 Projected 20306 Percent Change Total Jobs(a) 3,385,294 4,738730 36% Commercial/Industrial Acreage 231,777 248,415 7% Average Employment Density 14.6 19.1 31% Notes: (a) Projections for employment have been adjusted downward by about 8 percent from the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP plan, likely in response to the economic downturn. Source: ABAG, 2010. Almost half of the region’s jobs are located in Santa Clara and Alameda counties (27 percent and 21 percent, respectively), which together provide 1.62 million jobs. Employment densities in North Bay counties are relatively low, with Marin, Sonoma, Solano and Napa collectively hosting 15 percent of the region’s jobs. ABAG’s growth projections estimate significant job growth, particularly in Solano and Sonoma counties which currently have lower employment densities (Figure 2-14). 6 These values are from ABAG’s 2009 projections. The Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) preferred alternative has a lower 2030 jobs projection of 4,195,567 (a 24% increase). However, the SCS projections have not yet been adopted. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-41 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-14: Job Growth in Bay Area Counties 2.2.12 Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities The environmental justice movement began with the struggles of minority populations against the location of toxic waste dumps and waste facility sitings within their communities, but it has since expanded to encompass equal access to clean water supplies, protection from flooding hazards, and provision of open spaces and recreation opportunities (Liu, 2001). Certain environmental hazards may disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income neighborhoods and are increasingly being linked to a range of conditions such as asthma, cancer, and birth defects (CBE 2012, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, 2005). An understanding of the location of disadvantaged and environmental justice communities can help the region to identify water resources management projects that improve water quality, open space and recreation opportunities, and flood protection within these neighborhoods. Additionally, because restoration of rivers and waterfronts is a recognized catalyst for community revitalization, watershed projects can contribute to sound community development in disadvantaged areas. The placement of water infrastructure in or near these communities also can cause concern. From the environmental justice perspective, sewage treatment plants, desalination facilities, and recycling plants – while providing benefit to the community as a whole – can serve to add to the cumulative environmental burden of nearby communities due to odors, effluent, sewage backups, and industrial buildings. Identifying these communities will allow agencies to ascertain the impact of their operations and to work with the community to mitigate problems or more appropriately locate proposed new facilities. California legislation AB1747 (2003) defines disadvantaged communities (DACs) as those with a Median Household Income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the state MHI. As of 2010, 80 percent of the state of California’s MHI was $48,314 (Table 2-8). Within census tracts that fall under that 80 percent limit, there are a wide range of income levels, from very poor to more moderate. To capture these differences, Table 2-8 also lists other poverty metrics. Figure 2-15 illustrates the distribution of DACs in the Bay Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-42 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-8: Definition of Disadvantaged Communities by Income Factor(a) Income Limit State Median Household Income (2006-2010)(a) $60,883 80% of State MHI $48,706 60% of State MHI $36,530 Federal Poverty Level, 2006(b) $19,091 CPUC’s Universal Lifeline Telephone Service threshold(c) $28,200 Notes: (a) State MHI is based on 2010 U.S. Census data. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html (b) Threshold for 3 persons in family or household for 2011 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html; California has average household size of 2.89 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html. (c) California Public Utilities Commission. 2006. Universal Lifeline Telephone Service. Effective from 06/01/09 to 05/31/12 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/telco/public+programs/ults.html. Environmental justice communities are defined as low-income communities and communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by programs, policies, or activities that have resulted in adverse health or environmental impacts. President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 (1994) specifically directed federal agencies to address these situations. Figure 2-16 illustrates census tracts that contain greater than 30 percent of one minority population (Asian, black or African-American, or Hispanic origin), as well as those census tracts with greater than 30 percent in multiple categories. To begin to understand the environmental burden these communities may endure, the locations of wastewater treatment facilities and flood-prone areas are examined in Figure 2-17. Mapping the locations of environmental justice communities and environmental burdens can assist water and flood agencies to identify water resources management projects that may reduce or relieve potential water-related adverse impacts to these communities. Efforts to effectively involve and collaborate with disadvantaged and environmental justice communities are discussed in Chapters 12 and 14. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-43 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-15: Disadvantaged Communities 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-44 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-16: Concentration of Minority Populations 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-45 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-17: Environmental Justice Communities and Infrastructure 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-46 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.2.13 Native American Tribal Communities According to the 2000 census, the American Indians and Alaska Native population in the Bay Area was 43,000, making it the 3rd largest urban American Indian population in the US. According to the Pew Foundation, in 2013 Native American women married outside of their race at the highest percentage, accounting for 58 percent of mixed race marriages in the United States within the 12 month period. This suggests that the Native American Population may be statistically higher in the Bay Area. This Bay Area Native community also includes California Indians from nearby reservations and tribal communities, and those who have relocated to the Bay Area from around the United States as part of the Indian Diaspora into the Bay, which can be traced to forced assimilation including termination and Indian relocation policies of the 1950s-60s. Tribal members are dispersed into the Bay Area population and do not live in Tribal-specific communities. Bay Area Tribal families for whom the Bay is their historical homeland have often been displaced outside of the Bay due to housing costs and other economic pressures. However, deep connections remain along with a continued responsibility to steward traditional territory and cultural resources. Although this presents a challenge for outreach and engagement, efforts to effectively involve and collaborate with Native American Tribal Members are discussed in Chapters 12 and 14. 2.3 Overview of Bay Area Region Water Supplies The Bay Area’s prosperity and continued leadership in economic development and environmental protection, rely on continued delivery of high quality, reliable water supplies. Bay Area water agencies continue to seek to protect the reliability and quality of existing supplies through innovative water management strategies and regional cooperation. The following sections outline current and projected quantity and quality of water resources throughout the Bay Area Region, and introduce some of the challenges facing water in the future. Bay Area Region water agencies manage a diverse portfolio of water supplies, including imported surface water (SWP, CVP, Tuolumne, Mokelumne), local supplies, and other types of supplies (Figure 2-18). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-47 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-18: Bay Area Water Use by Supply Source 2.3.1 Imported Water Supplies Approximately two-thirds of the Bay Area Region’s water supply is imported from Sierra Nevada and Delta sources through various federal, state and local projects. Nearly all Bay Area Region water agencies depend on imported water as an important component of their water portfolios. 2.3.1.1 Mokelumne River Watershed Over 600 square mile watershed of the Mokelumne River, located on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, provides EBMUD with approximately 90 percent of its water supply. EBMUD has water rights and facilities to divert up to 325 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Mokelumne River. Snowmelt that feeds the upper Mokelumne River is collected and stored in the Pardee Reservoir (located near Valley Springs) and Camanche Reservoir (10 miles downstream from Pardee). In addition to storage, Pardee and Camanche Reservoirs provide recreation opportunities, power generation, flood control and irrigation, and supplies for fisheries and riparian plants and wildlife (EBMUD, 2010). 2.3.1.2 Tuolumne River Watershed The SFPUC owns and operates the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System that conveys water from the Tuolumne River watershed in Yosemite National Park on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. The watershed, which provides approximately 85 percent of SFPUC’s supply, serves customers in San Francisco and 28 wholesale customers located in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties (represented by BAWSCA). The Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System provides up to two thirds of the BAWSCA service area water supply and up to 19 percent of ACWD and SCVWD’s service area supplies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-48 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Three major reservoirs collect runoff: Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, Lake Lloyd, and Lake Eleanor.7 Water is diverted from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir into a series of tunnels, aqueducts and pipelines that cross the San Joaquin Valley to facilities located in Alameda County. Conveyance facilities then deliver water to wholesale customers and San Francisco. 2.3.1.3 State Water Project The SWP originates in northern California and conveys water over 500 miles to the Bay Area, and central and southern California through a system of reservoirs, aqueducts and pump stations. Initially constructed starting in the late 1950’s, the SWP is the largest state-built, multi- purpose water project in the country, consisting of 34 storage facilities, reservoirs and lakes, 20 pumping plants, four pumping-generating plants, five hydro-electric plants and approximately 700 miles of aqueducts and pipelines. The primary water source for the SWP is the Feather River, which is a tributary of the Sacramento River. Water released from Oroville Dam flows down natural river channels to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Bay Area supplies are pumped from the Delta into the North Bay and South Bay Aqueducts (NBA and SBA), from which water is delivered to ACWD (27 percent of total supplies), the City of Napa (39 percent of total supplies), SCVWD (15 percent of total supplies), Solano CWA (13 percent of total supplies), and Zone 7 (82 percent of total supplies). 2.3.1.4 Federal Water Projects Several Bay Area Region agencies receive Delta water through the CVP, which is operated by USBR. The CVP extends from the Cascade Range in the north to the plains along the Kern River in the south, with a major part of water flowing through the Delta and pumped at Jones Pumping Plant. Initially, the project protected the Central Valley from water shortages and floods, but now serves farms, homes, and industry in the Central Valley and Bay Area. CVP also produces electric power and provides flood protection, navigation, recreation, and water quality benefits, and is the primary source of water for much of California’s wetlands. In fact, over 400,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of CVP supplies are dedicated to state and federal wildlife refuges and wetlands (USBR 2011). CVP supplies water to CCWD (over 75 percent of total agency supplies) and SCVWD (almost 30 percent of total agency supplies). 7 Releases from Lake Eleanor and Lake Lloyd are used to satisfy in-stream flow requirements, downstream obligations, and to produce hydroelectric power. Neither of these reservoirs is permitted for potable use. South Bay Aqueduct 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-49 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description The Solano Project, also operated by USBR, stores water in Lake Berryessa in Napa County and provides Solano CWA with approximately 87 percent of its water supplies. 2.3.1.5 Russian River Watershed The Russian River drains an area of 1,485 square miles in Sonoma and Mendocino counties and provides approximately 4 percent of the total water supplied to the Bay Area (DWR, 2009). Sonoma CWA operates the water conveyance facilities along this river, which makes up its primary source of water supply. 2.3.2 Local Water Supplies Local Surface Water: Local watersheds provide an important source of supply to several Bay Area Region water agencies. For MMWD, the City of Napa and the Sonoma CWA, local surface water provides over 60 percent of total supplies. For other agencies, local surface water supplies contribute a small but important part of their diverse water supply portfolios. For example, CCWD uses water supplies from Mallard Slough and the San Joaquin River; EBMUD’s secondary water supply source comes from runoff originating in local watersheds of the East Bay area; and the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds produce about 15 percent of the total water supply for SFPUC. Groundwater: Groundwater is another important local supply source for many Bay Area Region agencies, including ACWD, BAWSCA member agencies, SCVWD, SFPUC, and Sonoma CWA. 2.3.3 Other Water Supplies Recycled water, desalination, transfers and interties, and groundwater banking are used by many Bay Area Region agencies to supplement their water supplies. 2.3.3.1 Recycled Water The development of recycled water is a critical element of the region’s water supply portfolio. Recycled water provides a reliable and sustainable local water supply, in addition to environmental restoration and enhancement, surface water protection, preservation of drinking water, improvement of water quality, and reduction of wastewater discharges. Many Bay Area Region water agencies produce and use recycled water to supplement to supplement local water supplies. Over 30 agencies in the Bay Area Region have developed recycled water programs to provide recycled water to their customers for a variety of uses including irrigation, commercial, industrial, agricultural, municipal and residential. The Bay Area has a long history of regional recycled water planning, including the development of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP) Master Plan and the North Bay Regional Water Recycling Feasibility Study and Program. These planning efforts have occurred through the regional collaboration of various government agencies and partnerships in the Bay Area, including but not limited to BACWA, the Western Recycled Water Coalition (WRWC, formerly the San Francisco Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition), the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA), and BAWSCA. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-50 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In 2015, the Bay Area recycled approximately 58,000 AFY, almost 10 percent of the wastewater effluent generated, and supply is expected to more than double over the next 20 years (BACWA 2018 Recycled Water Survey). Table 2-9 provides a list of the recycled water programs in the Bay Area. Funding for recycled water projects in the Region has come from Propositions 50 and 84, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) programs, Title XVI Water Resources Development Act, in addition to agency funding. Individual agencies can apply for state and federal funding as well as establish partnerships to pursue funding. Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Reservoir under Construction 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-51 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-9: Bay Area Recycled Water Programs  City of American Canyon  Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD)  Contra Costa Water District  Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD)  Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)  DERWA (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority)  East Bay Municipal Utility District  City of San Leandro  Fairfield Suisun Sewer District (FSSD)  City of Livermore  Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation District  Marin Municipal Water District  Mt. View Sanitation District  City of Mountain View  City of Napa  County of Napa  Napa Sanitation District  North San Mateo County Sanitation District/Daly City  Novato Sanitary District  North Marin Water District  Oro Loma Sanitary District  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission  City of Palo Alto  City of Petaluma  Redwood City/South Bayside System Authority  Santa Clara Valley Water District  Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin  South Bay Water Recycling  South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA, member of the Western Recycled Water Coalition, but they are not in the Bay Area Region)  Sonoma County Water Agency/Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District  South County Regional Wastewater Authority  City of Sunnyvale  Union Sanitary District  Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District  Town of Yountville An example of a partnership established to pursue funding is the WRWC. In an effort to study recycled water use opportunities and secure federal funding for identified projects, 22 water and wastewater agencies from northern and central California are members of the WRWC8. Since 2009, WRWC projects have been awarded over $38 million in federal funding. For more information go to http://barwc.org/. Partnering agencies continue to collaborate on a regional scale to promote legislation to authorize federal funding for recycled water projects. In February of 2012, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2012 (H.R. 3910) was introduced, which would facilitate implementation of recycled water projects, expecting to yield approximately 8 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, City of Hayward, City of Mountain View, City of Palo Alto, City of Redwood City, City of San Jose, South Bay Water Recycling, City of Sunnyvale, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Ironhouse Sanitary District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose Water Company, Zone 7 Water Agency 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-52 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 35,000 AFY of recycled water in the near-term and over 70,000 AFY in the future (BARWC, 2012). Additional recycled water projects are discussed in Chapters 4 and 12. BACWA actively promotes and develops recycled water through its Recycled Water Committee in an effort to protect the environment and increase water supply reliability in the region. In addition to promoting the development of regional partnerships, the Committee monitors and provides input on legislative and regulatory issues that affect the Bay Area, collaborates to secure state and/or federal funding for Bay Area recycled water projects, and develops regional informational pieces to Increase public awareness of recycled water and its use in the Bay Area. For more information, go to http://bacwa.org/committees/water-recycling. In addition, BAWSCA encourages enhanced recycled water use through participation in BACWA. Various BAWSCA agencies participate in local recycled water programs and have developed projects to achieve recycled water goals set for the Bay Area. For more information on BAWSCA agencies’ recycled water projects see http://bawsca.org/water-conservation/recycled-water/. NBWRA promotes water reuse through the North Bay Water Reuse Program, which is a coordinated regional effort among various water and sanitation agencies9 in Sonoma, Marin and Napa Counties. Currently Phase 1 of the Reuse Program is being implemented, consisting of six recycled projects throughout the three program counties. Final design and construction of these projects is anticipated to be completed by 2019, allowing production of up to 5,500 AFY of recycled water. In addition, a Phase 2 Scoping Study is underway to identify potential new projects and additional member agencies (NBWRA, 2012). For more information go to http://nbwra.org/index.htm. 2.3.3.2 Desalinated Water As a high-quality, drought-proof local supply, desalination is an increasingly competitive water supply alternative for Bay Area Region water agencies. Desalination projects currently being pursued by Bay Area Region agencies include:  CCWD, EBMUD, SFPUC, SCVWD and Zone 7 are currently collaborating on the Bay Area Regional Desalination Project, which is anticipated to produce between 10 to 50 mgd. Pilot testing was completed in 2009, site specific analyses are scheduled to be completed by 2013 if implemented, and construction is scheduled to begin in 2018.  ACWD is currently using brackish groundwater desalination at its Newark Desalination Facility to supplement water supplies.  MMWD investigated desalination and built a successful 1 mgd pilot plant, although a larger project is not currently being pursued.  BAWSCA member agencies have several projects to investigate desalination that are in stages of feasibility planning, evaluation and pilot testing. Additional projects are discussed in Chapter 12. 9 Members of NBWRA include: Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, Napa County, Napa Sanitation District, Novato Sanitary District, North Marin Water District and Napa County, Sonoma County Water Agency, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-53 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.3.3.3 Water Transfers and Interties Several Bay Area Region water agencies (including ACWD, CCWD, EBMUD, SCVWD, SFPUC, Solano CWA and Zone 7) have participated in various types of water transfers to supplement their existing water supplies. These transfers and interties are important to help water agencies manage excess water and aid neighboring agencies in drought or other emergencies. Examples of water transfer and intertie arrangements are described in Chapter 4. 2.3.3.4 Groundwater Banking Many Bay Area Region agencies (including ACWD, SCVWD, Zone 7, and Solano CWA) participate in offsite groundwater banking programs for increased supply reliability. Typically, offsite groundwater banking allows storage of excess supplies in wet years for use in dry years. Examples of local groundwater banking programs are described in Chapter 4. 2.3.4 Water Supply Reliability Although water supply and demand is unique to each agency, all Bay Area Region agencies face similar challenges relating to water supply reliability. Many challenges, including threats to baseline supplies, increasing demands, hydrologic variations, and infrastructure vulnerability, are facing the Region and will need to be understood and addressed by IRWMP projects. These water supply reliability challenges are described in more detail in Chapter 4. 2.4 Water Demand and Conservation Although the Bay Area Region water agencies are all located in the same hydrologic region, water demand characteristics for the Bay Area vary greatly due to the following factors:  Source of Supply - Since the availability, reliability and quality of water supplies depends on the source, each agency has unique challenges in meeting its water demands.  Bay Area Climate Variations – Wide variation in local climates results in a corresponding variation in outdoor water use across the region and sometimes within the service area of agencies. Agencies closer to the San Francisco Bay tend to have cooler climates and higher precipitation (and thus a lower water demand) than areas further inland.  Population Density - Higher density, urban areas such as San Francisco tend to have less outdoor landscaping and lower outdoor water demand than more suburban areas in Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties.  Type of Users - Water use demand patterns vary by user type—residential, commercial, industrial or agricultural—and are unique to each agency. Agencies, such as Zone 7 and Solano CWA, with significant agricultural or landscape use have distinct seasonal use patterns with peak water demand in the hottest, driest months. Agencies with large industrial or residential customers, such as SFPUC, are likely to have a more constant and predictable water demand pattern. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-54 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Historically, the Bay Area has experienced a significant increase in population with a minimal associated change in total water use. This trend can be seen in Figure 2-19 which shows the regional summary of population versus water use. The Water Conservation Bill of 2009, or SBX7-7, provides the regulatory framework to support the statewide reduction in urban per capita water use. Each water retailer must determine and report its existing baseline water consumption and establish an interim target in their 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and a 2020 water use target in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Although water wholesalers are not required to meet the targets outlined in SBX7-7, many Bay Area wholesalers implement conservation programs and policies in partnership with and/or on behalf of their water retail agencies. This not only helps to ensure compliance with SBX7-7, it also helps to ensure long-term water supply reliability goals are met. Figure 2-19: Historical Population and Water Use in the Bay Area It is expected that the demand management measures, combined with alternative resources and strategies, and regulatory requirements will allow Bay Area Region water agencies to continue to meet projected demand through 2035 in average years. Normal year shortfall are not projected, however in dry years all but 4 major agencies—MMWD, City of Napa, SFPUC and Zone 7 —project a shortfall. Without strong local and regional planning, most Bay Area 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 6,000,000 6,500,000 7,000,000 7,500,000 19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Population200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Annual Water Use (AFY In Thousands)Population Total Water Use 1987-1992 Drought 2007 Drought 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-55 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Region water agencies could experience future supply shortfalls in severe droughts. Supplies and demands of the Bay Area Region are summarized in Table 2-10 and show that supplies are adequate through 2035 except in dry year scenarios where a shortfall is projected. Supply and demand data for each major Bay Area Region water supply agency are provided in the following sections, and water conservation strategies are further discussed in Chapter 4. Table 2-10: Summary of Bay Area Region Water Supply and Demand Note: (a) Does not include Sonoma CWA. 2.4.1 ACWD ACWD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-11. Shortfalls are projected for dry years and are expected to be offset in part by local and off-site groundwater storage. Table 2-11: ACWD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year(a) Single Dry Year(b) Multiple Dry Year(c) 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population(d) 344,300 382,500 415,600 382,500 415,600 NA Supply (AFY) 77,900 76,600 76,000 56,100 56,800 58,400 Demand (AFY) 52,600 68,600 69,800 65,800 67,000 63,300 Difference (AFY) 25,300 8000 6,200 -9,700 -10,200 -4,900 Notes: (a) Table 9-2. (b) Table 9-3. (c) Based on maximum shortage projected from 2015 UWMP, Table 9-8. (d) 2015 UWMP, Table 1-3; 2.4.2 BAWSCA BAWSCA member agencies collectively purchase approximately two-thirds of their water supply from the SFPUC to serve a residential population of nearly 1.8 million people in a 468-square mile area. BAWSCA members utilize local surface water, groundwater, SWP and CVP water, recycled water and water conservation measures to meet their remaining water supply demands. Current and projected population, water supply and water demand for the BAWSCA agencies are presented in Table 2-12. By 2035, the population served by BAWSCA member Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population(a) 7,331,716 8,231,905 9,186,676 8,231,905 9,186,676 Supply (AFY) 1,475,595 1,719,535 1,793,699 1,522,959 1,563,757 1,073,975 Demand (AFY) 1,278,480 1,534,534 1,680,963 1,517,778 1,666,870 1,197,143 Difference (AFY) 197,115 185,001 112,736 5,181 -103,113 -123,168 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-56 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description agencies is expected to increase by about 378,000, a 22 percent increase over current levels. Even with current and planned water conservation activities, future water demands are projected to exceed available supplies after 2018. It is estimated that by 2035 up to 25 mgd in normal years and up to 76 mgd in drought years will be needed to meet BAWSCA demands (BAWSCA, May 2010).10 Table 2-12: BAWSCA Water Supply and Demand Current(a) Projected(b)(d) Normal Year Drought Conditions 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Population 1,781,530 1,870,393 2,122,507 1,870,393 2,122,507 Supply (AFY) 196,666 315,001 330,695 258,951 272,403 Demand (AFY) 196,666 315,001 358,720 315,001 358,720 Difference (AFY) 0 0 -28,025 -56,050 -85,196 Source: BAWSCA. Annual Survey, FY 2015-16 2.4.3 CCWD CCWD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-13. The District has planned purchases of 7,200 AFY in 2035 in single and multiple dry year scenarios. CCWD can meet demands with existing supplies in normal and single dry years until 2035 at which point it projects a shortfall. Table 2-13: CCWD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case (2040) Population 477,480 543,850 605,600 543,850 605,600 605,600 Supply (AFY) 213,700 247,000 249,800 194,000 196,000 161,500 Demand (AFY) 148,000 177,600 191,000 177,600 191,000 191,000 Difference (AFY) 65,700 69,400 58,800 17,000 5,000 -29,500 2.4.4 EBMUD EBMUD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented Table 2-14. Supply deficits are projected in dry years. 10 BAWSCA projections has some overlap with the supply and demand projection for ACWD and SCVWD. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-57 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-14: EBMUD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case (Year 2040, Year 3) Population 1.39 M 1.58 M 1.72 M 1.58 M 1.72 M NA Supply (AFY) 183,000 249,000 258,000 234,000 241,000 163,000 Demand (AFY)a 183,000 249,000 258,000 233,000 240,000 206,000 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 -43,000 Source: EBMUD 2015 UWMP and EBMUD O&M FY15 Statistical Report Notes: (a) “Demand” is reported as ‘Planning Level of Demand’ – adjusted demand for planning purposes after applying cumulative conservation and cumulative recycled water savings. In single and multiple dry years, demand is further reduced by customer rationing, ~7% in single dry year and ~20% in year 3 of multiple dry years. “Supply” includes actual and projected available CVP supplies and Bayside Project is on line in Year 3 of the multiple dry years. 2.4.5 MMWD MMWD’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-15. MMWD expects to be able to meet its demands in both normal and dry year scenarios through 2035. Table 2-15: MMWD Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 189,000 199,800 210,400 199,800 210,400 - Supply (AFY) 39,452 152,794 152,794 60,442 60,442 60,442 Demand (AFY) 38,866 41,685(a) 42,109(a) 41,685a) 42,109(a) 42,109(a) Difference (AFY) 586 111,109 110,685 18,757 18,333 18,333 Note: (a) Based on assumptions, including effective implementation of aggressive conservation program. 2.4.6 City of Napa The City of Napa’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-16. In 2020, demand is projected to outpace supply in single dry years but increases in supply after 2020 are expected to correct that imbalance. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-58 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-16: City of Napa Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2035 2030 2035 Worst Case (2035) Population 87,615 96,219 98,819 96,219 98,819 93,723 Supply (AFY) 29,150 32,873 32,873 17,962 17,962 19,896 Demand (AFY) 13,442 16,151 16,536 16,151 16,536 16,536 Difference (AFY) 15,708 16,722 16,337 1,811 1,426 3,360 While the City of Napa is the largest water agency in Napa County, more than 6,000 AFY in additional municipal demands are met by the cities of American Canyon, St. Helena, and Calistoga and the Town of Yountville. Each has its own water supply portfolio including local reservoirs, groundwater, retail purchases, or State Water Project entitlements. The City of Napa has a water relationship with these four nearby agencies, such as providing SWP treat-and- wheel service (American Canyon, Calistoga), retail sales (St. Helena), and emergency supply and water conservation assistance (Yountville). In the unincorporated areas of Napa County, demand is met primarily via local groundwater basins. 2.4.7 SFPUC The current and projected population, water supply and water demand for SFPUC’s retail and wholesale water system are presented in Table 2-17. Demands are projected to be met in every scenario. Table 2-17: SFPUC Water Supply and Demand – Retail and Wholesale Water System Current Projected Retail Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 847,370 983,568 1,087,468 983,568 1,087,468 Supply (AFY) 87,024 92,248 100,767 92,248 100,767 100,655 Demand (AFY) 87,024 92,248 100,767 92,248 100,767 100,767 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Current Projected Wholesale Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 1,800,897 2,062,427 2,242,606 2,062,427 2,242,606 Supply (AFY) 167,440 206,243 206,243 171,047 171,047 148,517 Demand (AFY) 167,440 206,243 206,243 206,243 206,243 206,243 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 -35,196 -35,196 -57,726 Source: SFPUC 2015 UWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-59 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.4.8 Valley Water Valley Water’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-18. Supplies are projected to meet demands in all scenarios except for a multiple dry year worst case scenario in 2040. In dry years, Valley Water plans to meet demands using reserves and carryover. Table 2-18: Valley Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 1,877,700 2,188,500 2,423,500 2,188,500 2,423,500 2,423,500 Supply (AFY)a,b,c 260,000 435,800 441,900 370,700 408,500 256,800 Demand (AFY) 285,000 408,600 435,100 370,600 434,300 434,100 Difference (AFY) -25,000 27,200 6,800 100 -25,800 -177,300 Notes: (a) Supply projections based on full implementation of the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan (b) Average water supplies during an extended drought (with 2035 demands) are 419,396 AFY. (c) Supplies in the single dry and multiple dry include use of reserves and carryover. 2.4.9 Solano CWA Solano CWA’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented Table 2-19. This table represents the part of Solano County that is in the Bay Area IRWMP and includes the cities of Fairfield, Benicia, Suisun City and Vallejo Supplies are projected to meet demands in all scenarios. Landscape Water Conservation in San Francisco 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-60 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-19: Solano CWA Water Supply and Demand(a) Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2035 2030 2040 Worst Case Population 280,128 312,560 350,069 312,560 350,069 350,069 Supply (AFY) 182,605 205,825 205,825 204,051 204,051 184,887 Demand (AFY) 182,194 207,350 207,350 207,350 207,350 207,350 Differenc e (AFY) 411 -1,525 -1,525 -3,299 -3,299 -22,463 Note: (a) Includes Fairfield, Benicia, Suisun City and Vallejo. 2.4.10 Sonoma CWA Sonoma CWA’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-20. Table 2-20: Sonoma CWA Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Year 2015 2030 2040 2030 2040 Worst Case (2040) Population 614,196 698,824 742,040 698,824 742,040 NA(a) Supply (AFY) 42,254 73,011 75,987 60,696 61,837 75,987 Demand (AFY) 42,254 73,011 75,987 73,011 75,897 75,897 Difference (AFY) 0 0 0 -12,315 -14,150 0 2.4.11 Zone 7 Zone 7’s current and projected population, water supply and water demand are presented in Table 2-21. Zone 7 projects to be able to meet demand in all water year types through 2035. Table 2-21: Zone 7 Water Supply and Demand Current Projected Normal Year(b) Single Dry Year(c) Multiple Dry Year(d) 2015 2030 2035 2030 2035 Worst Case Population(a) 238,600 285,300 285,300 285,300 285,300 291,000 Supply (AFY) 47,900 99,500 99,500 78,200 78,200 73,950 Demand (AFY) 47,900 89,500 92,800 48,500 49,900 58,600 Difference (AFY) 0 10,000 6,700 29,700 28,300 15,350 Notes: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-61 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description (a) Population (2010, 2020): UWMP, Table 2-2; Population (2035): 2011 Water Supply Evaluation Report, Figure 2-2. (b) Normal Year Supply and Demand: UWMP, Table 16-1; 2035 assumed to be the same as 2030. (c) Single Dry Year Supply and Demand: UWMP, Table 16-2; 2035 assumed to be the same as 2030. (d) Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand: UWMP, Table 16-3(d), worst case assumed to be the same as 2030. 2.5 Water Quality 2.5.1 General Bay Area Region Water Quality Issues Water quality issues facing the Bay Area Region include:  Microbes. Potential microbial contamination, particularly by Cryptosporidium and Giardia, is a water quality issue of concern for Bay Area surface water supplies. Cryptosporidium and Giardia have caused large waterborne disease outbreaks throughout the United States and are of particular concern for immunocompromised individuals. Surface water is generally more exposed to and impacted by microbial contaminants than groundwater.  Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Bromide and Disinfection Byproducts. Many of the Bay Area’s supplies, particularly from the Delta, contain high levels of TOC and bromide. These constituents are precursors to disinfection byproducts (DBPs), which are potential carcinogens. Bromide concentrations are primarily dependent on the amount of seawater mixing with freshwater in the Delta and can be challenging to reduce through treatment.  In 2002, the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) set target Delta source water concentrations for TOC and bromide at 3.0 mg/L and 50 μg/L, respectively, in an attempt to mitigate the potential formation of DBPs. The ROD also indicated that, should source water quality targets not be met, an equivalent level of public health protection (ELPH) should be achieved through treatment. This would involve use of treatment technologies specifically tailored to mitigate production of potentially harmful byproducts of disinfection and treatment. DBP production can be mitigated by innovative treatment strategies, but the process is difficult and expensive. Water quality at the Delta drinking water intakes is above the 3.0 mg/L target for organic carbon and, at most intakes, is several times the 50 μg/L bromide target (CALFED, 2007).  Total Dissolved Solids. Many Bay Area Region water sources contain high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), particularly groundwater, recycled water, and Delta supplies (Delta supply’s TDS concentrations and salinity are variable depending on the time and type of year as well as pumping patterns). TDS is a common water quality parameter used to measure salinity of water supplies. The secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/L, Water Quality Testing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-62 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description above which problems with taste, odor and color may occur.  Nuisance algae. Nuisance algae is a major concern for many local and imported Bay Area Region surface water supplies. Agencies typically spend a significant amount of money to control algae, mitigate related taste and odor problems, and address filter clogging at water treatment plants.  Toxic pollutants. Major pollution challenges in the Bay Area Region are associated with legacy and emerging toxic pollutants. Legacy pollutants result from past human activities, including mining, military, pesticide manufacture and use and industrial activities. Emerging pollutants and sources of other toxic compounds include urban and rural runoff and other past and ongoing discharges. Pollutants of specific concern include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, flame retardants, solvents and pharmaceuticals. Mercury contamination is of particular concern for the many minority communities practicing subsistence fishing in the region.  Lead. Elevated levels of lead often are due to lead piping in the water distribution system and/or household plumbing, commonly in older housing developments and in DACs.  Urban Runoff. Urban and roadway runoff is a significant source of toxic pollutants such as mercury, PCBs, copper, nickel, and pesticides. In an effort to address this source of pollution, the RWQCB has developed more stringent regulations for stormwater permits. Whereas previous permits had required stormwater treatment where practicable, the new provisions require that runoff from projects that create or replace an acre or more of impervious surface must incorporate source control, site design measures, and stormwater treatment of runoff before discharge from the site.  Trash Control. Trash is transported into creeks through storm drains, by wind, and directly from adjacent roads and pedestrian areas. This can often be a problem in DACs located near industrial areas, where trash can create a neighborhood eyesore. In 2001, the RWQCB considered adding trash to the list of pollutants impairing Bay Area creeks. However, the listing was not made because of the lack of a consistent methodology to assess impairment from trash. Instead, all urban creeks, lakes, and shorelines were placed on a “monitoring” list. Municipalities are expected to assess trash impairments in their jurisdictions and to report their findings in their annual reports.  Grazing and Agriculture. Grazing and agricultural practices, when not properly managed can contribute water quality degradation. Agricultural uses may contribute fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants to surface water through irrigation runoff and impact groundwater quality by concentrating nitrates from irrigated agriculture and confined animal facilities. Trampling and direct consumption of stream and wetlands vegetation by improperly managed cattle may cause erosion and reduces biodiversity. Cattle also contribute nutrients and pathogens to surface runoff. Agencies throughout the Bay Area are actively addressing water quality issues in their service areas. In order to provide uniformly high quality water to all customers and to reduce treatment costs, many agencies blend higher quality supplies with lesser quality water. In addition, agencies are working to manage salts, dissolved solids and other constituents of concern 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-63 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description through several measures, including source water assessment, watershed protection, collaborative work groups, and advanced treatment technologies. Water quality protection and improvement are discussed further in Chapter 4. 2.5.2 Specific Source Water Quality Issues Bay Area Region water quality is dependent upon source of supply. Table 2-22 illustrates how select water quality parameters can vary significantly between major Bay Area sources. Table 2-22: Water Quality Constituent Concentrations for Major Bay Area Supplies(a) Parameter Sierra Nevada Supplies(b) Delta Supplies(c) Russian River Supplies(d) Livermore Valley Groundwater(e) TDS (mg/L) 27-230 330 130 – 180 608-1,146 Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 8-140 119 40-141 413-613 TOC (mg/L) 2.4-3.2 3.1 0.6 0.2 – 0.5 Chloride (mg/L) 3-16 90 0.12 95-193 Notes: (a) Water quality concentrations vary significantly by location, season, and hydrologic year type. Values presented here represent ranges measured at specific locations. (b) Data shown for Sierra Nevada Supplies include ranges found for both Tuolumne and Mokelumne Rivers sources, from the following documents: SFPUC. Annual Water Quality Report 2010; EBMUD. Annual Water Quality Report 2010. (c) Santa Clara Valley Water District April 2012 Water Quality Report http://www.valleywater.org/services/WaterQualityReports.aspx (d) TDS and Hardness values from the City of Petaluma, Department of Water Resource and Conservation. Annual Water Quality Report 2010. TOC and Chloride values from Water Quality Data from Russian River Basin, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties 2005-2010. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/610/pdf/ds610.pdf (e) TDS, hardness, and chloride reported values for Mocho Wellfield as reported in Zone 7’s 2010 Consumer Confidence Report http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf_docs/water_quality/2010-ccr-web.pdf. TOC values from Pam John et al. Feasibility Level Design of Recycled Water Facilities for Santa Clara County, presented at the 2005 Water Reuse Annual Conference (http://www.watereuse.org/ca/ 2005conf/papers/B1_pgittens.pdf). 2.5.2.1 Surface Water Quality Delta water supplies typically contain organic carbon, bromide, pathogens, salinity, nutrients, and algae. Salinity contributes to taste problems, limits recycling and groundwater recharge opportunities, and is closely linked to bromide concentration. Although seawater is the primary source of salinity, agricultural and urban discharges in the watershed also contribute to the salt load. Nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) lead to algal growth in reservoirs and conveyance structures. Algae cause tastes and odor problems and clog filters or otherwise interfere with water treatment. Additional water quality issues and objectives for Delta source water are discussed in Chapter 12. Supplies originating in the Sierra Nevada Mountains typically have the best water quality with very low salts and organic matter, since the water originates from snowmelt on granite peaks that allows few avenues for infiltration of salts and solids. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-64 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Russian River water supplies, like many other local water supplies, typically are of very good quality, with low levels of total dissolved solids and total organic carbon. As water flows to the Russian River aquifer, it flows through a thick layer of gravel and sand that acts as a filter, eliminating many regulated constituents. 2.5.2.2 Groundwater Quality Bay Area groundwater supplies are generally high quality. AB 1249 requires IRWM plans to include information as available on certain constituents if present in groundwater, specifically nitrates, arsenic, perchlorate, and Cr-VI. It should be noted that some of these constituents are naturally occurring in Bay Area groundwater basins, and not all Bay Area groundwater basins are currently used for water supply. Groundwater in many areas does not require treatment. In others, water utilities treat or blend the groundwater used for water supply to ensure that they meet all drinking water standards. Further information on water quality for each utility can be found in their respective Urban Water Management Plans. The Livermore Valley Basin is reporting the presence of nitrates, arsenic, and Cr-VI. The Napa Valley and Napa-Sonoma Valley Lowlands Basins also report nitrates, arsenic, perchlorates, and Cr-VI. San Francisco is reporting the presence of nitrates and Cr-VI for the Westside Basin. Zone 7 Water Agency, the agency managing the Livermore Valley Basin, has taken one of its wells out of service and added treatment processes to other wells in order to address nitrates and other constituents. Zone 7 has also developed Salt and Nutrient Management Plans and constructed and operates a groundwater demineralization facility to remove TDS and other contamination. Napa County, the agency managing the Napa Valley and Napa-Sonoma Valley Lowlands, reports that since the contaminants are naturally occurring and not widespread, there are minimal impacts on the groundwater quality. San Francisco meets water quality standards through blending. Many agencies are in the process of setting up further monitoring as required by their Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Data may not be readily available for groundwater basins that are not used for water supply. Testing conducted by the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program showed that most constituents of concern generally were below health-based thresholds. Pharmaceutical compounds were not detected in any of the tested wells. Seawater intrusion has affected some aquifers along the Bay, contributing high concentrations of chloride and other dissolved minerals to the groundwater, but reduced withdrawals and more effective groundwater management have alleviated impacts to many groundwater basins (further described in Chapter 4). 2.5.2.3 Recycled Water Quality Quality of recycled water supplies is a function of influent water quality and treatment. All recycled water in use in the Bay Area Region complies with applicable Title 22 water quality standards, which specify treatment and use requirements for various recycled water uses (including landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, cooling towers and other industrial uses, and toilet and urinal flushing). Some recycled water quality issues that can impact existing habitat and sensitive species include the amount of total dissolved solids and nitrates. The salinity of recycled water, which is generally 150 to 400 mg/L above potable levels (Tanji et al. 2008), is an important parameter in determining its suitability for irrigation and other uses. Depending on salinity levels, it may be unsuitable for irrigation of more salt sensitive plants or 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-65 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description for industrial purposes requiring higher quality water. This issue can often be addressed during project design, planning, and monitoring and would be considered on a project-by-project basis for IRWM planning. For examples, SCVWD, in partnership with the City of San Jose, is constructing the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center to help address salinity levels through the production of highly purified recycled water. 2.5.2.4 Desalinated Water Quality The overall quality of desalinated water is comparable to other high quality drinking water sources. Results from the MMWD Seawater Desalination Pilot Program showed that desalinated water met or exceeded all state and federal drinking water standards. 2.5.3 Water Quality Regulations 2.5.3.1 TMDLs The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), SWRCB, and RWQCBs have permitting, enforcement, remediation, monitoring, and watershed-based programs to prevent or manage pollution. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) contains two strategies for managing water quality including, (1) a technology-based approach that envisions requirements to maintain a minimum level of pollutant management using the best available technology; and (2) a water quality- based approach that relies on evaluating the condition of surface waters and setting limitations on the amount of pollution that the water can be exposed to without adversely affecting the beneficial uses of those waters. Section 303(d) of the CWA bridges these two strategies. Section 303(d) requires that the states make a list of waters that are not attaining standards after the technology-based limits are put into place. For waters on this list (and where the US EPA administrator deems they are appropriate), the states are required to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDL) — a number that represents the assimilative capacity of receiving water to absorb a pollutant—to control both point and nonpoint source pollution and must account for all sources of the pollutants that caused the water to be listed. In the Bay Area Region, surface water and groundwater quality is regulated by the SF RWQCB. The SF RWQCB classifies the San Francisco Bay and many of its tributaries as impaired for various water quality constituents. The SF RWQCB staff is currently developing more than 30 TMDL projects to address the impaired water bodies. Table 2-23 shows TMDL projects that have been completed and that are currently in development in the Bay Area Region. Chapters 4 and 12 provide additional discussion and examples of non-point source pollution control TMDL project development in the Bay Area Region. Additional information on TMDLs and 303(d) listings can be found on the SWRCB Lagunitas Creek 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-66 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description website, including the Integrated Report (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/impaired_waters_list/). One of the main regulatory planning documents for water quality is the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, administered by the SF RWQCB. It designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface and groundwater and includes implementation programs to achieve those objectives. Another local entity is the Clean Estuary Partnership (CEP), which is an innovative collaboration of the BACWA, the BASMAA, and the RWQCB designed to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. Other key participants include the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the Clean Water Fund, San Francisco Bay Keeper, the Port of Oakland, and the Western States Petroleum Association. The CEP works with RWQCB staff to fund and conduct technical research and analysis to support TMDL development and to conduct stakeholder outreach activities.11 11 For more information on the Basin Planning Process go to: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/mainpagegraphics/basin_planning_fs.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-67 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Table 2-23: TMDL Projects – Completed and in Development Completed TMDL Projects TMDL Projects in Development • Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury • Lagunitas Creek Sediment • Muir Beach Bacteria (proposed de- listing) • Napa River Pathogens • Napa River Nutrients (proposed de- listing) • Napa River Sediment • North San Francisco Bay Selenium • Pescadero and Butano Creeks Sediment • Richardson Bay Pathogens • San Francisco Bay Beaches Bacteria • San Francisco Bay Mercury • San Francisco Bay PCBs • San Vicente Creek and Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Bacteria • San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach Bacteria • Sonoma Creek Nutrients (proposed de- listing) • Sonoma Creek Pathogens • Sonoma Creek Sediment • Suisun Marsh Mercury and Dissolved Oxygen • Tomales Bay Mercury • Tomales Bay Pathogens • Urban Creeks Pesticide Toxicity • Walker Creek Mercury • Kiteboard Beach and Oyster Point Beach Bacteria • Permanente Creek Selenium • Petaluma River Bacteria • Pillar Point Harbor & Venice Beach Bacteria • San Francisquito Creek Sediment • San Gregorio Creek Sediment • Stevens Creek Toxicity • Source: SFRWQCB 2019. 2.5.3.2 Salt and Nutrient Management High salinity has become a particular constituent of concern for water planning. The rate at which salts accumulate in soils is an important factor in determining acceptable TDS levels for irrigation. In addition, the salinity and potential toxicity to plant foliage and roots from other specific constituents are potential concerns. Some groundwater basins contain salts and nutrients that exceed or threaten to exceed water quality objectives established in the applicable Water Quality Control Plans. These conditions can be caused by natural soils/conditions, discharges of waste, irrigation using surface water, groundwater or recycled water and water supply augmentation using surface or recycled water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-68 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description In 2009, the SWRCB adopted a statewide Recycled Water Policy (Policy) to establish uniform requirements for the use of recycled water. The purpose of this Policy is to increase the use of recycled water from municipal wastewater sources in a manner that implements state and federal water quality laws. The Policy states that salts and nutrients from all sources, including recycled water, should be managed on a basin wide or watershed wide basis in a manner that ensures attainment of water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses. The SWRCB determined that the appropriate way to address salt and nutrient issues is through the development of regional or sub-regional salt and nutrient management plans rather than through imposing requirements solely on individual recycled water projects. Salt and nutrient plans must include a basin/sub basin wide monitoring plan that specifies an appropriate network of monitoring locations. The monitoring plan should be site specific and must be adequate to provide a reasonable, cost-effective means of determining whether the concentrations of salt, nutrients and other constituents of concern as identified in the salt and nutrient plans are consistent with applicable water quality objectives. For more information see Chapter 5. 2.5.3.3 Drinking Water The California State Board Water Boards (SWB) Drinking Water Program (DWP) regulates public drinking water systems. DWP consists of three branches: (1) the Northern California Field Operations Branch, (2) the Southern California Field Operations Branch, and (3) the Program Management Branch. The Field Operations Branches (FOBs) are responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts (SDWAs) and the regulatory oversight of about 7,500 public water systems to assure the delivery of safe drinking water to all Californians. In this capacity, FOB staff perform field inspections, issue operating permits, review plans and specifications for new facilities, take enforcement actions for non-compliance with laws and regulations, review water quality monitoring results, and support and promote water system security. In addition, FOB staff are involved in funding infrastructure improvements, conducting source water assessments, evaluating projects utilizing recycled treated wastewater, and promoting and assisting public water systems in drought preparation and water conservation. FOB staff work with the US EPA, the SWRCB, RWQCBs, and a wide variety of other parties interested in the protection of drinking water supplies. On the local level, FOB staff work with county health departments, planning departments, and boards of supervisors. Primacy has been delegated by CDPH to certain county health departments for regulatory oversight of small water systems, and FOB staff provide oversight, technical assistance, and training for the local primacy agency personnel. 2.5.3.4 The Technical Programs Branch consists of the Quality Assurance Section, the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program Section, and the Technical Operations Section. Recycled Water The DWP establishes regulations and criteria for water recycling to protect public health. The RWQCB issues permits for water recycling to ensure groundwater and surface water quality are protected and to implement DWP recommendations for protecting public health. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-69 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.6 Major Water Related Infrastructure The following sections list the major water-related infrastructure for the Region. 2.6.1 Drinking Water Infrastructure Bay Area Region water agencies rely upon a diverse network of water related infrastructure that includes major aqueducts that convey water supplies from the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the Delta. Major transmission facilities throughout the region include:  Contra Costa Canal: The 48-mile long Contra Costa Canal comprises the backbone of the CCWD transmission system for CVP. It originates at Rock Slough in East Contra Costa County and ends and ends at the Shortcut Pipeline near the Bollman Water Treatment Plant, delivering water to CCWD’s treatment facilities and raw water customers.  Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct: The 156-mile Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct conveys water from the Tuolumne River through the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to the San Francisco Bay Area. In Fremont, the aqueduct splits into four pipelines , all of which cross the Hayward fault. Pipelines 1 and 2 cross the San Francisco Bay to the south of the Dumbarton Bridge and Pipelines 3 and 4 run to the south.  Mokelumne Aqueducts: Three aqueducts form the Mokelumne Aqueduct System and convey most of EBMUD’s supply 84 miles from Pardee Reservoir on the Mokelumne River westward to Walnut Creek.  North Bay Aqueduct: The North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) is an underground pipeline operated remotely by DWR that conveys water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The NBA extends from Barker Slough in the Delta to Cordelia Forebay, outside of Vallejo. From the Cordelia Forebay water is conveyed via the NBA to Napa County, Vallejo and Benicia. Solano CWA and the Napa County FCWCD, which contracts for water supply on behalf of the cities and towns in Napa County, receive Delta supplies through the NBA.  Russian River Transmission Facilities: Sonoma CWA operates diversion facilities at the Russian River and an aqueduct system comprised of pipelines, pumps, and storage tanks. Three major reservoir projects provide water supply for the Russian River watershed: Lake Pillsbury on the Eel River, Lake Mendocino on the East Fork of the Russian River, and Lake Sonoma on Dry Creek. Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma provide water for agriculture, municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, in addition to maintaining the minimum stream flows required by water rights permits. Most of the streamflow in the Russian River during the summer is provided by water imported from the Eel River. Streamflows are augmented by releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma.  San Felipe Division: The San Felipe Division is comprised of pipelines and pumps that convey CVP water from San Luis Reservoir (a joint SWP CVP facility) to Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. In Santa Clara County, the San Felipe Division terminates at Coyote Pumping Plant, where it connects with SCVWD’s Cross-Valley Pipeline. The 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-70 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Cross Valley Pipeline is a source of supply for drinking water treatment plants, recharge ponds, and irrigation customers.  South Bay Aqueduct: The South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) conveys water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through over forty miles of pipelines and canals. Beginning at Bethany Reservoir, water is pumped through two parallel pipelines to the eastern ridge of the Diablo Range. From there, water flows by gravity to Patterson Reservoir, where some water is released for delivery to Livermore Valley. Water is then conveyed to a junction point where a portion is diverted into Lake Del Valle. Beyond Lake Del Valle, water flows south past Sunol and through the hills overlooking San Francisco Bay, terminating in a steel tank east of downtown San Jose. ACWD, Zone 7, and SCVWD receive SWP supplies conveyed through the SBA (South Bay Aque, 2006). A schematic of these facilities and major rivers located in and around the Bay Area Region is presented in Figure 2-20. In addition to pipelines and aqueducts, each water agency has its own extensive network of surface water storage reservoirs, groundwater extraction wells, water treatment plants, and distribution pipelines. Lake Del Valle 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-71 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-20: Major Water Infrastructure Serving the Bay Area Region 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-72 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.6.2 Major Wastewater Infrastructure Most of the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay and discharge effluent into the Bay are urbanized and sewered. Wastewater is discharged to publicly owned sewers and transported to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). In the San Francisco Bay region, POTWs are public agencies, governed by elected officials and funded with sewer user fees paid for by the users of the sewerage systems. Each of the POTWs in the San Francisco Bay Area Region has received National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the SF RWQCB. Major Bay Area Region wastewater facilities are illustrated in Figure 2-21. 2.6.3 Flood Protection Infrastructure The natural physical setting of the Bay Area and the increase in impervious surfaces due to urban development puts many areas in the Bay Area Region at risk for flooding. In order to manage stormwater and prevent damages from flooding, flood protection infrastructure has been developed throughout the region. In addition to storm drain systems that are common throughout the Bay Area Region, major Bay Area flood protection infrastructure projects have been constructed along the following waterways:  Alameda Creek. Twelve miles of Alameda Creek has been straightened, widened and rip-rapped and levee protection is provided for almost the entire length of the channel. In addition, the Arroyo del Valle reservoir in the Livermore-Amador Valley was constructed to regulate flows along this creek.  Corte Madera Creek. County Flood Control Zone Nine began a flood control project in the late 1960s which was originally intended to extend 6.5 miles through Larkspur, Kentfield, Ross, San Anselmo, and Fairfax. Construction at the downstream end created a trapezoidal earthen channel and, further upstream, a rectangular concrete channel part way through Ross. In 2011, DWR awarded Proposition 1E funding for the Phoenix Lake retrofit project, a component of the Ross Valley flood control projects, which will temporarily store stormwater runoff from watershed to lower flows in Ross Creek and Corte Madera Creek (Marin County 2011).  Guadalupe River. Two major flood protection projects were recently completed to provide 1 percent flood protection to the Guadalupe River. These projects included a large underground bypass about 2,700 feet long, twenty feet high and sixty feet wide to convey flood flows and allow the existing channel to be left in its natural condition so that critical steelhead salmon runs would not be adversely impacted. Currently, construction on the Upper Guadalupe Flood Protection Project is underway with completion scheduled for 2015. This project constitutes the last section of the larger Guadalupe river project. Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-73 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description  Napa River. Currently under construction is a flood control project on the Napa River to protect developed areas from flooding. The $400 million project includes raising several bridges, adding floodplain terraces, and a large restored wetland.  Novato Creek. Flood control improvements sufficient to prevent flooding during storms up to the 50-year recurrence interval are currently being developed.  Petaluma River. New floodwalls—part of a nearly complete $41 million flood control project—protected residents in the Payran neighborhood during the 2006 New Year’s flood.  San Francisquito Creek. In 2002, SCVWD completed a multi-agency project that provided interim flood protection to the communities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. The effort was a critical measure in protecting homes and businesses from the danger of flooding. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) continues implementation of projects to stabilize, restore and maintain the channel, which include ongoing capital projects within the 100-year floodplain. Since then, the JPA has received Proposition 1E and Proposition 84 grant awards for construction in support of this program.. Many DACs are located in floodplain areas where much of this flood protection infrastructure is located. These communities have the potential to be negatively impacted by flood control projects. 2.6.4 Infrastructure Reliability Maintaining and upgrading water resources infrastructure is crucial to successful water resources planning. Infrastructure in the Bay Area Region is vulnerable to effects from events such as seismic activity, levy failures, sedimentation, climate change impacts and system security breaches. A discussion of these issues and examples of mitigation strategies is presented in Chapters 4 and 12. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-74 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Figure 2-21: Major Bay Area Region Wastewater Facilities 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-75 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.7 Regional Issues, Needs and Challenges The key issues, needs, challenges, and priorities for the Bay Area Region with respect to water resource management are described in the following sections. 2.7.1 Regulatory Compliance Challenges Challenges to achieving and maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements may include:  Compliance with Environmental Mandates: Depending upon the extent and jurisdiction of a water management project, water agencies must comply with some or all of the following regulations and agencies:  California Environmental Quality Act  National Environmental Policy Act (if a Federal interest exists)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  San Francisco Bay RWQCB  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service  California Department of Public Health Bay Area Region water resources management entities have observed problems imposed by severe funding and staffing limitations at the resource protection agencies, including long delays in permitting and the inability to commit sufficient resources to guiding and assisting applicants during the planning and decision-making phases of projects. IRWM planning, therefore, must be creative, flexible, and be well-planned to overcome environmental planning challenges. Open and ongoing discussions with the above agencies can be critical to project success. Additional discussion of agency coordination is provided in Chapter 15.  Compliance with Stormwater Requirements: Stormwater compliance presents a variety of challenges to both municipalities and stormwater management agencies. Local planning and plan review staff generally lack expertise in NPDES permit compliance and in stormwater treatment requirements. Guidelines that call for stormwater infiltration can be challenging to meet in the Bay Area Region, which has wide prevalence of low- permeability clay soils and high groundwater. In addition, stormwater NPDES programs have responsibility for defining their standards as well as for meeting those standards, so municipal stormwater program staff spends a significant proportion of their time and resources preparing regulatory compliance reports. Stormwater capture and management strategies are discussed in Chapter 4.  Compliance with Flood Protection Permitting: Environmental permits from the Corps, SF RW QCB, and the NMFS are typically required to construct flood protection or stream restoration projects and maintain existing facilities, even for routine maintenance 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-76 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description of channels, including dredging, bank repair, and vegetation management. Flood protection agencies must also cooperate with efforts by Federal and state wildlife agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to maintain and restore critical habitat and assist species recovery. In each case, the local flood protection agency must evaluate and mitigate, if necessary, the effects of these projects on conveyance of flood flows. The time and cost associated with obtaining these permits are a considerable burden on the local agencies. 2.7.2 Flood Protection Challenges Flood protection agencies throughout the region face challenges related to permitting, floodplain management, and stream ownership and maintenance responsibility. 2.7.2.1 Floodplain Management Development in upper elevations and steep hillside areas exacerbate problems of stream instability, erosion, and flooding. On lower elevations and flatter gradients, high land values are a disincentive to retaining riparian setbacks where natural geomorphic and ecologic processes such as flooding and minor erosion could occur without affecting structures. Floodplain and riparian management concerns include the following:  Development in Stream Corridors. During the 1940s through the 1970s, the “golden age of stream channelization” coincided with the most rapid urban development in the region. Stream restoration projects typically require reconfiguring channel cross-sections to accommodate increased flows and restore sediment equilibrium; development near streams constrains options for implementing these projects.  Accommodating Recreational Needs and Public Access. As the Bay Area’s population increases and urban development intensifies, there is increasing need for parks, trails and open space. Needs include active recreation areas such as playing fields and courts in addition to trails where residents can obtain access to nature. Many Bay Area riparian areas are used by homeless people for refuge and camping. This damages riparian areas and exacerbates problems with trash and potential water-borne pathogens.  Development in Areas Susceptible to Tidal Flooding. Although many portions of the Bay shoreline are protected from development or are in the process of restoration, there is significant ongoing development on the Bay-ward side of the freeways ringing the Bay. DACs are often located in low-lying flood-prone areas. The Bay is subject to El Niño episodes, which bring about a dangerous combination of severe storms and heightened seas, and resulting tidal flooding impacts.  Flood management strategies are discussed further in Chapter 4.  Recreation and public access are discussed further in Chapter 4. Flooding along Berryessa Creek 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-77 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description  State floodplain management task force recommendations are presented in Chapter 12. 2.7.2.2 Stream Ownership and Maintenance Ownership of Bay Area streams is a patchwork of public title, public easements, and private ownership. Flood protection agencies have adopted different policies with regard to jurisdiction over, or maintenance responsibility for, urban streams. Many Bay Area stream reaches have, in fact, no established public jurisdiction or established maintenance responsibility. As infrastructure ages and deteriorates, and as incised channels erode and evolve, resulting property damage and flooding threats often lead to claims and counterclaims among public agencies and private property owners. Stream maintenance can be managed through ecosystem restoration, a water management practice that is further discussed in Chapter 4. 2.7.3 Financial and Funding Challenges Water resources management entities in the Bay Area Region face several financial and funding challenges for regional projects, including:  Competing costs between existing operating costs and improvement projects  Lack of funding to maintain or replace aging infrastructure  Lack of funding to comply with stormwater permit obligations Chapter 11 discusses financial and funding issues for IRWM projects. 2.7.4 Environmental and Watershed Challenges The Bay Area Region watershed has numerous and significant water resource management and environmental stewardship challenges. These often occur when resources are managed for conflicting uses, such as instream flows and municipal water supplies or land use development and habitat conservation. Bay Area Region water agencies are tasked with balancing the water needs of sensitive environmental areas with the water needs of their customers, and ensuring that natural resources and habitats are shielded from potential adverse impacts associated with water resource management. Environmental water demands (including the quantity, timing, duration, and frequency of flows required by plants, wildlife, and fisheries) frequently conflict with water supply demands for agricultural irrigation and/or urban development. For example, diversions of water from streams and reservoir fluctuations can limit survival rates for aquatic and riparian species. Opportunities exist for water managers to evaluate their delivery schedules, reservoir ramping rates, and other flow requirements and find “windows” for providing flow for environmental and habitat support. Water management strategies to address environmental and watershed concerns are further discussed in Chapter 4. Effective management of the Region’s water resources also requires effective ongoing communication and collaboration between land and water resource managers and stewards. These relationships are further discussed in Chapters 12 and 13. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-78 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.7.5 Dependence on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Many Bay Area Region water agencies purchase imported water that flows through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, such as the SWP and CVP. Some agencies (such as CCWD and Zone 7) rely on the Delta to transport over 75 percent of their water supply. However, the long-term reliability of this water supply is unknown because of a variety of issues including infrastructure reliability, endangered species, water quality, sea level rise, ecosystem restoration, political interests and more. Approximately 1,600 miles of levees that are part of the California Central Valley Flood Control System, and another 1,000 miles of local levees, protect the Central Valley and Delta regions from flooding (DWR Flood Warnings, 2005) and protect Delta water supplies. In the event of a massive failure of these levees, the quality of Delta water could be severely compromised as salt water rushed in from the Bay to equalize water pressure. This would immediately affect the water supplies, since the CVP and SWP pumping plants would need to be shut down to prevent further saltwater intrusion. The Mokelumne Aqueducts that serve EBMUD customers, which cross the Delta and are protected by levees, could also be damaged by a major flooding event. Many groups within the state are pushing to improve the Delta but have conflicting visions of how to resolve the many issues surrounding the Delta. Because of the Bay Area’s dependence on the Delta as a critical water supply, the uncertainty of the Delta’s future is a significant concern for the Bay Area Region that must be addressed by water agencies and considered in the integrated planning process. 2.7.5.1 Reducing Dependence on the Delta The Bay Area – through both regional and individual agency programs and projects - has a long-standing commitment to efficient water use and development of local supplies that will result in reduced dependence on water exported from the Delta. Robust conservation programs have led per capita use in the Bay Area to decrease steadily since the 1980s (fig 2.19). There are also over 35 recycled water programs in the Bay Area (Table 2-9) and capacity is expected to more than double over the next 20 years (BACWA 2011 Recycled Water Survey). Agencies are expanding conjunctive use and considering projects such as groundwater banking to minimize impacts to the Delta during dry years. Agencies are also considering projects to develop alternative supplies (e.g., desalination) and optimize existing supplies (e.g., water transfers and interties) (Section 2.3.3). Regional and individual agency programs and projects advancing these strategies and others are included in this IRWMP, and will contribute to reduced Bay Area Region dependence on water exported from the Delta in future years. 2.7.6 Interagency Coordination Challenges Inter-jurisdictional coordination is a major challenge facing water resource management. Municipal boundaries, water supply service areas, and the boundaries of county flood protection agencies rarely coincide with watershed boundaries and can impede implementation of projects. As environmental protection initiatives, such as sediment TMDLs and habitat restoration, continue to adopt a watershed approach, the need for interagency coordination is increasing. However, regulatory guidance and permitting decisions are not made on a watershed basis, but on a project-by-project basis. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-79 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Although the Bay Area Region seeks to overcome regional conflicts and challenges toward integrated water resources planning and management, not all regional goals and objectives will be met exclusively through IRWMP implementation. Individual agencies and organizations also contribute to regional goals when addressing local challenges and implementing local programs. The IRWMP provides a regional lens and opportunity for collaboration on activities that are already being pursued by individual agencies to meet their local mandates. Effective management of water resources requires a collaborative approach to maximize resources while minimizing costs. Additional discussion and examples of regional cooperation is provided in Chapters 4 and 15. 2.7.7 Challenges to Expanding Recycled Water Use Expanding recycling water use is important for meeting future demands and it provides an all- weather local supply that helps adapt to climate change and other risks. However, several challenges may limit recycled water expansion. Some of the challenges include increasing salinity in recycled water supplies and the cost per acre-foot of water for expanding non-potable distribution systems. Potable reuse is another option for expanding recycled water, but requires extensive public engagement and regulatory support. 2.7.8 Climate Change Climate change is driven by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause an increase in temperature and stress natural systems, such as oceans and the hydrologic cycle. Climate changes that may affect Bay Area Region water resources include:  Higher temperatures and heat waves that increase demand for water, especially for agricultural and residential irrigation uses. The eastern and southern portions of the region are likely to see more pronounced warming than the coastal, northern and central Bay regions.  Water Uncertainty: A projected overall decrease in precipitation levels coupled with more intense individual storm events may lead to increased flooding. Higher temperatures that may cause more precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow, hasten snowmelt and increase runoff will affect water storage planning. Increased evaporation will create a generally drier climate, with wildfires likely to increase and groundwater basins likely to receive less replenishment.  Sea level rise, which is estimated to rise an average of 14 inches by 2050 (Cayan et al. 2009), will likely affect low lying infrastructure of all types, including many of the Bay Area Region’s wastewater treatment plants. Chapter 16 describes potential effects of climate change on Bay Area Region agencies and IRWM planning in more detail. 2.8 Relationship to Other Regional Water Management Efforts The sections below describe the Bay Area Region’s connections and coordination efforts with adjacent IRWM regions (Figure 2-22). For more information on 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-80 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Incorporation of Tomales Bay: In the 2006 IRWMP, the Tomales Bay watershed area in Marin County was covered under a separate Tomales Bay Watershed Integrated Coastal Water Management Plan but subsequent discussions have led to incorporation of the Tomales Bay area into the Bay Area IRWMP. Westside Sacramento River IRWMP: Napa County is split between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento River IRWMPs. The Bay Area Region generally covers the western part of Napa County and focuses on the Napa River and Suisun Creek watersheds. The Westside Sacramento River Region, which is part of the larger Sacramento River Funding Area delineated by DWR, generally covers the eastern part of Napa County and focuses on the Putah Creek/Lake Berryessa watershed. Depending upon their location within the county, projects will be incorporated into the appropriate IRWMP. Representatives from Solano County Water Agency and Napa County FCWCD provide a linkage between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento IRWMPs, enabling information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts. North Coast IRWMP: Sonoma and Marin Counties lie within both the North Coast IRWM Region and Bay Area Region. Marin County, which only has a small portion in the North Coast region, participates in the Bay Area IRWMP and pursues planning and project implementation in the North Coast Region, as do stakeholders in Sonoma County. The Sonoma County Water Agency provides a linkage between the Bay Area and North Coast IRWMPs, enabling strong information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts. East Contra Costa County IRWMP: The East Contra Costa County IRWM region is the only IRWM planning region with boundaries that overlap the Bay Area Region boundaries, straddling the Bay Area hydrologic region and the San Joaquin River hydrologic region. The overlap area contains two watersheds that drain to the east of the Mt. Diablo hydrologic divide (Willow Creek and Kirker Creek). These two watersheds are included in the Bay Area Region, resulting from the defined boundaries of the San Francisco Funding Area and RWQCB Region 2, and within the East Contra Costa County IRWM region, whose boundaries are defined by the hydrologic divide created by the ridgeline. East Contra Costa County attends Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee meetings and participated in the planning and prioritization processes for projects that are within the Bay Area regional boundary. Solano County Water Agency: Although originally a separate IRWMP, the Solano CWA area has been absorbed into neighboring regions. The southwestern portion of Solano County has been integrated into the Bay Area Region and the rest of the original IRWM region is coordinating with the Westside Sacramento River area. Pajaro River Watershed IRWMP: SCVWD is participating in both the Bay Area and the Pajaro River Watershed IRWMPs. The southern portion of its service area is part of the Pajaro River Watershed and drains to Monterey Bay, while the northern portion is part of the Bay Area and drains to the Bay. Santa Cruz IRWMP: The Santa Cruz IRWMP encompasses most of Santa Cruz County. Coordination between the Santa Cruz County and Bay Area Regions has focused on efforts to minimize the area not covered by a planning region in the Central Coast Funding Area in San Mateo County. As a result, the northern boundary of the Santa Cruz IRWM region was adjusted 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-81 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description in 2009 to encompass additional portions of small watersheds of Año Nuevo, reducing, yet not eliminating the gap (Regional Water Management Foundation, April 2009). Figure 2-22: Surrounding IRWM Regions 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-82 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description 2.9 References ABAG 2005. Projections 2005 by Census Tract. Oakland, CA. ABAG 2006. Existing Land Use 2005. This data set is the most recent available. ABAG 2009. ABAG Projections 2009: Regional Projections. http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/currentfcst/regional.html ABAG 2009. Projections 2010 and 2030. Oakland, CA. ABAG Census 2010. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm. ABAG 2012 http://www.abag.ca.gov/overview/history.html, Accessed April 2012. ABAG 2012 Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft. http://scs.abag.ca.gov/plan_bay_area/. Alameda County Water District. June 2016 Urban Water Management Plan 2015-2020. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Climate, Physiography and Air Pollution Potential— Bay Area and its Subregions. http://www.baaqmd.gov/dst/papers/bay_area_climate.pdf BACWA Water Survey Results, November 2011. BACWA Review of the Nutrient Reduction Study. 17 September 2018. Bay Area Census, 2010. San Francisco Bay Area. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm Bay Area Economic Forum. 2012. Bay Area Fast Facts. Available: www.bayeconfor.org/baefregion.html, Accessed: April 20, 2012. BARWC. 2012. http://www.barwc.org/files/BARWC_11_x_17_Flyer_March%202012.pdf BAWSCA. April 2016. Annual Survey, Fiscal Year 2014-15. BAWSCA. May 2010. Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy, Phase 1 – Scoping Report. Brookes, Andrew. 1995. The Importance of High Flows for Riverine Environments. In: The Ecological Basis for River Management. Editors: David Harper and Alastair Ferguson. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. England. CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2004 Annual Report. CALFED Water Quality Program memo, 2004. http://deltavision.ca.gov/BlueRibbonTaskForce/Nov2007/Handouts/Attachment_%204.p df 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-83 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description California Coastal Commission. California’s Critical Coastal Areas, San Francisco Bay Region. Available at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/Web/cca_sfbay1.htm; accessed on April 24, 2012. California's Groundwater - Bulletin 118, Update 2003 http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__bullet in_118_-_update_2003_/bulletin118_2-sf.pdf Accessed April 2012 California Public Utilities Commission. 2006. Universal Lifeline Telephone Service. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/telco/public+programs/ults.htm. Cayan, D., Tyree M., Dettinger, M., Hidalgo, H., Das, T., Maurer, E., Peter Bromirski, P., Graham, N., and Flick, R. (2009). Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2009- 014, Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.. Center for Biological Diversity. San Francisco Bay Area and Delta Protection. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/san_francisco_bay_area_and_delta_protec tion/index.html Accessed 09/12/12. Communities for a Better Environment. 2012. Environmental Justice. http://www.cbecal.org/issues/environmental-justice/ Accessed 09/12/12. DWR. 2005. Flood Warnings: Responding to California’s Flood Crisis. DWR. 2006. http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/information/pdf/South-Bay-Aque.pdf accessed January 31, 2006. DWR. February 2006. http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/basins/pdfs_desc/2- 10.pdf accessed 02/01/06 DWR. 2009. California Water Plan Update 2009, Volume 3 - San Francisco Bay. DWR 2009. Delta Risk Management Study, http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/dsmo/sab/drmsp/ Accessed 06/12/2012 EBMUD. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. 2005. Thirsty for Justice: A People’s Blueprint for California Water. Oakland, CA. Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. North American Lake Management Society and Terrene Institute, in cooperation with United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. Madison, WI. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-84 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. January 2007. Engineering Report - MMWD Seawater Desalination Pilot Program. Leopold, Luna B. 1997. Water, Rivers and Creeks. University Science Books. Macdonald, K. B., and M. G. Barbour. 1974. Beach and Salt Marsh Vegetation of the North American Pacific Coast. Pages 175-233 In R. J. Reimold and W. H. Queen, eds. Ecology of Halophytes. Academic Press, New York. Liu, F. 2001. Environmental Justice Analysis: Theories, Methods, and Practice. Lewis Publishers. Marin County - Department of Public Works, Watershed Program. 2011. Major Grant Award Kicks Off Ross Valley Watershed Flood Control Projects. http://www.marinwatersheds.org/documents/GrantAwardforPhoenixLakeIRWMProjectin RossValley.pdf Miller, G. 2012. http://georgemiller.house.gov/blogs/blog/2012/02/bay-area-water-recycling-bill- introduced.shtml Miller, N., Jin, J., Hayhoe, K., and Auffhammer, M (2007). Climate Change, Extreme Heat, and Energy Demand in California. PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2007-023 Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Recovery Plan for the Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Central California Coast Coho Salmon. NRDC Green Gate. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species. Accessed January 30, 2006. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/greengate/wildlife/endangeredf.asp Based on June 2001 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report. North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA). 2012. North Bay Water Reuse Program website. Accessed November 1, 2012. Available at: http://www.nbwra.org/index.htm OPC (2011). State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document. Ocean Protection Council. Regional Water Management Foundation. April 2009. Santa Cruz IRWM Region Acceptance Process Submittal. Available at: ftp://ftp.water.ca.gov/IRWM- RAP/Santa%20Cruz/Santa%20Cruz%20FINAL%20IRWM%20RAP%20Submittal.pdf. Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. San Francisco Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition. 2009. Projects. Available at: http://www.barwc.org/index.html; Accessed April, 2012. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2012. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/ Accessed 09/12/12. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-85 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description SFRWQCB. 2004. Watershed Management Initiative Integrated Plan. SFRWQCB. 2003. 2002 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Progress Report, Fall 2010. http://www.epa.gov/sfbaydelta/sfbaywqfund/pdfs/SFBWQIF-Fall2010ProgRptLtr.pdf San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Save the Bay. 2006. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Available: http://www.savesfbay.org/site/pp.asp?c=dgKLLSOwEnH&b=993829 Sfbaywildlifeinfo.org. http://www.sfbaywildlife.info/species/endangered.htm#birds Accessed 09/12/12. Solano County Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Sonoma County. 2012. http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/eir/gp2020deir/sec4-05.pdf accessed April 2012 Sonoma County Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Sustainable Water and Environmental Management in California’s Bay-Delta, 2012 (pre- publication copy). National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu. Tanji, K.; Grattan, S.; Grieve, C.; Harivandi, A.; Rollins, L.; Shaw, D.; Sheikh, B., and Wu, L. 2008. Salt Management Guide for Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water in Coastal Southern California- A Comprehensive Literature Review. TMDL & 303 List of Impaired Water Bodies. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303d/A ppendix_C_Report_02-09/table_of_contents.shtml#r2_revised Transbay Blog. 2009. http://transbayblog.com/2009/03/25/bay-delta-levees-climate-change-and- water-quality/ US Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Central Valley Project. http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Valley+Project#Group400 45 accessed December 11, 2012. US Census Bureau. 2011. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Totals, Estimates of Population Change for Metropolitan Areas and Rankings: July 1, 2010 to Jul 1, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species Program. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/?s8fid=112761032793&s8fid=112762573903&countyNa me=sonoma Accessed 09/12/12. U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/groundwater/gwatlas/coastal/aquifers2.html accessed 02/01/06. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 2-86 San Francisco Bay Area Region Description U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Groundwater Quality Data in the San Francisco Bay Study Unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program. U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. Groundwater Quality in the North San Francisco Bay Groundwater Basins, California. University of California, Berkeley. http://calmap.gisc.berkeley.edu/resin_public_docs/SacramentoDeltaFlooding/MossSacD eltaRisk.pdf Young, W. J., editor. 2001. Rivers as Ecological Systems: The Murray-Darling Basin. Murray Darling Basin Commission. Canberra City, Australia. Zone 7 Water Agency. 2011. 2011 Water Supply Evaluation – A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluating Zone 7 Water Agency’s Water Supply System. Zone 7 Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Goals and Objectives Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i List of Figures............................................................................................................................... i Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives ................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Background ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Development of 2013 Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Requirements ......................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Development Process ............................................................ 3-3 3.2.3 Results: Goals, Objectives and Measures .............................. 3-5 3.2.3.1 Prioritizing the Objectives ..................................... 3-7 List of Tables Table 3-1: IRWMP Goals and DWR Requirements ................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-2: Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures for Meeting Regional Goals ............. 3-7 List of Figures Figure 3-1: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures ............... 3-2 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-1 Goals and Objectives Chapter 3: Goals and Objectives This chapter presents the goals and objectives for the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or Plan), representing what the stakeholders and the Coordinating Committee (CC) have determined they would like the IRWMP to accomplish when implemented. This chapter also describes how the goals and objectives were developed. To the extent feasible, measures of success have been suggested for IRWMP objectives in order to be able to evaluate progress of IRWMP implementation. The Bay Area Region has developed both goals and objectives for the IRWMP. No IRWMP standard exists to define “goals”, nor are they required by the Calif ornia Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Bay Area Region, however, has chosen to use goals as an additional layer for organizing and defining the objectives, due to the complexity of water management issues in the Region. Development of objectives for the IRWMP was an iterative and consensus-based process. Led by the Plan Update Team (PUT), the process also included review by the Functional Areas (FAs) and the CC. Stakeholder outreach and involvement, discussed in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Involvement was critical to this process. Proposed goals, objectives and suggested measures for the Bay Area IRWMP were discussed at the first Workshop on 7/23/2012 where stakeholders were given opportunity to provide input. This open and transparent decision- making process was important to ensure that all perspectives within the Region were considered in the IRWMP. Additionally, many of the local planning documents that serve as the basis for this IRWMP involved extensive stakeholder involvement as well. Figure 3-1 shows the steps in the goals and objectives development process. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-2 Goals and Objectives Figure 3-1: Development of Regional Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures The following sections describe each step in more detail and identify what evaluation criteria were considered. 3.1 Background The process for developing the goals and objectives for IRWMP began with a review of the goals and objectives identified in the 2006 Plan. For the 2006 Plan, the goals and objectives were developed for each FA independently. Each FA outlined regional goals and objectives based on geographic integration of established local agency plans, projects, and programs. The process involved the following steps:  Compilation of the issues, conflicts and challenges from each FA, and definition of common water resource management interests  Compilation of the various goals and objectives identified in each FA to address water management challenges, and identification of overarching goals that transcend all functional areas of water resource management 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-3 Goals and Objectives  Revision of overarching goals and objectives based on stakeholder input and feedback, and development of a vision to guide implementation of the IRWMP  Discussion of proposed goals and objectives at stakeholder workshops The 2006 Plan identified six goals and 68 objectives generated by the four FAs. The effort did not include development of measures. The processes for establishing regional goals and objectives, as well as the goals and objectives identified by each functional area, are described in detail in the 2006 Plan. 3.2 Development of 2013 Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures 3.2.1 Requirements The approach to developing the 2013 goals and objectives, while still considering the FAs, focused on priority elements for the entire Bay Area and emphasized regional collaboration. The approach also incorporated 2012 DWR guidelines that a Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) must consider overarching goals that apply to their region, including:  Basin Plan objectives  20x2020 water efficiency goals  Requirements of California Water Code (CWC) Section §10540(c) (identified in Table 3- 24 below) DWR also specifies that:  Objectives must address major water-related issues and conflicts  Objectives must be measurable by some practical means, quantitatively or qualitatively  Objectives may be prioritized 3.2.2 Development Process Development of the goals and objectives was a two step process: Step 1: Revisit and confirm, or modify the goals and objectives from the 2006 IRWMP with iterative input from the PUT, FAs, the CC and Stakeholders. Step 2: Determine how to best articulate the manner in which the objectives can be measured, either quantitatively or qualitatively. To start the process, the 2006 goals and objectives were distributed to the FA leads for review. Since the FAs were the authors of the original objectives, their initial review would ensure that the rationale driving the process and decisions could be maintained. The FAs were instructed to consider the following items in their review: 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-4 Goals and Objectives 1. Are the goals and objectives from the 2006 Plan still the most relevant? 2. Should any goals or objectives be eliminated or added? 3. What is the best way to articulate each objective so that it can be measured? With this guidance, the four FAs solicited input from their members and provided their recommendations to delete, add, or modify objectives to the PUT. After receiving the recommendations by the FAs, the PUT conducted a rigorous, iterative review of every goal and objective over the course of multiple meetings and calls. The PUT considered the following evaluation criteria for each goal and objective in the update process:  Does it address a major issue in the Region?  Is it already addressed by other objective(s)?  Does it address an outcome (as opposed to addressing a process)?  Is it consistent with 2012 Guidelines?  Is it measurable? Objectives were deleted if they were already addressed by another objective, could be merged with another objective(s), did not reflect 2012 Guidelines, or were not clear. The PUT presented this initial evaluation to the CC, which provided the PUT with direction for finalizing the proposed goals and objectives. Based on that input, the PUT prepared a final draft. The final draft included the following changes to the 2006 list:  The number of goals were reduced from 6 to 5  The number of objectives were reduced from 65 to 35  Objectives that address climate change and integration were added Once the recommended list of goals and objectives was developed, suggested measures for each objective were identified to provide a framework for measuring project outcomes and, ultimately, to gauge successful implementation of the IRWMP projects. The intent of these suggested measures is to allow project proponents to relate their individual project outcomes to the overall Plan objectives. Project proponents are encouraged to use these suggested measures. The suggested measures in Table 3.2 fall into two broad categories: (1) those that can be used when a specific project is implemented such as megawatt or kilowatt reduction in energy use, and (2) those that are better measured at a regional level by existing monitoring programs or by enhancing regional monitoring programs such as measuring reliability of supplies of appropriate quality. The measures were developed by the PUT as tools the Region can use to determine if the goals and objectives are being met as projects included in the Plan are implemented. For 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-5 Goals and Objectives more information see Chapter 8: Plan Performance and Monitoring, which contains performance measures and monitoring methods to ensure the objectives of the Plan are met. Although the PUT identified what the group determined to be the most appropriate measures for a given objective, the suggested measures do not encompass the entire universe of possible ways to measure success in meeting the Plan goals and objectives. Project proponents are encouraged to provide this information by quantifying the changes and benefits that will result from implementation of their proposed project(s). When this is not possible, qualitat ive descriptions may be provided, as allowed by the 2012 Guidelines. The proposed list of goals, objectives and measures was approved for stakeholder review by the CC and presented to stakeholders at the first workshop in July 2012 (for more information see Chapter 14). At the workshop, the PUT members described the development process for the goals and objectives, and provided a list of deleted objectives, as well as opportunity for stakeholders to submit comments. Each participant received a handout of the goals, objectives and measures that included space for comments, as well as an opportunity to submit comments via email. Based on discussion at the workshop and stakeholder input, the PUT refined and finalized the list of goals and objectives, which were approved by the CC at their August meeting. 3.2.3 Results: Goals, Objectives and Measures The five overarching goals of the Bay Area IRWMP are to: 1. Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability 2. Improve water supply reliability and quality 3. Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 4. Improve regional flood management 5. Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats As previously described, the 2012 Guidelines require IRWMP goals and objectives to address and consider, at a minimum, applicable Basin Plan objectives, 20x2020 water efficiency goals, and the requirements of CWC §10540(c). Table 3-24 lists which of the Bay Area goals address each of the required water management areas. Note that Table 3-24 illustrates how the Bay Area is meeting DWR’s minimum requirements, however the Region has developed a number of additional goals and objectives to meet overall watershed health including stormwater, flood protection, climate change and more (Table 3-25). 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-6 Goals and Objectives Table 3-24: IRWMP Goals and DWR Requirements DWR Requirements IRWMP Goals Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve regional flood management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Requirements of CWC §10540 Protection and improvement of water supply reliability, including identification of feasible agricultural and urban water use efficiency strategies. ✓ Identification and consideration of the drinking water quality of communities within the area of the Plan. ✓ ✓ Protection and improvement of water quality within the area of the Plan consistent with relevant basin plan. ✓ Identification of any significant threats to groundwater resources from overdrafting. ✓ Protection, restoration, and improvement of stewardship of aquatic, riparian, and watershed resources within the region. ✓ ✓ ✓ Protection of groundwater resources from contamination. ✓ Identification and consideration of water- related needs of disadvantaged communities in the area within the boundaries of the Plan. ✓ Basin Plan objectives ✓ ✓ 20x2020 water efficiency goals ✓ Objectives for the Bay Area Region were developed to support the goals and are categorized accordingly. The objectives generally apply to the Region as a whole and are meant to focus attention on the primary needs of the Region. Chapter 5: Integration describes the value of integrating water management strategies to achieve these regional goals. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-7 Goals and Objectives 3.2.3.1 Prioritizing the Objectives The PUT discussed and suggested various approaches to prioritize or organize the IRWMP goals and objectives, including sequential ranking and sorting as “high, medium, and low.” Ultimately, the consensus was that the goals should not be prioritized since all are equally important. There were two reasons for this decision. The first is that there was no scientific framework or justification for prioritizing the objectives. Secondly, the Bay Area Region is a broad geographic area made up of a very diverse group of stakeholders, which is reflected in the CC. The CC has aimed to be as inclusive as possible of all stakeholders in the Region, encouraging their active participation in the IRWM planning process. The 35 objectives included in the Plan were based on the issues that exist throughout the Region, as defined by different groups of stakeholders. The CC therefore recognized that each of the objectives is significant for at least some groups of stakeholders and that prioritizing some objectives over others implied prioritizing the needs of certain stakeholders over others. In order to maintain inclusivity, transparency and to avoid the possibility of alienating certain groups of stakeholders or discouraging their participation in the IRWM planning process, the CC has therefore decided not to prioritize objectives. Instead, the objectives are listed under each goal from most general to most specific. After attempting a sequential ranking of the objectives, it was agreed that there was no compelling reason to prioritize the objectives under each goal since the proposed project review process did not require prioritized objectives, and because prioritization would be very challenging given the diverse views in the Bay Area Region. Instead, the PUT agreed to list the objectives under each goal from most general to most specific. The CC approved this approach during their August 2012 meeting. Table 3-25 presents the goals, objectives and suggested measures for the Region. Table 3-25: Goals, Objectives and Suggested Measures for Meeting Regional Goals Objectives Suggested Measures Goal 1: Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability 1.1 Work with local land, water, wastewater and stormwater agencies, project proponents and other stakeholders to develop policies, ordinances and programs that promote IRWM goals, and to determine areas of integration among projects Number of local policies, ordinances, incentives and other programs that promote integrated planning and development of Low Impact Development (LID) projects; number of integrated projects 1.2 Encourage implementation of integrated, multi-benefit projects Examples of collaboration between government and regulatory agencies, project proponents and stakeholders; number of integrated projects; number of benefits/partners/FAs 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-8 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures 1.3 Plan for and adapt to more frequent extreme climate events Number of projects that include climate change planning efforts; number of local efforts; number of projects that include climate adaptation strategies; number of projects that address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of runoff 1.4 Reduce energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate Megawatt or kilowatt reduction in energy use; megawatts of renewable power sources; number of projects with an energy reduction component; number of projects that incorporate strategies in CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan 1.5 Plan for and adapt to sea level rise Number of projects that plan for and adapt to sea level rise, including keeping important infrastructure out of hazard zone; considering range of sea level projections when evaluating proposed water management projects practice and promote integrated flood management; Acre-feet (AF) water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources; water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services; avoiding significant new development in areas that cannot be adequately protected from flooding or erosion 1.6 Secure adequate support, funding and partnerships to effectively implement plan Process to successfully respond to funding opportunities; dollars of grant funding; long-term project viability; number of projects implemented under new partnerships 1.7 Avoid disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities Community support for local projects; amount reduction in risk to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs); inclusion of DACTIP Needs Assessment work in regional planning efforts 1.8 Promote community education, involvement and stewardship Number of informational brochures, workshops, educational and technical assistance events that address water reliability, watershed health, flood risks, flood protection and other IRWM goals; educational curricula for K-12 1.9 Support data management for climate change vulnerabilities Number of projects that provide climate change vulnerability data; number of monitoring stations; number of links and items in Bay Area IRWMP website climate change library (in development at this time); climate change vulnerability assessments completed 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-9 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures 1.10 Enhance monitoring network and information sharing to support proper management of watersheds Number of monitoring stations, number of monitoring plans; number of watersheds with trends measured using indicators; number of links and material on Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) website (in development at this time) 1.11 Minimize health impacts associated with polluted water Compliance with all applicable water quality standards; number of customer complaints 1.12 Protect cultural resources Project-specific cultural resources survey and monitoring results; acres of culturally valuable area and/or resource acquired or preserved through conservation easements or other means; number of projects implemented with cultural resources surveys/monitoring; work in collaboration with Bay Area Tribes and Tribal communities for whom the Bay Area is their homeland to apply traditional ecological knowledge and traditional management strategies 1.13 Increase water resources related recreational opportunities Miles of trails, acres of parklands and/or access added; number of amenities, visitor days added; miles of upgrades to trails and acres of upgrades to parklands Goal 2: Improve water supply reliability and quality 2.1 Provide adequate water supplies to meet demands Reliability of supplies of appropriate quality 2.2 Provide clean, safe, reliable drinking water Compliance with drinking water standards; acceptable levels of constituents of concern in drinking water at point of delivery 2.3 Minimize vulnerability of infrastructure to catastrophes and security breaches Number of vulnerability assessments; number of efforts to address vulnerabilities 2.4 Implement water use efficiency to meet or exceed state and federal requirements Progress toward SBX7-7 goals, number of water conservation measures adopted; annual per capita water use; acre feet of annual savings 2.5 Increase recycled water use Acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water use replaced by non-potable supply; AFY recycled water delivered to customers 2.6 Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater AF of water storage; number of conjunctive management projects developed; AFY of reduced water dependency on the Delta; AFY of reduced dependency on imported water supplies 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-10 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures 2.7 Provide for groundwater recharge while protecting groundwater resources from overdraft AFY artificial groundwater recharge; number of projects that address changes in the amount, intensity, timing, quality and variability of recharge. 2.8 Protection of groundwater resources from contamination Migration of contaminant plumes; recharge area protection; degree to which groundwater quality meets basin plan objectives; monitoring of groundwater quality trends for nitrate concentrations and salinity; number of adopted groundwater management plans; number of SNMP activities implemented according to plan Goal 3: Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 3.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate watershed and bay processes Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; acres of wetlands protected and/or restored; acres of fee simple or conservation easements acquired. 3.2 Maintain health of watershed vegetation, land cover, natural stream buffers and floodplains, to improve filtration of point and nonpoint source pollutants Acres of enhanced or reconnected floodplains; acres of created treatment wetlands; acres of uplands enhanced through best management practices, revegetation, sediment reduction or other measures; number of Low-Impact Development stormwater projects 3.3 Minimize point-source and non- point-source pollution Implementation of delivery reduction practices; number of LID projects that store and infiltrate stormwater runoff; AFY stormwater capture; progress toward meeting established water quality objectives, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); acreage managed with approved Best Management Practice (BMP) techniques. 3.4 Control excessive erosion and manage sedimentation Progress toward meeting established water quality objectives, sediment TMDLs and NPDES; number of sediment management or biotechnical bank stabilization projects; acres of uplands enhanced through best management practices, revegetation, sediment reduction or other measures 3.5 Improve floodplain connectivity Acres of floodplain reconnected and preserved in 100-year floodplains; number of projects that reconnect former floodplains or create floodplain enhancements 3.6 Improve infiltration capacity Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; acres of uplands enhanced through best management practices, revegetation, runoff reduction or other measures; miles of streams 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 3-11 Goals and Objectives Objectives Suggested Measures de-channelized; LID projects implemented that include bioswales to increase perviousness; AFY stormwater capture; acres of created or enhanced floodplains 3.7 Control pollutants of concern Progress toward meeting established water quality objectives, TMDLs and NPDES; number of projects that benefit water quality of 303(d) listed stream parameters Goal 4: Improve regional flood management 4.1 Manage floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation Annual flood damages in dollars; frequency and extent of flooding; number of innovative flood management projects; AFY annual flood flows 4.2 Achieve effective floodplain management that incorporates land use planning and minimizes risks to health, safety and property by encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas Policies and programs that encourage LID in new and rehabilitated development 4.3 Identify and promote integrated flood management projects to protect vulnerable areas Number of integrated flood management projects including elements such as sediment management, fisheries enhancement, natural channel function improvement, riparian habitat enhancement, ground water recharge, etc. Goal 5: Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats 5.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate habitat for species protection Acres of habitat protected, restored and/or rehabilitated for species protection; number of at- risk species addressed; miles of wildlife corridors protected; acres of upland, riparian and bayland habitat restored and/or protected 5.2 Enhance wildlife populations and biodiversity (species richness) Number of species delisted; number of species addressed; population numbers targeted and/or improved; acres of expanded and/or enhanced habitat; number of species re-introduced 5.3 Protect and recover fisheries (natural habitat and harvesting) Number of species delisted; number of listed species addressed; creek miles of increased spawning habitat for fish; number of projects that improve passage 5.4 Reduce geographic extent and spread of pests and invasive species Acres of invasive species cover; invasive species numbers and/or targets reached; number of projects that map or monitor invasive species; acres of reduced impact from presence of pests and invasive species 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Resource Management Strategies Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies ........................................... 4-1 4.1 Resource Management Strategies Identification and Selection ......... 4-1 4.2 Selected Resource Management Strategies ..................................... 4-9 4.2.1 Strategies to Reduce Water Demand ................................... 4-10 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency ....................... 4-10 4.2.1.2 Urban Water Use Efficiency ............................... 4-11 4.2.2 Strategies to Improve Operational Efficiency ........................ 4-12 4.2.2.1 Conveyance – Delta ........................................... 4-13 4.2.2.2 Conveyance – Regional/Local ............................ 4-13 4.2.2.3 Imported Water .................................................. 4-17 4.2.2.4 Infrastructure Reliability ...................................... 4-18 4.2.2.5 System Reoperation ........................................... 4-15 4.2.3 Strategies to Increase Water Supply .................................... 4-19 4.2.3.1 Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Management ...................................................... 4-19 4.2.3.2 Water Recycling ................................................. 4-22 4.2.3.3 Desalination – Brackish and Seawater ............... 4-21 4.2.3.4 Surface Storage – CALFED ............................... 4-25 4.2.3.5 Surface Storage – Regional/Local ...................... 4-25 4.2.3.6 Water Transfers ................................................. 4-16 4.2.3.7 Stormwater Capture and Management ............... 4-26 4.2.4 Strategies to Improve Water Quality ..................................... 4-30 4.2.4.1 Pollution Prevention ........................................... 4-30 4.2.4.2 Urban Runoff Management ................................ 4-35 4.2.4.3 Water Quality Protection and Improvement ........ 4-36 4.2.4.4 Salt and Salinity Management ............................ 4-33 4.2.4.5 Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation ............... 4-31 4.2.4.6 Monitoring and Modeling .................................... 4-35 4.2.4.7 Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution ................ 4-30 4.2.4.8 Matching Water Quality to Use ........................... 4-30 4.2.4.9 Wastewater Treatment ....................................... 4-39 4.2.5 Strategies to Improve Flood Management ............................ 4-27 4.2.5.1 Integrated Flood Risk Management .................... 4-27 4.2.6 Strategies for Resource Stewardship Practice...................... 4-41 4.2.6.1 Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ...................................................... 4-50 4.2.6.2 Ecosystem Restoration ...................................... 4-41 4.2.6.3 Sediment Management ...................................... 4-44 4.2.6.4 Recharge Areas Protection ................................ 4-44 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Resource Management Strategies 4.2.6.5 Agricultural Lands Stewardship .......................... 4-41 4.2.6.6 Watershed Management and Planning ............... 4-48 4.2.6.7 Land Use Planning and Management................. 4-44 4.2.7 Strategies Related to People and Water .............................. 4-51 4.2.7.1 Economic Incentives .......................................... 4-51 4.2.7.2 Outreach and Education ..................................... 4-52 4.2.7.3 Regional Cooperation ......................................... 4-53 4.2.7.4 Recreation and Public Access ............................ 4-54 4.2.7.5 Water-dependent Recreation ............................. 4-55 4.2.7.6 Water-dependent Cultural Resources ................. 4-56 4.3 Strategies Considered but Not Carried Forward .............................. 4-56 4.3.1 Precipitation Enhancement or Fog Collection ....................... 4-57 4.3.2 Crop Idling for Water Transfers ............................................ 4-57 4.3.3 Dewvaporation/Atmospheric Pressure Desalination ............. 4-57 4.3.4 Irrigated Land Retirement ..................................................... 4-57 4.3.5 Rainfed Agriculture ............................................................... 4-58 4.3.6 Waterbag Transport/Storage Technology ............................. 4-58 4.3.7 Forest Management ............................................................. 4-58 4.4 References ...................................................................................... 4-58 List of Tables Table 4-1: Resource Management Strategies in California Water Plan Updates ................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4-2: Disposition of 2006 Bay Area IRWMP – Water Management Strategies ............... 4-3 Table 4-3: Selected 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Resource Management Strategies(a) ................. 4-5 Table 4-4: Selected Resource Management Strategies that Address Regional Goals ............ 4-6 List of Figures Figure 4-1: Projected Recycled Water Use in the Bay Area .................................................. 4-23 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-1 Resource Management Strategies Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies A resource management strategy (RMS) is a project, program, or policy that helps local agencies manage their water and related resources. The intent of the RMS standard is to encourage diversification of water management approaches as a way to mitigate for future uncertainties, including the effects of climate change. The 2016 Guidelines require that the IRWMP document the range of RMS considered to meet the IRWM objectives and identify which RMS were incorporated into the IRWMP. The effects of climate change on the IRWM region must be factored into the consideration of RMS. RMS to be considered must include, but are not limited to, the RMS found in Volume 3 of the California Water Plan (CWP) Update 2013. Accordingly, this chapter describes how the Bay Area Coordinating Committee (CC) and its subcommittees developed an updated set of RMS for the IRWMP based on both the strategies included in the 2006 plan and the latest set of statewide water management goals and RMS developed by DWR as part of the CWP Update 2013. As was the case with the 2006 Plan, the IRWMP incorporates an extensive range of RMS that includes most of the RMS on DWR’s latest list along with some additional Bay Area-specific RMS developed for the 2006 Plan. The chapter provides a brief description of each RMS along with examples of how these strategies are being implemented in the Bay Area. 4.1 Resource Management Strategies Identification and Selection Table 4-1 presents the RMS list from the CWP Update 2013. DWR identifies a set of 30 RMS organized into eight main categories. Table 4-1: RMS in CWP 2013 Update(a) Category Resource Management Strategies Reduce Demand • Agricultural Water Use Efficiency • Urban Water Use Efficiency Improve Operational Efficiency • Conveyance – Delta • Conveyance – Regional/Local • System Reoperation • Water Transfers Increase Water Supply • Conjunctive Management & Groundwater • Desalination – Brackish and Seawater • Precipitation Enhancement (drop) • Recycled Municipal Water • Surface Storage – CALFED • Surface Storage – Regional/Local Improve Flood Management • Integrated Flood Management 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-2 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-1: RMS in CWP 2013 Update(a) Category Resource Management Strategies Improve Water Quality • Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution • Groundwater / Aquifer Remediation • Matching Quality to Use • Pollution Prevention • Salt and Salinity Management • Urban Stormwater Runoff Management Practice Resources Stewardship • Agricultural Land Stewardship • Ecosystem Restoration • Forest Management (drop) • Land Use Planning and Management • Recharge Area Protection • Sediment Management • Watershed Management People and Water • Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants & Water Pricing) • Outreach and Engagement • Water and Culture • Water-Dependent Recreation Other (drop all) • Crop Idling for Water Transfers • Dewvaporation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination • Fog Collection • Irrigated Land Retirement • Rainfed Agriculture • Waterbag Transport / Storage Technology Notes: (a) RMS highlighted in grey were dropped from further consideration in the IRWMP update and are discussed in Section 4.3. The CC reviewed and considered DWR’s 2013 RMS in light of the strategies adopted in the 2006 Plan along with current activities being implemented and/or proposed by participating agencies in the Bay Area and the potential effects of climate change. Most of the RMS on the DWR 2013 list are the same or similar to those that were included in the 2006 plan and are being implemented in the Bay Area. Most of these were carried forward for inclusion in the 2013 plan update. RMS highlighted in grey on Table 4-1 were dropped by the CC from further consideration; these are mostly strategies from the “other” category that, in general, have limited application in the Bay Area region. Section 4.3 indicates the reasons that these RMS were not carried forward. Table 4-2 lists the 26 water management strategies included in the 2006 Plan. These strategies were reviewed by the CC in comparison to DWR’s RMS list from the CWP Update 2013 to determine which strategies were the same or similar on both lists and which strategies from the 2006 Plan were different and should be kept on the RMS list in addition to those already reflected on DWR’s 2013 list. The right-hand column in Table 4-2 summarizes the decisions regarding whether to keep, replace, or drop each of the 26 water management strategies from the 2006 Plan. A strategy was identified for replacement if it was the similar to one on DWR’s 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-3 Resource Management Strategies 2013 RMS list in order to reflect DWR’s more current RMS terminology. Section 4.2 describes all of the strategies marked as Keep or Replace in more detail. As shown in Table 4-2, two strategies from the 2006 Plan were dropped from further consideration. The Water Supply Reliability Strategy was dropped because it was redundant with numerous other RMS (e.g., urban water use efficiency, infrastructure reliability, surface storage). The Wetlands Enhancement and Creation Strategy was also dropped as a separate RMS because it is covered by DWR’s broader RMS for Ecosystem Restoration. However, the CC requested that the description of the Ecosystem Restoration RMS indicate that wetland creation and enhancement is the chief target of restoration efforts within the Bay Region. Table 4-3 presents the 37 resource management strategies selected for the IRWMP, organized by the seven categories that DWR has identified in the 2013 CWP. Many RMS were included because they reflect current practices. Other RMS provide new opportunities to address regional issues (as described in Chapter 2 Region Description). Consistent with the decision making structure and process established in Chapter 1: Governance, recommendations were considered, modifications were made, and ultimately there was concurrence with the final list of RMS to include in this chapter. Each of the selected RMS addresses the Regional Goals and associated objectives as presented in Table 4-4. In addition, per the 2012 Guidelines, note that numerous RMS adopted by the CC were selected, in part, for their potential to address climate change. Examples of adopted RMS that address issues related to climate change include Urban Water Use Efficiency, Water Recycling, Desalination – Brackish and Seawater, Surface Storage – Regional/Local, Integrated Flood Management, Ecosystem Restoration and Regional Cooperation, among others. More information about how the RMS address climate change vulnerabilities can be found in Chapter 16. Table 4-2: Disposition of 2006 Bay Area IRWMP – Water Management Strategies 2006 IRWMP Water Management Strategy Disposition in 2013 Plan Update Water Conservation Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and Urban Water Use Efficiency Flood Management Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Integrated Flood Management Water Supply Reliability DROP since many other RMS help address this overarching goal Groundwater Management Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Stormwater Capture and Management KEEP – Stormwater Capture and Management Water Recycling KEEP this broader term “Water Recycling” rather than CWP Update 2013 RMS of Recycled Municipal Water in order to capture both municipal reuse and greywater reuse Conjunctive Use Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conjunctive Management and Groundwater 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-4 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-2: Disposition of 2006 Bay Area IRWMP – Water Management Strategies 2006 IRWMP Water Management Strategy Disposition in 2013 Plan Update Desalination Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Desalination – Brackish and Seawater Imported Water KEEP - Imported Water Surface Storage Replace with two CWP 2013 Update RMS for Surface Storage – CALFED and Surface Storage – Regional/Local Water Transfers KEEP – same as CWP Update 2013 RMS – Water Transfers Interties Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conveyance – Regional / Local Infrastructure Reliability KEEP – Infrastructure Reliability Groundwater Banking Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Water Quality Protection and Improvement KEEP – Water Quality Protection and Improvement Non-point source (NPS) Pollution Control Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Pollution Prevention and Urban Stormwater Runoff Management Water and Wastewater Treatment KEEP Wastewater Treatment and replace “Water Treatment” with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Monitoring and Modeling KEEP – Monitoring and Modeling Ecosystem Restoration KEEP – same as CWP 2013 Update Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement KEEP – not covered by CWP 2013 Update RMS. Addresses protection of existing habitats Wetlands Enhancement and Creation DROP as separate RMS but emphasize as the chief focus in the Bay Area under Ecosystem Restoration RMS Watershed Planning Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Watershed Management Land Use Planning Replace with CWP 2013 Update RMS for Land Use Planning and Management Recreation and Public Access KEEP – Recreation and Public Access Regional Cooperation KEEP – Regional Cooperation Water Conservation Incentives Education and Outreach KEEP – same as CWP Update 2013 RMS for Outreach and Engagement 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-5 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-3: Selected 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Resource Management Strategies(a) Reduce Water Demand • Agricultural Water Use Efficiency • Urban Water Use Efficiency Improve Operational Efficiency • Conveyance – Delta • Conveyance – Regional/Local • System Reoperation • Water Transfers • Imported Water* • Infrastructure Reliability* Increase Water Supply • Conjunctive Management and Groundwater • Water Recycling • Surface Storage – CALFED • Surface Storage – Regional / Local • Stormwater Capture and Management* Improve Flood Management • Integrated Flood Management Improve Water Quality • Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution • Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation • Matching Quality to Use • Pollution Prevention • Salt and Salinity Management • Urban Stormwater Runoff Management • Water Quality Protection and Improvement* • Monitoring and Modeling* • Wastewater Treatment* Practice Resources Stewardship • Agricultural Lands Stewardship • Ecosystem Restoration • Land Use Planning and Management • Recharge Areas Protection • Sediment Management • Watershed Management • Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement* People and Water • Economic Incentives • Outreach and Engagement • Water and Culture • Water-dependent Recreation • Regional Cooperation* • Recreation and Public Access* Note: (a) The Selected RMS are from DWR California Water Plan Update 2013 except those marked by the “*”, which were carried forward from the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-6 Resource Management Strategies Table 4-4: Selected Resource Management Strategies that Address Regional Goals Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies to Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies to Improve Operational Efficiency Conveyance – Delta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Conveyance – Regional/Local ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Imported Water ✓ ✓ Infrastructure Reliability ✓ ✓ System Reoperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies to Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Recycling ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Desalination – Brackish and Seawater ✓ ✓ Surface Storage – CALFED ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-7 Resource Management Strategies Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies to Increase Water Supply (Continued) Surface Storage – Regional ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Transfers ✓ ✓ Stormwater Capture and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies to Improve Water Quality Pollution Prevention ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Runoff Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Quality Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Salt and Salinity Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Monitoring and Modeling ✓ Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution ✓ ✓ Matching Water Quality to Use ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Wastewater Treatment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-8 Resource Management Strategies Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies to Improve Flood Management Integrated Flood Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Strategies for Resource Stewardship Practice Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ecosystem Restoration ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Sediment Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recharge Areas Protection ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Agricultural Lands Stewardship ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Watershed Management and Planning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Watershed Management and Planning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Land Use Planning and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-9 Resource Management Strategies Selected Resource Management Strategies – Organized by Statewide Common Goals IRWMP Regional Goals Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability Improve water supply reliability and quality Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality Improve Regional Flood Management Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Strategies for People and Water Economic Incentives ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Outreach and Education ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Cooperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation and Public Access ✓ Water-dependent Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ Water-dependent Cultural Resources ✓ ✓ 4.2 Selected Resource Management Strategies This section provides a brief description of each of the 37 RMS Selected for the IRWMP (Table 4-3) based on DWR’s RMS descriptions in the CWP Update 2013, the 2006 Plan, and input from the CC. Following this are just a few examples, where applicable, of existing Bay Area efforts that apply to each strategy. In most cases, there are many more examples throughout the Bay Area region where these strategies are being implemented. As is evident from these examples, a broad range of resource management strategies are already being implemented throughout the Bay Area region. The RMS descriptions are organized by the seven categories DWR presents in the CWP Update 2013. Note that RMS can, in some circumstances, be incongruent. For example, a shoreline trail (Public Access RMS) could potentially be incompatible with the Ecosystem Restoration RMS if the trail were sited through a sensitive habitat area. There are a variety of ways in which agencies consult that provide a means to resolve such incompatibilities. In this example, resource agencies would place restrictions on trail location and operation to preclude adverse impacts on the species or resources under their jurisdiction. Refer to Chapters 12 and 13 for descriptions of consultation among agencies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-10 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.1 Strategies to Reduce Water Demand These two management strategies address water conservation or efforts to reduce the amount of water that is used for both agricultural activities and urban use including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency RMS Description The agricultural water use efficiency management strategy involves improvements in the technology and management of water, both on-farm and within the water delivery system, that provide water supply, water quality and environmental benefits. There are opportunities for implementation of agricultural water management efficiencies primarily from three activities:  Hardware: Improving on-farm irrigation systems and water supplier delivery systems;  Water management: Improving management of on-farm irrigation and water supplier delivery systems; and  Crop water consumption: Reducing non-beneficial evapotranspiration. The agricultural water use efficiency strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts As described in Chapter 2 – Region Description, about 21.5 percent of land in the Bay Area region is in agricultural production, which includes a wide variety of crops as well as grazing. In 2010/11, the agricultural industry contributed an estimated $1.8 billon12 to the Bay Area economy. The majority of cropland within the Bay Area region occurs within Sonoma and Solano Counties. In recent years, the Sonoma County Water Agency has targeted wine growers with demonstrations of how to conserve water and reduce energy usage for crop irrigation and cooling. In Solano County, the Agricultural Water Conservation Committee of the Solano Water Advisory Committee assists growers with water use efficiency and is responsible for activities including: 12 Includes gross value of agricultural products in the nine Bay Area Counties and accounts for all agricultural products, including crops, nursery products, livestock, and grazing (various sources: County Crops Reports 2010). Improving efficiency of agricultural irrigation can result in substantial demand offset. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-11 Resource Management Strategies  Operation of automated weather stations throughout Solano County for use by irrigators in irrigation scheduling.  The Irrigation Hotline, a telephone service providing user-friendly data from 4 local weather stations; and The Irrigator, a newsletter for irrigators of urban turf and other crops.  Weathernews Website for Solano County growers to distribute information such as reference evapotranspiration, phenology models, degree days, temperatures, and precipitation.  Workshops on irrigation scheduling and management and irrigation system evaluations. About 25 percent of the county’s farmers participate in the Committee’s programs (Solano CWA, 2012). In Napa County, agricultural industry groups, local government agencies, and non-profit organizations partner to promote water use efficiency. Wine grapes are the dominant agricultural crop and growers routinely use deficit irrigation practices13 to improve wine quality and to conserve water. Growers in Napa County utilize local weather stations (CIMIS or individually owned weather stations) and many growers monitor soil moisture to further refine irrigation schedules to meet plant needs while efficiently applying irrigation water. Agricultural irrigation audits and water assessments are available commercially and through Napa County Resource Conservation District. In Alameda County, Zone 7 Water Agency provides untreated water to agricultural (e.g., vineyards) customers in the Livermore Valley to reduce the use of treated potable water for irrigation. Agricultural water use efficiency strategies are implemented in other counties within the Bay Area region as well, and this strategy will remain active in the IRWMP. 4.2.1.2 Urban Water Use Efficiency RMS Description The urban water use efficiency management strategy involves technology improvements as well as behavioral changes related to indoor and outdoor residential, commercial, and industrial water use that lower total demand, lower per capita use, and result in benefits to water supply, water quality and the environment. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, 13 Deficit irrigation is a watering strategy that limits water application to drought -sensitive growth stages of the crop. Example of BMP 5, Maloney Waterwise Demonstration Garden, City of Sonoma. Photo by Sonoma County Master Gardeners, 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-12 Resource Management Strategies enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts There is widespread implementation of this management strategy throughout the Bay Area. Over the last twenty plus years, the population in the Bay Area has increased significantly while water use has remained relatively constant, due in part to increases in urban water use efficiency (refer to Section 2.4, Chapter 2). An analysis of statewide and regional water consumption estimated that the Bay Area’s per capita water use was among the lowest in the state, at 64 gallons per capita per day (LAO 2017). Most Bay Area water agencies are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) and have committed to implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce California’s long-term urban water demands. In 2009 the CUWCC adopted changes to the list of BMPs to provide more flexibility in achieving water conservation while identifying BMPs all members are expected to implement (“Foundational BMPs”) as a matter of their regular course of business, including Utility Operations (metering, water loss control, pricing, use of a conservation coordinator, wholesale agency assistance programs and water waste ordinances) and Education (public information and school education programs). Additionally, as described in Section 2.4, the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 requires progress towards a statewide 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020, and mandated that each urban retail supplier establish a water use target in the 2010 UWMPs. The legislation further requires that retailers report an interim 2015 water use target, their baseline daily per capita use, and 2020 compliance daily per capita use, along with the basis for determining those estimates. Conservation programs being implemented by Bay Area water agencies, often in partnership with land use agencies, include: • Residential Water Surveys • Residential Plumbing Retrofits • High Efficiency Toilet (HET) Rebates • System Water Audits • Metering • Large Landscape Programs • Washing Machine Rebates • Public Information Programs • School Education Programs • Regional Water Campaigns • Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Programs • Wholesale Assistance • Conservation Pricing • Conservation Coordinator • Water Waste Prohibitions • Replacement • Weather-based Irrigation Controller • Bay Friendly Landscape Program 4.2.2 Strategies to Improve Operational Efficiency This set of management strategies targets improvements in the efficiency, reliability and effectiveness of water supply storage and delivery systems to provide multiple benefits associated with water supply reliability, flood hazard management, environmental resource protection, and, in some cases, public access and recreation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-13 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.2.1 Conveyance – Delta RMS Description Conveyance provides for the movement of water from its source to the area of use. Conveyance involves use of natural channels as well as manmade facilities (e.g., constructed channels, pipes and tunnels). The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a major source of supply for the Bay Area region. Thus, Delta conveyance facilities are an important element of the region’s water supply system. Management strategies to maintain and improve both the overall Delta and the regional Delta conveyance system are integral to the Bay Area’s water supply reliability. The Delta conveyance “system” includes a highly developed network of natural streams and sloughs as well as constructed channels through the Delta bordered by levees to prevent flooding of adjacent islands. This system of through-Delta conveyance is connected to the diversion structures, canals, aqueducts, pumps, and reservoirs that comprise the State’s SWP and the federal CVP water systems and deliver water into the Bay Area region and other regions in the state. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts As described in Chapter 2 and shown on Figure 2-17, almost 30 percent of the Bay Area’s water supply is conveyed through and diverted from the Delta. Section 2.3.1.3 summarizes the Bay Area agencies that receive water from the SWP system via either the North Bay Aqueduct or the South Bay Aqueduct. Over the past several years, Zone 7 and DWR have implemented projects to improve and expand the 16-mile South Bay Aqueduct. These projects improve Delta supply conveyance for the Bay Area users and provide Zone 7 with 130 cfs of expanded conveyance capacity to move additional water supply it secured through water transfers. The Bay Area water agencies that are SWP and/or CVP contractors are actively participating in ongoing efforts to implement the State’s dual goals to restore the Delta ecosystem and improve water supply reliability from and through the Delta, including the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which includes wetland/habitat restoration in the Delta coupled with new water conveyance facilities to better move water supplies through the Delta for export. 4.2.2.2 Conveyance – Regional/Local RMS Description Conveyance provides for the movement of water from its source to the area of use. Within the Bay Area region water conveyance is provided by both natural and manmade facilities. Water DWR South Bay Aqueduct 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-14 Resource Management Strategies conveyance supports several objectives including water supply delivery, flood management, in- stream habitat uses, water quality protection, and recreation. Section 2.6.1 in Chapter 2, Regional Description, provides a discussion of the major local and regional water transmission facilities in the Bay Area. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts The list of recent and planned regional and local conveyance projects in the Bay Area is quite long. Water agencies throughout the Bay Area are continually investing in their conveyance systems to maintain integrity, expand capacity, include redundancy and reliability, protect water quality, and improve energy efficiency. In addition, several agencies have implemented interties between their conveyance systems to improve water delivery flexibility and emergency response. A few selected projects are highlighted below. Conveyance Projects  SFPUC Water System Improvement Program. The SFPUC has implemented conveyance projects as part of its $4.3 billion capital improvement program for the regional water system that service more than 2.5 million customers in the Bay Area. Projects include repair and replacement of several major conveyance pipelines including those that bring Hetch Hetchy water, through upgrades to the Irvington Tunnel, and around and across the southern end of the San Francisco Bay, as shown below. Specific conveyance facility projects include: Bay Division Pipeline Reliability Upgrade, Crystal Springs / San Andreas Transmission Upgrade, Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Replacement, New Irvington Tunnel, Peninsula Pipeline Seismic Upgrade, San Antonio Back-up Pipeline, and San Joaquin Pipeline System. Interties  BAWSCA Member Agencies’ Interties. BAWSCA member agencies maintain vital local emergency interconnections throughout their individual systems. There are 25 BAWSCA member agencies that have interconnected systems.  EBMUD – CCWD Interties. EBMUD currently has an one-way raw water intertie (from EBMUD to CCWD) and a small treated water intertie with CCWD. In 2007, EBMUD and CCWD completed construction of intertie facilities, including a 170 foot pipeline, linking CCWD’s Los Vaqueros Pipeline with EBMUD’s Mokelumne Aqueduct. These facilities can pass up to 100 mgd from EBMUD to CCWD Regional efforts to help increase water supply reliability include regional interties. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-15 Resource Management Strategies and up to 60 mgd from CCWD to EBMUD. EBMUD and CCWD each own and maintain their separate portions of the intertie facilities and coordinate operations when needed.  MMWD – NMWD Interties. The current Intertie Agreement between NMWD and MMWD was executed in March 1993. The agreement provides a mechanism for MMWD and NMWD to utilize their respective water systems’ surplus water and surplus system capacity in a coordinated manner which respects that each district must first meet the needs of its water users, and permits the optimum use of same for the benefit of the customers of both districts (NMWD, 1993). The term of the current agreement expires in 2014. The two agencies are currently in negotiation to revise and extend the agreement.  SCVWD – SFPUC Intertie. SCVWD currently has an existing intertie with SFPUC (located in Milpitas), which allows both agencies to convey up to 40 mgd of water in the event of a natural disaster or planned outage. 4.2.2.3 System Reoperation RMS Description System reoperation means changing existing operation and management procedures for existing reservoirs and conveyance facilities to increase water related benefits, including water supply reliability, flood hazard reduction, ecosystem protection and restoration, and water quality improvement. There are three basic purposes of reoperation: (1) to address specific existing needs; (2) to improve operational efficiency and water supply reliability; and (3) to anticipate and adapt to future changes. System reoperation is a tool for project owners to willingly make changes in how their systems operate to best meet their changing needs. Reoperation of existing reservoirs and conveyance facilities can help integrate surface and groundwater supplies, facilitate water transfers, improve instream flows, and provide integrated water supply, flood management, ecosystem and water quality benefits. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts In the Bay Area, reoperation efforts in progress have focused on improving supply reliability, and ecosystem conditions (instream flows), and in some cases protecting water quality. Select programs and projects that include system reoperation are highlighted below.  CCWD Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion. The Contra Costa Water District, in conjunction with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation developed the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion to expand the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from 100,000 acre-feet potentially up to 250,000 acre-feet. Project objectives are to improve Bay Area drinking water quality and reliability; reduce the effects of Delta water diversions on aquatic resources and enhance the Delta and tributary environment. The expanded reservoir storage capacity provides valuable flexibility to adjust the timing of water diversion from the Delta to minimize impacts on sensitive fishery resources and maximize supply reliability and water quality. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-16 Resource Management Strategies At the same time, given the strategic location of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir near the State Water Project system facilities, water supply can be delivered to Bay Area water customers via the South Bay Aqueduct without using the existing state or federal system Delta pump, neither of which provide effective fish screening protections. CCWD has completed reservoir expansion to 160,000 acre-feet to provide water supply reliability and water quality benefits to its customers while improving Delta ecosystem conditions. The District continues to study further reservoir expansion with Reclamation and other Bay Area water agencies to allow further reoperation flexibility for Delta diversions that can achieve additional integrated benefits. 4.2.2.4 Water Transfers RMS Description Water transfers involve the voluntary sharing of water supplies on a short or long-term basis. The California Water Code defines a water transfer as a temporary or long -term change in the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use due to a transfer, sale, lease, or exchange of water or water rights. A temporary water transfer is defined as occurring for one year or less (Water Code Section 1725), while a long-term water transfers has a duration of more than one year (Water Code Section 1728). Transfers can occur between neighboring agencies or across the state, provided there is either a means to physically convey and/or store the water or a way to account for an in lieu supply exchange. Water transfers can be a temporary or permanent sale of water or a water right by the water right holder; a lease of the right to use water from the water right holder; or a sale or lease of a contractual right to water supply. Water transfers can also take the form of long-term contracts for the purpose of improving long-term supply reliability. In combination, water transfers can serve as one element of flexible system reoperation and can be linked to many other water management strategies including surface water and groundwater storage, conjunctive management, conveyance efficiency, water use efficiency, water quality improvements, and ecosystem protection and enhancement. These linkages often result in increased beneficial use and reuse of water overall and are among the most valuable aspects of water transfers. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts Through collaborative water transfers, Bay Area agencies are making the most of available water supplies. Historic and existing water transfer arrangements in place in the region include the following:  CCWD Long-Term and Short-Term Water Transfers. CCWD has long-term agreements that enable it to purchase up to 12,200 AFY from East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) during droughts.  SFPUC Water Transfers. The SFPUC participated in the DWR Drought Bank to help meet demands during the 1987-1992 drought, and has also purchased water from the Kern County Water Bank. SFPUC is also investigating the possibility of a dry-year water transfer in the Tuolumne River basin with Modesto Irrigation District/Turlock Irrigation District for 2 mgd. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-17 Resource Management Strategies  SCVWD Short-Term Water Transfers. SCVWD participates in water transfers and exchanges on a routine basis. For example, in 2003 when CVP and SWP allocations initially were low, SCVWD purchased about 28,000 AF through six separate transactions.  Solano CWA Water Contractors Water Transfer Agreements. There are currently several agreements for water transfers within the group of Solano CWA water contractors, including the Solano Irrigation District City Agreements, the Solano Project Drought Measures Agreement, and the Vallejo Agreements.  Zone 7 Agriculture-to-Urban Water Transfers. Long-term agriculture-to-urban water transfers have enabled Zone 7 to increase its SWP entitlement from 46,000 to 80,619 AFY. Zone 7 also has a 15-year contract (renewable for another 15 years at Zone 7’s option) with Byron Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) to acquire up to 5,000 AFY of additional supply. 4.2.2.5 Imported Water RMS Description As described in Chapter 2, Regional Setting, a substantial amount of the Bay Area’s water supply is imported, coming to the Bay Area region from Sierra Rivers, the Delta, or the Russian and Eel Rivers. Because imported water constitutes such an important component of many agencies’ baseline supplies, this RMS involves active participation in appropriate efforts to protect and ensure the delivery and viability of imported supplies. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts For Bay Area water agencies the most significant current program addressing Delta imported water is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP program is a collaborative effort to restore the Delta’s ecosystem and protect water supplies. It is a multi-agency effort of local, regional, state and federal agencies to implement a combination of ecosystem restoration and management efforts and water system infrastructure projects that will provide for both ecosystem improvement and improved water supply reliability. Many Bay Area agencies participate in the process. The Sonoma County Water Agency has a Water Supply Strategies Action Plan, currently being updated for 2013, that identifies near-term and long-term actions needed to increase the reliability, resiliency and efficient use of its water supply imported from the Eel River and the Russian River upstream of Sonoma County in Mendocino and Lake Counties. The Eel River facilities are owned and operated by PG&E; SCWA is taking an active role in protecting its imported water supply; for example the agency will be conducting studies needed for PG&E’s future Potter Valley Project relicensing process, pending in 2022. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-18 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.2.6 Infrastructure Reliability RMS Description Bay Area agencies recognize the importance of maintaining and upgrading their water supply, wastewater, stormwater, and flood control infrastructure to improve service and reliability of water supplies. Bay Area agencies will continue to implement improvement projects to ensure the reliability of their systems. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts Agencies throughout the region continually strive to enhance the reliability of existing infrastructure. In addition to the conveyance projects highlighted above in Section 4.2.2.2, a few examples of the types of Infrastructure Reliability projects in place throughout the region are provided below.  CCWD’s CIP Projects. CCWD’s CIP for fiscal years 2012-2021 identifies approximately $147.2 million for untreated water supply and transport projects to improve seismic reliability, water conveyance, pipelines and canals.  SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan. Adopted in October 2012, the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan is the District’s strategy for providing a reliable and sustainable future water supply for Santa Clara County. The strategy has three key elements: (1) secure existing supplies and infrastructure, (2) optimize the use of existing supplies and infrastructure, and (3) increase recycling and conservation. One of the approved activities is to update the District’s Infrastructure Reliability Plan that addresses recovery from short-term outages and infrastructure system robustness.  Solano CWA’s Highline Canal Study and North Bay Aqueduct Improvements. Solano CWA is evaluating the potential to expand its infrastructure reliability through the Highline Canal Study, and North Bay Aqueduct Improvements. The Highline Canal Study is evaluating whether a connection from the NBA to SID’s Highline Canal would improve reliability of local water supplies. The project facilities would include a pump station, a connection to the NBA and a connection to the Highline Canal.  Zone 7’s Infrastructure Projects. Zone 7’s 2005 Well Master Plan proposes to increase well production/recovery capacity by up to 42 mgd to increase reliability and redundancy of the water system. Zone 7 is also working on the SBA Enlargement Project, which will increase the SBA and South Bay Pumping Plant capacity from 300 to 430 cfs; and Altamont WTP construction, which will provide up to 42 mgd of additional surface water treatment capacity. The Bay Area is home to aging water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection infrastructure. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-19 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3 Strategies to Increase Water Supply Most water agencies in the Bay Area implement a diverse portfolio of water management strategies to increase water supply. A sample of the specific projects and programs currently being implemented is presented in subsequent sections. 4.2.3.1 Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Management RMS Description Conjunctive management is coordinated and planned use of both surface water and groundwater resources to maximize the availability and reliability of water supplies to meet various management objectives. Water is stored in the groundwater basin for later use by intentionally recharging the basin when excess water supply is available such as during years of above-average surface water supply or through the use of recycled water. Conjunctive use also includes in-lieu groundwater recharge through the provision of treated surface water and acquisition of supplemental water supplies. Effective conjunctive management not only increases the reliability and the overall amount of water supply in a region, but may provide other benefits such as flood management, environmental water use, and water quality improvement. Aquifer recharge can increase groundwater storage by directing surface water (when available) into the aquifer through injection wells, spreading the water on permeable ground surfaces, or introducing the water into streams that are connected to the aquifer through permeable streambeds. The stored water in the aquifer can then be withdrawn at a later time when surface water is less available. Groundwater banking improves operational flexibility and efficiency, provides additional dry year supply reliability, and helps manage water levels in the groundwater basin. Methods include in lieu recharge, direct recharge or injection wells (aquifer storage and recovery). This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Active groundwater management programs are in place for Bay Area groundwater supplies and in many cases include conjunctive use. In addition, several Bay Area agencies are currently participating in interregional groundwater banking programs with Semitropic Water Storage District and Mojave Water Agency (MWA). Nearly all Bay Area water agencies are investigating ACWD and many other Bay Area water agencies currently implement conjunctive use programs. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-20 Resource Management Strategies groundwater banking options for the future. Select examples of conjunctive use programs in the Bay Area are noted below.  ACWD Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use. ACWD optimizes the use of imported SFPUC and SWP surface water supplies, using the local groundwater basin to store these supplies in the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, which underlies the ACWD service area. ACWD makes use of a series of former quarry pits to recharge the local groundwater basin with the imported surface water supplies.  SCVWD Conjunctive Use Program. SCVWD has implemented an active conjunctive use program for more than 80 years. SCVWD’s integrated water system includes 10 reservoirs, 17 miles of canals, four water supply diversion dams, almost 300 acres of recharge ponds, 91 miles of controlled in-stream recharge, 142 miles of pipelines, three drinking water treatment plants, three pump stations, recycled water facilities, and imported supplies from the SWP and CVP.  Solano Irrigation District Conjunctive Use Wells. SID uses groundwater conjunctively with surface water supplies. SID groundwater well network consists of 29 wells ranging from 400 to 1,000 feet below the surface. Groundwater is primarily used to supplement irrigation demands in areas constrained by conveyance capacity for surface water deliveries. The historical yield of the groundwater system is 15,000 AFY (Solano County LAFCO, 2009).  Westside Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use Project. SFPUC is currently conducting a pilot program with the cities of Daly City and San Bruno and Cal Water (South San Francisco) for the Westside Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use Project, involving the use of SFPUC surface water in-lieu of pumping groundwater during normal and wet years.  Zone 7 Groundwater Banking Program. Zone 7 supplements its local groundwater storage capacity with off-site storage capacity in groundwater banking programs, including 65,000 AF of storage capacity in the Semitropic Water Storage District and 120,000 AF of storage capacity in the Cawelo Water District, located in Kern County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-21 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3.2 Desalination – Brackish and Seawater RMS Description Desalination utilizes various water treatment processes to remove salt from water for beneficial uses. Desalination is applied to both seawater and brackish water (low salinity water). The principal method for desalination used in California is reverse osmosis. This process can be used to remove salt as well as specific contaminants in water such as disinfection byproducts, volatile organic compounds, nitrates and pathogens. Desalination offers many potential benefits, including the following: • A new source of potable water supply • High quality water, even during periods of drought • Local supply under local control • Reduced dependence on imported supplies This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts A large number of Bay Area agencies have pursued or are considering desalination projects t o contribute to their future water supply portfolios. Please refer to Section 2.3.3.2 in Chapter 2, Regional Description, for a description of several example projects. The 5-MGD Newark Desalination Facility uses reverse osmosis for groundwater desalination. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-22 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3.3 Water Recycling RMS Description The CWP Update 2013 identifies a Recycled Municipal Water RMS that focuses specifically on treatment and reuse of municipal wastewater; it does not include commercial, industrial or institution water reuse that may result from “internal” onsite or process reuse prior to discharge to a municipal system and it does not include grey water reuse. The Bay Area CC decided to include a broader Water Recycling RMS that includes municipal reuse along with these other approaches to water recycling. Water recycling is a strategy that increases the usefulness of water by reusing a portion of the existing waste stream that would be discharged to the environment, by redirecting the water to another local application. This action does not necessarily increase the amount of water in the water supply, but it enables conserving higher quality water for appropriate uses. Recycled water is integrated into the water supply for potable or non-potable uses. Non-potable reuse includes any application not involving drinking water for human consumption, such as landscape or agricultural irrigation, commercial applications like car washes or dual-plumbed office buildings, or industrial process such as oil refineries or cooling towers. Potable reuse results in augmentation to drinking water supplies, and it can be either direct or indirect. Indirect potable reuse is using highly purified recycled water for groundwater recharge or surface water reservoir augmentation. Currently, recycled water is only used for non-potable uses in the Bay Area. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) includes the largest wastewater agencies in the Bay Area. In 2010 BACWA surveyed member agencies to develop recycled water projections for the Bay Area, presented in Figure 4-1. Based on survey results, the following conclusions were established:  In 2010 the Bay Area recycled almost 10 percent of the effluent generated.  The State Water Resources Control Board estimated that 29,100 AFY were produced in the Bay Area in the year 2000. The 2010 production was nearly 60,000 AFY, which is almost twice that amount. Recycled water is a drought-resistant supply that can contribute to improved supply reliability. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-23 Resource Management Strategies  Recycled water production is expected to more than double over the next twenty years to 120,000 AFY.  The current and future predominate uses of recycled water are for landscape irrigation and industrial facilities (including boiler washdown and cooling by oil refineries). Figure 4-1: Projected Recycled Water Use in the Bay Area14 Table 2-9 in Chapter 2 lists recycled water programs in the Bay Area and describes regional recycling initiatives such as the North Bay Water Reuse Program. A few selected examples of the numerous water recycling programs currently in the Bay Area include: South Subregion  Santa Clara County Recycling Partnerships and the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. SCVWD has entered into recycling partnerships with three recycled water producers in Santa Clara County: the South Bay Water Recycling Program; the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant; and the South County Regional Wastewater Authority. About 18,000 acre-feet of recycled water was used in Santa Clara County in 2012. In 2010 the SCVWD Board of Directors approved agreements with the City of San José to build an advanced water treatment facility (to be completed in summer of 2013) that will produce up to 10 million gallons per day of highly purified recycled water. This near distilled-quality water will be blended into existing recycled water provided by the Santa Clara/San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant’s recycled water producer, South Bay Water Recycling, which will improve overall non-potable recycled water quality so that the water can be used for a wider variety of irrigation and industrial purposes. SCVWD will also use the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center to engage stakeholders and demonstrate the effectiveness of the advanced 14 BACWA, Recycled Water Survey Results, November 2011. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-24 Resource Management Strategies treatment technologies, which helps set the stage for future decisions regarding potable reuse. SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan specifies actions that support making decisions in 2016 about how to proceed with potable reuse in Santa Clara County. East Subregion  DSRSD EBMUD San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program. In 1994, DSRSD and EBMUD entered into an agreement to facilitate the development of a joint water recycling program. The San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program is a multi-phase project designed to supply recycled water to DSRSD and EBMUD. Transmission and distribution lines have been completed and currently serve 56 DSRSD customers at 205 sites and 10 EBMUD customers at 41 sites. When completed, the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program will serve about 3.3 mgd of recycled water to DSRSD and 2.4 mgd of recycled water to EBMUD. North Subregion • The California Coastal Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife have proposed and are implementing a salinity reduction and habitat restoration project for the 9,460-acre Napa River Unit of the Napa- Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area. The Napa River Unit is located at the northeast edge of San Pablo Bay, adjacent to the Napa River. The purpose of the Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration Project is to restore a mosaic of habitats, including tidal habitats and managed ponds, and provide for better management of ponds in the Napa River Unit to support populations of fish and wildlife. This project includes the annual delivery of approximately 3,000 AF of tertiary recycled water from the SVCSD as an ongoing supply of non-saline water for restoration, with subsequent agricultural use. West Subregion • Regional Efforts. The SFPUC, the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and California Water Service Company (Bayshore District) are jointly pursuing a project to produce and distribute recycled water in the South San Francisco and San Bruno areas. Recycled water for the project will be produced at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant jointly operated by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno (SFPUC, 2011). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-25 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.3.4 Surface Storage – CALFED RMS Description The CALFED Record of Decision (2000) identified five potential surface storage reservoir projects for further investigation by federal, state and local interests. Implementation of one or more of these projects was included in the adopted CALFED long-term comprehensive program to restore ecological health and improve water management of the Bay-Delta. The five storage reservoir projects include:  In-Delta Storage Project – the Delta Wetlands Project, proposed by a privately owned entity, is proceeding through the environmental permitting process.  Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion – CCWD completed reservoir expansion to 160 TAF in 2012.  North-of-the Delta Offstream Storage – Sites Reservoir proposal.  Shasta Lake Water Sources Investigation (expansion of Shasta Reservoir) – studies are in progress lead by Reclamation.  Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation – studies for the Temperance Flat Reservoir in progress lead by Reclamation. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and improve regional flood management. Existing Bay Area Efforts As discussed in subsection 4.2.2.5 System Reoperation, CCWD in conjunction with DWR and Reclamation developed the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to expand the Los Vaqueros Reservoir from 100,000 acre-feet potentially up to 250,000 acre-feet. CCWD proceeded with reservoir expansion to 160,000 acre-feet and completed construction in mid- 2012. The District continues to study further reservoir expansion with DWR, Reclamation and potential Bay Area partners. As studies on the other CALFED surface storage project concepts are completed, Bay Area water agencies participating in the federal and state water systems will be engaged in decisions regarding whether to fund and proceed with these additional storage projects. 4.2.3.5 Surface Storage – Regional/Local RMS Description Surface storage is the use of reservoirs to collect water for later release and use. Given California’s natural hydrology pattern, characterized annually by a long dry season and a shorter Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an important surface storage reservoir in Contra Costa County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-26 Resource Management Strategies ”wet” season, and including cyclic droughts that can extend for multiple years, surface water reservoirs play an important role in capturing surface water supply when it is available and holding it until it is needed for use. Reservoirs are an important strategic facility for responding to emergencies and for adapting to projected climate change effects on precipitation. Most water agencies in the state and in the Bay Area rely on surface water reservoirs as a key part of their water supply systems. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts The Bay Area is currently exploring a variety of surface storage projects for potential water supply reliability and water quality benefits. A few examples of projects underway throughout the Bay Area region include the following:  SCVWD Anderson Dam. SCVWD has dam safety operating restrictions on five of its 10 reservoirs, including Anderson Reservoir. Anderson Reservoir is the District’s largest reservoir and has more capacity than the remaining reservoirs combined. The Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project will restore the reservoir capacity from 61,810 acre-feet to 90,373 acre-feet, providing important storage and operational flexibility.  SFPUC Restoration of Calaveras Reservoir capacity. The adopted WSIP includes the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project, which will result in construction of a new seismically sound dam, allowing the reservoir to be returned to its full capacity of 96,850 acre-feet and restoring about 60,000 acre feet of reservoir storage to the SFPUC water system. The restored capacity provides storage for emergency and drought water supplies, providing up to 7 mgd over the SFPUC design drought. In general, a restored Calaveras Reservoir provides 40 percent of the SFPUC’s local system storage capacity. 4.2.3.6 Stormwater Capture and Management RMS Description This RMS is not on DWR’s list but has been retained by the Bay Area CC from the 2006 Plan and given an updated definition and focus. In the 2006 Plan, this RMS focused on efforts to protect water quality and maintain flood protection; however, these objectives are addressed by other RMS including Urban Runoff Management (4.2.4.2) and Integrated Flood Management (4.2.5.1). For this 2013 plan update, this RMS is refocused on efforts to capture stormwater primarily for water supply purposes, while acknowledging that doing so also has potential associated water quality, flood management and ecosystem benefits. Stormwater capture and management may include rainwater harvesting systems that serve individual properties, or local or regional efforts to capture and store stormwater in cisterns or surface reservoirs or to recharge the groundwater. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-27 Resource Management Strategies improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and improve regional flood management. Existing Bay Area Efforts While many Bay Area agencies already use their local reservoirs to capture stormwater runoff in local watersheds, existing efforts to capture and use stormwater runoff from developed urban areas is more limited. An example of a stormwater capture program underway in the Bay Area Region is provided below:  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Rainwater Harvesting Program. The purpose of this program is to raise awareness regarding rainwater harvesting and to promote installation of rainwater harvesting systems throughout San Francisco. The program includes information on rainwater harvesting, permitting guidance and rainbarrel/cistern subsidies. 4.2.4 Strategies to Improve Flood Management Watershed runoff generated in Bay Area headwaters is rapidly augmented by runoff from relatively impervious urban areas in the lower watersheds. The Mediterranean climate of the region also concentrates the storm season. Annual precipitation varies greatly, within any given season, and spatially across the region. For example, average annual rainfall in San José is 15 inches, whereas average annual rainfall in San Rafael is 36 inches. Taken together, the regional geography, development patterns, and climate promote an important need for regional and local flood management strategies. Many creeks in the Bay Area can flood within 30 to 60 minutes of a particularly powerful storm burst, causing millions of dollars in damages and catching businesses and residents off guard. Flood risk management projects protect communities and properties from flooding hazards through improved conveyance, detention, and retention techniques as well as flood emergency preparedness and flood recovery support. 4.2.4.1 Integrated Flood Risk Management RMS Description This strategy includes efforts to assist individuals and communities to manage flood flows, reduce flooding risk, and prepare for, respond to and recover from a flood. Integrated Flood Management is recognized as an approach to flood management15 and strives to achieve multiple objectives and enhanced outcomes. Integrated flood risk management utilizes watershed management to achieve additional runoff reductions through source area control, improved infiltration, and use of naturally existing surface detention features to reduce or delay peak flows. Carefully integrated flood risk management projects provide opportunities for water supply increases and for ecosystem and habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Flood Risk Management projects and programs can be generally grouped into three categories: Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (Education, Emergency response, Flood Insurance, Post flood recovery); Land Use Management (Floodplain restoration and regulation, 15 Draft California Water Plan Update 2013, Chapter 28 Flood Management. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-28 Resource Management Strategies Building codes); Structural Approaches (Dams, Levees, Floodwalls, Channelization, Maintenance). Integrated Flood Management provides an overall flood management strategy for long-term economic stability, public safety, and enhancement of environmental stewardship. There are six basic strategies for incorporating flood management into Integrated Water Management: 11. Integrated Flood Management and Land Use - Incorporates flood management into land use planning recognizing that both can impact flood magnitudes and flood risks. Land use planning can reduce flood risks by limiting development within floodplains. 12. Leverage Natural Watershed Features – Enhances natural watershed features to reduce the intensity, duration or impacts of flooding. Undeveloped floodplains can store and slowly release floodwaters and wetlands can filter runoff for groundwater infiltration. 13. Adopt a “Best Mix” of Structural and Nonstructural Approaches – Compares the available structural and nonstructural approaches and selects a strategy or a combination of strategies that is most appropriate for management objectives. 14. Implement Regional Flood Management at a System Scale - Opportunities and impacts of flooding and management are evaluated at a regional scale, across geographic and agency boundaries to achieve sustainable outcomes, informed decisions, and prioritized investment. 15. Promote Multiple Benefits - Focuses on implementing projects with multiple benefits. Management of floodwaters and stormwaters could be a resource for water supply, pollution prevention and source control, as well as ecosystem restoration. 16. Implement Multiple -Hazard Management - Incorporates flood risks induced by other hazards, into a multiple hazard approach to planning. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) promotes integrated approaches to overcome challenges facing flood risk management in the region. Under a MOU with nine counties, BAFPA member agencies address the major flood protection and stormwater management objectives and issues for the watersheds in the region. BAFPAA’s approach is described below. Refer to Section 2.6.3 in Chapter 2, Regional Description, for a description of major Bay Area flood protection projects. Napa River Flood Control Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-29 Resource Management Strategies 1. Employ Collaborative Approaches. Bay Area flood protection agencies actively pursue collaborative approaches to planning and designing projects. This approach brings together the interests of health and safety and environmental resource protection into the planning and design phases, where objectives can be coordinated and integrated. Flood protection agencies facilitate consensus at each stage of project development and implementation. 2. Innovative Multi-Benefit Projects. Bay Area agencies have developed regional approaches to address sea level rise and coastal flooding, combining flood control and tidal marsh enhancement. Inland areas in a common watershed are transitioning to flood control projects that function simultaneously as habitat restoration projects. 3. Managing Floodplains and Riparian Areas. To participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by FEMA, municipalities must engage in minimum levels of floodplain management. Nearly all Bay Area municipalities have floodplain management ordinances based on the FEMA model. Over the past two decades, riparian protection policies have also been developed in several Bay Area municipalities. 4. Providing Stream Maintenance Outreach and Education. Many Bay Area flood protection agencies have “jurisdiction” over streams within their boundaries, but the streams themselves are very often in private ownership. Lack of continuous access to streams hampers agencies’ ability to maintain stream stability and capacity. To address maintenance in these areas, the agencies seek to assist property owners through outreach and education programs. 5. Obtaining Voter Approval for Flood Protection Funding. Bay Area flood protection agencies have, in some situations, obtained the required two-thirds voter approval of taxes or fees to fund their activities. 6. Coordinating among Jurisdictions. In some areas, Bay Area flood protection agencies have formalized cooperative arrangements to manage watersheds. 7. Infrastructure Maintenance. Repair and upgrades to existing aging infrastructure is a general responsibility of flood managers. Targeting high profile (i.e. critical public services) and at risk infrastructure (i.e. located in floodplains or coastal zone) enables flood managers to prioritize projects and leverage available budgets to maximize benefits. 8. Education/Outreach and Flood Issues and NFIP. Development in the Bay Area is concentrated around major waterbodies (i.e., San Francisco Bay, Napa River, Alameda Creek, Novato Creek), and coastal areas. As noted above, there are challenges for flood managers relative to private property. Education for land owners is critical in engaging the community to purchase flood insurance and plan for flood risk. 9. Controlling Invasive Species. Bay Area flood control agencies discourage or prohibit planting of invasive species in areas where they have ownership or easement. Several Bay Area agencies have prepared streamside planting guides which are available free to help guide appropriate plant selection. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-30 Resource Management Strategies 10. Emergency Response and Disaster Preparedness. Flood damage can incur high costs of life and property. Bay Area agencies recognize the importance of proactive emergency planning to prepare for flood events and post flood recovery. There are a variety of mechanisms, including public outreach, local emergency notification broadcasting, and information centers. 4.2.5 Strategies to Improve Water Quality Water quality protection and improvement includes efforts to protect existing good water quality, prevent pollution, and clean up and improve areas of poorer or degraded water quality. Nine RMS have been identified to address water quality. 4.2.5.1 Drinking Water Treatment/Distribution RMS Description The goal of the public water systems throughout the state of California is to provide a reliable supply of safe drinking water to the public. Water treatment and distribution are the two key components which provide for delivery of safe, high quality drinking water. Drinking water treatment includes physical, biological, and chemical processes to make water suitable for potable use. Distribution includes storage, pumping, and pipe systems to protect and deliver water to customers. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and improve water supply reliability and quality. Existing Bay Area Efforts Throughout the Bay Area, water agencies strive to provide uniformly high quality water to all customers. Water treatment plants play a key role in insuring high quality water for customer delivery and in managing multiple supply sources with varying source qualities. Bay Area agencies routinely expand and improve their treatment facilities as one strategy in managing overall delivered water quality. Interrelated strategies to protect and improve drinking water supplies include pollution prevention, water quality protection and improvement, groundwater and aquifer remediation, and watershed management. Select examples of Bay Area projects include:  SCVWD Water Treatment Plant Upgrades. SCVWD completed multi-million dollar projects to upgrade two of its three water treatment plants (Penitencia and Santa Teresa), including installation of new chemical facilities, conversion from chlorine to ozone in order to effectively combat taste and odor compounds and reduce the potential for forming THMs, and improved plant recycled water filtering, washing and clarifying systems. The Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Reliability Improvement Project is currently in the design phase with construction scheduled to begin in 2016.  Organic Carbon Removal Technology Testing. Solano CWA received a CALFED grant to test organic carbon removal technologies for drinking water supplies and is working with cities to consider implementation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-31 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.5.2 Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation RMS Description Groundwater contamination can and has resulted from several sources, both naturally occurring, such as arsenic, or manmade, such as leaking underground storage tanks. The groundwater and aquifer remediation strategy employs several approaches to treat and reuse contaminated groundwater either in place or through extraction, treatment, and discharge or reuse. It also involves efforts to limit and contain contamination within an aquifer and clean-up these aquifers so that they may be used for water storage for beneficial use. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few select examples of groundwater and aquifer remediation projects within the Bay Area include:  Alameda County Water District Underground Injection Control Project. ACWD with the USEPA identify aquifer remediation wells within the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin to inject fluids to enhance the remediation of a cleanup site (ACWD, 2012).  San Mateo County Health System Underground Storage Tank Program. This program ensures regulations are followed and inspected as well as to educate business on how to maintain their underground storage tank (San Mateo County, 2012). 4.2.5.3 Matching Water Quality to Use RMS Description Not all water uses require the same quality of water or level of water treatment. Potable water should be reserved for those uses that require potable water standards (e.g., drinking water supplies), while other uses that do not require potable water (industrial, construction, landscape and agricultural irrigation) can use lesser quality or recycled water. Various laws are in place to ensure water quality matches use, including Title 22, Chapter 4 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 22). Recycled water can also be treated to a wide range of purities that can be matched to different uses. Under Title 22, DPH has set bacteriological water quality standards on the basis of the expected degree of public contact with recycled water. Title 22 identifies several levels of recycled water based on level of treatment and disinfection, including: Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water; Disinfected Secondary-23 Recycled Water; Disinfected Secondary-2.2 Recycled Water; and Undisinfected Secondary Recycled Water. Title 22 further identifies allowable uses for each of these different levels of recycled water based on the potential impacts to public health. Existing Bay Area Efforts Section 4.2.3.2, Water Recycling, provides numerous examples of recycled water projects in the Bay Area that produce various qualities of recycled water. Below are two examples of projects 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-32 Resource Management Strategies that produce very high quality recycled water for industrial and other uses, as well as one example of on-site wastewater recycling for sanitary uses.  Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. As described under Section 4.2.3.2, this facility is capable of producing high-purity water for blending with tertiary effluent to produce a blended recycled water with low total dissolved solids (total dissolved solids concentrations target is 500 milligrams per liter). By providing high- purity recycled water, the facility will increase the marketability of the water, allowing SCVWD to expand recycled water service to uses with more stringent water quality requirements.  EBMUD Richmond Advanced Recycled Water Expansion Project (RARE). EBMUD’s program demonstrates innovation and achieves real water savings by recycling effluent from West County Wastewater District. Helping to meets its goal of delivering 20 million gallons per day of recycled water by the year 2040, the district completed a water treatment plant that treats secondary effluent from a local wastewater district for use by the Richmond Chevron oil refinery. Using microfiltration and reverse osmosis, the project delivers 3.5 million gallons per day of highly purified water to the refinery, reducing demand for potable water by the same amount. By redirecting flows from the wastewater district, the project will reduce wastewater and pollutant discharges into the San Francisco Bay for part of each year.  525 Golden Gate “Living Machine.” The SFPUC headquarters building at 525 Golden Gate includes a wide array of green building features including several systems that reduce potable water consumption by matching water quality to use. Gray and blackwater generated by the building is treated onsite and re-used to satisfy 100 percent of the water demand for the building’s low-flow toilets and urinals, reducing per person water consumption from 12 gallons to 5 gallons. In addition, building’s rainwater harvesting system can capture and store up to 250,000 gallons of water per year for use in exterior irrigation systems, replacing use of potable water for irrigation. By utilizing these systems, 525 Golden Gate consumes 60 percent less water than similarly sized buildings. 4.2.5.4 Pollution Prevention RMS Description The pollution prevention strategy aims to protect water quality at its source and prevent contamination and degradation. This preserves water quality, reduces the need and cost of other water management and treatment strategies. Pollution prevention efforts throughout a watershed help support beneficial use and reuse of water for a broader number and type of downstream water uses. Improving water quality by protecting source water is consistent with and reinforces a watershed-based approach to water resource management. This RMS is interrelated to strategies for Urban Runoff Management (4.2.4.2), Water Quality Protection and Improvement (4.2.4.3), Wastewater Treatment (4.2.4.9), and Watershed Management and Planning (4.2.6.6.). This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-33 Resource Management Strategies improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Bay Area stormwater managers are undertaking a variety of efforts to reduce pollutants of concern and prevent pollution of local and regional waters. Select efforts from among many being implemented throughout the Bay Region are highlighted below:  Countywide Cleanwater Programs. In many counties in the Bay Area, agencies responsible for stormwater management have joined together to form countywide cleanwater programs aimed at facilitating compliance with regional stormwater regulations, supporting regional stormwater quality efforts and providing public outreach and education regarding stormwater pollution. Examples of countywide programs in the Bay Area include the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Marin County STOPPP, the Napa Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, San Mateo Countywide STOPPP, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.  The Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group. As part of BACWA, this group leverages limited resources to develop and carry out innovative regional pollution prevention projects that help member agencies comply with permit requirements and educate the public regarding pollution prevention practices. 4.2.5.5 Salt and Salinity Management RMS Description Salinity refers to the level of dissolved minerals in the water. With the exception of freshly fallen snow, salt is present to some degree in virtually all natural water supplies as soluble salts in rocks and soil begin to dissolve as soon as water reaches them. While these minerals can be beneficial, higher concentrations of salts can pose problems for various beneficial uses from causing scaling in industrial process, or irrigated crop and landscape vegetation impacts to taste effects in drinking water or even possible health effects. Salt sources are naturally occurring and may affect local surface and groundwater. In addition, water reuse, water softeners, and agricultural irrigation are among the practices that can increase salinity in surface and groundwater. Salt and salinity management contributes to improving water supplies and reducing salt loads through prevention, treatment, disposal, storage and aiming to achieve a sustainable salt balance. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Several Bay Area agencies are pursuing salt management activities within their service areas as well as participating in regional efforts to address salinity management. Some of those efforts are highlighted below. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-34 Resource Management Strategies  Contra Costa Water District Evaluation of Historic Salinity Conditions. The Contra Costa Water District’s report “Historical Fresh Water and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay” provides a review of more than 100 years of studies, monitoring data, scientific reports, and modeling analyses that establish the historical salinity conditions in the Western Delta and Suisun Bay (CCWD, 2009). The report findings provide a historic baseline to inform management approaches, including a better understanding of intrusion, salinity levels, and sources.  Northern California Salinity Coalition (NCSC). NCSC, dedicated to protecting the region’s water supplies from salt contamination, is comprised of eight Bay Area water agencies: ACWD, CCWD, EBMUD, SFPUC, SCVWD, Solano CWA, Sonoma CWA, and Zone 7 Water Agency. The Northern California Salinity Coalition is focusing its efforts in the following areas: seawater desalination, brackish groundwater desalination, salinity increases in groundwater basins and the impact on water supplies, seawater intrusion, control of salinity in wastewater to improve recycling options for irrigation or industrial use, and other related issues. The NCSC has endorsed 26 regional and local salinity related projects. The NCSC has developed the following strategic objectives:  Regional Leadership  Legislative Coordination  Coalition Membership  Education and Outreach  Regulations and Collaboration  Sonoma County Water Agency Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. Sonoma CWA and USGS identified salinity issues in the southern part of the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin. Numeric modeling could be conducted to evaluate data gaps and simulate future conditions. Sonoma CWA has developed a salt and nutrient management plan for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SCWA, 2012a). The approach included a series of workshops to identify sources; develop a draft monitoring plan; assimilate capacity, fate, and transport; anti-degradation analysis; and implementation measures. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-35 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.5.6 Urban Stormwater Runoff Management RMS Description Urban runoff management addresses both stormwater and dry-weather runoff. Dry-weather runoff most commonly results from excess landscape irrigation that flows to the storm drains. A watershed approach to runoff management consists of a series of best management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce the pollutant loading and reduce the volumes and velocities of urban runoff discharged to surface waters. These BMPs may include facilities to capture, treat, and recharge groundwater with urban runoff, public education campaigns to inform the public about stormwater pollution, technical assistance and stormwater pollution prevention training. This strategy also includes promotion of low impact development (LID) that minimizes hydromodification within the watershed. Interrelated strategies include RMS for Pollution Prevention, Integrated Flood Management, and Urban Water Use Efficiency. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts  BASMAA Design Guidance Manual. BASMAA has developed a Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection “Start at the Source”, which is intended to assist members16 in efforts to address stormwater management.  Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program. Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District initiated the Urban Runoff Management Program to reduce or eliminate pollutants discharges from urban areas into storm drainages, local creeks, and Suisun Marsh. Key components of the URMP include industrial and commercial inspections, education outreach to schools and the general public, monitoring municipal maintenance activities, and ensuring that local residential and commercial construction sites do not contribute to pollution in our local waterways (FSSD, 2012).  Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Rainwater Harvesting Program. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District offers cash 16 BASMAA members include the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program, Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Sonoma County Water Agency and Vallejo Sanitation District. An interior roof drain discharges to a vegetated swale in Emeryville, CA. This is an example of an “approved alternate location” for stormwater discharge. From SFPUC, 2009. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-36 Resource Management Strategies rebates to residents of the Napa River watershed who install rain gardens and rain barrels/cisterns to treat and capture stormwater.  San Pablo Avenue Green Stormwater Spine. The San Francisco Estuary Partnership initiated this as a pilot project and model for Bay Area municipalities implementing “green” infrastructure projects as part of their stormwater management efforts. The Spine Project will design, build, and monitor an array of LID projects distributed along 12.5 miles of San Pablo Avenue, a major thoroughfare passing through a number of East Bay cities. 4.2.5.7 Water Quality Protection and Improvement RMS Description This strategy is not on DWR’s RMS list but has been retained by the Bay Area CC. This strategy focuses on efforts to protect water quality throughout all stages of its life cycle. Water protection must start at the source, whether that is a remote or local watershed or a groundwater basin. Source to tap protection should be provided, preserving the quality of water supplies as they are transported to the end users. In addition, protecting and restoring ecosystems associated with receiving waters will also enhance water quality since water quality is not only a function of the pollutants in the water body, but also the ability of that water body to sustain aquatic life across the food web. Interrelated strategies include RMS for Pollution Prevention, Urban Runoff Management, Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution, Ecosystem Restoration, Agricultural Lands Stewardship, Watershed Management and Planning, and Salt and Salinity Management. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts The examples listed above under the Pollution Prevention RMS (Countywide Cleanwater Programs and the Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group) also have elements that address this RMS. A few additional examples focused on protecting water quality at its source include:  CCWD Middle River Intake. CCWD seeks to protect drinking water supplies from degrading and variable Delta water quality. This project relocates the drinking water intake further east in the Delta, allowing for diversion of higher quality water.  Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership. Lake Berryessa provides drinking water for nearly 500,000 people and provides year-round recreation opportunities for more than a million people each year. Lake Berryessa water also serves farmers and businesses downstream. Solano County Water Agency participates in this voluntary program facilitated by the Solano Resource Conservation District along with many other local and regional agencies and other stakeholder groups. The program works to educate boaters, campers, day visitors and other lake users about the importance of water quality and good personal stewardship practices.  Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan. This plan was used to develop strategies and methods to protect groundwater quality and to manage 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-37 Resource Management Strategies groundwater supply reliability. Strategies related to water quality protection in the plan include minimizing salt water intrusion, and working with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge and prevent groundwater contamination. An example of a specific program from the plan that is underway to protect groundwater quality is the SCVWD Well Ordinance Program. Under this program, SCVWD permits and inspects well construction, maintenance and destruction to ensure that these activities will not allow transport of contaminants into drinking water aquifers.  Solano CWA Land Use BMP Program. High dissolved oxygen content and turbidity concentrations in SWP water from the NBA encourage blue-green algae during winter months, which affect water taste and odor. Solano CWA is implementing land use BMPs in the watershed to reduce organic carbon and turbidity loading, and encouraging upper watershed protection and grazing practices (Solano County Water Agency, 2010).  Tuolumne River Watershed Protection. The SFPUC has formed partnerships with the National Park Service, the California Department of Forestry, and several other agencies to protect the Tuolumne River watershed, which is the source water for the SFPUC’s drinking water supply to over 2.5 million people in the Bay Area. The effort includes detailed monitoring of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir conditions, water turbidity levels, microbial contaminants, and aqueduct disinfection levels, as well as visual inspections, research on land uses within the watershed, and meeting with other agencies and stakeholders to discuss watershed activities and promote awareness of water quality issues.  Ettie Street Pump Station Urban Runoff Diversion to EBMUD. Since 2017, EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP) accepts and treats up to 0.5 MGD of urban runoff flow captured during dry weather at the Ettie Street Pump Station owned by the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. This project provides a significant environmental benefit by treating the pollutant-laden flows which were previously directly discharged to the San Francisco Bay. 4.2.5.8 Monitoring and Modeling RMS Description Monitoring and modeling projects track and predict water quantity and quality affecting water supplies, and local watershed conditions. Water quality monitoring measures source water protection and stormwater pollution reduction strategies. Watershed modeling projects address surface runoff and channel flows, sediment loading and transport, and flood management. While monitoring and modeling are often an element of implementing other RMS strategies, the Bay Area CC also elected to retain this as a separate strategy. The Bay Area has implemented some important regional and subregional monitoring programs that help inform the development and implementation of actions under other RMS. These modeling and monitoring programs, in some cases stand-alone efforts, provide valuable input for project development and feedback on project effectiveness. These types of efforts will also play an increasingly important role in climate adaptation response to support adaptive management strategies that rely on routine continual monitoring and adjustments as needed. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-38 Resource Management Strategies This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goal: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of the great number of monitoring and modeling projects and programs in the Bay Area include:  Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Alameda County has developed a Multi- year Monitoring Plan to manage urban stormwater and protect natural aquatic resources of Alameda County and San Francisco Bay (ACCWP, 2003).  BACWA Annual Monitoring. BACWA works to ensure that water quality information is fully utilized to promote the health and needed protection of the San Francisco Bay. BACWA supports its public utility members— the clean water agencies of the San Francisco Bay region—to promote understanding of the water quality needs and requirements of the region and to make water quality protection and enhancement a priority in regional communities.  BASMAA Regional Monitoring Strategy and the Regional Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (RWQCB, 1999). BASMAA cooperated with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to adopt the Regional Monitoring Strategy. The Regional Board’s most recent conceptual strategy is based on the design of its Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program efforts and uses several categories depending on the spatial extent, type of pollutant or stressor and level of detail and data quality required. Participants are involved in the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary. The Regional Monitoring Program performs regular Status and Trends monitoring throughout the Bay, and also sponsors special studies to strategically address specific water quality problems and information gaps.  Estimating Tidal and Residual Circulation in San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The objective of this project is to determine the magnitude and location of variations in hydrodynamics (water currents and salinity) within San Francisco Bay which result from changes in freshwater inflows from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, to measure tidal flows in the Delta, and to distinguish between natural variations of flow and variations of flow caused by state and federal water projects.  Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Modeling. SCVWD’s groundwater management program includes development and implementation of groundwater modeling to support operational decisions and long-term planning. SCVWD has developed calibrated flow models for the Santa Clara, Coyote Valley, and Llagas subbasins, which are used to evaluate groundwater storage and levels under various operational and hydrologic conditions. Maintaining calibrated models that can be used to forecast groundwater conditions is a critical part of SCVWD’s groundwater management strategy.  San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). This program, managed by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, monitors contamination in the SF Bay-Delta Estuary, including pilot efforts in its watersheds. It has a world-class dataset on estuarine contaminants providing long-term trends through sampling of water, sediment, bivalves, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-39 Resource Management Strategies bird eggs, and fish. Data collected under this program are combined with data from other sources to provide for comprehensive assessment of chemical contamination in the Bay. In 2011, 17 high priority watersheds were identified for stormwater sampling to meet the new requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for additional information on the loads of sediment and contaminants. 4.2.5.9 Wastewater Treatment RMS Description Wastewater treatment is not on DWR’s RMS list but the Bay Area CC decided to retain this as a separate strategy, distinct from the broader Water Quality Protection and Improvement RMS because of the substantial role that these treatment plants play in managing water quality. Wastewater treatment plays important roles in protecting public health and environmental resources within the Bay Area. Regulatory requirements for treated water quality are becoming more stringent and many Bay Area agencies are turning to innovative treatment technologies to help maintain regulatory compliance and protect the health of end users. Several Bay Area wastewater entities are upgrading to tertiary treatment in order to maximize recycled water opportunities and provide additional protection to receiving water bodies. For most of the nine Bay Area counties, residential wastewater, consisting of all waste flushed or washed down sinks and drains of residences and commercial establishments, is collected in sewers and flows to secondary or advanced wastewater treatment facilities across the Bay Area. Much of the industrial wastewater produced throughout the region, following pretreatment, is also discharged to publicly owned sewers and subsequently transported to these treatment plants. Harmful pollutants such as bacteria, suspended solids, heavy metals, and toxic chemicals are removed, and treated effluent is discharged to the Bay. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of continual investment in Bay Area wastewater treatment facilities and capabilities include:  EBMUD Integrated Master Plan for Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP). The EBMUD MWWTP was originally constructed in 1951. Despite the addition of new treatment processes and completion of major capital improvements since that time; aging infrastructure, along with increasingly stringent water quality and environmental regulations have made it necessary to identify options for maintaining and enhancing the wastewater treatment facilities in the future. Currently, EBMUD is developing an Integrated Master Plan for its MWWTP. The development of this integrated master plan 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-40 Resource Management Strategies will consider all the competing priorities of aging infrastructure needs, seismic vulnerabilities, regulatory changes, service area growth, Resource Recovery (R2) Program strategies, climate change impacts, recycled water needs, and operational improvements for the MWWTP as well as recommendations for future improvements.  San José/Santa Clara WPCP Master Plan. The San José/Santa Clara W ater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) is the largest advanced wastewater treatment facility in the western United States, with a permitted average dry weather flow of 167 mgd. The WPCP is facing many of the same issues as other wastewater plants in the Bay Area: aging infrastructure, anticipated changes in water quality regulations and sea level rise. The WPCP is located on a 2,680-acre site that includes biosolids lagoons, drying beds and bufferlands between Plant operations and neighboring land uses, including an 850-acre former salt pond and the lower reach Coyote Creek. The Plant Master Plan identifies projects needed to address aging infrastructure, reduce odors, accommodate projected population growth in the Plant’s service area, add nutrient removal, enhance filtration and disinfection capabilities, and promote restoration and resource recovery; and develops a land use plan for the entire site.  Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan and Primary Treatment Facility Design. The City of Sunnyvale has initiated a master planning process to renovate its existing Water Pollution Control Plant, which currently has an average dry weather flow rate of 14 mgd. The Plant was originally constructed in 1950 and is in need of rehabilitation to address critical aging infrastructure. The master plan will include overall rehabilitation as well as new processes and facilities for some portions of the existing Plant. The project also includes design and construction of a new primary treatment facility.  San Francisco Public Utilities Program Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP). This multi-billion dollar program will upgrade San Francisco’s sewer system to address aging infrastructure, seismic vulnerability and climate change impacts. The SFPUC has developed a series of goals and levels of service to guide improvements at all three of the City’s wastewater treatment plants and systems throughout the City. Phase 1 of the SSIP consists of critical repairs to solids processing and energy recovery facilities, as well as construction of green infrastructure projects. Phase II of the SSIP will consist of upgrades to additional facilities, including seismic and system reliability upgrades to pump stations and treatment facilities, as well as green infrastructure projects.  Napa Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. The Master Plan, competed in April 2011, was prepared to determine the capacity of existing facilities, estimate future wastewater loads and regulatory impacts and develop a recommended plan for upgrading existing facilities to optimize operation and expand capacity of the EBMUD's Main Wastewater Treatment Plant 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-41 Resource Management Strategies wastewater treatment plant. The recommended project developed by the master plan would expand existing WWTP facilities to increase treatment capacity, satisfy regulatory requirements and produce up to 12 mgd of recycled water. The master plan also developed three projects that could be implemented in the future to increase recycled water production, address changing effluent ammonia concentration regulations, and enhance the WWTP’s maintenance facilities. 4.2.6 Strategies to Practice Resource Stewardship 4.2.6.1 Agricultural Lands Stewardship RMS Description In the draft CWP Update 2013 DWR describes agricultural land stewardship as broadly meaning the conservation of natural resources and protection of the environment. Land managers practice stewardship by conserving and improving land for food, fiber and biofuels production, watershed functions, soil, air, energy, plant and animal and other conservation purposes. Agricultural land stewardship also protects open space and the traditional characteristics of rural communities, as well as open space within urban areas. Moreover, support for public benefits from stewardship activities helps landowners maintain their farms and ranches rather than being forced to sell their land because of pressure from urban development. Agricultural lands will increasingly be relied on for flood management and water storage and conservation, as well as to provide critical habitat at key locations and sequester carbon, while maintaining ongoing primary productivity of food and fiber. Agricultural lands stewardship includes the following practices and strategies:  Croplands management to reduce streambank erosion or stormwater runoff  Assistance in identifying suitable crops and management of them  Technical help on wildlife-friendly farming techniques for wildlife and aquatic ecosystem  Cover soil, water, and habitat conservation planning Agricultural land stewardship has been practiced and encouraged by California Department of Conservation’s programs, local RCDs, the US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, and various non-governmental entities for many years. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Although it is not practical to list every existing agricultural lands stewardship project within the region, a few select examples are noted below.  Marin County Pine Gulch Creek Watershed Enhancement Project. Pine Gulch Creek Watershed Enhancement Project located in Marin was a voluntary cooperative effort on the part of the local farmers. The project modified existing water operations to support sustainable agriculture and enhance aquatic habitat supporting coho salmon and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-42 Resource Management Strategies steelhead trout. The project included irrigation diversion, limited riparian withdrawals and storage that would accommodate water needs for the growing season between July and December (California Coastal Conservancy, 2012).  Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project. The Rutherford Reach Restoration Project is a voluntary cooperative project initiated by the Rutherford Dust Society and agricultural landowners in 2002 with a goal of restoring a 4.5-mile reach of the Napa River. The project is a public-private partnership being led by Napa County and involving several additional public agencies and 25 riverside property owners, many of whom have dedicated productive agricultural lands to expand the riparian forest by 18 acres along the Napa River. The project improves water quality, enhances wildlife habitat, and attenuates flood waters. Similar efforts are being planned for an additional 9-mile reach of the Napa River through the cooperative efforts of Napa County and private agricultural landowners.  Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County. The Natural Resources Trust has conserved approximately 3,000 acres of land in Contra Costa County. The Trust lands include Clayton Ranch, Roddy Ranch, Fuss Property, and Vaquero Farms. In addition to managing these properties the trust collaborates with willing landowners interested in seeing their land protected in perpetuity (Natural Resources Trust, 2012).  Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Stewardship Program manages easement properties and protects and manages District-owned agricultural land. Management practices include: building and maintaining constructive relationships with easement landowners; maintaining a clear understanding of the condition of our easement sites through periodic monitoring visits; documenting features of the land through photographs, written reports and maps; enforcing conservation easements if the need arises; and protecting the conservation values of the property (Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District, 2012). 4.2.6.2 Ecosystem Restoration RMS Description Ecosystem restoration seeks to repair past damage to ecosystem processes and functions and improve the condition of our modified natural landscapes and biological resources to provide for their resilience and sustainability. Under this strategy efforts are focused on rehabilitation of important elements of ecosystem structure and function. Enabling the return of the physical and biological processes that shape the landscape can be instrumental in improving upland, wetland, and riparian habitat conditions and restoring watershed function. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-43 Resource Management Strategies Successful restoration increases the diversity of native species and biological communities and the abundance of habitats and connections between them. This can include rehabilitating upland areas, reproducing natural flows in streams and rivers, curtailing the discharge of waste and toxic contaminants into water bodies, controlling non-native invasive plant and animal species, restoring riparian canopy cover, removing barriers to fish migration in rivers and streams, and recovering wetlands so that they can store floodwater, recharge aquifers, filter pollutants, and provide habitat. Restoration of aquatic, riparian and floodplain ecosystems is important because these systems are directly affected by water and flood management actions, and are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Further, these habitats will play an important role in responding to the effects of climate change related to sea level rise and changes in precipitation runoff patterns that are predicted to result in more frequent and larger flood events. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Ecosystem restoration is occurring throughout the Bay Area. In 1999, in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals scientists determined that 100,000 acres of tidal wetlands is necessary for a healthy and sustainable Bay, from the 44,000 acres of healthy tidal marsh that existed at the time. Approximately 32,000 acres of restorable shoreline areas have been acquired and are in the process of being restored. The Bay Area continues to work towards protection of an additional 24,000 acres of restorable wetlands (Save the Bay, 2012). Similarly, the San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project released a report in 2011 which identifies types, amount and distribution of upland habitats within the Bay Area and identifies research needs as well as management approaches to protect and restore Bay Area habitats. A few selected examples of specific restoration efforts are noted below.  The Peralta Creek Restoration Project. The project converted a flood channel back into natural habitat providing flood protection and creating a sustainable wildlife habitat. Alameda County Public Works Agency received the 2009 American Public Works Association Environmental Project of the Year and the 2009 Association of Bay Area Governments Growing Smarter - Preserving and Protecting the Environment Award for the Peralta Creek Restoration Project (Alameda County Sustainability, 2012).  Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan). The Habitat Plan was developed in association with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California The South Bay Salt Ponds project aims to restore 15,100 acres of former salt ponds to tidal wetlands. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-44 Resource Management Strategies Department of Fish and Wildlife, in consultation with stakeholder groups and the general public. The purpose of the Habitat Plan is to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in specific areas of Santa Clara County and to contribute to the recovery of endangered species. The Habitat Plan evaluates natural-resource impacts and mitigation requirements comprehensively in a way that is more efficient and effective for sensitive species and habitats and provides a mechanism to streamline permitting for development and maintenance activities. The Habitat Plan allows the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San José to receive endangered- species permits for activities and projects they conduct and those under their jurisdiction.  Sonoma Baylands and Sears Point. The Sonoma Baylands Wetland Demonstration Project (Sonoma Baylands) is located on 348 acres of formerly diked farmland. The design approach for Sonoma Baylands was to create the appropriate conditions whereby a marsh would evolve in response to natural processes occurring at the site. The adjacent 2,327-acre Sears Point was acquired in 2005 to restore tidal, seasonal, and riparian wetlands, streams, and upland habitats for a wide range of native plants and animals, to protect open space, and to develop public access and educational opportunities, including extending the San Francisco Bay Trail.  South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. The largest wetland restoration project on the West Coast, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is a multi-agency effort to restore 15,100 acres of salt production ponds to tidal wetlands ecosystem. The goals of the program are ecosystem and habitat restoration, public access and flood management for the South Bay (SCVWD, 2011). See Chapter 13 (Section 13.2.1.4) for a detailed description of the project.  Yosemite Slough Wetlands Restoration, Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. This project has allowed youth in the surrounding area to become involved with the restoration effort. The project has not only involved the community, but offered an example of tidal marsh restoration in an urbanized watershed, and improved stormwater quality. Upon completion of the project it would result in more transitional habitat, and a reduction in invasive plants. This unique project would be the largest contiguous wetland area in the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 2012). 4.2.6.3 Land Use Planning and Management RMS Description Integrating land use and water management involves planning for the housing and economic development needs of a growing population while providing for the efficient use of water, water quality, energy and other resources and for the effective protection and sustainable management of natural resources. Land use policy and planning is one of the most effective methods of reducing hydrologic and ecologic impacts associated with detrimental changes in land cover. Land use planning can improve the siting of potential developments to reduce adverse impacts. Planning projects can restore floodplain connectivity, protect stream buffers, reduce urban stormwater pollution, and enhance habitats. Land use policies and ordinances can also reduce flood hazards and damages, as well as result in water conservation as human use 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-45 Resource Management Strategies and irrigation demands are reduced. Land use planning and policy activities may include the following actions:  Development of water and/or watershed elements for local city or county general plan updates;  Adoption of policies linking land use, water demands, and watershed protection;  Development of creek setback ordinances to protect riparian corridors for wildlife habitat and flood protection;  Development of stream corridor enhancement measures for use during recreation and trails design  Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to address post-development peak discharge rate, volume, and pollutant loadings to receiving waters.  Mandatory recycled water use ordinances This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of this resource management strategy include:  Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program is effort between local government and the community, working together to protect creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. Member agencies include several cities and water agencies throughout Alameda County (Alameda County Sustainability, 2012).  ABAG-MTC Joint Policy Committee and Plan Bay Area. Under the coordination of the Joint Policy Committee, ABAG and MTC, in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC, are leading an initiative, “OneBayArea,” to coordinate efforts among the region’s counties and cities to “create a more sustainable future”. A major effort of OneBayArea is the development of Plan Bay Area: the region’s long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation, and housing. Refer to Section 13.1.1.2 in Chapter 13, Relationship to Local Land Use Planning for more detail on these efforts.  Focusing Our Vision. A state supported regional planning initiative to develop a vision for housing the projected population of the Bay Area (8.75 million people by 2030) while protecting the character and uniqueness of the region. Unlike prior attempts to develop regional growth solutions, this project was organized from the start around the precept that widespread support was essential. In addition to a high level of commitment from the private sector and local and regional government agencies, the involvement of local communities is a key ingredient. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-46 Resource Management Strategies  Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management and Enhancement Project. The Southern Sonoma RCD, the Coastal Conservancy, and the Sonoma County Water Agency are undertaking the Lower Sonoma Creek Flood Management and Enhancement Project to address flooding issues in the Schellville Area. The greatest flood hazard reduction opportunities identified involved the conversion of existing land uses and runoff reduction in the watershed. Significant opportunities for tidal wetland restoration and sea level rise adaptation were also identified, including opportunities on lands that are presently flood- prone. Having substantial undeveloped and agricultural lands and lands already committed for habitat purposes, Lower Sonoma Creek offers tremendous potential for the creation of a large, contiguous habitat corridor in a tidal zone where adaptation to rising sea levels will be dictating significant change in the years to come.  Regional Open Space Visioning Task Force. Sponsored by the Bay Area Open Space Council and Greenbelt Alliance, this task force is evaluating regional data and land use policies, creating maps, and developing strategies for how to fully protect 2 million acres in the Bay Area. The goal is to protect 1 million of these acres through land use policy and programs. 4.2.6.4 Recharge Areas Protection RMS Description Recharge areas are those areas that provide the primary means of replenishing groundwater. Natural recharge occurs where surface water is able to percolate through the sediment into the underlying aquifer areas containing the groundwater. This strategy focuses on protecting these groundwater recharge areas from being paved over or otherwise developed or used in a manner that would interfere with groundwater recharge. It also includes protecting these areas from contamination to protect groundwater quality. Efforts include both physical protection of these areas as well as education to insure that the public and private land owners and managers protect these areas. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of agencies that manage groundwater recharge areas throughout the Bay Area region include:  Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Santa Clara Valley Water District maintains and operates 18 recharge systems. The District’s recharge program uses both in-stream and off-stream facilities for their efforts. To protect recharge areas, the District reviews land use plans and encourages the preservation of natural infiltration and reduction of imperious surfaces in recharge areas, conducts vulnerability studies to assess the vulnerability of groundwater to different land uses, assisting with drinking water source assessments, reviews land use plans to identify threats to groundwater, and works with local agencies on guidelines and model ordinances for such issues as graywater systems (SCVWD, 2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-47 Resource Management Strategies  Solano County Ground Water Management Plan. Several agencies overlying the groundwater basin in Solano County established a groundwater management plan. In addition to the plans the Solano County Water Agency prepares biannual reports on the groundwater levels for the area (Solano County Water Agency, 2012).  Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program and Plan. The plan was adopted in 2007 by the Sonoma County Water Agency, City of Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Water District, and the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SCWA, 2012b). In Fall 2010, Sonoma CWA initiated watershed scoping studies for flood control and groundwater recharge projects in the Laguna de Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Sonoma Valley watersheds. The goal of the studies is to evaluate the feasibility of implementing multi-benefit projects that will provide stormwater detention and groundwater recharge, while maximizing opportunities for flood control, water quality enhancement, and potential open space benefits. 4.2.6.5 Sediment Management RMS Description Sediment moving across the landscape is an essential watershed process. Within our modified watersheds and developed landscapes, sediment management remains critical, beginning with the headwaters and continuing into the coastal shores; it is integral to managing surface water systems for water supply, ecosystem health, flood management and public access and enjoyment. This strategy involves projects and actions that work to preserve natural sediment processes, reduce nuisance sediment loads, and add sediment to sediment-depleted systems. The Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region has identified categories as generally appropriate for beneficial reuse of dredged materials as including tidal wetland restoration, landfill cover, levee rehabilitation, beach nourishment, etc. Agencies such as the San Francisco BCDC and organizations such the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture are currently developing management tools to facilitate beneficial reuse of sediment for wetlands restoration projects. Sediment management is often integrated into broader actions under resource management strategies for watershed management, environmental and habitat protection and improvement, restoration and integrated flood management. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Relevant examples of sediment management actions being implemented in the Bay Area region are summarized above under the Integrated Flood Management RMS. Additional examples include:  Local ordinances in Sonoma and Napa Counties require development and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans for a variety of agricultural developments to protect water quality and soil health. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-48 Resource Management Strategies  Marin County’s Devil’s Gulch Culvert Modification that involved removing two degraded culverts, bank armoring and revegetation to decrease erosion and stream sedimentation, decrease road density, improve fish passage, increase native plant species composition, and increase shading.  Flood Control 2.0 (San Francisco Estuary Partnership) is a grant funded project to improve flood control channel design to restore wetland habitat, water quality, and shoreline resilience at three creek mouths- San Francisquito, Lower Novato, and Lower Walnut creeks. The redesign takes sediment clogging local flood control channels and redistributes it in areas where wetlands can be restored.  San Francisco Littoral Cell Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan. This effort is being led by the California Sediment Management Workgroup, a collaborative effort by federal and state agencies chaired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Natural Resources Agency, in partnership with ABAG and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. The objective of the plan is to assist coastal government entities, municipalities, stakeholders, and communities in developing strategies for beneficial reuse of sediments to address coastal erosion and storm damage. The Plan will provide sufficient information for local and regional coastal decision makers to develop policies and execute management sub-plans for the future vitality of beaches and shoreline areas throughout the littoral cell.  Implementing Sonoma Creek and Napa River Sediment TMDLs. Local entities are implementing practice based on sediment TMDLs in both watersheds to improve water quality and enhance aquatic habitat by reducing excess erosion and sedimentation caused by a wide range of activities including roads, agriculture and stream bank failure. 4.2.6.6 Watershed Management RMS Description The primary objective of Watershed Management is to increase and sustain a watershed’s functions and its ability to provide for the diverse needs of the communities. The watershed is an appropriate and effective scale at which to coordinate and integrate management of numerous physical, chemical and biological processes that make up a drainage basin ecosystem. Using a watershed approach is beneficial because it addresses problem-solving in a holistic manner with all appropriate stakeholders actively involved. Watershed Management and Planning necessarily involves evaluation of existing watershed conditions, identification of issues and opportunities, and development of strategies, policies, and projects that contribute to healthy watershed functioning. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts In the Bay Area, many local watersheds have created (or are proposing to create) watershed plans to balance water supply, wastewater treatment, flood management, and habitat protection 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-49 Resource Management Strategies needs. Watershed management contributes to coordinated protection, restoration, and improvement of hydrologic, geomorphic, and biologic functions of the San Francisco Bay drainage basin. There are a large number of Watershed Management and Planning projects and programs underway throughout the Bay Area. A few select examples are listed below. • EBMUD Watershed Improvement and Protection Program. EBMUD’s 1996 East Bay Watershed Master Plan included development and implementation of a range management program, which won the Association of California Water Agencies’ Theodore Roosevelt Environmental Award. The Plan was updated in 2018 and continues to provide clear guidance regarding the sustainable management of East Bay watershed lands. • Marin County Watersheds Program. The Watershed Program began in spring 2008, is staffed by the County Flood Control division and is supported by a grant from DWR. The Program focuses on watersheds within County flood zones areas that have support and agreement from City councils and local agencies. Watershed planning efforts are under way in Ross Valley and San Geronimo Valley. The Program develops frameworks to integrate flood protection, creek and wetland restoration, fish passage and water quality improvements with public and private partners to protect and enhance Marin’s watersheds. Watershed master plans are also in process in Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio and Coyote Creek (Mill Valley) and planning is underway in Easkoot Creek (Stinson Beach), Novato, Gallinas and Miller Creek watersheds. Ballot measures would be considered to generate funds to construct the identified improvements (Marin County DPW, 2012). • Napa County Watershed Management Plans. The Napa County RCD works with land managers and other interested stakeholders to develop management plans for local watersheds. Plans have been developed for the Carneros Creek, Sulphur Creek, and Dry Creek watersheds. Management plans provide an assessment of watershed conditions, the natural resource goals of land managers, and best management practices to achieve conservation goals. The RCD works with individuals and groups of land managers in each of the watersheds to implement priority projects such as fish barrier removal, riparian restoration, and sediment source reduction projects. • Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plan. The Pilarcitos watershed in San Mateo County drains 28 square miles, including old-growth forests, farm land and the City of Half Moon Bay. In addition to providing water supply to the City of San Francisco, rural San Mateo County and the City of Half Moon Bay, the watershed supports several threatened species, including steelhead trout. Loss of habitat from channelization, water diversions, sedimentation, non-native vegetation and fish passage barriers, has resulted in a strains on steelhead and other species. An Integrated Watershed Management Plan was developed to address steps to restore the watershed and protect and recover steelhead trout and other native species. Other goals of the IWMP included developing cost-effective water supply and water recycling projects, restoring stream channels, removing and controlling non-native vegetation and ensuring water quality for both human and biotic uses. (San Mateo County Resources Conservation District, 2008). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-50 Resource Management Strategies • SFPUC Peninsula and Alameda Watershed Management Plans. The SFPUC developed the comprehensive management plans for the Peninsula and Alameda Watersheds in an effort to provide the optimal environment for the production, collection, and storage of the highest quality water for the City and County of San Francisco and suburban customers. The management plans were designed to protect water quality and the broad assemblage of the watershed’s natural and cultural resources, while balancing concerns for public access and revenue generation. Primary issues included impacts of grazing on natural resources, control of invasive vegetation and fire hazards, and protection of special status species. • San Mateo County – San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan. State and federal agencies assisted in the development of this plan. This project’s purpose is to direct future planning and restoration implementation in the watershed (Natural Heritage Institute San Gregorio, 2010). • Santa Clara Basin WMI Action Plan. Santa Clara Basin WMI developed the Action Plan. The Action Plan includes strategic objectives that incorporate watershed management into general plans, encourage drainage systems that detain and retain runoff, advocates integrates planning process for floodplains and riparian corridors across cities and counties general plans, encourages expanding the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, develops integrated, multi-objective planning and adaptive management, and encourages development of TMDLs and water quality assessments. • Sonoma County – Upper Mark West Watershed Management Plan. The Sotoyome RCD developed this Plan to provide tools, resources and guidance for stakeholders to protect the natural environment in the upper Mark West Creek watershed. The plan includes efforts to restore and enhance altered landscapes, and to steward the land in perpetuity (Sotoyome RCD, 2008). 4.2.6.7 Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement RMS Description This strategy, retained by the Bay Area CC from the 2006 plan, seeks to protect, preserve and restore important wildlife habitat and ecosystem functions. This strategy emphasizes protecting important remaining open space lands to preserve existing environmental and habitat values and protect these areas from impact. Conservation easements, strategic acquisitions and other protections of watershed lands are important mechanisms to implement this strategy. From an integrated water resource management perspective, protection of headwaters and sensitive habitats can reduce pollutant loading and improve water quality by reducing stormwater flows into local drinking water reservoirs. Protection of watershed lands also conserves habitat The San Mateo County RCD developed the Pilarcitos Creek Watershed Management Plan as an integrated approach to drinking water quality and sensitive species protection. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-51 Resource Management Strategies linkages for wildlife and avian species dependent on wetlands and water bodies. Watershed improvement is also part of this strategy and includes land management strategies such as invasive species control, erosion control, and vegetation management that enhance and preserve habitat and environmental benefits. Related strategies include the Ecosystem Restoration RMS and the Watershed Management and Planning RMS. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Numerous public and non-governmental organizations are actively planning and implementing projects that protect watershed lands through acquisition of easements and fee title. Protected Bay Area lands increased by 27 percent between 2000, from 794,000 acres to 1,007,200 acres in 2005.17 Protected lands are tracked by the Bay Area Open Space Council and Greenbelt Alliance and can be found at www.bayarealands.org. Acquisition programs take a large range of forms, via federal and state agencies and funding programs (USFWS, EPA, National Park Service, California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board), cities and counties, local public districts (Resource Conservation Districts, Water Agencies, Open Space Districts, Park Districts), and private land trusts (Sonoma Land Trust, Peninsula Open Space Trust, Marin Agricultural Land Trust, Land Trust of Napa County, Save Mt. Diablo, Save the Redwoods League, Sempervirens Fund, etc.). Many examples of this strategy’s implementation include cooperative efforts between entities, such as the Solano Land Trust and California Coastal Conservancy, with a grant from the Wildlife Conservation Board, to acquire approximately 1,165 acres of land north of Cordelia Junction, to protect significant natural landscapes and wildlife corridors (CDFG, 2012). Various examples of habitat protection and improvement are list below under the Ecosystem Restoration RMS and Watershed Management and Planning RMS. 4.2.7 Strategies Related to People and Water 4.2.7.1 Economic Incentives RMS Description Economic incentives include financial assistance and pricing policies intended to influence water resource management. Economic incentive mechanisms can include low-interest loans, grants, pricing of water, sewer, flood protection services, and tax rebates. Government financial assistance can provide incentives for integrated resource plans by regional and local agencies and help water agencies make subsides available to their water users for a specific purpose. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. 17 Greenbelt Alliance: Protected Lands Data Base. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-52 Resource Management Strategies Existing Bay Area Efforts In addition to the water conservation efforts described in Section 4.2.1.2, a few examples of economic incentives programs influencing water resources management throughout the Bay Area region include:  Water Conservation Incentives Programs. Many water agencies in the Bay Area utilize financial incentives (e.g., rebates, grant programs, or subsidies) to encourage conservation measures such as turfgrass replacement, ultra low-flush toilets, high efficiency appliance retrofits, rainwater harvesting, and irrigation audits.  Measure B, SCVWD’s Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection special tax. Measure B, passed in November 2012 in Santa Clara County, offers a continuation of the prior Clean Safe Creeks program. The measure establishes 15 years of funding for five priorities and several projects that use grants and partnerships as a means to achieve identified goals and objectives. These grants and partnerships include opportunities to prevent and remove contaminants in surface and groundwater; provide outreach, education and support of creekside clean-ups; enhance creek and bay ecosystems, study and pilot test new water conservation programs, provide drinking water dispensers for students, and remove excess nitrate from drinking water. Funding from these projects supports the community and includes substantial outreach to local municipalities, non-profits, and schools.  EBMUD Recycled Water Pricing. EBMUD uses a variety of economic incentives to encourage use of recycled water. EBMUD’s primary incentives are in the form of subsidized costs and reduced rates for recycled water. For example, EBMUD offers new recycled water customers a 20 percent volumetric rate discount for recycled water as compared to potable water rates. EBMUD also funds cost-effective site retrofits and training for existing potable water customers to accommodate recycled water use. 4.2.7.2 Outreach and Education RMS Description This strategy reflects the importance of outreach and education to increase awareness, influence behavior, build support, and affect public and stakeholder actions related to watershed management, water and natural resource protection, conservation and stewardship. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Many of the programs and projects highlighted throughout this chapter under the other resource management strategies involve a notable outreach and education component. See in particular, examples described under water quality protection and improvement, watershed management and planning, land use planning, agricultural stewardship and water use efficiency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-53 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.7.3 Regional Cooperation RMS Description This strategy, retained by the Bay Area CC from the 2006 Plan, recognizes the importance and benefit of regional coordination in effective integrated water management. This strategy includes the development and continuation of regional forums to plan and implement effective integrated water resource management programs. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve water supply reliability and quality; protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A variety of cooperative regional planning efforts, coalitions and forums, in addition to this IRWMP, are currently being undertaken by Bay Area agencies. These include the following:  Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA)  BAFPAA  Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)  Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC)  Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)  ABAG  San Francisco Bay Joint Venture (SFJV)  Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium (BAECCC)  Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN)  California Association of RCDs (CARCD) Bay-Delta and Central Coast Regions, including RCDs in the Bay Area counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo.  North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA)  North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA)  Northern California Salinity Coalition (NCSC)  San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-54 Resource Management Strategies As a regional planning effort, all of the proposed IRWM projects and programs will employ Regional Cooperation as a water management strategy. 4.2.7.4 Recreation and Public Access RMS Description This strategy recognizes that construction and maintenance of public trails and other public access points along water bodies can increase social enjoyment, awareness and investment in protection of water resources. Interpretive signage, facilities, and trails within watersheds and along water bodies, provide the opportunity to educate people about the water resources and management needs. Access to watersheds and water bodies increases the public’s connection to and awareness and appreciation of water resources. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goal: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability. Existing Bay Area Efforts The Bay Area region enjoys substantial open space resources that provide public access and recreation opportunities within the regions watersheds. There are numerous public trail systems and interpretive facilities, numerous county and city-wide trail master plans, and the following regional efforts:  San Francisco Bay Trail. The project seeks to complete development of a 500-mile long hiking and bicycling trail that encircles the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, connects to parks, and links to transportation facilities.  Bay Area Ridge Trail. Project that aims to complete a second 500-mile trail ring around the Bay Area region along the ridgeline; when completed this will include many trails across protected watershed areas.  San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail. The Water Trail program is an ongoing effort led by the Coastal Conservancy, ABAG, BCDC and the Department of Boating and Waterways to create a network of launch and landing sites, for human-powered boats and beachable sail craft access San Francisco Bay. This trail links the nine Bay Area counties and also joins to three other regional trail systems.  California Coastal Trail. The California Coastal Trail, which was initiated by Proposition 20 in 1972, is a network of public trials that run along California’s coastline. The trail passes through Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Several individual open space districts throughout the Bay Area partner with these regional efforts and also work to provide additional public access and recreation opportunities in their local communities. In addition, several local organizations have provided funding to prevent certain state parks in the Bay Area from being closed to public use due to state budget cuts. For example, the Sempervirens Fund, a non-profit group in Los Altos, provided funding to keep Castle Rock State Park open and the Coe Park Preservation Fund, another nonprofit group, provided funding to keep Henry W. Coe State Park open. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-55 Resource Management Strategies 4.2.7.5 Water-dependent Recreation RMS Description Water-dependent recreation includes a wide variety of outdoor activities that occur on or in the water, such as swimming, boating, fishing and rafting. This also includes activities that are enhanced by water features but do not require actual use of water, such as hiking, birding or other wildlife viewing, camping and picnicking. This strategy focuses on development and maintenance of water-dependent recreation access and opportunities within the Bay Area. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; improve regional flood management; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts A few examples of water dependent recreation projects and programs underway throughout the Bay Area region include the following:  Alameda Creek Regional Trail. This 12 mile multi-use trail in southern Alameda County provides access to Coyote Hills Regional Park (EBRPD, 2012a).  Contra Loma Resource Management Plan. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a Resource Management Plan to guide the future land and water resources management of the Contra Loma Reservoir and Recreation Area (EBRPD, 2012c). Contra Loma Reservoir offers boating, fishing and swimming.  Crystal Springs Regional Trail. This planned 17.5 mile trail will extend from San Bruno to Woodside incorporating existing trails along the Crystal Springs Reservoirs. The trail connects with a number of San Mateo County Parks including Junipero Serra Park, Edgewood Park, and Huddart Park (County of San Mateo, 2012).  Future Use and Operation of Lake Berryessa, Napa County, California. This comprehensive plan was established for the redevelopment and management of visitor services to support traditional, short-term, and diverse outdoor recreation opportunities such as boating, fishing and swimming at Lake Berryessa. This document builds on the analysis from the 1992 Lake Berryessa Environmental Impact Statement (United States Department of the Interior, 2012). While Lake Berryessa is not within the IRWM planning region, redevelopment of the lake will provide improved access and services to the population throughout the region.  Guadalupe River Trail and Lake Almaden. The goal of the City of San José trail project in San José is to create a trail from the Bay (connecting to the Bay Trail) to Lake Almaden Park, over 10 miles of trail. Maintaining a recreational component at the lake where a mercury remediation and cold water fisheries improvement project is under consideration.  Napa Valley Vine Trail / River Trail. Led by the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition, the trail will extend 47 miles from the Vallejo Ferry to the City of Calistoga. The trail will be level, paved, and family-friendly. The Vine Trail will include the Napa River Trail, which 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-56 Resource Management Strategies provides several miles of recreational activities for hikers, fisherman, joggers, bicyclists, and boaters, as well as a setting for wildlife observation and environmental education. 4.2.7.6 Water-dependent Cultural Resources RMS Description This strategy recognizes that there are resources associated with the cultural history of the Bay Area that are water-dependent and require awareness and protection to be preserved. These may range from ceremonial practices to historic water infrastructure to water based landscapes to heritage practices dependent on water. This strategy addresses the following IRWMP Regional Goals: Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability; and create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Existing Bay Area Efforts Examples of efforts to protect and preserve water-dependent cultural resources include the following:  Turtleback Trail Interpretive Tour, China Camp State Park. China Camp State Park preserves the site of one of the many Chinese shrimp-fishing villages that thrived along the Bay shoreline in the late 1800s. The Turtleback Trail Interpretive Tour provides educational panels and an audio tour to inform park visitors of the cultural and natural history of the area.  Angel Island State Park Interpretation Master Plan. Angel Island has rich and varied cultural history, having served at different times as a seasonal hunting and gathering grounds for the Coast Miwok, a harbor and supply stop for Spanish explorers, a U.S. immigration station, a U.S. military station and a cattle ranch. The Interpretation Master Plan, developed by California State Parks and the Angel Island Conservancy, is a comprehensive roadmap for developing new and improved educational programs, facilities, and recreational opportunities at the park.  Port of San Francisco History Tour. To celebrate its 150th anniversary, the Port of San Francisco developed a tour to showcase the history of San Francisco’s waterfront. The Port of San Francisco installed twenty pylons along the waterfront that contain historical photos and educational information regarding history of each particular location. The tour is also available online and in mobile format. 4.3 Strategies Considered but Not Carried Forward The CC considered RMS included in the 2006 Plan as well as RMS presented in CWP Updates for 2009 and 2013. Seven potential RMS presented on Table 4-1 were not carried forward to Table 4-3 due to consideration of their potential efficacy and applicability in the Bay Area region. In some cases, the strategy may partially meet the Regional goals and objectives, but may not be technically feasible, is limited in capacity to strategically address regional water planning needs, or may likely result in trade-offs that do not maximize the potential benefit. When the potential RMS is not applicable or feasible, or is not anticipated to provide substantial benefit relative to existing land uses and water programs, the strategy is identified below, and not 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-57 Resource Management Strategies discussed further. As time progresses and strategies advance, these may become more applicable to the Bay Area. 4.3.1 Precipitation Enhancement or Fog Collection Precipitation enhancement, commonly called “cloud seeding,” artificially stimulates clouds to produce more rainfall or snowfall than they would naturally. Cloud seeding injects special substances into the clouds that enable snowflakes and raindrops to form more easily. This technology is still evolving relative to California water issues and is not considered by the Bay Area as a reliable long-term solution. Fog collection is not used in California as a management technique but does occur naturally within coastal vegetation. 4.3.2 Crop Idling for Water Transfers Crop idling is removal of lands from irrigation with the aim of returning the lands to irrigation at a later time. Crop idling is done to make water available for temporary water transfers. However, crop idling to support water transfers implies some land use trade-offs. For example, land removed from agricultural production may limit the productiveness of the agricultural industry in the region, create disproportionate impacts on low income and disadvantaged groups, and have cumulative impacts on habitat, water quality, and wildlife. In areas that may be eligible for crop idling, this strategy may be implemented on a small scale; however it is anticipated that Agricultural Water Use Efficiency RMS, described in Section 4.2, above, will be more effective in addressing water management. 4.3.3 Dewvaporation/Atmospheric Pressure Desalination Dewvaporation is a specific process of humidification-dehumidification desalination. Brackish water is evaporated by heated air, which deposits fresh water as dew on the opposite side of a heat transfer wall. The energy needed for evaporation is supplied by the energy released from dew formation. This is an emerging technology with several limitations including lack of proven science, potential capital costs and affordability, and secondary effects such as brine disposal. Although this technology could allow for small-scale reclamation of salt water, the Bay Area has determined that focusing on traditional desalination, as described in Section 4.2, would be more technically feasible to address long-term reliability. 4.3.4 Irrigated Land Retirement Irrigated land retirement is the permanent cessation and removal of farmland from irrigated agricultural production to support water transfer or for solving drainage-related problems. While irrigated land retirement can potentially provide water supply, water quality, and habitat benefits, it also can also have several adverse impacts. Adverse impacts include potential urban growth inducement, socioeconomic impacts to local communities that can be environmental justice issues, and inconsistency with federal, state, and local land use policies. The potential water supply benefits of irrigated land retirement can be achieved with strategies that are more consistent with Bay Area IRWM Plan goals. Drainage-related problems have not been identified as a significant water management issue in the Bay Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-58 Resource Management Strategies 4.3.5 Rainfed Agriculture Rainfed agriculture is when all crop consumptive water use is provided directly by rainfall on a real time basis. Due to unpredictability of rainfall frequency, duration, and amount, there is significant uncertainty and risk in relying solely on rainfed agriculture. It is anticipated that combining rainfed agriculture as one component of broader, larger strategies, including Agricultural Water Use Efficiency or Agricultural Lands Stewardship, will be more effective in addressing water management needs within the Bay Area. 4.3.6 Waterbag Transport/Storage Technology The use of waterbag transport/storage technology involves diverting water in areas that have unallocated freshwater supplies, storing the water in large inflatable bladders, and towing them to an alternate coastal region. This strategy does not directly address regional water management issues, and it is unknown at this time if it would be technically feasible. 4.3.7 Forest Management Forest management activities can affect water quantity and quality. However, in most of the Bay Area forests are not generally managed for production. In the majority of the Bay Area, forests are managed primarily as watershed lands and open space for recreation. As such forest resource management strategies are captured under watershed management and planning, ecosystem restoration and water-dependent recreation resource management strategies. 4.4 References Alameda County Department of Weights and Measures, Alameda County 2010 Crop Report, 2011. Alameda County Sustainability, Clean Water Program – Countywide, available at www.acgov.org/sustain/what/water/cwpc.htm, accessed July 2012. Alameda County Sustainability, Creek Restorations, available at http://www.acgov.org/sustain/what/ecosystem/creeks.htm#lcr, accessed July 2012. Alameda County Water District (ACWD, 2012), Groundwater Resources, available at www.acw4.org/engineering/groundwater.php5, accessed July 2012. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) (2003). Stormwater Quality Management Plan, July 2001 – June 2008. February 19, 2003 BASMAA, Start at the source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection 1999. California Coastal Conservancy, Exhibit 3: Project Summary and Detail, Pine Gulch Creek Watershed Enhancement Project, available at www.scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/sccbb/2005/0512/0512Board11h_Pine_Gulch_Creek_ Ex3.pdf, accessed July 2012. City of Hercules, Chelsea Wetland Restoration, available at www.ci.hercules.ca.us/index.aspx?page=227, accessed July 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-59 Resource Management Strategies California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Wildlife Conservation Board Funds Environmental Improvement and Acquisition Projects, available at www.cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/wildlife-conservation-board-funds- environmental-improvement-and-acquisition-projects-5/, accessed July 2012. California Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, California Bay-Delta Authority, California Energy Commission, California Department of Public Health, California Public Utilities Commission, California Air Resources Board, with assistance from California Urban Water Conservation Council and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (California Department of Water Resources et al.) 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. February, 2010. Sacramento, CA. Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, Contra Costa County Agriculture Report 2010. CCWD, Historical Freshwater and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay, December 2009. County of San Mateo, Division of Parks, Crystal Springs Regional Trail, available at www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/parks/menuitem.f13bead76123ee4482439054d17332a 0/?vgnextoid=c46bc8909231e110VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1, accessed July 2012. County of San Mateo, San Mateo County Energy – Water Snapshot, August 1, 2006. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Arroyo del Cerro Resource Enhancement Project, Diablo Foothills Regional Park, 2009, available at www.ebparks.org/Assets/files/rep/REP_Arroyo_del_Cerro_2009.pdf, accessed July 2012. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Inter-Agency Intertie Projects, available at www.ebmud.com/about-ebmud/news/project-updates/inter-agency-intertie-projects, accessed July 2012. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Alameda Creek Regional Trail, available at www.ebparks.org/parks/trails/alameda_creek, accessed July 2012a. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Contra Costa Canal Trail, available at www.ebparks.org/parks/trails/contra_costa, accessed July 2012b. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Park Planning, available at www.ebparks.org/planning/, accessed July 2012c. Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, Stormwater Management, website, accessed July 10, 2012. Updated Hamilton/Bel Marin Keys W etland Restoration, official website www.hamiltonwetlands.org/index.php, accessed July 2012. Marin County Department of Agriculture, Marin County Livestock & Agricultural Crop Report 2011, May 2012. Marin County Community Development Agency, Marin County Watershed Management Plan, April 2004. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-60 Resource Management Strategies Marin County Department of Public Works (Marin County DPW), Watershed Program at http://www.marinwatersheds.org/participant_overview.html, accessed July 2012. Marin Municipal Water District, Southern Sonoma County RCD, and Sonoma Ecology Center, and North Bay Watershed Association (MMWD et. al.), Consolidated Proposal for Coastal Non-Point Source Projects, May 2008. Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), Water Rates, available at http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=210, accessed July 2012. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Napa County FCWCD), Flood District, available at www.countyofnapa.org/FloodDistrict, accessed July 2012. Natural Heritage Institute (NHI) , San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan, prepared for Natural Heritage Institute, 2010, prepared by Stillwater Sciences, available at www.sanmateorc4.org/SanGregorioWMP_final.pdf, accessed July 2012 Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County, official website, http://www.anrtccc.org/ProjectsCompleted2.html, accessed July 2012. North Coast County Water District (NCCWD), Pacifica Recycled Water Project, http://www.nccwd.com/Pipeline_Project.html, accessed June 6, 2013. North Marin Water District (NMWD) and Marin Municipal Water District, Intertie Agreement, March 11, 1993, available online at http://www.marinwater.org/documents/MA600.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2013. Petaluma, Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility, official website, http://cityofpetaluma.net/wrcd/wastewater.html, accessed September 2012 San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Yosemite Slough Wetlands Restoration, Candlestick Point State Recreation Area, available at www.sfestuary.org/projects/detail.php?projectID=37, accessed July 2012. San Francisco Estuary Project, San Francisco Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). 1992, updated 2007. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines, November 2009. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), City and County of San Francisco 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Regional Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, October 1999. San Francisco Water Power Sewer (SFWPS) Sources and Supply Planning, available at www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=75, accessed July 2012a. San Francisco Water Power Sewer (SFWPS), Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery, available at www://216.119.104.145/bids/projectDetail.aspx?prj_id=126, accessed July 2012b. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-61 Resource Management Strategies San Mateo County Department of Agriculture, San Mateo County 2010 Agricultural Crop Report. San Mateo County Health System, Underground Storage Tank Program, available at www.smchealth.org/Underground%20Storage%20Tanks, accessed July 2012. San Mateo County Resources Conservation District, 2008, Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plant, prepared for San Mateo County Resources Conservation District and California State Water Resources Control Board, prepared by PWA, available at www.sanmateorcd.org/PilarcitosIntWtrshdMgmPlan_TxtFigs.pdf, accessed July 2012. Santa Clara County Parks, Coyote Lake-Harvey Bear Ranch Master Plan, available at www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/Future%20Plans%20Here/Pages/Coyote-Lake-Harvey-Bear- Ranch-Master-Plan.aspx, accessed July 2012. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Flood Protection & Stream Stewardship Master Plan, 2010. Santa Clara Valley Water District, (SCVWD). Stewardship Report, 2011. Santa Clara Valley Water District, (SCVWD), Groundwater Supply, available at www.valleywater.org/Services/GroundwaterSupply.aspx, accessed July 2012. Save the Bay, Wetland Restoration, available online http://www.savesfbay.org/wetland- restoration, updated 2012. Solano County Department of Agriculture, 2008 Solano County Crop and Livestock Report, 2009. Solano County LAFCO, Final Municipal Service Review: Solano County Water, Irrigation, Reclamation, and Flood Management Agencies, 2009. Solano County Water Agency, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan – Final Draft, 2010 Solano County Water Agency Groundwater Studies, available at www.scwa2.com/Projects_Groundwater_Studies.aspx, accessed July 2012. Sonoma County Agricultural and Open Space District, Stewardship, available at www.sonomaopenspace.org/Content/10122/stewardship.html, accessed July 2012. Sonoma County Parks, Laguna de Santa Rosa Trail Phase 1, available at www.sonoma- county.org/parks/laguna_sr.htm, accessed July 2012. Sonoma County Water Agency, RMC, Implementing Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, presentation, January 23, 2012a. Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program, available at www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/, accessed July 2012b. Sotoyome Resource Conservation District, Upper Mark West Watershed Management Plan, Phase 1: Watershed Characterization and Needs Assessment, available at www.sotoyomercd.org/watershed/UpperMarkWestMgtPlan-Phase1.pdf, accessed July 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 4-62 Resource Management Strategies State of California Bond Accountability, San Francisco Stormwater & Flood Management Priority Projects, available at www.bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Project.aspx?ProjectPK=3860-P1E-363&pid=5, accessed July 2012. State of California Parks and Recreation, General Plans and Classification Actions, available at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21299, accessed July 2012. SWRCB, 2006 CWA Section 303(D) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. United States Department of the Interior, Reclamation, Purpose and Need Statement, available at www.usbr.gov/mp/berryessa/purpose_need.html, accessed July 2012. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Pacific Southwest Region, San Pablo Bay, NWR Cullinan Ranch Unit Restoration Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 2010, available at www.fws.gov/cno/refuges/cullinan/index.cfm, accessed July 2012. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Integration of Supporting Activities Table of Contents Chapter 5: Integration of Supporting Activities ......................................... 5-1 5.1 Optional IRWM Supporting Activities ................................................. 5-1 5.2 Planning Activities ............................................................................. 5-1 5.2.1 Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans .................. 5-1 5.2.1.1 Guidance for Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans in the Region ......................... 5-2 5.3 Policies Supporting IRWM ................................................................. 5-2 5.3.1 Integration Policy .................................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Example Integration Policies .................................................. 5-3 5.3.3 Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Principles .................. 5-5 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-1 Integration of Supporting Activities Chapter 5: Integration of Supporting Activities 5.1 Optional IRWM Supporting Activities This chapter presents some potential activities that may be undertaken in support of Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) in the Bay Area. The supporting activities described here have been grouped in two broad categories: (1) Planning; and (2) Policies. The activities described in this chapter are presented such that individual agencies or other participants within the region can choose to use them if desired. The added value and benefits associated with implementing these supporting activities are discussed in this chapter, with further supporting material provided in Appendices B-1 through B-4. 5.2 Planning Activities 5.2.1 Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans Example: Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin is located in southern Sonoma County, California bordering San Pablo Bay. The overlying community includes both urban areas as well as a significant amount of rural and agricultural land. Groundwater is an important resource to the area, which could be impacted by agriculture fertilizer use, stream diversions, groundwater pumping, and irrigation with recycled and potable water. In recognition of the importance of recycled water projects and their growing significance in meeting state-wide water demands, the State adopted the Recycled Water Policy in 2009. The Recycled Water Policy requires that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) be developed to manage salts and nutrients on a watershed- or basin-wide basis. As the primary local distributor of recycled water, the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District is leading the development of the Sonoma Valley SNMP in conjunction with other stakeholders within the basin area. Preparation of the Sonoma Valley SNMP began in 2012 and progressed through an 18-month collaborative development process using an existing stakeholder infrastructure created through the voluntary Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program. Development of the Sonoma Valley SNMP was a stakeholders-based collaborative effort that held workshops to present information when key milestones were reached. Data gathered through technical analysis completed for the Sonoma Valley basin found that, in general, relatively low salinity and nitrate concentrations are found throughout most of the Inland Area of the subbasin, and concentration trends for salinity and nitrate over time are flat or stable. The average total dissolved solids and nitrate concentrations in the Inland Area are below basin plan objectives, and there is available assimilative capacity. Given that water quality concentration trends are relatively flat over time, and below water quality objectives, no new management measures were recommended for implementation as part of the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Existing best management practices in the basin will continue and new data will become available through the groundwater monitoring program that was developed as part of the Sonoma Valley SNMP. The Sonoma Valley SNMP is included in Appendix B-2, and the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-2 Integration of Supporting Activities most recent Sonoma Valley SNMP documents can be found on the following website: www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/ 5.2.1.1 Guidance for Developing Salt and Nutrient Management Plans in the Region The Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans for the San Francisco Bay Region may be found in Appendix B-1, and was developed as part of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) preparation effort described above. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received partial funding through the Bay Area’s Proposition 84 Planning Grant for their SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The purpose of the Guidance Document is to describe common steps that may be taken by Bay Area agencies, entities and stakeholders to prepare a SNMP. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is expected to consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. In addition to Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, Zone 7 Water Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Water District have developed or are developing SNMPs for other local groundwater basins/sub-basins in the San Francisco Bay Region. 5.3 Policies Supporting IRWM This section discusses potential policy language that could be customized and adopted by agencies’ governing bodies in order to demonstrate institutional alignment with specific strategies, objectives, and priorities described in this Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The language could be tailored for each participating entity and could be more specific or directive. It is up to each agency to decide whether to adopt the IRWM Plan with or without reference to additional policy language. 5.3.1 Integration Policy The BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) has emphasized “integration” in the Plan update, and included the following objective: Encourage implementation of integrated, multi-benefit projects, under the broad goal: Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability. As part of the outreach effort seeking new projects for inclusion in the Plan update, the sub- regions encouraged the development of integrated projects. In ranking projects for the 2013 Plan, the CC placed the heaviest emphasis on projects that met the most objectives across the Plan goals, and the highest scoring projects were those that met objectives in multiple Functional Areas. The most integrated projects scored highest. In ranking projects for the 2019 Proposition 1 Round 1 funding, projects were given a point if the project achieved multiple benefits. Qualitative discussions on multiple benefits and regional priorities were held to determine ranking if projects scored similarly. The CC has deliberated including a policy statement supporting integrated projects and elaborating upon the integration objective in the Plan Update. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-3 Integration of Supporting Activities 5.3.2 Example Integration Policies Examples of integration policies already in place throughout the region are presented below. Example: North Bay Watershed Association The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) has endorsed a policy on “Integrated /Multi- Benefit Water Management Projects” and encouraged member agencies to adopt the policy or an equivalent. Both Marin Municipal Water District and North Marin Water District have adopted such a policy. The MMWD Policy statement adopted on May 3, 2012 states “It is the policy of the Marin Municipal Water District to achieve multiple benefits in the planning and implementation of its water management projects, where appropriate, and to coordinate these projects with other agencies, to realize the maximum number of benefits from a project. It is the intent of this policy to encourage collaboration within and among MMWD and other agencies to conduct integrated water management planning and achieve multiple benefits on water management projects that provide appropriate opportunities. These may be water supply, stormwater management, flood control, public access, recreation, watershed resource management, and/or wastewater management projects, where more than one benefit may be achieved”. Other NBWA member agencies have identified equivalent existing policies. Sonoma County Water Agency has adopted an equivalent policy statement on “Multi-Benefit and Integrated Water Resource Projects”. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has an equivalent ordinance – Ordinance No.1 –that includes “…an integrated approach that applies to all the Napa County watersheds”. The Marin County Board of Supervisors has approved a Watershed Program that: “ provides a framework to integrate flood protection, creek and wetland restoration, fish passage and water quality improvements with public and private partners to protect and enhance Marin’s watersheds.” Example: East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay MUD has adopted a Sustainability and Resilience Policy18 to guide the use of resources (economic, environmental, and human) in a responsible manner to meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet the needs of tomorrow. The Policy calls for EBMUD to maintain strong working relationships with local regulatory agencies, industry and public interest organizations, other water and wastewater agencies, cities and counties to develop sustainable environmental guidelines and communicate the environmental significance of EBMUD’s current and future operations and activities. Example: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco PUC’s Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP) is a 20-year, multi-billion dollar citywide investment required to upgrade San Francisco’s aging sewer infrastructure to ensure a reliable and seismically safe sewer system. In developing the SSIP, the SFPUC endorsed specific, measureable goals and objectives that will guide project selection and will be used to evaluate program implementation and success. A number of the goals and objectives stress integration: 18 EBMUD Policy 7.05, Effective 26 June 18. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-4 Integration of Supporting Activities  Integrate Green and Grey Infrastructure to Manage Stormwater and Minimize Flooding. The use of innovative green stormwater projects together with upgrades to sewer pipelines (grey) will minimize stormwater impacts on neighborhoods and the sewer system.  Provide Benefits to Impacted Communities. SSIP projects will provide both economic and job benefits to the communities it serves.  Modify the System to Adapt to Climate Change. New facilities will be built using a climate change design criterion so that the sewer system will be better able to respond to rising sea levels and other impacts.  Achieve Economic and Environmental Sustainability. The SFPUC will beneficially reuse and conserve the by-products of our wastewater and stormwater treatment systems. Example: Santa Clara Valley Water District The Santa Clara Valley Water District has adopted the following policy on integration:  E-1.1. An integrated and balanced approach in managing a sustainable water supply, effective natural flood protection and healthy watersheds is essential to prepare for the future. Strategies that support this policy include:  S 2.2. Develop, maintain, and implement in an integrated and balanced manner long- term master plans, asset management plans and capital improvement plans to support water utility operations, protect infrastructure, and optimize investment.  S 2.3. Coordinate with the development of a 20-year integrated watershed master plan which incorporates groundwater recharge areas, sea level rise, and updated hydrologic analysis to identify potential future project that promote natural stream condition in the watershed.  S 2.1.2.5. Work with the wildlife agencies to address the impact of district water supply operations on fish.  S 3.2. and S 4.2. Coordinate preparation of a 20-year integrated watershed master plan which incorporates best available stream condition data, riparian corridors, sea level rise, countywide trails master plan, and updated hydrologic analyses to identify potential future projects that reduce flooding and sedimentation, improve water quality, and promote a more nature stream condition within the watershed.  S 4.1.2.2. Identify and incorporate enhancement opportunities into capital projects and operations. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-5 Integration of Supporting Activities Example integration policy or equivalent documents described above are provided in Appendix B-3. These examples may be useful to other Bay Area agencies considering adopting a policy supporting integration or development of integrated projects. 5.3.3 Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Principles The BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) has established Climate Change as an overarching theme. This Plan includes a chapter on Climate Change which is based upon understandings derived from the most current science available for the region, and was developed in accordance with Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning dated November 2011 (Schwarz et al 2011), which identifies Sea Level Rise, Flooding, and Water Supply as the most vulnerable categories for the Bay Area. The California Water Plan 2013 Update states that California is already seeing the effects of climate change on hydrology (snowpack, river flows), storm intensity, temperature, winds, and sea levels, and that planning for and adapting to these changes will be among the most significant challenges facing water and flood managers this century. Climate change will affect both sea level and the temporal and spatial distribution of runoff in California, affecting the reliability of water supplies and operations of California’s water supply system. In support of local agency efforts to consider, plan for and adapt to Climate Change affects, a template Climate Change adaptation policy statement is included in Appendix B-4, which includes the following general principles: Project Specific Risk Assessments: Consider the effects of climate change on existing and proposed projects to evaluate project merit. A risk assessment should identify all types of potential impacts, degrees of uncertainty, consequences of failure, likelihood of failure, and risks to existing resources. Consider how foreseeable climate impacts may affect project success and incorporate anticipated impacts into project planning and design. Avoid investing in projects that are likely to be undermined by climate-related changes. Co-Objectives of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation: Develop a planning process that supports comprehensive climate response, aligning greenhouse gas mitigation strategies with adaptation actions. Strategies and projects should minimize energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and sustain the natural ability of ecosystems to cycle and sequester carbon and other greenhouse gases. Forward-Looking Goals and Progressive Time-Scales: Focus goals on future climatic and ecological conditions rather than those of the past. Develop strategies for near-term and long- term timescales, as well as transitional strategies. For sectors where there is uncertainty in the timing and/or severity of climate change impacts, planners should include climate change factors in decision support analyses (scenario planning) in order to enable the development and implementation of appropriate adaptation options. Agile and Informed Management: Employ an adaptive management decision making framework that is flexible and responsive to changes in climate, ecology and economics. Resource planning and management is capable of continuous learning and dynamic adjustment to accommodate uncertainty, take advantage of new knowledge, and cope with r apid shifts in climatic, ecological, and socio-economic conditions. Planners should consider preserving and 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 5-6 Integration of Supporting Activities developing adaptation options that can be implemented in the future when more is known about the timing and/or magnitude of actual impacts. This process would include assessing/testing the adaptive capacity for operational adjustment of the existing system as well as re-engineering of water systems in tandem with making investments in infrastructure renewal and replacement. Utilities should also consider enhancing their existing data monitoring programs to include new information that would help identify triggers for when climate adaptation options should be implemented. Robust in an Uncertain Future: Adaptation strategies and actions should provide benefit across a range of possible future conditions to account for uncertainties in future climatic conditions, and in ecological and human responses to climate shifts. Prioritize actions based on their risks and benefits, as well as the likelihood that they will reduce the vulnerability of built and natural environments. High priority actions include those that have a high probability of producing beneficial adaptation outcomes, improve the capacity of highly vulnerable systems to adapt to climate change impacts, and/or that produce the greatest combination of benefits under a range of possible future climate scenarios. Ecosystem Enhancement: Employ strategies that enhance the capacity of human communities to adapt to extreme, climate change driven events by implementing ecosystem- based solutions that also benefit fish, wildlife, and habitat. Prioritize activities that provide co- benefits for people, habitat, and the economy. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Project Review Process Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 6: Project Review Process ............................................................ 6-1 6.1 Background ....................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Summary........................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Procedures for Submitting a Project .................................................. 6-2 6.3.1 Project Template .................................................................... 6-2 6.3.2 Call for Projects ...................................................................... 6-3 6.3.2.1 Targeted Assistance for DAC Project Proponents ........................................................... 6-4 6.3.3 Review Matrix ........................................................................ 6-5 6.4 Procedures for Reviewing Projects ................................................. 6-14 6.4.1 IRWMP Project Lists ............................................................ 6-14 6.4.1.1 Master List.......................................................... 6-14 6.4.1.2 Active List ........................................................... 6-14 6.4.2 Project Review ..................................................................... 6-15 6.5 Results ............................................................................................ 6-16 6.5.1 Procedure for Communicating the List of Selected Projects ............................................................................... 6-17 6.6 Adaptive Management Process ....................................................... 6-17 List of Tables Table 6-1: Project Scoring Methodology ................................................................................. 6-7 Table 6-2: Project Scoring Results ....................................................................................... 6-18 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-1 Project Review Process Chapter 6: Project Review Process The Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) will be implemented through the specific studies, actions, projects, and programs proposed by the Region’s stakeholders and participants. This chapter describes the process that was used for submitting, reviewing and scoring projects and provides the final, prioritized list of projects. Recognizing that regional priorities evolve over time, the Coordinating Committee (CC) will periodically review this IRWMP and the project listings herein, depending on changing conditions and availability of funds to perform future work, and make adjustments as necessary to respond to changes throughout the Region. 6.1 Background The 2006 Plan was adopted with 127 projects, which were sorted based on consistency with project assessment criteria. Subsequent to the adoption of the 2006 Plan, additional projects were added as appendices. The 2006 Bay Area project prioritization process involved the following steps:  Screen Projects for Inclusion in the IRWMP.  Assemble IRWMP Projects into Cohorts.  Identify Prioritization Criteria.  Assess Projects with Respect to Criteria. The screening method and criteria used for inclusion in the IRWMP varied by each of the four Functional Areas (FAs); the cohorts were based on “readiness to proceed;” and the categories of assessment criteria were: IRWMP Goals, Bay Area Regional Criteria, Proposition 50 Program Preferences, and Proposition 50 Statewide Priorities. The project assessment conducted for the 2006 Plan did not assign scores or rank the project list. The prioritization process was developed and implemented during the Plan development. Based on input from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the 2012 Guidelines, the IRWMP project assessment criteria have been expanded beyond “readiness to proceed” to reflect factors identified by DWR, and the projects have been scored and ranked accordingly. The following sections describe the process. 6.2 Summary The project prioritization process involved the following steps:  Assembling a Master list of projects (Section 6.4.1)  Conducting a preliminary Subregional review to determine project eligibility (Section 6.4.2) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-2 Project Review Process  Identifying prioritization criteria and weighting (Section 6.3.3)  Scoring projects (Section 6.5) To identify potential projects that support IRWMP implementation and promote its goals and objectives, the CC held an open “call for projects,” which gave stakeholders the opportunity to submit their projects and project concepts for consideration. Stakeholders were encouraged to submit projects through a variety of channels, including Subregional meetings, public workshops, email correspondence solicitations, and the IRWMP website. The solicitation yielded 332 projects submitted for inclusion in the Plan. Full project descriptions can be found in Appendix F.bayareairwmp.org/projects The review and ranking process was developed by the Plan Update Team (PUT) and approved by the CC. The goal was to develop a process, from submittal through prioritization, which was transparent, replicable and consistent. Stakeholders were presented with the proposed process at the first public workshop on July 23 and given an opportunity to provide comments. The CC developed a scoring methodology that assigns projects into three tiers. The prioritization of projects is based upon a detailed two phase screening process consisting of an initial screening by the Subregion leads, followed by project evaluation and ranking. The process encouraged Subregional integration while ranking at a regional level. The review and scoring process was available on the website so that project proponents were well informed about the process and how the projects would be ranked, as they completed their templates (see Section 6.3.1). All projects submitted are maintained on a Master List, and the list will be updated as projects are developed through time and re-prioritized. A discussion of how each proposed project is related to resource management strategies selected for use in the IRWMP is found in Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies. 6.3 Procedures for Submitting a Project To facilitate the project review, the PUT developed the following process and materials: 6.3.1 Project Template In order to be eligible for review, all proponents were required to complete and submit the project template (Appendix C) or input project information directly into a web-based form based upon the project template. In developing the template, the PUT attempted to balance the level Bay Area IRWMP Website 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-3 Project Review Process of effort and resources required by the project proponent to complete it, with the information needed in order to assess and rank the project. The PUT also framed the template to encourage submittal of projects that were at a more conceptual stage rather than just ready-to- proceed projects. To support the submittal of projects at various stages of readiness, proponents were instructed to complete as much of the template as possible, but that all projects would be reviewed regardless of completeness. The template also outlined the cost/benefit information that would be required at a further stage for inclusion in a grant proposal. This allowed proponents to understand the level of detail that would be required to participate in a grant application, without yet requiring them to provide it. The project template was approved by the CC in March 2012. A new project template was used in 2019 for the Proposition 1 Implementation funding round and utilized an online format to streamline the collection process. 6.3.2 Call for Projects The CC launched an open call for projects in June 2012 via electronic notification The notification provided a link to the Project Template on the website and indicated the submittal due date — originally September 1, later moved to September 7— offered a “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) section, and provided other relevant information. Stakeholders were informed of the project submittal deadline and process in a number of venues and communications. Meetings included Workshop #1 which was attended by 80 people and at which project criteria and online project submittal instructions were presented in detail. Additional meetings at which the criteria, deadline and process were described included Subregional meetings, water and land use-related meetings and workshops, local government meetings, regular meetings of water associations and other meetings at which CC members were present. The communications avenues that explained the submittal process and deadline included the website notice and instructions, four emails to the 1,500-person master list that were related to Workshop #1, and separate email notices to the Subregional lists. In all the communications, stakeholders were encouraged to submit projects, by the deadline, in any stage of development, including concepts or ideas. The Subregion process provided an opportunity to move the concepts towards more developed implementation projects by providing guidance on project criteria, framing of the project in the context of being a multi-benefit, integrated project, and, in some cases, suggestions about potential partners. More information about the Subregion outreach process is provided in Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement. Project proponents of both new and existing projects were instructed to complete the online project template. In order to facilitate this process, the CC did the following:  Created a new online interface that allowed project proponents to easily update existing projects and enter new projects.  Created basic instructions to help people input project data in the interface. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-4 Project Review Process  Contacted project proponents of existing projects, including Disadvantaged Community (DAC)-serving projects, and gave them accounts to access the site and website rights to update their own projects.  Invited other stakeholders to submit projects.  Provided guidance regarding the template to stakeholders at Workshop #1, including the opportunity to participate in a hands-on, step-by-step support session, though none of the participants requested that level of assistance at the workshop. With a few minor exceptions, the online project template provided an efficient and relatively easy way to submit and collect project proposals. For the Proposition 1 Implementation funding, the CC launched an optional call for short form project proposals in November 2018, to gauge regional interest in projects and understand what types of projects would be submitted. The formal call for projects occurred in May 2019. More information on the stakeholder outreach for project submittal is presented in Chapter 14. 6.3.2.1 Targeted Assistance for DAC Project Proponents An effort was made to assist organizations, agencies, communities and Tribes with limited technical and time capacities to participate in the process and submit projects, particularly for projects serving DACs and Tribes. The State of California’s Proposition 1 Disadvantaged Communities Involvement Program was developed to ensure the involvement of DACs, Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs), and Underrepresented Communities (URCs). T he Bay Area Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP), begun in 2016, includes a Needs Assessment conducted through outreach partner organizations located in DACs and capacity building activities designed to aid in project development and support future access to funding. In addition, a minimum 10% of the Bay Area Funding Region’s allocation is designated for projects benefitting Disadvantaged Communities. The following organizations and Tribes participated in the DACTIP: • California Indian Environmental Alliance • Amah Mutsun Tribal Band • Association of Ramaytush • Him-R^n • Indian People Organizing For Change (IPOC) • Muwekma Ohlone • All Positives Possible • Greenaction for Environmental Justice and Health 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-5 Project Review Process • The Resilient Communities Initiative • Sonoma Ecology Center & Daily Acts • Shore Up Marin • Marin County Community Development Agency • The Watershed Project • Friends of Sausal Creek • Ronald V. Dellums Institute for Sustainable Policy Studies and Action • Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful • Nuestra Casa • Youth United for Community Action • Contra Costa Resource Conservation District • City of Hayward See Chapter 14 Section 6 & 7 for additional information on the DACTIP partners, goals and process. 6.3.3 Review Matrix The PUT focused significant effort in developing a matrix to outline the project scoring methodology (Table 6-1: 2019 Proposition 1 Scoring Methodology Criteria- Directly from Prop 1 Guidelines Point Value Does the project address the critical needs and/or priorities of the IRWM region as identified in the IRWM plan? 1 Is the project sufficiently justified by the description given in the narrative of Section D.1? Does the narrative include requisite referenced supporting documentation such as models, studies, engineering reports, etc.? Does the narrative include other information that supports the justification for the proposed project, including how the project can achieve the claimed level of benefits? 3 Does the project address and/or adapt to the effects of climate change? Does the project address the climate change vulnerabilities assessed in the IRWM Plan? 2 Does the Work Plan include a complete description of all tasks necessary to result in a completed project? Are all necessary and reasonable deliverables identified? 3 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-6 Project Review Process Collectively, are the Work Plan, Schedule, and Budget thorough, reasonable, and justified; and consistent with each other? (see scoring criteria document for considerations) 4 Continue from Column H: 1.Does the project clearly and concisely address all required topics listed in sectionC.1 of the PIF, including summarizing the major components, objectives and intended outcomes/benefits of the project? 2. Are the tasks shown in the Work Plan, Schedule and Budget consistent? 3. Are the costs presented in the budget backed up by and consistent with supporting justification and/or documentation? 4. Is the Schedule reasonable considering the tasks presented in the Work Plan? Does the project sponsor have legal access rights, easements, or other access capabilities, to the property to implement the project? If not, does the project sponsor provide a clear and concise narrative and schedule to obtain the necessary access? 2 Does the budget leverage funds with other private, Federal, or local fund sources? 1 Is the primary benefit* claimed in Table 3 of the Project Information Form logical and reasonable given the information provided in the Work Plan? *For Decision Support Tools, non-physical benefits will be considered. 2 Does the project provide multiple (more than one) benefits? 1 Does the project provide benefits to more than one IRWM region and/or Funding Area? 1 If the proposed project addresses contamination per the requirements ofAB1249, does the project provide safe drinking water to a small disadvantaged community? 1 Does the proposed project employ new or innovative technology or practices? 1 Does the project provide a benefit(s) to a DAC, EDA and/or Tribe (minimum 75%)? 1 Did the applicant provide a narrative on cost considerations that is fully explained based on information requested in the Project Information Form? 2 Table 6-). The intent was to develop a methodology that reflected DWR guidelines, limited ambiguity, and was replicable and transparent to participants and stakeholders. The scoring methodology reflects the criteria of the Guidelines as well as the Bay Area IRWMP Goals and Objectives. The criteria include:  Addressing Multiple Goals  Integrating Multiple Resource Management Strategies  Strategic Considerations for IRWM Plan implementation (regionalism, partnerships and integration)  Project Status 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-7 Project Review Process  Technical Feasibility  Benefits to DAC Water Issues  Benefits to Native American Tribal Community Water Issues  Environmental Justice Considerations  Project Costs and Financing  Economic Feasibility  Climate Change Adaptation  Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions  Reducing Dependence on the Delta Development of the assessment methodology and scoring was an iterative process. First the PUT began with the "review factors" identified in the 2012 Guidelines and used that to finalize the scoring metrics, and assessment methodology, identifying what to score and how to score it. Where appropriate, the Guidelines were also consulted for direction regarding the assessment methodology and weighting of the review factors. The PUT weighted the review factors indicating most important to least important from the perspective of identifying projects to include in the Plan. Certain criteria, such as benefits to disadvantaged communities (DAC) water issues and reducing dependence on the Delta, did not receive points, but instead were assigned a Yes/No scoring so they could be identified and sorted by this factor. The scoring methodology was approved by the CC in August 2012. In developing a project review process, the CC did not consider any specific grant program- related selection criteria. The purpose of identifying projects in the IRWM Plan is to understand the needed actions to meet the IRWM Plan objectives and therefore not prioritize projects based on any specific grant program. The CC will apply grant criteria when moving projects from the scored list in the IRWMP to a specific grant proposal list. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-8 Project Review Process Table 6-1: 2019 Proposition 1 Scoring Methodology Criteria- Directly from Prop 1 Guidelines Point Value Does the project address the critical needs and/or priorities of the IRWM region as identified in the IRWM plan? 1 Is the project sufficiently justified by the description given in the narrative of Section D.1? Does the narrative include requisite referenced supporting documentation such as models, studies, engineering reports, etc.? Does the narrative include other information that supports the justification for the proposed project, including how the project can achieve the claimed level of benefits? 3 Does the project address and/or adapt to the effects of climate change? Does the project address the climate change vulnerabilities assessed in the IRWM Plan? 2 Does the Work Plan include a complete description of all tasks necessary to result in a completed project? Are all necessary and reasonable deliverables identified? 3 Collectively, are the Work Plan, Schedule, and Budget thorough, reasonable, and justified; and consistent with each other? (see scoring criteria document for considerations) 4 Continue from Column H: 1.Does the project clearly and concisely address all required topics listed in sectionC.1 of the PIF, including summarizing the major components, objectives and intended outcomes/benefits of the project? 2. Are the tasks shown in the Work Plan, Schedule and Budget consistent? 3. Are the costs presented in the budget backed up by and consistent with supporting justification and/or documentation? 4. Is the Schedule reasonable considering the tasks presented in the Work Plan? Does the project sponsor have legal access rights, easements, or other access capabilities, to the property to implement the project? If not, does the project sponsor provide a clear and concise narrative and schedule to obtain the necessary access? 2 Does the budget leverage funds with other private, Federal, or local fund sources? 1 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-9 Project Review Process Is the primary benefit* claimed in Table 3 of the Project Information Form logical and reasonable given the information provided in the Work Plan? *For Decision Support Tools, non-physical benefits will be considered. 2 Does the project provide multiple (more than one) benefits? 1 Does the project provide benefits to more than one IRWM region and/or Funding Area? 1 If the proposed project addresses contamination per the requirements ofAB1249, does the project provide safe drinking water to a small disadvantaged community? 1 Does the proposed project employ new or innovative technology or practices? 1 Does the project provide a benefit(s) to a DAC, EDA and/or Tribe (minimum 75%)? 1 Did the applicant provide a narrative on cost considerations that is fully explained based on information requested in the Project Information Form? 2 Table 6-2: Prop 84 Project Scoring Methodology Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Addresses Multiple Goals How the project contributes to the IRWM Plan Objectives Number of goals and objectives the project addresses Total of 200 points allocated among the 5 goals; 10 points per objective until 40 points maximum per goal (for Flood goal, 40 points if all objectives addressed) 200 27% Integrates Multiple Resource Management Strategies How the project is related to resource management strategies Address multiple RMS (CWP Management Outcomes) 20 points per each of the six CWP Management Outcomes met 120 16% 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-10 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Strategic Considerations for IRWM Plan implementation Regionalism: How much of the Bay Area Region does this project benefit? 50 points: project provides direct benefits to 1) 2 or more of the Bay Area Sub-Regions; or 2) at least three counties (portions within Region); or 2) six or more of the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP. 50 7% 25 points: provides direct benefits to 1) at least two counties (portions with Region); or 2) at least three of the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP. 15 points: project provides direct benefits to one of the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP, AND at least one county (portions within Region). 5 points: project provides direct benefits to more than one watershed of smaller scale than the 20 Bay Area watershed areas as illustrated in Figure B-6 and listed in Table B-1 from 2006 IRWMP. Partnership: How many entities are partnering to implement this project? 30 points if project involves three or more partners that include both government agencies and NGOs 20 points if project involves three or more partners. 10 points if project involves two partners. 0 points if Project involves only one entity. 30 4% Integration with land use planning 20 points: Project increases coordination between water resources agencies and land use planning agencies 20 3% Project Status 2 points for each criterion met: 10 1% 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-11 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Considers the project's readiness to proceed What is the current status of the project (with respect to the criteria listed in the scoring)? Construction Drawings Land acquisition/easements complete CEQA/NEPA complete Preliminary Design complete Conceptual Plans complete Technical Feasibility Technical feasibility of the project. Accesses the availability and quality of technical information in supporting project plan and results Is this a common and widely accepted technology with well documented results? 75 points: Technical feasibility has been well documented and based on similar, successful studies and/or projects or established literature; the project is using a technology or processes that meet industry standards; the project includes pilot study results and/or an agency’s own operational results to estimate benefits; project site conditions are known (soils, hydrology, ecology) 75 10% Is there enough known about the geologic conditions, hydrology, ecology or other aspect of the system where the project is located 35 points: the project has not been done before but the project proponents provide adequate documentation related to the feasibility of the proposed process and project site conditions are known (soils, hydrology, ecology) 0 points: the project has not been done before, does not use industry standard processes, and/ or the project's projected benefits exceed those of similar studies with no supporting documentation provided. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-12 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Benefits to DAC Water Issues Considers if project provides specific benefits to critical water issues for disadvantaged communities and/or increases DAC participation. Does the proposed project provide specific benefits to critical DAC water issues Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Benefits to Native American Tribal Community Water Issues Considers if project provides specific benefits to critical water issues for Native American tribal communities and/or increases tribal participation. Does the proposed project provide specific benefits to critical Native American tribal community water issues? Yes: 15points 15 2% Environmental Justice Considerations Considers if project addresses inequitable distribution of environmental burdens. Does the proposed project redress inequitable distribution of environmental burdens and/or improve access to environmental goods? Yes: 15points 15 2% Project Costs and Financing Identifies if project costs and financing have been assessed. Has a project cost estimate been prepared and documented in Section 3 of the Project Template? Yes: 25 points 25 3% Does project have identified sources at least 25% match funding? Yes: 25 points 25 3% 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-13 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Economic Feasibility Benefits, monetized or non-monetized can be estimated (consistent with DWR Guidelines.) Does the response to Section 3, Table A indicate proponent would be able to provide necessary data for an economic analysis, for a potential grant application? 50 points if primarily "yes" 50 7% Climate Change Adaptation Contribution of the project in adapting to the effects of climate change. Will the project contribute to regional adaptation to projected climate change impacts? 5 points per strategy, up to 50 points 50 7% Reducing GHG Emissions Considers a project’s ability to reduce regional GHG emissions, as compared to project alternatives. Considerations include energy efficiency and reduction of GHG emissions when choosing between project alternatives. Compared to project alternatives, does the project reduce regional GHG emissions OR improve energy efficiency? 5 points per strategy, up to 50 points 50 7% Reducing dependence on the Delta Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Total 735 100% Yes/No question High point value 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-14 Project Review Process Yellow Shading = Directly From Prop 84 Guidelines REVIEW FACTORS Scoring Criteria Scoring Objective Scoring Metric(s) Assessment Methodology & Scoring Max Score Weighting Medium point value 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-15 Project Review Process 6.4 Procedures for Reviewing Projects 6.4.1 IRWMP Project Lists The projects were grouped into two project lists: a Master List and an Active List. The Master List contains all submitted projects, and the Active List contains projects that are moving forward for evaluation. The rules that govern the lists are as follows: 6.4.1.1 Master List The IRWMP Master Project List is a non-scored list of projects that includes all projects that have ever been submitted for inclusion in the Plan, including project concepts. The Master List is composed of all projects from the 2006 Plan, projects in the appendices to the 2006 Plan, projects that were subsequently added to the list by the CC and all projects submitted to the Plan during the update process. This list is located at: http://bayareairwmp.org/grants- projects/projects/. Any IRWMP stakeholder may submit a project for inclusion on the Master List by completing the Project Template (Section 6.3.1). In advance of a review process, the CC sends an email to the list serve and posts to the website asking the project proponents of all projects on the Master List to confirm that the project is still active and that they want their project ranked. If the project proponent fails to confirm their involvement, the project will not move forward to the Active Project List. Unless a project has been removed by the project proponent, it will remain on the Master List. Projects may be added to or removed from the Master Project List at any time; however this must be done by the project proponent(s).  To remove a project, the project proponent must submit a written request for removal to the CC. The request for removal must include: the project title, consent to remove the project from all project lists and the reason for removal of the project.  In the event of multi-entity projects, all entities must agree to a project’s removal.  It is the project proponent’s responsibility to notify, and get consent from, any and all partnering entities of the removal of the project from the IRWMP Master List.  In the case of multi-entity projects the “project proponent” refers to the lead entity. The CC may commence a call for new projects. The confirmed projects and new projects will comprise the IRWMP Active List. 6.4.1.2 Active List The Active List is a subset of the Master List and includes all projects that will be evaluated in the Project Review Process. (Section 6.4.2) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-16 Project Review Process It is the project proponent’s responsibility to:  Complete the Project Template (as described in Section 6.3.1)  Ensure that project information is up to date  Respond to CC requests for information Project(s) can be removed from the Active List by the CC if the project proponent does not meet its responsibilities. Projects removed from the Active List are maintained in the Master List until removed by the project proponent(s). Subsequent to the 2013 Project Review Process, updates to the Project lists will be added to the Plan as appendices. The process is described in Section 6.6. 6.4.2 Project Review Projects are reviewed by the Project Screening Committee (PSC). The PSC is a volunteer body composed of members active on the Bay Area Integration Regional Water Management (IRWM) Coordinating Committee (CC) and representing local public agencies, tribes, disadvantaged communities (DACs) and Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs), and other stakeholder organizations. For the 2019 review process, the PSC embraced the concept of the regional Proposal representing each Functional Area and each Subregion in the Funding Area, as defined in the 2013 Bay Area IRWM Plan, if such projects could be considered competitive, and also elevating projects that provided benefits to Tribes/DACs/EDAs, either through the 10% minimum reserved for Tribes/DACs/EDAs or through the General Implementation Project funding. Project Scoring and Selection Process For the 2019 Round 1 Implementation Project review, the PSC followed the following process: Quantitative Review Process: • PSC agreed to use the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Round 1 Grant Implementation Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) Project Level Evaluation scoring criteria to evaluate all project submittals (25 point scale). • Point totals were compiled for each project and averaged (Method 1). A second method compiled each project by rank and then averaged the rank, thus avoiding skew and outliers to provide all scorers equal voice (Method 2). Both Method 1 and Method 2 identified the same top 10 projects, just in a slightly different order. Qualitative Review Process: • PSC referenced the 2013 Bay Area IRWM Plan, the PSP, and the 2019 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines for guidance. The PSC removed any projects that the group agreed were not as competitive as other highly-ranked projects given the principles of the Bay Area IRWM and/or the statewide IRWM guidelines – i.e., 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-17 Project Review Process projects that needed to better articulate claimed benefits or only provided benefits to a very limited geographical area in comparison to other projects. • PSC reviewed the updated highest-ranked projects for Functional Area representation. • PSC reviewed the updated highest-ranked projects for Subregion representation. • PSC reviewed the updated highest-ranked projects for Tribal/DAC/EDA representation. Managing Conflict of Interest To ensure the scoring and selection process was fair and equitable, PSC members representing agencies or organizations did not score their own projects. In addition, the accepted ground rules for the July 15th, 2019 in-person ‘Scoring Review and Project Selection’ meeting included an agreement by all present not to lobby the group or advocate on behalf of their project, and to only provide additional information about a project if requested. Lastly, no member of the PSC received any additional information on how to put together a competitive project application compared to other applicants: the quantitative review process mirrored DWR’s 2019 PSP scoring criteria exactly and the qualitative review process was based on IRWM principles in the 2013 Bay Area IRWM Plan, the 2019 PSP, and the 2019 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines. In addition, qualitative selection goals such as Functional Area representation, Subregion representation, and Tribal/DAC/EDA representation were discussed at public CC meetings leading up to the project application deadline. 6.5 Results The Master List includes 690 projects, 332 of which were submitted (or re-submitted) in the 2012 call for projects and went through the two-phase project review process. The Master List includes the following subcategories for projects submitted during the 2012 call for projects: Number of projects on the Active List: 315 Number of regional projects: 30 Number of projects indicating benefits to DAC: 123 Number of projects that did not pass Subregion review: 17 Of the 332 projects submitted, the Subregion screening process identified 17 projects that were deemed ineligible because they did not meet the minimum criteria. Project proponents were provided a notice that the project did not advance to the ranking phase and were given an opportunity to address the CC at its monthly meeting. These projects remain on the Master List. The remaining 315 projects that were included in the Active List continued to Phase 2 for scoring and ranking based on the methodology described in Section 6.3.3. The results of the project scoring are shown in Error! Reference source not found.. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-18 Project Review Process 6.5.1 Procedure for Communicating the List of Selected Projects Once the Active List projects were ranked, draft scores were posted on the Bay Area IRWM website. The PSC also contacted project proponents by email to announce the draft scores, the criteria used to score each project, and the Project Review Process guidance. Proponents were informed that the scored list would be published in the Plan and the project information would be used to update the Plan and describe the efforts to develop regional, integrated, and multi- benefit solutions for our water resources. Project proponents were then given an opportunity to address errors identified in the project review process. Examples of errors the PSC would consider correcting included errors made by the scoring team or errors due to technical issues from the website and project information not being properly captured. Project proponents were requested to provide an explanation of the error and a proposed solution. Proponents were given two weeks to provide this information, which was submitted electronically. The PSC re-scored 17 projects. 6.6 Adaptive Management Process The water management issues facing the Bay Area will change over time as regulations become more stringent, environmental conditions change, and new regional interests and goals emerge. As these issues evolve over time, the type of projects considered as regional priorities for implementation will change. Further, as projects are implemented and additional studies are completed, their readiness-to-proceed will change. Recognizing that goals, objectives, and regional priorities evolve over time, the CC will review the Plan periodically, depending on changing conditions and availability of funds as future work is performed, and make adjustments as necessary to respond to changes throughout the region. This review will be informed by assessments performed by project proponents at the project level and by the CC at the Plan level (refer to Chapter 8: Plan Performance and Monitoring). Information collected through this review process will be used to inform decisions regarding IRWMP project sequencing, as well as updates to the regional goals, objectives, and priorities. This process of continual review and update will optimize the effectiveness of IRWMP implementation. The IRWMP Project Review Process will generally take place on a schedule that anticipates an IRWMP update, a Proposal Solicitation Package, or as determined necessary by the CC. Subsequent to the completion of the Project Review Process in the IRWMP update, projects to be added to the IRWMP will be reviewed and ranked by the PSC, subject to the approval of the CC, and a new list of Plan Projects generated. To the extent allowable under State IRWM guidelines and criteria, a new project submitted after adoption of the Plan will be considered by the appropriate functional area(s) to evaluate whether that project should be forwarded to the IRWMP CC as a high priority project to consider when the next available funding proposal is developed. The schedule and process for each functional area may vary. Updates to the Project lists will be added to the Plan as appendices. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-19 Project Review Process Table 6-3: Proposition 1 Round 1 Project Scoring Results Project Title Sponsor Subregion Functional Area Prop 1 Grant Request Rank by Ave Score RD1 System Fish Passage Improvements Alameda County Water District (ACWD) Leonard Ash East Watershed-Habitat $ 4,000,000 1 Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District East Watershed $ 1,500,000 2 River Oaks Stormwater Capture Project City of San José, Jeff Sinclair South Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 4,350,000 3 NBWRP Phase 2 North Bay Water Reuse Authority - Jake Spaulding North Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 5,246,931 4 Calistoga Water and Habitat Project City of Calistoga and Napa County Resource Conservation District, Derek Rayner North Disadvantaged Communities $ 2,121,555 5 San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, Upstream of Highway 101 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 3,100,000 6 Bay Area Regional Water Conservation East Bay Municipal Utility District Multiple Water Supply-Water Quality $ 8,415,400 6 San Francisco Zoo Recycled Water Pipeline Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission West Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 562,648 8 McCosker Creek Restoration East Bay Regional Park District, Tiffany Margulici East Water Supply-Water QualityWatershedDisadvantaged Communities $ 910,500 9 Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gates Improvements Santa Clara Valley Water District South-West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 6,500,000 10 OLSD Sewer Pipeline Replacement Project Oro Loma Sanitary District South Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 1,000,000 11 Sutter Urban Flood Reduction City of San Pablo; Amanda Booth East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 4,000,000 12 Implementing BMPs on Rural Lands Sonoma Resource Conservation District, Valerie Quinto North Watershed $ 1,193,047 12 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 6-20 Project Review Process San Mateo Water Resources Program San Mateo Resource Conservation District West Water Supply-Water Quality $ 2,955,000 14 BART Hayward Maintenance Complex Rainwater Catchment, Bio-Retention Basin, and Solar Thermal project BART East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 5,441,180 14 Bayfront/Atherton Flood Protection Project County of San Mateo, Erika Powell South Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 3,216,484 16 Belmont Creek Watershed Restoration Project County of San Mateo West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 10,680,548 16 Hayward Recycled Water Project Phase- 2 City of Hayward; Jan Lee East Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 3,980,000 18 Bayfront Recycled Water and SLR Protection West Bay Sanitary District, Phil Scott, Manager West Wastewater-Recycled Water $ 15,000,000 19 Graywater Direct Installation Program for Underserved Communities Ecology Action Multiple Water Supply-Water Quality $ 338,387 20 Athlone Terrace Pump Station Upgrade County of San Mateo Dept of Public Works. Joe LoCoco (jlococo@smcgov.org) West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 3,750,000 20 Walnut/Angus pump stations upgrades San Mateo County Flood Control District. Mark Chow (mchow@smcgov.org) West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 2,181,450 22 Aging Concrete-Lined Channels Zone 7 Water Agency East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 10,375,000 23 Bluff Erosion Protection Preservation Esplanade City of Pacifica, Louis Sun West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 1,700,000 24 Beach Boulevard South Seawall Replacement City of Pacifica, Louis Sun West Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 9,000,000 25 Chain of Lakes Pipeline Zone 7 Water Agency East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 33,000,000 26 Retional Upstream Detention Improvements Zone 7 Water Agency East Flood Protection-Stormwater $ 7,625,000 27 Selected Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Impacts and Benefits Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 7: Impacts and Benefits ................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Water Conservation and Demand Management ................................ 7-3 7.3 Water Supply Enhancement .............................................................. 7-8 7.3.1 Infrastructure Reliability .......................................................... 7-8 7.3.2 Surface Water Supply ............................................................ 7-9 7.3.3 Groundwater Management ................................................... 7-10 7.3.4 Water Reuse ........................................................................ 7-11 7.3.5 Stormwater Capture ............................................................. 7-12 7.3.6 Desalination ......................................................................... 7-13 7.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement ..................................... 7-14 7.4.1 Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities ................................ 7-14 7.4.2 Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management ..................... 7-15 7.4.3 Aquifer Remediation ............................................................. 7-16 7.4.4 Salt and Salinity Management .............................................. 7-17 7.5 Watershed Management ................................................................. 7-18 7.6 Habitat Protection, Improvement and Restoration ........................... 7-19 7.6.1 Habitat Protection and Improvement .................................... 7-19 7.6.2 Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation ........................... 7-20 7.7 Flood and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management ............................. 7-22 7.7.1 Flood Management Facilities, Floodplain Protection ............ 7-22 7.7.2 Sea Level Rise (SLR) Hazard Management ......................... 7-24 7.8 Public Access, Recreation and Use................................................. 7-25 7.9 Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools ........................................ 7-26 7.10 Education, Outreach and Incentives ................................................ 7-27 7.11 Environmental Justice and Effects on Disadvantaged Communities ................................................................................... 7-28 7.11.1 DACs in the Bay Area Region .............................................. 7-29 7.11.2 Development and Identification of DAC Projects .................. 7-29 7.11.3 Current Projects in DACs ..................................................... 7-29 7.11.4 Potential Effects of IRWMP Implementation on DACs .......... 7-30 7.12 Effects on Native American Tribal Communities .............................. 7-30 7.13 References ...................................................................................... 7-31 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Impacts and Benefits List of Tables Table 7-1: Project Categories and Types Evaluated in This Chapter ...................................... 7-2 Table 7-2: Potential IRWMP Environmental Impacts by Project Types ................................... 7-4 Table 7-3: Potential IRWMP Benefits by Project Type ............................................................. 7-6 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-1 Impacts and Benefits Chapter 7: Impacts and Benefits This chapter contains a discussion of potential impacts and benefits of implementation of the IRWMP, including those within and between regions, and those potentially affecting disadvantaged, environmental justice concerns and Native American Tribal communities. Consistent with DWR requirements as described in the 2016 Guidelines, the discussion is not exhaustive but rather provides a screening level analysis to help any reader of the IRWMP generally understand the impacts and benefits of implementing the IRWMP. This overview of impacts and benefits will serve as a benchmark to help the IRWM planners assess whether the anticipated benefits of the IRWMP have been realized and/or unanticipated impacts have occurred. Impacts and benefits will be analyzed in more detail prior to implementation of specific projects. As appropriate, as project concepts are further developed and advanced for approval, detailed environmental impact assessment will be conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The status of CEQA/NEPA review varies by project and was collected and recorded during the project review process (see Section 6.3.3 in Chapter 6 for further information on the project review process). Project information is available online at the Bay Area IRWMP website. 7.1 Introduction For the purposes of characterizing potential impacts and benefits of IRWMP implementation, a list of potential project types was developed. The list reflects DWR’s latest set of primary management objectives for the 2013 Update of the California Water Plan, this IRWMP’s set of Resource Management Strategies presented in Chapter 4, and the current list of projects submitted for consideration as part of this IRWMP update process. Table 7-5 presents the list of project types evaluated in this chapter and shows how this project list relates to DWR’s most recent set of broad management priorities as laid out in the 2013 CWP Update. Sections 7.2 through 7.10 address each project category, and describe the potential environmental impacts, benefits, and interregional effects that could result from implementation. With respect to impacts, four areas of impact are considered: short-term site development or construction-related impacts (e.g., traffic, dust and noise associated with earthwork and/or construction activity); facility “footprint” impacts associated with disturbance of resources at and near the project site; facility/project operations impacts (e.g., energy use, air and GHG emissions, traffic associated with project operations and maintenance); and growth inducement potential (e.g., potentially associated with expanded service capability) leading to secondary effects of growth (e.g., increased land development, traffic, and service demands associated with growth). Sections 7.11 and 7.12 address potential impacts and benefits to Bay Area disadvantaged communities and Native American Tribal communities or resources, respectively. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-2 Impacts and Benefits Table 7-5: Project Categories and Types Evaluated in This Chapter CWP 2013 Update Management Objectives Project Categories and Types Reduce Water Demand Water Conservation and Demand Management • Agricultural Water Use Efficiency • Urban Water Use Efficiency Increase Water Supply Improve Operational Efficiency Water Supply Enhancement • Infrastructure Reliability • Surface Water Supply • Groundwater Management • Water Reuse • Stormwater Capture • Desalination Improve Water Quality Water Quality Protection and Improvement • Water, Wastewater Treatment Facilities • Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management • Aquifer Remediation • Salt and Salinity Management Practice Resource Stewardship Watershed Management • Watershed Erosion Control, Land Stewardship Habitat Protection and Restoration • Habitat Protection and Improvement • Ecosystem Restoration and Wetland Creation Improve Flood Management Flood and Sea Level Rise (SLR) Hazard Management • Flood Management Facilities, Floodplain Protection • SLR Hazard Management People and Water Public Access, Recreation and Use Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools Education, Outreach and Incentives 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-3 Impacts and Benefits Table 7-6 and the text in Sections 7.2 through 7.10 summarize typical impacts associated with each project type. Actual impacts of specific projects would vary depending on site-specific conditions, such as the sensitivity of on-site and nearby resources, as well as project design and operation details. Two of the project types, shown corresponding to DWR’s People and Water objective – Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools, as well as Education, Outreach and Incentives – are not expected to result in physical impacts and thus they are not addressed in Table 7-6. Table 7-7 summarizes potential benefits of IRWMP implementation by project type. The list of benefits shown in the table was developed to reflect both the statewide priorities presented in the latest CWP and IRWMP goals and objectives and reflected in the project descriptions submitted as part of the planning process. This chapter will be reviewed and updated during normal plan management activities as part of the regular Plan re-assessment and readoption process, which occurs on a five-year cycle. See Section Chapter 1, Governance, for a description of the Plan update process. 7.2 Water Conservation and Demand Management Water Conservation and Demand Management includes both agricultural and urban water use efficiency projects. Projects in this category can include rebate programs to accelerate plumbing retrofits or landscape changes, tiered rates and other financial incentive programs that influence customer behavior to reduce water use, and projects targeting agricultural conservation such as canal relining, irrigation improvements, crop changes, or other use reduction measures. The Bay Area has made significant strides in urban water use efficiency by reducing per capita water use; DWR studies indicate that per capita water use in the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region is among the lowest in the state (DWR et al, 2010). Water Conservation and Demand Management projects proposed as part of the IRWMP may include conversion to drought tolerant landscapes to promotion of BMPs for both urban and agricultural irrigation efficiency, among others. Potential Impacts In general, urban Water Conservation and Demand Management projects do not result in appreciable physical impacts as they often do not require new or modified facilities or other types of major land disturbance or new operations; rather, these projects involve behavioral changes and/or indoor/outdoor device and plumbing changes. Some irrigation improvements High efficiency clothes washers can help reduce urban water use. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-4 Impacts and Benefits may involve land disruption to install new irrigation equipment but this would most likely occur within areas already subject to regular maintenance, resulting in little “new” environmental impact. Agricultural Water Conservation and Demand Management projects could include lining agricultural water canals to reduce water loss through canal seepage. This practice reduces water losses, but may also have unintended consequences to nearby groundwater supplies, adjacent habitats and wetlands supported by or benefiting from the canal seepage. Table 7-6: Potential IRWMP Environmental Impacts by Project Types Project Categories and Type Impact Category Land Use Water Resources Biological Resources Air and Energy Delta water and biological resources Agriculture Land Use Compatibility Recreation Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Growth Inducement Potential Surface Water Groundwater Water Quality Flooding Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Pollutant Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy Use Water Conservation and Demand Management Agricultural and Urban Water Use Efficiency   Water Supply Enhancement Infrastructure Reliability         Surface Water Supply              Groundwater Management            Water Reuse            Stormwater Capture         Desalination             Water Quality Protection and Improvement Water, Wastewater Treatment Facilities           Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management        Aquifer Remediation          Salt and Salinity Management         Watershed Management 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-5 Impacts and Benefits Project Categories and Type Impact Category Land Use Water Resources Biological Resources Air and Energy Delta water and biological resources Agriculture Land Use Compatibility Recreation Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Growth Inducement Potential Surface Water Groundwater Water Quality Flooding Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Pollutant Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy Use Watershed Erosion Control, Land Stewardship         Habitat Protection and Restoration Habitat Protection and Improvement            Ecosystem Restoration and Wetland Creation            Flood and SLR Hazard Management Flood Hazard Management          SLR Hazard Management            Public Access, Recreation and Uses Water Dependent Recreation, Trails, etc.         2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-6 Impacts and Benefits Table 7-7: Potential IRWMP Benefits by Project Type Project Categories and Type Benefit Category Water Supply Reliability Water Quality Integrated Flood Management Climate Change Response Environmental Stewardship Community Involvement and Public Use Reduce total water demand through water use efficiency Reduce potable water demand Expand use of recycled water Expand stormwater reuse Diversity regional water management portfolio Increase storage or conveyance capacity Increase aquifer recharge Protect or improve surface water quality Protect or improve groundwater quality Improve drinking water quality Improve wastewater treatment Improve stormwater quality Respond to salinity issues Prevent nutrient loading Reduce risk of flooding Restore floodplains Improve flood ctrl through wetland restoration, protection Reduce stormwater runoff through improved infiltration Reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions Prepare for sea level rise, higher tidal surges Prepare for extreme climate events, and drought Contribute to carbon sequestration Protect existing high quality habitat Restore impaired habitat Promote recovery of threatened and endangered species Provide water for aquatic habitat Manage pests and invasive species Promote energy efficiency, use of renewable energy Potential to benefit a disadvantaged community Protect cultural resources Promote community outreach, education and stewardship Promote public access, water-oriented recreation Water Conservation and Demand Management Agricultural and urban use efficiency                  Water Supply Enhancement Infrastructure Reliability           Surface Water Supply        Groundwater Management                    Water Reuse                 Stormwater Capture                       Desalination        Water Quality Protection and Improvement Water, Wastewater Treatment Facilities                     Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management                  Aquifer remediation           Salt and salinity management            Watershed Management Watershed protection, sediment management, erosion control, land stewardship                      Habitat Protection and Restoration Existing Habitat Protection and Improvement                Ecosystem Restoration                      Flood and SLR Hazard Management Flood management facilities, floodplain protection                    SLR hazard management                     Public Access, Recreation and Use Trails, water-based recreation, water-dependent cultural uses (fisheries)         2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-7 Impacts and Benefits Project Categories and Type Benefit Category Water Supply Reliability Water Quality Integrated Flood Management Climate Change Response Environmental Stewardship Community Involvement and Public Use Reduce total water demand through water use efficiency Reduce potable water demand Expand use of recycled water Expand stormwater reuse Diversity regional water management portfolio Increase storage or conveyance capacity Increase aquifer recharge Protect or improve surface water quality Protect or improve groundwater quality Improve drinking water quality Improve wastewater treatment Improve stormwater quality Respond to salinity issues Prevent nutrient loading Reduce risk of flooding Restore floodplains Improve flood ctrl through wetland restoration, protection Reduce stormwater runoff through improved infiltration Reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions Prepare for sea level rise, higher tidal surges Prepare for extreme climate events, and drought Contribute to carbon sequestration Protect existing high quality habitat Restore impaired habitat Promote recovery of threatened and endangered species Provide water for aquatic habitat Manage pests and invasive species Promote energy efficiency, use of renewable energy Potential to benefit a disadvantaged community Protect cultural resources Promote community outreach, education and stewardship Promote public access, water-oriented recreation Modeling and Monitoring Tools Decision support systems (DSS) and technical data collection             Education, Outreach, and Incentives Student and community programs, school projects, financing programs           2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-8 Impacts and Benefits Potential Benefits The substantial benefits of Water Conservation and Demand Management include reductions in total water demand and reductions in potable water demand, expanding the regional water management portfolio and netting additional supply reliability throughout the system without any of the construction-related impacts associated with a “new” or supplemental supply project. Further, these projects have the benefit of reducing demands on imported water supplies such as the Sierra supplies delivered to the Bay Area by SWP and CVP, which convey water through the Delta, or by the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system or EBMUD’s Mokelumne systems, thereby lessening pressure of competing demands on a limited resource and improving surface and groundwater water quality in water source areas. Improved water quality and quantity in these areas aids in recovery of aquatic habitats and supports sensitive species. Reduced water consumption also aids in drought preparedness by conserving water supplies. Reducing average annual water deliveries reduces energy use associated with water conveyance and treatment, which in turn reduces air and GHG emissions. Reducing water demands provides in- lieu groundwater recharge. Improved water use efficiency can reduce nutrient leaching and prevent nutrient loading. Water conservation programs also provide community outreach and education benefits. Interregional Effects There are multiple interregional benefits of Water Conservation and Demand Management including better drought preparedness and reduced reliance on imported water. Reduced energy consumption and associated reductions in air emissions would benefit the Bay Area and Central Valley air basins. In addition, reductions in energy use due to reduced water transport and consumption also decreases contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, a global concern. 7.3 Water Supply Enhancement 7.3.1 Infrastructure Reliability Infrastructure Reliability projects can include facility repair, replacement, improvement or expansion at any point in the water supply system including conveyance, storage, treatment or distribution. Projects in this category may also include interties within or between systems to improve delivery flexibility and redundancy. The improvement and expansion of the South Bay Aqueduct element of the SWP executed by DWR and Zone 7 Water Agency are an example of this type of project. Examples of Infrastructure Reliability projects currently included in the IRWMP include system interties, reconstruction of aging storage tanks and pipelines, dam seismic retrofits and rehabilitations, and SCADA system upgrades. Potential Impacts Infrastructure Reliability projects often involve modifying or improving existing facilities, resulting in fewer construction and footprint-related impacts than would occur with construction of new facilities. Nonetheless, facility modifications and/or the addition of new facilities, such as conveyance interties or additional system storage could result in construction, footprint and possibly operational impacts that may affect adjacent developed land uses, or natural resources and cultural resources if undeveloped open space areas are affected. Improvements involving 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-9 Impacts and Benefits capacity expansion may lead to the potential for growth inducement and consequently, an increase in overall energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Potential Benefits The benefits of Infrastructure Reliability projects can include improved water supply and supply reliability, improved operational efficiency, increased energy efficiency (from replacement of outmoded equipment), reduced risk of outages under normal or emergency operations (e.g., following a major earthquake), and improved drinking water quality (e.g., from replacement of aging treated water storage facilities). Interregional Effects Projects designed to improve the reliability of existing conveyance systems that import water to the Bay Area may result in both impacts and benefits to the source water regions, such as the Delta, Sierra foothills or upper Russian River watershed, where water diversion, storage and conveyance facilities originate. Projects in these areas may result in construction and footprint impacts at facility sites as well as off-site water resource, hydrologic and aquatic resource impacts. Benefits to these areas could include facilities that better conserve water and are more energy efficient, reducing interregional operational impacts. Regional system interties can provide regional and interregional benefits by improving water supply capabilities during an emergency or extended drought. 7.3.2 Surface Water Supply Surface Water Supply projects include water transfers, or improvements to existing water supply systems tapping sources both within and outside of the San Francisco Bay Area hydrologic region, including changes in water diversions (from local, Delta, Sierra, Russian River or Eel River sources), interties, and/or surface water storage augmentation. Examples of Surface Water Supply projects currently included in the IRWMP include pilot projects for water transfers between major water agencies within the Bay Area and projects to restore operating capacity at dams. Potential Impacts Potential impacts of improved Surface Water Supply vary by activity, but can include adverse effects on surrounding land uses including agriculture, aquatic resources, water quality and other beneficial uses such as recreation (for potential increases in surface water diversions), cultural resources (e.g., archeological resources near waterways affected by facility construction or operation), growth-inducing impacts, increases in air pollutant and GHG emissions (to the extent that the project increases energy use from fossil fuels), and third party impacts (e.g., when State Water Project contractors have more [or less] water to sell to other water supply agencies). Storage facilities, such as reservoirs, can have large footprints and may be located in rural areas adjacent to agriculture and/or sensitive habitats (e.g., riparian woodland). Reservoir construction can adversely affect habitat and resident threatened and endangered species. Although currently there are limited Surface Water Supply projects included in the IRWMP that would be expected to adversely affect Delta resources, the Bay Area does rely on the Delta for a portion of its water supplies and such projects may be proposed in the future. Proposition 1 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-10 Impacts and Benefits prioritizes projects that help increase regional self-reliance for those areas that receive water from the Delta watershed. Potential Benefits Potential benefits of Surface Water Supply projects include improved water supply reliability under normal and emergency conditions (through, for example, diversifying an agency’s or region’s water supply, conveyance and storage portfolio), improved system resilience to extreme climate events, increased operational flexibility, and support of beneficial uses defined in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan (e.g., industrial and municipal water supplies). Interregional Effects Expanding local water supplies increases water supply options for the Bay Area and increases supply delivery flexibility. Improving and supplementing the water supply portfolio for Bay Area water providers may allow a reduction in the use of water from sources outside the hydrologic region, which could reduce impacts on source watersheds and may provide better flexibility to divert water at times when it results in less adverse environmental effect to water and aquatic resources. 7.3.3 Groundwater Management Specific Groundwater Management project types include conjunctive use, groundwater recharge, groundwater banking and recharge area protection. Examples of Groundwater projects in the IRWMP include groundwater recharge and groundwater banking projects in the North Bay, and a multi-county water reuse program that utilizes portions of recycled water for groundwater recharge. In other areas, rubber dams are used to encourage groundwater recharge (these projects often include fish ladders around those dams to improve fish access to upper habitats in the watershed). Many projects also identify conjunctive use or protection of recharge areas as a secondary benefit. Potential Impacts Groundwater Management may include recharge pond projects, which tend to be land intensive with site development impacts that could extend broadly into existing and surrounding land uses, including agriculture, open space, and natural resource areas. In riparian areas, construction of recharge ponds could impact aquatic and terrestrial species, for example, by reducing the frequency of local flooding/inundation which is typically beneficial for wetland areas. Conjunctive use projects may result in water quality impacts due to the interaction of surface and groundwater. Operational effects include potential additional energy use (associated with water conveyance, injection and pumping) and associated air and greenhouse gas emissions. Increased in water availability could lead to the potential for growth inducement. Potential Benefits Benefits of Groundwater Management projects may include reduced reliance on imported water through expansion of local water supplies, or increased storage capacity to allow for better timing of water imports to avoid upstream environmental impacts. Expanded local management and protection of water supplies may allow for reduced exposure to surface pollutants. Rain 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-11 Impacts and Benefits capture and storage of stormwater in groundwater basins could reduce flooding by minimizing peak runoff volumes in local streams. Stormwater or recycled water could be used to recharge overdrafted groundwater basins and also prevent saltwater intrusion associated with sea level rise (SLR) near San Francisco Bay. Groundwater may also be a source of water for existing high quality and restored habitats that could be managed or preserved to benefit sensitive species and improve water quality and supply. Capturing available local water supplies and recharging groundwater basins for future use is a form of green infrastructure management that supports local water demand and diversifies the local water management portfolio. Interregional Effects Interregional effects are common with Groundwater Management, specifically conjunctive use projects because of the relationship to surface water supplies. For example, local groundwater banking programs could store waters originating from other regions. Local storage would enable water to be diverted during less sensitive high flow periods and stored for use during dry weather periods. Depending on timing and compliance with upstream flow requirements, this could have the benefit of recharging some local groundwater basins, where there may be overdraft or salinity issues. A separate interregional effect could occur when local demand for imported water is reduced, for example through recycling, which would free source supplies for other beneficial uses such as groundwater recharge programs in those source areas. Interregional benefits could include enhanced summer stream flows and improved salmonid recovery in those upstream areas. 7.3.4 Water Reuse Water Reuse (non-potable, indirect and direct potable, and matching quality to use) projects involve development of treatment, storage, and conveyance facilities to serve appropriate water uses including landscape irrigation (e.g., business parks, roadway medians and golf courses), crop irrigation (e.g., vineyards in Sonoma and Napa Counties), industrial uses (e.g., oil refinery cooling in Contra Costa County), indoor uses (e.g., toilet flushing), groundwater recharge, and wetland/habitat creation. Examples of Water Reuse projects submitted for consideration as part of the IRWMP include multiple recycling projects throughout the Bay Area and potable reuse studies. Potential Impacts Water Reuse projects typically include modifications to wastewater treatment facilities, installation or expansion of recycled water distribution pipelines, pump stations, and system Using recycled water for landscape irrigation can help offset use of potable water supplies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-12 Impacts and Benefits storage. Modification of existing discharges from wastewater treatment facilities as well as the use of recycled water has the potential to adversely affect surface water hydrology, surface water and groundwater quality, and groundwater. Installation of treatment facilities, pump stations, pipelines, and storage can impact existing land uses, and may have temporary impacts to habitat and water quality. The operation of treatment processes to support water reuse requires additional energy with commensurate air and GHG emissions. Potential Benefits By making recycled water available to more customers, Water Reuse projects reduce the use of imported and local surface water and groundwater supplies, diversify the local and regional water portfolio, increase reliability, and provide a drought resistant water supply. Water Reuse projects often increase storage and conveyance capacity by constructing new pipelines and storage facilities. Water Reuse projects provide opportunities to match water quality to use (e.g., using recycled water instead of potable water for irrigation purposes) and preserve the highest quality water for potable use. As indicated in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3.3.1), the Bay Area recycled approximately 60,000 acre feet of supply in 2010, and recycled water supply is expected to double over the next 20 years (BACWA 2011 Recycled Water Survey). Water reuse projects help to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean by reducing wastewater discharges and can also support recovery of threatened and endangered species by reducing demand on local surface waters. Recycled water can also be used to support habitat restoration projects (e.g., wetlands creation), thereby providing local and regional habitat benefits. Non- potable water recycling processes can have lower energy requirements than other water sources (e.g., imported water) and therefore may help to lower or offset GHG emissions if used in place of more energy intensive water supplies. Finally, promotion of successful water reuse projects helps to educate the community about water issues and environmental stewardship. Interregional Effects Many of the benefits of Water Reuse projects are interregional, such as reduced reliance on imported water from the Delta and Eel River systems. Additional water in these systems reduces many of the documented environmental stressors that result from water diversion away from those ecosystems. Additional water flows in the Eel River would also benefit the Bear River, Wiyot, and Blue Lake Native American tribes there, for whom the river and the fishery are water dependent cultural resources. 7.3.5 Stormwater Capture Stormwater Capture projects include use of detention basins, roof gardens, rain barrels/cisterns, biofiltration and other technologies to capture, manage, and infiltrate stormwater onsite. Examples of Stormwater Capture projects included in the IRWMP include Low Impact Design (LID) projects at schools, in disadvantaged communities (DACs), and in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). In some cases, stormwater capture projects are linked to other project categories such as Groundwater Management and Education and Outreach. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-13 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Stormwater Capture projects are often responsive to, and dependent on, surrounding land uses, which generate stormwater for capture. Capturing stormwater is a generally passive activity that does not typically require treatment and therefore has few energy related impacts. Capturing stormwater however, may have impacts on downstream hydrology and water quality, potentially affecting aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Land use impacts could result from siting large facilities, such as detention basins, in constrained urban areas. These detention basins could affect flooding frequency and may also concentrate surface water pollutants, which would require long-term maintenance and funding. Potential Benefits Stormwater Capture systems, such as detention basins incorporated into the design of a new development, can result in beneficial management of the storm hydrograph. By detaining peak flows generated from new impervious surfaces, Stormwater Capture and Management projects reduce disruption of natural flow cycles by storing stormwater and minimizing potential downstream flooding impacts. These projects may also provide a wide range of benefits related to water supply, water quality, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and public health. Increasingly, new urban development projects utilize detention basins, roof gardens, or cisterns to capture and manage stormwater on-site. These actions may provide recreational opportunities by incorporating dual-acting design features such as detention basins that are used as playing fields or parks during summer months, or left to function as year-round wetlands. Design components such as wetlands can also address other watershed scale issues. For example, filtering runoff through vegetation reduces subsequent pollutant loading in receiving water bodies benefiting salmonid habitats. Implementation of Stormwater capture projects may support several beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to: groundwater recharge, marine habitat, and water contact recreation. Interregional Effects Stormwater Capture can be used to augment local water supplies and could reduce the need to import water from other regions. Stormwater capture programs in the urbanized Bay Area could reduce urban runoff pollutants, particularly during ‘first flush’ events entering San Francisco Bay and marine environments of the Pacific Ocean. 7.3.6 Desalination Desalination projects include projects designed to provide a new source of potable water supply by removing salts and dissolved solids from brackish or saline water. The IRWMP includes a regional desalination project that has been proposed by multiple Bay Area water agencies as well as a project that will investigate the feasibility of developing brackish groundwater aquifers for water supply. Potential Impacts Potential impacts from Desalination projects include impacts to surrounding land uses associated with siting a new treatment facility. Diversion of brackish or saltwater from the Bay 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-14 Impacts and Benefits has the potential to impact to aquatic resources as a result of entrapment and entrainment by intake structures. Disposal of brine generated during treatment operations could impact air and water quality. Desalination projects are often located to take advantage of operational efficiencies derived from using brackish water and therefore could impact estuarine habitat and other sensitive biological resources in the Bay and Delta. The desalination process remains relatively energy intensive and thus would increase energy use along with air and greenhouse gas emissions, and could have growth-inducing impacts as it would represent a new water supply source. Potential Benefits Potential benefits of Desalination include diversification of the region’s water supply portfolio by providing a new high quality source of supply that is not weather-dependent and would be available during periods of drought, reducing reliance on imported supplies. Implementation of Desalination projects may also support several beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to, industrial service supply, and municipal and domestic water supply. Interregional Effects Using Desalination to meet local water demand could improve short-term drought resistance and decrease drought effects in source watersheds. However, the increase in energy use and associated increase in air and greenhouse gas emissions associated with desalination could contribute to impacts on the regional and global climate. 7.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement There are many strategies to protect and improve surface and groundwater water quality, ranging from pollutant source control measures to active treatment technologies. Four methods are discussed below. 7.4.1 Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities projects include projects that would build or upgrade water or wastewater treatment plants and/or technology. Examples of Water/Wastewater Treatment Facilities projects included in the IRWMP include pretreatment facilities to treat water obtained from regional transfers and interties. Some of these projects include use of renewable energy. Wastewater treatment plant aeration basin. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-15 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Water and Wastewater Treatment facilities require energy for treatment processes and, as a result, new or reconstructed facilities could increase energy use and associated air and greenhouse gas emissions. Wastewater treatment facilities often result in land use conflicts due to the potential for air quality, noise, odor, and visual effects impacts on adjacent land uses. Changes in discharge patterns may affect downstream hydrology and water quality, resulting in impacts to aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Potential Benefits Water and Wastewater Treatment projects protect and improve surface water and groundwater quality, which benefits both human and ecosystem health. Improved water quality benefits contact and non-contact recreational water activities such as fishing, swimming and boating. Improved water quality also protects riparian and aquatic habitats which often support rare, threatened and endangered species. Implementation of new water treatment processes supports the ability to meet drinking water standards and wastewater effluent requirements. New and upgraded treatment facilities are generally more energy efficient than older facilities and therefore may reduce energy use and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of Water and Wastewater Treatment projects may also support beneficial water uses defined in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to industrial service supply, and municipal and domestic water supply. Interregional Effects Reducing air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions through the implementation of new, energy efficient treatment technologies provides regional, interregional and global benefits. As described above under Water Reuse, modifying and improving wastewater treatment facilities to support recycled water production reduces the need for water imports and improves drought preparedness. Improvements to wastewater treatment facilities in other regions can provide water quality benefits to the Bay Area region and vice versa. Improvements to pretreatment processes could supp ort use of raw water from varying sources, thereby increasing treatment flexibility, supporting regional transfers, expanding existing water distribution infrastructure and encouraging interties between agencies. 7.4.2 Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management includes both urban and agricultural projects aimed at reducing runoff and improving water quality through the implementation of site design, source control and treatment control best management practices. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects could range from end-of-pipe capital improvements on existing stormwater systems, to development of a regional approach for reducing pollution in urban or agricultural runoff. Examples of Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects currently included in the IRWMP include efforts to reduce trash in urban waterways, efforts to reduce and control agricultural runoff, and efforts to install exclusion fencing to protect riparian areas from livestock. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-16 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Impacts resulting from implementation of Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects are highly varied depending on the nature of the management approaches that are employed. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects may have impacts associated with facility siting, since they would typically be near a riparian area that could impact surface water and water quality, and could also affect local flooding due to slowing and filtering of runoff. Implementation of agricultural runoff BMPs, such as silt fencing along riparian buffers could reduce land available for agriculture and affect terrestrial animal migration patterns near fenced stream corridors. With modified stream flows, aquatic resources could also be affected by runoff management. Potential Benefits Non-point source pollution is a leading source of water quality degradation and contributes largely to the degraded health of lakes, streams, San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, benefits resulting from implementation of Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management projects would directly benefit surface and groundwater water quality and would support nearly all beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, including provision of water for aquatic habitats and the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management also reduces stormwater runoff through improved infiltration, sometimes through the restoration of wetlands and can reduce the risk of local flooding. Agricultural runoff management can improve groundwater quality and prevent nutrient loading in receiving waters which in turn could reduce related GHG emissions. Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management improves water quality for wildlife, aquatic species, water contact recreation, and human consumption. Cleaner water would promote community stewardship and would yield benefits to all communities. Interregional Effects Pollution Prevention and Runoff Management programs in upstream regions such as Sacramento and other parts of the Central Valley would improve water quality flowing into San Francisco Bay. Within the Bay Area urban runoff pollutants could be reduced and water quality would be improved before entering marine environments of the Pacific Ocean. 7.4.3 Aquifer Remediation Aquifer Remediation projects include projects that identify and clean contaminated groundwater through long-term groundwater injection, treatment processes and flow monitoring. There are salinity reduction projects underway in Alameda County (as discussed in the next section), however at this time, the IRWMP does not include any Aquifer Remediation projects. Pollution prevention activities can benefit aquatic species such as steelhead trout. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-17 Impacts and Benefits Potential Impacts Aquifer Remediation projects could have impacts associated with long-term energy use for filtration and pumping, causing air and greenhouse gas emissions. Discharges from Aquifer Remediation projects, if left untreated, could affect local water quality in surface waters and other groundwater basins. Clean up activities may require use of hazardous materials to counteract poor groundwater chemistry. Potential Benefits Aquifer Remediation projects include removal of contamination from otherwise usable groundwater storage areas. Once clean, these aquifers can be recharged and returned to beneficial use, including provision of additional safe water and groundwater storage capacity that could aid in diversifying the regional water management portfolio. Aquifer Remediation projects also reduce drinking water treatment costs and protect human and environmental health. Interregional Effects Aquifer Remediation projects improve groundwater quality in selected aquifers and could allow for broader use of groundwater when remediation is complete. Maximizing use and quality of available groundwater storage enables regions to better manage water supplies and improve drought resistance. In some cases this may reduce the need for imported water from other regions, in other cases additional storage could allow for transfer of water at more ecologically opportune times to avoid environmental impacts associated with supply diversion and conveyance. 7.4.4 Salt and Salinity Management Salt and Salinity Management projects include use of membrane or distillation treatment to reduce salinity loads in wastewater or brackish or briny water sources, use of groundwater demineralization techniques to mitigate salt loading to groundwater basins and restoration of areas impacted by high salinity resulting from use of Delta imports or industrial operations and discharges. Examples of Salt and Salinity Management projects included in the IRWMP include expansion of an advanced recycled water purification center to manage salinity in non-potable recycled water. Several Bay Area groundwater management programs were formed in part to address salt and salinity management issues. Potential Impacts Impacts of Salt and Salinity Management projects, such as groundwater demineralization efforts, include disposal of the waste brine, which could affect aquatic habitat as well as surface and groundwater water quality. Treatment facilities required for these projects range in size from individual wellhead treatment units to larger centralized water treatment facilities; development of these facilities would result in both construction-related and footprint impacts affecting developed land use or open space/natural resources, depending on site location. Long-term water treatment requires energy and would result in air pollutant and GHG emissions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-18 Impacts and Benefits Potential Benefits The benefits of implementing Salt and Salinity Management projects include improved groundwater quality in areas where demineralization techniques are employed. Some imported and recycled water is high in salts and salinity reduction benefits water purveyors via lower treatment costs. Agriculture would benefit with higher crop yields, and could potentially create a stronger and more diversified market for available recycled water. Interregional Effects Salt and Salinity Management in Delta watersheds would improve water quality in downstream receiving waters including San Francisco Bay and would improve imported water quality. Some coastal groundwater basins have shown significant improvements with salinity management efforts to prevent sea water intrusion. 7.5 Watershed Management Watershed Management includes resource stewardship activities to benefit the watershed, such as sediment management, erosion control on roads and trails, stream crossing improvements (bridges and fish passage projects) and other land management projects such as the restoration of sloughs, wetlands or shorelines. Watershed planning may also include evaluating, modeling and monitoring these activities, and is discussed below. Examples of Watershed Management in the IRWMP include implementation of high priority projects in Pilarcitos Watershed of San Mateo County, as well as improvements in the Napa, Sonoma, Petaluma, Corte Madera, Lagunitas, Mill Valley, Berkeley (five creeks), San Francisquito Creek and other watersheds. Potential Impacts The impacts of W atershed Management projects include short-term construction impacts, such as those associated with erosion control projects that are site specific in nature. Occasionally there are larger watershed-scale programs, such as sediment TMDL programs (in Napa and Sonoma Counties) or restoration projects which are designed for long-term watershed improvement by reducing impacts caused by previous land use and development patterns. These larger scale programs could cause impacts to existing land use and to recreational use of streamside trails and possibly water dependent recreation uses. Streamside improvements could impact surface waters and water quality of aquatic habitats while broader watershed programs could also affect upland terrestrial habitats. Potential Benefits The benefits of Watershed Management include diversification of upland forest and rangeland habitat, improved soil structure, reduced erosion, and retention of water for aquifer recharge. Public access in Bay Area uplands and watershed lands continues to provide recreation and health benefits to the entire Bay Area population. There are many opportunities in urban watersheds to incorporate LID, fish passage, flood control, public access, habitat and vegetation management projects into the urban fabric to further improve urban riparian corridors with multiple benefits for stormwater quality and flood control. At the Bay margins are shorelines, levees, creek mouths, fresh water and tidal marshes that could be managed as a unit to provide 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-19 Impacts and Benefits habitat diversity and respond to increased flooding from the uplands while adapting to higher tidal surges and SLR generated by climate change. Watershed Management provides synchronization between related projects to provide multi-beneficial improvements for flood control, habitat diversity, and public access benefits. Interregional Effects Watershed Management efforts could improve water quality and fish habitat to ultimately support fishery recovery efforts targeting steelhead and salmon in the Bay-Delta system, which, in turn would benefit other coastal regions. 7.6 Habitat Protection, Improvement and Restoration This category is divided into two sections. Habitat Protection and Improvement applies to acquisition and protection of existing high quality habitats for the characteristics they possess, such as biological diversity or preservation of important ecosystem services. Habitat Restoration applies to activities to restore degraded natural areas and habitats that would benefit from focused efforts to improve selected ecosystem services, such as creation of wetlands to improve water quality. 7.6.1 Habitat Protection and Improvement Habitat Protection and Improvement projects include protection of high quality habitats and environmental resources. Examples of Habitat Protection and Improvement projects included in the IRWMP include land acquisition, resource management and mitigation banking. Many of the projects involve work within or adjacent to sensitive habitats such as streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and marine environments. Habitat protection is often integral to the success of with projects focusing on water quantity and quality. Potential Impacts Impacts related to implementation of Habitat Protection and Improvement projects often include construction related impacts, changes in or loss of sensitive habitat areas due to habitat conversion, changes to the hydrologic makeup of a site including effects to surface water, groundwater, and water quality, and effects on land use planning, including floodway protection and effects on agricultural land availability and local land values. In general, projects involving work within or adjacent to sensitive habitats would incur certain unavoidable impacts such as temporary disturbance to native species in sensitive aquatic and terrestrial habitats, temporary dewatering and disturbance of soils and bottom sediments. With disturbance of riparian soils also comes the possibility of disturbing cultural resources which are likely to be near streams and are of particular importance to local Native American Tribes. Protection of watershed lands or specific resource areas could result in modifications of available space for other uses including development and lands for public recreation. Potential Benefits Benefits of Habitat Protection and Improvement projects include retention of existing high quality biological habitats that would typically support hydrologic and geomorphic functions, such as intact riparian corridors and floodplains. Benefits of such projects may include retention of 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-20 Impacts and Benefits improvements to flow conveyance, maintenance of channel and bed form, sediment transport and deposition, and filtration of stormwater pollutants. In agricultural areas, protection of riparian habitats can prevent nutrient loading in downstream waters and improve stormwater infiltration. Protection and improvement of tidal wetlands can improve shoreline resilience to sea level rise and can prevent substantial greenhouse gas emissions from large carbon stores associated with shoreline disturbance of tidal marshes and/or lowland agriculture that leads to land subsidence. Protected habitats may include areas for rare, threatened or endangered species, which on San Francisco Bay shorelines include California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. Mitigation banks extend these benefits to preserve large high quality habitats to mitigate for habitat losses in other areas. Protected areas provide cover, nesting, and forage areas; improvement to soil quality; increase in the diversity of native vegetation and habitat structure; and the protection or improvement of wildlife corridors. Increase of Tribal cultural resources and awareness is an additional potential benefit to watershed management. The value of Indigenous stewardship and management practices informed by traditional management and Traditional Ecological Knowledge allows for Indigenous Peoples to take care of watershed, soil, forest and grassland, and the replanting of Native plants and vegetation. These methods help the improvement of cultural resources and ensure cultural continuance by teaching the next generation to maintain the traditional ties that Indigenous Peoples have to their heritage and stewardship responsibilities. Interregional Effects Habitat Protection and Improvement is particularly beneficial on an interregional scale when animal migration corridors can be preserved or improved. As climate change modifies habitats both animals and plants will migrate in search of suitable habitats and corridors to facilitate that migration will become increasingly important. 7.6.2 Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation projects include restoration of important biological habitats, and specifically wetlands because of their species diversity and importance to surface water management. Examples of Habitat Restoration projects included in the IRWMP include restoration of former industrial salt ponds to provide enhanced wetlands habitat, public access and recreational opportunities, fish passage and aquatic habitat restoration projects, creek daylighting, and multiple stream restoration projects. Potential Impacts Potential impacts resulting from Ecosystem Restoration are similar to those impacts described above for Habitat Protection and Improvement projects. Long-term impacts for Ecosystem Restoration however may also include changes in the distribution of aquatic and riparian vegetation species, depending upon the restoration targets. Changes in the physical characteristics of instream and floodplain habitats can lead to associated changes in local species composition and diversity, as the new conditions may favor a different suite of species. Riparian habitat restoration projects often require wider floodplains which could encroach upon 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-21 Impacts and Benefits existing adjacent land uses including agricultural lands. Removal of levees during salt pond restoration could result in modified tidal influence, possibly affecting local flood control facilities. Potential Benefits Benefits of Habitat Restoration and Wetland Creation may include expansion of critical habitats for local rare, threatened or endangered species such as Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Red legged Frog, and California Tiger Salamander. Habitat quality is often an indicator of watershed health and improvement of these habitats also tends to benefit natural physical processes, such as creek migration or floodplain recruitment. Expansion of riparian or wetland habitats can slow or delay peak flood flows, reduce localized flooding, and improve stormwater management and overall water quality which indirectly provide public health and safety benefits. Improvements to local ecosystems may result in enhancements to several beneficial water uses as defined by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan including, but not limited to: freshwater habitat, estuarine habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish migration, and fish spawning. Habitat restoration projects may also include provisions for recreation, groundwater recharge, and water quality. Restoration of tidal wetlands would provide resilience to storm surges and sea level rise, thereby enhancing and protecting human development. Stream restoration projects can improve access to historic salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitats (improving habitat for salmonids can also contribute to restoring cultural practices as Tribal communities regain opportunities to engage with these resources); improve conditions for movement by juveniles; increase the diversity of benthic taxa; and lower water temperature along the bank. Benefits may also extend to improved water supply quality and reliability. Improved water quality ensures the health and well being of terrestrial and aquatic species by providing clean water for all stages of the lifecycle. Interregional Effects Habitat Protection, Improvement and Restoration projects can improve the resilience of shoreline and upland ecosystems to withstand the effects of climate change. Upland ecosystems are subject to changes in temperature and soil moisture, which in turn could affect environmental water demands. Restoration projects that anticipate these effects and can help shoreline and upland ecosystems adapt to changing environmental conditions would have interregional benefits. An example of a fish ladder installed as to aid fish passage on a Bay Area stream. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-22 Impacts and Benefits 7.7 Flood and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management Flood Hazard Management and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management are separate discussions since multi-objective flood management projects in the upland and urbanized settings of the Bay Area are quite different from shoreline conditions at the interface of fluvial and tidal environments. Shorelines are affected by sea level rise, while urban conditions present their own set of special circumstances, yet both are closely related, as sea level rise will increasingly affect flood management in the Bay Area. 7.7.1 Flood Management Facilities, Floodplain Protection Flood Management Facilities and Floodplain Protection projects may include construction of new or improved floodwater conveyance, detention and retention facilities as well as restoration of floodplains to reduce peak flows. Examples of Flood Management Facilities and Floodplain Protection projects included in the IRWMP include a regional effort to facilitate identification of flood protection projects in the Bay Area Region as well as several projects in the North Bay and East Bay that include floodplain and habitat restoration, erosion control, and construction of storage basins to provide floodwater detention and increased infiltration. Potential Impacts Potential impacts resulting from implementation of Flood Management and Floodplain Protection projects could include impacts to surface waters, groundwater and water quality of the subject stream channel. Multi-objective approaches to flood control tend to emphasize low impact development techniques, naturalized channel systems and restoration of floodplain connectivity. Multi-objective approaches to flood management often require more land area and an expanded footprint to accommodate broader floodplains, detention basins and possibly trails as compared to traditional flood control techniques. These projects may result in impacts to cultural resources from disturbing soils and land use compatibility issues. In floodways constrained by existing development land use compatibility may require installation of “harder” flood management infrastructure that could impact existing, and often constrained, riparian and aquatic habitat zones. Floodplain restoration may result in habitat conversion that could impact aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Operation of these projects may result in changes in the frequency, duration, and magnitude of storm flows and flooding, as well as changes in the timing/seasonality of flows. Such hydrologic effects may potentially decrease the health and vigor of established floodplain vegetation, and eventually alter the distribution of floodplain habitats. Potential Benefits Potential benefits realized through implementation of Flood Management and Floodplain Protection projects include improved public safety through the management of stream flow volumes and peak flood events. Reduction of peak flows protects downstream properties and regional infrastructure from flood damage. Retention of floodwaters over aquifer recharge areas maximizes infiltration into the groundwater basin for water to be available for later use. This practice diversifies the local water portfolio and can reduce use of imported water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-23 Impacts and Benefits Multi-objective approaches to flood management can help to minimize or reverse past impacts to environmental resources (e.g., hydrology, sediment transport, and water quality, channel aesthetics,) caused by traditional approaches to flood control such as stream channelization and bank hardening. Increased use of floodplains for flood water storage and retention allows for overbank flows to spread out along the floodplain, providing habitat and ground water recharge benefits. Restoration of natural flooding events in stream systems helps to restore natural disturbance cycles, increasing species diversity and improving stream channel structure. Restoring floodplain connectivity can also lead to improved water quality by increasing opportunities for biofiltration. The benefits of integrated flood control projects include reduced risk of flooding, minimized vulnerability to sea level rise, improved carbon sequestration (through minimization of subsidence and minimization of construction within wetlands and tidal marshes), and protection or restoration of habitats that could promote recovery of threatened and endangered species. With public access these projects could also improve recreation opportunities and promote community education and stewardship. Interregional Effects Integrated Flood Management Facilities and Floodplain Protection projects begin within the region and end at the Bay or the coastal shoreline, and therefore have little environmental effect on other upland regions. The Pacific Ocean however will exert significant influence on flood management in all sections of coastal California, including the Bay Area and the Delta. Integrated projects, particularly those near the shoreline and at the mouths of streams will become increasingly important to manage or adapt to changing flood level baselines, undersized levees, modified habitat zones and changing shoreline conditions. Multi-objective approaches to flood management aim to reduce the impacts of traditional channelized flood control infrastructure (above) by restoring creeks to provide both flood control and habitat benefits (below). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-24 Impacts and Benefits 7.7.2 Sea Level Rise (SLR) Hazard Management SLR Hazard Management projects include evaluation of SLR exposure, development of SLR adaptation and management strategies and development of structural or natural flood control facilities. Examples of SLR Hazard Management projects included in the IRWMP include regional and local efforts to identify inundation areas and develop SLR adaptation strategies including habitat management, land use planning, managed retreat, engineered shoreline protection and natural shoreline treatment alternatives. Potential Impacts Potential impacts resulting from implementation of SLR Hazard Management projects would generally include impacts to surface water, groundwater, water quality and biological resources which typically would be within sensitive shoreline habitat zones. Control and mitigation of impacts within these sensitive zones would necessarily become part of proposed SLR projects. Projects in this category could also involve land use changes such as restoring bay-front habitats to form a buffer against tidal flooding, restricting land uses in waterfront zones, accommodating SLR with larger bridges and modified levees where needed, and employing managed retreat strategies to accommodate SLR. These strategies may result in land use conversion or land use compatibility issues (e.g., restricted development in waterfront areas, conversion of developed areas to habitat, impacts to agricultural lands). Habitat restoration may result in habitat conversion that could impact aquatic and terrestrial biological resources as well as other impacts described above in sections 7.6 Habitat Protection and Restoration. Potential Benefits Potential benefits realized through implementation of SLR Hazard Management projects include the protection of public safety through development and implementation of multiple SLR adaptation strategies. Construction of waterfront wetland buffers and implementation of land use restrictions in some areas subject to increased flooding and exposure to higher tidal surges could allow for slow accretion of sediments in tidal marshes to help protect existing infrastructure and reduce damage from SLR. Expanded or restored freshwater and tidal marshes in these buffers could also expand the tidal prism and help to lower flood elevations in certain areas. Use of recycled water to irrigate freshwater wetlands upland of tidal marshes would increase the biological diversity of San Francisco Bay shorelines and would also reduce wastewater discharges into the Bay. Maximizing fresh water recharge into low lying aquifers could also slow increases in groundwater salinity associated with SLR. Restoration of waterfront wetlands and marshes could produce more resilient aquatic and terrestrial habitats to protect existing human development and may also provide increased public access and opportunities for recreation. Benefits of habitat restoration and public access activities are further described under sections 7.6 Habitat Protection and Restoration and 7.8 Public Access, Recreation and Use. Interregional Effects Implementation of SLR projects in the Bay Area could benefit regionally important infrastructure such wastewater treatment plants, by providing critical flood protection. SLR projects that 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-25 Impacts and Benefits include green infrastructure or habitat restoration could support regional efforts to restore sensitive bayland habitats needed to support healthy communities of fish and wildlife in the Bay Area. In addition, SLR projects involving restoration of natural shoreline areas could provide water-related recreational opportunities for the greater Bay Area (e.g., hiking, boating, wildlife observation etc.) 7.8 Public Access, Recreation and Use Public Access, Recreation and Use projects include efforts to increase opportunities for public access to natural areas through creation or expansion of watershed lands, natural parks, trails and specific facilities for water oriented recreation. These types of facilities are often included as components of larger multi-benefit water management and flood control projects that also include habitat restoration and preservation. The IRWMP currently includes a beach restoration project in San Francisco Bay and conversion of some waterfront recreation facilities to accommodate landside access to the San Francisco Bay Water Trail. Many other multiple benefit projects include components aimed at increasing opportunities for public access and recreation including improved trails and interpretive signage. Potential Impacts Impacts resulting from implementation of Public Access, Recreation and Use projects could include temporary impacts to water quality and biological resources, and possible discovery of cultural resources during construction phases. Depending on the location and availability of visitor services, operation of Public Access, Recreation and Use projects may also cause longer term impacts to surrounding land uses due to recreation attracting additional people to the resource, potentially impacting neighborhoods, or possibly surrounding agriculture, as well as impacts to surface water and water quality (e.g., through possible increased litter, erosion, etc.) and increased disturbance to aquatic and terrestrial biological resources. Recreation and Public Access projects are often included as a component of Habitat Protection, Enhancement and Creation and Flood and SLR Hazard Management projects and could also result in similar impacts and benefits as described above in sections 7.6 Habitat Protection and Restoration and 7.7 Flood and Sea Level Rise Hazard Management. Potential Benefits Development of Public Access, Recreation and Use projects provide multiple health benefits for local and regional populations. Restoration of natural areas and creation of new trails and shoreline activities provides expanded recreation opportunities, encouraging people get out-of- doors to walk, hike and exercise. Increased use of water-based recreational facilities can also 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-26 Impacts and Benefits provide economic benefits to the local community. Spending more time in local or regional parks may provide education opportunities through docent-guided tours or interpretive signage or direct observation. Education and connection to the natural environment may increase social investment in protection of local natural resources. Appropriate site selection and design of new open spaces may also provide or improve habitat or movement corridors to help sustain healthy populations of wildlife. Associated site improvements and habitat restoration may reduce pollutant loading, such as sediment from eroded stream banks. Proper incorporation of visitor facilities helps to realize human benefits while reducing impacts associated with human use. Interregional Effects There are several interregional trails within the Bay Area that connect to neighboring regions. The statewide Coastal Trail with connections to the North Coast and Central Coast is nearly complete in the Bay Area. The newly developed San Francisco Bay Water Trail could provide eastern connections to the Delta. The Bay Area Ridge Trail and the Bay Trail stay within the Bay Area, and provide outdoor recreation opportunities to all Californians (and world travelers) that chose to participate. Several IRWMP projects are proposed along these routes and would help to develop portions of, or connectors to these trails as well as other recreation opportunities. 7.9 Planning, Modeling and Monitoring Tools Planning, Modeling and Monitoring provides important tools for science based water resource and watershed management decisions. General project types in this program include technical data collection, watershed evaluations, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling and development of decision support systems. Examples of these project types included in the IRWMP include historic ecology baselines, technical mapping, effects of lea level rise on hydrologic baselines, decision support systems for future land use modeling (such as for sea level rise or floodplain management), mapping for improved habitat management in a changing climate and improved precipitation prediction and recording. Potential Impacts Planning, Modeling and Monitoring projects are generally strategic in nature or involve data collection and analysis using various software programs and have few, if any, physical impacts. A new streamside trail in Alameda County provides access to natural lands and serves as an important transportation link for bicyclists. Photo: Zone 7 Water Agency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-27 Impacts and Benefits Planning, modeling and monitoring projects tend to focus on water and resource management strategies designed to improve overall watershed health. Impacts may result from field access and observations but would be minimal and temporary. Possible impacts resulting from implementing recommendations would be separate from the effects of any planning, modeling or monitoring process, and would be evaluated on a project by project basis prior to implementation. Potential Benefits Planning, Modeling and Monitoring do not in themselves generate physical benefits, however they do inform management actions and help accrue benefits through improved understanding of environmental issues, constraints and opportunities and/or the development of collaborative planning strategies regarding water management. Planning projects provide means for agencies and organizations to understand water and environmental management tradeoffs, to prioritize solutions based on chosen criteria or objectives, and to take measured actions to achieve intended results. These planning processes facilitate efficient selection and integration of solutions to create projects that maximize societal and environmental benefits that respond to Statewide Common Goals as addressed in Table 7-5 in the introduction of this chapter. Interregional Effects Planning, Modeling and Monitoring can have multiple interregional benefits from the communication that supports them and from the sharing of information derived from these planning efforts. 7.10 Education, Outreach and Incentives Education, Outreach and Incentives include a variety of efforts to provide the public with information regarding water-related issues and to involve communities in reducing water demand and improving stewardship of water resources. Examples of these project types included in the IRWMP include providing training to residents regarding low water use landscaping, offering rebates for water efficient plumbing fixtures, irrigation and landscaping retrofits, providing opportunities for students to participate in watershed restoration projects, implementing classroom education programs regarding stormwater quality and developing LID demonstration projects at local schools. Potential Impacts Education, Outreach and Incentive programs are not likely to result in physical impacts. Projects that include on-the-ground actions such as habitat restoration or installation of low impact Fish monitoring in Napa County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-28 Impacts and Benefits development features may result in temporary construction and footprint related impacts, as discussed in Sections 7.6 and 7.7. Potential Benefits Education, Outreach and Incentive programs teach and encourage new social habits that can encourage water awareness in daily decisions to reduce consumption and encourage watershed health. Education programs have shown significant results in stretching scarce water supplies and have been essential components of conservation and overall demand management programs. Benefits derived from education, outreach and incentives programs also may support community stewardship and social investment in watershed health. Direct benefits of education based projects may lead to improvement in regional water quality as individual actions compound to implement broader goals to reduce water use, and minimize pollution. Direct benefits of habitat restoration and other volunteer activities include improvements to local aquatic and riparian habitats and improved water quality. Interregional Effects There are multiple interregional benefits of Education, Outreach and Incentive programs; most notable is a general statewide reduction of water consumption benefitting virtually all aspects of water management. Few other strategies can claim such success. Education and outreach to the public will continue to be important in managing supply demand and increasing awareness of climatic effects on water supplies and personal adaptation strategies. 7.11 Environmental Justice and Effects on Disadvantaged Communities Environmental justice is a concept that looks at the distribution of environmental benefits (e.g., clean air, water and open space) and burdens (e.g., pollution, noise, toxic hazards) among communities. Environmental justice often applies to disadvantaged communities (DACs) (communities with a Median Household Income of less than 80 percent of the State Median Household Income) that have been affected by adverse health or environmental impacts linked to programs, policies, or activities that disproportionately affect those neighborhoods. See Section 2.2.12 for a more detailed discussion of environmental justice and DACs. The 2012 Guidelines require identification and consideration of water-related needs of disadvantaged communities and evaluation of the impacts and benefits of IRWMP implementation on these communities. Water-wise gardening is just one of many ways to involve the local community in water conservation. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-29 Impacts and Benefits 7.11.1 DACs in the Bay Area Region Figures 2-15 and 2-16, in Chapter 2, show the location of DACs/Tribes and minority populations in the Bay Area region. DACs/Tribes tend to be located in urban areas at the lower ends of watersheds. Due to their location, these communities may also bear the environmental burden of proximity to infrastructure such as wastewater treatment plants, which provide benefits to the broader community, but can negatively affect those communities that are closer to the direct impacts of such facilities (such as noise, odors, etc.). In some instances, Tribes may not be connected to water systems, which can lead to unreliable sources of water and/or drinkable water. Figure 2-17, shows the location of wastewater treatment facilities in relation to DACs/Tribes in the Bay Area Region. 7.11.2 Development and Identification of DAC Projects A priority for the IRWMP has been to include DACs in consideration of related water resource projects. To encourage inclusion of DAC related projects, targeted outreach was provided to DAC project proponents and project scoring included consideration of a project’s ability to provide DAC benefits. Section 14.6 in Chapter 14, Stakeholder Engagement, provides more detail on the steps taken to involve DACs in the IRWMP process. 7.11.3 Current Projects in DACs The IRWMP currently includes 123 projects that were identified by project proponents as providing DAC benefits. Six of these projects were identified during the IRWMP project review process as providing environmental justice benefits. A majority (approximately 52 percent) of these projects are located in the East Bay Subregion. Approximately 20 percent of the DAC projects are located in the North Bay Subregion, while the South and West Bay Subregions contain less than 10 percent each. Approximately 20 percent of DAC projects are regional projects or are located in more than one Subregion. A majority of projects identified as providing DAC benefits are aimed at implementing low impact design features to control stormwater, improving levees and other flood control facilities, developing climate change adaptation strategies, restoring habitat or providing education and outreach to involve the community (including DACs) in watershed stewardship and protection efforts. In addition, a considerable number of wastewater treatment and recycled water projects were identified during the review process as providing DAC benefits. Examples of projects that would provide environmental justice and DAC benefits include:  Retrofit streets in DACs with low impact development features to control stormwater  Conduct outreach to involve DAC communities in watershed stewardship activities  Install stormwater retention and groundwater recharge facilities to improve flood protection  Fund trash capture infrastructure and tracking tools for DACs  Create seasonal wetlands to provide habitat and flood control benefits to a DAC 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-30 Impacts and Benefits  Improve water supply reliability through the development of local groundwater and recycled water supplies  Restoring Native American cultural resources and accessibility for Tribal cultural continuance 7.11.4 Potential Effects of IRWMP Implementation on DACs A majority of impacts resulting from implementation of DAC projects would likely consist of short-term impacts related to construction activities at specific sites. In some cases, implementation of projects that involve construction of new facilities (i.e., recycled water or wastewater treatment plants) could result in impacts such as altered visual character, increased noise or increased air emissions from facility operations. However, most of these projects are aimed at upgrading outdated facilities, and are expected to reduce negative environmental effects of facility operation. Potential Benefits Potential benefits of projects in DACs include improved water quality and reliability, improved flood protection, increased protection from risks associated with climate change, increased awareness regarding water related issues, social investment in watershed health, and increased access to open space and water oriented recreational opportunities. Potential benefits from implementation of wastewater treatment and recycled water projects are the same for disadvantaged communities as they are for other communities in the Bay Area and include reduced wastewater discharge, improved effluent quality, improved water supply reliability and drought protection. 7.12 Effects on Native American Tribal Communities There are several Tribes with traditional territories in the San Francisco Bay Area whose territories overlap with adjacent IRWM regions including Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of Stewarts Point Rancheria, Federated Villages of Lisjan, Him-R^n , the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Association of Ramaytush. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band's traditional territories extend into the southern portion of the SF Bay IRWM region and into the adjacent Santa Cruz and Pajaro River Watershed IRWM regions. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria are a federally recognized Tribe in the North Bay Area with designated territories in Marin County and southern Sonoma County. The Tribes has expressed concern about potential impacts to cultural resources from project activities. The Tribe participated with the Sonoma CWA in development of their Stream Maintenance Program, which identifies soil disturbing activities as the primary source of impacts to cultural sites and identify mitigation measures to protect those sites near streams. Federated Indians Graton Rancheria is also concerned about sea level rise and are investigating how it affects cultural sites, which include Angel Island and the San Rafael islands, among many other coastal areas. Tidal marsh restoration has been identified as an adaptation strategy in response to sea level rise. Creek mouths are of particular interest because of the interchange between tidal and fluvial systems, and these locations are typically where artifacts and cultural sites may be located. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 7-31 Impacts and Benefits The traditional territories of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe includes the following counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, most of Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa and portions of Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano and San Joaquin. The Lytton Rancheria Tribe operates the San Pablo Lytton Casino in the East Bay even though it is outside of their territory, which is north of Santa Rosa, and consequently outside of the Bay Area region. Potential Benefits The main potential benefit for the inclusion of Tribes in the Bay Area IRWM is increased awareness of regional activities for Tribal communities. Allowing Tribes to be a part of the decision-making process from the start rather than towards the end of conversations will prove to make a difference in meaningful relationship-building between governments. Projects that improved water quality and reliability, improved flood protection, increased protection from risks associated with climate change, increased awareness regarding water-related issues, social investment in watershed health, and increased access to open space and water-oriented recreational opportunities are some of the traditional ecological knowledges that Tribes will be more familiar with, since they have been stewarding these lands for hundreds of years. Like all other communities of the Bay Area, Tribes will benefit from the implementation of wastewater treatment and recycled water projects, reduced wastewater discharge, improved effluent quality, improved water supply reliability, and drought protection. 7.13 References BACWA Water Survey Results, November 2011. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), State Water Resources Control Board, California Bay-Delta Authority, California Energy Commission, California Department of Public Health, California Public Utilities Commission, California Air Resources Board, 2010. 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, February 2010. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Performance and Monitoring Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i List of Figures............................................................................................................................... i Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring .................................................... 8-1 8.1 Overview of Bay Area IRWMP Implementation Approach ................. 8-1 8.2 Institutional Structure and Responsibilities ........................................ 8-2 8.2.1 Role of the CC........................................................................ 8-2 8.2.2 Project Proponents’ Roles and Responsibilities...................... 8-4 8.3 Monitoring Performance .................................................................... 8-5 8.3.1 Monitoring Plan Performance ................................................. 8-5 8.3.2 Monitoring Project Performance ........................................... 8-13 8.4 Mechanism for Adapting Project Operations ................................... 8-23 List of Tables Table 8-1: Existing Monitoring Efforts ..................................................................................... 8-7 Table 8-2: Sample Project Performance Measures and Monitoring Strategies ..................... 8-15 List of Figures Figure 8-1: Adaptive Management Cycle .............................................................................. 8-23 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-1 Performance and Monitoring Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring The Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a dynamic document and its success is related to how well its goals and objectives are accomplished, at both the Plan and project levels. This chapter presents the approach to implementing the IRWMP: the institutional structure and parties responsible for plan implementation and monitoring, ongoing data management, and how performance data will be used to improve future versions of the Plan. The intent is to ensure:  Progress is being made towards meeting the objectives in the Plan.  Projects listed in the Plan are being implemented  Projects are monitored to comply with all applicable rules, laws, and permit requirements. IRWMP objectives and regional priorities will continue to be reviewed for relevance and modified as needed to ensure the Plan reflects changing regional needs and continues to be effective. Additionally, the list of projects will be reviewed and evaluated every five years, or as needed, to ensure that Plan objectives will be met, that the Plan projects offer the greatest benefit possible and that the list of Plan projects continues to address IRWMP objectives as well as state and regional priorities. This ongoing review and update will allow the plan to evolve in response to changing conditions and as better data is developed. IRWMP revisions will result in: (1) An updated evaluation of information and data related to watershed conditions (2) An evaluation of projects/actions and their contribution to meeting IRWMP objectives (3) Revised objectives, strategies, and projects based on new conditions and past project successes 8.1 Overview of Bay Area IRWMP Implementation Approach Participants are planning to adopt the IRWMP by the end of 2019. Following adoption, the Plan will be implemented through execution of projects by their respective project proponents. Progress toward attaining the regional goals and objectives will be reviewed periodically and additional work will be completed on the IRWMP as needed through an adaptive management framework. IRWMP updates and subsequent re-adoption by the parties responsible for development and implementation of the Plan will occur as appropriate in response to significant material change to the IRWMP or events such as:  Significant change in environmental and/or economic conditions as defined by the Coordinating Committee (CC) with input from the Stakeholders. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-2 Performance and Monitoring  The need, as determined by the CC with Stakeholder input, to revise or establish new regional objectives and/or strategies. 8.2 Institutional Structure and Responsibilities 8.2.1 Role of the CC The institutional structure for overseeing IRWMP development is the CC and the CC will continue to be responsible for the Bay Area IRWM planning and plan management. This body includes participation by agencies with a broad range of water management interests, including: water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, flood protection, stormwater management, watershed management, habitat protection and restoration, and land use planning. In addition, resource and regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), environmental groups, business groups, the public, and other interested parties serve in an advisory role. Responsibilities of the CC include overseeing the Plan development process, participating in and facilitating outreach activities, reviewing and directing assessment methodologies, and making day-to-day decisions necessary to guide IRWMP development and implementation. The roles and responsibilities of the various participants envisioned to carry out the broad purposes of the governance structure have been described in Chapter 1: Governance. Since development of the original plan, the CC has demonstrated the ability to:  Work together and reach consensus on key decision points, despite the large geographic scope of the Region, the diverse water resource management interests represented, and the short timeframe for Plan development;  Foster coordination, collaboration and communication across a diverse array of water resources management entities throughout the Region;  Provide a forum for involvement by resource agencies, environmental justice groups and other interested parties though targeted outreach efforts and public workshops throughout development of the Plan;  Develop and promote a unifying vision that reflects the water resources needs for the Bay Area Region, and guide the development of goals and objectives, integrated water management strategies, and priorities for the Bay Area Region;  Manage the entirety of the Plan development process including: contract compliance for the planning grant; management and oversight of a consultant team; web site development; development of a data management system (DMS); and the writing, editing, and production of the IRWMP; BAFPAA Conference, 2013 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-3 Performance and Monitoring  Encourage development of new coalitions and associations (ex: Bay Area Flood Protection Agency Association [BAFPAA] and Bay Area Watershed Network [BAWN]); and  Develop a process to identify and prioritize projects for grant submittal. Based on the accomplishments of the CC described above, this organizational structure, or an equivalent structure, will continue to serve as the decision-making and management body of the Plan. The role of the CC in implementing the IRWMP is described below. The level of effort in each area may depend on the amount of funding and staff resources available. 1. The CC will continue to follow the current structure for coordination and collaboration on implementation issues and provide focused leadership for implementing and updating the IRWMP. Through the ongoing meetings the CC will: a. Foster partnerships and facilitate participation by a broad range of water resource management stakeholders, including environmental justice groups, resource agencies, public agencies, environmental groups, and the general public. b. Provide a regional forum for cross-jurisdictional coordination. c. Oversee continued outreach and data dissemination to stakeholders. d. Provide decision-making authority for further development and/or implementation of the Plan. e. Define the process of implementation where coordination and collaboration are needed, including IRWMP performance tracking, monitoring and updating, and other mutually agreeable implementation activities. f. Periodically review the ongoing institutional structure and discuss whether improvements are needed and propose options for improvements to best serve IRWMP implementation needs effectively and meet the needs of the participating organizations. g. Review the information captured in the DMS. h. Oversee preparation of the state implementation grant applications. i. Review and update the project list as necessary 2. The CC will oversee maintenance of the DMS and provide links to regional and state data systems. The intent of the DMS is to ensure efficient use of available data, stakeholder access to data, and to ensure the data generated by IRWMP implementation activities can be integrated into existing state databases. For more information, see Chapter 9: Data Management. 3. The CC will survey proponents of all the projects identified in the Plan, which will include, both, projects that have been funded through the State grant process and those that have not. The annual or biannual surveys will explore project status, challenges and more and will reflect DWR reporting requirements for funded projects. The CC will identify a subcommittee who will create/review questions for the survey and direct the appropriate persons or consultants to administer the survey and collect results. The results will be presented to the CC and posted on the website. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-4 Performance and Monitoring 4. The CC will organize a biannual workshop that includes stakeholders, project proponents and the public, to engage a broader discussion of Plan and project implementation and provide a mechanism for dialogue between the parties. The workshop will also provide a forum to review regional efforts that overlap with BAIRWMP objectives. To the extent possible, other existing efforts, such as the State of the Estuary Conference or other regional water forums will be leveraged to enhance dialogue. 5. The CC will be responsible for monitoring progress toward meeting IRWMP objectives and monitoring project proponents’ progress in implementing projects. The CC will not be responsible for carrying out individual projects or programs in the IRWMP. In addition to the CC, the other subset of the Stakeholder Group critical for Plan implementation is the project proponent, as described below. 8.2.2 Project Proponents’ Roles and Responsibilities Project proponents are those IRWMP Stakeholder agencies or entities that have projects included in the Plan. Information on each of the IRWMP Projects and a summary list of all IRWMP Projects is maintained in a database at http://bairwmp.org/projects. It is envisioned that project proponents will have the roles and responsibilities described below (note that while all project proponents are encouraged to update the CC on their projects, these tasks are aimed at projects receiving funding). 1. Prepare project-specific monitoring plans prior to the start of project construction or implementation. 2. Conduct project-specific monitoring activities in accordance with the project-specific monitoring plan. 3. Seek opportunities to integrate, where possible and practical, IRWMP Projects in order to most-efficiently achieve the regional objectives. This process may be facilitated at regional, Subregional and/or Stakeholder meetings (including the biannual meetings initiated by the CC) as well as the project review process, but project proponents are also encouraged to seek these opportunities outside of that forum. 4. Provide updated project-specific information for the project database as necessary to reflect major project milestones (e.g., California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) completion, 100% design, construction underway, construction complete, and project completion). Although this particular role is not a requirement, it is in the best interest of the project proponents to keep the database current, so the most updated information is used to evaluate projects as outside funding sources become available. Furthermore, projects that have received funding will not be included in subsequent grant proposals unless updates have been completed. 5. Identify a point person for each project who will provide in a timely manner to the CC and/or consultant, requested information for projects selected for inclusion in a grant application. 6. Identify a point person for each project who will provide in a timely manner to the Grantee and/or consultant, requested information for projects selected for funding through a funding agency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-5 Performance and Monitoring 7. Comply with grant requirements, as identified by the funding agency, in order to qualify for grant funding. 8.3 Monitoring Performance IRWMP performance will be assessed at two levels: the project level and the Plan level. The Plan is framed around regional goals and objectives that all contribute to the overall vision of sustainable water resources management within the Bay Area (see Chapter 3: Objectives). Assessment of plan performance is necessary to evaluate how effectively the Plan is achieving these regional goals and objectives. Progress toward achieving these objectives or the need to modify priorities in response to regional changes will be assessed periodically, as availability of funding allows. The methods to be used in assessing Plan and project performance are described below. 8.3.1 Monitoring Plan Performance As described in previous sections, and assuming sufficient funding and resources are available, future work on IRWM planning and implementation will be completed with guidance from the IRWMP CC. The water management issues facing the Bay Area Region will change over time as environmental conditions change, and new regional interests and goals emerge. Recognizing that goals, objectives, and regional priorities evolve over time, the CC will review this Plan periodically, depending on changing conditions as future work is performed, and make adjustments as necessary to respond to changes throughout the Region. As part of this process, the CC will collect the information gathered by a variety of sources to assess IRWMP performance in contributing to regional goals, objectives, and IRWMP vision. As discussed in Chapter 3, the CC developed suggested measures to guide project proponents, to allow progress of the individual projects to be measured and to gauge the impact of the overall IRWMP. The CC will use the measures in Chapter 3 to evaluate progress toward achieving the IRWMP goals and objectives. It is anticipated that plan performance will be evaluated every two years, based on the information collected in the DMS, by assessments performed by project proponents at the project level, surveys, and other relevant documents and stakeholder input. In addition, there are a variety of ongoing monitoring programs currently in place in the Bay Area that the IRWMP CC may leverage to support the assessment of plan performance. Table 8-8 lists several of the existing Bay Area monitoring programs that the CC may elect to use in support of its assessment of progress toward the IRWMP regional goals as future work is completed. Table 8-8 does not represent a comprehensive listing of water resources monitoring programs throughout the Region. Recognizing that the status of IRWMP project implementation will SFEI Sediment Study 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-6 Performance and Monitoring evolve with Plan implementation and the type of monitoring best suited for assessing Plan performance will change accordingly. The CC will evaluate the utility of various ongoing monitoring efforts for assessing Plan performance over time. It is anticipated that the CC will use a subset of the programs presented in Table 8-8 in conjunction with other monitoring programs not included in this table to assess the Region’s progress toward achieving its goals and objectives as appropriate. Besides data collected by agencies in their resource management roles, as part of the IRWMP, stakeholders are invited to provide data, reports, or studies to benefit information contained in the IRWMP. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-7 Performance and Monitoring Table 8-8: Existing Monitoring Efforts Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Local Policy Survey Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Availability of vacant land, timing of future development, type of future development, density of development, transportation, land use policy and other land use related factors that could affect development. ABAG, Local governments Ongoing The San Francisco Estuary Institute Regional Monitoring Program SFEI Monitors contamination in the Estuary. Determines spatial patterns and long- term trends in contamination through sampling of water, sediment, bivalves, bird eggs, and fish, and evaluates toxic effects on sensitive organisms and chemical loading to the Bay. The Program combines RMP data with data from other sources to provide for comprehensive assessment of chemical contamination in the Bay. http://www.sfei.org. SFEI Annual The State of San Francisco Bay Report ABAG Science-based assessment of the health of San Francisco Bay, focusing on the water, habitats, living resources, ecological processes, and stewardship. http://www.sfestuary.org/ San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) every five years Air Quality Monitoring Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regional monitoring for a variety of weather elements: BAAQMD, ARB Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-8 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board (ARB) Wind, Rainfall, Air Quality, Air Temperature, etc. Bay Area Protected Lands Database Bay Area Open Space Council Maps of protected public and private open space lands throughout the Bay Area. Bay Area Open Space Council Ongoing Watershed Sanitary Surveys California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Agency specific documents which assess existing water quality within a watershed and identify specific water treatment processes for the source waters for the purposes of human consumption. Water supply agencies Updated every 5 years San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project CALFED, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) Conducts monitoring and regional mapping of spartina in order to perform eradication activities. CALFED, USFWS Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, SCC Ongoing California Partners In Flight (CalPIF) Study Area Database CalPIF Standard bird monitoring sites and provides a repository for species breeding status information for the entire state. CalPIF, Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program (DWSAP) CDPH Monitors and assesses the quality of surface and groundwater sources according to federal and state standards for drinking water. Identifies potential contaminating activities within the source watershed. Water supply agencies Updated when deemed necessary by CDPH California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Data repository for endangered/native species sightings and population locations, but no CDFW Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-9 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency comprehensive monitoring program. CalFish.org CDFW CDFW maintains a database with fish range and habitat information, but no comprehensive monitoring program. CDFW Ongoing California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) DWR Groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. Local Monitoring Entities Every five years beginning in 2015 Flood Control Facilities Flood control agencies Monitoring of catch basins and storm drains near the urban/wildland interface during storms; Debris monitoring and monitoring activities, erosion repair activities, removal of excessive vegetation and reshaping of stream banks for improved flow in rivers and streams. Flood control agencies Ongoing Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program Institute for Bird Populations Assesses and monitors the vital rates and population dynamics of over 120 species of North American land birds. Institute for Bird Populations Ongoing Bird Counts National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count, Great Backyard Bird Count, and the Feederwatch Bird Count. National Audubon Society Ongoing Songbird Populations Point Reyes Bird Observatory Long-term monitoring of songbird populations for the past 30 years. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Wastewater Treatment Plants/Publicly Owned POTWs Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-10 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency System (NPDES), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Treatment Works (POTWs) are required to monitor for the following: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD), total suspended solids, oil and grease, chlorine residue, pH, fecal coliform, and toxicity in effluent discharged. Annual Self-Monitoring reports are required. Regional Wetlands Monitoring Program SCC Utilize GIS mapping of wetland projects, the California Rapid Assessment Method of wetland conditions, and other tools to monitor wetlands on a regional scale. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), SCC, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) As funding allows Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Statewide groundwater quality monitoring and assessment program mandated by the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001. Participation by private drinking well operators is encouraged through the Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment Project. The San Francisco Bay Region is assessed in two hydrogeologic provinces. SWRCB, U.S Geological Survey (USGS), voluntary local participation Regional Assessments every 10 years, trend monitoring every 3 years NPDES, Municipal Stormwater Permits SWRCB Issued to countywide collaboratives for management plan-based approach to implementing Local municipalities and agencies Permits are renewed every 5 years 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-11 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency stormwater pollution prevention BMPs. The permit conditions require monitoring of BMPs. Nonpoint Source (NPS) Control Program- Tracking and Monitoring Council SWRCB Monitors NPS pollutant trends and impairments in the Bay Area. Evaluates effectiveness and success of projects and programs funded by the NPS program that are designed to protect and restore water quality. Coordinates with the SWAMP program. SWRCB, RWQCBs, SCC, USEPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Ongoing Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) SWRCB Statewide monitoring effort designed to assess the conditions of surface waters in streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries throughout the state. Monitoring efforts vary by RWQCB. However, sampling methods are standardized across the State. RWQCB As funding allows Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances for San Francisco Bay SWRCB Monitoring of contaminant concentrations and toxicity levels in water and aquatic species of the San Francisco Bay. SFEI, RWQCB Ongoing Bay Area Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Information Network (BAMBI) SWRCB Currently being developed to utilize rapid bioassessment techniques in order to determine the distribution and population counts for macroinvertebrates in the Bay Area. SWRCB, Municipalities Under development 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-12 Performance and Monitoring Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Bird Breeding Survey USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Population data and population trend analyses on more than 400 bird species. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Ongoing Habitat Conservation Plans Various agencies and organizations Conservation planning for special-status species in a defined geographic area; Contains mitigation to offset development and monitoring requirements to measure success of restored and protected areas. Various agencies and organizations Varies Annual Self-Monitoring Recycled Water Reports Wastewater/water/recycled water agencies Reports on recycled water analysis, recycled water used, list of users, total daily deliveries, site inspections, effluent violations and corrective actions, updates to future plans to expand recycled water program and any special studies or projects. Permitted wastewater/water/ recycled water agencies Annual, due March 15 Source water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, and microbes in source and treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ongoing Treated water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, microbes, disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts in treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-13 Performance and Monitoring 8.3.2 Monitoring Project Performance As part of the IRWMP performance assessment, the projects will be evaluated with respect to stated performance measures. Assuming adequate funding and resources are available, the agencies identified as proponents of priority projects will be responsible for implementing the project as well as project-specific monitoring strategies. As shown in Table 8-9, project proponents will be responsible for collecting project information, including project implementation status, throughout implementation. In addition, the project proponents will assess project performance with respect to the stated performance metrics for the project on a quarterly basis, or as dictated by the reporting requirements associated with the funding source. Projects that are included in the Plan, but are not funded will be encouraged to follow a similar monitoring and reporting plan. Project proponents will be asked to provide monitoring and reporting information on their projects on an annual or bi-annual basis, through survey requests associated with the projects database (DMS) housed on the IRWMP website. The CC will utilize the performance measures identified by the project proponents in the monitoring plans to measure progress. Project specific monitoring plans shall reflect the DWR requirements identified in the 2016 Guidelines which include the following: 1. A description of what is being monitored/performance measures. Examples include:  Number of innovative flood management projects  Number of projects that benefit water quality of 303(d) listed stream parameters  Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated  Increase in local water supplies (in Acre-feet per year [AFY])  Acres of invasive species cover  AF water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources  Megawatt or kilowatt reduction in energy use,  Climate mitigation and adaptation strategies such as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 2. A description of measures to remedy problems encountered during monitoring. 3. A description of the location of monitoring and monitoring frequency. 4. A description of monitoring protocols and methodologies, and assignment of the responsibility for monitoring. 5. A description of what data will be shared with the IRWMP Stakeholders and with what frequency. Identification of what state databases information will be provided to, and requirements for data submittal. 6. Resources and procedures to ensure the monitoring schedule will be maintained (e.g., identify responsible parties and alternates and funding for monitoring). Napa River Fish Monitoring 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-14 Performance and Monitoring Metrics are intended to serve as measurable benchmarks for establishing success of projects following implementation. A sample of potential metrics that are being used in measuring project implementation performance are presented in Table 8-9. These IRWMP projects are complete and reflect specific project goals. Each project implemented will include its own set of metrics and monitoring strategies and as projects become further developed, metrics may evolve to better capture the performance of projects with respect to meeting project objectives. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-15 Performance and Monitoring Table 8-9: Sample Project Performance Measures and Monitoring Strategies Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Bay Area Regional Conservation and Education Program  Replace 2,250 high-water using toilets with high-efficiency Toilets, and achieve total 38 AF water savings  Install 51,000 high-efficiency washers and achieve a total of 1,400 AF.  Hold 20 water-efficient gardening events, 10 professional training courses  Distribute 2,000 water-saving pocket guides  Install 400 weather-based irrigation controllers and achieve 50 AF water savings  Number of Rebates issued over course of the program  Actual demand reductions/water savings achieved  Customer satisfaction with program  Increased public awareness about efficient landscaping practices  Number of informational materials issued  Track number of rebates issued and associated water savings.  Monitor water demands to track reductions over time.  Survey program participants  Track number of events held, participants, and education materials distributed East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A (Emeryville)  Offset potable water use by 2,800 AFY with recycled water  Reduced potable water demand  Flow measured at treatment plant  Flow meter monitoring at treatment plant  Water use monitoring/meter readings at customer sites Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project  Replace existing undersized, failing culverts with culverts sized for 100-year storm event  Reestablished engineered fills to support transmission line  Reestablish and stabilize trail road surface to engineered specifications for travel  Allow upstream and downstream passage for salmonids  Increase channel capacity at stream crossing  Integrity of trail at improved stream crossing and ability to pass at 100 year storm flows  Improved reliability of water conveyance through transmission line  Improved integrity of trail surface for use by recreational uses  Passage of salmonids at improved crossings  Hydrologic capacity of streams at improved crossings  Site inspections and photo monitoring  Streambed monitoring surveys  Evaluate records of conveyance of water through secured transmission line  Salmonid surveys and monitoring  Pre- and post-construction photographic and video documentation of hydrology 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-16 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Marin/Sonoma Conserving Our Watersheds: Agricultural BMP Projects  50-75% reduction in fine sediment delivery from fencing and revegetation practices  60-90% reduction in nutrient and pathogen loading  Survival of at least 80% for revegetation projects  Increase native riparian tree & shrub cover by 65% for revegetation projects  Increase woody plant species richness in the riparian zone by 50% for revegetation projects  Number of management practices completed  Miles of stream fenced  Linear feet of streambank repaired  Reduction in fine sediment delivery  Increase in percent bank stability  Number and survival of planted trees.  Increase native tree and shrub cover, and diversity.  Monitoring conducted based on CDFW Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, USDA NRCS Technical Office Field Guide, and Marin Resources Conservation District Riparian Zone Monitoring Plan Napa County Milliken Creek Flood Damage Reduction, Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration Project  Successful fish passage to spawning and rearing grounds in the upper watershed.  Safely convey the 100-year flood.  Protect structures from the 100-year flood.  Evidence of steelhead spawning activity in reach above former dam location (i.e. presence of redds/nests).  Presence of rearing/foraging juvenile salmonids in reach above former dam site.  Lowered water surface elevation.  Stable longitudinal and cross sectional stream channel profile.  Steelhead spawner surveys.  Steelhead snorkel surveys.  Photographic documentation.  Site specific water surface and channel field surveys.  Post flood flow high water survey. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-17 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy City of Oakland Sausal Creek Restoration Project  Plant 84 native trees within the project area to mitigate for 33 native trees to be removed as part of the project.  Increase population of resident native rainbow trout by 25% at the end of 5 years.  80% survival rate of newly planted species at end of five years.  Improve diversity of resident and migrating native bird species in project area.  Widen creek corridor to 1.5 times wider than existing channel width.  Ensure >90% of the preserved native trees survive in the first 5 years.  5% increase in trout population per year over 5 years.  Survival rate of plants meeting project goals.  Increase diversity of native bird species by 20% at end of 5 years.  Floodprone width.  Survey retained and newly planted trees for health and survival rates to comply with the City of Oakland Tree Permit.  Fish surveys  Annual plant monitoring through transect counts.  Quarterly bird monitoring.  Annual geomorphic surveys and cross-sections. Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project  Supply water for 100 customers for 38+ years.  Improved warning system for pump failure and low tank volume.  120 toilet/urinal replacements.  80 washer replacements  High community attendance at workshops or surveys.  Available drawdown at the new well is at least 90 feet.  Pumping rate is at least 150 gpm to meet the design criteria for the well.  Alarms are activated during pump failure or when water level in tank reaches the low level set point.  3 AFY reductions in water demand.  Installations are completed and devices are functional.  Measure drawdown after well installation.  Measure water level in well annually.  Test alarm system monthly.  Track the number of installed high efficiency devices.  Track and compare water meter records from before high efficiency devices are installed to after devices are installed. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-18 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Petaluma Flood Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, and Recreation Project for Capri Creek  Peak flow reduction to existing out-of- bank flows of 60, 194, and 254 cubic feet per second in 10-year, 50-year, 100-year storms, respectively  Capture and removal of 15-20 cubic yards of debris annually, providing for sediment placement on flood terrace.  Provide 5 acres of enhanced habitat.  Surrounding residents participate in stewardship programs  Flood impacts to identified land uses  Debris and sediment removed from flood terrace rather than having debris travel downstream to Petaluma River and toward the Bay.  Use of the restored site by various species.  Citizen participation in monitoring, maintenance, and enjoyment of the creek corridor.  Observe stream at headwall during storm events.  Track out-of-bank flows and surface flood depths during storm events.  Field surveys and sampling following construction and during a 5-year monitoring period.  Track and record the number of citizens participating in annual maintenance day(s) and other outreach events. City of Redwood City Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project  Prevent 250 homes from being flooded  Treat 62 acre-feet of runoff during 1-yr storm, 106 acre-feet of runoff during 5-yr storm , 182 ac-ft of runoff during 25-yr storm  Provide 62 acre-feet of stormwater runoff for habitat enhancement of ponds  Flood impacts along the Bayfront Canal and Atherton Channel  Track out-of-bank flows and surface flood depths during storm events. Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project Phase 1A - South Westside Basin, Northern San Mateo County  Store 35,000 acre-feet by 2017 for drought supply.  Amount of stored water in aquifer  Quality of groundwater  Track elevation of groundwater  Monitor Water Quality 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-19 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy Richmond Breuner Marsh Restoration Project  Create, restore or enhance approximately 60 acres of wetlands and 90 acres of coastal prairie upland habitat.  Increased public access for recreation and public education  Increase in presence of marine, intertidal, and upland species.  Acres created or restored  Vegetation Cover and Type  Increased hydrologic capacity/function  Public use for recreation  Participation in educational events  Annual surveys of Sediment Stakes, Staff Gages, Tidal Prism  Track public visitation  Track participation in educational events Roseview Heights Infrastructure Upgrades for Water Supply and Quality Improvement, Santa Clara County  Replace unengineered redwood water tanks with seismically engineered bolted steel tanks.  Eliminate water leakage (300,000 gallons/month) from tanks  Increase useful life of galvanized water mains.  Reduction of chlorine levels to 0.2 chlorine residual throughout entire system  New tanks constructed.  Source meter reading (San Jose Water) closely matches meter readings per individual customer usage.  Water clarity and chlorine residuals at the farthest end of the distribution system.  Track meter readings monthly at the source  Track customer meter reading quarterly  Perform annual tank maintenance and valve exercise plans  Standard monthly water testing  Test TTHM and HAAS annually San Francisco Bay Climate Change Pilot Projects Combining Ecosystem Adaptation, Flood Risk Management and Wastewater Effluent Polishing  Develop capacity to store up to 8 million gallons of secondary treated wastewater for up to 6 hours.  Capacity for more frequent peak flows – up to 5 MG of wastewater for up to 6 hours for 3 to 5 events per year.  Increase acceptance for ecotone slopes  Equalization facility built.  Storage availability/capacity as required.  Generation of peer reviewed journal papers  Conceptual design of 2 additional pilot projects which incorporate lessons learned from this project  Presentation of results to BACWA and other regional entities  Monitoring plan to be developed Sign off by OLSD following project completion  OLSD report on facility functionality  Outreach document in quarterly reports and papers and posted on the website 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-20 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility  Upgrade facilities to treat 1.6 MGD of industrial wastewater and first flush storm water to a higher quality.  Use 100% recycled water for all non- potable water demands.  Reduce occurrence of illicit discharges by upgrading IW infrastructure.  Increase in effluent quality entering the Bay.  Percent decrease in quantity of effluent being sent to the Bay.  Percentage decrease in annual potable water use.  Percentage increase in annual recycled water use for non-potable purposes.  Annual reduction in infrastructure breakdowns and violations for the IW treatment plant.  Water quality testing of effluent  Water metering to measure reduction in effluent being sent to the bay, reduction in potable water use, and increased amount of recycled water use.  Survey of work order and history logbooks San José Green Streets & Alleys Demonstration Projects  Reduce impervious surfaces by over 55,000 square feet and create up to 32,500 square feet of biorention rain gardens to treat runoff.  Install 5,000 square feet of permeable pavers.  Capture and infiltrate 334 pounds of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) per year.  Infiltration trenches and dry wells will be designed to capture, store, and infiltrate 80% of the annual runoff from the alleys and tributary areas of adjoining properties  Decrease in Total Suspended Solids (TSS) using the Spreadsheet Method (CPSWQ, Inc).  Significant pollutant load reductions.  Track pollutant loads  Bay Friendly certification maintenance methods  Pre- and Post-construction water quality monitoring  Final report discussing findings 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-21 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy San Pablo Rheem Creek Wetlands Restoration Project  Create and establish up to 4.82 acres of seasonal wetlands on an approximately 10 acre site adjacent to Rheem Creek.  Preserve 5.2 acres of upland watershed.  Confirm that created seasonal wetlands have been established within 5 years.  Wetlands will accommodate Rheem Creek overtopping during storm events.  Seasonally flooding: soils will pond and/or saturate for long (>7 days) to very long (>30 days) continuous durations.  The frequency of inundation and/or saturation of the restored wetlands shall be a minimum of 18.25 continuous days per year.  Vegetative cover will consist predominantly of native wetland plant species or other wetland species.  Total average wetlands vegetation cover ≥ 60% of reference wetlands by monitoring Year 3 and ≥ 70% by monitoring Year 5.  Improved water quality from Rheem Creek into San Pablo Bay.  Annual reports according to USACE and SF RWQCB Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)  Evaluate amount, character and quality of wetlands through Aerial photography, Field surveys, GIS analysis  Monitor water quality and flood management  Track large storm events in annual reports. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-22 Performance and Monitoring Project Name Targets Performance Metrics Monitoring Strategy St. Helena Upper York Creek Dam Removal and Ecosystem Restoration Project  Provide upstream passage to 1.7 miles of spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead and habitat connectivity for both anadromous and resident fish and other aquatic and riparian species  Restore approximately 2 acres of degraded riparian and aquatic habitat within the existing upper dam and reservoir area.  Natural transport of gravel materials and organisms downstream.  Reduce downstream fine sediment releases.  Noticeable trout and salmon in the creek.  Revegetated ecosystem with plant, animal and fish life.  Reduction of dead fish along stream banks  Minimization of downstream fine sediment delivery resulting in mortality of aquatic organisms  Riparian, aquatic and habitat regrowth in the project area.  Terrestrial wildlife reintroduction.  Visually inspect the area three times per year for the first three years following the project completion Students and Teachers Restoring a Watershed (STRAW) Project—North and East Bay Watersheds  Restore a minimum of 15,000 linear feet of wetland/riparian habitat  After 5 years, restoration sites will have achieved a riparian bird index (RBI) that rates as “good” or “excellent.”  Achieve a minimum of 75% survival rate for planted native vegetation  3,500 volunteers annually.  80% increase of participants’ environmental knowledge, skills and attitudes through STRAW workshops, classroom activities and restoration projects.  Linear feet of each project/increased density of native vegetation  Planted native vegetation percent survival and vigor.  Number of people participating in various STRAW activities.  Percent of participants who indicate a positive change in their environmental knowledge, skills and attitudes after participation in a STRAW activity.  On ground measurements/ photomonitoring  Area search surveys will be conducted on plots that are 0.5-1.5 hectares in area.  Monitor plant survival rate and vigor by species  Track number of participants that participate in STRAW activities.  Survey a subset of participants through written and on-site assessments. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-23 Performance and Monitoring 8.4 Mechanism for Adapting Project Operations Water resources management issues facing the Bay Area Region evolve over time in response to continually changing regulations and other emerging issues. Projects were identified as top priorities for regional implementation based on their ability to address goals and objectives. As the Region’s goals and objectives evolve over time, the ability of projects to address these goals and objectives will similarly change. In addition, project performance will be periodically assessed with respect to established performance measures. Maintaining flexible project operations will allow projects to adapt to the changing needs of the Region while performing well with respect to performance measures. Figure 8-2 presents the circular relationship between the data collection at the project and the regional level and how these results are used to modify the IRWMP priorities and project sequencing, which then in turn could change the monitoring program. Figure 8-2: Adaptive Management Cycle 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 8-24 Performance and Monitoring Each project identified in this IRWMP has a lead project proponent that has agreed to oversee project implementation. The project proponent will be responsible for ensuring that project operations are adjusted as appropriate based on the changing needs of the Region. As future work is completed, the CC will recommend whether changes to the Region’s goals, objectives, and needs should be considered. In response to the CC assessment, and considering the project’s performance with respect to its performance measures, project proponents will be responsible for identifying and adjusting project operations as appropriate and feasible. The relationships between project performance, Plan performance, and adjustments to the regional goals are illustrated in Figure 8-2. Additionally, as future work is completed, the CC may recommend revisions to project priorities and sequencing based on past performance. For example, should certain San Francisco Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) be achieved and water quality improved in certain watersheds, the IRWMP CC may recommend that projects addressing those TMDLs no longer be considered the highest priority projects for regional implementation. Regional implementation priorities will evolve as regional goals and objectives change over time, and as the Region progresses toward attainment of those goals and objectives. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Data Management Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 9: Data Management ..................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Overview of the Data Needs within the Bay Area Region .................. 9-1 9.2 Data Collection Techniques .............................................................. 9-2 9.3 Approach to Data Management and Dissemination ........................... 9-2 9.4 Data Management and Dissemination ............................................... 9-4 9.4.1 Project-Level Data Management and Dissemination .............. 9-4 9.4.2 Functional Area and Sub-region-Level Data Management ..... 9-5 9.4.3 Plan-Level Data Management and Dissemination .................. 9-6 9.5 Existing Data Collection and Monitoring Efforts ................................. 9-7 9.6 Data Gaps and Potential New Data Collection Programs ................ 9-11 9.7 Validation and QA/QC Measures .................................................... 9-15 9.8 Supporting Statewide Data Needs .................................................. 9-15 List of Tables Table 9-1: IRWMP Data Management Responsibilities(a) ....................................................... 9-3 Table 9-2: Example Existing Monitoring Efforts ...................................................................... 9-7 Table 9-3: Data Gaps and Potential Regional Data Sharing Opportunities ........................... 9-12 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-1 Data Management Chapter 9: Data Management 9.1 Overview of the Data Needs within the Bay Area Region As part of IRWMP implementation, data will be collected to support assessment of project and Plan performance. A primary data need within the Bay Area IRWM Region is to collect and maintain accurate, reliable, and current data about the projects that are included and have received IRWM grant funding under the IRWM Plan. Data will be gathered at the project level to assess the performance of projects in meeting their objectives, and to gauge the region’s progress toward achieving its goals. Project overviews are routinely developed to allow stakeholders to quickly familiarize themselves with each project. Metadata collected for each project includes things like keywords, location data, participating organizations, budget, status, etc. In order to develop a robust metadata ontology19, standards including FGDC and CERES have been consulted and cross-referenced. The CC will make periodic calls for project proponents to update their information. This will help to ensure that the project information is current. As the data needs of the Region continue to evolve, the project metadata schema can be updated by appending new fields to the existing ontology. It is also necessary to be able to browse and search projects based on a variety of criteria including keyword, location, Functional Area, participating people and organizations. By addressing these needs, the CC will ensure that the projects directory provides a useful platform for the future planning needs of the region. It is also necessary to gather and manage contact information for the BAIRWMP stakeholders, with an easy way to search and browse the directories of key people and organizations active in the Region. This contact information will also be organized into email lists for use in updating stakeholders, agency representatives, and project proponents regarding ongoing activities in the region as well as important opportunities and deadlines. The Region’s data management system also needs to document the planning process and all of its associated meetings and workshops. The contacts directory and lists described above are necessary for organizing and coordinating these events. Meetings and workshops must be announced on the website and presented in context with their related meeting materials. For example, when viewing an event, it should be possible to view the agenda and meeting minutes. It should also be possible to download any handouts and presentations from the meeting, as well as have links to any other online resources that were discussed at the event. These materials should be archived so that they can be organized and accessed as needed after the event. The Region will also curate topical information libraries or “specialty collections”, such as climate change, in a virtual library. This library will hold climate change information, resources, 19 A metadata ontology is effectively a conceptual “world view” for the information. The BAIRWMP data management system includes fields such as Projects, People, Organizations, Documents, Locations; the ontology is the model of the relationships between those things and how individual metadata fields are managed. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-2 Data Management and lists of other sources, which can be added to over time as new material is developed and becomes available. In the future other specialty collections can be added. In addition to project-specific data generated through project implementation, data collected as part of region-wide monitoring programs is available to support IRWMP assessment at the Plan level. Various local and regional monitoring programs are currently underway throughout the region. Several of these programs are described in Chapter 8 – Performance and Monitoring, and are listed in Table 9-2. The process for managing and disseminating this information to stakeholders is discussed below. In addition, opportunities for data collection have been identified and a process for integrating collected information into statewide programs is described. Apart from those containing sensitive information, publicly funded data and materials are made available to the public via the BAIRWMP website (www.bairwmp.org) in an easily accessible and searchable format. A sustainable strategy will be adopted to ensure that these documents remain available over time, and are not subject to any particular funding round or consultant’s tenure. The formats for resource URLs will be designed to be technology-neutral (e.g., no jsp, asp, php extensions that have remnant proprietary elements). Whenever content is reorganized on the site, redirects will be used to preserve the functionality of existing links that have already been bookmarked or circulated in emails and documents (e.g., PDFs, reports, and meeting minutes). 9.2 Data Collection Techniques One of the primary methods for gathering data is outreach to the project leads. Periodically the IRWMP CC will contact the project proponents and request that they enter or update their information in the site. Each project proponent will have a personal login for the site that will be used to control access, enforce permissions, and ensure that they have access to the correct content and areas of the site. The Website Subcommittee will be able to modify these permissions and grant additional access as necessary. Meeting materials will be posted and updated by the meeting organizers and participants. Meetings organizers will enter the metadata for their events including title, description, location, date/time, presenters, etc. They will then be able to upload agendas and minutes. Participants will also be able to upload their handouts and presentation files. The content for specialty libraries will be gathered via a call to the stakeholders. There may also be some high-level planning undertaken by CC subcommittees to identify potential source documents. These materials will then be cataloged into the BAIRWMP website. The files will be uploaded and metadata will be entered for each resource. This work can be done either by designated members of the consultant team, or by the document contributors themselves. 9.3 Approach to Data Management and Dissemination A variety of steps will be required for IRWMP implementation, including adoption, implementation of priority projects, and updated approaches to data management as needs evolve. Successful completion of each of these steps will require effective data management and dissemination, as described below. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-3 Data Management Information will be collected and compiled at several levels as appropriate, including the project level, the Functional Area level, the sub-regional level, and the IRWMP level. At each of these levels, effective data management and dissemination contributes to successful IRWMP implementation. Table 9-10 identifies the types of activities that will be undertaken as part of IRWMP implementation. The level of effort for each activity may vary depending on its need and upon the amount of funding and resources available. Table 9-10: IRWMP Data Management Responsibilities(a) Responsible Party Data Management and Dissemination Task Frequency Project Proponents  Compile and maintain project implementation information through monitoring program implementation  Disseminate project implementation information, as necessary, to meet applicable reporting requirements  Disseminate project implementation information, as appropriate, to Functional Area stakeholder group  Quarterly, or as dictated by grant reporting requirements.  Annually or bi- annually, in response to FA or CC requests. Functional Areas  As appropriate or as requested by CC, consolidate and present regional information, including detailed analysis of one or more water resource management areas  Periodically Sub-regions  As appropriate, consolidate and present information on priority projects and needs within each of the four geographic sub-regions.  Periodically IRWMP CC  Compile information prepared by Project Proponents, Functional Areas, or Sub-regions into regional outlook  Present project-specific information submitted to Bay Area website database by Project Proponents  Disseminate regional outlook to stakeholders  Periodically Note: (a) Tasks, frequency, and responsible parties assume adequate funding and other resources are available. Compiling or reviewing this information on a regional scale will enable the IRWMP CC to communicate effectively about the contribution of IRWMP projects to the region’s goals, objectives, and vision. The type, level, and frequency of data management and dissemination activities and the parties responsible for implementing those activities may change as the IRWMP CC periodically 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-4 Data Management reviews the effectiveness of the ongoing institutional structure. As much as possible, the design of the BAIRWMP website favors a self-service model of data update, where individual project leads and committee members can upload their own data without going through a webmaster or utilizing specialized technology skills. This removes bottlenecks and restrictions from the content-creation process, while still preserving review and permissions structure to ensure quality data and oversight. 9.4 Data Management and Dissemination A large quantity of information will be developed and collected as part of IRWMP implementation and performance assessment. This information will range from water supply and demand information to recycled water usage, water quality data, floodplain reduction project information, stormwater runoff quality and quantity, and habitat mapping information. Chapter 8 – Performance and Monitoring, lists examples of existing Bay Area monitoring efforts, and provides examples of performance metrics and the variety and types of information to be gathered at the project level. As shown in Table 9-1, data will be collected at the project level, reported and compiled on the website, and then reviewed and disseminated through the website. The data on the website may be further disseminated through other means. Data management and dissemination responsibilities at each level are described below. The BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) has prioritized the use of open source software tools for supporting its data management needs. This choice brings several advantages. With open source software, the group has free reign to customize the software as it sees fit and is not locked in to any one vendor. Also, some software tools are being developed by multiple IRWMPs as well as several of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). This approach enables these organizations to share the cost of developing common tools and benefit from the advancements that are externally funded. The existing BAIRWMP website is based on a metadata-driven Content Management System (CMS), which is a web-based software system concerned with enabling non-technical users to manage web content which is also designed and built around a carefully thought-out metadata schema in order to support effective querying from an increasingly complex body of information. This ensures that even as the site grows to hold a large volume of material, it will still be easily accessible via search and browse tools. The site will include a search engine that automatically indexes all content in the site, including deep-search within Microsoft Office and PDF documents. The group will also carefully design an organizing and navigation system to make it as easy as possible to browse the materials. This will also support visitors who want to learn more about the BAIRWMP and the IRWMP process without looking for a particular resource. 9.4.1 Project-Level Data Management and Dissemination At the project level, project proponents will be responsible for submitting inform ation on project implementation status as well as evaluating project performance with respect to the performance measures identified for each project, potential examples of which are presented Chapter 3 – Objectives, and in Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-5 Data Management The BAIRWMP website has been customized with reporting tools for projects funded under Proposition 1, Proposition 84, and Proposition 50. These tools provide an easy-to-use engine for project leads to provide the required reporting information, including financial tracking data as well as narrative reporting based on predefined fields and criteria. The reporting tools provide a means to organize this information for compilation into aggregate reports. For projects funded through IRWM, quarterly reporting (or intervals as stipulated in grant agreements) is required through the website’s reporting tools. Reporting data will be compiled on the website, monitored for completeness, and provided to the state by the agency administering the Implementation Grant or other funding agreement. Proponents of other implemented projects are similarly encouraged to track this information through the website on a regular basis. The BAIRWMP website will feature a profile in the CMS for each project. These project profiles will be adapted over time to meet the information gathering needs of the CC. They will also function as workspaces where project proponents can upload materials including work plans, budgets, reports, documents, datasets, and more. The workspaces can also be configured as mini-sites for the projects. As many of these projects may not have their own websites outside of the BAIRWMP website, these homepages, or mini-sites, will provide valuable functionality to the project leads. They will enable project proponents to share their successes and tell their stories in ways that are both visually impactful and supported by knowledge-management and other CMS features. Because these sites are nested inside, and powered by, the main BAIRWMP website, the content-generation activity of the project leads will also generate valuable content in the BAIRWMP site. 9.4.2 Functional Area and Sub-region-Level Data Management Assuming sufficient funding and resources are available, the FA and sub-region groups may each collect data for use in assessing the region’s progress toward goals and objectives on an annual basis. FAs may track the following kinds of information:  WS-WQ Functional Area: Regional water use, water conservation, and population throughout the region.  WW-RW Functional Area: Amount of recycled water use throughout the region, type of uses of the recycled water, cost of recycled water and new projects.  FP-SM Functional Area: Number of acres within FEMA flood zone and number of floods and reported damages throughout region.  HP-WM&R Functional Area: Amounts and quality of habitats conserved, enhanced and restored, status of wildlife populations, land use practices developed and/or implemented. This data will be indexed and viewable based on Functional Area tagging, and will be disseminated to the Bay Area IRWMP CC to support its periodic IRWMP information update and assessment process. In addition, data will be used in conjunction with the project-level data compiled and managed by the project proponents to assess the region’s progress toward achieving its goals in each Functional Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-6 Data Management The BAIRWMP CMS will feature metadata tags for the functional areas, making it possible to easily browse and search resources by Functional Area. This will become especially important as the content of the site grows in volume. The Functional Area meta-tags will ensure that searching and browsing by Functional Area remains easy and meaningful with a minimum of overhead and human input. The East, South, West, and North sub-regions may also collect and compile data pertaining to their respective geographic areas on a variety of subjects from time to time, as needed or as requested by the CC. Information collected at the sub-region level may include project-related data such as needs assessments and sub-region priorities, implementation project lists, reporting on project implementation outcomes, monitoring efforts, etc. 9.4.3 Plan-Level Data Management and Dissemination As described in previous sections, and assuming sufficient funding and other resources are available, future work will be guided by the CC. As part of this process, the CC will collect the information gathered by the Functional Areas and Sub-regions to assess IRWMP performance in contributing to regional goals, objectives, and IRWMP vision. The CC can compile and manage this information, and ultimately disseminate the data to the public. As future work is completed, the FAs and Sub-regions will provide data to the CC in electronic format. Existing regional data collection sources (such as those identified in Table 8-8) may also be reviewed for their applicability in assessing Plan performance, as resources and funds permit. As appropriate, this data will be maintained, along with project-specific data and information compiled by the Functional Areas, on the BAIRWMP website. The IRWMP data will be publicly accessible from the IRWMP web portal. While every effort will be made to ensure open, public access to data used in the Plan performance assessment, confidentiality agreements may be required to obtain a portion of the data used to support Plan assessment. In these limited cases, data availability will be managed in a manner consistent with the terms of individual confidentiality agreements. IRWMP stakeholders and the general public will be informed of the process and online data availability through email announcements and postings on the BAIRWMP website home page. In addition, it is anticipated that future work will include public outreach aimed at encouraging stakeholder participation. Outreach will be used as a forum for generating public awareness and disseminating the information in the data library. Meeting materials and information on activities of the IRWMP CC will be made available online in a transparent manner. Meeting announcements will be featured prominently and synchronized with email announcements. An archive of past meetings will be kept on the website along with meeting materials such as agendas, minutes, presentations, and handouts. These materials will be archived by year and committee and will be searchable through the site’s search functionality. For additional information on anticipated stakeholder involvement during Plan implementation, please refer to Section 14: Stakeholder Engagement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-7 Data Management 9.5 Existing Data Collection and Monitoring Efforts Within the Bay Area, several regional, local, and state-sponsored monitoring programs currently exist that monitor the conditions of the Plan’s four Functional Areas. The table below shows the programs and responsible parties collecting data. Implementing agencies lead the effort to collect and disseminate monitoring data. The responsible agencies listed below generate the data at the local level. Examples of these existing monitoring efforts are presented in Table 8-1, Chapter 8: Performance and Monitoring, and below in Table 8-8. It may be possible to utilize these existing programs to support Plan performance assessment. Table 9-11: Example Existing Monitoring Efforts Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Local Policy Survey ABAG Availability of vacant land, timing of future development, type of future development, density of development, transportation, land use policy and other land use related factors that could affect development. ABAG, Local governments Ongoing The State of San Francisco Bay Report ABAG Science-based assessment of the health of San Francisco Bay, focusing on the water, habitats, living resources, ecological processes, and stewardship. http://www.sfestuary.org/ SFEP Updated every five years Air Quality Monitoring Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board (ARB) Regional monitoring for a variety of weather elements: Wind, Rainfall, Air Quality, Air Temperature, etc. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ARB Ongoing Bay Area Protected Lands Database Bay Area Open Space Council Tracking of protected public and private open space lands throughout the Bay Area. Bay Area Open Space Council Ongoing Watershed Sanitary Surveys CA Department of Public Health (CDPH) Agency specific documents which assess existing water quality within a watershed and identify specific water treatment processes for the source waters for the Water supply agencies Updated every 5 years 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-8 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency purposes of human consumption. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project CALFED, USFWS Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, SCC Conducts monitoring and regional mapping of spartina in order to perform eradication activities. CALFED, USFWS Coastal Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, SCC Ongoing California Partners In Flight (CalPIF) Study Area Database California Partners in Flight Standard bird monitoring sites and provides a repository for species breeding status information for the entire state. California Partners in Flight, Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program (DWSAP) CDPH Monitors and assesses the quality of surface and groundwater sources according to federal and state standards for drinking water. Identifies potential contaminating activities within the source watershed. Water supply agencies Updated when deemed necessary by DHS California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) CDFW Data repository for endangered/native species sightings and population locations, but no comprehensive monitoring program. CDFW Ongoing CalFish.org CDFW DFG maintains a database with fish range and habitat information, but no comprehensive monitoring program. CDFW Ongoing Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) DWR Monitors urban water supply and demand. UWMP and updates approved and deemed complete by DWR. Water supply agencies Urban Water Management Plan updates required every five years. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation DWR Groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in Local Monitoring Entities Every five years beginning in 2015 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-9 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Monitoring (CASGEM) California's groundwater basins. Flood Control Facilities Flood control agencies Monitoring of catch basins and storm drains near the urban/wildland interface during storms; Debris monitoring and monitoring activities, erosion repair activities, removal of excessive vegetation and reshaping of stream banks for improved flow in rivers and streams. Flood control agencies Ongoing Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program Institute for Bird Populations Assesses and monitors the vital rates and population dynamics of over 120 species of North American land birds. Institute for Bird Populations Ongoing Bird Counts National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count, Great Backyard Bird Count, and the Feederwatch Bird Count. National Audubon Society Ongoing Songbird Populations Point Reyes Bird Observatory Long-term monitoring of songbird populations for the past 30 years. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Ongoing NPDES, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) RWQCB Wastewater Treatment Plants/Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are required to monitor for many constituents including the following: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD), total suspended solids, oil and grease, chlorine residue, pH, fecal coliform, and toxicity in effluent discharged. Annual Self- Monitoring reports are required. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Annually, Ongoing Regional Wetlands Monitoring Program SCC, SFJV Utilize GIS mapping of wetland projects, the California Rapid Assessment Method of wetland conditions, and other tools to monitor wetlands on a regional scale. USEPA, SCC, SFJV, SFEI As funding allows 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-10 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program SWRCB Statewide groundwater quality monitoring and assessment program mandated by the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001. Participation by private drinking well operators is encouraged through the Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment Project. The San Francisco Bay Region is assessed in two hydrogeologic provinces. SWRCB, USGS, voluntary local participation Regional Assessment s every 10 years, trend monitoring every 3 years NPDES, Municipal Stormwater Permits SWRCB Issued to countywide collaboratives for management plan-based approach to implementing stormwater pollution prevention BMPs. The permit conditions require monitoring of BMPs. Local municipalities and agencies Permits are renewed every 5 years NPS Control Program- Tracking and Monitoring Council SWRCB Monitors NPS pollutant trends and impairments in the Bay Area. Evaluates effectiveness and success of projects and programs funded by the NPS program that are designed to protect and restore water quality. Coordinates with the SWAMP program. SWRCB, RWQCBs, SCC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NOAA Ongoing Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) SWRCB Statewide monitoring effort designed to assess the conditions of surface waters in streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries throughout the state. Monitoring efforts vary by RWQCB. However, sampling methods are standardized across the State. RWQCB As funding allows Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay Regulated dischargers Monitoring of contaminant concentrations and toxicity levels in water and aquatic species of the San Francisco Bay. SFEI, RWQCB Ongoing 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-11 Data Management Program Title Implementing Agency Details Responsible Agency Update / Sampling Frequency Bay Area Macroinverte- brate Bioassessment Information Network (BAMBI) SWRCB Currently being developed to utilize rapid bioassessment techniques in order to determine the distribution and population counts for macroinvertebrates in the Bay Area. SWRCB, Municipalities Under development Bird Breeding Survey USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Population data and population trend analyses on more than 400 bird species. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Center Ongoing Habitat Conservation Plans Various agencies and organizations Conservation planning for special-status species in a defined geographic area; Contains mitigation to offset development and monitoring requirements to measure success of restored and protected areas. Various agencies and organizations Varies Annual Self- Monitoring Recycled Water Reports Wastewater/w ater/recycled water agencies Reports on recycled water analysis, recycled water used, list of users, total daily deliveries, site inspections, effluent violations and corrective actions, updates to future plans to expand recycled water program and any special studies or projects. Permitted wastewater/wat er/recycled water agencies Annual, due March 15 Source water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, and microbes in source and treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ ongoing Treated water quality monitoring Water supply agencies Monitoring for contaminants such as radionuclides, organic chemicals, inorganics, microbes, disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts in treated supplies Water supply agencies Varies/ ongoing 9.6 Data Gaps and Potential New Data Collection Programs While extensive water resources monitoring is ongoing in the region, additional opportunities exist for data gathering to fill gaps and expand knowledge about the region’s remaining water resources. Some potential additional data gathering opportunities, to fill perceived gaps, are illustrated inTable 9-12. Additional data gathering will occur as time and funding allows. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-12 Data Management Table 9-12: Data Gaps and Potential Regional Data Sharing Opportunities Data Gap Program Type Potential Implementing Agency Program Description Water Supply-Water Quality Regional Groundwater Information Regional Groundwater Monitoring Program Groundwater basin managers. Compile local groundwater monitoring data from throughout the region to conduct an assessment of groundwater quantity and quality for basins within the region. Regional groundwater assessments should be conducted every 5 years. Wastewater and Recycled Water Compilation of Regional Recycled Water Information Regional Recycled Water Reporting RWQCB Regional compilation of quantity and quality of recycled water produced and used within the region. This system would track and encourage utilization of recycled water to conserve potable supplies. Information is already provided to RWQCB. Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Compilation of Regional Impervious Surface Information Regional Monitoring of Impervious Surfaces RWQCB Regional monitoring of trends in urbanization through tracking the extent of impervious surfaces and undeveloped lands with the use of GIS mapping. This information can be utilized when designing restoration efforts and to examine the effects of altered hydrology on streams, and habitats. Additionally, this information will be useful for stormwater and flood control management agencies to assess application of appropriate BMPs and management measures according to the extent of imperviousness in the region. Compilation of Regional Storm Drainage Information Regional Storm Drainage Mapping RWQCB Collaborative effort to develop a regional map showing locations of creeks, underground culverts, storm drains, and flood control channels. Use the Oakland Museum Creek Maps as an example for a region-wide effort to map storm drainage networks. This information will improve regional efforts for habitat restoration, flood control, and water-quality monitoring. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-13 Data Management Data Gap Program Type Potential Implementing Agency Program Description Non-Point Source Pollution Data Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program SWRCB The State Water Resources Control Board is developing the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program to track and monitor nonpoint source pollution in the Bay Area, but it is not yet effective. The Program could be expanded to compile both runoff quantity and quality information. Emerging Contaminants Monitoring Regional Monitoring of Emerging Contaminants SWRCB Conduct regional monitoring of emerging contaminants, such as endocrine disrupting compounds, in water, sediment, and aquatic species. Expand upon the existing Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances to include emerging contaminants. Extend the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) to include monitoring of the quality of urban creeks in addition to sites within the San Francisco Bay. Floodplain Management Information Regional Monitoring of Floodplains BAFPAA Regional mapping and monitoring of floodplains, including acreage protected, connectivity, and management techniques. Monitoring information would facilitate planning, design, and execution of flood- protection projects. Watershed Management, Habitat Protection, and Restoration Regional Stream Channel Maps Regional Monitoring of Stream Channel Functioning CDFW Regional mapping and monitoring of channel bed and bank conditions, including extent of functioning riparian corridors. Regional mapping and monitoring of sediment source, transport, and depositional areas. This information will be useful to monitor the success of creek restoration projects, assess the need for future restoration efforts, and track habitat conditions for wildlife and aquatic habitat. Due to the extent of urbanization in the region, these data should be gathered in conjunction with local flood control and stormwater management agencies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-14 Data Management Data Gap Program Type Potential Implementing Agency Program Description Regional In- Stream Habitat Information Regional Monitoring of In- Stream Habitat Conditions USEPA-Office of Research and Development, CDFW Expand upon the Western Pilot Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (WEMAP) to implement standardized monitoring of in-stream habitat conditions (water quality, fish populations, benthic populations) within the region. Establish protocols and baseline data to assess urbanized habitat conditions. Regional Wildlife Corridor, Population, and Biodiversity Information Regional Monitoring of Wildlife Corridors, Populations, and Biodiversity CDFW Establish a regional monitoring system for wildlife corridors, populations, and species richness (for amphibians, birds, and mammals). This could expand upon the CNDDB, focusing solely on population monitoring within the region. Regional Invasive Species Information Regional Monitoring of Invasive Species CDFW, USFWS Regional monitoring program for presence and absence of invasive plant species. The program would provide information to target eradication and restoration activities. Regional At- Risk Native Species Monitoring Regional Monitoring of Native At-Risk and Special Status Species CDFW, USFWS Regional program to track presence and absence of at-risk native and special status species in the Bay Area. Due to resource limitations, there are few ongoing efforts that collect and compile data continuously at the regional level. While establishment of regional data collection and management programs such as those described above would provide deeper understanding of the challenges facing the region as it strives to achieve the goals of the IRWMP, the CC has not yet determined if that is best accomplished by better coordination with existing efforts, enhanced where feasible, versus creating any new regional monitoring effort directly under the IRWM Plan. While such a regional data integration approach may be valuable in concept, it is important to consider the potential costs and administrative/management commitments such an effort would entail. Table 9-12 lists potential implementing agencies for each potential program. Potential implementing agencies were identified based on their wide jurisdiction and access to the data needed to develop the recommended compilations and reports. Implementation of these monitoring and reporting programs would require resources beyond those of the IRWMP CC. Whether or not the IRWM Plan is the appropriate venue to fill gaps in regional monitoring is a subject that will continue to be explored as the Plan is implemented. Stakeholders, project proponents, regional organizations, DWR, and the public will be invited to engage in a broader discussion of Plan and regional monitoring efforts and needs. This will also provide a forum to 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-15 Data Management review regional efforts that overlap with BAIRWMP Objectives. To the extent possible, other existing efforts, such as the State of the Estuary Conference or other regional water forums will be leveraged to enhance dialogue. After this discussion, Bay Area IRWM Plan participants will be in a better position to determine whether IRWM is the optimal venue to address some of the gaps identified. 9.7 Validation and QA/QC Measures The data cataloged into the Bay Area IRWM portal will be reviewed by the CC through the Website Committee as it comes online. If the Website Committee members find issues with the uploaded data, they can easily contact the document contributor or original author for corrections or clarifications. Additionally, the gathered data will be subject to ongoing review and correction by the BAIRWMP stakeholders. By providing prominent links to contact the document authors and Website Committee, the Region will encourage the crowd-sourcing of these data corrections. These measures will ensure the review of the gathered data and expedite the process of identifying and correcting any errors or inaccuracies. 9.8 Supporting Statewide Data Needs As described in Table 8-8, a wealth of information is collected by individual Bay Area agencies and water resource programs. While a limited number of programs compile and assess water resources data for the Bay Area region, it is not clear whether new regional assessments versus more efficient coordination of existing efforts would lead to more useful regional information. As future work is completed, the Bay Area’s data library of relevant water resources information and data that have been collected by projects funded through IRWM grants will grow. Whether the library can become a more comprehensive resource throughout the region has yet to be determined. As such, the process represents an important first step toward developing a regional perspective on water resources management information. The data and conclusions developed through the Bay Area IRWMP assessment process may be used by state agencies for developing regional fact sheets and determining regional funding priorities. In addition, DWR may use the information developed through future work to support updates to the California Water Plan. The California State Water Plan is updated on a five-year cycle. Periodic information updates could be coordinated with the State Water Plan update. Another opportunity for data coordination may be found with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The RWQCBs are currently reviewing new data standardization and data provision requirements to accompany 401-certification permits. If this program becomes formalized, additional opportunities for regional data integration may arise. Such requirements and standards would provide data at the project-scale that could then be aggregated for a regional interpretation. Coordination with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB will continue with implementation of the Bay Area IRWM Plan. In addition to compiling water resources data and information about Bay Area IRWM Projects, the Bay Area data will support statewide data activities by retaining data collected to support project performance assessment in a manner consistent with continuing statewide data collection programs. Consistency with statewide monitoring programs is critical to ensure that regional projects contribute to efficient, uniform, and comprehensive study design and data collection. Data collected as part of IRWMP project implementation is expected to be compatible with applicable statewide data collection programs such as the Surface Water 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 9-16 Data Management Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) and the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) programs, and the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN). Upon completion of the IRWMP performance assessment, project-specific data, along with the associated quality assurance/quality control information, will be available in a format that can easily be integrated into statewide data collection and tracking programs. As appropriate, the CC will also encourage project proponents to contribute data to the California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES), an information system developed by the California Resources Agency to facilitate access to natural resource data. The CMS that powers the BAIRWMP includes built-in support for exporting project metadata to CERES using the FGDC-XML metadata standard. Resources cataloged in the site can be easily exported in a format that is consumable by the CERES information clearinghouse. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Financing Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 10: Financing ................................................................................ 10-1 10.1 Local Funding Opportunities ........................................................... 10-1 10.1.1 Capital Improvements Program Funding (Revenue Bonds, Certificates of Participation) ..................................... 10-1 10.1.2 Property Tax Assessment (Assessed Valuation) .................. 10-2 10.1.3 User Fees ............................................................................ 10-2 10.1.4 Innovative Local Funding Mechanisms ................................. 10-2 10.1.4.1 Tamalpais Lands Collaborative .......................... 10-2 10.1.4.2 Napa County, Measure A ................................... 10-2 10.1.4.3 Ross Valley Storm Drainage Fee ....................... 10-3 10.1.4.4 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Measure B .... 10-3 10.1.4.5 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Grant Program ............................................................. 10-3 10.1.4.6 Alameda County Watershed Projects ................. 10-4 10.1.4.7 Zone 7 Water Agency, Stanley Reach Project .... 10-4 10.1.4.8 Potential Spending Offset Projects ..................... 10-4 10.1.4.9 Investor Owner Utility Investments ..................... 10-5 10.1.4.10 Resources Identified by Stakeholders ................ 10-5 10.2 State Funding .................................................................................. 10-5 10.2.1 Proposition 1 ........................................................................ 10-6 10.2.2 Proposition 84 ...................................................................... 10-6 10.2.3 Proposition 1E ...................................................................... 10-6 10.2.4 Proposition 50 ...................................................................... 10-6 10.2.5 Other State Funding ............................................................. 10-7 10.2.5.1 State Revolving Fund ......................................... 10-7 10.2.5.2 Safe Drinking Water SRF ................................... 10-7 10.2.5.3 Infrastructure SRF .............................................. 10-7 10.2.5.4 Clean Water SRF ............................................... 10-7 10.2.5.5 State Water Resources Control Board – Federal 319 Program ......................................... 10-8 10.2.5.6 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Recycling Funding Program ..................... 10-8 10.2.5.7 Department of Housing and Community Development – Community Development Block Grant ........................................................ 10-8 10.2.5.8 California Energy Commission (CEC) – Energy Conservation Assistance Act .................. 10-8 10.3 Federal Funding .............................................................................. 10-9 10.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Source Reduction Assistance ........................................................................... 10-9 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Financing 10.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF) ..................... 10-9 10.3.3 Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Program Development Grants .......................................................... 10-10 10.3.4 Environmental Protection Agency, Five Star Restoration Program............................................................................. 10-10 10.3.5 Water Resources Development Act .................................... 10-10 10.3.6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoration ............................ 10-10 10.3.7 National Park Service (NPS), Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program ........................ 10-11 10.3.8 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Program ........... 10-11 10.3.9 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), WaterSMART Grant Programs ................................................................. 10-11 10.3.10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant ............ 10-11 10.4 IRWM Project Funding .................................................................. 10-12 10.5 IRWM Plan Administration Funding ............................................... 10-13 List of Tables Table 10-1: Funding Opportunities ....................................................................................... 10-1 Table 10-2: IRWMP Funding: Past, Ongoing, and Near-Term Examples ............................ 10-22 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-1 Financing Chapter 10: Financing Securing adequate funding for program planning and implementation is one of the biggest challenges facing integrated planning efforts. Successful Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) implementation requires both capital and/or planning costs associated with project implementation as well as ongoing funding to support their continued operation, maintenance and administration. Table 10-1, at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary of funding opportunities by local, state, and federal funding sources. Table 10-2, also located at the end of this Chapter, documents previous, ongoing, and near-term funding for the IRWMP. The total cost for projects included in the Plan is about $4.1 billion, ranging from $27,500 to $292 million and averaging $13.9 million. The following sections identify various funding sources, their associated requirements and guidelines to assist with implementation of Plan Projects. 10.1 Local Funding Opportunities There are opportunities for grant funding available to the stakeholders in the Region which are well suited to many candidate projects. Many of these grant opportunities require that the Local Project Sponsor provide matching funds (“local match”) and funds for operations and maintenance once a project or program is constructed or implemented. The source of the local match and funds for operations and maintenance may include water and wastewater general funds; capital improvement funds; development impact fees; and general funds from local cities, county departments, other local agencies, private organizations, member dues, etc. Local taxpayers may also fund these projects through rate increases, bond measures, and tax increases. In the past, local entities have planned, implemented, and funded construction and operation of water-related projects. These funds may be available to fund Plan Projects or to provide the local match. 10.1.1 Capital Improvements Program Funding (Revenue Bonds, Certificates of Participation) Water districts, as well as other government entities (e.g., counties and cities), can raise funds by issuing municipal bonds or certificates of participation. Bonds and certificates of participation are governed by an extensive system of laws and regulations. Under these systems, investors provide immediate funding for the promise of later repayment. Generally, bonds and certificates of participation are used for capital improvement projects. In the case of a water district, bonds and certificates are secured by revenues from the water system and by property taxes received by the agency. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-2 Financing 10.1.2 Property Tax Assessment (Assessed Valuation) Property taxes can be used for general expenditures, capital improvements, and to service bond and certificate debt. While this is a large and important source of funding for local agencies, in some cases, the State of California can divert these funds, thus rendering them unavailable. In addition, revenue from property taxes can fluctuate with the real estate market. 10.1.3 User Fees Funding for construction and operation and maintenance of water-related projects often comes from user fees, which are charges for water delivered to a home or business, or charges for wholesale water supplies. In addition to these fees, many agencies also charge “hook-up” or “connection” fees – charges for providing facilities to provide water or wastewater services to new development. These fees are also known as “facility capacity fees.” Facility capacity fee revenue is difficult to forecast due to the unpredictable timing of development activity. Development activity depends on real estate demands, the regional economy, and land use planning activity. Revenue from user fees and water charges can also fluctuate with the regional economy, short-term water use reductions or restrictions, and precipitation. 10.1.4 Innovative Local Funding Mechanisms Organizations across the Region have been developing innovative mechanisms to fund local programs. Some examples are presented below. 10.1.4.1 Tamalpais Lands Collaborative Established in March 2014, the Tamalpais Lands Collaborative (TLC) brings together the resources, talents, and philanthropy of the four agencies responsible for the management of Mt. Tamalpais (National Park Service, California State Parks, Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), Marin County Parks) and the conservation nonprofit Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. The partnership grew out of a history of public stewardship of Mt. Tamalpais and earlier collaborative efforts, including a plan by MMWD to create a nonprofit “Friends” organization for the Mt. Tamalpais Watershed. The collaborative supports conservation, stewardship, and public enjoyment of the nearly 10 square miles of local, state, and national parklands that encompass the Mt. Tamalpais region. 10.1.4.2 Napa County, Measure A Napa County voters passed Measure A in 1998, a 20 year 1/2 cent sales tax to generate revenue for watershed improvements and flood control. The tax was proposed by a coalition of stakeholders ("Community Coalition") to generate funds for the $450 million Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project. The Community Coalition included representatives from local, state and federal government, local business and environmental groups, and resource agencies. The Community Coalition developed the Living River Guidelines, which are written into the tax ordinance and require projects funded by Measure A to follow geomorphically sound design principles. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement was written that sets forth the expenditure plan for the County and its five cities. Each entity has projects designed to protect and enhance the Napa River, its tributaries and local watersheds. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-3 Financing 10.1.4.3 Ross Valley Storm Drainage Fee The Health and Safety Code allows the County of Marin to charge a fee for acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining, and operating storm drainage facilities. In July 2007, the Marin County Board of Supervisors approved the levy of a storm drainage fee against those parcels that drain into the Ross Valley Watershed. The fee is to pay a portion of the annual costs for the flood protection and storm drainage improvement programs. The fee for each property is related to how much stormwater runoff it generates. The duration of the storm drainage fee is for fifteen years, terminating with fiscal 2026/27. For more information on efforts funded by the program see: http://marinwatersheds.org/rossvalleywatershed- org/documents/RossValleyWatershedAnnualReport2012_000.pdf 10.1.4.4 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Measure B In November 2012, Santa Clara County voters approved the renewal of Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure B—Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program—with over 73 percent public approval. Taxes will be used to:  Ensure safe, reliable water supply;  Reduce toxins, hazards and contaminants in waterways;  Protect water supply and dams from earthquakes and natural disasters;  Restore wildlife habitat and provide open space;  Provide flood protection to homes, schools and businesses; and  Provide safe, clean water in creeks and bays. Projects include a dam seismic retrofit, impaired water bodies improvement, fish habitat and passage improvement, creek restoration and stabilization, vegetation control and sediment removal for flood protection, and flood protection projects. More information on the Safe, Clean Water Program is available at: http://safecleanwater.org/. 10.1.4.5 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Grant Program Since 2001, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has awarded $16.4 million in grant funding to 86 projects in its three grant programs which include: Environmental Enhancement Grant, Trail and Open Space Grant, and Watershed Stewardship Grant. The grant funding is from the voter- approved Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Plan of 2000 (Clean, Safe Creeks), and the funded projects help achieve objectives included in the plan. Projects focus on: pollution prevention, educational outreach, non-native exotic plant removal, native plant revegetation, endangered species protection and fish barrier removal. There have been eight grant cycles to date, over 594 acres of tidal and riparian habitat created or restored and over 70 miles of recreational trails already opened for public access. Government agencies, non-profit organizations and schools are among the entities eligible to apply for funding. This funding source allows smaller organizations to implement smaller 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-4 Financing projects. The district’s completion of and support for environmental enhancement and trail projects through the Clean, Safe Creeks program has surpassed the original established goals. It is anticipated that between 2014 and 2028 grant cycles will be biennial and funded by the 2012 Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program with a focus on pollution prevention, stewardship, restoration, and trails. 10.1.4.6 Alameda County Watershed Projects The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Alameda County Resources Conservation District (ACRCD) work cooperatively to implement watershed resources management projects within the lands associated with the operation of the SFPUC’s water system. A Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies allows the SFPUC to provide funds to ACRCD to implement projects associated with water quality protection, fire management, grazing operations, riparian/wetland enhancement through, aquatic and upland habitat enhancement, public outreach and education and integrated watershed resources management. 10.1.4.7 Zone 7 Water Agency, Stanley Reach Project Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has been working to find creative ways to fund fish passage and habitat enhancement projects. The Stanley Reach project is using external mitigation revenue to fund portions of the project, which modifies and plants an existing trapezoidal channel with concrete structures that are barriers to fish passage. Mitigation funds are available from public and private sources and are associated with environmental impacts from other development based projects. Mitigation funds are often required to be spent within the watershed where the environmental impact occurs. Although this limits the availability and timing of these funds, projects that are ‘shelf-ready’ are often the same ones that seek grant funding, so this is a means to offset the need for grant funding altogether or to augment grants with another source of local match. Zone 7 plans to also use portions of the project to mitigate for environmental impacts from other projects built through the Capital Improvement Program, where possible. The regulatory agencies have been supportive of this effort and have encouraged potential mitigation partners to participate in the conversation. The use of mitigation funds provides a means to augment or fund environmental projects, but these are limited in scope and timing. This project is funded by Property taxes (83%) and Development Impact fees (17%). 10.1.4.8 Potential Spending Offset Projects In addition to revenue-generating initiatives, some local entities have developed initiatives that offset maintenance spending or could go to constructing other projects. Examples include:  The City of Livermore “Adopt-a-Creek-Spot” program that helps pair local volunteers with stretches of creek that need specific attention (trash and weed removal, etc.). Creek spots are located on property owned by the City of Livermore, Zone 7, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District and along the Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas and Arroyo Seco. This Program helps offset maintenance costs with its use of volunteers and grant funds to purchase clean-up supplies and website, etc. Additional information about the ongoing Adopt-a-Creek Spot Program is available at www.trivalleycreeks.org.  Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Youth Work Program, where volunteers help perform summer maintenance of their channels. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-5 Financing 10.1.4.9 Investor Owner Utility Investments Investor owner utility (IOU) investments, can also support the goals and objectives of the Bay Area IRWM Plan. For example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which regulates IOUs, is formalizing their process and developing a policy framework to guide the regulation of recycled water development, production, and sales. IOUs may have significant incentives to expand recycled water when offered a favorable rate of return on their investments. 10.1.4.10 Resources Identified by Stakeholders Other funding mechanisms that Region stakeholders have used and/or have found to be effective to fund water resource projects include:  The California Financing Coordinating Committee hosts regular Funding Fairs that are open to the public and very helpful. The fairs provide opportunities for project proponents to obtain information about currently available infrastructure grant, loan and bond financing programs and options. For more information, visit: http://www.cfcc.ca.gov/funding_fairs.htm.  Estate planning for land trusts has allowed a number of conservation projects to take place. This is a strategy that can be further explored.  Several local foundations fund watershed, wetlands and riparian projects.  The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture funding database is a helpful resource that identifies federal, state and local agency funding sources as well as private sources such as foundations and educational institutions. For more information, visit: http://www.sfbayjv.org/funding-list.php  Utilizing teams of volunteers to staff watershed projects has been a highly successful practice for local non-profit organizations. 10.1.4.11 Measure AA On June 7th, 2016, residents of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area voted with a 70% majority to pass Measure AA, the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure. This measure is a parcel tax of $12 per year, raising approximately $25 million annually for twenty years to fund shoreline projects that would protect and restore San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, created by the California Legislature in 2008, is a regional agency created to fund shoreline projects that will protect, restore, and enhance San Francisco Bay through the allocation of funds raised by the Measure AA parcel tax. These funds are available for wetland and habitat restoration, flood protection features, and public access improvements along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-6 Financing 10.2 State Funding Potential funding for IRWMP implementation may be available through various state programs, which have included Propositions 1, 84, 1E, and 50. The discussion below and Table 10-1 provide information on state funding opportunities. 10.2.1 Proposition 1 Passed in 2014, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act (Prop 1) authorized $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds to fund ecosystems and watershed protection and restoration, water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, and drinking water protection. Of the $7.5 billion, Prop 1 authorized $510 million in IRWM funding throughout the state, which is allocated to 12 hydrologic region-based Funding Areas. The San Francisco Bay Funding Area was allocated $65 million under Prop 1 for IRWM funding. 10.2.2 Proposition 84 The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (Public Resources Code § 75001, et seq.), was passed by California voters in the November 2006 general election and provided $5.388 billion to support various water resource needs in the State, including IRWM, groundwater, and stormwater projects. Funding under this program is fully expended. 10.2.3 Proposition 1E Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act, encouraged new investments for flood protection and storm water management programs. It included the Stormwater Flood Management Program and the Early Implementation Program. The Stormwater Flood Management Program provided grants of up to $30 million per project to local entities for storm water flood management projects. The Early Implementation Program provided funding to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace levees, weirs, bypasses, and facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control; or to improve or add to facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control to increase flood protection levels for urban areas. Funding under this program is fully expended. 10.2.4 Proposition 50 The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, Water Code §79500, et seq., was passed by California voters in the November 2002 general election. Proposition 50 authorized $3.44 billion in general obligation bonds, to be repaid from the State's General Fund, to fund a variety of water projects such as: specified CALFED Bay-Delta Program projects including urban and agricultural WUE projects; grants and loans to reduce Colorado River water use; purchasing, protecting and restoring coastal wetlands near urban areas; competitive grants for water management and water quality improvement projects; CURRENT & PAST STATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR IRWMP IMPLEMENTATION: •Proposition 1 •Proposition 84 •Proposition 1E •Proposition 50 •Other (Pending Legislation, State Revolving Fund) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-7 Financing development of river parkways; improved security for state, local and regional water systems; and grants for desalination and drinking water disinfecting projects. Funding under this program is fully expended. 10.2.5 Proposition 68 Passed by California voters in June 2018, the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of (Proposition 68) authorized $4 billion for parks, trails, environmental restoration, climate change adaptation and outdoor recreation. The State Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program received $21 million for protection of and public access to the Bay Area’s public open space, $14 million for climate adaptation grants, and $20 million for grants consistent with San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act purposes. These funds are available for wetland and habitat restoration, flood protection features, and public access improvements along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. 10.2.6 Other State Funding 10.2.6.1 State Revolving Fund The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 authorized the creation of a revolving fund program for public water system infrastructure needs specific to drinking water. There is similar state legislation and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund reflects the intent of federal and state laws to provide grant funding or low-interest loans to correct deficiencies in public water systems based on a prioritized system. There are three different entities that provide loans and/or grants under the State Revolving Fund (SRF). 10.2.6.2 Safe Drinking Water SRF Under this SRF program, CDPH provides loans to assist public water systems in achieving and maintaining compliance with the SDWA. Up to $20 million is available per project. Disadvantaged community systems can obtain a zero interest loan and may be eligible for partial grant funding. All applications to this program are initially made for loans, however financial review may determine if grant funds apply. 10.2.6.3 Infrastructure SRF The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, also known as I-Bank, provides financing to local municipal entities for construction and/or repair of publicly owned water supply, treatment and distribution systems, and drainage, and flood control facilities. In addition to water-related projects, loans are available for public infrastructure projects that include parks and recreational facilities and environmental mitigation. 10.2.6.4 Clean Water SRF SWRCB also provides financing for wastewater treatment facility construction projects and expanded use projects that include nonpoint source and estuary projects. Funding options are available to public agencies, as well as non-profit organizations and Native American tribes, for up to $50 million per year. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-8 Financing 10.2.6.5 State Water Resources Control Board – Federal 319 Program This program, administered by the SWRCB, is a nonpoint source pollution control program that is focused on controlling activities that impair beneficial uses and on limiting pollutant effects caused by those activities. The program is federally funded on an annual basis. Project proposals that address Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation and those that address problems in impaired waters are favored in the selection process. There is also a focus on implementing management activities that reduce and/or prevent release of pollutants that impair surface and ground waters. Nonprofit organizations, local government agencies including special districts, tribes, and educational institutions qualify. State or federal agencies may qualify if they are collaborating with local entities and are involved in watershed management or proposing a statewide project. 10.2.6.6 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Recycling Funding Program This is a long-term program operated by the SWRCB that offers grants and low-interest loans for the planning, design and construction of water recycling facilities. Grants are provided for facilities planning studies to determine the feasibility of using recycled water to offset the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies. Pollution control studies, in which water recycling is an alternative, are not eligible. Planning grants are limited to 50 percent of eligible costs, up to $75,000. Construction grants are limited to 25 percent of project costs or $5,000,000, whichever is less. Only public agencies are eligible. The Water Recycling Funding Program receives funding from various sources, including Proposition 50 and the SRF. Due to the varying funding sources, preferences for funding can vary. For example, funding from Proposition 50 gives preference to those recycling projects that result in benefits to the Delta. 10.2.6.7 Department of Housing and Community Development – Community Development Block Grant The California Department of Housing and Community Development provides grants to cities and counties with a program emphasis on creating or retaining jobs for low-income workers in rural communities. Activities may include housing rehabilitation and public improvements, which may involve among other things, water, wastewater and other infrastructure projects as well as feasibility studies. 10.2.6.8 California Energy Commission (CEC) – Energy Conservation Assistance Act The California Energy Commission provides loan financing for water and wastewater utilities for energy efficiency projects, feasibility studies, and implementing energy-saving and renewable energy measures. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to, lighting, motors or variable frequency drives, pumps, insulation, HVAC, energy generation and cogeneration. There are two loan programs under this Act for energy efficient and energy generation projects. One program has a zero-interest, while the other has an interest rate of 1 percent. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-9 Financing 10.3 Federal Funding This section includes a discussion of funds available through various federal programs and specifies eligibility requirements. A summary of potential federal funding sources is also provided in Table 10-1. 10.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Source Reduction Assistance The purpose of this program is to prevent the generation of pollutants at the source and ultimately provide an overall benefit to the environment. This program seeks projects that support source reduction, pollution prevention, and/or source conservation practices. Source reduction activities include: modifying equipment or technology; modifying processes or procedures; reformulating or redesigning products; substituting raw materials; and generating improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. Pollution prevention activities reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants via such procedures as: using raw materials, energy, water or other resources more efficiently; protecting natural resources through conservation; preventing pollution; and promoting the re-use of materials and/or conservation of energy and materials. Eligible organizations include units of state, local, and tribal government; independent school district governments; private or public colleges and universities; nonprofit organizations; and community-based grassroots organizations. 10.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF) This program began in 2008 to support projects to protect and restore San Francisco Bay. The SFBWQIF has invested over $58 million in 49 grant awards. These projects include over 80 partners who are contributing an additional $168 million to restore wetlands and watersheds, and reduce polluted runoff. For more information see: http://www2.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/bay- area-water-projects. Sonoma Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant Solar Panels 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-10 Financing 10.3.3 Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Program Development Grants This program seeks projects that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. The US EPA has identified three priority areas: (1) the development of a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program; (2) the improvement of the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation; and (3) the refinement of the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources. A 25 percent match is required. Eligible entities include states, tribes, local governments, interstate associations, intertribal consortia, and national non-profit, non-governmental organizations. 10.3.4 Environmental Protection Agency, Five Star Restoration Program This program is a partnership among various entities, including the US EPA, U.S. Forest Service, National Association of Counties and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This program provides grants, technical support and opportunities for information exchange to develop community capacity to sustain local natural resources for future generations. Projects focus on elements, including on the ground restoration, meaningful environmental education, diverse partnerships, and measurable ecological and educational/social benefits. Average grant awards range from $25,000 to $35,000 and require fifty percent match. 10.3.5 Water Resources Development Act The Water Resources Development Act is federal legislation, first passed in 1974, that enables authorization of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects, including levee repair, beach management, aquatic ecosystems, flood emergency and water infrastructure projects. The Act has traditionally been reauthorized every two years, but was last enacted in 2007. Steps towards developing a Water Resources Development Act for the 112th Congress are currently underway. After the Act is passed, Congress will appropriate funding for projects in one of the annual Energy and Water Development appropriation bills. 10.3.6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoration This program provides funding for restoration projects that use a habitat-based approach to foster species recovery and increase fish production. The funding opportunity focuses on coastal habitat restoration projects that aid in recovering listed species and rebuilding sustainable fish populations or their prey. Roughly $20 million could potentially be available over the next three years (starting in 2013) to maintain selected projects, dependent upon the level of funding made available by Congress. Typical awards are anticipated to range from $500,000 to $5 million over three years. For more information see: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/funding/coastalrestoration.html. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-11 Financing 10.3.7 National Park Service (NPS), Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program The purpose of this program is to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. The program provides staff assistance, but not funding, to meet this intent. Projects are evaluated on how successfully they meet the following criteria: (1) a clear anticipated outcome leading to on-the-ground success; (2) commitment, cooperation, and cost- sharing by interested public agencies and non-profit organizations; (3) opportunity for significant public involvement; (4) protection of significant natural and/or cultural resources and enhancement of outdoor recreational opportunities; and (5) consistency with the NPS mission. Eligible organizations include non-profits, community groups, tribes or tribal governments, and state or local government agencies. 10.3.8 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Program The Water and Waste Disposal Program provides financial assistance in the form of grants and loans for the development and rehabilitation of water, wastewater, and storm drain systems within rural communities. Funds may be used for costs associated with planning, design, and construction of new or existing water, wastewater, and storm drain systems. Eligible projects include storage, distribution systems, and water source development. There are no funding limits, but the average project size is between $3 and $5 million. Projects must benefit cities, towns, public bodies, and census-designated places with a population less than 10,000 persons. The intent of the program is to improve rural economic development and improve public health and safety. 10.3.9 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), WaterSMART Grant Programs This grant program is intended to fund collaborative local projects that improve water conservation and management through advanced technology and conservation markets. Through this program, federal funding is provided to irrigation and water districts for up to 50 percent of the cost of projects involving conservation, efficiency and water marketing. Eligible applicants include irrigation and water districts and state governmental entities with water management authority. Applicants must be located in the western U.S. (California is an eligible area). Applicants do not have to be part of a USBR project but proposals with a connection to USBR will receive more weight in the evaluation process. Past and proposed programs have included Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, Advanced Water Treatment Pilot and Demonstration Projects, and Grants to Develop Climate Analysis Tools, and Title XVI – Water Reclamation and Reuse. Funding opportunities vary depending on available program funding. 10.3.10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant This grant program provides funds for projects that provide long-term protection of wetlands, and the fish and wildlife that depend upon wetlands. Applicants must provide local match equal to that requested. The Small Grants Program provides up to $75,000 in funding and the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-12 Financing Standard Grants Programs averages $40 million annually for the whole U.S. and is applicable to projects exceeding $75,000. Entities that are eligible include organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Small Grants only apply to the U.S. Applications are continuously accepted by the USFWS for this grant. In addition to the programs listed above, specific congressional authorizations and funding may be obtained to study, build, and construct specific projects in the Region. Potential sources include legislation and funding associated with renewal of the Clean Water Act (CWA), SDWA, and appropriations for specific agencies, such as the USACE and the US EPA. The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorizes projects and policies of the Civil Works program of the USACE. The USACE is a federal agency in the Department of Defense with military and civilian responsibilities. At the direction of Congress, USACE plans, builds, operates, and maintains a wide range of water resources facilities in U.S. states and territories. The agency’s traditional civil responsibilities have been creating and maintaining navigable channels and controlling floods. However, in the last two decades, Congress has increased USACE’s responsibilities in ecosystem restoration, municipal water and wastewater infrastructure, disaster relief, and other activities. WRDA often includes specific authorizations for federal, regional, and local projects. Inclusion in WRDA authorizes a given project but does not guarantee funding for a specific project. Local projects can also receive authorization and federal funding as part of appropriations for the US EPA. The US EPA will enter into assistance agreements with local agencies to fund studies and projects associated with: (1) various environmental requirements (e.g., wastewater treatment); (2) identifying, developing, and/or demonstrating necessary pollution control techniques to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution; and/or (3) evaluating the economic and social consequences of alternative strategies and mechanisms for use by those in economic, social, governmental, and environmental management positions. 10.4 IRWM Project Funding Securing funding for Plan Projects is a significant issue for IRWMP implementation. The Bay Area Region has had success in moving projects identified in the 2006 Plan towards implementation by securing funding through a variety of sources. Funding opportunities are typically focused on a specific resource management strategy or policy issue, so those projects that may rank highest in importance or priority to stakeholders may or may not be the first to be funded. The Coordinating Committee (CC), project proponents and stakeholders understand that it is important to be flexible and responsive to funding opportunities as they arise. Error! Reference source not found. documents a sample of previous, ongoing and near-term funding for the IRWMP. The projects described are a subset of the project list and are meant to convey breadth of funding sources, representing efforts in each of the Functional Areas. Project funding information for individual projects in the Plan is included with the project templates (http://bairwmp.org/projects). Not all project descriptions include financing details. As described in Chapter 6, candidate projects were evaluated for basic eligibility for inclusion in the Plan and then ranked for based on the criteria identified by the Project Update Team (PUT). The criteria included the completeness of the financial information presented, but projects were 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-13 Financing evaluated regardless of whether this information was provided. Proponents were encouraged to submit conceptual projects or those that did not yet have full information available. During the preparation of applications for the various funding opportunities, the financing elements and certainty of the proposed funding will be evaluated in more detail for potential eligible projects. For each funding source identified, suitable projects on the Plan Projects list will be put forward in an application. A summary of funding needs and the funding status for each Plan Project will be prepared after project selection has taken place. This summary will include estimates of outside funding assistance, amount of matching funds, type of matching funds, and whether the matching funds have been secured. For example, the CC is currently working on a DWR Prop 84 IRWM Implementation grant application (Round 2) and gathering this information for 20 projects, for a total request of up to $20 million. Funding for the 2013 IRWMP update was provided by DWR through a Proposition 84 planning grant and supported by the member agencies. This 2019 update was funded by in-kind service from CC members. It is currently expected that implementation of the IRWMP will continue to rely upon in-kind services; however, at some point in the future, additional grant funds may be required to offset the costs associated with IRWMP administration. 10.5 IRWM Plan Administration Funding In addition to funding individual projects the IRWMP must address the need for ongoing funding of the planning and administration of the Plan. In 2007 and 2010, funding agreements were developed with the Functional Areas (FAs) to identify funding for planning and administration needs. These funds were largely used to support the 2013 Plan Update as well as website development. The Region is currently self-funded, as needed, for any IRWM Plan administration through CC member in-kind services. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-1 Financing Table 10-1: Funding Opportunities Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Proposition 1* Water Use Efficienc y DWR CalConse rve Water Use Efficiency Revolving Loan Loans to local agencies to fund specific types of water conservation and water use efficiency projects and programs to achieve urban water use targets. Total of $10 million available. Projects should allow local agencies to provide no-cost efficiency upgrades to residents or aid customers in financing repair of expensive customer leaks. Local Agencies Solicitation is available on a first-come, first- served basis until funds are exhausted. Resourc e Stewards hip Sacrame nto-San Joaquin Delta Conserva ncy Ecosyste m, Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Grant Program Competitive grants for multi-benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in accordance with statewide priorities. Emphasis on projects using public lands and those that maximize voluntary landowner participation. No match requirement. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies Four cycles conducted so far, next cycle TBD. Resourc e Stewards hip San Joaquin River Conserva ncy Multi- Benefit Water Quality, Water Supply, and Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Competitive grants for projects that contribute to the protection or restoration of the San Joaquin River watershed between Friant Dam and State Route 99. No per-project funding limit, no match requirement. Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, tribes, mutual water companies Solicitations typically annual, last solicitation closed December 2018. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-2 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Resourc e Stewards hip Secretary for Natural Resource s Ocean Protection Council: Ecosyste m, Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Competitive grants. Priority issues are marine managed areas, coastal and ocean water quality impacts, fisheries, and climate change. Minimum project budget $250,000 (DAC exceptions). Public agencies, public universitie s, nonprofits, public utilities, tribes, mutual water companies TBD, most recent solicitation closed March 2019. Resourc e Stewards hip Sierra Nevada Conserva ncy Sierra Nevada Watershe d Improvem ent Program Competitive grants focused on forest health projects that result in multiple watershed benefits. Projects should be located within a forested area of the Sierra Nevada Region. Maximum award $1 million for implementation projects (including fee title acquisition) and up to $100,000 for project development activities. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes. TBD, most recent pre-applications were due August 2019. Solicitations occur roughly annually. Resourc e Stewards hip State Coastal Conserva ncy Ecosyste m, Watershe d Protection and Restoratio n Grants funding multi-benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects. Matching funds not required, but encouraged. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . No current solicitations. Flood Manage ment DWR Coastal Watershe d Flood Risk Reduction Grants funding projects in coastal areas that focus on multi-benefit flood risk reduction, Projects in Delta are excluded. Maximum award unknown. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water Program Guidelines public comment period closed in September 2019. Final guidelines and proposal solicitation to follow. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-3 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application including addressing flood risk and public safety, enhancing coastal ecosystems, and promoting natural resources stewardship and public access corridors. companies . Water Supply DWR Groundwa ter Plans and Projects Funding for projects that develop and implement groundwater plans and projects consistent with sustainable groundwater planning 50% match requirement. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . No future solicitations anticipated. Water Supply SWRCB Groundwa ter Sustainabi lity Funds projects that prevent or cleanup the contaminatio n of groundwater that serves or has served as a source of drinking water. Planning projects between $100,000 and $2 million. Implementation projects between $500,000 and $50 million. 50% match required. The project must be identified as a high priority by the applicable state or federal regulatory agencies. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . Unknown if additional rounds will occur. Water Supply, Water DWR Integrated Regional Water Multi-benefit projects including Project must be included in an Integrated Public agencies, nonprofits, Round 1: Fall 2019 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-4 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Quality, Resourc e Stewards hip Managem ent – San Francisco Bay water reuse, efficiency, conservation , groundwater, stormwater, conveyance, desalination, water quality improvement , and decisions support tools. Regional Water Management Plan. CEQA must be complete in 12 months after final grant award (exceptions for DACs). $52 million available across two rounds of funding. public utilities, federally recognize d and California State Native American tribes and mutual water companies . Stormwat er SWRCB Storm Water Grant Program Multi-benefit stormwater management projects including green infrastructure , rainwater and storm water capture projects and storm water treatment facilities. Stormwater Resource Plan required to apply. Award size has ranged from $250,000 to $1 million. Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, federally recognize d Native American tribes, state Native American tribes listed on Native American Heritage Commissi on’s California Tribal Consultati on List, and mutual water companies . Early 2020 Water Quality SWRCB Clean Water State Revolving Fund Low-interest loans and other financing mechanisms Max $50M per agency per year, with a max financing Public Agencies, non-profit organizati ons, Applications are accepted on a continuing basis. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-5 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application (principal forgiveness) are available for wastewater treatment facility construction projects and expanded use projects that include nonpoint source and estuary projects. term of 20 years. Native American tribes Resourc e Stewards hip Wildlife Conserva tion Board Streamflo w Enhance ment Noncompetiti ve grants that fund projects that enhance stream flows and are consistent with the objectives and actions outlined in the California Water Action Plan, with the primary focus on enhancing flow in streams that support anadromous fish; support special- status, threatened, endangered, or at-risk species; or provide resilience to climate change No match requirement. No maximum award amount, total funding anticipated to be $64 million. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . July 2020 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-6 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Water Supply DWR Water Desalinati on Grant Program Funds planning, design, and construction of potable water desalination facilities for both brackish and ocean water. Also provides grants for pilot, demonstratio n, and research projects. Up to $10 million for construction projects, lower amounts for other project types. Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, federally recognize d and California State Native American tribes and mutual water companies . Continuous application process is currently closed. May reopen late 2019. Water Supply SWRCB Water Recycling Grants and loans for planning and construction projects that offset the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies. Planning projects – 50% match is required, maximum grant award is $75,000 Construction projects – 50% match is required, maximum grant award is 35% of the total project cost or $15 million Public agencies, nonprofits, public utilities, federally recognize d and California State Native American tribes and mutual water companies . Applications accepted on rolling basis Water Supply California Water Commiss ion Water Storage Investmen t Program Water storage projects Applications no longer being accepted. Program closed. No future solicitations anticipated. Water Supply SWRCB Water System Infrastruct ure Improvem ents – Safe Drinking Water Grants and loans. Funds/financ es drinking water improvement s to publicly and privately owned Interest rate is 50% of general obligation bond rate. Maximum repayment term 20 years Publicly and privately owned community water systems and nonprofit, No application deadline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-7 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application community water systems and nonprofit, non- community water systems. non- community water systems Resourc e Stewards hip California Departm ent of Fish and Wildlife Watershe d Restoratio n & Delta Water Quality and Ecosyste m Restoratio n Projects should address watershed priorities that may include wildfire recovery response and prevention, headwaters management , meadow ecosystem restoration, coastal wetlands protection, and others. Minimum or maximum grant amount unknown, anticipated total available funding this solicitation approximately $37 million. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . Deadline TBD. Proposal solicitation package being finalized as of September 2019. Resourc e Stewards hip Secretary for Natural Resource s Watershe ds and Urban Rivers Grants funding multi-benefit watershed and urban rivers enhancemen t projects in urban watersheds that increase regional and local water self- sufficiency. No minimum or maximum grant amount. Approximately $9.3 million available in each cycle. Public agencies, nonprofits, tribes, public utilities, mutual water companies . No future solicitations anticipated. Proposition 84 Funds are fully expended Proposition 1E Funds are fully expended 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-8 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Proposition 50 Funds are fully expended Other Water Supply HUD Communit y Developm ent Block Grant Program Grants are available with a program emphasis on creating or retaining jobs for low income workers in rural communities. Grants of up to $2.5M are available, whereby award limits are typically $1.5M. City with less than 50,000 residents and County jurisdiction s with less than 200,000 residents in unincorpor ated areas. Notices of funding availability scheduled for release in January each year. Applications are invited by an annually and are continuously received and reviewed throughout the year. Awards are made on an ongoing basis. Water Supply DWR New Local Water Supply Constructi on Loans Eligible projects include a canal, dam reservoir, desalination facility, groundwater extraction facility, or other construction or improvement , including rehabilitation of a dam for water supply purposes by a local public agency for the diversion, storage, or distribution of water which will remedy existing Loans: $5M max per construction project, $500,000 max per feasibility project. The interest rate is equal to the rate that the State pays on the general obligation bonds sold to finance the program. Local Public Agencies Continuously accepting applications. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-9 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application water supply problems. Energy Efficienc y CEC Energy Financing Program Low interest loan financing for water and wastewater utilities for energy efficiency projects, feasibility studies, and implementin g energy- saving and renewable energy measures. Max loan amount is $3M per application or 12 times the annual energy savings, whichever is less. 3% interest rate. Publicly owned water and wastewate r treatment facilities, cities, counties, special districts, or other non- profit entities. Applications are available on the CEC website Water Quality SWRCB, SWRCB, I-Bank State Revolving Fund Provides low-interest loans and/or grants to assist public agencies in correcting deficiencies in water infrastructure Grants and loans can be combined with other funding sources. Publicly owned treatment works, local public agencies, non-profit organizati ons, and private parties Applications vary depending on type of project and agency from which funds requested. Applications are accepted on a continuing basis. Water Quality SWRCB Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provides low interest loans or grants to assist public water systems in achieving or maintaining compliance with the SDWA. Project include water Up to $500,000 per planning study; $20M per project and a max of $30M per entity Public Water System Pre-application invitations annually. Disadvantaged system can obtain a zero interest loan. Applications are for loans; financial review determines if grant funds apply. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-10 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application treatment facilities, replace aging infrastructure , planning studies, consolidation of water systems, source water protection, etc. Projects must be needed to comply with SDWA. Water Quality I-Bank Infrastruct ure State Revolving Fund Program The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank provides loans for construction and/or repair of publicly owned water supply, treatment and distribution systems, and drainage, and flood control facilities. Loans are also available for public infrastructure , such as solid waste collection and disposal, environment al mitigation, as well as Loan: $10M per project ($2M max per environmental mitigation project per year, $2M max per project for parks and recreation facilities) and $20M per jurisdiction per fiscal year. Local Municipal Entity Preliminary applications are at ibank.ca.gov 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-11 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application projects such as parks and recreational facilities and public safety facilities. Water Quality SWRCB Clean Water State Revolving Fund Low-interest loans and other financing mechanisms are available for wastewater treatment facility construction projects and expanded use projects that include nonpoint source and estuary projects. Max $50M per agency per year, with a max financing term of 20 years. Public Agencies, non-profit organizati ons, Native American tribes Applications are accepted on a continuing basis. Water Quality SWRCB Federal CWA 319(h) Program (Nonpoint source grant program) Funding to support projects throughout the State to restore impaired surface waters through the control of nonpoint source pollution Project Funding: $250,000-$1 million. 25% local match required but waived for Disadvantaged Communities and small water systems. For 2012, funding for planning/asses sment projects ranges between $75,000 and $125,000 and funding for implementation projects ranges Public agencies, public colleges, 501(c)(3) non-profit organizati ons, tribes, state and federal entities Applications accepted in periodic application cycles. During the project solicitation process, applicants submit a brief concept proposal via FAAST. Applicants with the highest- ranking concept proposals will be invited to submit a full proposal. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-12 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application between $250,000 and $750,000. Water Supply SWRCB Water Recycling Funding Program Grants are provided for facilities planning studies to determine the feasibility of using recycled water to offset the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies. Water recycling construction projects that meet objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program are eligible to compete for Proposition 50 grant funds. Grants for planning studies will cover 50% of eligible costs, up to $75,000. Grants for construction will cover up to 25% of costs or $5M (whichever is less). Construction projects not eligible for grants may also apply for loans are under the SRF loan program. Public agencies Applications accepted on continuous basis. Water Quality SWRCB Cleanup and Abatemen t Account This account generally provides public agencies with grants for emergency Use of funds are limited to activities specified by the State Water Board and include among other Public agencies with authority to cleanup or abate a waste. Requestors must first contact the State Water Board or submit an online application using FAAST. Requests can be 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-13 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application cleanup or abatement of conditions of pollution where no viable responsible parties are available to undertake the work. things, waste cleanup and abatement of effects of a waste, and remedying a significant water pollution problem. made on an ongoing basis. Water Quality SWRCB Agricultur al Drainage Loan Program This program provides loans, from the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986, to fund treatment, storage, conveyance, or disposal of agricultural drainage water. Funding cap is $20 million for implementation projects and $100,000 for feasibility studies. Rates are set at 1/2 of the State's General Obligation bond rate City, county, district, joint powers authority or other political subdivisio n of the State involved with water managem ent Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. Water Quality SWRCB Agricultur al Drainage Managem ent Loan Program This program provides loans, from Proposition 204, to fund treatment, storage, conveyance, or disposal of agricultural drainage water. Funding cap is $5 million for implementation projects and $100,000 for feasibility studies. Rates are set at 1/2 of the State's General Obligation bond rate City, county, district, joint powers authority or other political subdivisio n of the State involved with water managem ent Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-14 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Water Quality SWRCB Undergro und Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Funds are available to provide a means for petroleum underground storage tank (UST) owners and operators to meet the federal and state requirements . The Fund also assists a large number of small businesses and individuals by providing reimburseme nt for unexpected and catastrophic expenses associated with the cleanup of leaking petroleum USTs. Loans are available in amounts up to $1.5 million, depending on project and special program. Various entities depending on special program. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis. Water Quality, Water Supply SWRCB Suppleme ntal Environm ental Projects The SWRCB or Regional Boards may allow Supplementa l Environment al Projects to be implemented or funded to partially satisfy a monetary assessment made in an Generally, projects with a value of at least $50,000 will be considered under this program. Projects may either be performed by the discharger or third parties paid by the discharger . Sign up forms for the project proponent list are available on the SWRCB website. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-15 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application administrativ e civil liability order. Projects must directly benefit or study groundwater or surface water quality or quantity. FEDERAL Water Quality US EPA Source Reduction Assistanc e This program supports source reduction/pol lution prevention projects that provide an overall benefit to the environment by preventing pollutants at the source. Award amounts typically range from $25,000 - $75,000. Units of State, local, and tribal governme nt; independe nt school district governme nts; private or public colleges and universitie s; nonprofit organizati ons; and community -based grassroots organizati ons. Applications accepted in periodic application cycles. Water Quality US EPA San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvem ent Fund This program supports projects to protect and restore San Francisco Bay, including through water quality and habitat improvement , wetlands Award amounts have recently ranged between $500,000 - $2 million. 50% match required. State, local governme nt agencies, districts, and councils, regional water pollution control agencies Applications accepted on an annual cycle. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-16 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application and watersheds restoration, and polluted runoff reduction. and entities, state coastal zone managem ent agencies, public and private universitie s, and colleges, and public or private non- governme ntal, non- profit institutions . Water Quality and Resourc e Stewards hip US EPA EPA Wetlands Program Developm ent Grants Projects that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigation s, experiments, training, demonstratio ns, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution Three priority areas identified by the US EPA: Developing a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program; improving the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation; and refining the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources Awards for 2012 were anticipated to range from $50,000 to $350,000. 25% match required. States, tribes, local governme nts, interstate associatio ns, intertribal consortia, and national non-profit, non- governme ntal organizati ons are eligible to apply. Applications accepted in periodic application cycles. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-17 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Resourc e Stewards hip US EPA and other partners Five Star and Urban Waters Restoratio n Program This program provides challenge grants, technical support and opportunities for information exchange to facilitate community- based wetland, riparian and coastal habitat restoration projects. Project sites may be public or private land. Key project elements include on the ground restoration, environmental education, partnerships and measurable results. Schools, youth groups, public, private or corporate landowner s, local, state and federal governme nt agencies, local non- profit organizati ons, etc. Applications generally open in late fall, with award notification in late spring. Resourc e Stewards hip NMFS NOAA Coastal and Marine Habitat Restoratio n This program provides funding for restoration projects that use a habitat- based approach to foster species recovery and increase fish production, with a focus on coastal habitat restoration projects. Typical awards are anticipated to range from $500,000 to $5 million over three years Institutions of higher education, non- profits, commerci al organizati ons, U.S. territories, and state, local and Native American tribal governme nts. Applications accepted upon issuance of Funding Opportunity Announcement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-18 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application Resourc e Stewards hip NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservat ion Assistanc e Program The program provides technical and staff assistance to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. Note: RTCA does not provide monetary grants or loans. Projects will be evaluated on how they meet the following criteria: 1) A clear outcome leading to on the ground success; 2) Commitment , cooperation, and cost- sharing by applicant; 3) Opportunity for significant public involvement; 4) Protection of significant natural and/or cultural resources and enhancement of outdoor recreational opportunities; and 5) Consistency with the NPS mission. Nonprofits, community groups, tribes, or tribal governme nts; and state or local governme nt agencies. Applications are generally due in the summer for assistance during the next fiscal year. http://www.nps.g ov/rtca/ Resourc e Stewards hip NRCS Watershe d Protection and Flood Preventio n Funding for activities that promote soil conservation and the preservation of the watersheds of rivers and streams throughout the U.S. Matching funds are not required: applicants must generally provide matching ranging from 0%-50% in cash or in-kind resources depending on such factors as project type and the kinds of structural measures a project proposes. States, local governme nts, and other political subdivisio ns; soil or water conservati on districts; flood prevention or control districts and tribes. Potential applicants Not currently soliciting applications. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-19 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application must be able to obtain all appropriat e land and water rights and permits to successful ly implement proposed projects. Water Quality USDA Rural Develop ment Water and Waste Disposal Program Program that provides financial assistance (loans and grants) for community water, wastewater, and drainage systems in rural areas Funds may be used for planning, design, and construction of new or existing systems; eligible projects include storage, distribution, source development; no funding limits, but average project size is $1.83-5 million. Greater funding share provided for low-income communities. Grants may be made for up to 75% of eligible project costs. Cities, towns, public bodies, and census designate d places with population s less than 10,000. Must demonstra te financial need. Applications accepted on a continuous basis. Water Supply USBR WaterSM ART Challenge Grant Programs Reclamation provides 50/50 cost share funding to irrigation and water districts and states for Matching funds are required. Applicants must provide a minimum 50% of project costs in non-federal cash or in-kind resources. Eligible applicants include irrigation and water districts, state governme ntal Funding opportunities vary depending on available program funding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-20 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application projects focused on water conservation , efficiency, and water marketing. Past and proposed programs have included Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, Advanced Water Treatment Pilot and Demonstrati on Projects, Grants to Develop Climate Analysis Tools. entities with water managem ent authority. Projects must be located in Western United States. Resourc e Stewards hip USFWS North American Wetlands Conservat ion Act The Small Grants Program provides funding, up to $75,000, for projects that provide long-term protection of wetlands and wetlands dependent fish and wildlife. Funding available under the Standard Grants Program averages $40M annually for Partners must match the grant request at a 1 to 1 ratio. Organizati ons and individuals who have developed partnershi ps to carry out wetlands conservati on projects in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Small Grants only apply to the U.S. Applications accepted on continuous basis. Proposals may be submitted at any time during before the fiscal year deadline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-21 Financing Funding Objectiv e Agency Program Brief Description Key Points Eligibility Submit Grant Application the whole U.S. and is provided to projects exceeding $75,000 per proposal. * Note that only programs relevant to the Bay Area IRWM Region have been included. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-22 Financing Table 10-2: IRWMP Funding: Past, Ongoing, and Near-Term Examples Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Regional Green Infrastructure Project ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Watershed Partnership Technical Assistance ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Watershed Program Administration ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Administration ABAG/SFEP ABAG/SFEP Grant Administration Alameda County Water District Alameda County Water District Alameda Creek Phase 2 Fish Passage Project Alameda County Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Alameda County Water District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Alameda County Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Administration Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Regional Conservation Outreach Campaign Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Grant Administration Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Bay Friendly Coalition/SW Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Bay Friendly Coalition/SW Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Center for Ecosystem Mgt & Research (CEMAR) ABAG/SFEP S.F. Estuary Steelhead Monitoring Program Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dist Central Contra Costa Sanitary Dist CCCSD-Concord Recycled Water Pipeline City of Calistoga City of Calistoga Calistoga Recycled Water Storage Facility City of Campbell ABAG/SFEP Hacienda Avenue Green Street Improvement Proj. City of Napa Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program City of Napa Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program City of Napa Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project City of Oakland City of Oakland Oakland Sausal Creek Restoration Project City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Mt. View / Moffett Area Recycled Water Project City of Petaluma City of Petaluma Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV City of Redwood City City of Redwood City Redwood City Recycled Water Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-23 Financing Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title City of Redwood City City of Redwood City Redwood City Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project City of San Jose City of San Jose San José Green Streets Demonstration Projects City of St Helena City of St Helena St Helena Upper York Creek Dam Removal--St. Helena, Napa River Watershed Committee for Green Foothills ABAG/SFEP Restoration Guidance and San Francisquito Watershed Restoration Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District CCWD-EBMUD Regional Intertie (VFDs) Contra Costa Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District San Pablo Rheem Creek Wetlands Restoration Project Contra Costa Water District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Contra Costa Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project DERWA DERWA DERWA Phase 3 Recycled Water Expansion Project Dublin San Ramon Services Dist Dublin San Ramon Services Dist Central Dublin Recycled Water Distrib. & Retrofit Proj. East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District New Business Guidebook Pilot Program East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District Richmond Advanced Recycling Expansion Proj (MF Equip) East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District California WaterStar Initiative - Bay Area East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bayshore Phase 1A - Interstate 80 Pipeline East Bay Municipal Utility District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A East Bay Municipal Utility District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program East Bay Municipal Utility District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Regional Park District Richmond Breuner Marsh Restoration and Public Access Project Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation Dist Las Gallinas Valley Sanitation Dist Novato South Service Area - Hamilton Field, Stage 1 Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District WaterSMART Irrigation with AMI/AMR Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Direct Installation High Efficiency Toilet Program Marin Municipal Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project Marin Municipal Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Marin RCD Marin RCD Marin/Sonoma Conserving Our Watersheds Montara Water & Sanitary District Montara Water & Sanitary District Groundwater Exploration Project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-24 Financing Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title Napa Co. RCD Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program / Napa County Rainwater Harvesting Pilot Project Napa County Napa County Napa Milliken Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Fish Passage Barrier Removal Napa Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District Napa State Hospital Pipeline Construction, Stage 1 Napa Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District Los Carneros Water District and Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay Recycled Water Pipelines North Coast Water District North Coast Water District Pacifica Recycled Water Project North Marin Water District North Marin Water District North Marin Recycled Water Project Novato Sanitary District Novato Sanitary District Novato North Service Area Project Oro Loma/EBDA ABAG/SFEP San Francisco Bay Climate Change Pilot Projects Combining Ecosystem Adaptation, Flood Risk Management and Wastewater Effluent Polishing Point Blue ABAG/SFEP Stream Restoration w/ Schools in North Bay DACs Point Blue Point Blue The Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW) Project Roseview Heights Municipal Water Agency Roseview Heights Municipal Water Agency Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main upgrades S.F. Estuary Institute ABAG/SFEP Flood Infrastructure Mapping & Communication Tool San Francisco Airport San Francisco Airport San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Harding Park Recycled Water Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation Project San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project San Mateo Co. RCD ABAG/SFEP Pescadero Integrated Flood Reduction & Habitat Enhancement Project San Mateo County San Mateo County Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project San Mateo Resources Conservation District San Mateo Resources Conservation District Drought Relief for South Coast San Mateo County Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District South Bay Advanced RW Treatment, Reverse Osmosis 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 10-25 Financing Project Lead Local Project Sponsor* Project Title Santa Clara Valley Water District Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Santa Clara Valley Water District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Santa Clara Valley Water District Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Santa Clara Valley Water District - City of San Jose Santa Clara Valley Water District South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Trt Proj Santa Clara Valley Water District / City of Sunnyvale Santa Clara Valley Water District / City of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Continuous Recycled Water Production Facilities and Wolfe Road Pipeline Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Admin Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Admin Solano County Water Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Sonoma County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Sonoma County Water Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Sonoma Resource Conservation District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Sonoma Resource Conservation District Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Napa Marsh Restoration / Recycled Water Project Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Project, Stage 1 Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist Sonoma Valley Co Sanitation Dist North Bay Water Reuse Program -- Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Project - Phase 2 State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy Bair Island Restoration State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy South Bay Salt Pond 16A/17 Habitat Restoration State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Stinson Beach Water District Stinson Beach Water District Stinson Beach Water Supply & Drought Preparedness Plan Stopwaste.org Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief and Water Conservation Project Admin Urban Tilth ABAG/SFEP Richmond Shoreline & San Pablo Flood Project Watershed Project ABAG/SFEP Storm Water Improvements & Pilot Project at Bay Pt. Zone 7 Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Bay Area Regional Conservation Program Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Mocho Basin GW Demineralization Project Zone 7 Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Conservation Program Zone 7 Water Agency Stopwaste.org Bay Area Regional Drought Relief & Water Conservation Project Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Supply Drought Preparedness Project * Local Project Sponsor is a grant sub-recipient that collaborates with Project Lead to implement the project 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Technical Analysis Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ i Chapter 11: Technical Analysis.................................................................. 11-1 11.1 Documents Used in Plan Development ........................................... 11-2 11.1.1 Land Use Plans .................................................................... 11-2 11.1.2 Water Resource Management Plans .................................... 11-2 11.1.3 Water Quality Plans ............................................................. 11-3 11.1.4 Facilities’ Plans and Master Plans ........................................ 11-4 11.1.5 Resource Conservation Plans .............................................. 11-5 11.1.6 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Plans ................................................................................... 11-6 11.2 Regional Reports and Studies ......................................................... 11-7 11.3 Technical Analysis and Methods ..................................................... 11-8 11.4 Data Needs ..................................................................................... 11-8 List of Tables Table 11-1: Examples of Technical Analysis Utilized in Plan Development .......................... 11-1 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-1 Technical Analysis Chapter 11: Technical Analysis The intent of this Chapter is to document that the IRWM Plan Update is based on sound technical information, analyses, and methods. The following sections provide a description of studies, models, or other methodologies used to analyze the technical information and data sets, and explains how they have shaped the Coordinating Committee’s (CC) and stakeholders’ understanding of water management in the Region. The IRWMP Update documents the results of a collaborative effort between public agencies with varying water, wastewater, flood and watershed management responsibilities and numerous other interested entities. The Bay Area IRWMP was developed using data provided in the four FA20 Documents (FADs, see Chapter 1) as well as local and subregional planning documents and information. The planning and analysis conducted at the local and subregional levels has been used as the basis for analysis performed at the IRWM Plan Level.  Local Level. The “Local Level” refers to water resources planning that is conducted over a relatively limited geographic extent, such as an individual municipality, flood zone, or small/partial watershed. Planning and analysis occurring at the local level frequently serves as the basis for planning and analysis conducted at larger geographic scales.  Subregional Level. The “Subregional Level” refers to water resources planning and analysis that is conducted across a larger geographic scale than the local level, while not encompassing the entire region. Subregional-level planning includes planning across multiple municipalities, large flood zones, or large watersheds. For example, planning conducted by water, wastewater, or flood protection agencies that serve multiple municipalities, or planning conducted by a watershed group addressing an entire large watershed or multiple watersheds would be considered subregional planning. This type of analysis and planning frequently builds upon analyses and plans developed at the local level.  IRWM Plan Level. The “IRWM Plan Level” refers to the water resources planning and analysis being conducted across the entire Bay Area region, such as that being conducted through IRWMP development. This type of planning frequently incorporates and builds upon planning conducted at both the local level and the subregional level. Typically regional efforts build on local ones. However, the Bay Area’s IRWMP efforts have also influenced organizational activities as well as projects and implementation more locally. For example, flood management started as a local effort and in 2007 Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) was developed as an outgrowth of the IRWM planning process. BAFPAA was established to coordinate planning and implementing flood protection services amongst the flood protection agencies in the Bay Area. Since that time, flood related projects have received significant funding—$1M in Round 1for flood mapping and $2M from the 20 The four functional areas, as listed in chapter 1 are: (1) Water Supply & Water Quality, (2) Wastewater & Recycled Water, (3) Flood Protection & Stormwater Management, and (4) Watershed Management & Habitat Protection and Restoration. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-2 Technical Analysis Environmental Protection Agency project to develop innovative approaches for bringing environmental benefits and cost-savings to flood protection infrastructure along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. For water conservation as well, prior to the 2006 IRWM Plan, conservation efforts in the Bay Area were implemented at the local level by utilities for their service area customers. Early regional conservation programs came from the 2006 IRWM Planning efforts. Climate change is being elevated to the regional level through the Plan update and the impact is already evidenced through the project list. 11.1 Documents Used in Plan Development A wide variety of technical studies have been developed at the local level and the subregional level, and used in development and support of the Bay Area IRWMP. Many studies are also being conducted in parallel with IRWMP development. The Plan builds upon these existing documents, plans and programs, combining them into a comprehensive plan for water resources management throughout the region. The Plan was prepared using information and guidance provided by agencies representing all four Functional Areas (FAs) and, to varying degrees, municipalities, town councils, regulatory, environmental and land use planning entities that represent the CC and Stakeholders. The IRWMP in turn, will be used by these same entities to guide and support their future regional water resources management efforts. Appendix D-1 provides a table with most of the key technical studies that were collected, reviewed and evaluated by the CC, as well as links to the reports where available. The following types of documents contain the baseline information used in the development of Plan: 11.1.1 Land Use Plans Land use plans provide for the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and services of urban and rural communities. General plans are a compendium of city or county policies regarding long-term development, in the form of maps and accompanying text (for more information on General Plans see Chapter 13: Relation to Land Use Planning). In California, general plans have seven mandatory elements (circulation, conservation, housing, land use, noise, open space, safety and seismic safety) and may include any number of optional elements (such as water, air quality, economic development, hazardous waste, and parks and recreation). Most local general planning documents generally have identified water management resource strategies that integrate with land use planning efforts and oftentimes reference and tie to regulatory requirements, such as water quality requirements of relevant basin plans. By law, each city and county is required to update the Housing Element of its general plan every five years and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recommends that the remaining elements be reviewed every eight to ten years. 11.1.2 Water Resource Management Plans Water Resource Management reports document the reliability and availability of the Region’s water supplies to meet current and projected demands, in addition to identifying infrastructure needs to provide effective water resource management. Different local agencies have different authorities to prepare and implement Groundwater Management Plans. Some agencies are special act districts that have groundwater management authority. Others adopt Groundwater Management Plans following the AB 3030 procedure for development of a groundwater management plan. AB 3030, the Groundwater 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-3 Technical Analysis Management Act, authorized local agencies to prepare Groundwater Management Plans for groundwater basins not subject to adjudication or other form of regulation. AB 3030 lays out a procedure for development of a groundwater management plan. The act also specifies twelve technical components which can be included in a groundwater management plan, including replenishment strategy, mitigation of overdraft, mitigation of contaminated groundwater, and avoidance of saline intrusion. Zone 7 Water Agency, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Diablo Water District have developed Groundwater Management Plans. Finally, SB 1938 requires any public agency seeking State funds administered through DWR for the construction of groundwater projects or groundwater quality projects to prepare and implement a groundwater management plan with certain specified components. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act applies to public and private municipal water suppliers with more than 3,000 connections or supplying more than 3,000 AFY. The act requires suppliers to assess the reliability of their water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Suppliers must describe and evaluate sources of water supply, water demand, water quality, water conservation goals and activities and other relevant information and programs. This information is used by the urban water supplier to develop an Urban Water Management Plan, which is submitted to DWR in years ending in five and zero (e.g., 2005, 2010, and 2015). About 45 of the Plan participants have filed UWMPs (See Appendix D-1). Many water suppliers develop and update Water Master Plans and Integrated Water Resources Plans (IWRPs) which present data and analyses including flow projections and facility requirements for wastewater treatment at the service area level. These plans build upon the information and analysis presented in the UWMPs to identify issues, goals and objectives, as well as water supply and water quality needs, at the agency level. These plans also present potential strategies for achieving the goals and meeting the identified water supply and water quality needs of the region. Appendix D-1 provides information on Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD) Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan as well as Dublin San Ramon Services District’s Water Master Plan. At the local level, General Plans (see Section 11.1.1) and Municipal Services Reviews (MSR) conducted throughout the region present analysis of land use, development plans, and population trends. These data and analyses are limited in geographic scope, focusing on municipalities. Still, these planning documents provide the basis for planning at a larger geographic scope. The information and analysis presented in General Plans and MSRs is developed by water suppliers at the subregional level into UWMPs, Water Master Plans and Integrated Water Resources Plans (IWRPs), Groundwater and Stormwater Management Plans. The strategies presented in these documents, together, provide the basis for development of IRWMP water management strategies. Finally, the information developed in the project-specific plans serve as the foundation for development of IRWMP projects and programs. 11.1.3 Water Quality Plans Water quality plans are generally designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect beneficial uses of water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-4 Technical Analysis The Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan protects the beneficial uses of water within the Bay Area hydrologic region, designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. As conditions change, such as the identification of new TMDLs or water quality standards, the Basin Plan is amended. The Recycled Water Policy requires that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans be completed by 2014 to facilitate basin-wide management of salts and nutrients from all sources in a manner that optimizes recycled water. The plans are intended to protect groundwater from accumulating salt and nutrient concentrations that would degrade the quality of groundwater and limit its beneficial uses. The Recycled Water Policy requires stakeholders to develop implementation plans to meet these objectives for salts and nutrients which are then adopted by Regional Boards as amendments to the region's Basin Plan. Zone 7 Water Agency, SCVWD, and SCWA are is also developing a Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (http://www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/). Storm drain master plans and other stormwater management plans identify infrastructure necessary for effective stormwater management and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP). Contra Costa, Alameda County Counties, and Zone 7, and several cities have Stormwater Master Plans. In addition, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association developed a Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. 11.1.4 Facilities’ Plans and Master Plans A facilities plan and/or master plan is a development plan that provides the framework by which future planning decisions are made. It is an action plan for a particular resource or service such as recycled water, flood control, and wastewater, and can include planned facilities. Additional local efforts include Flood Insurance Rate Maps are developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify 100-year floodplains for use in determining flood insurance rates. Stormwater NPDES permits require implementation of BMPs and effectiveness monitoring for pollution prevention. At the subregional level, wastewater agencies develop Wastewater Master Plans which present data and analyses including flow projections and facility requirements for wastewater treatment at the service area level. Recycled Water Master Plans provide information related to available supply and demand, wastewater disposal, public perception as well as facility requirements for recycled water at the service area planning level. At the subregional level, but on a greater scale, the 1999 Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP) Recycled Water Master Plan was developed to determine the potential for using high quality recycled water to augment water supplies, to support the restoration of the Bay/Delta system and wastewater discharge management into the San Francisco Bay.21 The BARWRP Recycled Water Master Plan built upon local agency data 21 The BARWRP Master Plan is categorized as subregional because it did not include the North Bay. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-5 Technical Analysis to develop subregional issues, goals and objectives, subregional flow projections, and potential recycled water markets and associated costs. http://bacwa.org/committees/recycled- water/documents. The North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) is another example of a subregional approach- http://www.nbwra.org/. The North Bay Water Reuse Program (NBWRP) is a coordinated regional effort among a group of water and sanitation agencies in Sonoma, Marin and Napa Counties, organized as the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA), to offset potable water demand by promoting water reuse for agriculture, urban and environmental uses. By using an integrated approach to recycled water applications, the NBWRA is creating a regional water reuse Program to implement projects that provide a reliable new water supply that will help meet the North Bay region’s long-term needs. 11.1.5 Resource Conservation Plans Resource conservation plans in this context are those watershed, river, and conservation plans that analyze the natural, biological, recreational, and historical resources of a particular watershed, subregion or Region. Watershed management plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), and natural community conservation plans (NCCPs) are developed at the subregional level and provide a review of land use planning information, biological assessments, and limiting factors analysis to identify mitigation measures, restoration activities, and habitat protection actions that can be taken to offset potential impacts associated with development and operations and maintenance. Broader watershed monitoring projects and programs are also initiated to collect data watershed-wide, often extending into multiple watersheds. Data collected and analyzed may include water quality, wildlife populations, sediment sources and transport, and in-stream flow conditions. Restoration plans, watershed assessments, and monitoring efforts are also developed at the subregional level to evaluate the conditions of local watersheds. These plans are generally limited in geographic scope, but serve as the basis for subregional and regional planning. At the local level, visioning exercises, restoration plans, watershed assessments, and monitoring efforts evaluate the conditions of local watersheds. These plans are generally limited in geographic scope, but serve as the basis for subregional and regional planning. Project-specific data and analyses are also compiled at the subregional level. Project planning documents include detailed feasibility, design, and cost information for development of watershed, habitat, and ecosystem protection and restoration projects. Analysis of restoration alternatives and description of environmental benefits accrued from project implementation are also prepared at the subregional level Regional Habitat Goals Plans have set the planning and information base for the entire region. Three major efforts have been undertaken in the Bay Area to date, spanning the near-shore ocean and sub-tidal bay areas, the baylands, and the region’s terrestrial uplands.  The 1999 Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report set habitat type, quality and acreage goals for wetland habitats at the bay’s edge, and has become a foundational 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-6 Technical Analysis document guiding nearly 40,000 acres of habitat restoration in the region. This report is currently undergoing a major update for climate change vulnerabilities and adaptation responses led by the Coastal Conservancy in partnership with nearly 20 regional conservation, policy and regulatory bodies. http://www.sfei.org/node/2123.  The San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report was released in 2010, outlining a bold vision for a hidden part of the Bay Area. Led by the Coastal Conservancy with the Ocean Protection Council, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, NOAA Fisheries and Restoration Center, and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the 50-Year Report presents a strong, non-regulatory vision for how to move forward with science‐based subtidal research, protection, and restoration. Marking the first time that comprehensive information about submerged areas in the Bay has been compiled, the report has inspired a variety of in-the-water restoration efforts, including oyster, eelgrass, and living shoreline projects that benefit aquatic fish, invertebrates, and wildlife. http://www.sfbaysubtidal.org/.  The Conservation Lands Network has been developed by the Bay Area Open Space Council. Over 125 organizations and individuals came together to identify the most essential lands needed to sustain the “natural infrastructure” of our region. Over 4.3 million acres and over 1,000 variables were considered – from redwood forests to California red-legged frog habitat, from climate change to migratory routes. The Coastal Conservancy was an early and ongoing supporter and funder of this effort with several other foundations and public agencies. The Conservation Lands Network map, report, and interactive on-line map were released in 2011 and are available to land managers, legislators and local planners to help them make informed and integrated decisions, and regularly assess the region’s progress towards these goals. www.bayarealands.org. 11.1.6 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Plans A number of planning documents representing the Bay Area Region as a whole as well as the various subregions were reviewed to identify climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. The main regional approach to climate change mitigation is being implemented through Plan Bay Area, an integrated long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan, developed as a joint initiative by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). In addition, communities throughout the Bay Area Region have adopted Climate Action Plans (CAPs), which contain a set of strategies intended to guide community efforts for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As of June 2012, a total 86 local governments in the Bay Area Region have completed community emissions inventories (the first step in developing a CAP) and 30 have finalized and adopted a CAP (Institute for Local Government, 2012). Table 12-3 in Chapter 12: Relation to Local Water Use Planning identifies climate mitigation strategies included in local and regional climate action planning documents. A vulnerability analysis was developed using DWR’s Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning guidelines and a synthesis of climate change scenarios for the San Francisco Bay Region and statewide (including the Sierra Nevada) prepared by others (see Chapter 16). Sea level rise and coastal flooding are especially important in the Bay Area Region and the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-7 Technical Analysis State provides guidance to help state agencies incorporate future sea-level rise impacts into planning decisions. The National Academy of Sciences report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington, was released in June 2012 and the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document was accordingly updated in March 2013. This guidance will continue to be updated as the science of climate change develops. California produces periodic scientific assessments on the potential impacts of climate change in California and reports potential adaptation responses as required by Executive Order #S-03-05. The State's third major assessment, released in 2012, reported projected climate change impacts and provided understanding of the interactions of those potential impacts on the ground exposure, sensitivity, and response capacity of natural and human systems. In addition there are a number of other regional efforts in the Bay to update planning documents in the light of projected climate change. These include a technical climate change update to the San Francisco Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report to incorporate an assessment of the predicted impacts and associated adaptation strategies on the Baylands ecosystem. There are also likely to be more focused, collaborative, cross-sector planning efforts to study vulnerability and adaptation at a sub-regional scale. An example is BCDC’s Adapting to Rising Tides project which is focused on a portion of the Alameda County shoreline, from Emeryville to Union City. Additional information on this project can be found at: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/climate_change.shtml. 11.2 Regional Reports and Studies Various coordinated efforts provide data and results from regional-scale studies that assess the health of water and additional environmental resources. Important examples of these regional studies include: The State of San Francisco Bay 2011 presents a science-based assessment of the health of San Francisco Bay. The authors reviewed available data and developed methods for evaluating the status and trends of the Bay’s vital signs. By providing all interested parties with these results, the broader community can consider whether resource managers, regulators, and citizens are taking enough of the right actions to protect the Bay. With this assessment, the Estuary Partnership will begin to report on the state of the Bay approximately every five years, with the goal of educating the public and helping scientists and managers make decisions about how to best allocate resources to protect and restore the Bay. Additional information is available on their website: http://www.sfestuary.org/about-the-estuary/sotb/. The San Francisco Estuary Institute Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) for Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary is an innovative collaboration of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the regulated discharger community, and the San Francisco Estuary Institute. It monitors contamination in the Estuary, information water quality regulators need to manage the Estuary effectively. SFEI generates a Regional Monitoring Report every year, accessible on their website: http://www.sfei.org. The Bay Area Regional Reliability Program (BARR) is a consortium of the Bay Area’s largest water agencies that are working togethers to develop a regional solution to improve the water supply reliability for over 6 million area residents and thousands of businesses and industries 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-8 Technical Analysis located therein. The Bay Area Regional Reliability (BARR) Partners include Alameda County Water District, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Marin Municipal Water District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency. The BARR Partners have joined forces to leverage existing facilities and, if needed, build new ones to bolster regional water supply reliability. More information is available on their website: www.bayareareliability.com. 11.3 Technical Analysis and Methods Numerous sources of technical information formed the foundation of the Plan. Table 11-3 provides examples of these analyses performed by agencies in evaluating their water management needs. 11.4 Data Needs During the course of the preparation of this IRWMP, data needs were identified by stakeholders and resource specialists working on the plan. Data needs identified for the Region include:  Updated climate change projections to reflect new data, methods, and improved understanding of climate change  Regional hydroclimate (hydrology and weather), including projections of microclimatic change and fog  Statewide hydroclimate data on imported water supplies that show influence of climate change  Data on sea level rise  Weather variability (e.g., monthly averages of maximum and minimum daily air temperatures monthly precipitation and ET, etc.) in the Region and subregions  Market saturation of water efficient fixtures  Projections of future habitat change  Improved projections of wetland response to sea level rise 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-1 Technical Analysis Table 11-3: Examples of Technical Analysis Utilized in Plan Development Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Stream Management Master Plan HEC-HMS (calibrated to stream gauge date) and HEC- RAS with Digital Elevation and Terrain Models created from LiDAR data, and updated digital soils and rainfall data Service area hydrologic and hydraulic models and innovative techniques for stormwater management Used to integrate flood protection, water supply, recreation, and water quality and habitat Zone 7 Water Supply Evaluation probability-based water supply model; key water supplies were modeled as uncertain variables – their value was determined through Monte Carlo methods. Risk assessment of water supply shortages Used to evaluate a diverse set of water supply options for meeting the Valley’s water supply needs Zone 7 Flood Protection Monitoring HEC-HMS, HEC- RAS, HEC-FDA for Risk and Uncertainty (RU) analysis, GIS Detention basin; analysis and design; stream hydraulic modeling; watershed parameters (topography, drainage); levee elevations based on the RU analysis Watershed analysis for calculating peak design flows Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Permanente Creek Flood Protection Project FLO-2D, HAZUS- MH FLOOD Flood limits and depths; economic losses Used to compare alternative flood management strategies and analyze flood damage reduction from the selected project SCVWD 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-2 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project HEC-RAS channel and HEC-HMS watershed modeling coupled with FLO-2D for overbank modeling Flood limits and depths Used to compare alternative flood management strategies and analyze flood damage reduction from the selected project US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); SCVWD 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan Water Evaluation and Planning model; Groundwater flow models Water supply availability under different future scenarios; groundwater levels and storage under different future scenarios Used to compare alternative water supply strategies and analyze water supply reliability with selected water supply strategy; prioritizes projects for achieving water supply objectives SCVWD 2015 UWMP IWRMAIN; Water Evaluation and Planning model Water demand projections; water supply availability under future conditions Used to compare demands and supplies for evaluating water supply reliability SCVWD and other water agencies with UWMPs (See Appendix D-1) Conservation Lands Network MARXAN Multi-factor prioritization of habitats for regional biodiversity value Used to assess the value of lands for habitat protection and restoration efforts Bay Area Open Space Council Lagunitas Creek Stewardship Plan Salmon limiting factors and recovery priorities; State Water Board directives Prioritization of fishery restoration actions to be taken by MMWD over a ten-year period. Used to consider and prioritize strategies, techniques and projects, for managing creek habitat for the benefit of aquatic resource populations of coho salmon, steelhead, and California MMWD 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-3 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source freshwater shrimp. Wildfire Protection and Habitat Improvement Plan Prioritized recommendations for vegetation management on 22,000 acres of watershed lands, in order to support fire hazard reduction and biodiversity with drinking water protection as the number one priority. Used to prioritize vegetation management actions and strategies to support drinking water protection. MMWD Mt. Tamalpais Watershed Road and Trail Management Plan Designation of official network of unpaved roads and trails on MMWD’s Mt. Tamalpais Watershed; prioritization of work plan for restoration and decommissioning. Used to consider and prioritize sediment reduction work on unpaved roads and trails, and restoration work on recreational and access trails. MMWD Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Source Site Assessment California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salmon id Stream Habitat Restoration Manual methods Evaluation and categorization of all unpaved roads in the Lagunitas Creek Watershed, yielding prioritized list of restoration and sediment reduction work. Used to consider and prioritize sediment reduction work on unpaved roads downstream of Peters Dam in Lagunitas Creek watershed. MMWD San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Capital Improvement Project (East Bayshore Road to San Francisco Bay) FLO‐2D, which simulates channel flows and overland flows Flood limits and depths Used to compare alternative flood management strategies and analyze flood damage reduction from the selected project San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-4 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Dam Seismic Stability Evaluations Field and laboratory testing; statistical analyses Dam deformation potential; fault rupture hazard to dams and outlet structures; adequacy of dam freeboard and spillway Used to identify necessary infrastructure improvements for meeting water supply objectives SCVWD Upper Tuolumne Hydrology Under Climate Change Scenarios Hydrologic modeling (HFAM), climate change scenario development Predicted future reservoir inflows Long-term water supply planning SFPUC, Tuolumne Irrigation District, Hydrocomp Inc. San Francisco Groundwater Pumping Model Groundwater model (MODFLOW) Constraints and potential yield of groundwater pumping in SF Local water supply, groundwater, and environmental management SFPUC, City of Daly City Calaveras Forecasting During WSIP NWS climate forecasts, Hydrologic models (statistical rainfall-runoff model, TOPMODEL, CNRFC forecasts) operations model, rule curves Operational recommendations and flood forecasts for contractors and ACWD Flood control SFPUC, California Nevada River Forecast Center (CNRFC), USGS data, National Weather Service (NWS) Supplemental Statement of Water Diversion and Use Internal water balance and operations models Water diversion and use Reporting to SWRCB and water supply management SFPUC, US Geological Survey (USGS) data Alameda Creek Surface Water/Sunol Valley Groundwater Flow Models Hydrologic and operational models (ASDHM, HSPF, statistical models), groundwater models Reservoir inflows, groundwater levels, flows in environmentally sensitive reaches Long-term water supply planning, environmental compliance, infrastructure planning SFPUC, McBain and Trush Pilarcitos Creek HSPF and statistical models Inflows to local reservoirs Compliance with Pilarcitos IWMP SFPUC 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 11-5 Technical Analysis Data or Study Analysis Methods Results/Derived Information Use in IRWM Plan Reference or Source Water Conservation Potential and Demand Forecast Model Internal water conservation estimate and future demand based in population and housing projections Estimated conservation potential and effect on future demand Identification of potential conservation projects SFPUC Sewer System Improvement Program, Level of Service Model Simulations Hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) model simulations Estimates volumes and frequencies of combined sewer discharge and flooding performance improvements through use of hard and green infrastructure. Stormwater management and flood control SFPUC, Wood 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Relation to Local Water Planning Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 12: Relation to Local Water Planning ........................................... 12-1 12.1 Overview of Bay Area Water Resource Planning ............................ 12-1 12.1.1 Local and Regional Water Resources Plan Inventory ........... 12-1 12.1.2 Example Local Water Planning Documents .......................... 12-3 12.1.2.1 Urban Water Management Plans ....................... 12-3 12.1.2.2 Stormwater Management Plans ......................... 12-3 12.1.2.3 Sewer System Management Plans ..................... 12-3 12.1.2.4 Watershed Plans and Habitat Restoration Plans .................................................................. 12-3 12.1.3 Regional Water Resources Planning .................................... 12-4 12.2 Use of Local Water Plans in IRWMP Planning ................................ 12-4 12.2.1 Development of Regional Description and Resource Management Strategies ....................................................... 12-4 12.2.2 Identification of IRWMP Projects .......................................... 12-4 12.3 Participation by Agency Personnel .................................................. 12-4 12.3.1 Subregional Workshops ....................................................... 12-5 12.3.2 Briefings at Regional Planning Forums ................................ 12-5 12.4 Dynamics Between Local Planning and IRWM Planning ................. 12-6 12.4.1 Plan Consistency ................................................................. 12-6 12.4.1.1 Consistency and Coordination between Local Water Plan Content the IRWMP ......................... 12-6 12.4.1.2 Considering Updates to Local Plans ................... 12-6 12.4.1.3 Resolving Inconsistencies with Local Water Plans .................................................................. 12-6 12.4.1.4 How Regional Planning Efforts Feed Back to Local Planning Efforts ........................................ 12-6 12.4.1.5 Mechanisms to Ensure Consistency Between IRWMP Projects and Other Plans ...................... 12-7 12.4.2 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in Local Plans .......................................................................... 12-7 12.4.2.1 Climate Change Mitigation Strategies ................. 12-7 12.4.2.2 Climate Change Adaptation Strategies ............... 12-8 12.5 References ...................................................................................... 12-1 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Relation to Local Water Planning List of Tables Table 12-1: Bay Area Water Resource Plan Types by Water Management Activity and Functional Area .............................................................................................. 12-2 Table 12-2: Climate Change Mitigation Strategies Identified in Bay Area Regional and Local Plans(a) ......................................................................................................... 12-11 Table 12-3: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Identified In Bay Area IRWMP and Local Plans ............................................................................................................ 12-12 Table 12-4: Summary of Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies Identified by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ........................................ 12-14 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-1 Relation to Local Water Planning Chapter 12: Relation to Local Water Planning The California Water Plan notes that coordination in water planning at all levels is essential for the successful management of California’s water system in the face of increasing challenges due to climate change, growing water demand and uncertainty regarding availability of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Accordingly, this chapter discusses the relationship between the IRWMP and local water planning efforts and documents the local water plans on which the IRWMP is based. The intent of coordinating the IRWMP with local water planning efforts is to ensure that the IRWMP is congruent with local water plans and reflects current, relevant elements of local water planning and water issues common within the region. The 2012 Guidelines require that this chapter describe how the IRWMP relates to local planning efforts (including how regional planning feeds back into local planning and how any inconsistencies between local and regional plans are identified and resolved) and incorporate climate mitigation and adaptation strategies from local plans into the IRWMP. 12.1 Overview of Bay Area Water Resource Planning 12.1.1 Local and Regional Water Resources Plan Inventory Water agencies throughout the Bay Area continually engage in resource management planning and periodically prepare reports to memorialize long-range planning. In order to characterize water resources planning underway in the Bay Area, IRWMP authors first prepared a comprehensive inventory of plans reflecting the four Functional Areas (water supply and water quality, wastewater and recycled water, flood protection and stormwater management, and watershed management – habitat protection and restoration) and the four Subregions (shown in Appendix D 1-1 in Chapter 1). Sources for the inventory, presented in Appendix D, included the 2006 Plan, agency websites, project application forms, and Coordinating Committee (CC) member input. Consistent with the 2012 Guidelines, the inventory indicates the jurisdiction of each plan, when the plan is updated and relevance to the IRWMP (in terms of Bay Area water management activities and Subregion). The final inventory contains over 100 Bay Area water resources plans. The CC may use the inventory as a database that planners can consult and revise when updating the IRWMP in the future to help facilitate coordination between the IRWMP and local planning efforts. Table 12-4 summarizes the types of local and regional plans in effect in the Bay Area, categorized by the water management activities identified in the 2012 Guidelines and by Functional Area. Section 12.1.2 describes some of these plan types. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-2 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12-4: Bay Area Water Resource Plan Types by Water Management Activity and Functional Area Water Management Activity (2012 Guidelines)(a) Corresponding Functional Area Plans in Bay Area IRWMP Water Plan Inventory (b) Addressing these Topics General Specific Multi-Purpose Program Planning City and County General Planning Emergency Response, Disaster Plans • Groundwater Management • Urban Water Management • Water Supply Assessments • Agricultural Water Management • Salt and Salinity Management Water Supply & Water Quality • Water Supply Management Programs • Urban Water Management Plans • Clean Water Programs • Groundwater Management Plans • Salt Management Plans • Salt/Nutrient Management Plans • Water Supply Evaluations • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program • Integrated Resource Management Plan • Water Supply Strategies Action Plans • Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan Wastewater & Recycled Water • Recycled Water Master and Strategic Plans • Sewer System Master Plans • Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan • Water Reuse Programs • Flood Protection • Stormwater Management • Low Impact Development Flood Protection & Stormwater Management • Stormwater Management Plans • Flood Management Plans • Sediment Management Studies/Plans • Stream Management Master Plans • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program • Stream Maintenance Plans • Watershed Management Watershed Management - Habitat Protection & Restoration • Habitat Restoration Plans • Watershed Management and Stewardship Plans • Habitat Conservation Plans • Conservation Strategy Plans • Habitat and Species Recovery Plans • Historical Ecology Studies • Vegetation Management Plans • Habitat Stewardship Plans • Stream Maintenance Plans • Coastal Waters Management Plans • Watershed Action Plan • Invasive Species Studies/Plans Notes: (a) IRWM Grant Program Guidelines - Propositions 84 and 1E (November 2012), pages 58 – 59. (b) Appendix D presents the Bay Area IRWMP Water Plan Inventory. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-3 Relation to Local Water Planning 12.1.2 Example Local Water Planning Documents 12.1.2.1 Urban Water Management Plans The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires all urban water suppliers22 to carry out long-term resource planning responsibilities through development of Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). UWMPs assess the reliability of the supplier’s water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal and drought conditions. A list of major water suppliers in the Bay Area is provided in Chapter 2, Regional Description. Appendix D lists all UWMPs within the Bay Area region. 12.1.2.2 Stormwater Management Plans Compliance with the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP), administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, is the primary driver for addressing water quality in stormwater discharges in the Bay Area. Many municipalities have formed countywide “clean water” programs, some of which prepare annual work plans to define actions, responsibilities and schedules to be implemented by program members to support compliance with the MRP (e.g., Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Action Plan). Refer to Chapter 13 for additional information on stormwater management plans for individual land use projects. It should be noted that Senate Bill 985 requires the development of a stormwater resource plan in order to receive grants for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects. Stormwater Resource Plans developed in the Region are approved by the CC and attached as addenda to this Plan. All CC approved Stormwater Resource Plans can be found in Appendix G. 12.1.2.3 Sewer System Management Plans In 2006 the State Water Resources Control Board adopted requirements for all public sanitary sewer collection system agencies prohibiting sewer overflows that result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Under these requirements, each sewer collection system agency is required to develop a plan to provide for the proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of the collection system. There are eleven required elements to the plan (e.g., goals, operation and maintenance program, overflow emergency response program). The Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) has worked with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop the SSMP Development Guide to assist wastewater collection agencies in preparing SSMPs. Appendix D includes links to the plans for San Mateo County, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, and Novato Sanitary District. 12.1.2.4 Watershed Plans and Habitat Restoration Plans In the Bay Area, many local watersheds have created (or are proposing to create) watershed plans to balance water supply, flood management, and habitat protection needs. Many watershed planning efforts are voluntary; however, in some cases, watershed or habitat plans are motivated by regulatory drivers and permitting processes (e.g., developed in association with consultation pursuant to Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act). 22 A supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-4 Relation to Local Water Planning Section 4.2.6.6 of Chapter 4, Regional Description provides several examples of watershed planning projects and programs underway throughout the Bay Area; refer to Appendix D for additional examples. 12.1.3 Regional Water Resources Planning Although the focus of this chapter is on local water resources planning, a variety of regional planning efforts (in addition to the IRWMP) have been underway for many years, most of which are described in other chapters of this report. Examples include planning initiatives of the regional water management organizations described in Chapter 15 (see Section 15.2.2), regional planning by the Association of Bay Area Governments that informs long-term planning for water and wastewater services (see Section 13.1.1.1 in Chapter 13), regional planning for climate change described below in Section 12.4.2, the North Bay Watershed Association (described in Chapter 13, Section 13.2.1.4), and planning for major regional projects like South Bay Salt Ponds and South Bay Shoreline Study (described in Chapter 13, Section 13.2.1.4). 12.2 Use of Local Water Plans in IRWMP Planning In essence, this IRWMP has combined information presented in numerous water resources plans into a single document. Rather than superseding local planning, the IRWMP uses these documents as a basis for developing a wider regional view of water supply, water quality, wastewater and recycled water, flood protection and stormwater management, and watershed management and habitat protection/restoration. 12.2.1 Development of Regional Description and Resource Management Strategies Preparation of Chapter 2: Regional Description relied on current local and regional water resources plans as well as more up-to-date information provided by water managers and regional water resources agencies to describe (for example) the characteristics of Bay Area water supplies, groundwater basin characteristics, water demand and conservation, and major water-related infrastructure. Preparation of Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies relied on similar inputs to characterize water use efficiency, recycled water, storage and other strategies currently being employed in the Bay Area. 12.2.2 Identification of IRWMP Projects Many of the local plans in Appendix D identify projects and programs to implement IRWMP objectives and are the source for numerous projects that are proposed for funding. Project applications require agencies to indicate water resources plans relevant to the proposed project. In addition, IRWM projects must indicate compliance with select water resources plans and proponents must adopt the IRWMP in order to be eligible for funding. 12.3 Participation by Agency Personnel Many IRWMP participants are directly involved in local water resources planning for their respective agencies and were involved in developing plans identified in Appendix D. Water resource managers are involved throughout the IRWMP process, serving as members of the Coordinating Committee, Subregional and Functional Area groups and other working groups, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-5 Relation to Local Water Planning and providing input at various meetings. Their knowledge and expertise of local plans influence all aspects of the IRWMP, including development of IRWMP objectives, selection of resource management strategies to implement, the project selection process, and review of all IRWMP chapters, among other things. 12.3.1 Subregional Workshops Subregional workgroups organize and facilitate community workshops that provide an overview of the IRWMP process, and invite stakeholders to consider ways to address local water challenges through collaborative partnerships. Refer to Chapter 14 for a description of all of the outreach efforts used to engage local water resources and other stakeholders in development of the IRWMP. 12.3.2 Briefings at Regional Planning Forums Existing forums promoting regional planning occur through the following entities23:  Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)  Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)  Joint Policy Committee  Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA)  Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)  Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC)  Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA)  Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN)  North Bay Watershed Association  City/county councils of government  Low Impact Development Leadership Group  Watershed Information Center & Conservancy (WICC) of Napa County  Santa Clara County Basin  Watershed Management Initiative  Bay-Delta Region of Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) Functional Area leads and other IRWMP participants conduct briefings at these forums (and at joint meetings between regional entities) to update participants on IRWMP planning and to solicit input on development of the Plan including review of draft chapters. Chapter 15 provides 23 Chapters 1 and 2 describe the roles of most of these organizations, with the following exceptions: BAWN, a network of natural resource professionals and com munity members who work locally to protect watersheds throughout the Bay Area; WICC, an advisory committee to the Napa County Board of Supervisors and provides support for community efforts to improve the health of Napa County’s watersheds; Santa Clara County Basin Watershed Management Initiative, a collaboration among regional and local agencies and non-governmental organizations to advance watershed management goals in the South Bay, and the Bay-Delta Region of RCDs, which includes RCDs from around the Ba y Area working to conserve, protect and restore the watersheds of the Bay Area. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-6 Relation to Local Water Planning more detail regarding coordination activities undertaken with local, regional and state agencies, stakeholders and neighboring IRWM regions in developing the Plan update. 12.4 Dynamics and Coordination between Local Planning and IRWM Planning 12.4.1 Plan Consistency 12.4.1.1 Consistency and Coordination between Local Water Plan Content the IRWMP Using current water resources plans as source material for the IRWMP, extensive participation by local and regional water resource planners, requiring adoption of the IRWMP by project proponents, and using compliance with specified local plans as eligibility criteria for proposed projects are the steps that have been implemented to preclude inconsistencies between the IRWMP and local water plans. 12.4.1.2 Considering Updates to Local Plans The existing mechanisms to coordinate local planning efforts with IRWMP planning will continue into to the future. The CC may use the water plan inventory presented in Appendix D as a database that future planners can consult and revise when updating the IRWMP. The database can be sorted by agency, Subregion, and Functional Area to facilitate participation. Planners can capture updates to local plans and reflect these in future revisions to the IRWMP. 12.4.1.3 Resolving Inconsistencies with Local Water Plans Any inconsistencies between plans will be addressed on a case by case basis. In the event that inconsistencies between a local water plan and the IRWMP are identified, IRWMP participants will resolve the inconsistency through direct consultation with the agency that prepared the plan. 12.4.1.4 How Regional Planning Efforts Feed Back to Local Planning Efforts While local and regional planning forms the foundation of the IRWMP, the IRWMP provides opportunities for regional planning to inform local plans. The collaborative planning that occurs through the IRWMP process, and adoption of the IRWMP by project proponents, will inevitably feed into local planning in multiple ways (e.g., reflecting regional objectives, policies and projects in local plans; pursuit in one Subregion of successful interagency solutions achieved in another Subregion). Participation in the IRWMP process to develop regional solutions to the challenges faced by individual agencies can help each agency meet its goals and objectives, forges connections among agency personnel that persist outside the IRWMP context, and invests agency planners and decision makers in regional planning. Climate change presents many challenges for water resources agencies that demand a regional approach. Advancements in research in this dynamic field may frequently outpace local planning. Chapter 16, Climate Change, identifies vulnerabilities for water resources and adaptation strategies (e.g., implementing multifunctional green infrastructure along rivers and the bayshore, raising and armoring flood structures, and removing critical infrastructure out of the hazard zone). That analysis will feed back to local planning efforts through briefings to the CC, the Climate Change Technical Advisory Group and the regional planning forums listed above; and commitments by IRWMP participants to incorporate information into future local planning efforts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-7 Relation to Local Water Planning 12.4.1.5 Mechanisms to Ensure Consistency Between IRWMP Projects and Other Plans There are a number of mechanisms already in place to ensure consistency between IRWMP projects and other local and regional plans:  Permits and Approvals. Issuance of permits and other approvals often is contingent on consistency with applicable plans. Examples include:  San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan  San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Clean Air Plan  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission – San Francisco Bay Plan  California Coastal Commission, designated local agencies - coastal management programs  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires Environment Impact Reports to discuss inconsistencies between a project and applicable plans; some criteria for determining the significance of environmental impacts are based on plan or policy consistency, and require mitigation to resolve inconsistencies.  General Plan Consistency Determinations by cities and counties are typically required for water resources projects, although the findings may be advisory in some cases. 12.4.2 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in Local Plans Managing risks associated with climate change requires implementation of both mitigation strategies and adaptation strategies. Climate change mitigation strategies aim to reduce climate extremes through reduction of GHG emissions, while climate change adaptation strategies manage and respond to the impacts of climate change (California Natural Resources Agency, 2009). The 2012 Guidelines require that the IRWMP consider and incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies from local plans. In response to this requirement, a number of representative plans from the Bay Area Region as a whole as well as the various Subregions were reviewed to identify climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. 12.4.2.1 Climate Change Mitigation Strategies In the Bay Area Region, the main regional approach to climate change mitigation is being implemented through Plan Bay Area.24 Plan Bay Area is an integrated, long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan, developed as a joint initiative by ABAG, BAAQMD, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and MTC. Under Plan Bay Area, the Bay Area Region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy will be incorporated into the land use allocation in the next Regional Transportation Plan, slated for adoption in 24 Plan Bay Area can be found at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/draft-plan-bay- area.html. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-8 Relation to Local Water Planning summer 2013. The primary GHG reduction strategy employed by Plan Bay Area is to promote compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development with better access to mass transit. In addition to the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy being developed by Plan Bay Area, communities throughout the Bay Area Region have adopted Climate Action Plans, which contain a set of strategies intended to guide community efforts for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to advance compliance with State GHG reduction targets. As of June 2012, a total 86 local governments in the Bay Area Region had completed community emissions inventories (the first step in developing a Climate Action Plan) and 30 had finalized and adopted a Climate Action Plan (Institute for Local Government, 2012). Table 12-5 identifies climate mitigation strategies included in local and regional climate action planning documents. These strategies were drawn from a selection of plans representing the four Bay Area Subregions. In terms of water management in the Bay Area, a key water management strategy employed to mitigate climate change is reducing demand via implementation of water conservation measures, which cuts energy consumption from water treatment and conveyance. 12.4.2.2 Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Climate change adaptation strategies are included in a wide range of regional and local planning documents such as urban water management plans, habitat restoration plans, wastewater treatment master plans, watershed stewardship plans and water supply strategies. Adaptation strategies for the Bay Area are also being developed through several regional initiatives focused specifically on climate change adaptation. Table 12-6 identifies climate change adaptation strategies included in representative regional and local plans according to corresponding Functional Areas and vulnerabilities and priorities identified in Chapter 16. The plans reviewed, listed at the bottom of the table, reflect all Functional Areas and sub regions. Note that the scope, focus, and age of the plans varied considerably; these factors undoubtedly contributed to fact that the degree to which climate change adaptation was addressed also varied considerably. A number of plans identified adaptation strategies, as shown in Table 12-6, although a strategy like “water conservation” was not always identified as a climate adaptation strategy. Several plans identified joint studies and working groups aimed at improving modeling and/or developing adaptation strategies.25 The review confirmed that, with the exception of urban water supply26, the approach to water resources planning in general varies widely across Functional Areas and among agencies. For example, with respect to sea level rise and vulnerable water resources infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment plants), not all local plans reviewed contained adaptation strategies. This may reflect the absence of a legal requirement for a plan rather than a lack of planning for sea level rise; some agency websites indicated that climate change planning was indeed underway. 25 Examples of joint studies and working groups identified in local plans include the Climate Ready Water Utilities Working Group, Climate Resilience Evaluation and Assessment Tool, and Piloting Utility Modeling Applications for Climate Change. 26 The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Section 10610 et seq.) requires every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers or provides over 3,000 acre- feet of water annually to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) for the purpose of “actively pursue[ing] the efficient use of available supplies,” and stipulates required contents of UWMPs. Consequently, UWMPs tend to include similar climate adaptation strategies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-9 Relation to Local Water Planning Recognizing that flooding from sea level rise threatens the long-term viability of Bay Area neighborhoods, job centers, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, schools, emergency services, and vital ecosystems on which our quality of life and the regional and state economies depend, the BCDC prepared a vulnerability assessment for the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The assessment, published in 2011, focused on shoreline development, the Bay ecosystem, and governance. The report provided the basis for a subsequent amendment to the Bay Plan specifically addressing sea level rise. While the report acknowledged the limitations of BCDC’s regulatory authority to ensure that sea rise is taken into consideration in project planning, it also identified a number of strategies that the agency and others can undertake to address issues identified in its vulnerability assessment, summarized in Table 12-7. Flooding resulting from sea level rise can threaten shoreline infrastructure. Another regional effort to address sea level rise is being led by the Joint Policy Committee, which coordinates the regional planning efforts of ABAG, the BAAQMD, the San Francisco BCDC and MTC. In September 2012, the Joint Policy Committee adopted a work plan to develop a Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy. The objective of the project is to ensure the ongoing health and ecological viability of regional natural resources; coordinate adaptation mechanisms that transcend local jurisdictional boundaries; and share the costs of adaptation responses at a regional level. The sea level rise adaption strategy work plan focuses on developing a “bottom-up” regional strategy where the regional agencies work with local entities to assess vulnerabilities and risks, identify critical assets, explore adaptation options, and use a balanced approach to identify costs, benefits and adaptation strategies for the natural resources and ecosystem services provided by the Bay and its watersheds. The first phase of this effort includes considering sea level rise exposure in the current Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy and its Environmental Impact Report (described above under Section 12.4.2.1). The second phase will include convening and supporting Subregional and local planning adaptation planning efforts, and incorporating lessons learned into the Bay Area’s second Sustainable Communities Strategy. The third phase will include developing a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy, informed by the lessons learned in phases one and two, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-10 Relation to Local Water Planning which will be incorporated into the third iteration of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. This effort is also proposed as an IRWMP project. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies identified in local and regional plans include (clockwise from top) restoring shoreline habitats, increasing use of recycled water, and improving levees and flood control structures. As acknowledged in Chapter 16, as more information becomes available on impacts of climate on water resources and adaptation strategies emerge and mature, planning at all levels will need to be updated. Existing regional planning forums provide venues to disseminate this information, and the IRWMP provides a vehicle to support regional solutions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-11 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12 -5: Climate Change Mitigation Strategies Identified in Bay Area Regional and Local Plans(a) Category of Action Strategy/Action Transportation • Establish a regional public charger network for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles • Establish vehicle buy-back and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or battery electric vehicle purchase incentives • Expand car sharing services • Increase MTC’s vanpool program incentive • Establish a clean vehicles rebate program • Implement a Smart Driving Strategy (tire pressure rebates, in-vehicle fuel economy meter rebate program) • Implement a Commuter Benefits Ordinance • Encourage and accelerate implementation of bicycle/pedestrian plans • Consider establishing a Car-Free Sunday community event to demonstrate non-vehicular uses for streets • Adopt of low emission government vehicles Land-Use & Planning • Support mixed-use infill and new development • Utilize Priority Development Areas in development planning • Shift parking policies to promote infill development • Require new development to supply an adequate number of street trees and private trees • Require new sidewalks, crosswalks, and parking lots to be made of cool paving materials with a high solar reflectivity. Energy Use • Achieve zero net energy performance in new construction by 2020 • Enhance and lower the cost of energy efficiency services and standards for existing residential and non-residential buildings • Develop a local, clean, decentralized renewable energy supply • Use city codes, ordinances, and permitting to enhance green building, energy efficiency, and energy conservation • Promote green building and energy efficient development for government operations and city infrastructure • Encourage existing development and require new development to utilize PG&E's Smart Meter system to facilitate energy and cost savings • Reduce carbon intensity of energy supply provided by utilities • Participate in and promote greenhouse gas emissions inventory tracking and reporting • Incentivize solar energy installation Water/Wastewater • Reduce community and municipal water use through building and landscape design and improvements • Increase or establish use of reclaimed/grey water systems • Encourage existing development and require new development to utilize smart water meters to facilitate water and cost savings • Improve the efficiency of water and wastewater facilities • Increase water reuse Waste Reduction & Recycling • Increase recycling, organics diversion, and waste reduction associated with municipal operations • Expand the types of materials that can be recycled locally, such as certain plastics. • Expand efforts to eliminate waste at its source • Reduce the availability or use of common materials that are not recyclable or that are not cost-effective to recycle Habitat Conservation & Agriculture • Initiate Priority Conservation Areas pilot program • Complete the region’s three major multi-use trails • Increase the amount of food grown and consumed locally • Develop a regional agricultural and farmland protection plan Community Outreach & Education • Launch a coordinated outreach and education campaign to mobilize residents, businesses, and industry • Partner with schools to promote sustainability efforts • Prepare local residents for job opportunities in the emerging green economy • Increase awareness and action in the City government by providing training on how to increase sustainability at home and in the workplace Note: (a) Mitigation strategies were drawn from a selection of plans representing the region as a whole as well as the four Bay Area Subregions. Plans reviewed for mitigation strategies include Plan Bay Area: Technical Summary of Proposed Climate Policy Initiatives (May 4, 2012), Plan Bay Area: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy (May 16, 2012), City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan (June 2009), City of Pleasanton Climate Action Plan (2012), City of Santa Rosa Climate Action Plan (2012), City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan (2007) and City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-12 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12 -6: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Identified In Bay Area IRWMP and Local Plans Vulnerabilities by Priority Overview Adaptation Strategies Identified in Bay Area IRWMP(a ) Functional Area Affected Ad aptation Strategies in Local Plans (b), (c) General Specific Sea Level Rise Low-lying Baylands increasingly vulnerable to more frequent, longer, deeper flooding Critical infrastructure in the hazard zone, for example 22 wastewater treatment plants and 12 power plants vulnerable to 100 -year coastal flood More intense storms leading to more frequent, longer, deeper flooding generally expected • Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects. • “No Regrets” approach to address immediate or ongoing concerns while reducing future risks • Establish a climate change adaptation public outreach and education program. • Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation strategy development and regional approaches. • Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness. • Update building codes and zoning. • Multifunctional ecosystem-based adaptation along the bayshore and rivers • Remove critical infrastructure from hazard zone • Raise, armor and maintain flood control structures that protect critical infrastructure that cannot be moved. • Excluding placement of new infrastructure in areas likely to be inundated. • Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans. Flood Protection & Stormwater Management • Elevated, terraced levees (South Bay) • Marsh restoration Wastewater and Recycled Water Flooding Water Supply and Hydropower Sierra Nevada Sources – decrease in total precipitation is possible; decrease in snow pack is expected; increased evapotranspiration is expected; shift in timing of runoff virtually certain; and timing and amount of power generation is expected to change • Continued water conservation • Reduce reliance on imported water • Increased use of recycled water • Improve potential movement of water supplies among neighboring agencies during periods of extreme water shortage • Expand available water storage • Adopt land use ordinances that protect natural functioning of groundwater recharge areas Water Supply & Water Quality • Water conservation • Additional storage to take advantage of wet season water • Diversifying water supply portfolios through development of additional supplies and/or transfers • Local capture and reuse projects • Desalination • Increased use of recycled water • Additional treatment options to respond to water quality impacts Delta Sources – impacts from sea level rise Regional Sources – continued variability in precipitation; potentially less spring precipitation; more intense storms may affect surface water runoff, storage, groundwater recharge Water Quality Sierra Nevada Supplies – imported water potentially vulnerable to water quality change • Evaluate capability of surface water treatment plants to respond to extreme storm events and increased risk of wildfires. • Encourage projects that improve water quality of contaminated groundwater sources • Increase implementation of LID techniques to improve stormwater management. Delta Supplies – increased salinity from sea level rise, increased turbidity from extreme storm events Regional Supplies – water quality impacts from increased temperature, decreased precipitation, decreased recharge, more intense storms, increased wildfire risk, longer periods of low flow conditions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-13 Relation to Local Water Planning Vulnerabilities by Priority Overview Adaptation Strategies Identified in Bay Area IRWMP(a ) Functional Area Affected Ad aptation Strategies in Local Plans (b), (c) General Specific Ecosystem and Habitat Changes in temperature and precipitation, together with increased wildfire will result in impacts to species, increased invasive species’ ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, changes in growing ranges for vegetation. • Provide or enhance connected “migration corridors” and linkages between undeveloped areas for animals and plants • Promote water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services • Re -establish natural hydrologic connectivity between rivers and floodplains Watershed Management – Habitat Protection and Restoration • Incorporate sea level rise into baylands restoration planning Water Demand Demand likely to increase due to increases in air temperature, increased evaporation losses and longer growing season • Continued water conservation • Implement tiered pricing to reduce water consumption and demand Water Supply and Water Quality • Water conservation - Commercial, industrial and residential water conservation programs - Utility demand management programs - Water-efficient landscaping programs Notes: (a) Refer to Chapter 16 for a discussion of climate change vulnerabilities, priorities and adaptation strategies. (b) Includes strategies that promote adaptation, whether identified as such or not in the local plan. (c) Plans reviewed for adaptation strategies include EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2011) and Main Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Use Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2011), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s 2010 UWMP (2011), SCVWD’s UWMP (2010), Contra Costa Water District’s UWMP (2011), the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Draft Master Plan (2011), South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project Final EIR/EIR (2007), Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District, The 50 Year Plan (2009), Napa Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan, (2011), North Bay Watershed Association, North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan (2003), Napa County Resource Conservation District, Napa River Watershed Owner’s Manual (1994), Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Long Term Water Supply Strategy Phase IIA Final Report (2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-14 Relation to Local Water Planning Table 12 -7: Summary of Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies Identified by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Shoreline Development Risk Assessments. Conduct risk assessments for shoreline areas and larger shoreline projects. General Strategies • Design for the Long-Term. Design projects to be resilient to a mid-century sea level rise projection and adaptable to longer-term impacts. • Consider Impacts. Build projects that do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety, or if projects do increase flood risks, ensure that regional public benefits outweigh the increased risk of flooding. • Incorporate Flood Protection. Protect new projects from future storm activity and sea level rise by using setbacks, elevating structures, designing structures that tolerate flooding or other effective measures. Public Access • Design to Avoid Impacts. Site, design, manage and maintain public access to avoid significant adverse impacts from sea level rise and shoreline flooding. • Accommodate Future Conditions. Design any public access to remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or provide equivalent access to be provided nearby. Shoreline Protection • Locate Where Appropriate. Build shoreline protection only if necessary to protect existing or appropriate planned development. • Setbacks. Set aside land on the upland side of levees to allow for future levee widening to support additional levee height so that no fill is placed in the Bay. • Integrate with Other Protection Measures. Integrate shoreline protection projects with current or planned adjacent shoreline protection measures. • Nonstructural Protection. Include provisions for nonstructural shoreline protection methods such as marsh vegetation, whenever feasible. • Minimize Impacts. Avoid, reduce or mitigate adverse impacts to natural resources and public access from new shoreline protection. • Public Access. Design and construct shoreline protection to avoid blocking physical and visual public access. Bay Ecosystem General Strategies • Preserve Sensitive Habitat. Preserve and enhance habitat in undeveloped areas that are both vulnerable to future flooding and have current or potential value for important species. • Incorporate Habitat into Shoreline Protection Design. Design shoreline protection projects to include provisions for establishing marsh and transitional upland vegetation as part of the protective structure, wherever feasible. • Include Buffers. Include a buffer, where feasible, between shoreline development and habitats to protect wildlife and provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises. Research and Planning • Conduct Research and Monitoring. Conduct comprehensive Bay sediment research and monitoring to understand sediment processes necessary to sustain and restore wetlands. • Update Targets to Accommodate Climate Change. Update regional habitat conservation and restoration targets to achieve a Bay ecosystem resilient to climate change and sea level rise. Governance Regional Conservation Strategy • Adaptive Management. Develop a regional strategy for conservation and development of the Bay and its shoreline that incorporates adaptive management. • SB 375. Ensure that the strategy is consistent with the climate change mitigation goals of SB 375 and the principles of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy. • Update. Update the strategy regularly to reflect changing conditions and scientific information. Mapping • Map Vulnerable Areas. Include maps of shoreline areas that are vulnerable to flooding based on projections of future sea level rise and shoreline flooding. • Consult Authorities. Prepare the maps under the direction of a qualified engineer and regularly update them in consultation with government agencies with authority over flood protection Integration • Long-Term Planning. Identify and encourage the development of long-term regional flood protection strategies that may be beyond the fiscal resources of individual local agencies. • Incorporate Multiple Agencies. Develop a framework for integrating the adaptation responses of multiple government agencies. • Integrate with Local Processes. Provide information, tools, and financial resources to help local governments integrate regional climate change adaptation planning into local community design processes. • Environmental Justice. Address environmental justice and social equity issues. • Hazards and Emergencies. Integrate hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning with adaptation planning. Source: Table 5.1 in San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 2011. Living With a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. October 6, 2011; adapted by ESA. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 12-1 Relation to Local Water Planning 12.5 References California Natural Resources Agency, 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, 2009. Institute for Local Government, Track Bay Area Progress, June 2012. Available online: http://www.ca-ilg.org/post/track-bay-area-progress, accessed February 8, 2013. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), Climate Change Hits Home: Adaptation Strategies for the San Francisco Bay Area, May 2011. Available online: http://www.spur.org/files/SPUR_ClimateChangeHitsHome.pdf, accessed February 8, 2013. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 13: Relation to Local Land Use Planning ..................................... 13-1 13.1 Land Use Planning in the Bay Area ................................................. 13-1 13.1.1 Regional Planning ................................................................ 13-2 13.1.1.1 ABAG ................................................................. 13-2 13.1.1.2 Joint Policy Committee and Plan Bay Area......... 13-2 13.1.1.3 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission .................................. 13-3 13.1.1.4 LAFCOs and Municipal Service Reviews ........... 13-4 13.1.1.5 Land Management by Federal, State and Other Non-Municipal Agencies ........................... 13-4 13.1.2 Local Land Use Planning ..................................................... 13-5 13.1.2.1 Cities, Counties and Multipurpose Agencies ....... 13-5 13.1.2.2 General Plans .................................................... 13-5 13.1.2.3 Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Conditional Use Permits ..................................... 13-9 13.1.2.4 Water Supply Assessments .............................. 13-11 13.1.2.5 Stormwater Management Plans ....................... 13-11 13.1.2.6 Flood Protection and Floodplain Management . 13-12 13.1.2.7 Other Regulatory Drivers .................................. 13-12 13.2 Current Relationship between Land Use and Water Planning Agencies ....................................................................................... 13-13 13.2.1 Examples of Current Collaboration ..................................... 13-13 13.2.1.1 Long-Term Planning ......................................... 13-13 13.2.1.2 Project-Driven Consultation .............................. 13-14 13.2.1.3 Other Forms of Collaboration ........................... 13-15 13.2.1.4 Profiles of Successful Integrated Planning ....... 13-17 13.2.2 Bay Area IRWMP Coordination with Land Use Planning Agencies ............................................................................ 13-22 13.2.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement .................................. 13-22 13.2.2.2 Outreach to Cities and Counties ....................... 13-22 13.3 Future Efforts to Improve Interactions Among Land Use and Water Resources Planning Entities ............................................... 13-27 13.3.1 Constraints Inhibiting Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers ................. 13-27 13.3.2 Opportunities to Improve Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers in the Future .......................................................................... 13-29 13.3.3 Planning Future Collaboration ............................................ 13-31 13.3.3.1 Draft Climate Change Collaboration Plan ......... 13-31 13.3.3.2 BayCAN ........................................................... 13-31 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan - DRAFT ii Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.4 References .................................................................................... 13-32 List of Tables Table 13-1: Agencies and Providers Involved in Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Services in Alameda County............................................................................................. 13-7 Table 13-2: North Bay Watershed Association - Member Agencies And Water Resources Functions ..................................................................................................... 13-18 Table 13-3: Bay Area IRWMP Meetings with City and County Planning Agencies ............. 13-23 Table 13-4: Constraints Identified by Survey and Interview Participants that Inhibit Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resource Managers ................ 13-28 Table 13-5: Opportunities Identified by Survey and Interview Participants to Facilitate Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers ..................................................................................................................... 13-30 List of Figures Figure 13-1: W ater Resources Policies Contained In Bay Area General Plans ................... 13-10 Figure 13-2: Meeting Frequency between City Departments and Agencies Regarding Surface Water and Ground Water ............................................................................. 13-26 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-1 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Chapter 13: Relation to Local Land Use Planning The intent of this chapter is to foster enhanced communication between land use managers and regional water management groups. The IRWM Plan Guidelines require that the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) describe the current relationship between land use and water resources managers (e.g., how water management input is considered in land use decisions and vice versa), identify current constraints to collaboration, explore opportunities to facilitate improved collaboration, and identify plans to further a collaborative, proactive relationship between land use planners and water managers in the future. This chapter was developed based on literature review of current planning efforts, written surveys completed by land use planning agencies, telephone surveys conducted with water resources planners, and meetings at regional planning forums. Refer to Chapter 2 for a description of the major water resource agencies in the Bay Area and to Chapter 12 for an overview of water resources planning in the region. Many of the IRWMP objectives require coordination between land use planners and water managers; as a result, improving collaboration between land use planners and water resource managers will support accomplishment of the IRWMP objectives. Indeed, Objective 1.1 specifically calls for coordination between local land, water, wastewater and stormwater agencies to promote IRWM goals and identify areas of integration among projects. Examples of other objectives that would benefit from increased coordination include Objective 1.5 – Plan for and adapt to sea level rise; Objective 2.6 – Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater; Objective 3.3 – Minimize point-source and nonpoint-source pollution; Objective 4.1 – Identify and promote integrated flood management projects; and Objective 5.1 – Protect, restore and rehabilitate habitat for species protection. Refer to Chapter 3, Objectives, for further discussion of IRWMP objectives. 13.1 Land Use Planning in the Bay Area Bay Area cities and counties typically have primary authority over land use decisions while management of water resources typically is the purview of special districts, flood control agencies, investor-owned utilities, and mutual water companies. Integrating land use and water resources decision-making is essential for meeting existing and future resource management challenges. Described below are regional and local land use planning agencies and major planning initiatives. The San Francisco Bay Area is the ancestral territory of Bay Area Tribes. The majority of Bay Area Tribes acknowledge an inherent responsibility for managing their ancestral territories regardless of whether they currently have the capacity to do so. Therefore, Bay Area Tribes’ jurisdiction goes beyond the gathering, fishing, and hunting rights, which each individual Tribal member retains. Each of the Bay Area Tribes have a land use stewardship responsibility and each Tribe conducts these activities according to their own traditional policies, laws, mandates, and capacity. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-2 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.1.1 Regional Planning The key agencies involved in Bay Area-wide regional land use planning include the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the other member agencies of the Joint Policy Committee (JPC). 13.1.1.1 ABAG ABAG coordinates planning activities within the region and carries out select state and f ederal statutory duties, including setting state-mandated fair-share regional housing allocations for Bay Area cities and counties. ABAG’s members include the nine Bay Area counties and the 101 cities and towns within the Bay Area.27 Formed in 1961, ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and coordination among local governments. ABAG has examined regional issues such as housing, transportation, economic development, and the environment. ABAG’s “Projections" series provides long-term population, housing, and economic forecasts through a series of computer models. Transportation and air quality agencies, water agencies, local governments, and others rely on ABAG’s model results for planning. 13.1.1.2 Joint Policy Committee and Plan Bay Area As mentioned in Section 2.1.3.4 in Chapter 2, the regional planning efforts of ABAG, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC) are coordinated by the JPC. Formed in 2003, the JPC is composed of twenty members from these agencies, and select representatives from the State (One Bay Area, 2013). The Joint Policy Committee provides structure for coordinating the development and drafting of major planning documents for its four member agencies. Under the coordination of the JPC, ABAG and MTC, in partnership with BAAQMD and BCDC, are leading an initiative, “OneBayArea,” to coordinate efforts among the region’s counties and cities to “create a more sustainable future”. A major effort of OneBayArea is the development of 27 Note that ABAG includes the entirety of all nine Bay Area counties and therefore overlaps with other IRWM regions. Plan Bay Area encourages resource conservation and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by advocating for compact, mixed-use re- development in existing urban areas. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-3 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Plan Bay Area: the region’s long-range plan for sustainable land use, transportation, and housing. Plan Bay Area responds to Senate Bill 375, requiring California’s metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SB 375 requires the adoption of a Sustainable Communities Strategy that identifies where the region’s population will be housed and integrates land use planning and transportation planning via compact, mixed-use development: development patterns that advance stewardship of water resources consistent with the Ahwhanee Principles.28 During development of Plan Bay Area, which began in 2010, the JPC engaged with local land use planning agencies and the public to identify and assess several scenarios for the region. The Draft Plan Bay Area and corresponding Draft EIR were released on April 2, 2013 for public review. The Draft Plan Bay Area features a preferred scenario that assumes a land use development pattern that concentrates future household and job growth into Priority Development Areas identified by local jurisdictions. It pairs this land development pattern with MTC’s Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy, which dedicates nearly 90 percent of future revenues to operating and maintaining the existing road and transit system. The JPC is also leading a regional effort to develop a Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy by working with local entities to assess risks, identify critical assets and explore sea level rise adaptation options. The results of the effort will be incorporated into future Plan Bay Area updates. See Chapter 12, Relationship to Local Water Planning, for more detail. 13.1.1.3 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission The BCDC is a state agency created in 1965 to protect and enhance the San Francisco Bay by regulating development along the Bay and its shoreline. BCDC has permit jurisdiction over shoreline areas subject to tidal action up to the mean high tide line and including all sloughs, tidelands, submerged lands, and marshlands lying between the mean high tide and 5 feet above mean sea level for the nine Bay Area counties with Bay frontage, and the land lying between the Bay shoreline and a line drawn parallel to, and 100 feet from, the Bay shoreline. The San Francisco Bay Plan, prepared in 1969 and amended in 2007 and 2011, guides the protection and use of the Bay and its shoreline and provides policy direction for BCDC’s permit authority 28 The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities, written in 1991 by the Local Government Commission, are a set of principles to intended to guide development of compact, mixed - use, walkable, transit-oriented communities. In 1995, the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use were created to encourage integration of water resource, planning and land use decisions. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission regulates development along the Bay shoreline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-4 Relation to Local Land Use Planning regarding the placement of fill, extraction of materials, determination of substantial changes in use of land, water, or structures within its jurisdiction, protection of the Bay habitat and shoreline, and maximization of public access to the Bay. 13.1.1.4 LAFCOs and Municipal Service Reviews To provide for better coordination of local land use planning, the California Legislature created Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) within each county to discourage urban sprawl and to preserve open space and agricultural lands while meeting regional housing needs and planning for the efficient provision of public services and utilities, including water and wastewater service. LAFCOs have approval authority (with some limits) over the establishment and expansion of municipal and service district boundaries, including expansion related to a city proposing to expand its sphere of influence. LAFCOs also have responsibility to conduct Municipal Service Reviews which evaluate the provision of municipal services within each county. Municipal Service Reviews are required to include determinations regarding (among other things) infrastructure needs or deficiencies, growth and population projections for the affected area, and government structure options (including service providers). 13.1.1.5 Land Management by Federal, State and Other Non-Municipal Agencies Several other agencies besides regional governments (described above) and municipal governments (described below) exercise land use planning authority independent of local land use planning agencies for lands or projects that fall under their control. The land use planning authority of these entities may derive from land ownership or regulatory authority over certain lands. Examples of these agencies and the lands or project types that they manage in the Bay Area include:  National Park Service (e.g., Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Presidio of San Francisco)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge)  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (e.g., the San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, in partnership with San Francisco State University)  California Fish and Wildlife (e.g., the Eden Landing pond complex of the South Bay Salt Ponds)  Water resources agencies (e.g., for management of water bodies, watersheds, and flood control features under their control)29  University and college campuses (e.g., UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, Cal State East Bay)  California Coastal Commission (regulating development along the coast via the California Coastal Act and review of Local Coastal Programs) 29 Pursuant to Section 53091 et seq of the California Government Code, the activities of many water resource agencies are exempt from certain local land use policies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-5 Relation to Local Land Use Planning  California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (regulating select energy and utility projects, respectively) Some of these entities develop land use plans containing policies governing the lands that they manage. Examples include the Golden Gate National Recreation Area General Management Plan, the Presidio Trust Management Plan, the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, watershed management plans implemented by water resource agencies, and long range development plans implemented for university and college campuses. 13.1.2 Local Land Use Planning 13.1.2.1 Cities, Counties and Multipurpose Agencies As indicated in Chapter 2 (Sections 2.1.1 and Section 2.2.9), the Bay Area includes all of San Francisco County and parts of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Marin, Napa, Sonoma and Solano counties (see Figure 2-1). There are 101 incorporated cities in the Bay Area; Figure 2-2 depicts major cities in the region. While most land use planning in the Bay Area takes place through city and county governments30 many are multipurpose agencies with respect to one or more water management areas, and each deals with multiple water resources agencies. The number of agencies involved in water resources and land use planning, coupled with constraints on staff resources, can impede collaboration. As an example, Table 13-8 indicates the array of agencies involved in water, wastewater, and stormwater management in one Bay Area county -- Alameda. The information in Table 13-8 is drawn from the County’s Municipal Service Review (Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, 2005). As shown, there are 16 water, wastewater, and flood control service providers; stormwater management and wastewater collection are generally within the purview of the cities and the county; and while water services are largely provided by “limited purpose” agencies, three cities and one county service area are water retailers. At the other end of the spectrum, various branches within the City and County of San Francisco manage the full scope of water resources and land use planning functions within that jurisdiction. Governance patterns within the other seven counties in the region generally trend closer to the Alameda County example. Key local planning processes that influence, and are influenced by water resources management include general plans; specific plans, zoning ordinances and conditional use permits; water supply assessments; and stormwater management, discussed below. 13.1.2.2 General Plans Each city and county in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of its jurisdiction. The general plan is a statement of development policies and is required to include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, 30 There are exceptions to this, including the universities and colleges, and in some cases water resources agencies (e.g., for management of water bodies, watersheds, and flood control features); the California Coastal Commission (regulating development along the coast) and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (regulating development close to San Francisco Bay); and the California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (regulating select energy and utility projects, respectively). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-6 Relation to Local Land Use Planning noise, and safety elements. The land use element designates the proposed general distribution, location, and extent of land uses and includes a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for lands covered by the plan. General Plans and Development. With respect to planning development to accommodate housing growth, the State Planning and Zoning law (California Government Code 65580 et seq.) prescribes that the housing element of a general plan may not be constrained by the lack of all needed governmental services, including water service. The housing element is required to plan for the housing allocated to a given city or county pursuant to Government Code Section 65584 (in this case the Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG, discussed below). To the extent that governmental services, like a public water supply, are not available to fully meet a city’s or county’s housing allocation, state law requires the city or county to “remove the governmental constraints” to the development of the housing described in the general plan. This requirement promotes the state general plan policy that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order” that “requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels”. State legislation (discussed below under Water Supply Assessments) ensures that specific housing and other development projects are not approved and constructed without a demonstrated, adequate water supply. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-7 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table 13-8: Agencies and Providers Involved in Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Services in Alameda County Provider Water Sewer Flood Control Stormwater Wholesale Retail Importing Extraction/ Wells Ground-water Mgmt. Treatment Recycled Water Potable Raw Recycled Collection Treatment Disposal Maintenance Permitting Preventive "Limited Purpose" Providers Alameda County Flood Control and Conservation District  Alameda County Water District     Contra Costa Water District Castro Valley Sanitary District  Dublin San Ramon Services District      East Bay Municipal Utility District        Oro Loma Sanitary District   Union Sanitary District    Washington HCD  Zone 7 Water Agency       Cal Water  San Francisco Public Utilities Commission     State Water Project East Bay Dischargers Authority  Livermore-Amador Valley Wastewater Management Agency  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-8 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Provider Water Sewer Flood Control Stormwater Wholesale Retail Importing Extraction/ Wells Ground-water Mgmt. Treatment Recycled Water Potable Raw Recycled Collection Treatment Disposal Maintenance Permitting Preventive Multipurpose Agencies Cities Alameda      Albany     Berkeley      Dublin   Emeryville    Fremont   Hayward       Livermore         Newark    Oakland     Piedmont      Pleasanton      San Leandro      Union City    Castlewood and Five Canyons County Service Areas    East Bay Regional Park District  Alameda County    Source: Table ES-2 in Final Municipal Service Review Volume II – Utility Services, Report to the Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, 2005; adapted by ESA. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-9 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Water Resources in General Plans. Water resource topics are usually addressed in general plan conservation, public services and/or open space elements. Policies are developed which connect the management of water resources and provision of water supply infrastructure with development patterns. In 2003, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research published general plan guidelines that encouraged jurisdictions to include an optional water element in their general plan to allow a more thorough consideration of water supply availability and subsequent development decisions. The water element of the general plan must be developed in coordination with any county-wide water agency and with all districts and city agencies that have developed, serviced, controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the city or county for which the general plan is prepared. Such coordination must include the discussion and evaluation of water supply and demand information. As of May 2012, 5 counties and 18 cities in the Bay Area had adopted optional water resources elements in their general plans (Governors Office of Planning and Research 2011, Governors Office of Planning and Research 2012). In 2007, legislation31 was passed to facilitate coordination between land use and flood risk management agencies by updating cities’ and counties’ responsibilities related to local land use planning requirements. Specifically, the legislation requires cities and counties to amend their general plan land use, conservation, safety and housing elements to consider and address flood risks. Revised water resources policies are required to be developed in coordination with applicable flood management, water conservation and groundwater agencies. Figure 13-3 presents the results of a survey (described in Section 13.2.2) of the prevalence of water resources policies contained in city and county general plans. 13.1.2.3 Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Conditional Use Permits City and county planning agencies also use specific plans, zoning ordinances and other development regulations (e.g., urban limit lines), and conditional use permits to implement the general plan and regulate development as well as the protection of water resources within their jurisdictions. Specific plans can be used to implement policies of a general plan “that are specific to financing infrastructure improvements and extensions [within a particular area], or cost recovery programs may be implemented by matching land uses with supporting public facilities (Governors Office of Planning and Research, 2001).” Conditional use permits (CUPs) are planning tools to impose specific requirements on a given proposed land use. In the context of water resources management, CUPs can provide opportunities to impose requirements that advance numerous policies, including low impact development (LID) features to manage stormwater run-off and reduce impervious surfaces and reduce flooding potential. 31 AB 162, codified in Government Code Sections 65302(a), 65302(d), 65302(g), 65584.04 and 65584.06 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-10 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Figure 13-3: Water Resources Policies Contained In Bay Area General Plans Notes: (a) “Other sustainable development" includes green building, density increase, water recycling, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, open space conservation, green government, climate change and sea level rise plans, complete streets, transit oriented development, and rainwater and greywater reuse. Source: San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Local Governments Watershed Inventory, September 12, 2012. 62% 35% 75% 56% 85% 81% 35% 69% 46% 33% Watershed Conservation Watershed restoration Creek or riparian conservation Creek or riparian restoration Flood control Stormwater management Green streets/Low impact development policies Water quality Litter or trash management Other sustainable development Water Resources Policies included in City General Plans a 100% 63% 75% 50% 88% 88% 38% 100% 0% 63% Watershed conservation Watershed restoration Creek or riparian conservation Creek or riparian restoration Flood control Stormwater management Green streets/Low impact development policies Water quality Litter or trash management Other Sustainable development Water Resources Policies included in County General Plans a 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-11 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.1.2.4 Water Supply Assessments Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 (codified primarily in the California Water Code and Public Resources Code) took effect in 2002 and require increased efforts to identify and assess the reliability of water supplies and increased levels of communication between land use planning authorities and local water suppliers. SB 610 requires that CEQA review for most large projects and smaller projects meeting certain thresholds include a water supply assessment. The water supply assessment must address whether existing water supplies will suffice to serve the project and other planned development over a 20-year period in average, dry, and multiple-dry year conditions, and must set forth a plan for finding additional supplies necessary to serve the project. Cities and counties can approve projects notwithstanding identified water supply shortfalls provided that they address such shortfalls in their findings. SB 221 (applying to similar sized projects as those addressed in SB 610) requires that cities and counties impose a new condition of tentative subdivision approval, requiring that the applicant provide a detailed, written verification from the applicable water supplier that a sufficient water supply will be available before the final subdivision map can be approved. 13.1.2.5 Stormwater Management Plans Among the Functional Areas addressed in this IRWMP, stormwater management may reflect the highest degree of integration of water resources and land use planning. Compliance with the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP) is the primary driver for addressing water quality in stormwater discharges and a primary means of improving water quality in Bay Area receiving waters, consistent with the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Section C.3 of the MRP requires the permittees (cities, counties and special districts) to use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects of 10,000 or more square feet to address pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows. Therefore, compliance with Section C.3 provisions requires upfront land use and site design planning to identify appropriate stormwater control measures. Municipalities generally implement the provisions of Section C.3 by requiring a stormwater control plan, describing proposed long-term stormwater control measures, to be submitted as part of the development approval process for new projects. If onsite measures are not feasible, project proponents can work with municipalities and regulatory agencies to identify regional off-site stormwater management facilities. The C.3 provisions may preclude certain land uses and/or development of certain sites if appropriate measures are not feasible. Section C.6 of the MRP requires permittees to implement a construction site review and inspection program to avoid and minimize water quality impacts from construction activity. Prior to issuance of grading permits, permittees are required to review adequacy of stormwater and erosion control plans and verify that construction sites disturbing one acre or more of land have filed a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires (among other things) preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies best management practices to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-12 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Many municipalities have formed countywide “clean water” programs to meet MRP regulations by sharing resources and collaborating on projects of mutual benefit. Senate Bill 985 requires the development of a stormwater resource plan in order to receive grants for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects. Stormwater Resource Plans developed in the Region are approved by the CC and attached as addenda to this Plan. Stormwater Resource Plans can be found in Appendix G. 13.1.2.6 Flood Protection and Floodplain Management An important driver of flood protection planning in the Bay Area is the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIP offers federally backed flood insurance to communities that develop and adopt floodplain management ordinances to regulate development in high flood risk areas. Because flood insurance is a prerequisite for obtaining a mortgage for properties within floodplains, nearly all Bay Area municipalities have floodplain management ordinances based on the FEMA model. The NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS) provides further incentive to develop floodplain management ordinances by offering reductions on flood insurance premiums to communities that undertake additional floodplain management activities. Ordinances require new residential construction or reconstruction to follow guidelines to reduce risk of flood damage and encourage a multi-objective approach to floodplain management. 13.1.2.7 Other Regulatory Drivers There are numerous additional ways in which water resources regulations drive land use agency action, including the examples discussed below. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan, developed and implemented by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is the central planning document governing water quality in the Bay Area. The Basin Plan provides a program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect beneficial uses. In 1995, the Water Board adopted a watershed management approach to achieving water quality goals specified in the Basin Plan. The watershed management approach relies on water quality monitoring and stakeholder involvement, including local land use agencies, to develop watershed action plans to address high priority water quality issues. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states identify and restore water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Once a water body is identified as impaired, a TMDL is developed to identify sources of pollutants and specify actions necessary to ensure attainment of water quality standards. TMDLs must account for all sources of a pollutant, including point and nonpoint sources. Because nonpoint source pollution is strongly related to local land use, land use management is an essential component of TMDL implementation. Examples of land use actions that may be required under a TMDL include urban and agricultural erosion control measures, agricultural fertilizer and waste management measures, riparian buffers and setbacks and urban runoff management measures. There are currently nine completed TMDLs in the Bay Area that address a range of pollutants including mercury, pathogens, sediment, PCBs and pesticide toxicity. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-13 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Senate Bill X7-7 (codified in California Water Code Sections 10608 and 10800-10853) creates a framework to reduce California’s per capita water consumption 20% by 2020. The law establishes methods for urban retail water suppliers to determine their urban water use target. Methods specified include: setting a conservation target of 80 percent of their daily per capita water baseline; utilizing performance standards for indoor, landscaping, industrial and institutional uses; meeting 95 percent of the per capita water goal for their specific hydrologic region as identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and other state agencies in the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan; or using an alternative method developed by DWR. The bill also requires urban water suppliers to set an interim urban water use target and meet that target by December 31, 2015. SB X7-7 also requires agricultural water suppliers to implement efficient water management practices and prepare, adopt, and periodically revise agricultural water management plans to document their water conservation efforts. DWR is required to work cooperatively with the California Urban Water Conservation Council in achieving the goals of SBX7-7. Implementation of SB 7X 7 requirements is resulting in changes in local land use planning practice to encourage and require reductions in per capita consumption. For example, some Bay Area municipalities are collaborating with local water districts to incorporate water efficiency requirements into the development approval process. 13.2 Current Relationship between Land Use and Water Planning Agencies To characterize the existing relationship between local land use agencies and water resource managers, literature review of current planning and consultation processes was conducted, and surveys and interviews were conducted with agencies throughout the region. 13.2.1 Examples of Current Collaboration Consultation between land use planners and water resources managers occur during long-term planning, at the project level, and in association with a variety of specific initiatives and regulatory drivers. For the purposes of structuring this section, examples of interaction are presented in the following categories:  Long-Term Planning  Project Driven Consultation  Other Forms of Collaboration 13.2.1.1 Long-Term Planning General Plan Consultation. As described above, consultation, development and approval of general plans provides an opportunity for interaction between water resource managers and land use planners. Urban Water Management Plans. A major driver of coordination between water supply managers and land use managers is the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The Act requires all urban water suppliers32 to carry out long-term resource planning responsibilities through development of Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). UWMPs assess the 32 A supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-14 Relation to Local Land Use Planning reliability of the supplier’s water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal and drought conditions. In preparing the UWMP, the urban water supplier is required to coordinate with other appropriate agencies, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, including land use planning agencies. UWMPs must be provided to land use agencies following each update (i.e., every five years). When a city or county proposes to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the water agency is required to provide the planning agency with the current adopted UWMP and other information relevant to the system’s sources of water supply. Appendix 12 lists all UWMPs within the Bay Area region; 25 cities in the Bay Area reg ion are water retailers, providing water service within their jurisdictions and preparing their own UWMPs. Demographics, Forecasts and Resource/Facilities Planning. The projections that most Bay Area water and wastewater agencies use for demand forecasts and facilities planning usually rely to some extent on ABAG forecasts, general plan forecasts, or other inputs from cities and counties to ensure the provision of adequate services. In addition to the examples above, Appendix 12 identifies numerous other long-term planning efforts relevant to Bay Area water resources. Flood Protection Planning. In 2007, legislation33 was passed to encourage cities and counties to adopt a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) in conjunction with the revised safety element of the general plan. In 2010 ABAG adopted a multi-jurisdictional local hazard mitigation plan. The plan was developed with input from agencies with both land-use and water management authority, including city and county governments, water districts and flood control districts. The purpose of the plan is to identify and assess vulnerability to hazards in the Bay Area and to identify specific actions that can be taken to reduce risk from hazards. The plan contains a description of general land-use planning actions that can be taken within the Bay Area to mitigate flooding hazards. Examples of strategies related to flood management include providing mechanisms to ensure new development in floodplains is reviewed by local flood control districts, enforcing compliance with NFIP requirements for new construction and encouraging setbacks for developments near floodways. Participating governments and special districts in the Bay Area have also developed their own annexes to ABAG’s multi-jurisdictional plan, which document each government’s specific efforts to mitigate flood risk. 13.2.1.2 Project-Driven Consultation There are numerous triggers for consultation between land use planners and water resource managers at the project level. Several water resource managers interviewed indicated that receipt of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document on a project (e.g., a Notice 33 AB 2140, codified in Government Code Sections 65302.6 and 8685.9 Flooding in Napa County. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-15 Relation to Local Land Use Planning of Preparation for an environmental impact report) triggered consultation with a local land use agency. Many water resource managers have consultation requirements under CEQA as responsible agencies or agencies with jurisdiction by law. Water supply managers also become involved in project consultation through Water Supply Assessment requirements described under Section 13.1.2.4. Others identified consultation driven by development permits and other steps in project review (e.g., plan reviews, issuance of tentative subdivision maps). One agency staff indicated that occasionally she learns about a project when the agency received an application for water service. 13.2.1.3 Other Forms of Collaboration Collaboration and consultation between water managers and land use planners takes many other forms; examples include:  Periodic and regularly scheduled multi-disciplinary meetings with planning agency staff  Development of water- and resource-conservation based ordinances and policies (e.g., recycled water ordinances)  Presentations to the Council of Mayors  Routine meetings with City Managers  Topic-specific forums such as the integration of stormwater and wastewater management  Development of guidance documents (e.g., the Ocean Protection Council’s State of California Sea-level Rise Guidance Document, San Mateo County’s Green Streets)  Development of education and outreach programs (e.g., the Bay Area Regional Water Conservation and Education Program, Bay Friendly Landscaping and Gardening Coalition, described in Section 4.2.1.2 of Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies)  Development of multi-agency habitat or watershed planning documents (e.g., the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Project, described in Section 4.2.6.2 of Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies).  LID Leadership Group initiatives (e.g., Bay Area Green Infrastructure Master Planning Grant; project to identify local plans, policies and programs that lead to the development of integrated water projects).  Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) of the Bay Area – RCDs across the Bay Area collaborate to coordinate technical, financial and educational resources to meet local and regional demands for conservation, restoration, and protection of soil, water, and related natural resources.  San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, a regional agency with a governing board made up of local elected officials, was created in 2008 to raise and allocate local resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-16 Relation to Local Land Use Planning  Bay Area Open Space Council, a regional collaborative of land conservation and management entities working towards long-term protection of sensitive habitat and open space lands in the Bay Area.  Adapting to Rising Tides, a collaborative planning effort to help San Francisco Bay Area communities adapt to rising sea levels, increasing the Bay Area’s preparedness and resilience to sea level rise and storm events while protecting critical ecosystem and community services. Led by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center; engages local, regional, state and federal agencies and organizations, as well as non-profit and private associations.  San Francisco Littoral Cell Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan is currently being developed to assist government entities, municipalities, stakeholders, and communities in developing strategies for beneficial reuse of sediments within the region from the Golden Gate to Pacifica to address coastal erosion.  San Francisquito Creek JPA was conceived as a flood management program among the counties and cities of San Mateo and Santa Clara that border the creek, as well as the Santa Clara Valley Water District. With the goal of transforming San Francisquito Creek from a divisive liability into a unifying asset, the JPA plans, designs, and implements projects from the upper watershed to coastal wetlands that are of mutual interest to these jurisdictions. The JPA’s multijurisdictional approach to solving problems is reflected in these projects. They serve the interrelated ecosystem, recreational, and disaster protection needs of the region, and are funded by multiple local, state, and federal partners.  ReNewIT – Engineering Research Center for Re-inventing the Nation’s Urban Water Infrastructure. ReNewIT is an interdisciplinary research center funded by the National Science Foundation whose partner institutions include Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, and New Mexico State University. Some specific aims of research include incorporating resource recovery and energy production into engineered water systems, engineering natural systems to improve water quality, water quality and habitat, overcoming impediments to adopting new urban water management strategies, and providing improved decision-making tools to decision makers.  SFEP Implementation Committee. The Committee (made up of representatives from local/state/federal agencies, business/industry, and environmental organizations) coordinates implementation of Partnership activities, helps to set work priorities, exchanges ideas and suggestions about management issues, and recommends work plans and budgets for approval.  Bay Area Watershed Network - The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) is a network of natural resource professionals and community members who work locally to protect watersheds, from headlands to the Bay, throughout our region. The BAWN provides opportunities to share information and coordinate ideas, proposals, and activities. San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, established under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, brings together public and private agencies, conservation groups, development interests 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-17 Relation to Local Land Use Planning and others to restore wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay watersheds and along the Pacific coast of San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma counties.  Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative Land Use Subgroup. San Mateo Green Streets Manual and Low Impact Development street and parking lot retrofits, funded by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.  The Bay Area Ecosystems Climate Change Consortium is a regional collaborative of natural resource managers, scientists, and policy and funding entities working to secure nature’s benefits for the region in the face of accelerating climate change.  Grand Boulevard Initiative (a retrofit of El Camino Real). This initiative is a collaboration of 19 cities, counties, and local and regional agencies to improve the performance, safety, and aesthetics of El Camino Real from Daly City to San José. The project aims to include low-impact development features such as water efficient landscaping, vegetated stormwater strips and pervious pavement. 13.2.1.4 Profiles of Successful Integrated Planning Four examples of highly collaborative planning in the Subregions are presented below. Refer also to Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies. North Subregion: Comprehensive, Multi-Agency Watershed Planning The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) was created in 2001 to help member agencies work cooperatively on water resources issues in order to promote stewardship of the North Bay watershed. Location. The NBWA planning area includes parts of eastern Marin and southern Sonoma and Napa counties that drain to San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Agencies Involved. Table 13-9 identifies the agencies participating in NBWA and their respective Functional Areas. Functional Areas Involved. Water supply and water quality; wastewater and recycled water; flood protection and stormwater management; watershed management- habitat protection and restoration. Description. The NBWA was formed for the purpose of integrating local planning efforts related to water resources management and habitat enhancement by using a collaborative format for information exchange between and amongst water management agencies and land use planning agencies (e.g., cities and counties). The goals of the NBWA include working cooperatively to maximize effective use of resources; enhancing NBWA’s influence on local, state and federal policies; increasing eligibility for watershed based funding; and educating communities about the importance of watershed stewardship. The NBWA Board of Directors is composed of primarily elected officials from North Bay cities, counties and water resource agencies and is responsible for overall governance. The NBW A watershed Council is comprised of interested stakeholders across the region and is advisory to the NBWA Board of Directors. Several technical committees comprised of staff from member agencies and the NBWA Watershed Council are responsible for meeting the goals of the association. These technical 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-18 Relation to Local Land Use Planning committees meet jointly and independently to coordinate activities, share information, and discuss topics of joint concern. NBWA developed the North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan and, subsequently, oversaw development of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the North Bay to provide a framework for supporting improved water resources management. Implementation of these plans includes coordinating with local land use agencies. In addition, NBWA has implemented and/or funded a variety of creek restoration, water quality monitoring, watershed stewardship, and climate adaptation projects in the North Bay. Some specific examples of successful collaborative projects initiated by NBWA include coordinating a tri-county effort to implement Total Maximum Daily Loads, funding a stormwater infiltration program for three North Bay counties and implementing a multi-county effort to develop an online tool to help North Bay communities adapt to sea level rise. East Subregion: Rigorous Land-Use Based Water Demand Forecasting An accurate analysis of existing and future water demands is “the foundation for comprehensive water supply planning” (Johnson, 2004), a critical intersection of land use and water resources planning, and the link between urban growth and water supply. Since 2000, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has implemented a land use-based approach to estimating water demands which relies on close coordination with land use agencies within its water service area to project demand for potable supplies essentially to the parcel level. Location. Parts of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Agencies Involved. EBMUD, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and cities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Functional Areas Involved. Water supply and water quality; wastewater and recycled water. Table 13-9: North Bay Watershed Association - Member Agencies And Water Resources Functions Member Agency Water Supply & Water Quality Wastewater & Recycled Water Flood Protection & Stormwater Management Watershed Management- Habitat Protection & Restoration Land Use Planning Bel Marin Keys Community Services District   Central Marin Sanitation Agency  City of Mill Valley (Group Associate Member)    City of Novato (Associate Member)  City of Petaluma      City of San Rafael   City of Sonoma    County of Marin    County of Sonoma   2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-19 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Member Agency Water Supply & Water Quality Wastewater & Recycled Water Flood Protection & Stormwater Management Watershed Management- Habitat Protection & Restoration Land Use Planning Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District  Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program    Marin Municipal Water District    Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District   Napa Sanitation District  North Marin Water District   Novato Sanitary District  Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin (Group Associate Member)  Sonoma County Water Agency     Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District  The Bay Institute (Associate Member)  Tomales Bay Watershed Council (Associate Member)  Description. EBMUD’s land use based approach used geographic information system (GIS) technology to digitize polygons of similar land uses over aerial photographs to create a detailed GIS land use coverage for EBMUD’s entire service area (EBMUD and Montgomery Watson, 2000). Existing (base year) water demands were determined for each land use polygon based on actual metered consumption data (normalized for weather and other factors), using another EBMUD GIS-based application. Based on water consumption and land area in each land use category, an average land use unit demand (LUD), expressed in gallons per day per acre, was generated for each land use. To estimate future demands, land use polygons in the GIS database were updated to reflect future development based on adopted general plans and specific plans, and maps showing future land uses based on these revisions were prepared and presented to planning agencies for review. Consultation with planning agencies of the cities and counties in the EBMUD’s service area was a key aspect of the EBMUD’s demand study, and EBMUD staff and demand study consultants met with each of the city and county planning agencies to confirm general plan land use designations for future development, to identify redevelopment areas, and to 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-20 Relation to Local Land Use Planning identify phasing of future development over the demand study planning period. Future annual average demands thus calculated were then adjusted to incorporate estimated reductions in distribution system demand due to conservation and non-potable water (e.g., recycled water) use, based on EBMUD’s Water Supply Management Program 2040 preferred portfolio of conservation and non-potable water programs (EBMUD et al., 2009). EBMUD updates its demand forecasting periodically. EBMUD’s forecasting methodology provides a complement to the requirements for Water Supply Assessments (described in Section 13.1.2.4). EBMUD’s demand forecasting methodology incorporates land-use planning into EBMUD’s water supply management program to ensure that EBMUD will have sufficient supply to meet projected demand, while Water Supply Assessments require that water management planning is incorporated into land use decisions to ensure that development will not occur without sufficient water supply. South Subregion: Integrated Habitat Restoration and Flood Control for Local Municipalities The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and the South Bay Shoreline Study provide successful examples of projects involving collaboration among a diverse group of agencies with the goal of providing an array of benefits, such as wetlands restoration and enhancement, flood management, recreation and public access. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project began in 2003 and the South Bay Shoreline Study began in 2006, both are still in progress. Location. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project involves restoration of former salt ponds located in three pond complexes along the South San Francisco Bay: Eden Landing near Hayward, Ravenswood near East Palo Alto, and Alviso. The South Bay Shoreline Study will eventually provide flood protection to all Santa Clara County Baylands, from Palo Alto to Southern Alameda County, in addition to the former salt ponds within the Alviso Pond complex and adjacent properties such as areas around Moffett Field. The first reach will protect important infrastructure such as the San Jose/Santa Clara Wastewater Treatment Plant and the community of Alviso. Agencies Involved. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project: California State Coastal Conservancy , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, East Bay Regional Park District, and South Bay cities and counties bordering the salt ponds (e.g., City of San Jose, City of Sunnyvale). South Bay Shoreline Study: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California State Coastal Conservancy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and local sponsors and other land-owning agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Jose. Functional Areas Involved. Flood protection and stormwater management; watershed management - habitat protection and restoration. Description. As described in Section 4.2.6.2 of Chapter 4, Resource Management Strategies, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project involves restoration of 15,100 acres of former salt ponds while providing for flood management and wildlife-oriented public access and recreation. The South Bay Shoreline Study is being developed to accomplish similar goals, including flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and public access. Because these two projects have 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-21 Relation to Local Land Use Planning similar objectives and geographic scope, planning and management of the projects has been closely integrated. Due to the nature of the proposed projects, consultation with local planning agencies is a key component of the project planning process. For example, city and county input is needed to implement project components such as habitat restoration, flood protection and public access features which all require decisions regarding land use. In order to involve local planning agencies, development of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration project includes periodic local government forums to provide local government representatives with opportunities to exchange information and voice concerns regarding the project. Similarly, local government participation is a critical part of the planning process for the South Bay Shoreline Study, as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required to collaborate with local sponsors to identify a locally preferred alternative, and in the case of Phase 1, the City of San José is an underlying landowner as well as a primary beneficiary of proposed flood control features. The nature of both of these processes provided the opportunity for water managers and land use planners to collaborate in providing a variety of needed services and benefits to the South Bay region. Thus far, this collaboration has successfully resulted in over 3,000 acres of habitat restoration and when complete, will provide 15,100 acres of habitat restoration as well as critical flood protection for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant and the local community, including the approximately 2,000 residents of the community of Alviso. West Subregion: Land Use and Water Resources Management under One Roof The City and County of San Francisco integrates water resources management and land use planning through multiple city departments. Location. City and County of San Francisco Agencies Involved. Various departments of the City and County of San Francisco, including Planning, Public Works, Recreation and Park, Municipal Transportation Agency, Redevelopment Agency among others; and the SFPUC. Functional Areas Involved. Water supply and water quality; wastewater and recycled water; flood protection and stormwater management; watershed management- habitat protection and restoration. Description. The interaction between City and County of San Francisco departments having different responsibilities, priorities, and areas of expertise on common projects facilitates the integration of land use and water planning. Within San Francisco, the SFPUC provides potable water, recycled water and sewer services; and implements urban watershed planning to reduce stormwater flows to the City’s combined system. The SFPUC uses the Planning Department’s growth forecasts in developing projections of future water demand. The Recreation and Park Department manages remnant City-owned natural areas within San Francisco and manages other City parks and recreation areas, which provide opportunities for using recycled water for irrigation. The Department of Public Works builds, operates, and maintains City infrastructure; it coordinates construction work within public rights of way and many of its street improvement projects incorporate green stormwater management technologies endorsed by other City departments to reduce, filter, or slow stormwater runoff. The San Francisco Planning Department guides the long-term development of the City’s built and natural environment, 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-22 Relation to Local Land Use Planning prepares and updates the City’s general plan and sub area plans, and reviews projects for environmental impacts. Collaboration among City departments occurs at numerous junctures during planning, project review, and rule-making. An example of a recent multi-departmental water resource initiative is San Francisco’s Non-potable Water Program, which is a collaboration between the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection, the San Francisco Department of Public Health and the SFPUC. This program promotes on-site non-potable water reuse for commercial, multi- family and mixed-use developments by providing technical and regulatory guidance, establishing a streamlined approval process, and offering grants to help fund retrofits for non- potable reuse. The SFPUC estimates that this program has the potential to offset up to 3.4 mgd of potable water demand. 13.2.2 Bay Area IRWMP Coordination with Land Use Planning Agencies As described in Chapter 1, development of the IRWMP is led by the Coordinating Committee (CC). The CC is responsible for providing leadership and oversight for the IRWMP process. The CC is composed of 12 voting representatives, made up of three representatives from each of the four Functional Areas as well as non-voting representatives from resource and regulatory agencies, non-governmental organizations and other interested stakeholders. Monthly CC meetings are open to all interested parties and provide an opportunity for land use planning agencies to participate in the IRWMP. 13.2.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement In addition to the CC, the IRWMP effort draws on input from the four Functional Area workgroups, four Subregional groups, CC subcommittees (established as needed), and targeted stakeholder outreach (stakeholder workshops, sub-regional outreach and individual county/agency outreach). These workgroups and subcommittees provide opportunities for land use planning agencies to participate in and contribute to the IRWMP (e.g., through providing collaborative input or reviewing and commenting on draft document materials). Refer to Chapter 14, Stakeholder Engagement, for a detailed description of outreach conducted in support of the IRWMP. 13.2.2.2 Outreach to Cities and Counties As part of the development of the IRWMP, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP)34 convened discussions on collaborations between water agencies and land use agencies and conducted a survey of local governments to establish a baseline inventory of local watershed policies and to assess the current degree of inter-agency collaboration. As shown in Table 13-10, discussions occurred at nine sub-regional or regional meetings in the Bay Area. The goal of these meetings was to provide an overview of the IRWMP update and 34 The San Francisco Estuary Partnership is a coalition of resource agencies, non -profits, citizens, and scientists working to protect, restore, and enhance water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in and around the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary. Working cooperatively, SFEP share s information and resources that result in studies, projects, and programs that improve the Estuary and communicate its value and needs to the public. The Association of Bay Area Governments is the home agency for Partnership staff and finances. SFEP’s offices are located at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board in Oakland. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-23 Relation to Local Land Use Planning project selection process and to initiate a dialog to identify the current status of, and ways to improve the relationship between water planning and land use planning. Discussion participants included water management, land use and regulatory agencies as well as nongovernmental organizations. Key findings of the discussions include:  Programs, policies, and plans are in place throughout the Bay Area that encourage collaboration between water and land use agencies; however, if these are not fully funded then implementation may be difficult to achieve.  Collaborations between agencies may lead to less expensive solutions to water and land use problems.  Research is being conducted in the Bay Area to consider water solutions for the next 100 years. Such efforts may lead to improvements in collaborations between land use and water agencies. Table 13-10: Bay Area IRWMP Meetings with City and County Planning Agencies Date Organization Agencies in Attendance November 2012 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and Woodside; County of San Mateo, Caltrain, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Caltrans March 2012 May 2012 September 2012 December 2012 Low Impact Development Leadership Group Cities of Campbell, Emeryville and San José, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Zone 7 Water Agency, BCDC, ABAG, SF Bay Regional Board, Caltrans December 2012 Santa Clara Watershed Management Initiative Land Use Subgroup Cities of Mountain View, San José, Sunnyvale; County of Santa Clara, West Valley Clean Water Program (cities of Campbell, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos), CLEAN South Bay, Santa Clara Valley Water District January 2013 North Bay Watershed Association Counties of Marin and Sonoma; Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, Novato Sanitary District, Central Marin Sanitation Agency, North Marin Water District, Marin Municipal Water District, and Sonoma County Water Agency February 2012 April 2012 Sustainable Watershed Forum Cities of Emeryville, El Cerrito, Campbell, San Jose; Counties of Marin and San Mateo; ABAG; BAFPAA, BASMAA, BCDC, Caltrans, EBDA, EBMUD, EPA, MTC, SFEI, SFPUC, Santa Clara County Urban Runoff Program, Regional Board, Zone 7 Water Agency Source: San Francisco Estuary Partnership, How to Improve Collaboration Between Land Use & Water Agencies: SFEP Stakeholder Outreach Findings for the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update, June 2013 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-24 Relation to Local Land Use Planning In addition to convening these discussions, SFEP conducted a survey of cities and counties in the Bay Area to:  Evaluate the extent to which local governments have implemented watershed protection policies (e.g., in general plans and other policy documents) and identify obstacles to policy development.  Assess the degree of inter-agency coordination currently occurring between local government and resource agencies, and  Identify obstacles to coordination. The survey was sent to planning and public works departments in all 101 cities and 9 counties in the Bay Area; the following 56 municipalities participated in the survey: Participating Cities35 Alameda El Cerrito Oakley San Rafael Albany Emeryville Orinda San Ramon American Canyon Fairfax Pinole Santa Clara Belmont Gilroy Pittsburg Santa Rosa Benicia Hayward Redwood City St Helena Brentwood Hillsborough Richmond Suisun City Calistoga Larkspur Rio Vista Sunnyvale Campbell Milpitas San Anselmo Town of Colma Cloverdale Monte Sereno San Carlos Town of Los Altos Hills Corte Madera Mountain View San Jose Town of Moraga Daly City Newark San Mateo Town of Tiburon Dixon Oakland San Pablo Union City Participating Counties Alameda San Francisco Contra Costa San Mateo Marin Solano Napa Sonoma Questions in the survey included whether select water resources topics (e.g., watershed conservation and restoration, creek/riparian restoration and conservation, flood control, stormwater management green streets/LID, water quality) were addressed in general plan policies, ordinances, regulations or codes; whether the municipality has – as well as obstacles to developing and implementing -- watershed plans, creek or riparian setback ordinance, or creek restoration program; and frequency of interactions with districts and departments responsible for the municipality’s surface water and groundwater resources. 35 One respondent did not indicate which city she or he represented. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-25 Relation to Local Land Use Planning The survey indicated that the majority of cities and counties surveyed have water quality, stormwater management, flood control, and creek/riparian conservation or restoration policies (see Figure 13-3), but that there are obstacles to implementation. To characterize the degree of interagency collaboration regarding surface water and groundwater resources, the survey evaluated the frequency of meetings between public works and planning departments and other government departments and agencies (e.g., environmental services departments, flood control districts, water districts), regarding surface and groundwater resources. As shown in Figure 13-4, city and county governments met most frequently with flood control, public works, planning, transportation, parks and environmental services departments. City and county governments met most infrequently or never with public health, flood control, water and wastewater districts. Note that county governments have a lower overall level of coordination on water resource issues compared to city governments. These data show that there is an opportunity to improve the degree of coordination and communication at the county level and among agencies that currently meet infrequently or never regarding water resources. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-26 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Figure 13-4: Meeting Frequency between City Departments and Agencies Regarding Surface Water and Ground Water Source: San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Local Governments Watershed Inventory, September 12, 2012. 5 14 13 7 8 8 17 14 12 9 15 5 24 16 20 23 31 31 18 19 11 25 26 2 15 10 10 13 1 3 6 9 18 7 1 Meeting Frequency -City Departments Meet infrequently/ Never Meet frequently Don't know - N/A 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 7 6 5 6 2 6 4 1 3 2 3 1 4 1 Meeting Frequency -County Departments Meet infrequent/Never Meet frequently Don’t Know -N/A 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-27 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.3 Future Efforts to Improve Interactions Among Land Use and Water Resources Planning Entities To plan for future collaboration, the CC considered input received via the discussions, surveys and interviews with land use and water resource managers and developed a plan setting forth steps to improve collaboration following completion of this IRWMP. In developing the plan, the CC considered feasibility, responsiveness to constraints and regional priorities, efficacy and ease of implementation of potential opportunities to improve collaboration. 13.3.1 Constraints Inhibiting Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers Table 13-11 below summarizes obstacles to collaboration that were identified through the outreach activities through interviews with water resource managers. Opinions varied among survey and interview participants regarding how much coordination is desirable, and whether there were constraints inhibiting collaboration, but many participants perceived of one or more obstacles to better inter-agency collaboration and the development of watershed-based resource initiatives. The most common issue identified among land use agencies was constraints on resources and funding, which likely stems in part from the effects of the recession on the staffing and budgets of many cities, counties and special districts. The recession has resulted in lay-offs, early retirement and higher staff turnover at many Bay Area municipalities, leading to lapses in collaboration. Given these staff and budget constraints, City and county managers may be less inclined to support consultation and training beyond that required by law. As indicated in Section 13.1, the number of agencies involved in water resources and land use planning – each with its specific mission, area of authority, jurisdictional boundaries, and consultation strategies -- can impede collaboration. The root causes of many of the constraints to collaboration are largely beyond the authority or ability of the CC to surmount (e.g., flat or declining revenues, increasing regulatory requirements, and differing missions among agencies). However, the challenges common to these agencies (e.g., strained natural resources; complex, changing regulations) have already spawned numerous interregional organizations and initiatives that have thrived for years. In the future, the severity and magnitude of challenges associated with climate change will necessitate further collaboration among water and land use agencies and integrated solutions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-28 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table 13-11: Constraints Identified by Survey and Interview Participants that Inhibit Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resource Managers Category Constraint Resources • Resources. Lack of resources (financial, human, technical) ▪ Reductions in city, county and agency staff participation in regularly scheduled meetings since economic downturn. ▪ Lack of dedicated resources for water-oriented infrastructure improvements (e.g., stormwater improvements, creek restoration/protection, green infrastructure planning and implementation). • Turnover. Staff turnover leading to lapses in collaboration. • Education. Lack of cross-training regarding land use planning and water resources management. Priorities • Missions. Differing missions, agendas and priorities among agencies. ▪ City staff thinks in terms of broad policies, goals; stormwater agencies focus on permit compliance. ▪ Divided responsibilities over water resources. • Boundaries. Differing boundaries between land use and water agencies’ jurisdictions complicates coordination. • Leadership. Lack of support for integration from public officials. Other • Lack of communication between agencies and departments. • Complex regional regulations lead to difficult approval processes. • Project review and consultation processes occur late in the planning process. • Considerable variation in consultation among agencies (may depend on individual staff relationships). • Lack of regulatory mandate for coordination. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-29 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.3.2 Opportunities to Improve Collaboration among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers in the Future Table 13-12 below summarizes opportunities to improve collaboration that were identified through the outreach activities. In general, the opportunities identified by participants fell into one of three categories: Communication, Training and Information Sharing; Leadership; and Program and Project Development. The suggestions ranged from very general (e.g., increase frequency of meetings) to more specific (e.g., develop a GIS tool to identify projects with similar goals). Several suggestions focused on climate change (“Utilize climate change as a common denominator to encourage agency collaboration for integrated solutions”; “Develop a set of climate-change- oriented integrated projects”) as a basis for improving collaboration. Some suggestions for improving collaboration are beyond the authority of CC members to implement. For example, the authority to include flood control agency staff in development review processes generally rests with land use agencies. In this case, consultation mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) represents an existing mechanism for consultation with responsible and trustee agencies which typically would include a flood control district. Note that under Section 15060.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, project applicants can request early, “pre-application” consultation with a lead agency (typically a city or county). The lead agency can include agencies with an interest in that type of project in the consultation. Flood control agencies – as well as other water resource agencies -- can request that lead agencies include them in any pre-application consultation occurring under Section 15060.5 for particular types of projects. The suggestions presented in Error! Reference source not found. are undergoing review as part of IRWMP development and may be considered for implementation by individual participating agencies. Select strategies are being incorporated into a draft Collaboration Plan for implementation by the CC, described in the next section. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-30 Relation to Local Land Use Planning Table 13-12: Opportunities Identified by Survey and Interview Participants to Facilitate Collaboration Among Local Land Use Planning and Water Resources Managers Category Opportunity Communication, Training and Information Sharing • Meetings. ▪ Increase frequency of meetings with land use agencies (e.g., include water/flood agency staff in development review processes) ▪ Convene biennial summits with land use agencies ▪ Increased use of the IRWM subregional approach to involve multiple agencies in managing specific water resources to advance common goals ▪ Hold workshops on implication of land use planning on water resources ▪ The regional groups that already meet (e.g., BAWAC, BASMAA, etc.) can help promote coordination as some participating agencies focus on land use • Tools. Develop web-based tools (e.g., maps, processes) or social media for incorporating water resources into land use planning • Climate Change. Utilize climate change as a common denominator to encourage agency collaboration for integrated solutions Leadership • Commitment. ▪ Increase commitment by agency leadership for interdepartmental, interagency, interdisciplinary coordination (workload prioritization) ▪ Increase commitment by water agency leadership for staff to provide input in land use policy development (general plan, zoning) • Champions. Engage public officials or “local champion” to lead collaborative planning efforts • IRWMP Participation. Conduct outreach to land use agencies to encourage participation in the CC and its subcommittees Projects and Program Development • Integrate Collaboration. Develop policies, plans and programs that set clear environmental goals and encourage collaboration (e.g., a guide for developing integrated projects, a green infrastructure master plan for the Bay Area, a set of climate change-oriented integrated projects, a GIS tool to identify projects with similar goals) • Partner on Projects. Pursue multi-objective projects in partnership with land use agencies. Collaboration can lead to integrated solutions that may be less expensive than implementing separate projects 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-31 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 13.3.3 Planning Future Collaboration As indicated in Chapter 14, Section 14.8, stakeholder engagement will continue following adoption of the IRWMP, and will be the vehicle for implementing the recommendations for improving collaboration between land use planning and water resources management described below. Climate change has the potential to significantly affect a wide range of issues important to both water management and land use planning including water supply, agricultural productivity, wildfire and flood risk, and ecosystem function. Climate Change Response Action is identified as a Statewide Priority for the IRWM Grant Program; consequently, climate change response is a theme that appears throughout the 2016 Guidelines and this IRWMP. The severity and magnitude of challenges associated with climate change as well as the scope of regional adaptation strategies (described in Chapter 16) will necessitate further collaboration among water and land use agencies and the development of integrated solutions. For these reasons, development and implementation of a collaboration plan focused on climate change is recommended. 13.3.3.1 Draft Climate Change Collaboration Plan This draft plan incorporates input and feedback of the CC and other IRWMP reviewers regarding suggestions for improving future collaboration and will be refined and finalized by the CC through the on-going monthly meetings described in Section 14.9. What follows are issues to be considered and reviewed by the CC to develop and implement the Collaboration Plan.  The suggested goal of the draft Collaboration Plan is to support collaborative inter- agency solutions to climate change in the Bay Area by promoting a shared understanding of climate change projections, vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies.  Consistent with the current stakeholder outreach plan, outreach to land use planning and water resources agencies will continue to be organized and implemented by subregion, which allows for consideration of local issues related to climate change and sea level rise.  Biennial summits through existing platforms are suggested (e.g., BAFPAA meetings, Council of Mayors meetings). Consistent with the goal of the collaboration plan, the summits should focus on disseminating information presented in Chapter 16, including climate change vulnerabilities of the region’s water resources (water supply, water quality, wastewater management and flood management), and recommended adaptation strategies. Examples of topics for subsequent summits include updates in climate change research, vulnerability assessments, and adaptation strategy development. 13.3.3.2 BayCAN In 2018, the SFPUC helped launch the Bay Area Climate Adaptation Network (BayCAN), a collaborative focused on Bay Area local government adaptation response to climate change. SFPUC has served as steering committee chair since its inception in July 2018. (www.baycanadapt.com). BayCAN member agencies include other water utilities, city representatives, and environmental groups. BayCAN is part of a statewide network of collaboratives, the Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation (ARCCA), 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-32 Relation to Local Land Use Planning organized under the Local Government Commission (www.arccacalifornia.org). ARCCA includes collaboratives in San Diego, Los Angeles, Central Coast, Sacramento Region, Sierra, and North Coast. BayCAN facilitates collaboration on the full range of climate adaptation issues within the Bay Area and more widely in California. 13.4 References Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission, Final Municipal Service Review: Volume II – Utility Services, November 10, 2005. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans, 2001. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), State of California General Plan Guidelines, 2003. Available online: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2013. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), The California Planners’ Book of Lists, January 10, 2011. Available online: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/2011bol.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2013. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Annual Planning Survey Results, May 3, 2012. Available online: http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2012_APSR.pdf. Accessed February 8, 2013. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Karen E. Johnson, Water Resources Planning, and EDAW|AECOM in association with CBRE Consulting, Inc. and Weber Analytical, 2009. 2040 Demand Study, February 2009. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Montgomery Watson, Summary Report: Districtwide Update of Water Demand Projections, May 2000. Johnson, Karen E., and Loux, Jeff, 2004. Water and Land Use: Planning Wisely for California’s Future. North Bay Watershed Association, Fact Sheet. Available online at http://www.nbwatershed.org/assets/FactSheet051407.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013. North Bay Watershed Association, North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan: Phase 1 Executive Summary, October 2003. Available online at http://www.nbwatershed.org/SWP/ph1/Ph1_ExecSummary.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013. North Bay Watershed Association, Final Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, December 2, 2005. Available online at http://www.nbwatershed.org/library/FINAL_NBWA_IRWMP.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013. One Bay Area, Joint Policy Committee. Available online at http://onebayarea.org/about/joint- policy-committee.html, accessed April 16, 2013. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 13-33 Relation to Local Land Use Planning San Francisco Department of Public Works, Streets & Streetscapes, http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1105. San Francisco Department of Public Works, Great Streets Program, http://sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=88. San Francisco Department of Public Works, CULCOP: The Committee on Utility Liaison on Construction and Other Projects, http://sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=370. San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Local Governments Watershed Inventory, September 12, 2012. San Francisco Estuary Partnership, How to Improve Collaboration between Land Use & Water Agencies: SFEP Stakeholder Outreach Findings for the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update, June 2013. San Francisco Planning Department, Annual Report 2011-2012; available: http://www.sf- planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9064. San Francisco Planning Department, Public Notice: Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Natural Areas Management Plan, August 2011, http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2005.0912E_NOA.pdf. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco General Plan Housing Element, Part 2: Objectives and Policies, 2009, http://www.sf- planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/I1_Housing.html#HOU_ISSUE_8. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, About Us, http://www.sf- planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9064 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco’s Urban Watersheds, http://www.sf- planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9064. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco’s Urban Watersheds: Lake Merced, http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=197. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water for Today and Tomorrow, http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=74. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011, http://www.sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=1055. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2013 Water Availability Study for the City and County of San Francisco, March 2013, http://www.sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3589 San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, Natural Areas Program, http://sfrecpark.org/parks-open-spaces/natural-areas-program/. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Stakeholder Engagement Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................... 14-1 14.1 Stakeholder Engagement for the IRWMP ........................................ 14-1 14.2 Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in Plan Development .......... 14-1 14.3 Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholders ...................................................... 14-4 14.3.1 Identification of Stakeholders ............................................... 14-4 14.3.2 Local and Regional Water Resource Agencies..................... 14-4 14.3.3 State and Federal Resource and Regulatory Agencies ........ 14-4 14.3.4 Non-Governmental Organizations ........................................ 14-4 14.3.5 General Public...................................................................... 14-5 14.4 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Process ................................... 14-5 14.4.1 Stakeholder Assessment ...................................................... 14-5 14.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop ..................... 14-6 14.4.3 Stakeholder Engagement Plan ............................................. 14-7 14.5 Stakeholder Engagement Activities ................................................. 14-9 14.5.1 Subregional Outreach .......................................................... 14-9 14.5.2 Functional Area Outreach .................................................... 14-9 14.5.3 Participation in the Coordinating Committee ....................... 14-10 14.5.4 Public Workshops .............................................................. 14-11 14.5.5 General Outreach Materials and Distribution ...................... 14-14 14.5.6 Local Government Outreach .............................................. 14-15 14.6 Engagement of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities ................................................................................. 14-16 14.6.1 Approach to DAC Engagement .......................................... 14-16 14.6.2 Identification of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities.......................................................... 14-16 14.6.3 Clarification of DAC Project Criteria .................................... 14-18 14.6.4 DAC-Specific Outreach Materials ....................................... 14-18 14.6.5 Targeted DAC Outreach and Engagement ......................... 14-19 14.6.6 DAC Project Support and Guidance ................................... 14-19 14.6.7 Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program............................................................................. 14-20 14.7 Native American Tribe Identification and Outreach ........................ 14-23 14.7.1 Native American Tribal Identification .................................. 14-23 14.7.2 Initial Tribal Outreach and Next Steps ................................ 14-26 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Stakeholder Engagement List of Tables Table 14-1: Public Workshop #1 Participants ..................................................................... 14-12 Table 14-2: Public Workshop #2 Participants ..................................................................... 14-14 Table 14-3: DAC Criteria and Priority Funding Considerations ........................................... 14-18 List of Figures Figure 14-1: Stakeholder-based Approach to Developing the IRWMP ................................. 14-3 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-1 Stakeholder Engagement Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement 14.1 Stakeholder Engagement for the IRWMP Development of the IRWMP involved a diverse group of water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood control, watershed, municipal, environmental, and regulatory groups whose input played a key role in defining sustainable water resources management goals and objectives, and identifying and selecting priority projects to help meet those goals and objectives. Stakeholder engagement activities were used to inform, educate, and engage constituents, stakeholders, and interested parties throughout the nine-county Bay Area. This chapter details the stakeholder engagement process for developing the IRWMP, which is intended to identify water management goals, objectives, strategies and priorities in a collaborative regional process in accordance with both the requirements and spirit of the 2012 Guidelines. Bay Area agencies recognize that involving stakeholders in development of an integrated approach to water resources management benefits all parties by ensuring that social, economic, environmental, and technical considerations are taken into account in the planning stages and establishment of regional priorities. The types of stakeholder engagement activities outlined in this chapter were critical to ensuring a viable and representative Plan Update with broad-based support. 14.2 Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in Plan Development Stakeholder engagement activities were planned and implemented to ensure that the IRWMP reflects the knowledge and interests of residents, public agencies, businesses, and institutions with respect to water supply reliability, improving water quality, flood protection, and protecting natural resources. Stakeholder engagement efforts were intended to generate awareness and interest, and to help provide the opportunity for people with different levels of knowledge, interest, resources and capacities to shape the IRWMP and share in the potential benefits. A phased approach was used to plan and implement engagement activities to inform the IRWMP. The approach was informed by reflections and lessons learned from the 2006 Plan development process, and it intended to achieve engagement goals and objectives as efficiently as possible, including leveraging existing venues and relying on a “spider-web” approach to disseminating information. The phases of stakeholder engagement (also displayed in Figure 14-1) included: Phase 1 (January – April 2012) focused on information gathering, which consisted of conducting interviews and developing an assessment of past stakeholder engagement efforts; clarifying DWR guidelines for integrated regional water management plans generally, and projects benefitting disadvantaged communities (DACs) specifically; and consolidating and augmenting the stakeholder contact list. Phase 2 (April – June 2012) focused on planning and preparation, which included convening a Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop; developing a Stakeholder Engagement Plan; producing easy-to-understand informational materials, including fact sheets, a frequently-asked- 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-2 Stakeholder Engagement questions document, and a series of maps; preparing for public workshops; and developing a process for identifying DAC projects and providing guidance to DAC project proponents. Phase 3 (June 2012 – August 2013) focused on the implementation of outreach and engagement activities, which included preparing for and conducting public workshops, executing the process for identifying and providing guidance for DAC-serving project submissions, and promoting stakeholder review of draft chapters of the IRWMP. See Section 14.5 for more details on these activities. It should be noted that ongoing stakeholder engagement activities continued throughout these phases, including CC meetings, subregional meetings, county meetings within the subregions, Functional Area meetings, as well as meetings focused on the integration of water and land use planning (see Section 14.5 for descriptions of these activities). 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-3 Stakeholder Engagement Figure 14-1: Stakeholder-based Approach to Developing the IRWMP 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-4 Stakeholder Engagement 14.3 Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholders 14.3.1 Identification of Stakeholders The San Francisco Bay Area is comprised of nine counties, nearly seven million residents, 101 cities, a wide variety of interests and priorities, and a range of economic and ethnic demographics. The IRWMP stakeholder engagement approach took this diversity into account, and it provided a range of opportunities for stakeholders to get involved and share their input. The 2006 Plan development and implementation process generated several stakeholder contact lists. In addition, contacts lists were developed and maintained by subregional leads to enable them to provide updates about upcoming meetings and share information specific to their respective geographic areas. In order to maximize efficiency, these various contact lists were consolidated into a master stakeholder list containing approximately 1,500 contacts. The list collectively represents all local and regional water resource and flood agencies, watershed organizations, a complete and current list of elected city, county and state officials, city and county land use agencies, disadvantaged community representatives, environmental and community groups, media, and Native American Tribal contacts (the master stakeholder contact list is included as Appendix E-1). Throughout the IRWMP development process, contacts in the master stakeholder list were provided with information about key milestones and deadlines, public workshops, and opportunities to review draft chapters. 14.3.2 Local and Regional Water Resource Agencies Local and regional water resource management agencies are the most active participants in the Bay Area IRWMP, as these agencies will be implementing the vast majority of the projects included in the 2013 Plan and they are more likely to have sufficient resources to participate in the process. These agencies are collectively responsible for meeting the Bay Area’s needs with respect water supply and water quality, flood protection and stormwater management, wastewater and recycled water, and watershed management-habitat protection and restoration. 14.3.3 State and Federal Resource and Regulatory Agencies State and federal agencies play a role in the implementation of IRWMP projects via regulatory and public resource stewardship mandates. Stakeholder agencies include the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 14.3.4 Non-Governmental Organizations Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an important role in regional watershed management through planning and implementation of habitat protection and restoration projects, administration of monitoring efforts, and education and outreach programming. Many of these entities may have the interest but not the resources to participate actively in the Bay Area IRWMP. A number of NGOs represent the interests of disadvantaged communities (DACs) 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-5 Stakeholder Engagement in the Bay Area. The Bay Area IRWMP team targeted NGOs representing watershed management, environmental and DAC interests for participation in workshops and ongoing communications via email announcements and the BAIRWMP website. Throughout the update process, a representative from the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) served as a central point of contact for outreach to DACs and the organizations that represent them. 14.3.5 General Public All Bay Area citizens depend on water and how it is managed, and interested citizens were able to access information about the IRWMP document, the update process, project criteria and submission, and meetings and workshops. Members of the public also had the opportunity to review and provide input on draft chapters of the Plan. The primary sources of information for the public were the BAIRWMP website and update emails. Through notices sent to the master mailing list, and re-distributed to partner and stakeholder lists, a significant number of people who follow water and land use issues were made aware of the update process, and were encouraged to visit the website and attend meetings and workshops. 14.4 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Process 14.4.1 Stakeholder Assessment A stakeholder assessment was conducted in early 2012 to inform the development of the engagement strategy. The assessment was informed by interviews with thirteen Bay Area IRWMP stakeholders, including CC participants, NGO staff, and representatives of DACs and Tribal communities. The interviews focused on understanding stakeholder experiences during the development of the 2006 Plan, identifying their interests and concerns, and soliciting their ideas on how best to address their concerns for the IRWMP process. Key findings from the stakeholder assessment included:  Stakeholder engagement goals were not clearly identified for the 2006 Plan development process. This made measuring success challenging.  Conducting outreach through the subregional groups is effective and should be leveraged as much as possible.  Engaging disadvantaged and Tribal communities in the Bay Area is challenging, especially since drinking water quality is not a significant concern in the Bay Area and water resource management issues are rarely a top priority. Further, DWR’s criteria for DAC projects need to be clarified.  Simple, consistent messaging should be developed and shared about the IRWMP to help stakeholders understand why they should care about it.  It is not realistic to expect an NGO or small public agency to develop a project proposal. Most NGOs and small public agencies need to partner with a larger agency with the resources needed to develop the proposal. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-6 Stakeholder Engagement The full assessment, including the list of interviewees, is included in Appendix E-2. The assessment helped to foster a common understanding of stakeholder interests and to lay the groundwork for the Stakeholder Engagement Plan. 14.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop Fifteen CC participants and consultants representing various Bay Area water resource management and government agencies participated in a half-day Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop on April 17, 2012. Workshop participants helped define stakeholder engagement objectives for the IRWMP, and identified priorities and strategies for engaging stakeholders in developing the IRWMP. Workshop participants discussed current and potential engagement activities (in all sub-regions and across all functional areas), and discussed where there might be gaps in engagement and how best to address them. In addition, workshop participants identified strategies to engage and identify projects in DACs and Tribal communities. Key recommendations resulting from the Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop included:  Develop a robust and continually updated contact list of Bay Area IRWMP stakeholders.  Help stakeholders understand the IRWMP and why it is important; this will be a key part of the outreach effort.  Keep the BAIRWMP website more current, including newsletters or e-mail updates and a calendar of upcoming activities.  Ensure that subregional leads share information at other meetings they attend, and use outreach at those meetings to build the stakeholder contact list and encourage participation in the process.  Some level of outreach to and engagement with DACs and Tribes is necessary and should be well documented.  Contact current Bay Area IRWMP DAC project managers (i.e., DAC projects included in the 2006 Plan) to determine if there might be a “Phase 2” expansion of the projects benefitting DACs. This could potentially qualify as a DAC project for inclusion in the 2013 Plan Update.  Leverage existing DAC/Tribal outreach mechanisms.  Inquire with subregions, functional areas, and individual water resource management agencies whether there are potential DAC serving projects already under consideration. See Appendix E-3 for the Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop agenda. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-7 Stakeholder Engagement 14.4.3 Stakeholder Engagement Plan A Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) was developed to address the interests and priorities clarified by the assessment, the April 17, 2012 engagement planning workshop, DWR guidelines, and input from the CC and Public Outreach Committee. The SEP identifies stakeholder engagement goals and objectives for the IRWMP, and outlines the strategy and specific engagement activities to be implemented. Section 14.5 describes the engagement activities identified in the SEP. The stakeholder engagement goals and objectives described below helped guide engagement efforts to inform the development of the IRWMP, and they will be referenced to both evaluate success and to guide ongoing engagement following the completion of the Plan. Stakeholder engagement goals (note: while goals #3 and #7 focus on plan preparation, their intent is to generate interest from and involve a broader range of stakeholders): 11. Develop a broader understanding of the water needs of the Bay Area. 12. Increase broad public awareness of regional water resource management planning. 13. Expand the scope of the IRWMP to include planning for climate change impacts and to provide for greater collaboration with land use agencies. 14. Further engage NGOs in the collaborative planning process. 15. Further engage DACs in the collaborative planning process. 16. Identify and address the needs of DACs and Tribal communities within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area IRWMP. 17. Include a significant number of multi-benefit, inter-subregional projects – including DAC- serving projects – in the IRWMP. Stakeholder engagement objectives: 18. IRWMP Awareness  BAIRWMP stakeholders know the IRWMP is being updated and understand why it is important for their respective groups to be involved.  Stakeholders understand the opportunities for public participation in content development and review.  Stakeholders understand the decision-making processes associated with the IRWMP, including:  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding content 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-8 Stakeholder Engagement  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding potential water projects and their prioritization 19. Stakeholder Identification and Inclusion  The CC listserv is easy to join, open to the public, and the participant list is maintained and continually expanding.  Stakeholders are regularly identified and are invited to join the CC listserv and participate.  Stakeholders representing DACs and Tribes are identified for targeted outreach and engagement. 20. Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholder Input and Review  Stakeholders inform content development by providing information and data to the Plan Update Team and/or the technical consultants, including at CC meetings, subregional meetings, and workshops. Stakeholders can help frame issues, identify challenges and recommend solutions, including recommendations for policies and programs that involve collaboration and integration among organizations and agencies.  Stakeholders are able to review and provide feedback on draft chapters of the IRWMP, which are available on the BAIRWMP website.  Stakeholders see how their input was addressed in the IRWMP and/or are informed of why their comments are not reflected. 21. Project Identification  The IRWMP includes projects that meet the needs of the Bay Area region and conform to DWR requirements.  Stakeholder involvement in the IRWMP identifies projects that reflect integration among water management functions, agencies, and organizations to provide multiple benefits to communities. 22. Coordination and Collaboration  The IRWMP process fosters coordination, collaboration and creative thinking among public agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses and individuals to identify and address the region’s water resource challenges and opportunities.  Agencies, organizations and individuals involved in the Bay Area IRWMP are informed of the stakeholder engagement activities of other participants allowing for the effective and efficient use of resources. The complete Stakeholder Engagement Plan is included as Appendix E-4. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-9 Stakeholder Engagement 14.5 Stakeholder Engagement Activities What follows are descriptions of the stakeholder engagement activities identified in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, and implemented to support the development of the IRWMP. 14.5.1 Subregional Outreach The IRWMP development process emphasized a subregional outreach approach in order to promote the identification of successfully integrated projects and to provide more accessibility to the IRWMP process by stakeholders. The subregional approach allowed for improved local stakeholder access to the Bay Area IRWMP process and greater collaboration among water interests within the Subregions. Each of the Subregions has a lead (or leads) who convenes subregional outreach meetings, provides updates to stakeholders within the Subregion, reviews submitted projects, and serves as a regular point of contact. Each lead maintains a stakeholder contact list and determines outreach and engagement efforts appropriate for their geographic area. A log of subregional meetings and communications is included as Appendix E-5. In addition to the subregional meetings, the Bay Area IRWMP and its related activities are discussed at various non-IRWMP meetings that occur within the Subregions. 14.5.2 Functional Area Outreach Some regular CC participants serve as Functional Area (FA) leads. In this capacity, the FA leads provide regular Bay Area IRWMP updates to regional water resource management membership organizations, which allows them to reach a broad audience of agencies and organizations interested in a specific functional area. Updates included information about the IRWMP development process, opportunities to review draft chapters and upcoming public workshops. FA leads also discussed the need to identify DAC projects and solicited input from participating agencies on potential projects. FA outreach represents an efficient approach to partnering with existing groups to engage a diverse group of stakeholders. The FAs are described below:  Water Supply and Water Quality The Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC) is the coordinating organization for water supply and water quality FA. BAWAC is comprised of water agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties. BAWAC meets on a monthly basis and agenda topics typically includes the Bay Area IRWMP and other topics of mutual interest.  Watershed Management-Habitat Protection and Restoration The Bay Area program of the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) has served as the IRWMP CC FA lead and is responsible for coordinating the activities of the Watershed Management-Habitat Protection and Restoration FA. SCC works in partnership with watershed and open space protection groups throughout the region to advance regionally-significant conservation priorities. The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) is a primary coordinating organization for Bay Area watershed and habitat organizations. BAWN is a collaboration of federal, state, 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-10 Stakeholder Engagement and local agencies and non-profit organizations as well as individuals concerned with watershed planning, management and restoration. CC participants who are also BAWN members are actively seeking increased coordination and collaboration on Bay Area watershed and habitat efforts and information, particularly on the multiple benefits of watersheds. Additional efforts in which CC members have been participating on an ongoing basis include: the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI), Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), and the 2012 Silicon Valley Watershed Summit.  Flood Protection and Stormwater Management The Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) is the primary coordinating organization for the Flood Protection and Stormwater Management FA. CC participants have also been leaders in BAFPAA which holds monthly meetings and/or conference calls, and an annual workshop. There is a standing Bay Area IRWMP item on the BAFPAA agenda and FA leads disseminate Bay Area IRWMP information and updates. BAFPAA coordinates with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) representatives to manage the FA.  Wastewater and Recycled Water Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) is the primary coordinating organization for the wastewater and recycled water FA. BACWA is a joint powers agency, formed under the California Government Code by the five largest wastewater treatment agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its members include the many municipalities and special districts that provide sanitary sewer services to more than 6.5 million people. 14.5.3 Participation in the Coordinating Committee The Coordinating Committee (CC) serves as the organizing body and plenary forum for the development and implementation of the IRWMP. The CC holds monthly meetings at a regular time that are open to the public and are held at centrally located and public transportation accessible venues. CC meetings are noticed on the BAIRWMP website, and meeting agendas and materials are shared through a CC email distribution list and are also available on the BAIRWMP website. Decision-making at CC meetings is conducted by consensus, and all attendees are encouraged to participate in discussions and the decision-making process. Stakeholders can request that topics be placed on the agenda for future meetings. Stakeholders can also participate in one or more of the CC subcommittees. Tribes are working diligently to join and be a part of both these sub committees and the coordinating committee itself. CC subcommittees include:  Plan Update Team Dog Creek Culvert 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-11 Stakeholder Engagement  Project Screening Subcommittee  Planning and Process Subcommittee  Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Subcommittee  Website Subcommittee The participation of individuals representing organizations beyond water interests in the CC and its subcommittees has increased awareness and coordination with other Bay Area planning efforts (e.g., land use and transportation) as well as environmental and community issues, e.g., coastal and bay interests, and recycling and educational efforts. 14.5.4 Public Workshops Two public workshops were conducted to provide information and solicit input the IRWMP36. The CC and Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Subcommittee helped to develop the agenda and design the format for each workshop. Broad outreach and publicity for the workshops resulted in a high level of participation both in terms of numbers and variety of participants. That outreach and publicity included:  Three pre-workshop emails and one post-workshop email were sent to the master contact list for each workshop. Contacts from the master list redistributed the information to their own lists and newsletters, further extending the notification reach.  Announcements were provided at meetings hosted and/or attended by subregional leads and CC participants.  Subregional leads sent notification emails to their respective contact lists.  Notices and workshops materials were posted on the BAIRWMP website, including some materials translated into Spanish.  Media releases were distributed to local, regional, environmental and non-English media outlets. 36 While three workshops were initially planned, holding a third workshop was not deemed critical since stakeholders were able to participate in monthly CC meetings. Public Workshop #1 Notice 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-12 Stakeholder Engagement The public workshops helped foster new connections and partnerships between NGOs and community organizations and water and flood agencies, and provided assistance to stakeholders in answering questions about projects and Plan content. Examples of workshop outreach materials can be found in Appendix E-7.  Workshop #1: July 23, 2012 Participants provided input on the IRWMP objectives and received guidance on DAC project criteria and the online project submittal process. Following presentations and a question-and-answer session, the workshop attendees were organized into groups according to their geographical location to promote direct interaction with subregional leads. More than 80 stakeholders attended the workshop, representing a wide range of organizations and interests; the table below includes stakeholder groups represented by categories of participants. Table 14-1: Public Workshop #1 Participants Participant Category Entities Represented Environmental Interests, Community and Environmental Justice Organizations California Land Stewardship Institute; Conservation Corps North Bay; Daily Acts; FOLAW ; Friends of Sausal Creek; Gallinas Watershed Council; Institute for Conservation Advocacy Research & Education; League of Women Voters Palo Alto; Marin Audubon Society; Mount Veeder Stewardship Council; San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory; San Francisco Estuary Partnership; Sierra Club; The Watershed Project; Trout Unlimited Agricultural Interests San Mateo County Farm Bureau Water Agencies and Special Districts Alameda County Resource Conservation District Clean Water Program; Coastside County Water District; Contra Costa County Flood Control District; Contra Costa Resource Conservation District; Corte Madera Flood Board; East Bay Municipal Utility District; East Bay Regional Parks District; Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District; Marin Municipal Water District; Napa County Resource Conservation District; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority; Santa Clara Valley Water District; Sonoma County Water Agency; Zone 7 Water Agency State and Federal Agencies Delta Protection Commission; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service US Army Corps of Engineers Local Government Alameda County Public Works Agency; Bay Area Joint Policy Committee; City of Belmont; City of East Palo Alto; City of Hayward; City of Oakland; City of Palo Alto; City of Redwood City; Napa County; Stopwaste.org; Suffolk County Water Authority; Town of Hillsborough Private Sector Service Providers AECOM; Brezack & Associates Planning; Carollo Engineers; CDM Smith; ESA PWA; Horizon Water and Environment; Kliman Sales; Sloan Valve; Sound Watershed Consulting; 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-13 Stakeholder Engagement Participant Category Entities Represented RMC Water and Environment; Whitley Burchett & Associates; Zentraal Acterra  Workshop #2: January 28, 2013 Participants received a presentation on the process for scoring and ranking projects for inclusion in the IRWMP, project criteria for DWR grant applications, and future funding rounds. Following additional presentations on funding sources and how to address potential funding challenges, a facilitated group discussion of panelists and workshop attendees took place. During this facilitated discussion, workshop attendees shared a number of successful strategies and approaches for funding water resource management projects. Public Workshop #2 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-14 Stakeholder Engagement Table 14-2: Public Workshop #2 Participants Participant Category Entities Represented Environmental Interests, Community and Environmental Justice Organizations Acterra; Bay-Friendly Landscaping and Gardening Coalition; Daily Acts; Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy; ICARE; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; North Bay Watershed Association; San Francisco Estuary Institute; San Francisco Estuary Partnership; Sonoma Land Trust Water Agencies and Special Districts Alameda County Resource Conservation District; Alameda County Water District; Contra Costa County Flood Control District; Contra Costa Resource Conservation District; East Bay Dischargers; East Bay Regional Parks District; Marin Municipal Water District; North Bay Water Reuse Authority; San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program; Santa Clara Valley Water District; Sonoma County Water Agency; Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District; Zone 7 Water Agency Federal Agencies Environmental Protection Agency Local Government City of Belmont; City of East Palo Alto; City of Livermore; City of Napa Stopwaste.org Private Sector Service Providers Arup; Balance Hydrologics; Carollo Engineers; CDM Smith; Newfields; Parsons; Stillwater Sciences; West Yost Associates A list of attendees for each workshop is included in Appendix E-7. 14.5.5 General Outreach Materials and Distribution Outreach materials were developed and distributed throughout the IRWMP development process to keep stakeholders informed and to encourage their participation in meeting, workshops, and the project submittal process. Materials included informational flyers, a frequently-asked-questions document, presentation materials and information on the BAIRWMP website (see Appendix E-6). Materials were distributed at CC meetings, regional public workshops, subregional meetings, other water- and land use-related meetings, and were posted on the BAIRWMP website. Materials and notices were distributed centrally to the regional stakeholder list, as well as by the subregional leads to their respective contact lists. In addition, media releases were submitted to local newspapers prior to stakeholder workshops. The project website serves as the principal channel to educate the public about the IRWMP. The website includes background information, materials for CC meetings and public workshops, and notices of opportunities to review draft chapters. The website also provides an e-mail address (info@bayareairwmp.org) to allow public submission of comments, questions, and requests for information. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-15 Stakeholder Engagement In 2012, a new system was developed to allow submission of project applications through the BAIRMWP website. Additionally, in response to a stakeholder recommendation, a “forum” section was added to allow potential applicants to post information about project partnerships wanted and/or offered. This approach was designed to serve as an online “matchmaking” portal to connect organizations and agencies with DAC-serving projects looking for partnerships. 14.5.6 Local Government Outreach Local governments were targeted for specific outreach due to the nature of integrated regional water management and its relationship to local land use planning. Presentations and briefings were provided to local government agencies to inform them on the Bay Area IRWMP, to highlight the interrelated nature of water and land use planning and need for coordinated planning, to ensure local needs were addressed in the IRWMP, and to provide an opportunity for local governments to provide feedback on IRWMP development. Specific briefings and presentations included:  City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Technical Advisory Group  November 15, 2012  Santa Clara County C3 Ad Hoc Task Force (Santa Clara County Cities and Water Agencies)  December 5, 2012  Low-impact Development (LID) Leadership Group  March 7, 2012  May 16, 2012  September 23, 2012  December 3, 2012  February 8, 2013  Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA)/ Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) joint meeting in Oakland  December 12, 2012  North Bay Watershed Association  January 24, 2012  April 13, 2012  June 13, 2012  July 6, 2012 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-16 Stakeholder Engagement  October 9, 2012  November 2, 2012  December 13, 2012  January 4, 2013  Sustainable Watershed Workshops  February 12, 2012  April 30, 2012 14.6 Engagement of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities 14.6.1 Approach to DAC Engagement The IRWMP process found the inclusion of DACs and water resource projects that serve them a priority. The approach to engaging DACs and the organizations that represent them was informed by the review of DWR guidelines and policies in addition to a review of benchmark programs. The approach was further informed by interviews with Bay Area DAC representatives as part of the assessment process (See Appendix E-2 for a summary of findings from the interviews focusing on DACs). Key components of this approach included:  Inviting DAC representatives to participate in all aspects of the IRWMP process, including initial stakeholder interviews, CC and subregional outreach meetings, public workshops, and the review of draft chapters.  Making the IRWMP process easy to understand for a broad audience, and making information easy to access through the website and non-technical outreach materials.  Clearly identifying the location of DACs and their spatial relationship to water resource management considerations, including wastewater treatment facilities and flood-prone areas.  Clarifying DWR’s DAC project eligibility criteria and communicating this information to DAC representatives and water resource agencies.  Conducting targeted outreach and providing hands-on guidance to support the identification and development of projects serving DACs. 14.6.2 Identification of Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities State of California legislation AB-1747 (2003) defines disadvantaged communities as those with a Median Household Income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the State MHI, or $48,706 (2010 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-17 Stakeholder Engagement Census). While the MHI of each of the nine Bay Area counties is well above the 80 percent threshold for the State, there are disadvantaged communities located in each county, with the majority of these communities located in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Chapter 2, Regional Description, contains additional information and maps of disadvantaged communities in the Bay Area using 2010 Census data. Environmental justice communities are disadvantaged communities and communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by programs, policies, or activities that have resulted in adverse health or environmental impacts. Placement of water infrastructure including sewage treatment plants, desalination facilities and recycling plants can place a burden on nearby communities due to odors, effluent, sewage back-ups and industrial buildings. Identifying the location of disadvantaged and environmental justice communities is an important step in ensuring that agencies, stakeholders and the general public can determine the impact of operations and plans on these communities. In order to facilitate the identification of these communities, in 2013 the Bay Area IRWMP team developed a series of 2010 Census-based maps to promote the consideration of disadvantaged and environmental justice communities in IRWMP projects. In addition to developing a region- wide map, more detailed DAC subregional maps were developed identifying major streets, rivers and streams. The maps were distributed broadly to Bay Area organizations and agencies, including representatives of DACs and environmental justice communities, and were made available on the BAIRWMP website. The development and wide distribution of these maps (along with other outreach materials) proved to be helpful in generating DAC project ideas and, ultimately, having DAC projects included in the Plan. Portion of East Subregion DAC Map 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-18 Stakeholder Engagement 14.6.3 Clarification of DAC Project Criteria Clarifying DWR’s DAC project eligibility criteria, which was recommended in the stakeholder assessment, proved to be another valuable strategy in identifying DAC projects for the IRWMP. At the outset of the IRWMP development process, DWR guidance to the plan developers regarding DAC eligibility project criteria was that in order to qualify as a DAC project for grant funding purposes, a project needed to both benefit a community with a median household income below the DWR threshold and meet a “critical water supply or water quality need”. Given that water supply and water quality are not common challenges for Bay Area communities, these criteria limited the number of projects that could meet DWR criteria for funding match waivers which are an incentive to DAC participation. Following the release of the Proposition 84 Round 2 Draft Proposal Solicitation Package in July 2012 and subsequent exchanges with DWR staff, DWR clarified that it intended to offer a funding match waiver for any project that served a community with a median household income below the DWR threshold, meaning that a project did not necessarily have to address a critical water supply or water quality need to be considered an eligible DAC project. DWR further clarified that DAC projects meeting a critical water supply or water quality need would qualify for DAC-dedicated funding and would receive priority when projects are evaluated for funding (i.e., priority points). Additionally, DWR confirmed that flood control projects could meet a critical water quality need, making them eligible for DAC-dedicated funding in addition to the match funding waiver. The table below illustrates the two types of DAC projects eligible for IRWM funding. Table 14-3: DAC Criteria and Priority Funding Considerations Project Submitted Qualifies for Match Waiver Qualifies for Dedicated DAC Funding Qualifies for Priority Points 1. Serves DAC ✓ 2. Serves DAC and critical supply and/or quality ✓ ✓ ✓ The clarification of DAC project eligibility criteria for funding match waivers and dedicated DAC funding was conveyed broadly in communications and outreach with stakeholders. This clarification expanded the potential for Bay Area communities to submit DAC projects to be included in the IRWMP. 14.6.4 DAC-Specific Outreach Materials A variety of materials were developed and disseminated to support outreach to disadvantaged communities and the identification of DAC water resource projects to be included in the IRWMP, including: 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-19 Stakeholder Engagement  DAC maps  A DAC-specific factsheet including information on DAC project eligibility criteria, general information about Bay Area IRWMP, guidance for submitting DAC project proposals, and points-of-contact for additional questions or guidance.  A dedicated DAC page was created on the BAIRWMP website containing information and links related to DACs, including the series of DAC maps; information on DAC project eligibility, DAC points-of-contacts, and a link to the DWR DAC mapping tool. Select DAC outreach materials are included in Appendix E-8. 14.6.5 Targeted DAC Outreach and Engagement The IRWMP update process in 2013 included targeted outreach to disadvantaged communities. All DAC representatives involved in the 2006 Plan were contacted to encourage their submittal of new projects to be included in the Plan Update. Agency staff from Bay Area communities containing DACs were contacted to encourage their participation in the IRW MP process, including the identification of projects for their communities. Outreach was conducted through the Functional Area groups, particularly water quality/water supply and flood protection FAs, to help identify DAC projects. In addition, all DAC contacts were included in the master contact list and received all BAIRWMP-related email notifications to ensure they were aware of upcoming events and deadlines. DAC contacts were invited to participate in broader engagement efforts, including monthly CC meetings and public workshops. While efforts were made to reach to as many stakeholders as possible in the 2013 process, there was noticeably little Tribal and Disadvantaged Community participation. This is mainly because materials and workshops are not likely to reach Disadvantaged and Tribal communities without direct and coordinated outreach efforts by a trusted third party. In 2016, the Bay Area began its IRWM Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP). The mandate of the program is to include underrepresented populations (including DACs, URCs, EDAs, and Tribes) into IRWM and other water-related decision making processes, with an ultimate goal of building the capacity of communities and community based groups to develop and submit IRWM-eligible projects for implementation to address priority water issues identified through tailored outreach and needs assessment processes. See sections 14.6.7 & 14.7 for additional information on the DACTIP. The California Indian Environmental Alliance is conducting Tribal outreach and coordination as part of the DACTIP’s outreach process. Their outreach includes attending Tribal cultural events where they hand out materials and introduce themselves to elders and first explain who they are and what their mission is. They then ask to meet another time to further explain their efforts and goals once they become more comfortable and familiar with who they are. This process has led to further Bay Area Tribal engagement in IRWM. 14.6.6 DAC Project Support and Guidance To facilitate DAC project identification and development, the 2013 year Bay Area IRWMP team offered hands-on guidance and support to potential DAC projects proponents to ensure that the application process was clear, that their projects met DWR’s eligibility criteria, and that their 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-20 Stakeholder Engagement project development and submittal processes were progressing successfully. DAC liaisons were available in each subregion to respond to questions and requests for information, and they conducted regular check-ins with DAC project proponents by phone and email to ensure their project development processes were progressing. DAC project proponents that received targeted assistance included:  Alameda County Flood Control Agency  City of Berkeley  City of Calistoga  City of East Palo Alto  City of Oakland  City of Pittsburg  Committee for Green Foothills  Friends of Sausal Creek  Rural Community Assistance Corporation/Town of Pescadero  San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority  The Watershed Project A log of DAC targeted outreach and project assistance is included in Appendix E-8. 14.6.7 Disadvantaged Community and Tribal Involvement Program The Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program (DACIP) is a Proposition 1 (2014 Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act) funded program that was designed to ensure the involvement of disadvantaged communities (DACs), economically distressed areas (EDAs), and underrepresented communities (URCs) in IRWM planning efforts and decision- making processes. The State allowed an expanded definition of eligible participants outside of the traditional definition of Disadvantaged Community, which allowed the Bay Area to include unincorporated communities and homeless communities in programmatic engagement. The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) was endorsed by the Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee in 2016 to be the Grant Administrator and Program Manager for the Bay Area DACIP, and EJCW partnered with the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) to conduct Tribal outreach and a needs assessment, To implement the DAC portion of the DACTIP, EJCW partnered with organizations already working in communities that qualified as DACs throughout the Bay Area to expand outreach efforts and conduct tailored needs assessment processes to engage and build the capacity of communities to identify their own water-related issues, to participate in IRWM decision-making processes, and ultimately develop and submit IRWM-eligible projects to address priority water- related issues identified through the Needs Assessment process. Concurrently, CIEA conducted outreach to Tribes to begin a separate needs assessment process in Tribal communities. In 2019, grant administration for the program was transferred to the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-21 Stakeholder Engagement Outreach Partners Selected as part of the DACTIP for DACs are as follows: • All Positives Possible (Vallejo) • City of Hayward (Tennyson Corridor) • Marin County Community Development Agency (Dillon Beach & Pt. Reyes Station) • Shore Up Marin (Marin City & San Rafael Canal District) • Sonoma Ecology Center & Daily Acts (Petaluma, Penngrove, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Rodgers Creek (Creekside Village/Temelec/Chanterelle), & The Springs) • Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice (Bayview-Hunters Point) • Ronald V. Dellums Institute for Sustainable Policy Studies and Action (Sobrante Park, Columbia Gardens, & Brookfield Village) • Nuestra Casa & Youth United for Community Action (East Palo Alto) • Friends of Sausal Creek (Oakland Fruitvale Neighborhood) • Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (Antioch, Pittsburg, & Bay Point) • Keep Coyote Creek Beautiful (San Jose) • The Watershed Project (Richmond, San Pablo, & El Sobrante) The majority of the Outreach Partners were selected through an RFQ process by the Bay Area IRWM Region Coordinating Committee. Three of these communities (Vallejo, East Palo Alto, Antioch/Pittsburg/Bay Point) and the Outreach Partners working in them were identified through an initial “gaps analysis” of high priority DACs not covered by the initial 10 Outreach Partners selected through the RFQ process. Phase 1 DACTIP activities being carried out by the Outreach Partners, coordinated by EJCW and then SFEP, include Outreach, Needs Assessment, Capacity Building, and Technical Assistance and Project Development. Other DACTIP activities to more meaningfully include DACs, EDAs, and URCs into IRWM processes include working to change the CC governance and voting structure to formally include DAC and Tribal representatives, investigating expanding funding to encourage DAC, EDA, and URC participation in all regional planning processes, and creating connections between communities/community groups and water-related decision- making bodies to leave behind social infrastructure to ensure continued involvement of communities and community groups in IRWM beyond the life of the DACTIP funding. Outreach & Needs Assessment Outreach and Needs Assessment activities are simultaneously and iteratively being carried out by Outreach Partner organizations in their respective communities, coordinated by first EJCW 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-22 Stakeholder Engagement and subsequently SFEP. Needs Assessments were tailored to each community to account for the variation in community capacity, context, and needs, but were designed to ensure varying individual strategies resulted in information that can be used to identify capacity building and technical assistance needs, further project development, and to support continuance in DACTIP communities and Tribes to participate in the regional IRWM process after the life of the DACTI Program. A decentralized approach was chosen to leverage existing relationships and allow for greater ability to thoughtfully involve community members in water management on a local scale. Needs Assessment activities include direct outreach and education, participation in local events to conduct broader outreach and education, website updates, meetings and presentations, as well as surveys, listening sessions, and interviews to determine needs, priorities, and strengths in these communities, as defined by community members. The Needs Assessment will inform the second phase of DACTIP work by providing insight into potential barriers to accessing funding, region-wide issues, and strategies for inclusion into regional planning efforts, and will inform future tailored outreach to communities. Capacity Building, Technical Assistance & Project Development In conjunction with Needs Assessment activities, Capacity Building for Outreach Partner organizations and communities is part of every stage of the DACTIP to ultimately support the development and submission of proposals to IRWM Prop 1 and other grants as applicable and to ensure communities and community groups stay engaged with these processes after the DACTIP formally concludes. Capacity Building that the Outreach Partners are being provided with includes coordination support and trainings on state processes for contracting, invoicing, and other administrative tasks, as well as outreach and needs assessment activities to build their capacities to develop solutions to issues in their communities, write grants, administer contracts and agreements, collect data, and report on their ongoing work at all levels. Other Capacity building and technical assistance will be offered to address capacity building needs identified through the needs assessment process, such as grant writing and water testing, to support project and proposal development for IRWM and other funding sources as applicable. The capacity building effort is ultimately intended to increase the capability of DACs, EDAs, and URCs to engage with and voice concerns at regional planning efforts, as well as to support water managers in understanding how to better meaningfully engage with all communities they serve. Building on Capacity Building activities and trainings, Outreach Partners will use the findings of their Needs Assessment processes to work with Technical Assistance Providers to develop project proposals to address identified issues. The Phase 2 workplan for the DACTIP is currently being adaptively developed by SFEP in coordination with the Bay Area CC and OPs to support and further the Program’s goals. The second phase of the DACTIP involves utilizing lessons learned from Outreach, the Needs Assessment, Capacity Building, Technical Assistance, and Project Development to address identified issues and barriers. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-23 Stakeholder Engagement 14.7 Native American Tribe Identification and Outreach 14.7.1 Native American Tribal Identification The Stakeholder Engagement Plan noted that outreach to Bay Area Native American Tribes and/or members would include the identification of Tribes and Tribal contacts, and initial communication with Tribal leaders. The process conducted in 2013 to identify Native American Tribes and Tribal members within the Bay Area IRWMP’s jurisdiction included conducting interviews with knowledgeable contacts from NGOs and water agencies and reviewing publicly- available resources from Tribes and information provided by DWR’s Tribal Liaison for the region. In 2016 the Bay Area engaged in the Disadvantaged Communities and Tribal Involvement Program (DACTIP) and the California Indian Environmental Alliance (CIEA) conducted further Tribal outreach and identification. . In 2013, it was determined that one Tribal community – the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians – currently owned land within the Bay Area IRWMP geographic boundary and may have distinct water resource interests, needs, or challenges, though they are not originally a first land Bay Area Tribe. The Lytton Band owns and operates the San Pablo Lytton Casino in the East Bay and is served by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Otherwise, there are individual members of other Native American Tribes residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, but they are dispersed into the general population and do not have distinct water quality or water supply challenges. In 2019, it was determined that two other Tribes – Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Mishewal Wappo – also own land and manage their own water systems. Other federally recognized Tribes in the larger Bay Area are located primarily in the North Bay/Sonoma County area, including the federally recognized Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Dry Creek, and Kashia Tribes. These Tribes mainly fall within the jurisdiction of the North Coast IRWMP where they are actively involved in the development of that region’s IRMWP. The Amah Mutsun Tribe participates in both the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM and the Bay Area IRWMP since it holds territory in both regions. CIEA’s outreach resulted in the identification of five Tribes for participation in the DACTIP: The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Association of Ramaytush, Indian People Organizing for Change, Him-R^n , and Muwekma Ohlone. Descriptions of each participating Tribal partner are provided below. Amah Mutsun The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band (AMTB) is comprised of the living descendants of the Mutsun and Awaswas speaking peoples whose ancestral homeland encompasses the lands and waters of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and parts of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties—the territory known to the Tribe as Popeloutchom. The Tribe’s creation story describes how Creator specifically chose the Amah Mutsun to steward these lands and waters, as well as the Tribe’s four-legged, winged, finned, and plant kin. Despite a brutal history of subjugation and displacement from its ancestral territory during colonization and a loss of the Tribe’s federal recognition, the AMTB maintains its community 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-24 Stakeholder Engagement identity and its commitment to the stewardship of Popeloutchom. Honoring this commitment today requires the restoration and relearning of indigenous practices of resource management, as well as the development of new means of accessing the lands and waters from which the Tribe has been displaced. In 2013, the AMTB established the Amah Mutsun Land Trust (AMLT)—a Native-led 501(c)(3) non-profit organization—to serve as a vehicle for the Tribe’s re-engagement with its ancestral territory and stewardship role. Rather than solely pursuing direct ownership of land, AMLT focuses on cultivating partnerships with private and public landowners, including leading conservation organizations, to restore indigenous stewardship, presence, and perspectives to lands within the Tribe’s ancestral territory. These efforts have led to an array of innovative and historic collaborations, including a recent partnership with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to restore both Tribal and public access to the summit of Mt. Umunhum in Santa Clara County. Through the AMLT Native Stewardship Corp—a program focused on cultural relearning and the application of indigenous stewardship techniques—Tribal members are working directly to conserve natural resources and restore ecosystems in AMTB territory, including in a multi-year collaboration with California State Parks at Quiroste Valley Cultural Preserve in southern San Mateo County. Through sustained processes of outreach, collaboration, and direct engagement in conservation, research, and education led by AMLT, the Amah Mutsun are re-establishing a vital presence as indigenous stewards of Popeloutchom. Recognizing the intrinsic links between land and water resources, AMTB and AMLT are eager to help bring an indigenous perspective to the Bay Area IRWM process and to the broader management of water throughout their ancestral territory so that indigenous knowledge and cultural values are always a part of the region’s resource management practices. Indian People Organizing for Change "Indian People Organizing for Change (IPOC) is a community-based organization in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its members, including Lisjan-Ohlone Tribal members and conservation activists, who work together in order to preserve cultural and traditional heritage, as well as the goal to accomplish social and environmental justice within the Bay Area American Indian community." Him-R^n Him-R^n is an Ohlone, Plains and Bay Miwok Tribe, whose chairwoman is Ruth Orta. Ruth and members of the Tribe work alongside Coyote Regional Parks and collaborate on stewardship guidance on Native planting, materials for plant and boat making as well as basket weaving and brushes, and provides recommendations with details on how to care for the land. Coyote Regional Parks recognizes Him-R^n ’s ties to their traditional lands, which include Coyote Regional Parks who keep certain areas protected with fences to only allow for Him-R^n to continue practicing their Tribal ceremonies. Ruth coordinates and hosts Ohlone gatherings, and cultural heritage trainings (plant gathering, cultural trainings, tours of the regional park, acorn making, jewelry making from abalone, etc.), and gives talks to Tribal members and non-Tribal members. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-25 Stakeholder Engagement Association of Ramaytush Ohlone The Association of Ramaytush Ohlone (ARO) is an association dedicated to researching, revitalizing, and preserving Ramaytush Ohlone history and culture. The primary objectives of the ARO are to engage in research to expand knowledge about the Ramaytush Ohlone, to enhance public awareness of the Ramaytush Ohlone in San Francisco and San Mateo counties, to support cultural revitalization efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area, and to preserve natural and archaeological resources in Ramaytush Ohlone lands. The ARO partners with local, state, and federal agencies, and other Ohlone tribes and organizations to further its objectives. The ARO is not a public non-profit 501.c.3. Muwekma Ohlone The present-day Muwekma Ohlone Tribe is comprised of all known surviving Native American lineages aboriginal to the San Francisco Bay region who trace their ancestry through the Missions San Jose, Santa Clara, and Dolores and the historic federally recognized Verona Band of Alameda County. Noted anthropologists and linguists such as Alphonse Pinart, Jeremiah Curtin, Alfred L. Kroeber, C. Hart Merriam, Edwin Gifford, James Alden Mason, and John P. Harrington during the late 19th and early 20th centuries interviewed the fluent speakers of the Indian languages spoken at the Muwekma rancherias. These tribal Elders include Jose Guzman and Maria de los Angeles Colos who still employed the linguistic term “Muwekma” which means “La Gente” meaning “The People” in the Chocheño and Thámien Ohlone languages of the East Bay and Santa Clara Valley. In 1906, BIA Special Indian Agent for California Charles E. Kelsey identified the Muwekma Tribal community as the Verona Band of Alameda County residing in Pleasanton, Niles, Sunol, Livermore, Newark and towns located around Mission San Jose. The tribe formally remained under the jurisdiction of the Indian Service Bureau as a landless tribe that was eligible for land purchase under the Congressional Homeless California Indian Acts and appropriations of 1906,1908 and later years as a result of the discovery of the 18 unratified California Treaties of 1851-52. In 2003, the Muwekma Language Committee was established to restore the Tribe’s Ohlone Language. Silent for over 65 years, Chocheño was spoken for the first time by several Muwekma councilmembers. Monica V. Arellano, Vice Chairwoman/Co-Chair of the Language Committee and Gloria E. Arellano-Gomez Councilwoman have been given the authority to issue public welcoming and blessings to Muwekma’s Ancestral Homeland. Joined by Sheila Guzman- Schmidt, Councilwoman/Committee Co-Chair whose great-grandfather was Jose Guzman and who was one of the last speakers of the Delta Yokuts and Chocheño Ohlone languages until his death in 1934. All three Councilwomen are very proud to have a leadership role in the restoration and preservation of the Tribe’s Language, Culture and Heritage. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-26 Stakeholder Engagement Since 1986, the Tribal leadership has been working diligently in addressing adverse impacts to their ancestral heritage cemetery and village sites. Since that time the Tribal leadership has co- authored numerous scientific and cultural publications and have presented at professional meetings on the skeletal biology and ancient DNA relative to their heritage sites. Over the years the Tribe has established a working relationship with governmental agencies, such as Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, Santa Clara County VTA, City of San Jose and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission as well as many other entities. 14.7.2 Initial Tribal Outreach and Next Steps Regardless of the limitations of geography, Tribal recognition, and resources, representatives of Bay Area Tribes are included in the Bay Area IRWMP master contact email list and each received multiple email notices about the 2013 public workshops. Efforts to involve Bay Area Native American Tribes in the 2013 Plan update process are found in Appendix E-9. Native American Tribes are sovereign nations and as such require coordination on a government-to-government basis. CC member agencies are looking for ways to involve Native Americans living in the Bay Area in the planning and implementation of specific projects included in the IRWMP. In its work through the DACTIP, CIEA focused on the five participating Tribal outreach partners. Through participating in the Ohlone Gathering in Fremont, CIEA reached Him-R^n , Muwekma Ohlone and other Tribes with affiliation to Bay Area Tribes. Ramaytush identified their point person. CIEA also reached out to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians, and Lytton Rancheria. These Tribes want to be informed but will not be official Tribal Partners at this time. While there are numerous individual members of other Native American Tribes residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, a diaspora due to cost of living has spread many Natives away from their traditional lands. CIEA is committed to representing the needs of all Native American Tribal members through the DACTIP and is working to represent their water quality or water supply challenges and needs. 14.8 Stakeholder Engagement Following Adoption of the IRWMP Stakeholder engagement will continue following adoption of the IRWMP, and it will be essential to ensuring the successful implementation of the Plan. The Coordinating Committee will continue to serve as the organizing body and plenary forum for the Bay Area IRWMP, and discussions concerning stakeholder engagement strategies and opportunities will mainly take place at these meetings which are open to the public. What follows are stakeholder engagement considerations that will be reviewed and discussed by the Coordinating Committee to ensure that stakeholder engagement is continuing effectively and that adjustments are made as needed. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 14-27 Stakeholder Engagement  Stakeholder engagement goals and objectives, which are identified in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, will be revisited annually by the Coordinating Committee to determine the level of success in achieving them. In addition, the goals and objectives will be modified as needed to ensure they are consistent with current stakeholder needs and resources available.  Stakeholder outreach will continue to be organized and implemented by subregion, which allows for the consideration of local needs. Regional coordination across the subregions will help promote integration.  The BAIRWMP website will serve as the effort’s main resource for sharing information with stakeholders. The website will be easy to navigate. Information about opportunities to participate (Coordinating Committee meetings, subregional outreach meetings, IRWM funding rounds) will be kept up to date and posted on the website.  The master stakeholder contact list will be maintained and continually updated.  The Coordinating Committee will continue to look for ways to include representatives of DACs and Tribes in the Bay Area IRWMP process, including encouraging DAC and Tribal participation in future IRWMP funding rounds.  Future outreach to Bay Area Native American Tribes will include discussions with the with the California Indian Environmental Alliance to increase participation by Tribes in the Coordinating Committee and Sub Committees. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Coordination Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 15: Coordination ........................................................................... 15-1 15.1 Coordination of Activities within the Region ..................................... 15-1 15.1.1 Coordination with Regional Agencies ................................... 15-1 15.1.1.1 Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition .................... 15-2 15.1.1.2 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies ........................ 15-2 15.1.1.3 Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association ......................................................... 15-2 15.1.1.4 Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association ......................................................... 15-2 15.1.1.5 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation District ................................................................ 15-3 15.1.1.6 Bay Area Watershed Network ............................ 15-3 15.2 Coordination of Activities outside of the Region .............................. 15-3 15.2.1 Identification and Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Regions ............................................................................... 15-3 15.2.1.1 Relationship with the Westside Sacramento River IRWM Region ............................................ 15-6 15.2.1.2 Relationship with the North Coast IRWM Region ................................................................ 15-6 15.2.1.3 Relationship with the East Contra Costa County IRWM Region ......................................... 15-6 15.2.1.4 Relationship with the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Region ..................................................... 15-7 15.2.1.5 Relationship with the Santa Cruz IRWM Region ................................................................ 15-8 15.3 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies ................................ 15-8 15.3.1 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................................................. 15-10 15.3.2 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ....................................................................... 15-10 15.3.3 State Coastal Conservancy ................................................ 15-10 15.3.4 California Department of Water Resources ........................ 15-11 15.3.5 State Water Resources Control Board ............................... 15-11 15.3.6 California Resources Agency ............................................. 15-11 15.3.7 California Environmental Protection Agency ....................... 15-12 15.3.8 Department of Public Health............................................... 15-12 15.3.9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................ 15-12 15.3.10 ........................................................... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 15-12 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Coordination 15.3.11 .............................................................................. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......................................................................... 15-13 15.3.12 ....... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service ................................................... 15-13 List of Tables Table 15-1: Changes in Regional Boundaries since 2006 Plan ............................................. 15-5 List of Figures Figure 15-1: Surrounding IRWM Regions ............................................................................. 15-4 Figure 15-2: Location of Pittsburg and Antioch in Relation to Regional Boundaries and DACs............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-1 Coordination Chapter 15: Coordination This chapter presents an overview of the Bay Area IRWM region’s coordination with local, regional and state agencies, stakeholders and neighboring IRWM regions. 15.1 Coordination of Activities within the Region Developing this Plan Update involved a diverse group of water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood control, watershed, municipal, environmental, and regulatory groups whose input played a key role in defining water resources management goals and objectives, identifying and selecting priority projects to help meet those goals and objectives and coordinating IRWM related activities and efforts. A wide range of local and regional agencies and districts participated in development of the Plan and will continue to participate in IRWMP implementation. These local planning entities (see Chapters 12 and 13: Relation to Water Planning and Relation to Local Land Use Planning for more information), along with the general Stakeholder group, participated in CC meetings, Stakeholder meetings and workshops, provided updated data, reviewed and commented on IRWMP sections, sponsored projects, and participated in project review. A master stakeholder list was developed at the start of the Plan update process. The list contains approximately 1,500 contacts representing all local and regional water resource and flood agencies, watershed organizations, a complete and current list of elected city, county and state officials, city and county land use agencies, disadvantaged community representatives, environmental and community groups, media, and Native American Tribal contacts (Appendix 14-A). Contacts in the master stakeholder list were provided with information about key milestones and deadlines, public workshops, and opportunities to review draft chapters. All interested stakeholders and members of the public were provided access to information about the Plan, the Plan update process, project criteria and submission, and meetings and workshops. Members of the public also had the opportunity to review and provide input on draft chapters of the Plan. The primary sources of information for the public were the BAIRWMP website and update emails. Through notices sent to the master mailing list, and re-distributed to partner and stakeholder lists, a significant number of people who follow water and land use issues were made aware of the update process, and were encouraged to visit the website and attend meetings and workshops. In addition to regional meetings and workshops, subregional meetings and workshops also provided an opportunity for project proponents and stakeholders to coordinate their IRWM related activities and efforts. 15.1.1 Coordination with Regional Entities Water management agencies throughout the San Francisco Bay Area have a long history of regional cooperation and planning. A number of these regional water management organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area include organizations that span multiple regions. The following regional organizations play an integral role in regional and inter-regional coordination: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-2 Coordination 15.1.1.1 Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition The Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC) was formed in 2002 by ACWD, BAWSCA, CCWD, EBMUD, SCVWD, SFPUC, and Zone 7 to address regional water supply and water quality issues. BAWAC membership has since been expanded to include North Bay agencies MMWD, Solano CWA, and Sonoma CWA. BAWAC is committed to advancing water conservation in the region through new technologies, refinement of existing conservation programs, and evaluation of regional opportunities in marketing, product labeling, and research. Projects carried out by these agencies include a variety of regional water conservation programs, regional interties, and a subset has been steadily working on studies for a Regional Desalination Project. BAWAC agencies are represented in the Bay Area, East Contra Costa NS Westside and Pajaro IRWM regions. 15.1.1.2 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies The Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) is a joint powers agency formed in 1984 by the five largest wastewater treatment agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area. Its members are local governmental agencies involved in urban water resource management and San Francisco Bay water quality stewardship. BACWA’s members treat all domestic, commercial and a significant amount of industrial wastewater in the Bay Area. BACWA was formed to foster regional understanding of watershed protection and enhancement for long-term stewardship of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. BACWA also actively promotes and develops recycled water through its Recycled Water Committee which monitors and provides input on legislative and regulatory issues that affect the Bay Area, collaborates to secure funding for Bay Area recycled water projects, and develops regional informational pieces to Increase public awareness of recycled water and its use in the Bay Area (for more information, see Chapter 2). BACWA members are represented in the Bay Area, East Contra Costa, Westside and Pajaro IRWM regions. 15.1.1.3 Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association The Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) was formed in 1990 in response to the NPDES permitting program for stormwater. BASMAA encourages regional consistency and efficient use of public resources. BASMAA, is a consortium of the following nine San Francisco Bay Area municipal storm water programs: Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program, Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, Napa County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Sonoma County Water Agency and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. Other agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City and County of San Francisco (combined sewer system), participate in some BASMAA activities. Together, these agencies represent more than 90 agencies, including 79 cities and 6 counties, and the bulk of the watershed immediately surrounding San Francisco Bay. BASMAA agencies span the Bay Area, East Contra Costa, Westside and North Coast IRWM regions. 15.1.1.4 Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association The Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) was formed in 2007 as a result of coordinated IRWM efforts by the regional flood protection agencies and provides a forum for regional coordination and collaboration with State and Federal regulatory and resource 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-3 Coordination agencies. The nine Bay Area agencies that are signatories to BAFPAA include the Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa and San Mateo Counties Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts, SCVWD, Solano CWA, Sonoma CWA, and Zone 7. Most of the flood district boundaries coincide with County boundaries and extend outside the Bay Area Region. BAFPAA agencies span the Bay Area, Pajaro and East Contra Costa IRWM regions. 15.1.1.5 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation District The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation District (BAWSCA) was enabled by AB 2058 in 2003 to represent the interests of 24 cities and water districts in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, and two private utilities that purchase water wholesale from the San Francisco regional water system. BAWSCA encourages water conservation and use of recycled water supplies on a regional basis. BAWSCA agencies span the Bay Area IRWM Region. In addition to the regional organization described above, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, ABAG, Bay Area Rapid Transit, and RWQCB all have regional planning programs/efforts for the nine-county Bay Area. The RWQCB and BCDC also have regulatory purview over the same nine counties. 15.1.1.6 Bay Area Watershed Network The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) is a network of natural resource professionals and community members working locally to protect watersheds throughout the Bay Area. BAWN members interact and collaborate in various ways, providing opportunities to exchange information and coordinate ideas, proposals, and activities valuable to the IRWM Planning process. 15.2 Coordination of Activities outside of the Region 15.2.1 Identification and Coordination with Neighboring IRWM Regions The Bay Area IRWM Region is adjacent to five IRWMP regions as shown in Figure 15-2 (there are no IRWM regions in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties). When preparing the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) application in 2009, the CC contacted and coordinated efforts with water supply, wastewater, flood protection, and watershed and habitat and restoration agencies in adjacent IRWM regions. Agencies are aware of each other’s efforts and projects that overlap planning regions have been identified and coordinated to the degree possible (see Section 15.2.1.3). Several of the agencies participating in the Bay Area IRWMP are also participating in these other regional planning efforts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-4 Coordination Figure 15-2: Surrounding IRWM Regions 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-5 Coordination Multiple IRWM planning efforts were initiated during 2005-2006 and several of these were consolidated into the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Plan. Since the IRWM Plan was first adopted in 2006 additional consolidation and clarification has occurred. Table 15-4 summarizes the historic overlaps in the San Francisco Bay Area region that have been consolidated since the 2006 Plan Table 15-4: Changes in Regional Boundaries since 2006 Plan The San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region Coordinating Committee (CC) and the other regions listed in Table 15-4 resolved the overlapping boundaries listed in the table through direct contact with the leaders of the other regional efforts in writing, phone conversations, and invitations for them to participate in CC meetings. The approach was for the other regions to determine for themselves if partnering and integrating with the Bay Area IRWM Plan was beneficial to them. Each reached their decision independently after visiting CC meetings and discussing the proposed mergers of the boundaries with their respective organizing committees. Below is a brief description the neighboring IRWM regions, their water management priorities and coordination with development of the Bay Area IRWM. Region Description of Previous Region Overlap Boundary Resolution Tomales Bay Watershed Integrated Coastal Water Management Plan Complete overlap The Tomales Bay Watershed Council decided not to pursue its Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan independently of the Bay Area IRWMP. IRWM efforts in the Tomales Bay watershed are now included in the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM effort. East Contra Costa County (ECCC) IRWM Plan Overlap of northwestern triangular area Integration of northwestern portion into the Bay Area Region. Efforts with the San Joaquin IRWM region to be coordinated under East Contra Costa County region’s governance Napa-Berryessa IRWM Plan Overlap of southwestern portion Complete integration of southwestern portion into the Bay Area Region. The rest of their original region is coordinating with the Westside IRWM Region. Solano IRWM Plan Overlap of southwestern portion Complete integration of southwestern portion into the Bay Area Region. The rest of their original region is coordinating with the Westside IRWM Region. Sonoma County Agencies Overlap of southeastern- portion Integration of southeastern portion into the Bay Area Region through Sonoma County Water Agency. The rest of the county is involved in the North Coast IRWM efforts. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-6 Coordination 15.2.1.1 Relationship with the Westside Sacramento River IRWM Region Napa County is split between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento River IRWMPs. The Bay Area Region generally covers the western part of Napa County and focuses on the Napa River and Suisun Creek watersheds. The Westside Sacramento River Region, which is one of eight IRWMPs within the Sacramento Valley Funding Area delineated by DWR, generally covers the eastern part of Napa County and focuses on the Putah Creek/Lake Berryessa watershed. The drainage divide between Fairfield and Vacaville is the boundary between the Bay Area and Westside Regions. During development of the RAP application, Bay Area representatives contacted and coordinated with Solano County to resolve overlap areas. Representatives from Solano County Water Agency and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District provide a linkage between the Bay Area and Westside Sacramento IRWMPs, enabling information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts as well as the potential for developing interregional projects. Both agencies are targeted reviewers for the Plan Update process and, as such, receive each draft chapter prior to public release for review and input. Both agencies are also members of the Westside IRWM coordinating committee. Depending upon their location within the Napa or Solano county, projects will be incorporated into the appropriate IRWM Plan. 15.2.1.2 Relationship with the North Coast IRWM Region The North Coast IRWM Planning area is consistent with the North Coast RWQCB boundary. The North Coast Region is made up of watersheds that drain to the Pacific Ocean from Marin County in the south to the Oregon border in the north and includes the counties of Modoc, Siskiyou, Del Norte, Trinity, Humboldt, Mendocino and Sonoma. The major issues in this region are primarily related to timber harvesting, management and enhancement of anadromous fisheries, and protection of wild and scenic rivers. This area is much less urbanized and much wetter than the San Francisco Bay Area, and thus has fewer problems with water supply reliability, stormwater management and urban runoff, and wastewater discharges. Sonoma and Marin Counties lie within both the North Coast IRWM and Bay Area IRWM Regions. The County of Marin, which only has a small portion in the North Coast region, participates in the Bay Area IRWMP and pursues planning and project implementation in the North Coast Region, as do stakeholders in Sonoma County. The Sonoma County Water Agency and the North Bay Watershed Association, both of which are PUT members, provide a link between the Bay Area and North Coast IRWMPs, enabling information sharing and communication between the two planning efforts. They also provide joint updates at Sonoma County Water Agency’s (SCWA) quarterly water advisory committee meetings which includes all of SCWA’s water contractors and members of the public including stakeholders 15.2.1.3 Relationship with the East Contra Costa County IRWM Region The East Contra Costa County (ECCC) IRWM region is the only IRWM planning region with boundaries that overlap the Bay Area Region boundaries, straddling the Bay Area and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions. The ECCC region is isolated from the remainder of Contra Costa County and the greater Bay Area by the ridgelines of Mt. Diablo in the south and west, and by the San Joaquin and Old Rivers on the north and east. However, the boundaries of the RWQCB Region 2 (and the San Francisco Funding area) also include the Willow Creek and Kirker Creek watersheds that drain to the east of the Mt. Diablo hydrologic divide thus creating an overlap. These two watersheds are included in the Bay Area Region, resulting from the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-7 Coordination defined boundaries of the San Francisco Funding Area and RWQCB Region 2, and within the East Contra Costa County IRWM region, whose boundaries are defined by the hydrologic divide created by the ridgeline. The entire East Contra Costa IRWM region drains to the Delta primarily through Marsh Creek, Kirker Creek, and Kellogg Creek watersheds. These watersheds encompass the jurisdictional boundaries of all of the East Contra Costa County IRWM region participating entities except for Contra Costa County and Contra Costa Water District, which serve an area broader than East Contra Costa County. The agencies in the East Contra Costa County region all fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 5). The dominant issues in this region are water quality in the Delta, flood control and floodplain development and endangered aquatic species protection, which are a subset of the large complement of water resources management issues in the Bay Area region as a whole. This overlap has caused some challenges. Under the definitions of funding areas as described in the DWR grant guidelines, the overlap area is potentially eligible for funds from both the San Francisco and San Joaquin funding areas. The potential for leveraging multiple funding sources with the San Francisco Bay IRWM region is especially important as the overlap area includes a disproportionate number of Disadvantaged Community (DAC) members. At the same time, the requirements for coordination are increased. The cities of Pittsburg and Antioch are located in an area that is contained within both the ECCC and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM regions (Error! Reference source not found.). Approximately 2 percent of the City of Pittsburg is located wholly within the San Joaquin area, with the remaining 98 percent located in the overlap area. Conversely, approximately 99 percent of the City of Antioch is located wholly within the San Joaquin funding area, with only 1 percent located in the overlap area. The Bay Point Area, which sits slightly northwest of Antioch, is fully within the San Francisco Bay funding overlap area. Both the ECCC and San Francisco Bay IRWM regions recognize the importance of implementing projects in the overlap area, particularly due to the high proportion of DACs present in this area. The two regions are currently collaborating to develop a mutually agreeable approach to determining which funding area(s) should contribute funding to support implementation of projects in the overlap area. A representative from East Contra Costa County attends Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee meetings and participated in the planning and prioritization processes for projects that are within the Bay Area regional boundary. 15.2.1.4 Relationship with the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Region The Pajaro River is the largest coastal stream between the San Francisco Bay and the Salinas River Watershed. Due to its large size, there are diverse environments, physical features, and land uses within the watershed. The Pajaro River coastal area has been identified by the State Coastal Conservancy as a Critical Coastal Area (CCA), and the river is also a tributary to Monterey Bay, a federally protected National Marine Sanctuary administered by the National 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-8 Coordination Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many of the water supply, water quality, flood management and environmental enhancement challenges are associated with this unique mix of agriculture, small urban developments and sensitive marine habitats. The Pajaro River Watershed and the Bay Area regions share similar interests in reducing reliance on the Delta for water supply, increasing recycled water use and water conservation, and providing high quality drinking water quality. The two regions also both have flood management goals, but the Pajaro River Watershed flood issues pertain to a single river , whereas the Bay Area surface hydrology is more complex. The two IRWM groups share interests in watershed management and environmental protection, but the land use in the Pajaro watershed, which is predominantly agriculture, is very different from the Bay Area. In addition, the Pajaro River Watershed is within the Central Coast hydrologic area. Coordination is facilitated through Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), which is part of both the Bay Area IRWM and Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Watershed Regions. The Bay Area effort includes representatives from SCVWD on the CC, PUT and the targeted reviewer list. 15.2.1.5 Relationship with the Santa Cruz IRWM Region The Santa Cruz County region encompasses approximately 80 percent of the population and 84.3 percent of the land area of northern Santa Cruz County. The planning region is based on watershed and jurisdictional boundaries as well as common water management issues, which are all geographically contained within the region. This area has challenges associated with limited water supplies, urban development limits associated with large portions of the region being forested, mountainous terrain, and significant precipitation. Coordination between the Santa Cruz County and Bay Area Regions has focused on efforts to minimize the area not covered by a planning region in the Central Coast Funding Area in San Mateo County. As a result, the northern boundary of the Santa Cruz IRWM region was adjusted in 2009 to encompass additional portions of small watersheds of Año Nuevo, reducing, yet not eliminating the gap. The gap area is in the Central Coast hydrologic region. 15.3 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies CC members have a long history of working with State and Federal agencies to address water resources management issues and are involved with implementation of the Region’s priority projects. Many proposed IRWMP projects require permits from resource and regulatory agencies and directly impact the region’s ability to effectively manage local water resources during the Plan implementation phase. In addition to the many state or federal regulatory decisions required, there are many opportunities for state or federal assistance with Plan implementation. Regulatory agencies can be of greater assistance in shaping plans and project as they are being developed, thereby making permit review more expedient. Resource and regulatory agencies can also contribute ongoing monitoring data to enable assessment of Plan and project performance A number of the state and federal agencies interact with CC members in the normal course of business. Although the interaction may not necessarily be specific to the IRWMP, they may be related to specific projects. Examples of member interaction with state and federal agencies include: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-9 Coordination  The California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) provides guidance, funding and staff assistance to the Bay Area IRWMP through its San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program. SCC is a non-regulatory state agency focused on land conservation, habitat protection and restoration, urban waterfront development, agricultural conservation and public access. Conservancy staff serve on the CC, assist in the leadership of the Watersheds/Habitat Functional Area and provide access and links to statewide Conservancy programs.  The San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) Implementation Committee which coordinates the implementation of partnership activities, helps to set priorities, exchanges ideas and suggestions about management issues, and recommends work plans and budgets. Members often bring ideas and issues before the committee for comment and consideration. The Committee is made up of representatives from local, state and federal agencies, business and industry, and environmental organizations. The committee provides (and posts) updates on IRWMP activities and progress. Regulatory agencies participating on the committee include: the Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Water Resources, Delta Protection Commission and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The involvement of State and Federal agencies in the development of the 2006 IRWMP began with their participation during the development of the four Functional Area Documents (FAD). Resource and regulatory agencies were invited to participate in the Watershed Plan Development Committee, an open-ended membership group that provided guidance regarding the Watershed Plan’s purpose, development and application. State and Federal agencies that participated in this group included: CALFED (now the Delta Stewardship Council), the California Resources Agency, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the RWQCB and SCC. USACE, State Coastal Conservancy and SFEP were also involved early on in meetings with these agencies, forming a Resource and Regulatory Agencies Group. State and Federal agencies were invited to participate in the development of the IRWMP Update, attend CC meetings and workshops, and comment on draft chapters. To varying degrees they:  Participated in PUT and CC meetings,  Reviewed and commented on IRWMP Chapters,  Provided guidance on project ranking, and  Partnered on Candidate Projects On multiple occasions, DWR participated in Stakeholder meetings. An overview of the major State and Federal agencies that have been involved in the development of the Plan and/or implementation of IRWMP projects is provided below. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-10 Coordination 15.3.1 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board The mission of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best protect the beneficial uses of the state’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology and hydrology. RWQCB staff regulates permitting for discharges of fill and dredged material, stormwater permitting, water quality certifications, and waste discharge requirements. Representatives from the RWQCB are part of the CC and have been invited to participate in stakeholder workshops and CC meetings. 15.3.2 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), created by the California Legislature in 1965, is dedicated to the protecting and enhancing the San Francisco Bay, and to encouraging its responsible use.37 BCDC has planning and regulatory responsibility over development in San Francisco Bay and along the Bay’s nine-county shoreline. BCDC is a federally-designated state coastal management agency for the San Francisco Bay segment of the California coastal zone. This enables BCDC to use the authority of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act to ensure that federal projects and activities are consistent with the policies of its San Francisco Bay Plan and state law. The Commission is also responsible for administering development permits for the San Francisco Bay and Suisun Marsh. These permits must be obtained for proposed IRWMP projects affecting tidal wetlands or baylands habitats. Representatives from BCDC were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.3 State Coastal Conservancy The State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) was established in 1976 as a non-regulatory state agency that employs innovative approaches to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources. The legislature created the SCC as a unique entity with flexible powers to serve as an intermediary among governmental agencies, NGOs, citizens, and the private sector in recognition that creative approaches would be needed to preserve California’s coast and San Francisco Bay lands for future generations. The San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program, administered by the SCC, was established in 1998 to address the natural resource and recreational goals of the nine-county Bay Area in a coordinated and comprehensive way. The SCC serves all Californians and state visitors who are interested in enjoying, improving, and protecting the spectacular natural resources of the California coast and San Francisco Bay. Because of its accomplishments and relationships with other agencies, NGOs, and the private sector, the SCC serves as an advisory body for the Watershed Management & Habitat Protection and Restoration FAD (WM-HPR). The SCC’s work with local watershed and creeks groups allows it to serve as a representative for local watershed and habitat protection concerns throughout the Bay region. 37 Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Accessed July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-11 Coordination The SCC, as a member of the CC and PUT, is the most active State Agency participant in Bay Area IRWM planning. The SCC participated in meetings, reviewed and commented on Chapters, provided guidance on project ranking as part of the Project Selection Committee, and currently has a project on the Active list. 15.3.4 California Department of Water Resources The California Department of Water Resources (DWR), in cooperation with other state agencies, manages California’s water resources to benefit the state’s people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments. DWR provides dam safety and flood control services, assists local water districts in water management and conservation activities, promotes recreational opportunities, and plans for future statewide water needs. DWR also operates and maintains the State Water Project. On multiple occasions, DWR has participated in CC meetings. DWR representatives are Targeted Reviewers, which means that they have an opportunity to review the Chapters prior to release of the Public draft (see Chapter 1: Governance). 15.3.5 State Water Resources Control Board The mission of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is to “preserve, enhance and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations”.38 The SWRCB has joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection thus providing comprehensive protection for California’s waters. Representatives from the SWRCB have been invited to participate in key workshops and meetings and are on the list of targeted reviewers. 15.3.6 California Resources Agency The mission of the California Resources Agency is to “restore, protect and manage the state’s natural, historical and cultural resources for current and future generations using creative approaches and solutions based on science, collaboration and respect for all the communities and interests involved.”39 The Resources Agency is responsible for overseeing policies, activities and budgeting for 24 departments, commissions, boards, and conservancies within the state, including California State Parks, Department of Fish and Wildlife, DWR, BCDC, SCC, and Wildlife Conservation Board, among others. The Resources Agency collaborates with the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to provide a “California Watershed Portal” in order to identify ongoing watershed activities and provide links to planning and other tools. 38 State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). 2006. Home Page. Available: <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 39 California Resources Agency.2006. Home Page. Available: <http://resources.ca.gov/>. Accessed: July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-12 Coordination Representatives from the Resources Agency has been invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.7 California Environmental Protection Agency Formed in 1991, the mission of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is to “restore, protect and enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality and economic vitality”. Representatives from CalEPA were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops held throughout the development of the Plan. 15.3.8 Department of Public Health The Department of Public Health (DPH) regulates public water systems, including allowable treatment technologies for drinking water and the treatment and distribution of recycled water. Any Plan Projects that involve treatment of drinking water or recycled wat er will require coordination with DPH. 15.3.9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is “to provide leadership in sustaining and enhancing fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of the American people and to engage citizens in the shared stewardship of our nation’s natural resources.”40 The USFWS is responsible for enforcing federal wildlife laws, protecting endangered spices, restoring and conserving wildlife habitat, managing migratory birds, restoring nationally significant fisheries, and helping foreign governments with their conservation efforts. Representatives from the USFWS were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Established in 1970 in response to growing public demand, the mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is to protect human health and the environment. The USEPA develops and enforces regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The USEPA is responsible for researching and setting national standards for environmental programs, and delegates to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance.41 The USEPA is another regulatory agent responsible for discharges in to the San Francisco Bay and surrounding wetlands through oversight of Corps administration of CWA Section 404 permitting. The USEPA also manages and administers various grants and environmental financing programs for watershed management projects. The USEPA would be involved with proposed IRWMP projects related to discharge permits. 40 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Home Page. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Home Page. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 15-13 Coordination Representatives from the USEPA were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 15.3.11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is to “provide quality, responsive engineering services to the nation42 by focusing on water resources, environment, infrastructure, and homeland security. Part of the Corps’ mission includes planning, designing, building and operating water resources and wetlands, as well as handling waterways regulation and permitting. The Corps carries out a wide array of projects that provide coastal protection, flood protection, hydropower, navigable waters and ports, recreational opportunities, and water supply. The Corps provides regulatory authority and funding assistance for a variety of water resources management projects in the Bay Area, particularly related to flood management and habitat restoration. Representatives from the Corps participated in various workshops. 15.3.12 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for the management, conservation and protection of living marine resources of the Exclusive Economic Zone (water three to 200 miles offshore). NMFS reviews and predicts the status of fish stocks, validates compliance with fisheries regulations, and works to reduce wasteful fishing practices. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the ESA, NMFS works toward recovery of protected marine species, sustainable fisheries, and prevention of lost economic potential associated with overfishing, declining species and degraded habitats. Representatives from NMFS were Targeted Reviewers and invited to participate in CC meetings and stakeholder workshops. 42 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Home Page. Available: <http://www.usace.army.mil/>. Accessed July 24, 2006. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan i Climate Change Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures............................................................................................................................. iii Section 16: Climate Change ...................................................................... 16-1 16.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 16-1 16.2 Climate Change Projections Affecting the Bay Area Region ............ 16-2 16.2.1 Climate Change Scenarios ................................................... 16-2 16.2.1.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections ............... 16-3 16.2.1.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections ... 16-3 16.2.2 Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding .................................. 16-5 16.3 Vulnerability to Climate Change ...................................................... 16-7 16.3.1 Vulnerable Watershed Characteristics ................................. 16-8 16.3.2 Vulnerability Sector Assessment .......................................... 16-8 16.3.3 Water Demand ................................................................... 16-11 16.3.3.1 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-13 16.3.4 Water Supply ..................................................................... 16-13 16.3.4.1 Water Supply Portfolio of the Region ................ 16-14 16.3.4.2 Vulnerability to Potential Climate Change Impacts ............................................................ 16-14 16.3.4.3 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-15 16.3.5 Water Quality ..................................................................... 16-16 16.3.5.1 Imported Water ................................................ 16-17 16.3.5.2 Regional Surface Waters .................................. 16-18 16.3.5.3 Regional Groundwater ..................................... 16-18 16.3.5.4 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-18 16.3.6 Sea-Level Rise ................................................................... 16-19 16.3.6.1 Impacts ............................................................ 16-19 16.3.6.2 Vulnerability ...................................................... 16-21 16.3.6.3 Subregional Impacts ......................................... 16-22 16.3.7 Flooding ............................................................................. 16-28 16.3.8 Ecological Health and Habitat ............................................ 16-29 16.3.8.1 Bay Area Ecosystem Assets ............................ 16-29 16.3.8.2 Recent Studies and Findings ............................ 16-29 16.3.9 Hydropower ........................................................................ 16-31 16.4 Vulnerability Prioritization .............................................................. 16-31 16.5 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change ............... 16-32 16.5.1 Statewide Mitigation Strategies .......................................... 16-32 16.5.2 Statewide Adaptation Strategies for the Water Sector ........ 16-33 16.5.3 Regional Adaptation Strategies .......................................... 16-35 16.5.3.1 General ............................................................ 16-38 16.5.3.2 Sea-Level Rise ................................................. 16-38 16.5.3.3 Flooding ........................................................... 16-40 16.5.3.4 Water Supply .................................................... 16-41 Table of Contents (cont’d) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ii Climate Change 16.5.3.5 Water Quality ................................................... 16-42 16.5.3.6 Ecosystem and Habitat .................................... 16-43 16.5.3.7 Water Demand ................................................. 16-44 16.5.3.8 Hydropower ...................................................... 16-45 16.6 Next Steps .................................................................................... 16-51 16.6.1 Updates on Climate Change Research .............................. 16-51 16.6.2 Climate Change Models and Scenarios ............................. 16-51 16.6.3 Vulnerability Assessment Update ....................................... 16-51 16.6.3.1 Sea-Level Rise ................................................. 16-51 16.6.3.2 Flooding ........................................................... 16-52 16.6.3.3 Water Supply .................................................... 16-53 16.6.3.4 Water Quality ................................................... 16-53 16.6.3.5 Ecosystem & Habitat ........................................ 16-54 16.6.3.6 Water Demand ................................................. 16-54 16.6.3.7 Hydropower ...................................................... 16-55 16.6.4 Create a GHG Baseline ...................................................... 16-55 16.6.5 Quantify Adaption and Mitigation Strategies at the Project Level ...................................................................... 16-56 16.6.6 Develop Performance Metrics ............................................ 16-56 16.7 References .................................................................................... 16-56 List of Tables Table 16-1: Sea-Level Rise Projections (NRC 2012)4........................................................... 16-5 Table 16-2: Relative Sea-Level Rise Projections for San Francisco Bay (NRC 2012) .......... 16-6 Table 16-3: Summary of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment .................................... 16-9 Table 16-4: Estimated SWP Exports By Water Year Type – Future Conditions With and Without Climate Change .............................................................................. 16-15 Table 16-5: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast ................ 16-21 Table 16-6: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay ....... 16-22 Table 16-7: North Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay ...................................................................... 16-23 Table 16-8: East Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay .............................................................................................. 16-23 Table 16-9: West Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay ...................................................................... 16-24 Table 16-10: Miles of Roads and Railways Vulnerable To a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific and San Francisco Bay Coasts - 2050 .............................................. 16-27 Table 16-11: Estimated Length and Capital Cost of Coastal Armoring in Bay Area Counties ....................................................................................................... 16-27 Table 16-12: Climate Change Vulnerability Prioritization .................................................... 16-31 Table 16-13: AB 32 Scoping Plan Water Sector Mitigation Measures ................................ 16-33 Table of Contents (cont'd) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan iii Climate Change Table 16-14: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Responses and Performance Metrics ......................................................................................................... 16-45 List of Figures Figure 16-1: Historical and Projected Annual Average Air Temperature for the SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios ................ 16-4 Figure16-2: Projected Annual Precipitation for SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios .............................................................. 16-4 Figure 16-3: NRC (2012) Projections of Sea Level Rise ....................................................... 16-6 Figure 16-4: Recurrence Intervals of Extreme Water Levels ................................................. 16-7 Figure 16-5: Number of Days Max Temperature Exceeds the 98th Percentile ..................... 16-12 Figure 16-6: Monthly Mean Sea Level at the Presidio ........................................................ 16-20 Figure 16-7: Wastewater Treatment Plants and Power Plants on the San Francisco Bay Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood by 2050 ...................................................... 16-25 Figure 16-8: Electrical Transmission and Transmission Infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay Area ...................................................................................... 16-26 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-1 Climate Change Chapter 16: Climate Change 16.1 Introduction “Climate change is already affecting California and is projected to continue to do so well into the foreseeable future. Current and projected climate changes include increased temperatures, sea- level rise, a reduced winter snowpack, altered precipitation patterns and more frequent storm events. These changes have the potential for a wide variety of impacts such as altered agricultural productivity, wildfire risk, water supply, public health, public safety, ecosystem function and economic continuity.”43 “If the state were to take no action to reduce or minimize expected impacts from future climate change, the costs could be severe. A 2008 report by the University of California, Berkeley and the non-profit organization Next 10 estimated that if no such action is taken in California, damages across sectors would result in ‘tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs’ and ‘expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risk.’”44 “Climate change is already affecting California’s water resources. Bold steps must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, even if emissions ended today, the accumulation of existing greenhouse gases will continue to impact climate for years to come. Warmer temperatures, altered patterns of precipitation and runoff, and rising sea levels are increasingly compromising the ability to effectively manage water supplies, floods and other natural resources. Adapting California’s water management system in response to climate change presents one of the most significant challenges of this century … Water and wastewater managers and customers … can play a key role in water and energy efficiency, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and stewardship of water and other natural resources.”45 The conclusions described above make it imperative that climate change impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions be integrated into Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMP). This climate change section was developed based on the Proposition 84 IRW MP Guidelines for integrating climate change (October 2012). Those guidelines require the IRWMP to:  Describe, consider, and address the effects of climate change on the region and disclose, consider, and reduce where possible greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when developing and implementing projects.  Identify climate change impacts and address adapting to changes in the amount, intensity, duration, timing, and quality of runoff and recharge.  Consider the effects of sea-level rise on water supply conditions and identify suitable adaptation measures. 43 California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide, 2012, Executive Summary. 44 California Adaptation Strategy, 2009, page 3. 45 Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water, DWR, 2008, page 2. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-2 Climate Change In addition, future updates should describe policies and procedures that promote adaptive management; and minimize risk, damage and loss due to climate change impacts. This section is intended to focus on assessing the potential climate change vulnerabilities of the Region’s water resources, identifying climate change adaptation strategies; with the overall goal of making climate change adaptation an overarching theme throughout the Plan. The recently issued Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning dated November 2011 (Schwarz et al. 2011) was used for guidance in developing this Plan section. In addition, information in “Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area (CEC Report CEC-500-2012-071)” dated July 2012, prepared for the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER), and related documents, were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. 16.2 Climate Change Projections Affecting the Bay Area Region The projections used in the analysis are based on information provided in “Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region (CEC-500-2012-042)” dated July 2012 (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012), prepared for the PIER program. 16.2.1 Climate Change Scenarios The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) provides a family of common scenarios that cover a range of plausible trends in GHG emissions over the 21st century as a result of economic, technological, and population change (IPCC 2007). The total amount of GHG emissions and the rate of accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere will drive climate change impacts. The IPCC scenarios are only a sample of the potential climate outcomes; they contain a level of uncertainty, and they have no probabilities assigned to them. Two GHG scenarios have been commonly used in recent planning documents for California. Scenario A2 (Medium–High Emissions) assumes higher GHG emissions and high growth in population and represents a more competitive world that lacks cooperation in sustainable development (similar to “business as usual”), while B1 (Lower Emissions) is a lower GHG emission scenario that represents social consensus and action for sustainable development. Generally, the B1 scenario might be most appropriately viewed as an optimistic “best case” or “policy” scenario for emissions that will require fundamental shifts in global policy, while A2 is more of a status quo scenario reflecting real-world conditions incorporating incremental improvements and may be the more realistic choice for decision-makers to use for climate adaptation planning. To date, actual global emissions have more closely tracked, and even exceeded, the A2 scenario put forth in 2000. Climate change assessments are performed using the output of computer models that project future conditions utilizing GHG emission scenarios as input. These models are not predictive, but provide projections of potential future climate scenarios that can be used for planning purposes. The primary climate variables projected by global climate models (GCMs) that are important for water resources planning in California are changes in air temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea-level rise. A set of six GCMs were run for the two GHG emissions scenarios, A2 and B1, and downscaled to locations in California. The six GCM models used were: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-3 Climate Change 1. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Parallel Climate Model (PCM) 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluids Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) model 3. French Centre National de Researches Meterologiques CNRM3 model 4. NCAR CCSM3 model 5. German MPI ECHAMS model 6. Japanese MIROC3.2 (medium-resolution) model Based on historical simulations, the selected models are capable of producing a reasonable representation of California’s seasonal precipitation and temperature, variability of annual precipitation, and the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012). 16.2.1.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections All of the models show increased warming throughout the 21st century, with average annual air temperature increasing about 2F to 5F by 2050. The Mediterranean seasonal precipitation pattern is expected to continue during the 21st century, with most of the precipitation occurring during winter from North Pacific storms. The hydro-climate (hydrology and weather) is expected to be influenced by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) with alternating periods of wet and dry water years. In the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there will be some shift to more winter precipitation occurring as rain instead of snow, with a reduction in snowpack accumulation and shifts in runoff patterns, especially during the summer and fall. 16.2.1.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections The historical average annual temperature in the San Francisco Bay Area region is 56.8F (13.8C). Overall average air temperatures in the SF Bay Area are expected to rise 2.7F (1.5C) between 2000 and 2050 regardless of the GHG emissions scenario, but the A2 and B1 scenarios project increases of 10.8F (6C) and 3.6F (2C), respectively, by the end of the 21st century. Figure 16-1 shows the projected air temperature change for the GCMs averaged from 2000 through 2100, compared with the historical baseline from 1950-2000 used for the initial conditions for the models. The temperature projections begin to deviate between the A2 and B1 scenarios around mid-century, with the A2 scenario increase about twice the B1 scenario by 2100 (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012). Precipitation in the Region, as shown in Figure 16-2, is essentially all due to rain, and significant shifts in the timing of precipitation are not expected to occur (Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012). The SF Bay Area is likely to continue with a Mediterranean climate of cool wet winters and hot dry summers. Possible changes in precipitation projected by the GCMs are uncertain in part due to the highly variable precipitation that California experiences on an annual and decadal time scale. Up to the year 2050 annual precipitation changes produce mixed results; however there is an indication that conditions will be drier than the historical average in the second half of the century. Looking at averaged projections by month, it is possible to identify greater reductions in precipitation in March and April while November, December and January may remain relatively unchanged. While average conditions may be drier the expectation is that more intense downpours will occur during a somewhat shorter rainy season. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-4 Climate Change Figure 16-1: Historical and Projected Annual Average Air Temperature for the SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios Source: Figure 3, Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis (2012). Black line is historical, Blue line is B1 (Lower Emission) scenario. Red line is A2 (Medimum to Higher Emissions) scenario. Figure16-2: Projected Annual Precipitation for SF Bay Area Region: Average of Six GCMs for Two Emissions Scenarios Source: Figure 7, Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis (2012). Black line is historical, Green line is B1 (Lower Emissions) scenario, Brown line is A2 (Medium to Higher Emissions) scenario. A2 A2 B1 B1 A2 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-5 Climate Change 16.2.2 Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Sea-level rise is expected to increase the risk of coastal erosion and flooding along the California coast, and higher water levels due to sea-level rise could magnify the adverse impact of storm surges and high waves. Impacts to assets from extreme high tides in addition to net increases in sea level will likely result in increased inundation frequency, extents, and depths leading to catastrophic flooding and coastal erosion. Understanding the extent, depth and duration of inundation and the patterns of erosion will be necessary for characterizing infrastructure vulnerability in coastal areas. The picture is further complicated by the concurrent vertical movement of the land due to tectonic activity. Projections of the relative sea level, the sum of both sea level rise and vertical land movement, are therefore important in the SF Bay Area. Sea level has been measured at the Presidio tide gauge in San Francisco since 1854, with a recorded rise in relative sea level of 7.6 inches (19.3 cm) over the last 100 years (NRC 2012). Rates of relative sea-level rise vary along the coast in relation to vertical land movement: the observed rise per century is 8.0 inches (20.3 cm) in San Diego; 3.3 inches (8.4 cm) in Los Angeles; 2.7 inches (6.9 cm) in Port San Luis and is falling in Crescent City at a rate of 2.9 inches (7.4 cm) per century (NRC 2012, Table 4.6). Present sea-level rise projections suggest that global sea levels in the 21st century can be expected to be much higher which will result from higher rates of relative sea-level rise. These projections are summarized in the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document (OPC 2013) and in Table 16-1 below: Table 16-1: Sea-Level Rise Projections (NRC 2012)4 Time Period North of Cape Mendocino46 South of Cape Mendocino 2000 - 2030 -2 to 9 in 2 to 12 in 2000 – 2050 -1 to 19 in 5 to 24 in 2000 – 2100 4 to 56 in 17 to 66 in The National Research Council (NRC, 2012) updated the AR4 IPCC projections originally developed in 2006 by downscaling to the regional scale and by incorporating improved ice models, isostatic rebound and tectonic movement. Downscaling to the regional level increases uncertainty as does looking further into the future due to lack of understanding of physical processes, the ability to model the processes and the underlying assumptions of the scenarios. The NRC (2012) assigns high confidence to its 2030 projections but this confidence diminishes to low by 2100. 46 National Research Council, 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 5 The differences in sea-level rise projections north and south of Cape Mendocino are due mainly to vertical land movement. North of Cape Mendocino, geologic forces are causing much of the land to uplift, resulting in a lower rise in sea level, relative to t he land, than has been observed farther south. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-6 Climate Change Figure 16-3 shows the NRC (2012) projections for California in comparison with their projected global trend and also with the projections of Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009) which has been widely used in guidance. Figure 16-3: NRC (2012) Projections of Sea Level Rise Source: Figure 5.11, NRC (2012). V& R refers to Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009). In addition, the NRC (2012) report provides estimates of relative sea-level rise for San Francisco Bay by the inclusion of regional influences on sea level such as regional tectonic movement and gravitational influences of ice caps as shown in Table 16-2. The “Range” represents the high and low estimates from the models, and the “Projection” represents the mid- range estimate with an estimate of accuracy (i.e., +2 inches). Table 16-2: Relative Sea-Level Rise Projections for San Francisco Bay (NRC 2012) Year Projection (in) Range (in) 2030 6 2-12 2050 11 5-24 2100 36 17-66 Source: Table 5.3, NRC (2012) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-7 Climate Change The discussion above is in reference to mean sea level; however, the first impacts that will affect infrastructure will be from storms which generate more extreme water levels as shown in Figure 16-4 below. The figure shows that as sea-level rises (gray dotted lines) the extreme water level of a fixed recurrence event will also rise (gray solid lines). For infrastructure at a given elevation (denoted by the red line), the frequency of inundation will increase over time. In the example shown in Figure 16-4, a structure inundated with a 10 year return interval in 2020 will become inundated by a 1 year return interval by 2045. The exposure to more frequent extreme water levels will have an impact on infrastructure much earlier than mean sea level, e.g., operations will be affected more frequently well before the site is permanently inundated. Figure 16-4: Recurrence Intervals of Extreme Water Levels Source: Historical (solid black jagged line) and annual extreme water levels (black crosses) from Presidio tide gauge. Infrastructure at a given elevation is represented by the red line. Dotted lines indicate OPC 2011 projections. Year 2000 recurence intervals from Knowles (2010), developed from Kriebel (2011). 16.3 Vulnerability to Climate Change This section identifies the potential climate change vulnerabilities of the Region’s water resources. The climate change assessment presented in this section is at least equivalent to the checklist assessment in the Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning and consistent with climate change requirements in the 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-8 Climate Change Proposition 84 IRWMP Guidelines (October 2012). These vulnerabilities were also discussed with the climate change Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) formed for the Bay Area IRWMP. 16.3.1 Vulnerable Watershed Characteristics Identification of watershed characteristics that could potentially be vulnerable to future climate change is the first step in assessing vulnerabilities of water resources in the Region. In the context of this analysis, vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a system is exposed to, susceptible to, and able to cope with or adjust to, the adverse effects of climate change, consistent with the definition in the recently issued Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. Table 16-3 provides a summary list of water-related resources that are considered important in the Region and that are potentially vulnerable to future climate change. The summary table provides the main water planning categories applicable to the Region and a general overview of the qualitative assessment of each category with respect to anticipated climate change impacts. The main categories follow the climate change vulnerability checklist assessment as defined in the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. These categories also reflect a combination of the IRWMP requirements and are consistent with Proposition 84 requirements. Table 16-3 also provides a qualitative description of the anticipated climate change impacts on these identified resources. It should be noted that only those water-related resources likely to be vulnerable to climate change are considered in the analysis provided in the following subsections. 16.3.2 Vulnerability Sector Assessment There has been extensive scientific research on climate change impacts and findings have been published in a vast collection of peer-reviewed technical literature. However, there is relatively little information that presents specific tools for how to apply impacts in the context of addressing climate change impacts on water resources. In addition, far less information is available on subregional or local geographic areas because the spatial resolution of the existing climate change models is still quite low. One additional challenge is that precipitation projections cannot be easily converted directly into surface runoff and groundwater recharge to connect changes with local water resources planning activities. This section presents the vulnerability of each characteristic identified in Table 16-3 with respect to climate change projections given the existing tools and available data. This is an initial attempt using projections specific to the Region for the vulnerability assessment in support of the IRWMP. The outcome of this initial assessment is intended to help understand the potential impacts, to integrate climate change into long-term planning, and to improve understanding of the uncertainties associated with climate change effects. The vulnerability analysis considers projections for mid-21st century (2050); consistent with available modeling approaches to climate change. Projections through the end of the 21st century are included for perspective only. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-9 Climate Change Table 16-3: Summary of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Water Demand Urban and Agricultural Water Demand – Changes to hydrology in the Region as a result of climate change could lead to changes in total water demand and use patterns will change, both in quantities and patterns. Increased irrigation (outdoor landscape or agricultural) is anticipated to occur with temperature rise, increased evaporative losses due to warmer temperature, and a longer growing season. Water treatment and distribution systems are most vulnerable to increases in maximum day demand. Water Supply Imported Water – Imported water derived from the Sierra Nevada sources and Delta diversions provide 66% of the water resources available to the Region. Potential impacts on the availability of these sources resulting from climate change directly affect the amount of imported water supply delivered to the Region. Regional Surface Water - Although future projections suggest that small changes in total annual precipitation over the Region will not change much, there may be changes in timing with reductions in the spring and more intense rainfall in the winter. Regional Groundwater – Changes in local hydrology could affect natural recharge to the local groundwater aquifers and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped sustainably over the long-term in some areas. Decreased inflow from more flashy or more intense runoff, increased evaporative losses and warmer and shorter winter seasons can alter natural recharge of groundwater. Salinity intrusion into coastal groundwater aquifers due to sea-level rise could interfere with local groundwater uses. Furthermore, additional reductions in imported water supplies would lead to less imported water available for managed recharge of local groundwater basins and potentially more groundwater pumping in lieu of imported water availability. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-10 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Water Quality Imported Water – For sources derived from the Delta, sea-level rise could result in increases in chloride and bromide (a disinfection by-product (DBP) precursor that is also a component of sea water), potentially requiring changes in treatment for drinking water. Increased temperature could result in an increase in algal blooms, taste and odor events, and a general increase in DBP formation Regional Surface Water – Increased temperature could result in lower dissolved oxygen in streams, and prolong thermocline stratification in lakes and reservoirs forming anoxic bottom conditions and algal blooms. Decrease in annual precipitation could result in higher concentrations of contaminants in streams during droughts or in association with flushing rain events. Increased wildfire risk and flashier or more intense storms could increase turbidity loads for water treatment. Regional Groundwater – sea-level rise could result in increases in chlorides and bromide for some coastal groundwater basins in the Region. Water quality changes in imported water used for recharge could also impact groundwater quality. Sea-Level Rise Sea-level rise is additive to tidal range, storm surges, stream flows, and wind waves, which together will increase the potential for higher total water levels, overtopping, and erosion. Much of the bay shoreline is comprised of low-lying diked baylands which are already vulnerable to flooding. In addition to rising mean sea level, continued subsidence due to tectonic activity will increase the rate of relative sea-level rise. As sea-level rise increases, both the frequency and consequences of coastal storm events, and the cost of damage to the built and natural environment, will increase. Existing coastal armoring (including levees, breakwaters, and other structures) is likely to be insufficient to protect against projected sea-level rise. Crest elevations of structures will have to be raised or structures relocated to reduce hazards from higher total water levels and larger waves. Flooding Climate change projections are not sensitive enough to assess localized flooding, but the general expectation is that more intense storms would occur thereby leading to more frequent, longer and deeper flooding. Changes to precipitation regimes may increase flooding. Elevated Bay elevations due to sea-level rise will increase backwater effects exacerbating the effect of fluvial floods and storm drain backwater flooding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-11 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas General Overview of Vulnerabilities Ecosystem and Habitat Changes in the seasonal patterns of temperature, precipitation, and fire due to climate change can dramatically alter ecosystems that provide habitats for California’s native species. These impacts can result in species loss, increased invasive species ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, and changes in vegetation growing ranges. Reduced rain and changes in the seasonal distribution of rainfall may alter timing of low flows in streams and rivers, which in turn would have consequences for aquatic ecosystems. Changes in rainfall patterns and air temperature may affect water temperatures, potentially affecting cold- water aquatic species. Bay Area ecosystems and habitat provide important ecosystem services, such as: carbon storage, enhanced water supply and quality, flood protection, food and fiber production. Climate change is expected to substantially change several of these services. The region provides substantial aquatic and habitat-related recreational opportunities, including: fishing, wildlife viewing, and wine industry tourism (a significant asset to the region) that may be at risk due to climate change effects. Hydropower Currently, several agencies in the Region produce or rely on hydropower produced outside of the Region for a portion of their power needs. As the hydropower is produced in the Sierra, there may be changes in the future in the timing and amount of energy produced due to changes in the timing and amount of runoff as a result of climate change. Some hydropower is also produced within the region and could also be affected by changes in the timing and amount of runoff. 16.3.3 Water Demand Increasing air temperature due to climate change will result in increased evaporation leading to drier soils, increased plant evapotranspiration (ET), and a longer growing season. All of these factors generally increase water demand. In addition, increased salinity due to sea-level rise, as well as increased temperature, could influence the quantity of water needed for industrial and power plant cooling (higher salinity deceases the cycles of concentration achieved in cooling towers) in some subregions. Temperature increases are expected to be higher in the dry months than in the wet months and higher in dry water years. Total water use can vary more than 50 percent seasonally, indicating a significant monthly and seasonal variation in water use with weather conditions. Historically, extreme warm temperatures in the Bay Area have occurred in July and August, but warming due to climate change may extend this period from June through September (Ekstrom and Moser 2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-12 Climate Change Figure 16-5 provides an example of projected increases in extreme temperature days in the East Bay for the B1 and A2 emission scenarios. This graph shows the number of days (n), from April to October, when the maximum temperature (tmax) exceeds the 98th percentile historical (1961–1990) level of 28oC (82.4oF) for the East Bay grid cell from four bias-corrected or constructed analogs downscaled GCMs. The brown carrots and red dots represent the B1 and A2 emission scenarios, respectively. The thick brown (B1) and red (A2) lines show the median value from the four simulations. Figure 16-5: Number of Days Max Temperature Exceeds the 98th Percentile (April – October) in the East Bay Source: From Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis 2012 CEC-500-2012-042) Discussions with the TAC indicated that maximum daily temperatures were more relevant to water demand than average monthly temperatures. A land use demand study by EBMUD (2009) used average temperatures with peaking factors to account for temperature extremes. Agricultural and outdoor landscape demands are likely to be affected by changing weather conditions. Higher temperature generally increases ET rates; but some research studies also suggest higher CO2 levels and higher temperature increase rates of plant growth, and can shorten the time to plant maturity (Hanak and Lund, 2008). This would reduce the overall plant water uptake, partially compensating for potential reductions in agricultural water supply. Thus, the net effect on agricultural crops is still uncertain (Kiparsky and Gleick, 2005) and remains an important area of on-going research. Qualitatively, the ET projections with climate change suggest water demand for agriculture in the Region is anticipated to increase during months where ET is high and decrease in months where ET is low. As a result of increased ET, urban water demand is anticipated to increase because of greater outdoor water use for landscape irrigation. B1 A2 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-13 Climate Change Several agencies have seen peak factors (e.g., maximum day to average day demand) steadily dropping for a decade, mostly from drops in residential outdoor water use caused by the economy, rainfall patterns, and conservation measures. In addition, the Bay Area Region has effective demand control measures and water conservation public information programs in effect, which help explain the decoupling of temperature and demand. This has resulted in an across the board drop in per capita and total water consumption in the Region. 16.3.3.1 Subregional Impacts Water demand varies throughout the Region due to a number of factors including the variety of water uses (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural), regional micro climates, variable population densities, and changes in industrial water use. In general, ambient temperatures increase at locations more distant from the coast. Historical water use in the Region has remained rather steady even though the population has increased. Although there is significant residential water use in the Region, there are areas where other uses are important. Water demand tends to be lower in areas close to the Bay that are cooler and have more rainfall than inland areas. In recent years, industries with heavy water demands have left the Region, resulting in a decrease in regional demand. Many of the demands are seasonal, with significantly higher demands occurring in the dry months compared with wet months. North Subregion. The North Subregion is the least urbanized and will be particularly vulnerable to increased demands from agriculture in west Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. There are significant agricultural demands in these counties, primarily for wineries and forage crops. Increased urban water demands will be impacted primarily by outside watering and landscaping during the dry season. East Subregion. The East Subregion includes significant residential demands in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. West of the Oakland Hills, the residential demands are primarily indoors while east of the Hills outdoor landscaping demands are significant in the dry season. In addition, there is the potential for increased water demands for heavy industrial cooling for refineries and power plants in Contra Costa County, and for agriculture demands in eastern Alameda County. South Subregion. The South Subregion includes Santa Clara County, which has become highly residential, with decreasing agricultural activity but increasing commercial demands. A warming climate could result in increased irrigation demand for most crops and overall outdoor water use in this subregion. West Subregion. The West Subregion includes San Mateo County, which has primarily suburban residential and commercial water demands with some agricultural activities in the southern part, and highly urbanized San Francisco County that includes predominantly residential, commercial, municipal, and some industrial uses. The subregion is primarily vulnerable to increases in outdoor landscaping demands in San Mateo County. 16.3.4 Water Supply Coping with interannual variability has always been a challenge for long-term water supply planning in the Bay Area, and climate change may intensify variability in coming decades. With 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-14 Climate Change potential additional changes imposed by climate change, there will be a heightened need to evaluate and respond to increased water supply variability. 16.3.4.1 Water Supply Portfolio of the Region In an average year, imported water delivery to the Region comprises about 66 percent of total existing water supplies projected through 2050 in the Region in normal/average years. The imported sources include 13 percent from the State Water Project (SWP), 15 percent from the Central Valley Project (CVP), 19 percent from the Tuolumne River, and 19 percent from the Mokelumne River. These imported sources derive from snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and are subject to climate variability outside the Bay Area Region. Local surface water and groundwater pumping from local aquifers and additional sources from groundwater banking activities make up the remaining major water sources used to meet the Region’s municipal and agricultural water demand. Recycled water is currently a small portion of water supply, but is projected to increase over time. 16.3.4.2 Vulnerability to Potential Climate Change Impacts Climate change is expected to affect Regional imported water supplies (66%) as follows:  Total precipitation is expected to decrease in the Sierra Nevada sources.  Snow pack projected to decrease from less storage in the mountains.  Precipitation projected to shift toward more rain and less snow.  Timing of runoff is expected to shift to earlier in the year, affecting reservoir storage and hydropower generation, especially in the spring and summer months.  Sea-level rise may impact Delta water deliveries. Climate change is expected to affect Regional surface and groundwater supplies (31%) as follows:  Total precipitation is not projected to change significantly, although there may be less precipitation in the spring.  Variability in annual precipitation is expected to continue, with vulnerability to droughts.  More intense storms anticipated that may affect surface water runoff and storage and groundwater recharge. Because the Region relies heavily on imported supplies, any reduction or change in the timing or availability of those supplies could have negative impacts on the Region. Reductions in imported water supplies would lead to increased reliance on local groundwater, recycled water, desalination, or other sources of supplies if demand was not reduced. Changes in local hydrology could affect surface storage of water and natural recharge to the local groundwater and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped in a sustainable manner. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-15 Climate Change DWR studies provide an example of how climate change may affect water deliveries from imported water supplies. Specifically, DWR developed projections of SWP exports by water year type (wet, above normal, average, below normal, dry, and critical for the period) that illustrate how water availability could be influenced by climate change (2009 and 2011 DWR Reliability Reports). Table 16-4 shows estimated SWP “Table A” deliveries (these are the contractual deliveries to SWP contractors) by water year type under future conditions with and without climate change. The estimated SWP 2050 exports in Table 16-4 reported by DWR are based on 82 years of hydrologic data (water years 1922 to 2003) averaged according to water year type. This representation shows how the average estimated SWP exports would vary by hydrologic year types with and without climate change projections. Overall, the future conditions with climate change forecast lower deliveries under all water year types, with the largest difference for dry years. Deliveries, under future conditions with and without climate change respectively, decrease by as little as 51 thousand acre-feet (TAF) (5%) during critical years to as much as 371 TAF (20%) during dry years. Table 16-4: Estimated SWP Exports By Water Year Type – Future Conditions With and Without Climate Change Water Year Type Future Conditions (2050) with Climate Change (TAF) Future Conditions (2050) without Climate Change (TAF) Difference, Future with and without Climate Change (TAF) (%) Wet 2,998 3,240 -242 -8 Above Normal 2,706 2,857 -152 -6 Below Normal 2,634 2,802 -168 -6 Dry 1,817 2,188 -371 -20 Critical 1,132 1,183 -51 -5 Average of all Water Years 2,363 2,574 -211 -9 Source: Estimated SWP exports are based on the 82 years of hydrologic data (water years 1922-2003) from Draft Technical Addendum to the State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2011, Table 12 SWP Table A Deliveries for Future Conditions. Hydrologic data were averaged according to water year types based on DWR’s Sacramento Valley water year index (http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/WSIHIST). Discussions with the TAC indicate that water agencies in the Bay Area rely on reservoirs for storing water to address annual variability in precipitation and droughts and to provide flood control. Addressing climate change is another factor that is being incorporated into reservoir management. There are other operational factors such as seismic conditions of dams and environmental releases that also influence reservoir operations. 16.3.4.3 Subregional Impacts North Subregion. The North Subregion relies on surface water from local watersheds, the Russian River, the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA, part of the SWP), and local groundwater. This subregion is the most dependent on local water sources for its supply and will be vulnerable to extended droughts and more intense rainfall events, which impact storage requirements. For example, Marin County is dependent on precipitation within its watersheds stored in local reservoirs and withdrawals from the Russian River supply by Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Some of the Russian River water is diverted to groundwater recharge and these operations are vulnerable to changes in the timing of runoff due to more intense storm events. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-16 Climate Change Agencies using imported NBA aqueduct water will be subject to reductions in SWP deliveries, especially in dry water years. East Subregion. This subregion relies primarily on water derived directly from the Delta (CCWD), imported SWP water through the South Bay Aqueduct (Zone 7 and ACWD), imported Mokelumne River and American River water (EBMUD), as well as local watershed runoff around storage reservoirs and some local groundwater. The surface water sources are vulnerable to climate change impacts outside the Region including reduction in the snowpack storage and changes in timing of the runoff from the Sierra Nevada watersheds, as well as potential contractual restrictions on water deliveries. The subregion is also particularly vulnerable to reduced water deliveries from the Delta that could result from sea-level rise (e.g., increased salinity) and/or from failure of Delta levees . This could trigger the need for additional water treatment (desalination) or for obtaining other supplies such as purchase of agricultural water (water transfers) and increased use of recycled water (Sicke et al. 2012). Interties between neighboring water agencies are not used at present to transfer water among Bay Area water agencies but several agencies are in the process of developing inter-agency agreements so that water can be shared among agencies using existing infrastructure in the near future. South Subregion. About 55 percent of Santa Clara County’s water supply is imported, with about 40 percent coming from sources conveyed through the Delta (CVP and SWP) and about 15 percent coming from SFPUC sources. Most of the remaining water supply is local surface water and natural groundwater recharge. Thus, the Subregion is particularly vulnerable to reductions in the snowpack in the Sierras, failure of Delta levees, and changes in the timing of runoff from the Sierra Nevada watershed. West Subregion. In this subregion the SFPUC receives 85 percent of its supply from water imported from the Tuolumne River, with the remainder from local storage reservoirs in Alameda and San Mateo counties. BAWSCA members in the West Subregion augment their SFPUC supplies with local groundwater, local surface water, and recycled water. The SFPUC system is vulnerable to climate change impacts outside the Region including reduction in the snowpack storage and changes in timing of the runoff from the Sierra Nevada watersheds. 16.3.5 Water Quality Improving water quality is a Plan objective that may be impacted by climate change. Studies of potential climate change impacts on water quality exist, but few trends in relationships between hydroclimate (hydrology and weather variables) have been quantified. Key climate vulnerabilities potentially important to the Region include: increasing temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea-level rise. Increased wildfire risk and expansion of invasive species are other potential factors that could affect water quality in the Region. Sea-level rise in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is expected to impact water quality of imported SWP and CVP water and may impact some tidal sources within the Region. Key water quality issues for the Region include (see Section 2.5):  Microbes  Total organic carbon (TOC), bromide, disinfection by-products (DBPs) 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-17 Climate Change  Total dissolved solids (TDS)  Nuisance algae  Toxic pollutants  Lead  Urban runoff  Trash control  Grazing and agriculture Surface waters in the Region are expected to be more directly vulnerable to water quality impacts of climate change, while water quality impacts to groundwater sources would be indirect. Key surface water sources include imported and local water stored in local reservoirs and flowing water in several rivers and their tributaries. 16.3.5.1 Imported Water Imported water used in the Region include snowmelt delivered from Sierra Nevada watersheds by pipeline aqueducts (Mokelumne and Tuolumne watersheds), SWP (SBA and NBA), and CVP (San Luis Reservoir and CCWD intakes). SWP and CVP water is vulnerable to potential effects of climate change at the source in the Delta and in storage in Regional reservoirs. Sea-level rise will increase the intrusion of salinity into the Delta and its exported water. This will increase chloride and bromide (a DBP precursor that is also a component of sea water) concentrations in the SWP and CVP imported water. In addition, decreased freshwater flows into the Delta could increase the concentration of organic matter, which contribute to potentially higher DBP formation concentrations, in the SWP and CVP water. Imported water stored in Regional reservoirs will also be vulnerable to climate change. A prior study of potential climate change impacts on the water quality of Lake Cachuma near Santa Barbara found that water quality parameters related to rainfall runoff (turbidity and apparent color) during the wet season, winter, and/or spring could be evaluated by looking at total precipitation. Water quality parameters related to taste and odor (increasing water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), threshold odor number (TON), pH, and percent DO saturation) during the dry season, spring, and summer could be evaluated by looking at air temperature parameters and/or evaporation (Drago and Brekke 2005). Extreme storm events, although rare, may be more intense due to climate change and may present treatment challenges for source water because of increased turbidity. In the past, high turbidity events in reservoirs have required modification of the treatment processes (primarily additional chemical usage) for extended periods. In addition, an intense winter rainfall event after a wildfire in a watershed that burned the prior year can result in extremely high turbidities (peak over 80 NTU) and fine organic matter in the lake water. Although most treatment plants in the region are able to treat these waters, the additional sludge production can overwhelm the solids handling equipment and require plants to be shut down or reduce their capacities for brief periods of time, or make capital investment to enlarge solids handling facilities. This combination of more intense rainfall events and increased wildfire risk is more likely under projected climate change conditions. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-18 Climate Change The warmer temperatures could also lead to increased taste and odor events triggered by algal blooms; which are characterized by water quality changes during the spring and summer such as increases in DO and DO saturation, pH, fluorescence, and TON. Many of the surface water treatment plants in the Region are designed to address taste and odor events through pre- ozonation. Although use of higher ozone dosages to control taste and odor events must also consider the need to control bromate formation (from the oxidation of bromide), which could increase due to greater bromide levels in the imported SWP and CVP water affected by climate change. 16.3.5.2 Regional Surface Waters There are several Regional surface water supplies. Water quality impacts to surface waters due to climate change include increased temperature, more frequent heavy rainfall events, and longer periods of low natural stream flow due to decreased annual precipitation. A prior study of 43 rivers found that surface water temperatures increased 0.4 to 0.6F for each 1F rise in air temperature (Morrill, Bales, and Conklin 2005). Increased water temperature generally reduces dissolved oxygen and can promote algal blooms if nutrients are available in the source. The storm events can transport sediments and other pollutants along the river, while long periods of low flow can increase concentrations of pollutants from wastewater plant and non-point discharges. Increased wildfires that contribute to high erosion rates in subsequent storms may also contribute to the turbidity events. Extreme storms and flooding may exacerbate water quality problems because urban and agricultural runoff and trash may collect in streams. 16.3.5.3 Regional Groundwater Any water quality impacts to groundwater sources due to climate change are expected to be indirect, and primarily due to decreased natural recharge from lower precipitation and increased use of groundwater to make up loss of imported water. Decreased recharge and increased groundwater pumping may allow concentrations of groundwater contaminants such as perchlorate and volatile organic compounds to increase, in some areas of Santa Clara County, which may trigger additional treatment requirements and increase groundwater treatment costs. In addition, groundwater quality could be affected as a result of managed recharge with imported and local surface water supplies that have been impacted by climate change. 16.3.5.4 Subregional Impacts Most of the water quality impacts discussed above will apply across all four subregions. However, there are some impacts that will be more important in individual subregions that are discussed below. North Subregion. This subregion is heavily dependent on local water sources. Water quality will be impacted by more frequent intense storms, which can result in high turbidity that can result in water treatment plant operational challenges and in sediment transport issues in surface streams. Water stored in subregional reservoirs is vulnerable to increased taste and odor events in dry seasons due to increased temperature. Agencies depending on the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) water may also experience increased issues with DBPs because of increased TOC in the source water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-19 Climate Change East Subregion. This subregion contains sources that draw directly from the Delta and will be vulnerable to increased salinity as well as increased turbidity events and DBP issues. The imported EBMUD surface water sources would not be subject to the salinity increases, but are vulnerable to high turbidity events and DBP issues. Extended drought periods could increase the use of local groundwater, some of which has higher TDS than surface water and sources near the Bay in Alameda County could be influenced by future sea-level rise. Water stored in subregional reservoirs is vulnerable to increased taste and odor events due to increased temperature. South Subregion. This subregion relies heavily on water sources that are conveyed through the Delta and are potentially vulnerable to increased salinity, DBP precursors, and turbidity. Water stored in Subregional reservoirs is vulnerable to increased algae blooms and turbidity. Changes in surface water quality can result in water treatment plant operational challenges and in sediment transport issues in surface streams. The subregion also relies on groundwater that is recharged with imported and local surface water that could be of lower quality due to climate change. West Subregion. This subregion depends heavily on imported water provided through the SFPUC Hetch-Hetchy system. This system is an unfiltered water supply and could be vulnerable to increased turbidity resulting from changes in the timing of runoff and from more frequent intense storms and to other water quality issues due to higher temperatures (e.g., increased occurrence of microbial or nitrification issues in the SFPUC distribution systems). Extended drought periods may lead to increased groundwater use, which may lead to changes in aesthetic water quality (e.g., taste and odors, hardness, staining). Use of local surface water in San Mateo County during high turbidity events can result in water treatment plant operational challenges and in sediment transport issues in surface streams. Water stored in subregional reservoirs is vulnerable increased taste and odor events in dry seasons due to increased temperature. 16.3.6 Sea-Level Rise 16.3.6.1 Impacts Sea-level rise will increase tidal water surface elevation throughout the San Francisco Bay. High tides maxima will become higher, so the extent of the Bay that is regularly inundated will increase. At the same time, the low tide elevation will also increase, resulting in an upward shift of the tidal frame so that some areas that do not now experience daily tidal inundation will in the future. Changes in the water surface elevation will also increase the depth and frequency of inundation of areas already subjected to tidal inundation, and will cause some areas to become permanently subtidal. Higher-mean water levels in the Bay may result in higher waves at the shoreline during storms if tidal marshes and flats do not keep up with sea level rise. When these higher waves reach a levee they will run up the face of the levee further and may overtop the crest, allowing water to wash over into the protected area behind the levee. The still water level is also increased by wave setup due to the transfer of wave momentum to the surf zone as waves break. At the same time these breaking waves bring more energy to the shore; and they can stir up the sediment increasing erosion of the mudflats, erosion of marsh edges and damage to structures. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-20 Climate Change In addition to wave setup increasing the still water level, low barometric pressure associated with storms will further increase water surface elevations; the combination of these effects being generally referred to as a storm surge. In addition to these storm surges, there will also be elevated water levels associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) events. The additive effect of storm surge and ENSO/PDO events can be clearly seen in the historic tide gauge record from the Presidio in Figure 16-6, and such variability will continue to be seen into the future. Figure 16-6: Monthly Mean Sea Level at the Presidio Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Levels Online, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 There are significant potential impacts from increases in the mean and extreme water levels. Flood risk management, wastewater discharge or stormwater conveyance structures, are generally designed for specific total water levels that have included substantially lower estimates of future sea level rise. Buildings and other infrastructure built behind levees assume that flooding will occur irregularly, if at all, and so may not be flood-proofed. They also may be sensitive to salt, and suffer from damaging corrosion if exposed to Bay waters. Structures that are not adequately protected, elevated, flood-proofed, or made corrosion resistant may be destroyed or damaged by the impacts of sea level rise. This will impact Bay Area communities due to loss of performance, need for clean up after flooding events, and increased operation and maintenance costs. Specific Bay Area infrastructure impacted is discussed in Heberger, et al. (2012), and will include both private assets and critical public infrastructure and also critical facilities such as water treatment plants, energy production and transmission facilities, public transit, hospitals, and schools. These are discussed in more detail in the vulnerability section below. Low lying neighborhoods will be heavily impacted in the Bay Area; and low income communities in those areas will bear a relatively higher financial burden when having to reinforce structures, relocate, or pay additional costs related to flooding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-21 Climate Change There will be significant impacts on Bay habitats due to sea-level rise. Tidal wetland habitats that cannot accrete rapidly enough or migrate inland may convert from marsh to mudflats. Important ecosystem services such as wave attenuation, fish and wildlife habitat, and flood protection benefits may be lost, requiring the strengthening of hard defenses at significant cost. In addition, the loss of trails, marshes, vistas and shoreline recreation areas may impact public access to the shoreline over time. Higher Bay water levels may also lead to saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater aquifers, and the mobilization of pollutants from landfills and contaminated sites adjacent to the Bay. Higher groundwater elevations could lead to decreased seismic stability and impacts on below- grade infrastructure such as transit tunnels, cables and pipelines depending on the aquifer depths. Historic abandoned groundwater wells can act as vertical conduits for saltwater contamination into groundwater if inundated by sea-level rise. Changes in the Bay are expected to lead to a deeper, warmer, more stratified Bay that may have significant impacts on the water column, bay water quality, and bayshore habitats. Responding to these impacts will place greater demands on agencies. There will be a greater need to plan for, and to manage, infrastructure and resources, building codes and land use zoning will have to be updated, and governance structures involving multiple jurisdictions will have to be established to plan and finance adaptation strategies to be implemented at local, regional, and statewide scales. 16.3.6.2 Vulnerability Heberger, et al. (2012), estimated that the population vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood will increase from about 145,000 today to about 175,000 by 2050, to about 225,000 by 2080 and to about 280,000 by 2100. This includes both population along the Pacific Coast, of which the vulnerable population will increase by 30 percent by 2100, and population along the Bay, of which the vulnerable population will double. Tables 16-5 and 16-6 show this increase of vulnerable population by county for coastal flooding along the Pacific Coast and along the San Francisco Bay, respectively. Table 16-5: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with 55 inch Sea-Level Rise Marin 530 630 San Francisco 4,800 6,500 San Mateo 4,700 5,900 Sonoma 580 700 Regional Total 10,610 13,730 Source: Heberger, et al. 2009, Table 8; No estimates were made for 2050. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-22 Climate Change Table 16-6: Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea- Level Rise 2050 2080 2100 Alameda 12,000 22,000 43,000 66,000 Contra Costa 840 1,600 3,400 5,800 Marin 25,000 29,000 34,000 39,000 Napa 760 830 970 1,500 San Francisco 190 600 1,600 3,800 San Mateo 80,000 88,000 99,000 110,000 Santa Clara 13,000 17,000 24,000 31,000 Solano 3,700 5,500 8,800 12,000 Sonoma 250 300 420 540 Total 135,740 164,830 215,190 269,640 Source: Heberger, et al. 2012, Table 3. Heberger et al. (2012) also noted the vulnerability of wastewater treatment and power generation much of whose infrastructure are located at the toe of watersheds, in low lying lands close to the Bay. There are 10 wastewater treatment plants representing almost 350 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as 11 power plants representing about 1,700 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood by 2100 (see Figure 16-7).47 This vulnerable 1,700 MW accounts for 18 percent of all installed electricity generation capacity region-wide (CEC, 2012a). Threats to the electrical grid increase the vulnerability of water and wastewater treatment plants and other types of water infrastructure that require electrical power to function. Many facilities have backup or emergency power supplies on-site that could be vulnerable to inundation by sea-level rise-induced flooding and to damage from storm surges. The Heberger et al. report (2012) estimates that the combined replacement value of buildings and their contents at risk from flooding along the Pacific coast and San Francisco Bay shoreline by 2050 in the nine Bay Area counties is about $36 billion compared to the current value of at- risk assets of $29 billion. Of this $36 billion, $18 billion is in San Mateo County alone. Alameda, Marin and Santa Clara Counties all have replacement values at risk of about $5 billion. 16.3.6.3 Subregional Impacts North Subregion. The North Subregion will experience effects along both the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay. As shown in Table 16-7, a sea-level rise of by 2050 will increase the population vulnerable to a 100-year flood by 5400 people region-wide, with the greatest at-risk population in Marin County, and the greatest percentage increase in Solano County. 47 The Hunters Point Power Plant, shown in Figure 16-7, closed in 2006 and is not considered in the analysis by Heberger et al. (2012). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-23 Climate Change Table 16-7: North Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea- Level Rise 2050 Marin 25,530 29,000 Napa 760 830 Sonoma 830 880 Solano 3,700 5,500 Subregional Total 30,820 36,210 Also in the North Subregion, there are six wastewater treatment plants representing 31 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as two power plants representing just 3.15 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7 below). The vulnerable power plants account for less than 0.2 percent of all capacity in the North Subregion (California Energy Commission, 2012a). Other vulnerable infrastructure may include one or more substations along the San Francisco Bay shore, such as the Sausalito Substation (CEC, 2012b). East Subregion. The counties of the Eastern Subregion have no coastal shoreline, only the Bay water elevation poses a risk to near-shore populations, as summarized in Table 16-8. In both counties, the increase in vulnerable population due to sea-level rise is four to five times the population currently at risk. Table 16-8: East Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood Along the San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea-Level Rise Alameda 12,000 66,000 Contra Costa 840 5,800 Subregional Total 12,840 71,800 The East Subregion has six wastewater treatment plants representing 118 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as five power plants representing 1615 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7). The vulnerable power plants account for over 80 percent of the vulnerable power plant capacity region-wide, and 27 percent of all capacity in the East Subregion (CEC, 2012a). PG&E and other owners have numerous electrical substations in the Pittsburg, Martinez, Hayward, and Newark areas that could be at risk of flooding with 55-inch sea-level rise and could introduce vulnerability to the local transmission grid (CEC, 2012b). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-24 Climate Change South Subregion. The South Subregion consists of Santa Clara County alone, which has no coastal shoreline. As shown in Table 16-6 above, the increase in population vulnerable to a 100-year flood along the San Francisco Bay would be 4000 people by 2050. The South Subregion has three wastewater treatment plants representing 155 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as three power plants representing 60 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7). The vulnerable power plants account for just 5 percent of all capacity in the South Subregion, though the wastewater treatment plants account for 100 percent of the subregion’s wastewater treatment capacity. Some, but not many electrical substations in South Region could be at risk of flooding with 55-inch sea-level rise and could introduce vulnerability to the local transmission grid (CEC, 2012b). West Subregion. As shown in Table 16-9, San Mateo County has the largest population in the Region vulnerable to flooding along the Bay shore, both currently and under each sea-level rise scenario shown, and will experience a 10 percent increase in vulnerable population by 2050. Table 16-9: West Subregion Population Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay County Population Currently at Risk Population at Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 San Mateo 84,700 92,700 San Francisco 4,990 5,400 Subregional Total 89,690 98,100 The West Subregion has six wastewater treatment plants representing 58 MGD of treatment capacity, as well as one power plant representing 31 MW of generation capacity, that would be vulnerable to a 100-year coastal flood under the 55-inch sea-level rise scenario (see Figure 16-7). The single vulnerable power plant accounts for half of all electricity generation capacity in the West Subregion (CEC 2012). Several electrical substations in Millbrae, Foster City, Redwood Shores, and the Ravenswood areas may currently be at risk of flooding and would see greater risk with 55-inch sea-level rise that could introduce vulnerability to the local transmission grid (CEC, 2012b). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-25 Climate Change Figure 16-7: Wastewater Treatment Plants and Power Plants on the San Francisco Bay Vulnerable to a 100-Year Flood by 2050 Source: Heberger et al. (2012) (Chart modified). Note: The Hunters Point Power Plant closed permanently in 2006. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District plant which has an outfall near Martinez and has a capacity of 54 MGD, and the.16.5 MGD Delta Diablo Sanitation District plant in Antioch but is in the process of expanding to 22 MGD, are not included in Figure 16-7. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-26 Climate Change Figure 16-8: Electrical Transmission and Transmission Infrastructure in the San Francisco Bay Area Source: Sathaye et al, 2012. Additional coastal and shoreline infrastructure that would be vulnerable to a 100-year flood with sea-level rise include major transportation corridors, schools, healthcare facilities, fire stations and training facilities, and police stations. Several of these facilities are currently at risk from a 100-year flood, but their numbers are expected to double by 2050 (Heberger, et al. 2012, Tables 8 and 9). Table 16-10 lists the highway, road, and railway miles by county that are vulnerable to coastal flooding currently and in 2050. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-27 Climate Change Table 16-10: Miles of Roads and Railways Vulnerable To a 100-Year Flood Along the Pacific and San Francisco Bay Coasts - 2050 County Highways (miles) Roads (miles) Railways (miles) Current Risk Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 Current Risk Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 Current Risk Risk with Sea-Level Rise 2050 Alameda 1.1 4.8 76 160 9.1 17 Contra Costa 2.4 2.7 20 42 10 17 Marin 16 20 110 150 12 15 Napa 0.7 0.7 7.0 9.0 6.0 7.0 San Francisco 0.3 0.6 3.4 11 0.26 0.56 San Mateo 27 49 300 360 3.7 5.2 Santa Clara 9.4 12 110 150 5.9 7.2 Solano 5.7 14 53 78 9.3 12 Sonoma 11 12 53 57 11 14 Regional Total 72 120 810 1,000 68 94 Source: Heberger, et al. 2012, Table 8 and 9. Also at risk are sites containing hazardous materials, which if flooded could result in the release of hazardous materials from the site. The report found 94 such sites in Bay Area counties that are currently at risk from a 100-year flood; an additional 47 sites throughout the region would become vulnerable by 2050. Most of these sites are located in San Mateo County (Heberger, et al. 2012, Table 7). Heberger, et al. (2009) estimated the capital costs of coastal armoring to protect against coastal flooding by 2100 to be approximately $5.27 billion (in year 2000 dollars) throughout the region. Table 16-11 shows the estimated lengths of armoring types needed and cost by county. Table 16-11: Estimated Length and Capital Cost of Coastal Armoring in Bay Area Counties County Raised Levee (miles) New Levee (miles) New Sea Wall (miles) Total (miles) Capital Cost ($million, 2000 dollars) Operation and Maintenance Costs ($million/yr, 2000 dollars) Alameda 45 49 16 110 950 95 Contra Costa 26 29 8 63 520 52 Marin 43 77 7.7 130 930 93 Napa 2.8 62 0 64 490 49 San Francisco 0 10 21 31 680 68 San Mateo 35 29 9.2 73 580 58 Santa Clara 47 4.0 0 51 160 16 Solano 2.7 63 8 73 720 72 Sonoma 30 15 1.3 47 240 24 Regional Total 231.5 338 71.2 642 5,270 527 Source: Heberger, et al. 2009, Table 23. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-28 Climate Change 16.3.7 Flooding Flooding can be an extremely costly and destructive natural disaster; the California’s Flood Future Highlights identifies structures valued at $130 billion that are located within a 500-year floodplain in the Bay Area. Additionally, over one million Bay Area residents live within a 500- year floodplain, and these numbers are likely to increase due to expected growth in population and development in the Region (DWR, 2012b). Thus, a change in flood risk is a potential significant effect of climate change that could have great implications for the Region. Flood risks along creeks from storm events may increase due to the more frequent extreme high sea level events leading to backwater effects along flood-prone areas. During extreme water level events the head of tide will move further inland up the creeks and, during storm events, the higher tidal levels will reduce flow capacity in the creeks and increase the risk of flooding. The gravity systems that drain stormwater from urban areas will also become less effective as bay water levels rise. Stormwater discharges and pipes may allow backflow and serve as conduits for flood water. Flap gates that prevent the back flow of flood waters will remain closed for longer, resulting in ponding of water in local drainage systems. The potential impacts are great if flood conveyance channels and storm drains are overwhelmed, as this which will lead to the increased of flooding in low-lying areas. In addition, the duration of flooding events is likely to increase as extreme Bay water levels increase and if precipitation and storm surge events become more intense. More intense storms would produce higher peak flows in urbanized areas, resulting in increased in-channel erosion as sediment is scoured and vegetation washed out. Increased frequency of landslides and sediment erosion into flood control channels and creeks may be expected. The projections of increased wildfire during the extended dry periods may also increase erosion potential that further reduces channel capacity. Increased storm intensity may also increase landslides and sediment transport into creeks. The increased bay elevations and reduction in capacity of flood channels suggest that pumping and dredging costs to maintain flow conveyance will increase. New pumping systems may have to be installed to drain areas that previously relied on gravity. In addition, existing pumps may have to be run for longer periods. As the head of the tide moves up the creeks piping and pumping systems will be exposed to more saline water which requires different standards of materials. Damage from flooding is expected to increase in the same way as described in the section above on sea-level rise. DWR found that region-wide, 119 flood management projects are proposed, but not completed, and many may not currently have a funding source (DWR, 2012b). Of these, many are necessary to maintain the functionality of existing flood control systems, and may not be sufficient, even if built, to protect against increased flood risk due to climate change. More frequent flooding may disrupt key services and facilities, and could impact areas beyond the immediate flood zone such as would be caused by contamination from sewage distribution and treatment systems which may adversely affect human health in different areas. More frequent flooding would have economic impacts from lost wages and lower productivity in the aftermath of floods. In the longer term there would be more losses, claims and higher insurance rates due to greater risks. Deeper and longer duration flooding would increase the cost of repair after flood event and disrupt access to goods and services for longer. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-29 Climate Change It would also increase shoreline erosion, damage to flood risk management levees, and increase the risk of releasing legacy contaminants. The combination of increased flood flows and higher water levels will result in raising levees and flood walls in many places. This may increase the risk to communities and infrastructure as they become lower relative to the crest of the flood protection structure. If the structure does fail then the depth of water, and the consequent damage, may be greater. Changes may also be made higher up in the watershed to alleviate some of the combined flooding issues that may occur more frequently. For instance, flood-plain restoration and reconnection, off-line detention higher up in the system and the increased use of pumping may alleviate some of these issues, all approaches which will require increased coordination between different jurisdictions. In some ways, risk of flood from climate change could be more problematic than for water supply. Water supply issues usually arise over a period of months to years, allowing time to respond to changes. In contrast, while large floods are relatively rare, they are swift and devastating if preparations are insufficient. There is no window to prepare for a flood once the flood waters arrive; floods must be addressed through advance preparation and quick response in the course of an event. Greater flood risk should be considered when evaluating new development in the floodplain. 16.3.8 Ecological Health and Habitat The Bay Area is a biodiversity hotspot of national significance, serves as a major stop over on the pacific flyway, and sustains some of the state’s most important fisheries; ecosystem health and habitat protection are key to the Region’s economy and quality of life. Increased temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, shifts in species distributions, and increased wildfire risk projected for potential climate change scenarios are potential stressors to ecosystems and habitat in the Region. 16.3.8.1 Bay Area Ecosystem Assets Bay Area water resources include freshwater streams, tidelands, marshlands, and rivers, providing diverse habitat types including riparian, lacustrine, and wetland habitats. There are approximately 400 square miles of coastal wetlands in the region (Heberger, et al. 2009, see Figure 26). Terrestrial habitat types generally consist of coniferous forests, oak woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. The Bay Area is home to over 25 major native vegetation types, 3,000 native plant taxa, and 50 locally unique species (Ackerly et al. 2012). San Francisco Bay Area Region Description (Table 2-2 in Section 2), lists threatened and endangered species in the Bay Area. Of these, 279 species occur within a 500-year floodplain within the Region. Ackerly et al. (2012) describes the 32 Critical Coastal Areas (CCAs) and lists the nine Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Bay Area (Tables 2-3, 2-4). Additionally, the Bay and its Delta connections form a part of one of the Endangered Species Coalitions’ “Top 10 Places to Save for Endangered Species in a Warming World” (2011). 16.3.8.2 Recent Studies and Findings Ackerly et al. (2012) summarizes existing research on the relationship between climate and biodiversity and how changes in climate historically have and will in the future impact habitat. In terrestrial systems, the impacts of rising temperature and changing precipitation patterns have 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-30 Climate Change the largest effect and that in estuarine and intertidal areas, sea-level rise results in the most important direct impact. These habitats may be affected directly by habitat loss through erosion, or indirectly via human responses such as coastal armoring (e.g., construction of sea walls) and other infrastructural changes. Bay Area habitat are highly specific to climate gradients and the biodiversity of the region will be highly susceptible to climate change because shifts in climate could make existing habitats unsuitable for native species and restrict the possibility of re-establishment elsewhere (Ackerly et al. 2012). In addition, existing urban development and habitat fragmentation are constraints to species’ ability to move (The Conservation Lands Network, 2011). Cornwell et al. (2012) modeled climate change impacts on vegetation in the Bay Area and found that change is likely to occur in “small patches” throughout the region, dominated by a change from forest to shrub vegetation types. The model results showed that over 50% of the forecast transitions in vegetation type that will require about half a mile of movement for the newly establishing vegetation, because transitions will favor vegetation types that are already established nearby. Areas populated by vegetation communities that are stabilized by positive feedback mechanisms (such as redwoods collecting fog and depositing moisture onto the soils below) could transition rapidly to different habitat types if these mechanisms are disrupted by changes in climate, and re-establishment would be difficult because in the absence of this feedback, soil moisture and other necessary conditions could change significantly (Cornwell et al. 2012). Vegetation habitat in open space watersheds provides ecosystem services by improving the watershed’s ability to store and filter runoff. Changes in watershed habitat could reduce this ability, creating the need for greater manmade storage, groundwater recharge, and treatment options to achieve conditions similar to what currently exists. Climate change-related effects on the quantity, timing, duration, and frequency of precipitation events and freshwater flows will affect species’ ranges. Changes in freshwater flows will restrict riverine habitat, both in flow volumes and water temperatures, potentially making the passage of fish from the Pacific to up-river spawning grounds more difficult. Increases in temperature due to climate change are likely to reduce soil moisture levels due to increased evapotranspiration, resulting in shifting vegetation types. Tidal marshes provide numerous important services, including: flood control, water filtration, air cooling effects, carbon sequestration, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. Later century sea- level rise is expected to inundate some tidal marshes more quickly than they can re-establish, or where coastal infrastructure may prevent the movement of marshes, except perhaps in those areas with higher suspended sediment concentrations. These projected habitat changes to a more dynamic landscape may well create tensions with the historic static view of the landscape that has formed a lot of thinking up to now. For example, maintaining artificial habitats that formed around water infrastructure may hinder natural habitat formation and maintenance. Changes to habitat provided by mitigation lands and the need to fulfill ongoing mitigation obligations will create future challenges for regulatory agencies. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-31 Climate Change 16.3.9 Hydropower Several water agencies in the Region produce or receive power produced in high elevation hydropower plants in the Sierra Nevada range and locally. In general, the reservoirs associated with projects are relatively small and have little operational flexibility and are thus vulnerable to reduced snowpack and timing of runoff. This is expected to result in reduced hydropower production, especially in the summer months when peak electric power demands occur (Guegan, Madani and Uvo, 2012). This vulnerability was discussed with climate change TAC participants who indicated that projected hydropower reductions represented less than 10 percent of their electric power revenues, and that while lost revenues from hydropower generation would need to be offset; they believed that adequate electric power resources would be available. DWR’s climate change modeling analysis indicates increased temperature, decreased water availability with reduced Sierra Nevada snowpack, early snow melt, and a rise in sea level (DWR 2012a). 16.4 Vulnerability Prioritization This section discusses a list of prioritized vulnerability areas based on the vulnerability assessment presented in the earlier subsections. The main categories follow the climate change vulnerability checklist assessment as defined in the Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. The watershed vulnerability assessment identifies the vulnerability areas for each sector most vulnerable to potential climate change projections. These sector vulnerabilities were discussed with the Climate Change TAC to help develop adaptive strategies that respond to potential climate change impacts. Based on a survey of the TAC members, the prioritization of vulnerability areas is as follows: 1. Sea-Level Rise 2. Flooding 3. Water Supply and Hydropower 4. Water Quality 5. Ecosystem and Habitat 6. Water Demand Table 16-12: Climate Change Vulnerability Prioritization Vulnerability Area High Medium Low Total Score Sea-Level Rise 11 2 0 37 Flooding 8 5 0 34 Water Supply & Hydropower 5 7 1 30 Water Quality 5 4 4 27 Ecosystem & Habitat 3 6 4 25 Water Demand 0 10 3 23 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-32 Climate Change Table 16-12 summarizes the climate change vulnerability area rankings based on the results of the vulnerability area TAC survey. Each first place vote was multiplied by 3, each second place vote multiplied by 2, and each third place vote was multiplied by one to derive the Total Score. The vulnerability assessment and prioritization was conducted based on data currently available and inputs from the TAC involved in the preparation of this study for the Region. This assessment can be improved in the future with further data gathering and analyzing of the prioritized vulnerabilities. The vulnerability prioritization is intended to identify the high priority vulnerability areas (sea- level rise and flooding), medium priority areas (water supply & hydropower), and low priority areas (water quality, ecosystem & habitat, and water demand). The prioritization is used to order the following discussion about adaptation strategies. 16.5 Addressing Prioritized Climate Change Vulnerabilities There are two main strategies to deal with climate change – mitigation strategies and adaptation strategies. Mitigation strategies combat climate change by directly reducing GHG emissions or minimize increases in GHG emissions; while adaptation strategies generally refer to efforts that deal with the impacts of climate change. The Bay Area Region and the Coordinating Committee have several ways in which the prioritized climate change vulnerabilities discussed above can be addressed, including statewide mitigation and adaptation strategies, resource management strategies (RMS), and regional adaptation strategies. Each of these options, including how they can address the prioritized climate change vulnerabilities, are discussed in more detail below. 16.5.1 Statewide Mitigation Strategies Typically mitigation or GHG reductions measures are accomplished by implementing specific energy efficiency programs or projects, developing renewable energy projects, implementing waste-to- energy projects at wastewater treatment plants, promoting carbon sequestration, and conducting water efficiency and demand reduction programs. All of these measures either directly create carbon-free energy or reduce the need for generation of electricity from fossil fuel-fired electric plants. The AB 32 Scoping Plan (2008) contains the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change. The scoping plan has a range of GHG reduction actions that include: direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-33 Climate Change Section 17 of the Scoping Plan discusses the mitigation measures or strategies for the Water sector. The table below shows the five areas from which specific GHG reduction measures will be identified and implemented. Table 16-13: AB 32 Scoping Plan Water Sector Mitigation Measures Measure Description GHG Reduction by 2020 (MMTCO2) Water Use Efficiency 1.4 Water Recycling 0.3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9 Total GHG Reductions 4.8 Energy and GHG Master Plans by individual water and wastewater agencies are a good way of identifying a specific portfolio of projects that reduce energy use and GHG emissions, while lowering the agencies operating cost. 16.5.2 Statewide Adaptation Strategies for the Water Sector The goal of adaptation is to minimize risks associated with anticipated impacts and take advantage of beneficial opportunities that may arise from climate change. Adaptation strategies are developed in conjunction with GHG mitigation strategies, which may overlap. For example, promoting water and energy efficiency are both GHG mitigation and climate change adaptation strategies. Adaptation strategies discussed in this section provide the Region with guidance related to projects that will enhance the Region’s preparedness to plan and react to these potential impacts. In 2009, California adopted a statewide Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS) that summarizes climate change impacts and recommends adaptation strategies across seven sectors: Public Health, Biodiversity and Habitat, Oceans and Coastal Resources, Water, Agriculture, Forestry, and Transportation and Energy. The 2009 CAS was the first of its kind in the usage of downscaled climate models to more accurately assess statewide climate impacts as a basis for providing guidance for establishing actions that prepare, prevent, and respond to the effects of climate change. http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/docs/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf Specific adaptive water management strategies for the water sector were developed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR is addressing climate change impacts through mitigation and adaptation measures to ensure that Californians have an adequate water supply, reliable flood control, and healthy ecosystems now and in the future. In 2008 DWR adopted the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-34 Climate Change DWR developed the following 10 statewide adaptation strategies for the Water Management Sector: Strategy 1: Provide sustainable funding for statewide and integrated regional water management Strategy 2: Fully develop the potential of integrated regional water management Strategy 3: Aggressively increase water use efficiency Strategy 4: Practice and promote integrated flood management Strategy 5: Enhance and sustain ecosystems Strategy 6: Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources Strategy 7: Fix Delta water supply, quality, and ecosystem conditions Strategy 8: Preserve, upgrade and increase monitoring, data analysis and management Strategy 9: Plan for, and adapt to, sea-level rise Strategy 10: Identify and fund focused climate change impacts and adaptation research and analysis These statewide strategies provide guidance specifically aimed at addressing the impacts of climate change. Some of DWR’s strategies can be directly applied to Regional Management Strategies, while others are supportive of Regional efforts that are discussed in the following section. 16.5.3 Resource Management Strategies Discussed in detail in Chapter 4, resource management strategies (RMS) are projects, programs, or policies that help local agencies manage their water and related resources. Implementing RMS is one way that the Region can address priority climate change vulnerabilities. The RMS relevant to the Region can help address these regional climate change vulnerabilities as indicated in Table 16-14. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-35 Climate Change Table 16-14: Addressing Regional Climate Change Vulnerabilities with Resource Management Strategies Resource Management Strategies Bay Area IRWM Region Climate Change Vulnerabilities Sea Level Rise Flooding Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem & Habitat Water Demand Hydropower Reduce Water Demand Agricultural Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Water Use Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Improve Operational Efficiencies and Transfers Conveyance – Delta ✓ ✓ ✓ Conveyance – Regional/Local ✓ ✓ ✓ System Reoperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Transfers ✓ Imported Water ✓ Infrastructure Reliability ✓ ✓ ✓ Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Desalination ✓ Water Recycling ✓ Surface Storage – CALFED ✓ ✓ Surface Storage – Regional/Local ✓ ✓ ✓ Stormwater Capture and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-36 Climate Change Resource Management Strategies Bay Area IRWM Region Climate Change Vulnerabilities Sea Level Rise Flooding Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem & Habitat Water Demand Hydropower Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution ✓ ✓ Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation ✓ ✓ Matching Quality to Use ✓ ✓ ✓ Pollution Prevention ✓ ✓ ✓ Salt and Salinity Management ✓ ✓ ✓ Urban Stormwater Runoff Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water Quality Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Monitoring and Modeling ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Wastewater Treatment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Practice Resource Stewardship Agricultural Lands Stewardship ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ecosystem Restoration ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Land Use Planning and Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recharge Areas Protection ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Sediment Management ✓ ✓ ✓ Watershed Management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Environmental and Habitat Protection and Improvement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ People and Water 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-37 Climate Change Resource Management Strategies Bay Area IRWM Region Climate Change Vulnerabilities Sea Level Rise Flooding Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem & Habitat Water Demand Hydropower Economic Incentives (Loan, Grants, and Water Pricing) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Outreach and Engagement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water and Culture ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Water-Dependent Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Cooperation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Recreation and Public Access ✓ ✓ ✓ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-38 Climate Change 16.5.4 Regional Adaptation Strategies The 2012 California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) provides guidance to support regional and local communities in proactively addressing the unavoidable consequences of climate change. The APG provides a step-by-step process for local and regional climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategy development. http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/local_government/adaptation_policy_guide.html The Bay Area Joint Policy Committee (JPC) supports climate change adaptation efforts for the Region such as the Bay Area Climate and Energy Resilience Project. Additional information can be found at: http://www.cakex.org/directory/organizations/bay-area-joint-policy-committee In the following analysis, potential adaptation strategies have been identified for each watershed characteristic, starting with the highest priorities developed in the climate change vulnerability area analysis. This list of potential strategies will allow the Regional Management Coordinating Committee and other stakeholders to incorporate climate change adaptation in projects developed and evaluated as part of the IRWMP process. The applicable IRWM objectives from Chapter 3 are listed in parentheses following each strategy. 16.5.4.1 General  Large water and wastewater agencies should conduct Energy and GHG Master Plans to assess their energy and carbon footprints, and create an Action Plan of strategies for greater energy efficiency and GHG emission reductions. Fully exploring the Water- Energy-Carbon nexus can identify opportunities for energy savings and GHG emission reductions through water operations, programs, and projects. A good example is investigation and efforts by the Sonoma County Water Agency’s in developing its Carbon Free Water program (IRWM Objective 1.4).  Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects (IRWM Objective 1.3, 1.5).  Establish a climate change adaptation public outreach and education program (IRWM Objective 1.8).  Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation strategy development and regional approaches (IRWM Objective 1.1, 1.2).  Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness (IRWM Objectives 1.9, 1.10). 16.5.4.2 Sea-Level Rise Climate change projections suggest sea-level rise from a low estimate of 5 inches to a high estimate of 24 inches by 2050 (Table 16-2). Regional adaptation strategies to address potential impacts from sea-level rise include the following: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-39 Climate Change  Evaluate the differences around the Bay with regard to the natural shore and habitats, urban development and likely future bayland evolution. Use existing frameworks (e.g., Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Update) to support this evaluation and to develop strategies appropriate for distinct natural regions within the Bay (IRWM Objectives 1.3, 1.5).  Develop an implementation framework that considers the amount of sea-level rise that is expected as well as a temporal planning horizon. As strategies are likely to have a limited life in terms of the amount of sea-level rise they can accommodate it is likely that over time different strategies will have to be implemented (IRWM Objectives 1.3, 1.5).  Consider relocating critical infrastructure out of the hazard zone (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Increase the resiliency of existing infrastructure by retrofitting with waterproof or corrosion resistant materials, elevating sensitive components. CCWD’s Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project will remove aging earthen embankments of the unlined portion of the Contra Costa Canal that are prone to failure during extreme storm and rain events (IRWM Objective 4.2).  Support policies that prevent inappropriate development in areas likely to be inundated (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Bolster existing coastal armoring (i.e., levees, seawalls, breakwaters, and other structures) in locations that are appropriate, (e.g., along urban areas where mudflats and marshes are no longer present (IRWM Objective 4.3)). Where marshes and mudflats are present, ‘holding the line’ against sea-level rise by using such structures may result in their loss as they are squeezed against the fixed structures as they attempt to move landward in response to sea-level rise. Modifications could be made to existing levees, such as grading flatter slopes to allow marshes space to migrate landward. In the long term, realignment of fixed structures may prove to be most economic. An example of a study that is considering a combination of improved coastal armoring and improvements to marsh land is the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Feasibility Study. The study is being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the California State Coastal Conservancy. The goal of the study is to find cost-effective ways to reduce coastal flood risk in the South San Francisco Bay, which will be made worse by sea-level rise, and to identify opportunities to improve the environment by creating tidal marsh and other habitats.  Consider ways to enhance existing wetlands to allow them to accommodate higher rates of sea-level rise (IRWM Objectives 3.1, 3.4, 4.3, 5.1). For example, providing more space for lateral migration, and increasing the local sediment supply to allow marshes and mudflats to accrete more rapidly and keep up with accelerated sea level rise. Consider ways to reuse fine sediment dredged from navigation and storm water channels to create gentle upland slopes landward of tidal marshes. Methods for placing fine material on marshes and mudflats in such a way to emulate natural accretion processes and rates should be investigated. Sediment recharge should be focused in areas where natural processes will rework sediment and allow it to be deposited on marshes. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-40 Climate Change  Consider the use of coarser sediment, particularly in the creation of beaches, to protect areas from erosion. The Aramburu beach project in Marin County (built in 2011/2012) is an example of using coarse-grained sediment in a constructed beach to combat wind- wave erosion and sea-level rise.  Develop sediment management plans that link regular dredging activities to local sites on a programmatic basis so that the sediment size, frequency and volume of placement can be matched to that generated by dredging. Where possible look for ecosystem- based adaptation strategies that allow the ecological values of the Baylands to be maintained while continuing to provide ecosystem services such as wave attenuation (IRWM Objectives 3.1, 4.3). For example, support multifunctional “green infrastructure” or “living shorelines” which take advantage of wetlands and mudflats along the bayshore and rivers to absorb floods, slow erosion, increase infiltration, slow runoff, improve water quality and storage, and provide habitat (e.g., the Oro Loma Ecotone Project – horizontal levee).  Prioritize low-impact development (LID) stormwater practices in areas where storm sewers may be impaired by high water due to sea-level rise or flood waters (IRWM Objective 4.2).  Support DWR strategies that minimize the impact of sea-level rise on salinity intrusion into the Delta, and protect levees in the Delta from the potential effects of projected sea- level rise (IRWM Objective 1.5). 16.5.4.3 Flooding Climate change projections are not precise enough to indicate the likely location of extreme downpours that lead to flooding. However, it is projected that such intense storms will occur more frequently in the future, leading to more frequent and deeper flooding that may last longer if drainage is impaired. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential increases in flood risk include:  Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans in anticipation of potential increases in extreme events.  Practice and promote coordinated and integrated flood management among water and flood management agencies (IRWM Objective 4.3). For example, flood management should be integrated with watershed management on open space, agricultural, wildlife areas, and other low-density lands to better utilize natural floodplain processes.  Encourage policies that promote low impact development (LID) to maintain or restore historical hydrological characteristics (IRWM Objective 4.2).  Consider policies or incentives to relocate infrastructure that is damaged or destroyed due to flooding to low-risk areas (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Develop coordinated multi-agency/multi-jurisdiction plans to mitigate future risks of flooding, landslide, and related impacts through concurrent adoption of updated plans and policies (IRWM Objective 4.1). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-41 Climate Change  Implement National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) activities to minimize and avoid new infrastructure or capital improvements in flood hazard areas (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Restore, maintain and improve existing flood control and riparian corridors (IRWM Objective 4.1).  Implement plans and policies aimed at restricting development in floodplains and landslide hazard areas (IRWM Objective 4.1). 16.5.4.4 Water Supply Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate in the Sierra Nevada Mountains by mid-century. The overall impact will include reductions in imported water from the SWP, the CVP, Tuolumne River, and Mokelumne River and greater reliance on local supplies, recycled water, water conservation, and possibly desalination. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential reductions in water supply (not in priority order) include the following:  Continue aggressive water conservation and efficiency programs, including pooling regional resources where appropriate (IRWM Objective 2.4).  Increase the use of recycled water for appropriate uses as a drought-proof water supply (IRWM Objective 2.5).  Coordinate public outreach efforts to increase public acceptance of recycled water (IRWM Objective 1.8).  Maximize conjunctive use, the coordinated management of surface water and groundwater supplies (IRWM Objectives 2.6 and 2.7).  Integrate water supply and floodplain management (IRWM Objectives 2.6 and 4.3).  Use conservative estimates of sea level rise in the Delta as design criteria whenever possible.  Enhance the development and use of other local water sources, such as desalination, graywater, and rainwater/stormwater (when available) (IRWMP Objective 2.1).  Develop local supplies (IRWM Objective 2.1)  Reduce reliance on imported water, which depends on the Sierra snowpack for water supply (IRWM Objective 2.1).  Consider implementation of regional desalination project(s) to improve water supply reliability (IRWM Objective 2.1).  Enhance practices of water exchanges and water banking outside the Region to supplement water supply during dry years (IRWM Objective 2.1). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-42 Climate Change  Consider evaluation of existing intertie structural and policy constraints to improve potential movement of water supplies among neighboring agencies during periods of extreme water shortage (IRWM Objective 2.1).  Increase “above-the-dam” regional natural water storage systems (WM 9) (IRWM Objective 2.6).  Expand available water storage including both surface and groundwater storage projects (e.g., Contra Costa Water District’s Los Vaqueros Reservoir expansion). (IRWM Objective 2.6).  Encourage local agencies to develop and implement Groundwater Management Plans, where appropriate, as a fundamental component of the IRWM plan (IRWM Objective 2.7).  Adopt land use ordinances that protect natural functioning of groundwater recharge areas (IRWM Objectives 2.7 and 2.8). 16.5.4.5 Water Quality Climate change projections suggest increased temperature and continued highly variable annual precipitation with a slightly drier climate by mid-century that could degrade water quality. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential water quality impacts include the following:  Support DWR and Reclamation strategies that protect or enhance the water quality of delivered by Delta-conveyed sources (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Consider coordination with stakeholders to improve water quality in storage reservoirs through lake aeration practices where appropriate (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Continue to control nutrient inputs to reservoirs from grazing, agriculture, septic systems, and runoff (IRWM Objectives 2.2 and 3.3);  Work with Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and ranchers to minimize grazing impacts around reservoirs and watersheds, such as fencing and alternative livestock water supplies.  Discourage residential and commercial development around drinking water reservoirs and watersheds;  Promote regional and local ordinances to protect drinking water reservoirs and watersheds with low impact land use and protective buffers;  Educate people on existing septic system regulations, system construction, maintenance, and replacement. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-43 Climate Change  Promote low risk land use practices such as open space, forest land parks, conservation easements, and land trusts around drinking water reservoirs and in watersheds and groundwater recharge areas (IRWM Objective 3.2).  Consider potential water quality improvements associated with water transfers and water banking on Regional water supply (IRWM Objectives 2.1 and 2.2).  Consider riparian forest projects that provide cooling for habitat (see Ecosystem and Habitat) (IRWM Objective 3.2).  Evaluate capability of surface water treatment plants within the region to respond to increased turbidity from extreme storm events and increased risk of wildfires that affect source water quality (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Evaluate surface water treatment plant technology and processes that may be required in the future to reduce DBPs, as well as taste and odor problems associated with increased algal blooms (IRWM Objective 2.2).  Increase capacity for recharging groundwater with high quality water  Encourage projects that clean up and improve the water quality of contaminated groundwater sources (IRWM Objective 2.8).  Increase implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques to improve stormwater management (IRWM Objective 3.3).  Continue to comply with NPDES permits to ensure water quality protection (IRWM Objectives 3.3 and 3.7).  Control sediment loading and erosion with BMPs (IRWM Objective 3.4).  Work with CalFire, FireSafe Councils, landowners, and stakeholders to develop Community Wildfire Protection Plan with actions to minimize risk and impact of wildfires and that include post fire actions to control erosion and runoff, and revegetation. Such as the Lexington Hills Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Santa Clara County FireSafe Council (IRWMP Objectives 2.2, 3.2, and 3.3). 16.5.4.6 Ecosystem and Habitat Climate change projections of increasing average, minimum and maximum temperature suggest potential environmental stressors that may affect the sustainability of existing ecosystems and habitat. Regional adaptation strategies to address potential Ecosystem Health and Habitat impacts include the following:  Provide or enhance connected “migration corridors” and linkages between undeveloped areas for animals and plants to promote increased biodiversity, and allow the plants and animals to migration and move to more suitable habitats to avoid serious impacts (IRWM Objectives 5.1 and 5.2).  Improve passage and habitat for anadromous fish (IRWM Objective 5.3). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-44 Climate Change  Promote water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services and the resiliency or adaptability of the habitats to climatic shifts (IRWM Objectives 3.1 and 3.2).  Use purchase of development (PDR) or conservation easements to protect climate- vulnerable habitats (IRWM Objectives 5.1,and 5.2).  Re-establish natural hydrologic connectivity between rivers and floodplains (IRWM Objective 3.5).  Consider projects that provide seasonal aquatic habitat in streams and support corridors of native riparian forests that create shaded riverine and terrestrial habitat (IRW M Objective 5.1).  Promote floodplain corridor vegetation projects (IRWM Objective 3.1).  Identify and strategically prioritize for protection lands at the boundaries of the Bay that will provide the habitat range for tidal wetlands to adapt to sea-level rise (IRWM Objectives 5.1 and 5.2) such as the Shoreline Study which is being planned in San Jose which is integrated with the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Program.  Consider action to protect, enhance and restore upper watershed forests and meadow systems that act as natural water and snowpack storage (IRWM Objective 3.1).  Support development of a Regional Sediment Management Plan for the Bay that will help to restore, protect and enhance tidal wetlands (IRWM Objective 3.1). 16.5.4.7 Water Demand Climate change projections suggest increases in average annual air temperature as well as maximum and minimum daily temperatures by 2050 and increased evaporative losses are expected to increase outdoor urban, industrial cooling, and agricultural water demands. Suggested Regional adaptation strategies to address potential increases in water demand include the following:  Aggressively increase water use efficiency by encouraging water conservation beyond use efficiency and 20x2020 goals (IRWM Objective 2.4).  Encourage agricultural and landscape water users to adopt all feasible Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs). (IRWM Objective 2.4)  Support advancement and use of alternative irrigation techniques (e.g., subsurface drip irrigation) to reduce water use (IRWM Objectives 2.1 and 2.4).  Implement tiered pricing to reduce water consumption and demand (IRWM Objectives 2.1 and 2.4). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-45 Climate Change 16.5.4.8 Hydropower Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate by mid-century, affecting hydropower generation. Strategies to address potential reductions in hydropower generated by the SWP and other Sierra Nevada hydropower projects that agencies participate in include the following:  Support DWR, Bureau of Reclamation, and other hydropower project strategies to maximize hydropower in SWP, CVP, and other stakeholder facilities (IRWM Objective 1.4).  Consider expanding available water storage at existing hydropower facilities (IRWM Objectives 1.4 and 2.1).  Encourage reoperations that maintain water supply reliability and hydropower generation Table 16-14 summarizes the vulnerabilities of each Watershed Characteristic, suggests an appropriate level of response to the vulnerabilities, and identifies future performance metrics that should be developed. Table 16-15: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Responses and Performance Metrics Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 1. Sea-Level Rise Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Low lying baylands will become increasingly vulnerable to more frequent, longer and deeper flooding. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Existing coastal armoring (including levees, breakwaters, and other structures) is likely to be insufficient to protect against projected sea-level rise. Crest elevations of structures will have to be raised and armoring of structures increased to account for higher total water levels and larger waves. More use should be made of multifunctional green infrastructure along rivers and the bayshore. Consideration needs to be given to removing critical infrastructure out of the hazard zone. In the meanwhile, upgrade existing infrastructure to be water and salt resistant. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #1: Promote Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability. #2: Improve water supply reliability and quality, #3: Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality, #4: Improve regional flood management, and #5: Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats. Performance Metric Development – Based on reduction in population, and type and value of vulnerable infrastructure in the in hazard zone. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-46 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 2. Flooding Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections are not sensitive enough to assess short-term extreme events such as flooding; but the general expectation is that more intense storms would occur leading to more frequent, longer and deeper flooding. This could present larger areas susceptible to flooding and increase the risk of direct flood damage in the Region. There is the potential for increased river flooding due to rising sea level in the Bay. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans in anticipation of potential increases in extreme events. Practice and promote integrated flood management among water and flood management agencies, e.g., with watershed management on open space, agricultural, wildlife areas, and other low-density lands to better utilize natural floodplain processes. Agencies should implement plans and policies that decrease flood risk, and avoid significant new infrastructure or capital investment in areas that cannot be adequately protected from flooding. Encourage policies that promote or use low impact development LID practices to maintain or restore historical hydrological characteristics. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #4: Improve Regional Flood Management. Performance Metric Development – Reduction in critical infrastructure within the 500 year (or 200 year, if defined) floodplain. Reduction in value of vulnerable infrastructure in hazard zone. Number of local governments with plans, policies or programs to promote LID/Green Infrastructure and/or to otherwise decrease flood risk. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-47 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 3a. Water Supply Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with a slightly drier climate by mid-century. The overall impact on imported surface waters and groundwater supplies could be significant and could affect water supply availability. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Imported Water - Agencies relying on imported water sources will need to address shifts in runoff due more precipitation occurring as rain, decreasing Sierra Nevada snowpack, and less water availability due to droughts and reduced allocations from SWP and CVP deliveries. Future planned projects need to address changes in storage to accommodate changes in the timing and availability of these supplies. In addition, consider (or support efforts by DWR and federal agencies) investing in improving source water supplies through watershed improvements (e.g., meadow restoration and fuel management) and infrastructure improvements like system reoperation, delta conveyance, and (brackish) drought-resistant supplies such as recycled water. Local Water Sources – Some agencies rely on local watersheds and groundwater subbasins for their supply and are adversely affected by droughts. Future planned projects need to meet the water demand to accommodate the effects of climate change on water demand and water supplies. Consider improving groundwater recharge, , increasing local storage capacity, increasing the development and use of other water sources such as recycled water, graywater, rainwater/stormwater, desalination, as well as water use efficiency (WUE) measures. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #2: Improve Water Supply Reliability and Quality. Performance Metric Development – Based on State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley project (CVP) deliveries, runoff patterns from Sierra Nevada snowpack, groundwater operation range limitations, quantities of drought- resistant new supply development (recycled water, water banking, desalination, etc.), and reliance on imported water. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-48 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 3b. Hydropower Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate by mid-century, potentially changing the timing and amount of generation. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning - Several water agencies in the Region depend on hydropower produced outside the Region. Any decreases in hydropower production could result in higher energy costs to the Region. Consider reoperations, diversifying energy portfolios, Water Usage Efficiency programs, and conservation measures to reduce energy usage. IRWMP Goal Potentially Impacted – #1: Promote Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability. Performance Metric Development – Based on energy charges incurred by water agencies relying on hydropower, and possibly a reduction in GHG emissions from energy portfolios. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-49 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 4. Water Quality Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Climate change projections suggest continued highly variable annual precipitation with slightly drier climate and increased sea level rise in the delta by mid-century. There will be potential vulnerability for increased salinity in delta supplies, increased potential for algae and turbidity in imported and local water, and concentrated runoff in rivers and creeks. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Imported Water – Alternatives for managing imported water quality challenges include reoperations to change the timing of imported water deliveries or to blend imported supplies with other higher quality supplies, additional storage to provide time for natural processes to improve water quality (e.g., turbidity reduction) or facilitate reoperations, additional treatment, and treatment process modifications. Regional Surface Water – Opportunities to respond to water quality in regional surface water include fuel management to reduce wildfire risk, fire recovery plans to rehabilitate burn areas and reduce runoff, and habitat restoration for temperature moderation and for natural filtering. Additional surface water storage can also provide time for natural processes to improve water quality and facilitate reoperations. Additional treatment and treatment process modification may also response to water quality vulnerabilities, including turbidity excursions from extreme flooding events. Regional Groundwater – Responses to groundwater quality vulnerabilities include: increasing groundwater recharge capacity so that high quality water can be recharged when it is available, groundwater cleanup projects, developing local drought-resistant supplies to maintain groundwater levels, and avoid sea water intrusion. IRWMP Goals Impacted – #2: Improve Water Supply Reliability and Quality, and #3: Protect and Improve Watershed Health and Function and Bay Water Quality. Performance Metric Development – Based on source water quality exceedances (e.g., consecutive days with turbidity exceeding a trigger value, frequency of algal blooms, salinity and nitrate concentrations). 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-50 Climate Change Vulnerability Areas by Ranked Order General Overview of Responses and Performance Metrics 5. Ecosystem and Habitat Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Changes in the seasonal patterns of temperature, precipitation, and fire due to climate change can dramatically alter ecosystems that provide habitats for California’s native species Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning - Climate change may result in species loss, increased invasive species’ ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, and changes in growing ranges for vegetation. Other ideas may include habitat restoration and multi-benefit projects that incorporate ecosystem components (i.e., in supply, water treatment, and flood management projects). Increase the space available for habitats to adapt in a more dynamic landscape. Creation of habitat linkages, restoration design and planning responsive to climate vulnerabilities. Restoration of energy, water and sediment pathways in the landscape. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #5: Create, Protect, Enhance, and Maintain Environmental Resources and Habitats. Performance Metric Development – Amount of habitat created and/or maintained, habitat linkages species stability or recovery, acreage of invasive plant removal, and sediment accumulation (are wetlands keeping pace). 6. Water Demand Potential Climate Change Vulnerability – Projected increase in average annual air temperature by mid-century and increased evaporative losses are expected to increase both urban and agricultural water demand. Sector Response in Context of Regional Planning Urban Water Demand – To respond to increases in irrigation demands, water managers should aggressively implement water conservation programs to achieve water savings beyond 20X2020 goals. Water conservation landscape programs include comparing site-specific irrigation budgets to actual water use as well as providing incentives for landscape conversion and upgrading to efficient irrigation equipment. Agricultural Water Demand – Water managers can support agricultural water conservation by supporting the improvements in irrigation efficiency through equipment and operations, as well as provide technical tools and data to support improvements. IRWMP Goal Impacted – #2: Improve Water Supply Reliability and Quality. Performance Metric Development – It is unclear that sufficient information is available to develop performance metrics unless a correlation between air temperature and water demand for the Region can be developed. One metric could be per capita water use. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-51 Climate Change 16.6 Next Steps 16.6.1 Updates on Climate Change Research Research on the climate change impacts on water resources is ongoing and continues to evolve with further analysis and more refined methodologies. During the preparation of this Plan update, key literature resources on climate change have been reviewed. New scientific findings should be reviewed periodically and incorporated into the climate change vulnerability assessment, especially the findings pertinent to the sectors most vulnerable to climate change in the Region. Consideration should be given to forming a Regional user’s forum to facilitate networking among water resources planners to exchange ideas on how to incorporate latest tools or science into local planning. 16.6.2 Climate Change Models and Scenarios The Climate Change Center of the California Energy Commission prepares periodic reports on climate model simulations for California and some specific Regions such as the San Francisco Bay Area. It also maintains the Cal-Adapt site and updates the modeling tools as new climate change modeling results, based on more refined data, become available from the IPCC. In addition, some agencies in the Region have prepared their own climate change analyses for their watersheds and have used these studies to develop scenarios for vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Agencies within the Region should explore ways where existing and updated climate models, and other available climate change tools and projections for the Region, can be used for future vulnerability assessments updated in future versions of the Plan. 16.6.3 Vulnerability Assessment Update The intent of future data gathering is to address gaps in the current vulnerability assessment, to improve the understanding of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities, and to enable more quantitative analyses. Future data gathering efforts should include data that facilitate more quantitative analysis of the vulnerability, as described in the following sections. Data gathering efforts should be also be considered in the context of the current and proposed projects and funding available. Consideration should be given to coordinated multi-agency funding of more localized modeling, projections, and more rigorous vulnerability analysis of the more critical areas. 16.6.3.1 Sea-Level Rise New projections of sea-level rise are being developed; each increasingly sophisticated and with higher resolution. These new projections should be incorporated into State guidance in a practical and systematic manner that allows resource managers to incorporate them into projects in a consistent manner. While the new projections will include decadal estimates and include greater regional variations, there will always be range of projections based upon future GHG emissions and guidance on how to incorporate this uncertainty should be made clear. Future data gathering efforts to address the potential climate change effects on sea-level rise include the following: 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-52 Climate Change  Create data packages that provide resource managers all the information they need in one place (e.g., tidal data, storm surge and waves, sea-level rise projections, vertical land movement, topography, and bathymetry).  Develop guidance for the inclusion of vertical land movement at a project site; for example, sources of vertical land movement information that can be used to calculate relative sea-level rise.  Regional monitoring of the geomorphological and ecological response of marshes and mudflats to observed sea-level rise.  Develop regional adaptation strategies that incorporate both evolution of the natural shorelines and the protection of the built environment.  Identify opportunities for the realignment of existing flood risk management levees that would create more resilient shorelines.  Develop demonstration projects of shorelines that incorporate “green infrastructure” or “living shorelines” principles. 16.6.3.2 Flooding A quantitative assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on flooding cannot be performed as climate projections are not detailed enough to project short-term extreme events such as flooding (flooding from sea level rise can be looked at more quantitatively). Rather, the 100-year and 500-year floodplains were used to define flooding risk zones that should be considered in location of water infrastructure. Future data gathering efforts to address the potential climate change effects on flooding include the following:  Perform an inventory of runoff monitoring stations in the Region to see if a more robust runoff record can be developed. Those data may allow an analysis of historical storm events correlated with precipitation events as well as annual precipitation to provide a better understanding of conditions that may lead to more extreme flooding conditions. This could also support a more robust flood warning system.  Future work should focus on gathering the 200-year floodplain maps for the Region after DWR develops them. Currently, the 100-year and 500-year floodplain maps are available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  Promote better understanding of value of open space, riparian corridor, wetlands or natural habitats among land use decision makers.  Coordinate with the Region stakeholders for advanced flood preparation and quick response and document the protocol(s).  Perform an inventory of critical infrastructure located in floodplains and level of vulnerability to flooding. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-53 Climate Change  Update the projections of runoff with climate change as updates from the California Climate Change Center and the ICCC become available.  Work with local flood plain managers and/or equivalent to determine areas of concern. 16.6.3.3 Water Supply Future data gathering efforts to quantify the climate change effects on water supply include the following:  Continue to monitor updates on surface water supply projections from the SWP and CVP to assess the effects of future climate change on Regional water supply.  Update information on projections of changes in surface water runoff to Regional local water storage facilities for future climate change scenarios.  Update available groundwater supply projections for each basin and sub-basin. Groundwater production in a given year varies depending on hydrologic conditions; pumping fluctuations due to demands and reductions on other sources, and changes in local hydrology and natural and artificial recharge are anticipated to have a direct impact on available groundwater storage and may affect current safe operating ranges to prevent overdrafts. Updates on trends in groundwater safe operating ranges will be needed when further assessments of water supply vulnerability to climate change are performed for future Plan updates.  Evaluate the effects of reduction in precipitation from climate change on natural groundwater recharge. Further analysis is suggested to refine and to quantify the potential reduction in groundwater supply due to potential reduction in precipitation from climate change. 16.6.3.4 Water Quality The assessment of the vulnerability of water quality to potential climate change impacts is qualitative due to the limited Regional monthly and seasonal weather information related to air temperature and precipitation over long time periods and limited access to long-term water quality data. The vulnerability assessment instead relied on California Climate Change Center model outputs for annual air temperature increases and precipitation changes and prior studies of how water quality in the Region may be affected by these climate change impacts. Key water quality changes identified for the Region include potential increases in the salinity of imported water, taste and odor events due to increased likelihood of algal blooms, and short-term high turbidity events due to storms, especially following wildfires. Collection of historical water quality data within the Region would greatly improve the understanding of Regional water quality and how it may be impacted by climate change. Future data gathering efforts to quantify the climate change effects on water quality include:  Monitor and collect historical water quality data within each sub-region during storm events. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-54 Climate Change  Collect long-term weather records associated with air temperature, precipitation, and ET to assess potential correlations with seasonal water quality.  Continue to monitor groundwater levels and groundwater storage. Changes in groundwater recharge and/or pumping as a result of climate change could lead to overdraft and subsidence if they are not managed. 16.6.3.5 Ecosystem & Habitat Adaptive management strategies need to be developed that can accommodate changing climatic conditions. This may require new management goals as it may not be possible to restore historical systems. Water resource managers are subject to regulatory requirements based on certain hydrology and other species related criteria (i.e. temperature). With climate change it may become more difficult for agencies to abide by the regulatory requirements they have committed to and more importantly, be able to achieve the ecosystem mitigations and enhancements that they are trying to accomplish. There needs to be an adaptive component to the regulatory requirements to acknowledge that the natural environment will be altered as a result of climate change. The efforts taken through projects, operations and mitigations may not be able to fully achieve their intended environmental outcomes, through no fault of their own, with respect to improvements in the natural environment. Goals may have to be set based on anticipated future conditions. Future data gathering efforts to address the potential climate change effects on ecosystem and habitat include the following:  Regional monitoring of the geomorphological and ecological response of marshes and mudflats to observed sea-level rise.  Regional monitoring of the geographic range shifts of plants and animals to inform discussions on potential managed relocation.  Vulnerability analysis of how climate change may affect specific habitats and inform future open space or buffer acquisition programs.  Identify open space or buffer that would be critical to allow existing systems to evolve.  Identify optimal genotypes for future conditions either by modeling future climates and patterns of adaptive variation across the range of a species or by experimental plantings and observing natural selection. 16.6.3.6 Water Demand Future data gathering efforts to quantify the climate change effects on municipal and agricultural water demand include the following (note these efforts will require coordination among water purveyors who use different data collection systems):  Collect and analyze historical monthly records of water demand data and weather (e.g., air temperature, ET, and precipitation) for each sub-region to quantify the weather effects on water use and seasonal variations in response to changes in historical temperature. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-55 Climate Change  Collect and analyze historical monthly records of water demand data for each purveyor in each sub-region to demonstrate purveyor-specific patterns in response to changes in climate.  Based on the water demand and temperature data, develop regression analyses correlating water demand to temperature on a maximum day, monthly, and seasonal bases for each sub-region and each purveyor. The historical responses can be used to infer future response with the projected changes in temperature with climate change.  Characterize the variations in indoor and outdoor water use, both for each sub-region and each purveyor. Future data gathering should focus on the seasonal and monthly patterns both in indoor and outdoor usage to evaluate the effects of weather conditions on each use category.  Collect and analyze historical agricultural water demand to quantity the weather effects on water use and seasonal variations in response to changes in historical temperature.  Identify the major industries in the Region that require cooling and/or process water. As water temperature increases, cooling water needs may also increase. 16.6.3.7 Hydropower The Region relies on hydropower produced outside the Region, as well as locally, as a portion of its energy portfolio. Future data gathering or assessment efforts to quantify the potential impacts of climate change on hydropower include:  Agencies relying on hydropower for a portion of their energy supply may need to consider how reductions in hydropower availability can be replaced by other energy sources and how those sources impact their GHG footprints.  Agencies that operate their own hydropower facilities should consider opportunities to modify their reservoir operations to optimize both water supply and hydropower production under future climate change scenarios.  Agencies that are stakeholders in hydropower facilities operated by others should support efforts to modify reservoir operations to optimize both water supply and hydropower production. 16.6.4 Create a GHG Baseline Each agency involved in the IRWMP should create an agency-specific comprehensive GHG inventory. A comprehensive inventory would use a well established protocol to calculate all of the GHG emissions created by each agency. It is recommended that each agency eventually conduct a GHG inventory, and numerous agencies in the Region have already done GHG inventories. However, in the absence of agency specific GHG inventories, gross GHG emissions can be calculated by developing agency-specific GHG intensity factors. An agency- specific GHG intensity factor calculates the estimated metric tons of CO2 per acre foot of water delivered or million gallons of wastewater treated by the agency (MT CO2/AF). Knowing this will 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-56 Climate Change enable an estimation of the GHG emission baseline for a particular agency and the Region. It will also allow for the estimation of the GHG emission reductions associated with an individual project or strategy that reduces water demand. For each of the RWMGCC water or wastewater entities data will need to be collected for actual annual electricity, natural and fleet fuel used, as well as the amount of imported water from DWR and other suppliers. Using known GHG intensity factors for DWR water supplies, electrical supplies, natural gas and fleet fuel and applying these factors to the amount an agency uses, GHG emissions (MT CO2/year) can be estimated for each agency. By dividing the total emissions by the total AF of water delivered or the million gallons of wastewater treated, agency-specific GHG intensity factors (MT CO2/AF) can be developed. The calculation should use data from the same year. While not as precise and accurate as a comprehensive GHG inventory, a GHG intensity factor will create an estimated baseline of GHG emissions for each agency and the Region. 16.6.5 Quantify Adaption and Mitigation Strategies at the Project Level In developing the project review process The PUT developed a scoring methodology that reflects the criteria of the 2012 Guidelines as well as the Bay Area IRWMP Goals and Objectives. The scoring criteria now consider and awards points for “Climate Change Adaptation” and “Reducing GHG Emissions” (Section 6.3.3). the climate change impacts of specific projects proposed for implementation are being considered by a rough qualitative assessment of whether or not certain adaptation strategies apply or if a project reduces GHG emissions. No quantitative performance measurements are used to score the projects. Future Plan updates may have the data available to further quantify climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies and apply them at the project level. For each proposed project it may be desirable to identify GHG emissions and to identify and evaluate GHG reduction amounts. Proposed projects could be evaluated against the project GHG Baseline and evaluated for their ability to reduce agency-specific GHG intensity factors. 16.6.6 Develop Performance Metrics As discussed in Section 3 Goals and Objectives, suggested measures (performance metrics) have been developed for individual IRWM objectives (see Table 3-2), The Region should develop climate change performance metrics specific to all projects and climate change (see Table 16-14 for examples). Proposed IRWMP projects would be evaluated against these metrics and these metrics would provide a measure of Plan performance. 16.7 References Ackerly, D.D., et al. 2010The Geography of Climate Change: Implications for Conservation Biogeography. Diversity and Distributions (2010) 16, 476-487 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. A Framework for Change. California Emergency Management Agency and California Natural Resources Agency, 2012. California Adaptation Planning Guide. California Energy Commission, 2012a. California Operational Power Plants, 1MW and above - November 6, 2012. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/powerplants/Power_Plants.xlsx. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-57 Climate Change California Energy Commission, 2012b. Local Reliability Areas for 2013 Enlargement Maps. http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/3P_Enlg.pdf. California Natural Resources Agency, 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Cayon, Tyree, and Iacobellis, 2012. “Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region.” California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-2012-042. Cornwell et al 2012. Climate Change Impacts on California Vegetation, Physiology, Life History, and Ecosystem Change. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-2022- 023. Department of Water Resources, 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future. Climate Change Adaptation for California’s Water. Department of Water Resources 2010. The State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2009. Department of Water Resources 2012a. The State Water Project Draft Delivery Reliability Report 2011. Department of Water Resources, 2012b. California’s Flood Future Highlights. http://www.water.ca.gov/sfmp/docs/Highlights_CAFloodFuture.pdf Drago, J.A. and L. Brekke 2005. Assessment Tool to Evaluate Climate Change on the Source water Quality of Lake Cachuma, California. Prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants under subcontract to the Goleta Water District for the USEPA Global Change Research Program, Cooperative Agreement Number R-82980601. Final Report. July 2005. Ekstrom, J.A. and S.C. Moser 2012. Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Adaptation in the San Francisco Bay Area. A Synthesis of PIER Program Reports and Other Relevant Research. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500=2012-070. Knowles, N, 2010. Potential Inundation Due to Rising Sea Levels in the San Francisco Bay Region. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8(1). Guegan, M., K. Madani, and C.B. Uvo 2012. Climate Change Effects on the High-Elevation Hydropower System with Consideration of Warming Impacts on Electricity Demand and Pricing. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-020. Hanak, E. and J. Lund 2005. Adapting California’s Water Management to Climate Change. Public Policy Institute of California. Herberger et al 2012. The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the San Francisco Bay. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-2012-014. Kiparsky, M. and P.H. Gleick 2005. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey of the Literature. California Energy Commission Publication No.CEC-500-04-073. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Page 16-58 Climate Change Kriebel, 2011. The Need for a Tidal Flood Stage to Define Existing and Future Sea Level Hazards. Proc. USACE 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, Anchorage , Alaska, June 25-29 , 2011. Morrill, J., Bales, R., and Conklin, M. 2005. ”Estimating Stream Temperature from Air Temperature: Implications for Future Water Quality.” J. Environ. Eng., 131(1), 139–146. National Research Council, 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 OPC 2013. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document. Developed by the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT). Sathaye, J., L. Dale, P. Larsen, G. Fitts, K. Koy, S. Lewis, and A. Lucena. 2012. Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure from Projected Climate Change. California Energy Commission. Public Interest Energy Research. CEC-500-2012-057. Schwartz, A. et al 2011. Climate Change Handbook for Regional Water Planning. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Water Resources. Sicke et al. 2012 “Climate Change Adaptations for Local Water Management in the San Francisco Bay Area”. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-500-036. Vermeer, M. and S. Rahmstorf 2009. “Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 21532. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan A-1-1 IRWMP Coordinating Committee Chair and Vice Chair Roles Appendix A-1: IRWMP Coordinating Committee Chair and Vice Chair Roles (June 4, 2007) Recommended roles and responsibilities for a Chair and Vice Chair for the IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) are listed below. These were crafted with the understanding that the CC will be evaluating a new governance structure over this next year and the selected Chair and Vice Chair will preside over the existing CC governance structure in the interim. 1. The IRWMP CC will have a Chair and Vice Chair. The Vice Chair assumes duties of the Chair when Chair is unavailable. In the event that the Chair and Vice Chair are not available to assume responsibility for a particular duty, they will jointly designate an acting Chair. 2. The Term for Chair and Vice Chair is two years. If a new governance structure is not in place within one year, the existing Chair and Vice Chair will continue to serve, or the positions will be rotated, as determined by consensus, or vote if necessary, of the Coordinating Committee. 3. The Chair and Vice Chair will be from different functional areas to ensure the most diverse representation. One should be from the Water or Wastewater functional areas and one from the Flood Control or Watershed functional areas. 4. The Chair and Vice Chair will be non-voting members of the CC. Other CC members from their agency or district shall retain the right to vote as a representative of their respective functional area. 5. The Chair and Vice Chair will represent all four functional areas and will work together to bring consensus among them. 6. The Chair will work with the Vice Chair to share the workload, including but not limited to:  Set monthly meeting agendas and associated administrative matters;  Facilitate meetings and discussions, work to address issues in-between meetings in consultation with representatives of the four functional areas;  Represent the CC to outside agencies and outside the CC meetings as necessary. This representation is limited to that authorized in advance by consensus (or vote) of the IRWMP-CC;  Meet with other regional agencies as needed to assure coordination with other regional planning and infrastructure programs; and  Identify significant decision points regarding IRWMP issues and matters which demand a manager or greater level of authority and involvement, and communicate this need to the CC. 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan A-2-1 Coordinating Committee Voting Principles Appendix A-2: Coordinating Committee Voting Principles Coordinating Committee decisions do not supersede individual agency decisions regarding project scopes and schedules, and IRWMP participating agencies are consulted on over- arching policy issues. Through their adoption of the IRWM Plan, the governing bodies of the 24 participating organizations approve this IRWMP management structure:  Decisions requiring voting shall be agendized.  Agendas should be developed to communicate the desired outcome of the agenda item. All action items should be located in a separate action section, with the responsible lead person identified next to the action item. Every agenda item should begin with a verb, such as approve, report, discuss, etc. Information and discussion items should also be placed in a separate section on the agenda.  Agendas should be prepared and emailed to the CC at least one week in advance, but no less than 72 hours in advance of the vote.  If a functional area (FA), as a group, is not prepared to vote on the item, the vote can be postponed by a majority of all (from all 4 functional areas) of the FA representatives present (for example, if there were 10 FA reps in attendance, it would take an affirmative vote of 6 FA reps to postpone), but the Chair shall identify the timing of that postponed vote at that meeting.  Ideally, votes will occur at regularly scheduled CC meetings, but special meetings or conference calls can be called and noticed by the Chair if necessary to facilitate timely decisions. If neither of those options (special meeting or conference call) is available, voting by email is a possible method to be employed by the Chair, but would need to be agreed upon by a majority of all of the FA representatives present.  Voting outside of regular meetings, whether by email or phone call or special meeting, should have the same noticing requirements as a regular meeting. For example, a vote could not occur without 72 hours advance notice of the item and a description of the vote to be taken circulated to all Coordinating Committee members.  As outlined above, there will be 3 appointed representatives per functional area. The minimum quorum should be at least one primary or alternate member from each functional area, for either voting or consensus decisions.  Each of the 3 representatives within each FA has an individual vote (they do not need to vote in blocks), if they are in attendance at the meeting (or conference call) where and when the vote takes place. Proxy votes from an individual FA representative will only be allowed when the FA representative has so designated such a proxy to the Chair (or her/his designee) ahead of the meeting when the vote is scheduled to take place.  A tie vote would result in a non vote. A tie vote would require the Coordinating Committee to work with the functional areas more to develop more alignment and work more towards a consensus. The Chair and Vice-Chair would not be allowed to break a 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan A-2-2 Coordinating Committee Voting Principles tie vote. If an item before the Coordinating Committee is so divisive that it is an even vote, then members need to consider and deliberate more collectively to come to a decision. Meeting notes are generated from each monthly meeting in order to capture and memorialize these decisions, agreements and action items. Draft and final CC meeting notes are distributed to attendees and are posted on the SF Bay Area IRWMP web site. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan July 2012 i South Westside Basin GWMP South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan i South Westside Basin GWMP TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ I TABLE OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................................III TABLE OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................VI ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... VII 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Management Plan ......................................................... 1-1 1.2 Description of the Groundwater Basin and Plan Area ............................................... 1-1 1.3 Overview of Water Requirements and Supplies ......................................................... 1-5 1.4 Legislation Related to Groundwater Management Plans .......................................... 1-8 1.5 Prior and Current Water Management Planning Efforts ........................................... 1-9 1.6 Public Process in Developing the Groundwater Management Plan ...................... 1-18 1.7 South Westside basin GWMP Advisory Committee ................................................ 1-20 1.8 Groundwater Manangement Plan and Consistency with California Water Code ................................................................................................................................. 1-24 2 WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Surface Water .................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.4 Imported Water .............................................................................................................. 2-42 2.5 Recycled Water ............................................................................................................... 2-44 3 WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES ......................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Current and Historical Water Requirements and Supplies ....................................... 3-1 3.2 Current Water Budget ................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3 Projected Water Requirements and Supplies ............................................................. 3-14 3.4 Projected Water Budget ................................................................................................. 3-22 3.5 Basin Yield ....................................................................................................................... 3-22 4 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE BASIN ........................................................................ 4-1 4.1 South Westside Basin Goal ............................................................................................. 4-1 Table of Contents ii South Westside Basin GWMP 4.2 Basin Management Objective Components ................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Basin Management Objectives ....................................................................................... 4-3 5 ELEMENTS OF THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................... 5-1 5.1 Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................................................ 5-3 5.2 Monitoring and Management ........................................................................................ 5-3 5.3 Groundwater Storage ...................................................................................................... 5-8 5.4 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................... 5-11 5.5 Construction and operation by the local agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects ................................................................................................... 5-14 5.6 Coordinated Planning ................................................................................................... 5-15 5.7 Reporting and Updating ............................................................................................... 5-17 6 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Governance ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Dispute Resolution ........................................................................................................... 6-4 6.3 Financing and Budget ...................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4 Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 6-5 7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 APPENDIX A – PUBLIC PROCESS APPENDIX B – CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS APPENDIX C – MONITORING PROTOCOLS APPENDIX D – BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE HYDROGRAPHS APPENDIX E – SEAWATER INTRUSION INDICATORS iii South Westside Basin GWMP TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Plan Area Figure 1.2 Municipalities Figure 1.3 Water Agencies Figure 1.4a Current Land Use Summary Figure 1.4b Current Land Use Figure 1.5 Groundwater Production by Entity, 2010 Figure 1.6 Areas with Groundwater Management Plans Figure 1.7 Banked Groundwater in In-Lieu Pilot Study Figure 2.1 Rainfall and Streamflow Stations Figure 2.2 Historical Annual Precipitation and Cumulative Departure from Mean Precipitation Figure 2.3 Average Monthly Precipitation Figure 2.4 Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation Figure 2.5 Watersheds and Surface Water Features Figure 2.6a Average Monthly Colma Creek Streamflow, 1963-1996 Figure 2.6b Daily Colma Creek Streamflow Exceedance, 1963-1996 Figure 2.7 Major Faults Figure 2.8 Bedrock Elevation Figure 2.9 General Soil Classification Figure 2.10 Estimated Recharge Figure 2.11 Historical Population Growth in the South Westside Basin Figure 2.12 Historical Municipal Groundwater Production, South Westside Basin Figure 2.13a Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-8 Figure 2.13b Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-1 Figure 2.13c Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-20 Figure 2.13d Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-02 Figure 2.13e Historical Groundwater Elevation, SB 12 Table of Figures iv South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.14 Location of Selected Wells Figure 2.15 Groundwater Elevation Contours, Primary Production Aquifer, Fall 2010 Figure 2.16 Piper Diagram of General Groundwater Chemistry for Wells Operated by Daly City, CalWater, and San Bruno Figure 2.17 Iron Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.18 Manganese Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.19a Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.19b Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.19c Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, SB-15 Figure 2.20 Nitrate Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.21a Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.21b Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.21c Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, SB-15 Figure 2.22 TDS Concentrations in Groundwater Figure 2.23 Contaminated Sites Figure 2.24 Susceptibility to Liquefaction Figure 3.1 Average Monthly Distribution of Annual Supply Figure 3.2 Historical Annual Water Supply, Burlingame Figure 3.3a Current Water Supply Sources, CalWater Figure 3.3b Historical Annual Water Supply, CalWater Figure 3.4a Current Water Supply Sources, Daly City Figure 3.4b Historical Annual Water Supply, Daly City Figure 3.5 Historical Annual Water Supply, Millbrae Figure 3.6a Current Water Supply Sources, San Bruno Figure 3.6b Historical Annual Water Supply, San Bruno Figure 3.7 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, Private Producers Figure 3.8 Current Water Supply Sources, South Westside Basin Figure 3.9 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production by Entity Table of Figures v South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.10 Groundwater Production by Well Figure 3.11 Projected Water Supplies in the South Westside Basin, by Agency Figure 3.12 Historical and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Supply Figure 3.13 Projected Water Supply for Burlingame Figure 3.14 Projected Water Supply for CalWater Figure 3.15 Projected Water Supply for Daly City Figure 3.16 Projected Water Supply for Millbrae Figure 3.17 Projected Water Supply for San Bruno Figure 3.18 Comparison of Basin Yield Estimate and Historical Groundwater Production Figure 4.1 Wells Monitored for Compliance with Groundwater Levels BMO Figure 4.2 Wells Monitored for Compliance with Groundwater Quality BMO Figure 5.1 Wells Monitored for Groundwater Levels Figure 5.2 Wells Monitored for Groundwater vi South Westside Basin GWMP TABLE OF TABLES Table 1.1 Basin Plan Beneficial Uses for Groundwater Table 1.2 Individual Supply Guarantee Table 1.3 Advisory Committee Members Table 1.4 Westside Basin GWMP Components Table 2.1 Average Monthly Temperature and Reference Evapotranspiration Table 2.2 Location and Data Availability of Selected USGS Stream Gages Table 2.3 Characteristics of Hydrologic Soil Groups Table 2.4 Open Contaminated Sites Potentially Impacting the Aquifer Used for Drinking Water Supply Table 3.1 Summary of Water Supply Sources (2010) Table 3.2 Summary of 2010 Private Groundwater Production Table 3.3 2010 Groundwater Production by Entity as a Percent of Total Water Supply Table 3.4 Estimated Average Annual South Westside Basin Water Balance Table 3.5a Current and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Production Table 3.5b Projected Change in South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, from 2008 Use Table 4.1 Groundwater Level BMO Triggers Table 4.2 Seawater Intrusion BMO Chloride Thresholds (mg/l) Table 4.3 Groundwater Quality BMO Triggers Table 5.1 Summary of Goal, Objective, and Elements vii South Westside Basin GWMP ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1999 Plan proposed Westside Basin AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan AB Assembly Bill Advisory Committee South Westside Basin GWMP Advisory Committee AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year Basin Plan San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan BMO Basin Management Objective CalWater California Water Service Company cfs cubic feet per second DPH California Department of Public Health DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft feet GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment gpm gallons per minute GPS global positioning satellites Groundwater Task Force South Westside Basin Groundwater Task Force GSR Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project GWMP groundwater management plan Groundwater Model Westside Basin Groundwater Flow Model ILPS In-Lieu Pilot Study InSAR interferometric synthetic aperture radar IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan JPA joint powers agreement MCL maximum contaminant level Acronyms and Abbreviations viii South Westside Basin GWMP mgd million gallons per day µg/L micrograms per liter mg/L milligrams per liter MOU Memorandum of Understanding N nitrogen NAWQA National Ambient Water Quality Assessment NCCWD North Coast County Water District NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSMCSD North San Mateo County Sanitation District PCE Tetrachloroethylene Plan Area area covered by South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan ppm parts per million psi pounds per square inch RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region SB Senate Bill SFIA San Francisco International Airport SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds TCE Trichloroethylene TDS total dissolved solids USGS United States Geological Survey USDA-NRCS United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board Westside Basin Westside Groundwater Subbasin Wholesale Water Water Supply Agreement between The City And County of Supply Agreement San Francisco And Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County, And Santa Clara County 1-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The purpose of the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP), including development of the plan and the plan document itself, is to provide a framework for regional groundwater management in the South Westside Basin that sustains the beneficial use of the groundwater resource. This includes: Informing the public of the importance of groundwater and of the challenges and opportunities presented by groundwater supplies; Developing consensus among stakeholders on issues and solutions related to groundwater; Building relationships among stakeholders within the basin and between state and federal agencies; and Defining actions to ensure the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources in the South Westside Basin. This GWMP provides recommendations that, when implemented, are intended to maintain or enhance long-term groundwater levels and quality and minimize land subsidence. The goal of the GWMP is to ensure a sustainable, high-quality, reliable water supply at a fair price for beneficial uses achieved through local groundwater management. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE GROUNDWATER BASIN AND PLAN AREA The South Westside Basin GWMP area (Plan Area) is the portion of the Westside Groundwater Subbasin (Westside Basin), Basin 2-35, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), within the boundaries of San Mateo County. The Plan Area is shown in Figure 1.1. Areas within the northern portion of the DWR-defined Westside Basin, in the City and County of San Francisco, are described in the draft North Westside Basin Groundwater Basin Management Plan (SFPUC, 2005). Overlying municipalities, shown in Figure 1.2, include Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame. Water agencies serving the Plan Area are shown in Figure 1.3 and include Daly City, California Water Service Company (CalWater) – South San Francisco District, San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame. Additionally, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) provides retail water service to the Golden Gate National Cemetery in San Bruno and wholesale water to the retail agencies. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 1.1Plan Area 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Groundwater Basin: DWR, 2003 ² Legend Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area South Westside Basin NorthWestsideBasin §¨¦80 F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.1 Plan Area.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Pacifica San Francisco Daly City South San Francisco San Bruno Millbrae Burlingame Colma Hillsborough San Mateo Hillsborough Brisbane §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 1.2Municipalities 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend Highways Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.2 Municipalities.mxd, March 21 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal WaterMid Peninsula DistrictSan Mateo System SFPUC Cal WaterSouth San Francisco District San Bruno Burlingame North Coast County Water District CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. Daly City Millbrae Westborough Water District §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 1.3Water Agencies²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.3 Water Agencies.mxd, March 21, 20110 1 20.5 Miles Legend Highways Plan Area Introduction and Background 1-5 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.3 OVERVIEW OF WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES Located on the San Francisco Peninsula, the South Westside Basin underlies approximately 25 square miles and provides groundwater to Colma, Daly City, San Bruno, South San Francisco, unincorporated areas, cemeteries, golf courses, and several smaller users. The Plan Area is considered built-out, with very little undeveloped land available for development. Future growth will occur through infill, including increased density on existing developed parcels. Land use in the basin is approximately 80 percent urban; 15 percent irrigated parks, golf courses, and cemeteries; and 5 percent unirrigated open space, as shown in Figures 1.4a and 1.4b. Urban areas include large portions of the cities of Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame, as well as urbanized unincorporated areas. The total 2010 water demand for the area was approximately 29,000 acre-feet (AF) (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency [BAWSCA] 2011; SFPUC, 2011). Figure1.4a Current Land Use Summary Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l £¤101 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 UV82 UV35 Figure 1.4bCurrent Land Use 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Land Use - Based on ABAG, 2006 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Planned Land Use Urban Parks, Cemeteries, Golf Courses Open or Vacant Land F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 1.4b Current Land Use, March 21, 2011 Introduction and Background 1-7 South Westside Basin GWMP In the South Westside Basin, groundwater plays a critical role, providing up to 50 percent of some localities’ water supplies, making it an important resource for the future prosp erity and sustainability of the region. Approximately 8,600 AF of groundwater was produced from the South Westside Basin in 2010 (SFPUC, 2011) including 2,200 AF of groundwater banked through in-lieu recharge under the In-Lieu Pilot Study (see Section 1.5.3). Figure 1.5 shows the breakdown of groundwater production by producer for 2010. Imported water from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system, along with small quantities of recycled water, provides the remaining supply. * Value includes 2,204 AF of banked in-lieu recharge water Figure 1.5 Groundwater Production by Entity, 2010 While the Plan Area and surrounding region are largely built-out, additional growth through infill is expected, along with associated increases in water demands. As demands for imported water supplies continue to rise, groundwater will continue to play a key role in delivering a cost-effective and reliable water supply to the South Westside Basin. Introduction and Background 1-8 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.4 LEGISLATION RELATED TO GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS Groundwater is a resource shared by numerous users; it does not recognize or adhere to jurisdictional lines and cannot be tagged for use by certain users. Groundwater rights have evolved through case law since the late 1800s. Currently, three basic methods are available for managing groundwater resources in California: o Local agency management under authority granted by the California Water Code or other applicable state statutes (such as through a GWMP); o Local government groundwater ordinances or joint powers agreements (JPA); and o Court adjudications. No law requires that any of these forms be applied within a basin. As such, management is often instituted after local agencies or landowners recognize specific issues in groundwater conditions. The level of groundwater management in any basin or subbasin is often dependent on water availability and demand, as well as groundwater quality. In an effort to standardize groundwater management, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 255 (Stats. 1991, Ch. 903) in 1991. This legislation authorized local agencies overlying basins subject to critical overdraft conditions, as defined in DWR’s Bulletin 118-80 (DWR, 1980), to establish programs for groundwater management within their service areas. Water Code § 10750 et seq. provided these agencies with the powers of a water replenishment district to raise revenue for facilities to manage the basin for the purposes of extraction, recharge, conveyance, and water quality management. Seven local agencies adopted plans under this authority. The South Westside Basin has never been defined by DWR as being critically overdrafted, as such it was not subject to AB 255. The provisions of AB 255 were repealed in 1992 with the passage of AB 3030 (Stats. 1992, Ch. 947). This legislation greatly increased the number of local agencies authorized to develop a GWMP and set forth a common management framework for local agencies throughout California. AB 3030, codified in Water Code § 10750 et seq., provides a systematic procedure to develop a groundwater management plan by local agencies overlying the groundwater basins defined by DWR’s Bulletin 118 (DWR, 1975) and updates (DWR, 1980, 2003). Upon adoption of a plan, these agencies could possess the same authority as a water replenishment district to “fix and collect fees and assessments for groundwater management” (Water Code, § 10754). However, the authority to fix and collect these fees and assessments is contingent on receiving a majority of votes in favor of the proposal in a local election (Water Code, § 10754.3). Introduction and Background 1-9 South Westside Basin GWMP By 2003, more than 200 agencies (shown in Figure 1.6) had adopted an AB 3030 GWMP (DWR, 2003). None of these agencies is known to have exercised the authority of a water replenishment district. Water Code § 10755.2 expands groundwater management opportunities by encouraging coordinated plans and authorizing public agencies to enter into a JPA or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with public or private entities providing water service. At least 20 coordinated plans have been prepared to date involving nearly 120 agencies, including cities and private water companies. In 2002, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1938 (Stats. 2002, ch. 603), which provides local agencies with incentives for improved groundwater management. While not providing a new vehicle for groundwater management, SB 1938 modified the Water Code by requiring specific elements be included in a GWMP for an agency to be eligible for certain funding administered by DWR for groundwater projects. Through AB 3030 and SB 1938, local agencies can now develop GWMPs that guide the sustainable use of the groundwater resource while also providing access to certain DWR funding sources. 1.5 PRIOR AND CURRENT WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING EFFORTS The South Westside Basin has an extensive history of management of groundwater and surface water resources. This document builds upon those efforts, described below. 1.5.1 DRAFT WESTSIDE BASIN GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN In 1999, cities and water purveyors overlying much of the Westside Basin (Daly City, CalWater, San Bruno, and SFPUC) cooperatively developed a proposed Westside Basin AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan (1999 Plan; Bookman-Edmonston, 1999), pursuant to the guidelines in AB 3030. Although not adopted by the cities due to data gaps and other concerns Figure 1.6. Location of areas with groundwater management plans Source: DWR, 2010 Introduction and Background 1-10 South Westside Basin GWMP at the time, the four cities and water purveyors have voluntarily implemented much of the recommendations and other aspects of the 1999 Plan. The 1999 Plan established a goal of protecting water quality and enhancing water supply reliability in the Westside Basin. This goal was supported by five plan elements: o Groundwater Storage and Quality Monitoring – development of a basin-wide monitoring program o Saline Water Intrusion – use of monitoring data to indicate any occurrence of saltwater intrusion and to provide technical information needed to develop appropriate management responses if intrusion occurs o Conjunctive Use – development of a multi-agency conjunctive use program, including monitoring o Recycled Water – development of a recycled water program for landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses o Source Water and Wellhead Protection – protection of groundwater from contamination from methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and other contaminants through source water assessment methodologies 1.5.2 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT The proposed Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (GSR) Project is designed to balance the use of both groundwater and surface water to increase water supply reliability during dry years or in emergencies. Located in the South Westside Basin, the proposed project is sponsored by SFPUC in coordination with partner agencies: CalWater, Daly City, and San Bruno. The partner agencies currently purchase wholesale surface water from SFPUC and also independently operate groundwater production wells for drinking water and irrigation. The project would consist of installing up to 16 new recovery well facilities in the South Westside Basin to pump stored groundwater during a drought. During years of normal or above normal precipitation, the proposed project would provide surface water to the partner agencies to reduce the amount of groundwater pumped. The reduced pumping is estimated to result in the storage of approximately 61,000 AF of water in the long-term. This is estimated to allow recovery of stored water at a rate of up to 7.2 million gallons per day (mgd) for a 7.5-year drought period, if the full 61,000 AF is stored prior to the drought period (MWH, 2007). The storage of water in the basin was analyzed through the In-Lieu Pilot Study (ILPS), which is described in the following section. The GSR Project is in the design and environmental review phases and is envisioned to coordinate management of groundwater supplies through an Operating Committee. The development of the GSR Project includes extensive study of the hydrogeology of the South Introduction and Background 1-11 South Westside Basin GWMP Westside Basin and was documented in the Alternatives Analysis Report (MWH, 2007) and in reports documenting monitoring well installation (Kennedy/Jenks, 2009 and 2010). The parties are working to develop an operating agreement in connection with the proposed GSR Project. To-date, the SFPUC has installed ten multi-level monitoring wells in the South Westside Basin (each consisting of 4 nested monitoring wells). The Proposed Project Draft EIR is scheduled to be circulated in 2012. 1.5.3 IN-LIEU PILOT STUDY Beginning in 2002, SFPUC delivered surface water in-lieu of groundwater through the ILPS to Daly City, San Bruno and CalWater - South San Francisco District. The ILPS demonstrated that SFPUC system water can be stored in the Basin through the delivery of in-lieu water to replace groundwater that Daly City, San Bruno, and CalWater refrained from pumping (Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers [LSCE], 2005). During the ILPS, significant quantities of water were banked as shown in Figure 1.7 and discussed below: o Daly City - Through May 7, 2007, SFPUC delivered 13,077 AF of in-lieu water to Daly City. Beginning in May 2009, SFPUC resumed delivery of in-lieu water to Daly City, resulting in additional banking of water. In 2009 and 2010, 1,921 AF and 2,204 AF of water was banked by Daly City, respectively. o CalWater – South San Francisco District - Between February 1, 2003 and November 1, 2003, SFPUC delivered 802 AF of in-lieu water to CalWater – South San Francisco District. When the ILPS restarted on April 1, 2004, CalWater did not participate and did not resume pumping, but continued to rely on wholesale water for all of its water needs in its South San Francisco service area. This resulted in an increase in basin water levels as if CalWater had continued to participate in the ILPS, and a corresponding increase in stored water of 930 AF between April 1, 2004 and March 1, 2005. o San Bruno – From January 28, 2003 through March 1, 2005, SFPUC delivered 3,915 AF of in-lieu water to San Bruno. Introduction and Background 1-12 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 1.7 Banked Groundwater in In-Lieu Pilot Study 1.5.4 SAN FRANCISCO BAY BASIN WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region [RWQCB], 2010) was developed by the RWQCB to provide positive and firm direction for future water quality control. The Basin Plan fulfills the following needs: o Requirements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for such a plan to allocate federal grants to cities and districts for construction of wastewater treatment facilities. o A basis for establishing priorities for disbursing both state and federal grants for constructing and upgrading wastewater treatment facilities. o Requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act that call for water quality control plans in California. o A basis for the RWQCB to establish or revise waste discharge requirements and for the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) to establish or revise water rights permits. o Conditions (discharge prohibitions) that must be met at all times. o Water quality standards applicable to waters of the Region, as required by the federal Clean Water Act. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Oct-02Mar-03Aug-03Jan-04Jun-04Nov-04Apr-05Sep-05Feb-06Jul-06Dec-06May-07Oct-07Mar-08Aug-08Jan-09Jun-09Nov-09Banked Water (AF/Month) Month Daly City Cal Water San Bruno Introduction and Background 1-13 South Westside Basin GWMP o Water quality attainment strategies, including total maximum daily loads required by the Clean Water Act, for pollutants and water bodies where water quality standards are not currently met. While the Basin Plan has a definite focus on surface water resources, groundwater quality is included as well, particularly through the watershed management approach. This approach includes groundwater as well as surface water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and the surrounding landscape) in an effort to develop unique, integrated solutions for individual watersheds through a stakeholder process. As with surface water, the Basin Plan establishes beneficial uses for groundwater throughout the San Francisco Bay Region. For the South Westside Basin, the Basin Plan identifies two areas: Westside C (2-35C), extending from the San Francisco County line to the City of South San Francisco, and Westside D (2-35D), extending from South San Francisco to the southern extent of the South Westside Basin. The designated beneficial uses for groundwater within these areas, and within areas in the North Westside Basin, are shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 Basin Plan Beneficial Uses for Groundwater Basin Plan Basin Location Beneficial Uses Municipal and Domestic Water Supply Industrial Process Water Supply Industrial Service Water Supply Agricultural Water Supply Westside C South Westside Basin Existing Potential Potential Existing Westside D South Westside Basin Existing Existing Existing Potential Westside A North Westside Basin Existing Potential Potential Existing Westside B North Westside Basin Potential Potential Potential Existing The Basin Plan sets objectives for groundwater, with maintenance of existing high-quality of groundwater being the primary objective. In addition, at a minimum, groundwater shall not contain concentrations of bacteria, chemical constituents, radioactivity, or substances producing taste and odor in excess of the objectives unless naturally occurring background concentrations Introduction and Background 1-14 South Westside Basin GWMP are greater. Under existing law, the Water Board regulates waste discharges to land that could affect water quality, including both groundwater and surface water quality. Waste discharges that reach groundwater are regulated to protect both groundwater and any surface water in continuity with groundwater. Waste discharges that affect groundwater in continuity with surface water cannot cause violations of any applicable surface water standards. For implementation, the RWQCB focuses on 28 groundwater basins and 7 sub-basins in the Bay Area that serve, or could serve, as sources of high quality drinking water. The Westside Basin is one of these basins. The Basin Plan establishes the following groundwater protection and management goals for the Bay Area region: o Identify and update beneficial uses and water quality objectives for each groundwater basin. o Regulate activities that impact or have the potential to impact the beneficial uses of groundwater of the region. o Prevent future impacts to the groundwater resource through local and regional planning, management, education, and monitoring. 1.5.5 SAN FRANCISCO AND NORTHERN SAN MATEO COUNTY PILOT BENEFICIAL USE DESIGNATION PROJECT RWQCB staff, with contributions from local agencies, evaluated existing groundwater protection programs and beneficial uses of groundwater in San Francisco and northern San Mateo County (RWQCB, 1996). Extensive research was conducted and numerous references were compiled to complete the project. The project included the following goals: o Describe the hydrogeology and groundwater uses for the groundwater basins o Identify major threats to groundwater and groundwater protection programs o Identify locations where groundwater is vulnerable to contamination o Identify locations where groundwater monitoring is needed o Use GIS to compile complex data sets to use as a decision-making tool for groundwater protection o Refine beneficial use designations for some groundwater basins o Identify inactive well locations o Describe groundwater extraction for municipal, agricultural, and industrial water supply o Summarize statewide initiatives for groundwater protection and data sharing Introduction and Background 1-15 South Westside Basin GWMP o Evaluate special problem areas not typically addressed by groundwater protection programs The results of the project identified the Westside Basin as a valuable resource deserving of full protection and restoration, including aggressive remediation of contaminated groundwater, enhanced source control and groundwater protection to prevent additional pollution, and groundwater basin management to prevent overdraft. 1.5.6 GROUNDWATER AMBIENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: SAN FRANCISCO BAY STUDY UNIT The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program is a comprehensive assessment of statewide groundwater quality implemented by the Water Board in coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The program is designed to help better understand and identify risks to groundwater resources. The South Westside Basin was included in the study through the investigation of the San Francisco Bay study unit, which includes portions of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties, with sampling from April through June 2007. Groundwater was sampled from 79 wells within the San Francisco Bay study unit to characterize its constituents and identify trends in groundwater quality through a spatially unbiased assessment of raw groundwater quality. Four grid cell wells (SF-03, SF-04, SF-05, and SF-06) and seven understanding wells (SFM-A1, SFM-A2, SFM-A3 SFM-A4, SFM-B1, SFM-B2, and SFU-01) are located in or near the South Westside Basin. The focus on raw water quality rather than treated water quality and the spatially unbiased nature of the program set it apart from other sampling programs that typically use available data from existing wells that are biased toward better water quality and have data intended to meet regulatory requirements for drinking water supplies. The test results provide information to address a variety of issues ranging in scale from local water supply to statewide resource management. Full analysis of the results will be included in a future USGS report. 1.5.7 BAY AREA INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) (RMC and Jones & Stokes, 2006) was developed through a Letter of Mutual Understanding by San Francisco Bay Area water, wastewater, flood protection, and stormwater management agencies; cities and counties represented by the Association of Bay Area Governments; and watershed management interests represented by the California Coastal Conservancy and non-governmental environmental organizations. The IRWMP outlines the region’s water resource management needs and objectives, and presents innovative strategies and a detailed implementation plan to Introduction and Background 1-16 South Westside Basin GWMP achieve these objectives, contributing to sustainable water resources management in the Bay Area. The following are the overall objectives of the Bay Area IRWMP: 1) Foster coordination, collaboration and communication among Bay Area agencies responsible for water and habitat-related issues. 2) Achieve greater efficiencies and build public support for vital projects. 3) Improve regional competitiveness for project funding. The Bay Area IRWMP identifies regional priority projects, including two in the South Westside Basin: the Lomita Canal / Cupid Row Canal Upgrades at San Francisco International Airport and SFPUC Groundwater Projects (including Lake Merced Project, Local Groundwater Projects, and the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project). The Bay Area IRWMP will be going through an update during 2011 – 2012 to ensure that the IRWMP is in compliance with Proposition 84 requirements, including a climate change impact assessment and integrated flood management. 1.5.8 WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY The Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County (Wholesale Water Supply Agreement) (July, 2009) defines the agreement for San Francisco to deliver, up to a defined quantity (Supply Assurance), water to the wholesale customers, including the water agencies in the South Westside Basin. The Supply Assurance includes the wholesale customers as a group, while Individual Supply Guarantees are defined for each agency (Table 1.2). These quantities are expressed in terms of daily deliveries on an annual average basis, although San Francisco agrees to operate the system to meet peak requirements to the extent possible without adversely impacting the ability to meet peak demands of retail customers. The Wholesale Water Supply Agreement includes details on allocation, service areas, permanent transfers, resale, conservation, other supplies, water quality, maintenance, operation, shortages, wheeling, new customers, metering, the proposed conjunctive use program for the South Westside Basin, implementation of interim supply limitations, wholesale revenues, accounting, and other agreements. Introduction and Background 1-17 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 1.2 Individual Supply Guarantees Wholesale Customer Individual Supply Guarantee (mgd) Water Purchases Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (mgd)* California Water Services Company 35.68 (includes South San Francisco and areas outside the South Westside Basin) 32.6 (7.2 mgd for South San Francisco District) City of Burlingame 5.234 3.9 City of Daly City 4.292 3.2** City of Millbrae 3.152 2.2 City of San Bruno 3.246 1.5 Town of Hillsborough 4.090 3.0 * BAWSCA, 2011 ** Amount shown does not include 1.9 mgd of in-lieu water purchases 1.5.9 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS Urban water management plans (UWMP) include descriptions and evaluations of historical, current, and future sources of water supply; efficient uses of water; demand management measures; implementation strategies and schedules; and other information as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act. They are important components for the planning process of each agency and values from these plans are used extensively in Section 3, Water Requirements and Supplies, of this GWMP. A UWMP is required for water agencies with more than 3,000 customers or that provide over 3,000 AF of water annually. Within the South Westside Basin, UWMPs have been developed and adopted by Burlingame, Daly City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Bruno, and CalWater. In the North Westside Basin, SFPUC has developed a UWMP. Introduction and Background 1-18 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.6 PUBLIC PROCESS IN DEVELOPING THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The development of any GWMP is a collaborative process involving all interested stakeholders. Public input is critical to the success of the South Westside Basin GWMP and was a key component of its development. The public was informed and encouraged to provide input and participate in the development of the GWMP in the following ways: o GWMP web site: www.southwestsideplan.com provided information to the public regarding the GWMP. Details about groundwater management in general and specific to the South Westside Basin were provided. Meeting dates, locations, and materials were posted along with details of the South Westside Basin GWMP Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) and contact information. o Newspaper advertisements in the San Mateo County Times gave notice of public hearings. o Public hearings provided opportunities for personal communications captured in the public record on specific topics, including resolution of intent to draft a GWMP and resolution of adoption of the GWMP. o Public meetings provided details on the GWMP process and solicited input. o Advisory Committee meetings provided detailed technical information on the GWMP and solicited input. o Direct communication by telephone, email, and mail was encouraged at meetings and on the web site. Comments could be sent to the City of San Bruno project manager, local water agency staff, or the consultant project manager. 1.6.1 JUNE 2009 PRESENTATION TO IRRIGATION PUMPERS IN THE SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN A presentation on the South Westside Basin GWMP was given on June 25, 2009 to cemetery and golf course interests as part of a SFPUC meeting on the proposed GSR and its potential impacts and benefits for cemeteries and golf courses. The meeting was held at 10:30 a.m. at the Colma Town Hall. The presentation gave an overview of groundwater planning, the proposed GWMP, and the process of developing the GWMP. Attendees were invited to provide contact information and to continue to provide guidance as the GWMP is developed and implemented. Copies of the presentation were provided to interested parties via email. Attendees included representatives from the following: o Holy Cross Cemetery o Lake Merced area golf courses o Town of Colma Introduction and Background 1-19 South Westside Basin GWMP o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC 1.6.2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.6.2.1 Intent to Adopt A public hearing of Intent to Adopt a Groundwater Management Plan was held at the regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council at 7 p.m. on August 24, 2010 at the San Bruno Senior Center. The hearing was advertised in the San Mateo Times, on August 10, 2010 and August 17, 2010. A resolution was adopted by the City Council and subsequently was published in the San Mateo Times on September 8, 2010 and September 15, 2010. The advertisements and the resolution are included in Appendix A. 1.6.2.2 Adoption A public hearing to adopt the Groundwater Management Plan was held at the regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council at 7 p.m. on July 10, 2012 at the San Bruno Senior Center. The hearing was advertised in the San Mateo Times twice prior to the hearing. The advertisements and the resolution are included in Appendix A. 1.6.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS A total of five public meetings were held to inform the public on the development of the groundwater management plan. 1.6.3.1 Background, Components, and Process Three public meetings were held at locations across the South Westside Basin to provide information on the importance of groundwater as a water supply, the need for management of the groundwater resource, the role of a GWMP, the role of the public in the development and implementation of the GWMP, and the preliminary goals, objectives, and elements of the groundwater management plan. 1.6.3.1.1 San Bruno Presentation The presentation in the southern portion of the South Westside Basin was given at San Bruno City Hall on Thursday September 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm. The meeting was advertised on San Bruno’s cable television station, noticed at City Hall, and advertised in the San Mateo Times on September 4, 2010. Introduction and Background 1-20 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.6.3.1.2 Daly City Presentation A presentation in the northern portion of the South Westside Basin at was given at Daly City City Hall on Thursday September 23, 2010 at 7:00 pm. The meeting was noticed at City Hall, on the city’s web page, and on the city’s cable television station. Interviews were provided to a student from San Francisco State University for airing on the campus radio station, KSFS. 1.6.3.1.3 Colma Presentation The presentation in the central portion of the South Westside Basin was given at Colma Town Hall on Thursday October 13, 2010 at 11:30 am. The meeting was noticed at Town Hall. Extensive personal outreach was conducted to inform the numerous cemeteries that utilize private groundwater wells for their irrigation supply. 1.6.3.2 Draft Plan Presentation The fourth public meeting was held at Colma Town Hall on May 24, 2011 at 11:30am. The meeting was noticed at Town Hall and outreach was performed to inform the cemeteries. The draft Groundwater Management Plan was presented and stakeholders were provided an opportunity to discuss the draft Plan and provide comments either in person or at a later date. 1.6.3.3 Distribution of Draft GWMP The draft text of the GWMP was distributed to the public for comment on May 10, 2012. The comment period extended until June 9, 2012. One email was received with comments, which were addressed. 1.6.3.4 Final Draft Plan Presentation The fifth public meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall on May 23, 2012 at 5:30 pm. The meeting was noticed at City Hall and advertised in the San Mateo Times on May 20, 2012. The final draft Groundwater Management Plan and the activities moving forward were discussed. 1.7 SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN GWMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Advisory Committee was organized to solicit input and direct the development of the GWMP. Agencies and key stakeholders were provided written invitations to send to their representatives to invite them to participate in the Advisory Committee. Other stakeholders were invited to join through the public notification process, hearings, the web site, and public meetings. Table 1.3 lists the Advisory Committee members and their affiliations. Meetings were held from 2009 through 2011 to coordinate stakeholder input and incrementally build the GWMP. Agendas and minutes are included in Appendix A. Introduction and Background 1-21 South Westside Basin GWMP During implementation of the GWMP, it is anticipated that most of the members of the Advisory Committee will join the Groundwater Task Force. The Groundwater Task Force will guide the implementation of the GWMP and is described in more detail in Section 6.1. Table 1.3 Advisory Committee Members Entity Representative Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Anona Dutton City of Brisbane Randy L. Breault City of Burlingame Phil Monaghan California Water Services Company Tom Salzano DWR Mark Nordberg Cemeteries Roger Appleby Town of Colma Brad Donohue City of Daly City Patrick Sweetland RWQCB Kevin D. Brown City of San Bruno Will Anderson SFPUC Greg Bartow City of South San Francisco Terry White Interested citizens Robert Riechel 1.7.1 DECEMBER 18, 2009 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 1 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on December 18, 2009 to coordinate the Advisory Committee, develop a common understanding of basin conditions and groundwater management plans, and to develop a goal or goals for the basin. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was well attended, including representatives of the following: o California Water Services Company o City of Brisbane o City of Burlingame o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o RWQCB o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Private citizens o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. Introduction and Background 1-22 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.7.2 MARCH 11, 2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 2 The second Advisory Committee meeting was held on March 11, 2010 to discuss Basin Management Objectives (BMOs), both in general and specific to the South Westside Basin. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of the following: o Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o RWQCB o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.3 JUNE 24, 2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 3 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on June 24, 2010 to discuss comments received on the BMOs and to discuss the Elements of the Plan. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC o Town of Colma The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.4 AUGUST 16, 2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 4 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on August 16, 2010 to discuss basin governance and financing of the implementation of the groundwater management plan. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o RWQCB o SFPUC Introduction and Background 1-23 South Westside Basin GWMP o Town of Colma The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.5 FEBRUARY 3, 2011 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 5 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on February 3, 2011 to discuss the recent completion of a revision to the Westside Basin Groundwater Flow Model and the utility of the model in the development of the GWMP. The discussion included using the model to estimate the basin yield. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.6 APRIL 28, 2011 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 6 An Advisory Committee meeting was held on April 28, 2011 to update the current status of the Groundwater Management Plan to provide information to focus the review to be performed by the Advisory Committee. Progress toward participation in the CASGEM program was also discussed. The meeting was held at San Bruno City Hall and was attended by representatives of: o DWR o California Water Services Company o City of Daly City o City of San Bruno o SFPUC o Town of Colma o Cemeteries The meeting minutes are included in Appendix A. 1.7.7 APRIL 15, 2011 DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT GWMP The draft text of the GWMP was distributed to the Advisory Committee for comment on April 15, 2011. Comments were received from BAWSCA, CalWater, San Bruno, SFPUC, and Steve Lawrence and incorporated into the text as appropriate. Introduction and Background 1-24 South Westside Basin GWMP 1.8 GROUNDWATER MANANGEMENT PLAN AND CONSISTENCY WITH CALIFORNIA WATER CODE Groundwater management is the planned and coordinated local effort of sustaining the groundwater basin in order to meet future water supply needs. With the passage of AB 3030 in 1992, local water agencies were provided a systematic way of formulating GWMPs (California Water Code, § 10750 et. seq.). SB 1938, passed in 2002, further emphasizes the need for groundwater management in California. SB 1938 requires AB 3030 GWMPs to contain specific plan components in order to receive state funding for water projects. The South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan is prepared consistent with the provisions of California Water Code § 10750 et seq. as amended January 1, 2003. The South Westside Basin GWMP includes the seven components that are required to be eligible for DWR funds for the construction of groundwater projects or groundwater quality projects. The GWMP also addresses the 12 specific technical issues identified in the Water Code along with the seven recommended components identified in DWR Bulletin 118-03 (DWR, 2003). Table 1.4 lists the required and recommended components and identifies the specific section of this GWMP in which the components are discussed. Introduction and Background 1-25 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 1.4 South Westside Basin GWMP Components Component GWMP Section(s) SB 1938 Mandatory 1. Documentation of public involvement 1.6, 1.7, App. A 2. BMOs 4.3 3. Monitoring and management of groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, inelastic land subsidence, and changes in surface water flows and quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality 5.2 4. Plan to involve other agencies located in the groundwater basin 5.1 5. Adoption of monitoring protocols 5.2, App. C 6. Map of groundwater basin boundary, as delineated by DWR Bulletin 118, with boundaries of agencies subject to the GWMP Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 7. For agencies not overlying groundwater basins, GWMP prepared using appropriate geologic and hydrogeologic principles n/a AB 3030 and SB 1938 Voluntary 1. Control of saline water intrusion 5.4.1 2. Identification and management of well protection and recharge areas 5.4.2 3. Regulation of the migration of contaminated groundwater 5.4.3 4. Administration of well abandonment and destruction program 5.4.4 5. Control and mitigation of groundwater overdraft 5.3.1 6. Replenishment of groundwater 5.3.2 7. Monitoring of groundwater levels 5.2.1, App. C 8. Development and operation of conjunctive use projects 5.3.3 9. Identification of well construction policies 5.4.5 10. Construction and operation of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects 5.5 11. Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies 5.6.1 12. Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create reasonable risk of groundwater contamination 5.6.3 DWR Bulletin 118 Recommended 1. Management with guidance of advisory committee 1.7, 5.1 2. Description of area to be managed under GWMP 1.1, Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 3. Links between BMOs and goals and actions of GWMP 4, 6 4. Description of GWMP monitoring programs 5.2, App. C 5. Description of integrated water management planning efforts 1.5, 5.6.2 6. Report of implementation of GWMP 5.7 7. Periodic evaluation of GWMP 5.7 2-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 2 WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS 2.1 CLIMATE The South Westside Basin’s location in a valley between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay gives it a variable, but mild, marine climate. Winters are mild and moderately wet and summers are cool and dry (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009). The valley serves as a gap in the coast range, allowing cool, moist marine air into the central Bay Area. Generally, areas closer to the Pacific Ocean or closer to the valley experience the most marine effects, notably lower summer temperatures and lower evapotranspiration, while those areas in the south of the basin, such as Burlingame, experience less marine influence and have more sunshine, higher summer temperatures, and higher evapotranspiration rates. This climate, along with limited outdoor water use, contributes to water demand that is only somewhat higher in the summer than in the winter. Average monthly temperature and reference evapotranspiration data are shown in Table 2.1. Temperature data are from San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), within the Plan Area; however, the closest reference evapotranspiration data is from Woodside, south of the Plan Area. Temperature, evapotranspiration, and rainfall are variable in the basin and are driven by proximity to the Pacific Ocean and local topography. Areas closer to the ocean are cooler and cloudier, with lower evapotranspiration. Higher elevation areas have more rainfall. Table 2.1 Average Monthly Temperature and Reference Evapotranspiration Parameter Month Annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average maximum temperature (F)* 55.8 59.1 61.2 63.8 66.8 70.0 71.4 72.1 73.5 70.1 62.9 56.4 65.3 Average minimum temperature (F)* 42.5 45.0 46.2 47.7 50.3 52.7 54.1 55.0 54.9 51.9 47.4 43.2 49.2 Precipitation (inches)** 4.4 3.6 2.8 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.3 3.7 20.0 Average reference evapotranspiration (inches)*** 1.83 2.21 3.42 4.84 5.61 6.26 6.47 6.22 4.84 3.66 2.36 1.83 49.54 * Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2011. San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769). Period of record 7/1948 – 9/2010. ** Source: NOAA-NCDC, 2007, 2009, 2011 *** Source: California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), 2009. 96 Woodside. Period of record 10/1990 – 1/1994 Water Resources Conditions 2-2 South Westside Basin GWMP The National Weather Service through its Cooperative Network collects rainfall data at SFIA: Coop ID #047769 (see Figure 2.1). Data are available from May 1928 through present. The historical record of annual rainfall and the cumulative departure from annual mean at SFIA are shown in Figure 2.2. The long-term average annual precipitation for the period from 1949 to 2010 is 20 inches. Figure 2.3 shows the long-term average monthly precipitation at SFIA. Most precipitation occurs as rainfall during the mild winters, from November through April. A map of the spatial distribution of precipitation by HydroFocus (2011) is shown in Figure 2.4. Across the basin, annual precipitation ranges from less than 20 inches along San Francisco Bay near SFIA and along the Pacific Ocean in Daly City to approximately 24 inches in the center of the valley near Colma and South San Francisco to approximately 30 inches in the hills above the valley. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Colma Creek SFIA §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.1Rainfall and StreamflowGages 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area NOAA Precipitation Gage USGS Streamflow Gage F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.1 Rainfall and Streamflow Gages.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.2 Historical Annual Precipitation and Cumulative Departure from Mean Precipitation Figure 2.3 Average Monthly Precipitation Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l 212220 23 242 5 26 1927 1828 20.521 . 52121.5§¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 2.4Distribution of AverageAnnual Precipitation 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Precipitation - HydroFocus, 2011 ² Legend Precipitation (in) Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.4 Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-6 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.2 SURFACE WATER Major watersheds and surface water features are shown in Figure 2.5. The largest watersheds are Colma Creek Watershed and Vista Grande Watershed. Colma Creek is a small creek draining much of South San Francisco and the surrounding area before entering into San Francisco Bay just north of SFIA and the eastern terminus of Interstate 380. Within the valley portion of the watershed, Colma Creek is an open engineered channel from the bay to near the Colma/South San Francisco city line. Much of the area upstream of South San Francisco and some small tributaries within South San Francisco drains through underground storm drains. Some of the uppermost reaches of the creek are natural channels, particularly on the slopes of San Bruno Mountain (Oakland Museum of California, 2011). The only USGS streamflow gage in the South Westside Basin was located on Colma Creek (Figure 2.1). No longer active, the gage has recorded data from 1963 until 1996. Average monthly flows from the gage are presented on Figure 2.6a and the percent exceedance of daily streamflow is shown in Figure 2.6b. Average monthly streamflow is low, less than 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the summer and less than 20 cfs in the winter. High flow conditions are typically below 200 cfs. Work has been performed on the stream channel to reduce flooding in the area, particularly near Holy Cross Cemetery. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Colma Creek Sanchez CreekMills CreekS a n Ma t e o Cr e e k San Pedro Creek Eas to n C reekPila r citos CreekMartini Cre e k San Mateo Cre e k §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.5Watersheds and Surface Water Features 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: NHD database and USGS ² Legend Creeks/Streams Highways Watersheds Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.5 Watersheds and Surface Water Features.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-8 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.6a Average Monthly Colma Creek Streamflow, 1963-1996 Figure 2.6b Daily Colma Creek Streamflow Exceedance, 1963-1996 The Vista Grande Watershed historically drained into Lake Merced, but has since been altered to flow to the Pacific Ocean. The 2.5 square mile watershed includes portions of Daly City as well as portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. Stormwater flows through the Vista Grande Canal for about 3,500 feet before flowing into the Vista Grande Outfall Tunnel. The tunnel discharges to the Pacific Ocean through an outfall beach structure below Fort Funston in Golden Gate National Recreation Area. (RMC, 2006) Other creeks in the South Westside Basin include: o San Bruno Creek in San Bruno o Millbrae Creek in Millbrae o Mills Creek in Burlingame o Sanchez Creek in Burlingame Water Resources Conditions 2-9 South Westside Basin GWMP o San Mateo Creek, just south of the South Westside Basin in San Mateo The major water features in the North Westside Basin are Lake Merced and several smaller lakes. These features, as they relate to groundwater, are discussed in the draft North Westside Basin GWMP. 2.3 GROUNDWATER 2.3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The South Westside Basin is a structural basin within the Coast Ranges province of California. The Coast Ranges are dominated by northwest oriented mountain ranges and valleys. The mountains are steep but modest in elevation. Locally, the Santa Cruz Mountains and the valley that makes up the South Westside Basin are part of these features. Highest elevations include the following: o Scarpet Peak southwest of the basin, 1,944 feet (ft) o San Bruno Mountain northeast of the basin, 1,316 ft o Mount Davidson in San Francisco, 927 ft The northwest trend is a result of tectonics, with major northwest trending faults in the vicinity of the South Westside Basin: San Andreas Fault, Serra Fault, and the Hillside Fault (Figure 2.7) The Franciscan Formation forms the basement underlying the unconsolidated sediments that are the primary sources of groundwater for the area and forms most of the mountains surrounding the South Westside Basin (Burns & McDonnell and ERM-West, 2006; Bonilla 1998). A map of bedrock elevation is presented on Figure 2.8 based on HydroFocus (2003). The Mesozoic-age formation is highly deformed and comprised of a unique mix of rocks related to tectonic subduction. This subduction resulted in materials from the oceanic plate being scraped off and accreted onto the continental materials as well as low-temperature, high-pressure metamorphism. The scraping results in the presence of deep-ocean materials such as chert, while metamorphism results in rocks such as serpentine and blueshist. The most common materials are greywacke (a poorly sorted sandstone containing angular clasts) and shale, resulting from deep ocean deposition in a method similar to a landslide. Composition of the Franciscan Formation is variable; locally the Franciscan has significant greywacke and shale in what is known as the San Bruno Mountain terrane to the northeast of the South Westside Basin and pillow basalts, minor chert, limestone, and greywacke in what is known as the Permanente terrane to the southwest (Sloan, 2006). The Merced Formation and the Colma Formation are the major unconsolidated units in the South Westside Basin and are the primary sources of groundwater. These formations were Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l 0 Ser ra Hill s i d e Pilar c i t o s f a u l t S a n A n d r e a s f a u l t z o n e , P e n i n s u l a s e c t i o n §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.7Major Faults 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: USGS ² Legend Highways Plan Area Faults F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.7 Major Faults.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l 0 -3 0 0 100 20 0 -6 0 0 -7 0 0 - 8 0 0 - 9 0 0 -1 5 0 - 2 0 0 -400 -250 -500 -100 -4 0 0 -10 0 -300- 1 0 0 -200-100-2 0 0 -200 -5 0 0 -300 -2 0 0 -100-10 0 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.8Bedrock Elevation 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Bedrock Elevation - Phillips et al., 1993 and Hensolt and Brabb, 1990 as cited in HydroFocus, 2003 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Bedrock Elevation (ft)F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.8 Bedrock Elevation.mxd, January 20, 2012 Water Resources Conditions 2-12 South Westside Basin GWMP deposited on top of the Franciscan. During recent geologic history, the South Westside Basin alternated between being submerged below the Pacific Ocean and being above sea level, the result of tectonic subsidence, changes in sea level due to global climatic conditions, and tectonic uplift. At least 30 episodes of transgression and regression are recorded in the Merced and Colma Formations near Daly City (Clifton and Hunter, 1987, 1991) as changes from shallow marine to non-marine sediments. These episodes resulted in the layers of clays and sands seen in the subsurface today. The Merced Formation contains several major beds of sands and clays. The lower portion of the formation contains locally derived materials from the Coast Ranges, while the upper portion contains sediment from the Sierra Nevada and Cascades identifying the movement of the outlet of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers near their current outlet at the Golden Gate. Beds in the vicinity of coastal Daly City dip to the northeast at 45 to 70 degrees in the lower 4,000 ft; 25 to 45 degrees in the middle 600 ft; and 5 to 20 degrees in the upper 500 ft (LSCE, 2004). The Merced Formation dips more than 40 degrees to the northeast in the portion of the South Westside Basin from San Bruno to Daly City (Fio and Leighton, 1995). From San Bruno into Millbrae and between the Serra and San Andreas faults, the Merced dips to the southwest and to the northeast, depending on location, due to faulting and folding (Rogge, 2003). East of the Serra Fault, the Merced appears to dip to the northeast based on observations by Rogge. The Colma Formation has a very similar mineral composition to the underlying Merced Formation. The Colma Formation is younger (Pleistocene-age) than the Merced and was deposited on top of the tilted Merced Formation. The layering in the Colma Formation remains primarily horizontal (Sloan, 2006). Bay Muds are also present along the margins of San Francisco Bay at ground surface or below artificial fill. These recently deposited materials are fine-grained clays and silts with organic matter and minor sand lenses that were deposited in still waters and accumulated as sea levels rose (Lee and Praszker, 1969). 2.3.2 WATER-BEARING FORMATIONS Groundwater used for water supply within the South Westside Basin is found in the Merced and Colma formations discussed above. Water is produced from the coarse-grained layers within these complex, layered formations. Grain size typically decreases from the northwest to the southeast. The elevation of the bedrock surface is shown in Figure 2.8; the deepest portions of the basin is in the northwest, becoming thin in Millbrae and south into Burlingame. Water bearing formations are also thin near San Francisco Bay due to a bedrock ridge extending in a north- Water Resources Conditions 2-13 South Westside Basin GWMP south orientation near SFIA, which, together with surficial deposits of Bay muds in these areas, reduces the potential for seawater intrusion in this area (WRIME, 2007). The “W” clay is a major aquitard in the Daly City area , with municipal production occurring below the “W” clay. The “W” clay is not present south of Daly City, but a fine grained unit at 300 ft below mean sea level is present in the South San Francisco area (LSCE, 2004) and several clay units are in the upper portion of the aquifer in the San Bruno area. Perched aquifer conditions occur throughout the Plan Area. Numerous shallow wells installed for remediation or monitoring of contaminants nearly always encounter the water table within 30 feet of ground surface (HydroFocus, 2003). The characteristics of the water bearing formations have been studied through several aquifer tests outlined in the Alternatives Analysis Report (MWH, 2007) and are summarized below. These tests provide estimates of transmissivity, a measure of the ability of an aquifer to transmit groundwater. For the South Westside Basin as a whole, previous studies have shown a range of transmissivities of 668 to 4,100 ft2/day (CH2M HILL, 1997 as referenced in MWH, 2007). More specifically, transmissivities have been estimated for the following: o Daly City area at the Jefferson Well as 2,190 ft2/day o CalWater wellfield area as 1,000 to 20,000 ft2/day o San Bruno area at SB-16 as 1,890 ft2/day (LSCE, 2004; MWH, 2007) 2.3.3 PARTIAL BARRIERS TO SEAWATER INTRUSION The lack of historical seawater intrusion despite historical data of groundwater levels below sea level near both the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay is likely due to natural hydrogeologic conditions that act as partial barriers and inhibit the flow of water from these saltwater bodies into the freshwater aquifer. 2.3.3.1 Pacific Ocean Significant faulting and folding of the Merced Formation near the Pacific Ocean has been shown to be a barrier to seawater intrusion from the Pacific Ocean. It has been concluded that groundwater extraction within the South Westside Basin largely occurs within sequences with no direct connection with the Pacific Ocean (LSCE, 2010). Monitoring wells at Thornton Beach and Fort Funston exhibit groundwater levels above sea level. The potential for seawater intrusion is more likely to the north of Fort Funston, in the vicinity of LMMW-6D, where the faulted and folded conditions do not exist and there is a potential pathway into the South Westside Basin from the northwest. This area, however, is farther from the influence of active production wells and water levels are thus higher than elsewhere in the South Westside Basin. A network of monitoring wells are used to collect groundwater data along the Pacific Ocean: at Water Resources Conditions 2-14 South Westside Basin GWMP the Old Great Highway, the northwestern part of Golden Gate Park, the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plan, the San Francisco Zoo, Fort Funston, and Thornton Beach. 2.3.3.2 San Francisco Bay Relatively thick Bay Mud deposits and a buried bedrock ridge within 50 to 300 ft of the land surface provide some protection to the southern portion of the South Westside Basin from seawater intrusion from San Francisco Bay. Previous efforts have identified areas where the depth to bedrock is deepest and installed monitoring well clusters in the two most likely locations for seawater intrusion. These wells (SFO-S, SFO-D, Burlingame-S, Burlingame-M, and Burlingame-D) provide water level and water quality data. While this barrier has been historically effective, hydraulic connections between the main pumping aquifer and shallower wells closer to the Bay have been shown through water level impacts when San Bruno groundwater production wells are turned on (impacts at SFIA monitoring wells; ERM (2005)) and through depressed water levels near the bayshore (including SFO-S, SFO-D, Burlingame-S, Burlingame-M, and Burlingame-D). While not a completely understood pathway from San Francisco Bay into the main pumping aquifer, this hydraulic connection indicates that there is some potential for seawater intrusion in the future in this area. Risks of seawater intrusion increase with greater gradients between depressed groundwater levels in the drinking water aquifer and sea level at San Francisco Bay. Such risks can be reduced through increasing groundwater levels by increased recharge or decreased groundwater production. 2.3.4 SOILS Surface soils impact the amount of water that infiltrates to groundwater rather than contributing to surface runoff. The characteristics of surface soils thus play a role in groundwater recharge. Due to the urban nature of the area, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) does not have a comprehensive classification of these soils according to their infiltration capacity. However, USDA-NRCS does summarize the general soils for the area (Figure 2.9). Generally, soils in the northwest (Daly City and Colma) are well drained soils associated with former sand dunes (categorized as “Urban land-Orthents, smoothed”). Soils in the southeast (San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame) have variable drainage properties in the low elevations near and to the east of El Camino Real (categorized as “Urban land -Orthents, reclaimed” and “Urban land -Orthents”) and are well drained in the uplands to the west of El Camino (categorized as “Urban land - Orthents, cut and fill”). Water Resources Conditions 2-15 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.5 RECHARGE Additional water is added to the aquifer system through recharge, the percolation of water downward from the ground surface through unsaturated sediments into the aquifer. The amount of recharge is controlled by Climate, including precipitation and evapotranspiration The slope of the ground surface, which impacts whether water seeps into the ground or becomes runoff into surface drainages Land use, including the amount of impervious surfaces, plant types, and usage of irrigation Leakage from water and sewer pipes Soil characteristics Subsurface characteristics Estimates of recharge for the South Westside Basin were developed for the Groundwater Model (HydroFocus, 2011) and are summarized in Figure 2.10. The recharge estimates show that groundwater recharge is highest in the northwestern portions of the basin, corresponding to areas of sandy soils, and in areas with significant unpaved, irrigated land, such as golf courses and cemeteries. Recharge is lowest along the margins of San Francisco Bay, corresponding to areas with Bay Muds, and along the steep slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.9General Soil Classification 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Soils - USDA - SCS, 1991 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Soil Types Urban Land-Sirdrak Urban Land-Orthents, smoothed Alambique-McGarvey Scarper-Miramar Barnabe-Candlestick-Buriburi Fagan-Obispo Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill Alambique-Zeni-Zeni Variant Novato-Reyes Urban Land-Orthents, reclaimed Urban Land-Orthents F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.9 General Soil Classification.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.10Estimated Recharge 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Recharge - HydroFocus, 2011 ²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.10 Recharge.mxd, September 30, 2011Legend Highways Recharge (inches per year) 0 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 12 12 - 16 Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-18 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.6 EARLY DEVELOPMENT AND GROUNDWATER USAGE Early development in the South Westside Basin was primarily agricultural, with dairy cattle operations serving the nearby cities. Development of the type seen today began around the turn of the 20th century. Burials within the City of San Francisco were prohibited in 1900 and existing cemeteries were evicted in 1937. These events resulted in the establishment of the cemeteries in Colma. The 1906 earthquake resulted in the migration of people out of the damaged cities and into the undeveloped and newly developed areas in the South Westside Basin, particularly along the streetcar line that extended from San Francisco south through Daly City, San Bruno and beyond, as far as San Mateo by the late 1890s (Gillespie and Gillespie, 2009). San Francisco International Airport began operating in 1927, further driving urban growth. The most significant urban growth occurred during World War II as numerous industrial facilities operated out of South San Francisco, resulting in demand for area housing and commercial space. This growth continued until the area approached build-out. Historical population growth for the cities in the South Westside Basin (right axis), as well as for San Francisco (left axis), is shown in Figure 2.11. Figure 2.11. Historical Population Growth in the South Westside Basin Water Resources Conditions 2-19 South Westside Basin GWMP Historical groundwater use increased with development of the South Westside Basin through the 1960s. Beginning in the 1960s, groundwater use by municipal users began to decline (Figure 2.12), a result of conservation by customers as well as operational decisions as the water agencies have access to both groundwater and imported water through SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system. Since the early 1960s, municipal groundwater use in the South Westside Basin has declined by approximately 25 percent, while imported water use has increased by approximately 40 percent. Figure 2.12. Historical Municipal Groundwater Production, South Westside Basin 2.3.7 GROUNDWATER LEVELS There are little data on groundwater levels from the early development period of the South Westside Basin. Before groundwater production began, groundwater levels were likely close to the surface within the valley, draining to the Pacific Ocean in the west and to Colma Creek, San Francisco Bay, and other drainages to the east. A report from 1914 (Bartell, 1914) noted that San Bruno produced water from three artesian wells, which, when turned off, overflowed approximately 1 inch above the top of casing. Artesian flow was noted as being maintained through the previous two dry seasons. The same report noted pumping water levels in South San Francisco’s nine wells of 55 to 60 ft below ground surface. Through the early 1940s, groundwater levels remained above sea level in the Daly City area, although in the South San Francisco area groundwater levels were already 100 ft below sea level by that time (Kirker, Chapman & Associates, 1972). Groundwater levels remained relatively stable throughout the basin from the 1970s until the implementation of the ILPS in late 2002, which resulted in rising groundwater levels. Hydrographs present historical groundwater levels on Figures 2.13a-e (locations are presented on Figure 2.14). Current groundwater level conditions are shown in Figure 2.15. Water Resources Conditions 2-20 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.13a. Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-8 Figure 2.13b. Historical Groundwater Elevation, DC-1 Figure 2.13c. Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-20 Water Resources Conditions 2-21 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.13d. Historical Groundwater Elevation, SS 1-02 Figure 2.13e. Historical Groundwater Elevation, SB 12 !!! ! !! ! !Skyline BlvdE l C am i n o R e a l £¤101 San Mateo SB-15 SB-12 DC-8DC-1 Vale SS 1-20 SS 1-15 SS 1-02§¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.14Location of Selected Wells 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !Selected Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.13 Location of Selected Wells.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C am i n o R e a l San Mateo 0 -160-140-120-50 -70-20 -10 -100 -180-200-50 -70 -140-20 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.15Groundwater Elevation ContoursPrimary Production Aquifer, Fall 2010 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: Groundwater Levels: SFPUC, 2011 ²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.14 Groundwater Contours 2010.mxd, March 31, 2011Legend Groundwater Elevation Contour (ft)(dashed where inferred)Highways Groundwater Basin Water Resources Conditions 2-24 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.8 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Groundwater used for water supply in the South Westside Basin is generally good and delivered water meets all state and federal regulations. However, the quality of untreated groundwater in the basin is variable. Lower quality groundwater increases the cost of treatment for use as a drinking water source. Poor quality groundwater may not be economically, technically, or politically feasible for use as a water supply source. 2.3.8.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality Ambient groundwater quality reflects the general groundwater quality on a regional scale. Most water quality data is available from existing municipal production wells, whose operators maintain a testing schedule to meet the requirements of the California Department of Public Health (DPH). Analysis of ambient water quality was performed based on raw groundwater quality data in a DPH database (2010). Differences in the general chemistry of groundwater across the basin are shown through the Piper diagram on Figure 2.16. This diagram plots the relative concentrations of cations and anions. Similar waters will plot close to each other; different waters will plot farther apart. The close proximity of the plotted points shows the similarity of water across the South Westside Basin, however, there are noticeable differences between the water of the three agencies. Water Resources Conditions 2-25 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.16. Piper Diagram of General Groundwater Chemistry for Wells Operated by Daly City (open blue), CalWater (filled blue), and San Bruno (filled green) Analysis of the most prominent ambient water quality concerns, iron, manganese, nitrate, and total dissolved solids (TDS), was also performed based on raw groundwater quality data contained in the DPH database (2010). While these data are presented along with regulatory standards, it must be noted that a single detection of a contaminant may not indicate contamination. DPH would not consider a single detection of a contaminant, if unconfirmed with a follow-up detection, to be an actual finding. As another example, the presence of a contaminant in raw water does not necessarily mean that the water (and contaminant) was served by the water system to its customers, or, if served, that the contaminant was present at that concentration. Water systems may choose not use certain sources or may treat or blend them prior to service (DPH, 2010). While water containing higher concentrations of iron, manganese, nitrate, and TDS can be used following treatment, it is more economical to use water that does not require treatment. Iron and manganese do not pose a risk to human health, but are an aesthetic concern for water users. High concentrations of iron and manganese can result in poor tasting water or water that stains fixtures. The source of iron and manganese in groundwater is typically naturally occurring soils and rocks containing iron and manganese. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL) are enforceable standards established by DPH based on consumer acceptance, Water Resources Conditions 2-26 South Westside Basin GWMP rather than health risk. The SMCL is 300 micrograms per liter (µg/L) for iron and 50 µg/L for manganese. Figures 2.17 and 2.18 show the distribution of iron and manganese, respectively, over the Plan Area based on average 2005-2010 data from DPH. Generally, concentrations of iron and manganese are variable even within short distances. Figures 2.19a-c present historical trends in iron and manganese concentration for selected wells with locations shown in Figure 2.14. These figures show generally stable iron and manganese concentrations. The apparent increase in concentrations in the Vale Well is the result of higher detection limits for the later measurements and does not necessarily indicate increasing concentrations. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.17Iron Concentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ² Legend Concentration (ug/L) Iron (SMCL = 300) 0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\2.16 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.16 Iron Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011 Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16 SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.18Manganese Concentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ²F:\2.17 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.16 Manganese Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011Legend Concentration (ug/L)Manganese (SMCL = 50) 1 - 5 5.01 - 10 10.01 - 20 20.01 - 50 50.01 - 100 100+ Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-29 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.19a. Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.19b. Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.19c. Historical Iron and Manganese Concentrations, SB-15 Water Resources Conditions 2-30 South Westside Basin GWMP Nitrate in groundwater poses a health risk if concentrations are too high and the water is not properly treated. Low levels of nitrate are naturally occurring, but higher levels are almost always the result of human activity, such as inorganic fertilizer, animal manure, septic systems, and deposition of airborne compounds from industry and automobiles. Maximum contaminant levels (MCL) are enforceable standards established by EPA and DPH to set the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close as feasible to the level below which there is no known or expected health risk using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration (EPA, 2009). The MCL for nitrate is 45 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (as NO3). Figure 2.20 shows the distribution of nitrate over the Plan Area based on average 2005-2010 data from DPH. Generally, nitrate concentrations are highest in the central portion of the Plan Area, South San Francisco, and lowest in the southern portion of the South Westside Basin, San Bruno. Some of this trend is due to the depth of the wells as the wells in South San Francisco are generally shallower than the other municipal wells in the basin and thus are more likely to show influences of contaminating activities at the surface. Figures 2.21a-c present historical trends in nitrate concentrations for selected wells with locations shown in Figure 2.14. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 §¨¦380 Figure 2.20Nitrate as NO3Concentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ²F:\2.19 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.16 No3 Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011Legend Concentration (mg/L) NO3 (MCL = 45) 0.1 - 1.5 1.6 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 45 46 - 80 Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-32 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 2.21a. Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Vale Well Figure 2.21b. Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, Well 01-15 Figure 2.21c. Historical Nitrate and TDS Concentrations, SB-15 Water Resources Conditions 2-33 South Westside Basin GWMP TDS do not pose a risk to health, but are an aesthetic concern for water users. High concentrations of TDS can cause scale buildup or hard water that is poor tasting. As TDS is a combined measurement of all dissolved compounds in the water, there are many naturally occurring sources as well as sources resulting from human activities. Irrigation often increases TDS as irrigation water collects salts that contribute to TDS as they percolate to the groundwater. This groundwater may be pumped back to the surface and used for irrigation again, further increasing TDS. Allowing water to leave the system or treating the water at the surface can break this cycle. Seawater intrusion can rapidly increase TDS in an aquifer. TDS has the following three SMCLs: o Recommended: 500 mg/L. Constituent concentrations lower than the recommended contaminant level are desirable for a higher degree of consumer acceptance. o Upper: 1000 mg/L. Constituent concentrations ranging to the upper contaminant level are acceptable if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable water. o Short term: 1500 mg/L. Constituent concentrations ranging to the short term contaminant level are acceptable only for existing community water systems on a temporary basis pending construction of treatment facilities or development of acceptable new water sources. (DPH, 2009) Figure 2.22 shows the distribution of TDS over the Plan Area based on average 2005-2010 data from DPH. Generally, TDS concentrations are highest in the central portion of the Plan Area, South San Francisco, and lowest in the northern portion of the South Westside Basin, Daly City. Some of this trend is due to the depth of the wells as the wells in South San Francisco are generally shallower than the other municipal wells in the basin and thus are more likely to show influences of contaminating activities at the surface. Figure 2.21a-c presents historical trends in TDS concentrations for selected wells with locations presented on Figure 2.14. 2.3.8.2 Point Source Contamination In addition to ambient water quality concerns, contaminated groundwater from point sources can quickly remove wells from service and thus requires close coordination with regulatory agencies such as EPA, RWQCB, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and local oversight programs, including San Mateo County Groundwater Protection Program. Based on a search of DTSC’s Envirostor database and the Water Board’s GeoTracker database, the sites summarized on Table 2.4 have been identified as federal, state, or voluntary cleanup sites potentially affecting the aquifer used for drinking water supply. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600 CUP-22A -440, 445 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500 Daly City No. 04Daly City (Vale) Daly City (Jefferson)Daly City (Junipero Serra) Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-36-1 -160, 270, 455, 585 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 §¨¦380 Figure 2.22TDSConcentrations inGroundwater 0 1 20.5 Miles Source: DPH, 2010 ²F:\2.19 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.21 TDS Concentrations.mxd.mxd, March 21, 2011Legend Concentration (mg/L) TDS (SMCL = 500/1000/1500) 301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 600 + Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area 250 - 300 Water Resources Conditions 2-35 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 2.4 Open Contaminated Sites Potentially Impacting the Aquifer Used for Drinking Water Supply Name Address ID Potential Contaminants of Concern Lead Agency ARCO #0465 151 Southgate Avenue, Daly City T0608100027 Benzene, Toluene, Xylene, Fuel Oxygenates, Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency Chevron 9-6982 892 John Daly Blvd, Daly City T0608100148 Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency Agbayani Construction 88 Dixon Ct., Daly City T10000002674 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), Vinyl chloride County of San Mateo Health Services Agency Gas & Wash Partners 247 87th St., Daly City T10000003031 Benzene, Toluene, Xylene, Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency United Airlines Maintenance Center San Francisco International Airport, South San Francisco SL0608106162 Solvents RWQCB Chevron 9-5584, former 1770 El Camino Real, San Bruno T0608179897 Gasoline County of San Mateo Health Services Agency 1245 Montgomery Ave 1245 Montgomery Ave., San Bruno SL0608187730 Benzene, Other Solvent or Non- Petroleum Hydrocarbon, TCE RWQCB Water Resources Conditions 2-36 South Westside Basin GWMP As with all urban areas in the state, numerous Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks and Spills Leaks Investigation and Cleanup sites are present in the South Westside Basin and are being monitored and/or remediated under the regulatory lead of the RWQCB or the local oversight program. Leaking underground fuel tanks are typically at gas stations, while spills leaks investigation and cleanup sites have a variety of sources, but all involve hazardous wastes that have impacted soil and/or groundwater. Many, but not all, of these point-source contaminants occur at the surface and tend to remain near the surface due to the chemical properties of the contaminants and the geologic conditions that slow the migration of these contaminants into the deep aquifer used by municipal groundwater producers in the basin and most private producers. Detailed coordination is required to ensure that corrective action on point sources is sufficient to protect groundwater quality. A map of known, active contaminated sites that have affected or could potentially affect groundwater, soils, or other environmental media is shown in Figure 2.23, as detailed by the Water Board’s GeoTracker database system. Sites on Figure 2.23 are classified as follows: Drinking Water Aquifer: Sites listed on GeoTracker as Potentially Affecting Aquifer Used for Drinking Water Supply or Potentially Affecting Well Used for Drinking Water Supply Shallow Groundwater: Sites listed on GeoTracker as Potentially Affecting Other Groundwater (Uses Other Than Drinking Water) Other Impact: Sites listed on GeoTracker as Potentially Affecting Indoor Air, Sediments, Soils, Soil Vapor, Surface Water, or Under Investigation Note that, in the South Westside Basin, only the United Airlines Maintenance Facility is listed as Potentially Affecting Well Used for Drinking Water Supply, and this site, like many others, is extensively monitored and actively undergoing remediation activities. Groundwater here includes shallow, perched groundwater not directly used for water supply (Other Groundwater). The distinction between shallow, perched groundwater not directly used for water supply and groundwater used for drinking water supply is to some degree based on professional judgment by the preparers of the GeoTracker system; Section 5.4.3 contains recommendations for coordination with regulatory agencies to improve the accuracy and usefulness of these classifications for regional planning and public outreach. 2.3.9 DESALTER INFRASTRUCTURE There is currently no desalination infrastructure in the South Westside Basin. !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(Skyline BlvdEl C a m i n o R e a l £¤101 Pacifica San Francisco ¬«35 UV35 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101UV82 UV35 Figure 2.23Contaminated Sites²F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.23 Contaminated Sites.mxd, June 4, 20120 1 20.5 Miles Source: Water Board, 2010 Legend Contaminated Sites byPotential Impact !(Drinking Water Aquifer !(Shallow Groundwater !(Other Impact Highways Plan Area Water Resources Conditions 2-38 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.10 GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER INTERACTION Interaction between groundwater and surface water in the Plan Area is limited due to the significant depth to groundwater used for water supply, numerous clay layers that slow vertical migration of water through the subsurface, and the presence of only minor surface water features, such as Colma Creek, which are often channelized. The perched water table above the upper clay units interacts with local surface water courses, such as Colma Creek and smaller creeks. Groundwater tends to seep into the surface water courses near the Bay and the surface water recharges the groundwater at higher elevations. The perched aquifer, which is not used as a water supply, slowly recharges the deeper aquifer through the clay layers. Lake Merced is an important surface water feature just north of the Plan Area. The draft North Westside Basin GWMP addresses issues with groundwater interaction with Lake Merced. 2.3.11 SUBSIDENCE AND LIQUEFACTION Subsidence and liquefaction are both influenced by changes in groundwater levels. Low groundwater levels can contribute to subsidence while high groundwater levels can contribute to liquefaction. Land subsidence here refers to the lowering of the ground surface as a result of groundwater level changes, not tectonic changes. Aquifers, particularly the fine-grained materials within or between the aquifers, are compressible. If groundwater levels decrease as a result of pumping or other causes, water may be released from beds of clay or silt around the coarser materials that are the primary source of water in the aquifer. The release of water from the beds of clay and silt reduces the water pressure, resulting in a loss of support for the clay and silt beds. Because these beds are compressible, they compact (become thinner), and the effects are seen as a lowering of the land surface (Leake, 2004). Whether or not subsidence through compression occurs in an area depends on groundwater levels (groundwater levels must decline) and on materials (sufficient compressible clays and silts must be present). There are no available records of historical subsidence in the South Westside Basin. Significant studies have been performed to the south in the Santa Clara Valley, due to extensive subsidence in that area. Those studies show that the extent of subsidence in the area is focused on Santa Clara, where land subsided 8 ft from 1934 to 1967. To the north, subsidence is more limited, with less than 1 foot of subsidence in the Palo Alto area and approximately an inch of subsidence in the Redwood City area (Poland and Ireland, 1988). Studies have not been performed farther north, likely due to a lack of evidence of active subsidence. The Plan Area has potential for liquefaction, where earthquake-induced shaking can cause a loss of soil strength, resulting in the inability of soils to support structures. This can occur in saturated soils where the shaking causes an increase in water pressure to the point where the soil particles can move easily within the soil-water matrix. Areas along San Francisco Bay have Water Resources Conditions 2-39 South Westside Basin GWMP been rated as having “very high” susceptibility to liquefaction by the USGS (Figure 2.24; Witter et al., 2006). These areas are underlain by artificial fill over Bay Mud. While only covering the bayshore area, artificial fill over Bay Mud accounted for 50 percent of all historical liquefaction occurrences in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area and about 80 percent of those liquefaction occurrences resulted from the Loma Prieta earthquake (Witter et al., 2006). In the South Westside Basin, these units have a perched water table that is not influenced by groundwater production. Areas with high to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction include areas along current or former creeks, particularly Colma Creek. Other areas have low or very low susceptibility to liquefaction. Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 2.24Liquefaction Suceptability 0 1 20.5 Miles Sources:• Liquefaction Susceptability - Witten et al, 2006 ² Legend Highways Plan Area Liquefaction Very High High Moderate Low F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 2.23 Liquefaction Suceptability.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Resources Conditions 2-41 South Westside Basin GWMP 2.3.12 GROUNDWATER MONITORING Current South Westside Basin-wide groundwater monitoring is coordinated through the agencies throughout the Plan Area and is presented in annual groundwater monitoring reports prepared by SFPUC since 2005. The reports include details on semi-annual monitoring of groundwater production, level, and quality data as well as data on Lake Merced water levels. Prior to that date, San Mateo County maintained a semiannual groundwater monitoring program that included static water level and water quality monitoring. San Mateo County’s reports covered the period from 2000 through 2003. The individual agencies also maintain long-term records of production, water levels, and water quality for their facilities. 2.3.12.1 Groundwater Level Monitoring Groundwater level monitoring for use in the regional annual groundwater reports includes both dedicated monitoring wells and inactive production wells. Dedicated monitoring wells include wells installed as part of seawater intrusion monitoring, groundwater/surface water interaction monitoring, and as part of the GSR. Measurements are taken manually on a quarterly or semiannual basis in some wells, and daily through the use of electronic pressure transducers in other wells (SFPUC, 2010a). Monitoring wells measured in the South Westside Basin include the following: o Daly City Area o LMMW-6D o Thornton Beach MW 225, 360, 670 o DC-1 (Westlake 1) o Park Plaza MW460, 620 o DC-8 o CUP 10A MW160, 250, 500, 710 o Colma Area o CUP 18 MW230, 425, 490, 660 o CUP 19 MW180, 475, 600, 690 o CUP 23 MW230, 440, 515, 600 o South San Francisco Area o CUP 22A MW140, 290, 440, 545 o SS 1-02 o SS 1-20 o CUP 36 MW160, 270, 455, 585 o SSFLP MW120, 220, 440, 520 o San Bruno Area o CUP 44-1 MW190, 300, 460, 580 o SB-12 (Elm Ave) Water Resources Conditions 2-42 South Westside Basin GWMP o UAL-13C, 13D o SFO-S, -D o Millbrae Area o CUP-M-1 o Burlingame Area o Burlingame-S, -M, -D Additionally, groundwater levels are also monitored by the individual agencies, and include measurements of static or dynamic water levels, depending on the operational status of the well. 2.3.12.2 Groundwater Production Monitoring Groundwater production data are summarized for the water agencies and for metered users of r ecycled water in SFPUC’s annual reports. Other irrigation production is estimated and also presented in the report. 2.3.12.3 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Groundwater quality is monitored for both regional analysis in SFPUC annual reports and to meet the DPH’s requirements specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Individual agencies test the water quality in the active municipal productions wells on a schedule to meet DPH requirements and to ensure safe drinking water for their customers. Water quality data are collected for use in SFPUC’s annual reports, either specifically for the program or as part of the testing for DPH requirements or other programs such as seawater intrusion monitoring or monitoring for use in the proposed GSR. 2.4 IMPORTED WATER Imported water in the South Westside Basin is supplied by SFPUC, which operates the Hetch Hetchy system. Details of the system are provided in the following two paragraphs, based on SFPUC’s Annual Water Quality Report (SFPUC, 2010b). The Annual Water Quality Report is included in Appendix B and contains more detailed information on chemical constituents in the water supply. The major sources of imported water are from the SFPUC and include Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the local watersheds. Hetch Hetchy is located in the well-protected Sierra region and meets all federal and state criteria for watershed protection. Based on SFPUC’s disinfection treatment practice, extensive bacteriological quality monitoring, and high operational standards, the state has granted the Hetch Hetchy water source a filtration exemption. In other words, the source is so clean and protected that SFPUC is not required to filter water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Water Resources Conditions 2-43 South Westside Basin GWMP Hetch Hetchy Reservoir water is provided by SFPUC to Daly City, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, and to the Golden Gate National Cemetery. SFPUC provides water to CalWater from sources in accordance with the Raker Act. Hetch Hetchy water is supplemented with surface water from two local watersheds. Rainfall and runoff collected from the Alameda Watershed, which spans more than 35,000 acres in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, are collected in the Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs. Prior to distribution, the water from these reservoirs is treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant. Treatment processes include coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. Fluoridation, chloramination, and corrosion control treatment are provided for the combined Hetch Hetchy and Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant water at the Sunol Chloramination and Fluoridation Facilities. Rainfall and runoff captured in the 23,000-acre Peninsula Watershed in San Mateo County are stored in reservoirs, including Crystal Springs (Lower and Upper), San Andreas, and Pilarcitos. The water from these reservoirs is treated at Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant, where treatment processes include ozonation, coagulation, flocculation, filtration, disinfection, fluoridation, corrosion control treatment, and chloramination. Daly City has 10 SFPUC pipeline connections called turnouts. They are connected to the Sunset, San Andreas #2, and Crystal Springs #2 pipelines and can supply approximately 30.89 mgd at a rate of approximately 21,400 gallons per minute (Daly City, 2005). CalWater - South San Francisco District receives water from 12 connections at 11 SFPUC turnouts and groundwater from eight wells. Portions of CalWater’s distribution system rely solely on SFPUC imported surface water, while others use groundwater from CalWater’s wellfield for all or a portion of their water supply (MWH, 2007). San Bruno has four connections to SFPUC’s water supply system and one connection to North Coast County Water District (NCCWD). During normal conditions, water from SFPUC is transported through the San Andreas Pipeline from the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant near Crystal Springs Reservoir and delivered to three of San Bruno’s turnouts. San Bruno also has a connection to SFPUC’s 60-inch diameter Sunset Supply Pipeline, which was recently fitted with a pressure reducing valve, and is currently used only for fireflow and other emergency situations. The Sunset Supply Pipeline can deliver water directly from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy System. San Bruno’s connection from the NCCWD extends from SFPUC’s Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant to Crystal Springs Terrace. San Bruno purchases treated water from the NCCWD to serve the Crystal Springs Terrace area. This connection is equipped with a pressure reducing valve at Regulating Station 1 (EKI, 2007; Brown and Caldwell, 2001). Millbrae receives water from five SFPUC turnouts. The Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant supplies filtered water in the higher elevations, while the Crystal Springs #2 and #3 pipelines deliver water to the lower elevations (BAWSCA, 2009). Water Resources Conditions 2-44 South Westside Basin GWMP Burlingame receives water from six metered turnouts connected to SFPUC’s Sunset Supply Pipeline and Crystal Springs Pipelines #2 and #3 (EKI, 2005). 2.5 RECYCLED WATER Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal performed by the local agencies is described in the following sections. Of these agencies, the North San Mateo County Sanitation District also includes treatment and distribution of recycled water as part of its wastewater activities. 2.5.1 TREATMENT PLANTS Wastewater treatment plants in the South Westside Basin include: o North San Mateo County Sanitation District’s (NSMCSD) treatment plant, which includes a recycled water facility permitted to distribute 2.77 mgd of tertiary recycled water. o San Bruno and South San Francisco’s South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant o Burlingame’s Wastewater Treatment Facility o City of Millbrae’s Water Pollution Control Plant 2.5.1.1 North San Mateo County Sanitation District Treatment Plant The NSMCSD is a subsidiary of the City of Daly City and owns and operates a treatment plant at the southern end of Westlake Park in Daly City. The plant was expanded in 1989 to a capacity of 10.3 mgd. The NSMCSD provides collection, treatment and disposal for the majority of the residents of Daly City, along with Broadmoor Village, a portion of Colma, the Westborough County Water District in South San Francisco, and the San Francisco County Jail in San Bruno (Daly City, 2009). In 2003, NSMCSD constructed facilities at its wastewater treatment plant to produce recycled water. The plant has the capacity and permits for production of approximately 2.77 mgd of tertiary-treated recycled water (SFPUC, 2008) and began delivery in 2004 to irrigation users. 2.5.1.2 South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant The South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant was constructed in the early 1970s and is jointly operated by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The sewage of both cities is treated, as is wastewater from a portion of Colma and the Serramonte portion of Daly City. The Westborough Water District coordinates sewage treatment for the Westborough portion of South San Francisco under contract with Daly City. Water Resources Conditions 2-45 South Westside Basin GWMP The current design capacity of the treatment plant is 13 mgd with an actual capacity of 9 mgd average dry weather flow. A plant expansion, begun in the fall of 1998, increased the dry- weather operational capacity to 13 mgd. The expansion added three new primary clarifiers, additional secondary clarifiers, and removed obsolete equipment (South San Francisco, 2009). 2.5.1.3 City of Millbrae Water Pollution Control Plant The City of Millbrae provides wastewater service to approximately 5,928 residential and 495 commercial customers. The City’s Sanitation System has two components: collection and treatment/disposal. Wastewater is collected via a network of about 57 miles of sewer pipelines and two wastewater pumping stations, and then transported to the City’s Water Pol lution Control Plant for treatment and disposal (Millbrae, 2009a). In October 2009, Millbrae began a refurbishment of the Water Pollution Control Plant to improve treatment capabilities and minimize sanitary sewer overflows that can occur during stormy weather. This project will add a 1.2 million gallon flow equalization tank to retain the extra water that flows into the treatment plant during storms (Millbrae, 2009b). 2.5.1.4 Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Facility The wastewater treatment facility at 1103 Airport Boulevard became operational during 1935- 36. The facility has a designed capacity to treat 5.5 mgd of wastewater and 16 mgd during wet weather (Burlingame, 2009). 2.5.2 RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND USERS Existing recycled water infrastructure and users are in the Daly City / Lake Merced area. Recycled water for non-potable (non-drinkable) uses such as irrigation is encouraged to conserve drinking water supplies. Installation of recycled water pipelines in the NSMCSD began in the mid-1980s when water or sewer projects were constructed. As discussed in Section 2.5.1.1, NSMCSD’s treatment plant has the capacity and permits for production of 2.77 mgd of recycled water. Today, the system is used to irrigate landscaped medians in the Westlake area and golf courses at Olympic Club, Lake Merced Golf Club, and San Francisco Golf Club. These customers use an average of less than 1 mgd of recycled water. Construction is underway to expand the recycled water infrastructure and user base to include irrigation of Harding Park and Fleming golf courses. Plainly marked purple pipelines, completely separate from drinking water systems, deliver the water to user sites. Water recycling is a safe and proven practice. For many years, recycled water has been safely used for landscape irrigation purposes throughout California and the world saving precious potable water for other uses (Daly City, 2009). Water Resources Conditions 2-46 South Westside Basin GWMP Studies have been performed to investigate recycled water opportunities based on production at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (Carollo, 2008, 2009). These documents analyzed irrigation demands and infrastructure needs. Demand analysis showed a Phase I average annual recycled water demand of 0.60 mgd and a Phase II average annual recycled water demand of 0.94 mgd. The estimated project costs are $44 million for Phase I and $43.8 million for Phase II. Such projects may be pursued in the future should costs become better aligned with the benefits of the additional reliable supply. 2.5.3 RECYCLED WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY Throughout the year, NSMCSD monitors water quality to maintain compliance with Title 22 for unrestricted use. Monitoring is performed for the following: flow rate, total coliform, contact time, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, dissolved sulfides, and applicable standard observations. NSMCSD additionally monitors pH, electrical conductivity, TDS, boron, chloride, sodium, sodium adsorption ratio, adjusted sodium adsorption ratio, and bicarbonate (ESA, 2009). 3-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 3 WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES 3.1 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES South Westside Basin groundwater, imported water from the SFPUC, and small quantities of recycled water are used to meet water demands in the South Westside Basin as summarized in Table 3.1. All annual values represent calendar years. Details by agency are provided in Section 3.1.2. Table 3.1 Summary of Current Water Supply Sources (2010) Entity Supply (AFY) South Westside Basin Groundwater1 Imported Water2 Recycled Water1 Total Burlingame 0 4,389 0 4,389 CalWater 453 8,075 0 8,528 Daly City3 1,743 / 3,947 5,524 / 3,320 0 7,267 Millbrae 0 2,482 0 2,482 San Bruno 2,364 1,637 0 4,001 Irrigators4 1,800 0 412 2,212 Total5 8,564 19,903 412 28,879 1 – SFPUC, 2011. Since Olympic Club and San Francisco Golf Club overlie both the North Westside Basin and South Westside Basin, the irrigation use assumes the following: Olympic Club – 50 percent of total recycled water use in the North Westside Basin and 50 percent use in the South Westside Basin; and San Francisco Golf Club – 90 percent of total recycled water use in the North Westside Basin and 10 percent use in the South Westside Basin. 2 – BAWSCA, 2011 3 - Daly City banked 2,204 AF of water in a conjunctive use arrangement with SFPUC, resulting in lower than normal groundwater production and higher than normal imported water purchases in 2010. The first value listed is the actual groundwater production and imported water purchase. The second value listed is the adjusted value. 4 –For the irrigators, all groundwater production within the South Westside Basin is listed, including estimated production in Millbrae and Burlingame. For comparison to the basin yield estimate (which does not include the Millbrae and Burlingame area; see Section 3.5.2), a total irrigation production of 1,139 and a total South Westside Basin groundwater production of 5,700 AF (7,904 AF when including banked Daly City production) should be used. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-2 South Westside Basin GWMP 5 – Totals utilize Daly City values adjusted for conjunctive use. Water demand in the Plan Area is somewhat higher in the summer months than in the winter months, primarily due to outdoor use and irrigation demands. The current water supply facilities are capable of meeting demands throughout the year, including summer days with high water use. The typical average monthly water supply distribution is shown in Figure 3.1, based on monthly data from the South Westside Basin municipal water purveyors. Figure 3.1 Average Monthly Distribution of Annual Municipal Supply, South Westside Basin 3.1.1 WHOLESALE WATER AGENCIES Imported water is brought into the Plan Area by SFPUC, a wholesaler of imported water in the South Westside Basin and a retailer in the North Westside Basin. The City and County of San Francisco, through SFPUC, own and operate a regional water system extending from the Sierra Nevada to San Francisco and serves retail and wholesale customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Tuolumne counties. The regional water system consists of water conveyance, treatment, and distribution facilities, and delivers water to retail and wholesale customers. The existing regional system includes more than 280 miles of pipelines, more than 60 miles of tunnels, 11 reservoirs, 5 pump stations, and 2 water treatment plants. The SFPUC currently delivers an annual average of approximately 265 mgd of water to its customers. The water supply source is a combination of local supplies from streamflow and runoff in the Alameda Creek Watershed and in the San Mateo and Pilarcitos creeks watersheds (referred to together as the Peninsula Watersheds), augmented with imported supplies from the Tuolumne River Watershed. Local watersheds provide about 15 percent of total supplies and the Tuolumne River provides the remaining 85 percent (ESA, 2009). The SFPUC serves approximately one-third of its water supplies directly to retail customers, primarily in San Francisco, and about two-thirds of its water supplies to wholesale customers Water Requirements and Supplies 3-3 South Westside Basin GWMP by contractual agreement. One retail customer, the Golden Gate National Cemetery in San Bruno, is located within the South Westside Basin. The wholesale customers are largely represented by BAWSCA, which consists of 27 total customers. Some of these wholesale customers have other sources of water in addition to what they receive from the SFPUC regional system, while others rely completely on SFPUC for supply (ESA, 2009). 3.1.2 RETAIL AGENCY WATER USE Details on water use by the retail agencies are presented in the following sections. Data are available from metered agency records, agency UWMPs, South Westside Basin annual groundwater reports, and BAWSCA’s annual reports. From these data sources the following can be summarized: supply sources, quantification of the current supply mix, and quantification of historical groundwater production. 3.1.2.1 City of Burlingame The City of Burlingame covers 4.3 square miles and has a population of approximately 28,000 people. Details of the Burlingame water supply system are summarized below based on the city’s UWMP (EKI, 2005). Burlingame owns, operates, and maintains the potable water distribution system that serves drinking water to residential, commercial, and industrial establishments. The water supply is imported water purchased from SFPUC. Burlingame’s distribution system consists of six pumping stations, five water storage tanks, and buried pipes of varying compositions, ages, and sizes. The distribution system provides water to eight pressure zones within the city’s water service area. Approximately 80 percent of all service connections are located in the Aqueduct Zone, which contains most of Burlingame’s commercial, industrial, and multi-family residence units. Water is transferred between pressure zones through a system of pipes and pumping stations. The pumping stations currently operated by the city are referred to as: 1. Donnelly 2. Easton 3. Skyview 4. Trousdale 5. Hillside 6. Sisters of Mercy (fire flow only) Five of the pumping stations transfer water from the lower elevations of the city to the higher elevations, while the Sisters of Mercy station provides fire flow to the Sisters of Mercy property. The sizes of the pumps range between 7.5 and 75 horsepower. The city’s five water storage tanks provide aggregate water storage for 2.94 million gallons. The largest water storage facility is the Hillside Tank, which holds 1.5 million gallons. The smallest Water Requirements and Supplies 3-4 South Westside Basin GWMP water storage facilities are the individual tanks at the Alcazar and Donnelly sites. There are two tanks at each site and each tank holds 0.05 million gallons. The total water supply, all from SFPUC purchases, has averaged 5,100 AF over the past 14 years and has shown a slight declining trend over that time period (Figure 3.2). In 2010, the total water supply for Burlingame was 4,389 AF. Figure 3.2 Historical Annual Water Supply, Burlingame 3.1.2.2 California Water Service Company –South San Francisco District CalWater – South San Francisco District provides water to approximately 56,950 people in a service area of approximately 11 square miles. The service area includes South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo County known as Broadmoor, which lies between Colma and Daly City. The South San Francisco system includes 144 miles of pipeline, 12 storage tanks, one collecting tank, and 20 booster pumps. CalWater uses groundwater and imported surface water from SFPUC to meet demands. CalWater’s Individual Supply Guarantee with Figure 3.3a Current (2010) Water Supply Sources, CalWater – South San Francisco District Water Requirements and Supplies 3-5 South Westside Basin GWMP SFPUC is 35.68 mgd (or approximately 39,967 AFY) and also supplies CalWater’s other Bay Area Districts: Bear Gulch and Mid-Peninsula. Imported surface water has been used to a greater extent recently due to reduced groundwater production, as discussed in the following paragraph. In 2010, imported surface water accounted for 95 percent of CalWater’s supply, while the remaining 5 percent was supplied by groundwater (Figure 3.3a). The South San Francisco District has seven wells with a total design capacity of 1,365 gallons per minute (gpm). If operated full-time, these wells could produce 1.97 mgd (2,207 AFY). This production capacity represents approximately 20 to 25 percent of the annual demand in the district. While production in the 1950s and 1960s averaged 2,031 AFY, a maximum of 1,524 AFY has been pumped in calendar years since 1970. From 1998 to 2002, production averaged 1,212 AFY. However, recent years have seen little groundwater production due to participation in the ILPS and unforeseen issues with the wells. There was no groundwater production from 2003-2007; groundwater production steadily increased from when the wells were returned to service in 2008 to where CalWater produced 453 AF of groundwater in 2010. Historical water supplies by year are shown in Figure 3.3b. The district plans to return to earlier levels of production (1,535 AFY) in the future (CalWater, 2011). Figure 3.3b Historical Annual Water Supply, CalWater – South San Francisco District 3.1.2.3 City of Daly City Daly City is in the northern part of San Mateo County, adjacent to the southern boundary of the City and County of San Francisco. Water service is provided by the Daly City Department of Water and Wastewater Resources. The city has an estimated 2009 population of 102,165, including small areas served by CalWater. Daly City has three water sources: groundwater, water purchased from SFPUC, and recycled water. Daly City’s purchases of water from SFPUC are based on an Individual Supply Guarantee of 4.292 mgd (4,808 AFY) (Daly City, 2005) and are provided through 10 SFPUC turnouts. The Water Requirements and Supplies 3-6 South Westside Basin GWMP turnouts can supply approximately 30.89 mgd at a rate of about 21,400 gpm (Daly City, 2005). During 2010, Daly City’s water supply was provided by 76 percent impor ted surface water from SFPUC and 24 percent from local groundwater (see Figure 3.4a). The 76 percent includes participation in the ILPS. If the in-lieu water were accounted for as groundwater, the percentages would be 46 percent imported surface water and 54 percent groundwater. During normal well operation, SFPUC provides approximately 55 percent of the city’s annual water supply . Daly City has been involved in the ILPS for much of the period since 2002 and purchases from SFPUC have contributed up to 92 percent of the city's annual water supply (Figure 3.4b). Daly City has six active groundwater wells with a combined capacity of 4.25 mgd (4,760 AFY). During conjunctive use in an emergency or drought scenario, well water can contribute approximately 50 percent of the Daly City water supply (Daly City, 2005). For the purposes of this document, recycled water produced by Daly City is accounted for under the user of the supply, Private Groundwater Producers in Section 3.1.3. Figure 3.4b Historical Annual Water Supply, Daly City Figure 3.4a Current (2010) Water Supply Sources, Daly City * Includes 2204 AF of in-lieu recharge water Water Requirements and Supplies 3-7 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.1.2.4 City of Millbrae Millbrae provides water to approximately 21,800 residents within a service area of 3.2 square miles (Figure 1.3). The City of Millbrae owns and operates approximately 70 miles of domestic water mains, 450 fire hydrants, 1,500 valves, 11 pressure reducing stations, 6 water storage tanks, 2 water pump stations, and approximately 6,500 service connections (Millbrae, 2005). Millbrae purchases its water from SFPUC and has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 3,531 AFY. Total water supplies averaged 2,790 AFY over the 1997-2010 period, and was 2,482 AF in 2010, as shown in Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5 Historical Annual Water Supply, Millbrae 3.1.2.5 City of San Bruno San Bruno owns, operates, and maintains the potable water distribution system that serves drinking water to residential, commercial, institutional, and limited industrial establishments within San Bruno’s service area. The City of San Bruno covers 5.5 square miles and has a population of approximately 41,120 people. San Bruno’s water system consists of five groundwater supply wells, eleven pressure zones maintained with eight booster pump stations, eight water storage tanks, one filtering plant, 900 fire hydrants, 9,000 valves, more than 100 miles of water mains ranging from 2 inches to 16 inches in Figure 3.6a Current (2010) Water Supply Sources, San Bruno Water Requirements and Supplies 3-8 South Westside Basin GWMP diameter, and 12,415 metered service connections. San Bruno has four connections to the SFPUC water supply system and one connection to the NCCWD water supply system. San Bruno’s water system can deliver water at a pressure of at least 30 pounds per square inch (psi) during peak-hour demand and 20 psi during maximum-day demand coincident with a fire flow (EKI, 2007). Water supplied through the city’s distribution system is a combination of groundwater pumped at San Bruno’s five groundwater supply wells, and water purchased from SFPUC and NCCWD. Purchases from SFPUC are based on an Individual Supply Guarantee of 3.25 mgd (or approximately 3,600 AFY) (EKI, 2007). Note that one of San Bruno’s five wells, SB-15, is not currently operational; a replacement well is in the process of sited and designed. In 2010, groundwater wells provided 2,364 AF of water, or 59 percent of the total supply, while imported water provided the remaining 1,637 AF, as shown in Figure 3.6a. During the 1997 – 2010 period, not including the 2003-2004 In-Lieu Pilot Study, groundwater provided approximately 2,120 AFY, or 46 percent of the total supply, as shown in Figure 3.6b. Figure 3.6b Historical Annual Water Supply, San Bruno 3.1.3 PRIVATE GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS Private groundwater producers in the Plan Area pump groundwater primarily for irrigation of golf courses, cemeteries, and landscaping. There is some domestic production, particularly in the Hillsborough area. These users typically do not meter the volume of water produced, therefore these volumes must be estimated to present a complete picture of water use. Historical use of South Westside Basin groundwater by private groundwater producers has been estimated by HydroFocus (2011), to support the development of the Westside Basin Groundwater Flow Model (Groundwater Model), using land use, soils, and hydrologic data. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-9 South Westside Basin GWMP Additional data on private groundwater use is available in annual reports (SFPUC, 2011). Estimates of production are approximately 1,800 AFY based on current (2010) conditions in the basin. The 2010 estimate includes the users summarized in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Summary of 2010 Private Groundwater Production Entity 2010 Production Source Notes Lake Merced Golf Course 33 AF metered (SFPUC, 2011) Olympic Golf Club 10 AF metered (SFPUC, 2011) California Golf Club of San Francisco 237 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Other estimate (Carollo, 2008) is 206 AF Cemeteries 859 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Other estimate (Carollo, 2008) is 787 AF Subtotal, Daly City to San Bruno 1,139 AF Hillsborough area domestic wells** 326 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Green Hills and Burlingame Country Clubs** 335 AF estimated* (HydroFocus, 2011) Subtotal, Millbrae to Burlingame** 661 AF Total** 1,800 AF *Estimates from HydroFocus (2011) are based on the average production using the 2008 No Project Baseline over the full 1959-2009 hydrology. **These estimates include the Millbrae and Burlingame area production (Burlingame domestic wells, Green Hills Country Club and Burlingame Country Club). Without the Millbrae and Burlingame area, the private production is 1,139 AF. The without- Millbrae and Burlingame value is more appropriate for comparisons with the results of HydroFocus (2011) as that document summarized the private production in the Westside Basin only as far south as San Bruno. Minor differences between the average annual private production estimated by that document (1,122 AFY) and the without-Burlingame values presented here are a result of usage of calendar years in this document versus water years in the HydroFocus document, minor differences in developing the average value, and the incorporation of newly available metered data in this document. Recycled water produced by NSMCSD is used by private groundwater producers. Much of this use is along the boundary with the North Westside Basin. For accounting purposes, recycled Water Requirements and Supplies 3-10 South Westside Basin GWMP water use in the South Westside Basin includes use in Daly City medians, at Lake Merced Golf Club, and at the Olympic Golf Club, but not at the San Francisco Golf Club, which otherwise would use a groundwater well within the North Westside Basin. Based on this assumption, approximately 410 AF of recycled water was used in the South Westside Basin. Figure 3.7 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, Private Groundwater Producers 3.1.4 TOTAL SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN Current and historical water demands in the South Westside Basin have been met with purchases of imported surface water from SFPUC, local groundwater, and a smaller quantity of recycled water, as shown in Figure 3.8. Figure 3.8 Current Water Supply Sources, South Westside Basin Water Requirements and Supplies 3-11 South Westside Basin GWMP South Westside Basin groundwater is an important component of the supply mix; Table 3.3 shows the percentage of the total water supply provided by groundwater in 2010 for the entities in the basin. Table 3.3 2010 Groundwater Production by Entity as a Percent of Total Water Supply Entity Groundwater as Percent of Total Water Supply Burlingame 0% CalWater – South San Francisco District 5% Daly City 24%* Millbrae 0% San Bruno 59% private groundwater producer 81% *54% if including in-lieu recharge Figure 3.9 shows total annual groundwater production by major producer. In 2010, total groundwater production from the South Westside Basin was approximately 8,600 AF, including approximately 2,200 AF of banked groundwater under the ILRP to be potentially extracted at a later date. Figure 3.10 shows the distribution of groundwater production throughout the South Westside Basin, based on 2008 production data. Figure 3.9 Historical Annual South Westside Basin Groundwater Production by Entity Harding Park §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 3.10Groundwater Production by Well 0 1 20.5 Miles Groundwater Production Sources:CalWater, personal communication, 2009City of Daly City, personal communicaiton, 2009City of San Bruno, pers. comm., 2009Hydrofocus, 2009SFPUC, 2009 ² Legend Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area 2008 Production (af) 1 - 100 100 - 250 250 - 500 > 500 F:\215 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 3.10 Groundwater Production by Well.mxd, March 21, 2011 Water Requirements and Supplies 3-13 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.2 CURRENT WATER BUDGET A more thorough understanding of the groundwater conditions can be obtained through analysis of the water budget, which estimates the different inflows and outflows of the aquifer. There are several different components of inflows and outflows. A South Westside Basin water budget was estimated below based on the results of the Groundwater Model, which is described in Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model: Updated Model and 2008 No-Project Simulation Results. (HydroFocus, 2011). The simplified version of the water budget equation for a basin is: Inflow – Outflow = Storage Change (1) Inflow, outflow, and storage consist of the following more detailed subcomponents:.  Inflow o Applied water components  Agricultural water use  Landscape and outdoor irrigation o Recharge from precipitation o Boundary flow from Coast Range and San Bruno Mountain o Underflow from  North Westside Basin  Pacific Ocean  San Francisco Bay  Outflow o Groundwater production o Underflow to  Pacific Ocean  San Francisco Bay o Evapotranspiration  Groundwater storage change Water budget estimates were based on HydroFocus’s (2011) basin-wide groundwater modeling effort. That document included the development of the 2008 No Project Scenario, which simulates a 47-year continuation of anticipated land and water use conditions as of May 2008. It assumes no new projects are implemented, but includes new supply wells, planned operational changes to the magnitude and spatial distribution of pumpage, and existing recycled water projects in place as of May 2008. The 2008 No Project Baseline simulation results were averaged over the full 1959-2009 hydrology to develop an average annual water budget for the central portion of the South Westside Basin (Daly City southeast to San Bruno). The average annual water budget for the South Westside Basin is presented in Table 3.4. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-14 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 3.4 Estimated Average Annual* South Westside Basin Water Balance Water Budget Component Average Annual Volume (AFY) Groundwater Production 8,756 Underflow to the Bayshore area 460 Underflow to Millbrae 429 Underflow to North Westside Basin 71 Total Outflow 9,716 Recharge, all sources 4,517 Underflow from the Bayshore area 762 Underflow from Millbrae 967 Underflow from North Westside Basin 2,167 Underflow across Serra Fault 1,109 Total Inflow 9,522 Change in Storage -194 *Average of 1959-2009 Hydrology The change in storage is less than zero, showing a reduction in groundwater in storage over time. However, this value is small and within the errors associated with the data and the model. For example, the 194 AFY is just 17% of the simulated unmetered groundwater production in the basin (1,122 AFY). There are significant unknowns in the volume of unmetered groundwater pumped by private groundwater producers as well as in other modeling parameters including future precipitation, recharge, and aquifer parameters. Given the uncertainties, the small change in storage, with outflows exceeding inflows by approximately 2 percent, should be considered as showing the basin essentially in balance. 3.3 PROJECTED WATER REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLIES Projected water use is an important component of determining the ability of a basin to meet future demands. Figure 3.11 illustrates the projected water supplies and demands through 2035 Water Requirements and Supplies 3-15 South Westside Basin GWMP by the primary retail water agencies in the South Westside Basin using projections discussed in Section 3.3.1. Private groundwater producers are also included with the assumption of a continuation of current levels of production. The water served by the retail water agencies includes groundwater from the South Westside Basin, imported surface water purchased from SFPUC, and recycled water. Figure 3.11 Projected Water Supplies in the South Westside Basin, by Agency Table 3.5a presents current and projected South Westside Basin groundwater production through 2030. Table 3.5b presents the projected increase in South Westside Basin groundwater production compared to 2010 production. While these projections represent the best available information from the agencies, they are subject to uncertainties related to climatic conditions, availability of water supplies, maintenance issues, and policy changes. Additionally, no projections are available for the private groundwater producers, whose production is assumed to remain at current levels, which themselves are largely estimated. Even with these uncertainties, the existing projections provide a good baseline for anticipated future use and for determining how the basin would respond to future use and management. These projections are not intended to set limits for the production by individual agencies; such limits may be established by the agencies in the future, but would likely be developed based on a wide range of demand and supply information, as discussed in Section 5.3.1, Action F5. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-16 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 3.5a Current and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Production (AFY) Agency 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Burlingame 0 0 0 0 0 0 CalWater – South San Francisco 453 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Daly City 1,743* 3,947* 3,349 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Bruno 2,364 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** 2,364** 3,026** Private Producers*** 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Total**** 8,564 9,048 9,541 9,541 9,541 9,541 * Daly City’s 2010 production was 1,743 AF, but does not include 2,204 AF of groundwater stored as a result of in-lieu water deliveries under the ILPS. For accounting purposes, this pumping may be included in 2010. ** San Bruno projects future groundwater production at its current rate. However, it is evaluating whether it can increase its production of groundwater to a rate of 3,026 AFY (2.7 mgd), which is consistent with a historical maximum annual production rate. San Bruno will coordinate with other basin users to ensure the groundwater basin is managed sustainably and in a manner consistent with the consensus driven basin yield analysis based on the modeling of HydroFocus, Inc. *** Values for Private Producers include production outside of the area defined for the basin yield. See Section 3.5. **** Totals utilize the Daly City values based on effective long-term pumping and San Bruno at its 2010 rate. Sources: Daly City projected production: Brown and Caldwell, 2011; San Bruno projected production: EKI, 2011; CalWater projected production: CalWater, 2011 Water Requirements and Supplies 3-17 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 3.5b Projected Change in South Westside Basin Groundwater Production, from 2010 Production (AFY) Agency 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Burlingame 0 0 0 0 0 CalWater – South San Francisco 1,082 1,082 1,082 1,082 1,082 Daly City 1,606* -598* 2,099* -105* 2,099* -105* 2,099* -105* 2,099* -105* Millbrae 0 0 0 0 0 San Bruno 662** 0** 662** 0** 662** 0** 662** 0** 662** 0** Private Producers 0 0 0 0 0 Total*** 484 977 977 977 977 * When compared to Daly City’s actual 2010 production (1,743 AF), future Daly City groundwater production will increase by 2,099 AFY. However, Daly City’s actual 2010 production does not include 2,204 AF of groundwater stored as a result of in-lieu water deliveries under the ILPS. For accounting purposes, this pumping may be included in 2010. Compared to the pumping value that includes the stored water, future Daly City groundwater production will decrease by 105 AFY. ** San Bruno projects future groundwater production at its current rate 2,354 AFY (2.1 mgd), but is evaluating its ability to increase its production of groundwater to a rate to 3,026 AFY (2.7 mgd). There is no change from the current rate, while the increase to the higher rate would be 662 AFY. *** Totals utilize the Daly City values based on effective long-term pumping and San Bruno at its current rate. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-18 South Westside Basin GWMP The projected South Westside Basin supplies are shown in Figure 3.12 with the historical production discussed in Section 3.1. Projected demand in the South Westside Basin is within 300 AFY of projected supply. Figure 3.12 Historical and Projected South Westside Basin Groundwater Supply 3.3.1 AGENCY WATER PROJECTIONS Detailed water supply projections for each retail water agency, as well as private irrigators, are provided in the following sections. 3.3.1.1 City of Burlingame Water demands for the City of Burlingame are projected to increase from 4,389 AFY in 2010 to 5,852 AFY in 2035 (Burlingame, 2011), as shown in Figure 3.13. The projected supply meets the projected demand. No groundwater use is projected and imported water use is projected to stay within the city’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 5,867 AFY. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-19 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.13 Projected Water Supply for Burlingame 3.3.1.2 California Water Service Company – South San Francisco District Water demands for CalWater’s South San Francisco District service area are projected to increase from 8,527 AFY in 2010 to 9,494 AFY in 2035. These demands will be met through: o Approximately 1,100 AFY of additional South Westside Basin groundwater supplies as CalWater returns its wellfield to producing 1,535 AFY o Reduction of surface water purchases by approximately 200 AFY (CalWater, 2011) CalWater’s projected supplies are shown in Figure 3.14. The projected supply meets the projected demand. Figure 3.14 Projected Water Supply for CalWater Water Requirements and Supplies 3-20 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.3.1.3 City of Daly City Water demands for Daly City are projected to increase from 7,267 AFY in 2010 to 10,552 AFY in 2035. These demands will be partially met through: o A decrease of approximately 100 AFY of South Westside Basin groundwater supplies o An increase in surface water purchases by approximately 2,700 AFY (Brown and Caldwell, 2011) These values are compared to 2010 supplies with in-lieu surface water deliveries accounted for as South Westside Basin groundwater. Total projected supplies in 2035 are 9,858 AFY and are less than the projected demand of 10,552 AFY. Daly City’s projected supplies are shown in Figure 3.15. Imported water use is projected to exceed Daly City’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 4,808 AFY, with a projected surface water supply of 6,016 AFY by 2035 (Daly City, 2011). Figure 3.15 Projected Water Supply for Daly City 3.3.1.4 City of Millbrae Water demands for Millbrae are projected to increase from 2,482 AFY in 2010 to 3,379 AFY in 2035. By 2035, total surface water supplies are projected to total 3,558 AFY (Millbrae, 2011), as shown in Figure 3.16. No groundwater use is projected and imported water use is projected to slightly exceed the city’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 3,533 AFY. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-21 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.16 Projected Water Supply for Millbrae 3.3.1.5 City of San Bruno Water demands for San Bruno are projected to increase from 4,001 AFY in 2010 to 5,751 AFY in 2035. These demands will be met through: o Continued South Westside Basin groundwater production at 2,364 AFY o Increase in surface water purchases from SFPUC and NCCWD from 1,637 AFY to 3,699 AFY o Potential additional future groundwater production of 673 AFY. San Bruno will evaluate its ability to increase its groundwater production to 2.7 MGD, which is consistent with its historical maximum production rate. (EKI, 2011) San Bruno’s projected supplies are shown in Figure 3.17. Projected imported water purchases would be within San Bruno’s Individual Supply Guarantee of 3,643 AFY. Figure 3.17 Projected Water Supply for San Bruno Water Requirements and Supplies 3-22 South Westside Basin GWMP 3.3.2 PRIVATE GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS No projections of private groundwater use are available. Modeling results show an average demand of approximately 1,800 AFY (see Section 3.1.3). Future use is assumed to continue at this level. Of the 1,800 AFY, 1,139 AFY is produced from the area used to estimate basin yield, as described in Section 3.5 3.4 PROJECTED WATER BUDGET The projected changes in South Westside Basin groundwater production indicated in agency projections in Section 3.3, show an increase in groundwater production of 977 AFY (Table 3.5b), from 8,564 AFY in 2010 to a projected 9,541 AFY in 2035. The historical water budget analysis in Section 3.2 showed a basin only slightly out of balance under modeled conditions (8,756 AFY of groundwater production), with a change in storage of approximately -200 AFY. Groundwater production within the central portion of the South Westside Basin (Daly City southeast to San Bruno (an area consistent with the area analyzed in the historical water budget) is projected to increase from 7,904 AFY in 2010 to 8,881 AFY in 2035. This represents only a small increase in groundwater production of 124 AFY over the conditions analyzed in the historical water budget, leaving the basin nearly in balance. The goals, objectives, elements, and implementation plan presented in the following sections seek to maintain this balance, accounting for increased competition for imported supplies and measures to improve the quantity of groundwater available to the stakeholders in the South Westside Basin. 3.5 BASIN YIELD 3.5.1 BASIN YIELD DEFINITION Basin yield is defined in this document as the maximum average annual groundwater production that could be maintained for a long-term time period and that would result in stable groundwater levels. This value does not explicitly take into consideration water quality, surface water resources, or environmental or socio-economic consequences. The basin yield is intended to be used along other data to guide groundwater management. Any use of groundwater has an impact; the aim of the basin yield is to assist in understanding the balances between the use of the groundwater and the impacts caused by that use. The balances in the Westside Basin are based on the following: o There is a desire to maintain a sustainable groundwater reservoir by not pumping at levels that result in long-term declines in groundwater levels. Avoiding these declines will also avoid increased pumping costs and the need to deepen wells. Water Requirements and Supplies 3-23 South Westside Basin GWMP o There is a desire to maintain groundwater levels at elevations that prevent or slow the migration of poor quality groundwater. Poor quality groundwater includes the point- source and non-point source contaminants discussed in Section 2.3.8 as well as seawater intrusion discussed in Section 2.3.3. o As there is little interaction between groundwater and surface water resources in the area, impacts to surface water resources are not directly considered. o The basin yield estimate will change over time in response to changing hydrology, groundwater production infrastructure, and the built environment. As such, the basin yield definition and estimate is intended to be reviewed and updated at regular intervals. 3.5.2 BASIN YIELD ESTIMATE A variety of methods may be used to estimate basin yield. These include: Analysis of historical production and groundwater levels, identifying periods with stable water levels (if any) and the associated level of groundwater production. Development of a water budget to estimate inflow and outflows from the basin. Yield is then estimated as the sum of the change in storage and the volume of groundwater production. Development of a numerical groundwater model and simulations to estimate the yield. The estimate of basin yield is developed through the use of the Groundwater Model, which incorporates the best available knowledge of the basin and was developed in a cooperative manner with extensive input. Basin yield is estimated as a level to maintain current groundwater levels. To reduce risk of seawater intrusion, groundwater levels need to be raised through increased recharge or decreased production. Higher groundwater levels would also reduce pumping costs and could help control migration of lower quality groundwater. Addressing seawater intrusion through the basin yield estimate may be revisited during implementation of the GWMP. The basin yield estimate is based on work performed by HydroFocus (2011) to determine sensitivity to pumping and the level of municipal pumping that results in zero change in storage. The estimate does not include the southern portion of the South Westside Basin, including the Millbrae and Burlingame areas, due to limited groundwater use and higher model uncertainty due to limited data. In that groundwater modeling exercise, the near-term anticipated groundwater production was modeled over historical hydrology and recent land use. Recent groundwater elevations were used as initial conditions. Municipal groundwater production was then adjusted based on calculated uniform percentages for each water purveyor to determine a level of production that results in zero long-term change in storage. Production Water Requirements and Supplies 3-24 South Westside Basin GWMP by private producers was left unchanged. The level of groundwater production with no long- term change in storage estimated by this scenario is approximately 10,600 AFY for the entire Westside Basin and approximately 8,600 AFY for the South Westside Basin. This value is consistent with the historical water budget analysis shown in Table 3.4, which showed a decline in storage of 194 AFY with a production of 8,756 AFY. These basin yield estimates are based on the current operating conditions in the basin; changes to the operating conditions in the basin may increase the yield (such as through capturing outflow to the Pacific Ocean through increased production or through increased recharge to the basin) or decrease the yield (such as by increasing outflows to the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay through higher groundwater levels). Simulations indicated that groundwater production could be increased in one portion of the basin if production in adjacent areas is reduced. This is a result of the connectivity of the South Westside Basin aquifer and highlights that the aquifer is a shared resource among all groundwater producers. Due to the connectivity of the aquifer throughout the basin, the basin yield estimate is presented at the scale of the South Westside Basin. Additional work was performed to estimate the variability of basin yield with respect to hydrology. Historical hydrology during the 1959-2009 time period simulated in the Groundwater Model was analyzed, and it was estimated that wet periods experienced approximately 30 percent more precipitation and dry periods experienced approximately 30 percent less precipitation than the overall average precipitation. Two additional model scenarios were developed, one with precipitation increased 30 percent across the full modeling period and one with precipitation decreased 30 percent across the full modeling period. The same methodology was applied to determine basin yield under these wetter and drier conditions. The estimated wetter period yield is 9,700 AFY and the estimated drier period yield is 7,200 AFY. Given the uncertainty in future hydrology, these values provide a range of yields to be used with the overall estimated basin yield of 8,600 AFY, which is based on historical hydrology. Figure 3.18 compares the range of basin yield estimates to historical and projected groundwater production, showing that recent production is within the basin yield, although historical production exceeded the basin yield. The production shown in Figure 3.18 includes only production within the area defined for the basin yield estimate (i.e., does not include production in Burlingame and Hillsborough). Water Requirements and Supplies 3-25 South Westside Basin GWMP Figure 3.18 Comparison of Basin Yield Estimate and Historical Groundwater Production Projected future production for 2020-2035 is 8,881 AFY, slightly above the average basin yield of 8,600 AFY, but within the range of yield. These estimates are subject to uncertainty inherent in any groundwater model. Regular monitoring of static groundwater levels will assist in determining if groundwater levels are responding as anticipated over the long term. 3.5.3 BASIN YIELD USE The Basin Management Objectives described later in this document are based upon groundwater levels rather than production volumes. As groundwater production is the most significant component of outflow from the basin, an understanding of the basin yield can assist in policy decisions on production which will directly impact groundwater levels in the basin. However, careful consideration must be given before using the basin yield to drive policy decisions. First, basin yield is a long-term average annual value. Dry years or other operational needs may require production above the basin yield; this can be acceptable if previous or subsequent years balance production with reduced pumping. Second, options to bring the basin into balance with the basin yield include increasing the volume recharged to the aquifer in addition to reducing groundwater production. Third, the basin yield is not a static value. Changes in the understanding of the groundwater basin, climate, land use, and location and quantity of groundwater production can all alter the estimate of basin yield. For example, decreasing production may bring production closer to the basin yield, but it will also reduce the basin yield Water Requirements and Supplies 3-26 South Westside Basin GWMP through reduced capture of additional recharge (less recharge due to higher groundwater levels) and increased natural discharge (more discharge to surface water due to higher groundwater levels). The availability and cost of alternate water supplies or development of recharge projects can also require revisions of the basin yield as this changes the socioeconomic impact of changes in groundwater production. Finally, benefits may be seen by approaching the basin yield value, even if the value itself is not met. Additional benefits can also be accrued by pumping significantly below the basin yield, through increasing groundwater levels resulting in increased groundwater in storage, decreased risk of seawater intrusion, and decreased energy costs for groundwater production. 4-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 4 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE BASIN 4.1 SOUTH WESTSIDE BASIN GOAL The goal of the GWMP is to ensure a sustainable, high-quality, reliable water supply at a fair price for beneficial uses achieved through local groundwater management. Sustainable is defined for this GWMP as being able to continue groundwater production over the next 50 years or more with a similar real cost, quantity, and end-user quality as today. Beneficial uses include water supplies for municipal use, irrigation use, private wells, and environmental purposes. Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) are required by SB 1938 , which amended Section 10753.7of the Water Code to state that groundwater management plans must include BMOs, including components relating to the monitoring and management of groundwater levels within the groundwater basin, groundwater quality degradation, inelastic land surface subsidence, and changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping in the basin. The following five BMOs are defined to support this goal: 1) Maintain Acceptable Groundwater Levels 2) Maintain or Improve Groundwater Quality 3) Limit the Impact of Point Source Contamination 4) Explore Need for Land Subsidence Monitoring 5) Manage the Interaction of Surface Water and Groundwater for the Benefit of Groundwater and Surface Water Quantity and Quality In turn, elements needed to meet the BMOs are presented in Section 5 (Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan), and an implementation plan is presented in Section 6 (Implementation) to support the objectives and elements. Together the goal, BMOs, elements, and implementation plan function as the overall groundwater strategy for the South Westside Basin. The BMOs are intended solely for these uses. 4.2 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS Basin management objectives, are adaptable, quantifiable objectives with prescribed monitoring and defined reporting and responses. These are the accomplishments that need to occur to meet the overall basin goal stated above. BMOs are defined through: Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-2 South Westside Basin GWMP o Management areas and sub-areas o Public input o Monitoring o Adaptive management o Enforcement 4.2.1 MANAGEMENT AREAS AND SUB-AREAS The management area is the entire Plan Area, as described in Section 1.2 and shown in Figure 1.1. Sub-areas are not needed and not defined because of the continuous nature of the aquifer system. Changes in aquifer characteristics across the South Westside Basin are gradual and are not conducive to defining sub-areas based on physical properties. Future efforts should evaluate incorporating the North Westside Basin and its associated Sub- Areas and BMOs into a Groundwater Management Plan for the entire Westside Basin. The North Westside Basin is separated from the South Westside Basin only by a jurisdictional boundary (the county line). 4.2.2 PUBLIC INPUT Public input is important in establishing BMOs. Local knowledge is needed to develop appropriate objectives and local acceptance is necessary to ensure implementation. Public input for the BMOs was gathered through Advisory Committee meetings and public meetings, as described in Sections 1.6 and 1.7. 4.2.3 MONITORING Accurate, consistent, and accepted monitoring is necessary to ensure the BMOs are being met. This monitoring will show if objectives, which are quantitative to the extent possible, are being met and will trigger actions if defined thresholds are crossed. The monitoring must allow for quick and easy data sharing among all stakeholders to gain acceptability and to allow for action, if needed, in a timely fashion. Monitoring protocols are described under each BMO, in Section 2.3.12, and in Appendix C. 4.2.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Every year brings new data and new conditions to the groundwater aquifer. As such, the BMOs are intended to be flexible and adaptive, allowing for changes due new physical, hydrologic, or operational conditions or new understanding of the physical system. Adjustments to BMOs are discussed in Section 5.7, Reporting and Updating. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-3 South Westside Basin GWMP 4.2.5 ENFORCEMENT In its current form, the GWMP does not have enforcement mechanisms for the BMOs. The BMOs are guidelines to be monitored and reported on for the benefit of all South Westside Basin users. As the BMOs are defined to meet a common goal, the Advisory Committee believes that enforcement will not be necessary. However, future plan revisions may implement enforcement mechanisms if deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force. 4.3 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The BMOs include definitions of acceptable groundwater levels, groundwater quality, land subsidence, and surface water/groundwater interaction, along with actions to be taken if defined triggers are met. 4.3.1 MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE GROUNDWATER LEVELS The BMO for groundwater levels is designed to maintain operationally acceptable groundwater levels. Operational acceptability is based on avoiding the following infrastructure impacts: o Water levels below the top of the existing well screens. Water levels that are below the top of the screen can negatively impact efficiency of wells through higher incrustation rates, cascading water, and reduced hydraulic efficiency. Several municipal production wells have pumping water levels below the top of the screen under current conditions. Additional lowering of water levels beyond current and historical water levels may adversely impact the ability and cost to pump groundwater, on a case-by-case basis. o Water levels below existing pump intakes or bottoms of well screens. These situations should be avoided whenever possible, as under such conditions groundwater cannot enter the well or cannot be pumped to the surface. These BMOs are set to maintain conditions for operational purposes; however, they are not currently designed to fully meet the goal of sustainability. Current water levels and water levels meeting the above criteria can remain well below sea level, posing a risk for seawater intrusion. Geologic barriers appear to have thus far prevented seawater from intruding along the Pacific Coast or San Francisco Bay (see Section 2.3.3), but no barrier is perfect and the best way to prevent seawater from migrating into the aquifer is to maintain groundwater levels at or above sea level. Future revisions to this GWMP may seek to raise groundwater level targets to provide a more sustainable water level or may investigate alternate methods of preventing seawater intrusion, such as injection barriers. Such revisions to the GWMP will need to be developed in a manner that can meet the overall goal and will need to function within any then- existing conjunctive use agreements that may require availability of subsurface storage space. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Until then, this BMO will serve as a first step toward managing groundwater levels in the South Westside Basin. Groundwater level monitoring, triggers, and actions are initially defined below for each well with available data. Note that these items are part of adaptive management of the basin and are thus subject to change as additional data are collected and more information is learned about the basin. This is particularly true for wells with short periods of record, notably the “CUP” wells. The static water level monitoring will monitor progress toward meeting BMOs. Monitoring includes static groundwater level measurements from April (spring) and October (fall) of each year from the designated wells. See details on static water level monitoring protocols are provided in Appendix C 4.3.1.1 Triggers Groundwater level measurements will be adjusted to reflect conditions without any stored water, determined by modeling results that include conjunctive use projects. Trigger thresholds are developed based on historical water levels as these levels have been considered operationally acceptable by the groundwater producers in the South Westside Basin. The triggers are defined as follows: o Trigger 1: Groundwater elevations below the historical minimum elevation (more details provided later in this section) o Trigger 2: Groundwater elevations 10 ft below the historical minimum elevation Adjustments to water level measurements are needed to account for water stored in the aquifer as part of a conjunctive use study and not part of the native groundwater supply. As this BMO addresses native groundwater, stored GSR Project and ILPS water, which is intended to be recovered, should not be included in BMO monitoring. The adjustment will be made based on differences seen in the Groundwater Model (HydroFocus, 2011) comparing water levels with conjunctive use and without conjunctive use, as shown in the equation below. where GWSE = groundwater surface elevation As modeling is required to analyze water levels without the conjunctive use project, reporting will only occur when the Groundwater Model is updated to extend the hydrologic period. It is anticipated that this will occur annually, although biennial updates may be sufficient and may be adopted during implementation. The method of adjustment may be altered if a more accurate and consistent method is identified and accepted by the Groundwater Task Force. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-5 South Westside Basin GWMP Groundwater level BMO triggers are shown in Table 4.1 based on the hydrographs included in Appendix D. The data presented uses the Groundwater Model to remove the impacts of the In- Lieu Pilot Study (see Section 1.5.3) initiated in 2002 between San Bruno, CalWater, Daly City, and SFPUC. These adjustments are intended solely for the use of BMO development. Trigger 1 for the BMOs is based on the historical low water level without the effects of the ILPS. For wells designated for seawater intrusion monitoring, Trigger 1 is the historical low minus two feet, rounded down. For other wells, Trigger 1 is the historical low minus five feet, rounded down to the nearest five. Trigger 2 is 10 feet below Trigger 1 for all wells. Well locations are shown in Figure 4.1. 4.3.1.2 Actions If Trigger 1 is met, the Groundwater Task Force will meet to discuss the situation, including confirming the result, an analysis of trends, potential impacts to groundwater producers or the environment, and the most appropriate actions, both immediate and upon Trigger 2 (if met). Actions will be based on plan elements defined in Section 5 (Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan). These actions may include: o Continued operation o Conservation measures o Increased monitoring o Decreased production, potentially including assignment of pumping thresholds for individual entities o Accelerated development of artificial or in-lieu recharge projects o Substitution of alternate supplies o Reoperation of existing wells or construction of new wells to move production to other parts of the basin If Trigger 2 is met, the actions defined for Trigger 1, and any additional measures, actions, or mechanisms deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force, will be implemented. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-6 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 4.1 Groundwater Level BMO Triggers BMO Wells Well Owner Trigger 1 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) Trigger 2 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) SSF 1-02 CalWater -130 -140 SSF 1-14 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-15 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-17 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-18 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-19 CalWater n/a n/a SSF 1-20 CalWater -220 -230 SSF 1-21 CalWater n/a n/a DC-1 (Westlake) Daly City -130 -140 DC-3 Daly City n/a n/a DC-8 Daly City -165 -175 DC-9 Daly City n/a n/a A Street Well Daly City n/a n/a Jefferson Well Daly City n/a n/a Vale Well Daly City n/a n/a Westlake 1 Daly City n/a n/a Westlake 2 Daly City n/a n/a Burlingame-S* San Bruno -1 -14 Burlingame-M* San Bruno -4 -17 Burlingame-D* San Bruno -7 -20 SB-12 San Bruno -225 -235 SB-15 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-16 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-17 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-18 San Bruno n/a n/a SB-20 San Bruno n/a n/a SFO-S* San Bruno -2 -15 SFO-D* San Bruno -39 -51 13C* UAL -45 -57 13D* UAL -4 -16 Fort Funston-S* USGS 2 -11 Fort Funston-M* USGS 8 -5 Thornton Beach MW 225* Daly City 75 60 Thornton Beach MW 360* Daly City 11 -2 Thornton Beach MW 670* Daly City 9 -4 LMMW-6D* SFPUC -50 -60 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-7 South Westside Basin GWMP BMO Wells Well Owner Trigger 1 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) Trigger 2 Adjusted Static Water Level (feet NAVD88) Park Plaza MW 460* SFPUC -120 -130 Park Plaza MW 620* SFPUC -220 -230 MW-CUP-10A-160* SFPUC 55 45 MW-CUP-10A-250* SFPUC 40 25 MW-CUP-18-230* SFPUC -70 -85 MW-CUP-18-425* SFPUC -80 -95 MW-CUP-18-490* SFPUC -135 -150 MW-CUP-18-660* SFPUC -180 -195 MW-CUP-19-180* SFPUC Dry Well Dry Well MW-CUP-19-475* SFPUC -150 -160 MW-CUP-19-600* SFPUC -185 -200 MW-CUP-19-690* SFPUC -185 -200 MW-CUP-22A-140* SFPUC Dry Well Dry Well MW-CUP-22A-290* SFPUC -120 -130 MW-CUP-22A-440* SFPUC -145 -160 MW-CUP-22A-545* SFPUC -190 -200 MW-CUP-23-230* SFPUC -115 -130 MW-CUP-23-440* SFPUC -150 -165 MW-CUP-23-515* SFPUC -195 -210 MW-CUP-23-600* SFPUC -190 -205 MW-CUP-36-160* SFPUC -545 -60 MW-CUP-36-270* SFPUC -95 -105 MW-CUP-36-455* SFPUC -195 -210 MW-CUP-36-585* SFPUC -210 -220 SSFLP-MW120* SFPUC -30 -40 SSFLP-MW220* SFPUC -45 -55 SSFLP-MW440* SFPUC -205 -220 SSFLP-MW520* SFPUC -210 -225 MW-CUP-44-1-190* SFPUC -25 -35 MW-CUP-44-1-300* SFPUC -40 -55 MW-CUP-44-1-460* SFPUC -225 -235 MW-CUP-44-1-580* SFPUC -225 -235 MW-CUP-M-1* SFPUC n/a n/a Notes: Wells with thresholds defined as a seawater intrusion monitoring well are shown in bold: n/a: Not available. Triggers are to be developed at a later date for wells with limited data * Dedicated Monitoring Well !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D CUP-23 -230,440, 515, 600 LMMW-6D DC-3DC-1 SB-12 13C, 13D SSFLP-120, 240, 440, 520 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -475, 690, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 Daly City (Vale) Park Plaza 460, 620 JeffersonDC-8,9 Calif. Water Service No. 02,14,15,17,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 MW-CUP-44-1 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 4.1Wells Monitoredfor Compliance withGroundwaterLevels BMO 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\5.1 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 5.1 Compliance Wells GW Levels BMO.mxd, March 23, 2011 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-9 South Westside Basin GWMP 4.3.2 MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE GROUNDWATER QUALITY Maintenance of groundwater quality includes management actions to prevent seawater intrusion as well as impacts of elevated nitrate levels. 4.3.2.1 Seawater Intrusion While there has been no identified seawater intrusion in the production aquifer to date, the South Westside Basin is at risk for seawater intrusion as groundwater levels throughout the basin are below sea level. Monitoring wells have been installed and are being monitored for seawater intrusion indicators along the Pacific Ocean and along San Francisco Bay. As the monitoring network is not capable of monitoring for all potential seawater intrusion pathways, it is reasonable to expand the seawater intrusion monitoring to include production wells and other monitoring wells. Seawater intrusion indicators include chloride, a conservative constituent in seawater, as well as several ratios of ions that are impacted by ion exchange, dolomitization, adsorption, and other chemical processes as seawater first contacts aquifer materials in equilibrium with fresh water. The indicators include the following: o Chloride: Chloride concentrations are the most common indicator of seawater intrusion. Chloride concentrations can increase rapidly as high-chloride seawater intrudes into low chloride water in the aquifer and are often the first indicator of seawater intrusion. Chloride can also be of other sources, such as sewage, agricultural return, or water in the soil from the time of formation. o Chloride/Bromide Ratio: The chloride/bromide ratio can be used to distinguish seawater sources (ratio of approximately 297) from sewage (higher ratio), agriculture (lower ratio), and other sources. o Sodium/Chloride Ratio: The sodium/chloride ratio can be used as an early indicator of seawater intrusion. Low ratios, lower than seawater (<0.56 weight ratio), can indicate seawater intrusion prior to significant increases in chloride concentrations. This is a result of cation exchange, as sodium replaces calcium on aquifer sediments. If seawater intrusion is in the early stages of progressing, the sodium/chloride ratio should decrease, with a resulting increase in the ratio of both calcium and magnesium to chloride. o Calcium/Magnesium Ratio and Calcium/(Bicarbonate and Sulfate) Ratio: These ratios can also provide an early indication of seawater intrusion. Ratios greater than 1 can be an early indicator of seawater intrusion. This is a result of dolomitization, which increases calcium concentrations and reduces magnesium concentrations as calcium carbonate (e.g., calcite, limestone) transforms into calcium magnesium carbonate (e.g., dolomite) (Jones et al., 1999). Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-10 South Westside Basin GWMP The approach is based on the level of available data. These ratios are used in other basins to study seawater intrusion, along with other ratios and stable isotope analyses. In the Central and West Coast Basins of Los Angeles County, chloride and TDS concentrations; ratios of chloride to bromide, iodide, and boron; isotopic data; age dating; and borehole data are used to assess saline groundwater (Land, et al., 2004). Seawater intrusion analysis in the Seaside Basin of Monterey County utilizes chloride concentrations, sodium/chloride ratios, other cation/anion ratios, geophysical logs, and analysis of groundwater levels (HydroMetrics, 2011). In the San Leandro and San Lorenzo areas of Alameda County, ratios of chloride to bromide, iodide, barium, and boron are used along with chloride concentrations, noble gasses and isotopic data to study seawater intrusion (Izbicki et al, 2003). Annual monitoring will include pumping and static water level measurements and sampling for the following analytes: Alkalinity Ortho-phosphate Calcium Conductivity Bromide Sulfate Magnesium pH Chloride Total Dissolved Solids Potassium Total Bicarbonate Nitrate Boron Sodium Iron and Manganese 4.3.2.1.1 Triggers With the exception of chloride, thresholds are not set for each indicator as the magnitude and timing of each requires analysis prior to making decisions on the status of the South Westside Basin. Chloride thresholds are necessary as the first signs of seawater intrusion need to be recognized rapidly to protect the overall water quality. Thresholds are set at approximately 10 percent above the historical maximum concentration over the past twenty years of sampling (1991 – 2010, with probable outliers removed). This allows for variability inherent in sampling and analytical testing, but will signal potential issues should concentrations increase. Additional information on seawater intrusion parameters for a selection of these wells is presented in Appendix E. Chloride thresholds for each well are presented in Table 4.2. Note that these thresholds are part of adaptive management of the basin and are thus subject to change as additional data are collected and more information is learned about the basin. This is particularly true for wells with short periods of record, notably the “CUP” wells. The well locations are shown in Figure 4.2. The SMCL for chloride is 250 mg/l (recommended), 500 mg/l (upper) and 600 mg/l (short-term). Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-11 South Westside Basin GWMP Regular analysis of water quality and water level data will allow for identification of data gaps that may require installation of new monitoring wells at new locations and/or new depth intervals, geophysical testing, or more rigorous chemical and isotope analysis. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-12 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 4.2 Seawater Intrusion BMO Chloride Thresholds (mg/l) Well Chloride Threshold Recent Result 1991-2010 Maximum Burlingame-S 570 430 518 Burlingame-M 90 63 79 Burlingame-D 55 41 47 SB-15 160 110 145 SB-16 170 110 154 SB-17 65 58 58 SB-18 80 70 72.5 SB-20 100 84 88 SSF 1-14 145 123 129 SSF 1-15 150 110 135 SSF 1-17 115 103 103 SSF 1-18 100 65 91 SSF 1-19 135 120 122 SSF 1-20 185 140 167 SSF 1-21 215 180 196 MW-CUP-M1 60 51 51 MW-CUP-10A-160 145 128 128 MW-CUP-10A-250 145 128 128 MW-CUP-18-230 100 90 90 MW-CUP-18-425 100 91 91 MW-CUP-18-490 100 90 90 MW-CUP-18-660 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-19-180 n/a n/a n/a Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-13 South Westside Basin GWMP MW-CUP-19-475 110 99 99 MW-CUP-19-600 105 95 95 MW-CUP-19-690 180 160 160 MW-CUP-22A-140 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-22A-290 120 106 106 MW-CUP-22A-440 80 71 71 MW-CUP-22A-545 120 106 106 MW-CUP-23-230 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-23-440 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-23-515 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-23-600 n/a n/a n/a MW-CUP-36-160 125 110 110 MW-CUP-36-270 130 118 118 MW-CUP-36-455 90 81 81 MW-CUP-36-585 205 186 186 MW-CUP-44-1-190 80 69 69 MW-CUP-44-1-300 95 84 84 MW-CUP-44-1-460 150 134 134 MW-CUP-44-1-600 95 85 85 SSFLP-MW120 200 173 180 SSFLP-MW220 115 100 104 SSFLP-MW440 75 61 65 SSFLP-MW520* 125 107 110 Park Plaza MW 620* 175 143 155 Park Plaza MW 460 n/a n/a n/a LMMW-6D n/a n/a n/a Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-14 South Westside Basin GWMP Thornton Beach MW 225 n/a n/a n/a Thornton Beach MW 360 n/a n/a n/a Thornton Beach MW 670 n/a n/a n/a A-Street 165 88 150 Jefferson 135 58 120 Junipero Serra 55 50 50 Vale 80 67 71 No. 4 Citrus 85 61 76 Westlake 200 99 180 SFO-S 13,600 10,000 12,400 SFO-D 605 550 550 Note: n/a: Not available; triggers are to be developed at a later date for wells with limited data !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D CUP-23 -230 LMMW-6D Park Plaza 460, 620 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 SSFLP - 120, 240, 440, 520 13C, 13D CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -180,475, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 DC-4 Daly City (Vale) Jefferson Junipero Serra Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,17,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 CUP-44 -190, 300, 580, 460 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 4.2Wells Monitoredfor Compliance withGroundwater QualityBMO 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\5.1 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 5.1 Compliance Wells WQ BMO.mxd, March 21, 2011 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-16 South Westside Basin GWMP 4.3.2.1.2 Actions If the trigger threshold is met, the Groundwater Task Force will meet to discuss the situation, including confirming the result, an analysis of trends, analysis of other seawater intrusion indicators including analytical results and water level measurements, potential impacts to groundwater users or the environment, and the most appropriate actions. If confirmed, analysis should be initiated to determine if the elevated value is likely the result of seawater intrusion, upconing of deep saline water, or other sources. Actions will be based on plan elements defined in Section 5, Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan. These actions may include: o Continued operation o Increased monitoring o Studies of sources of chloride (seawater intrusion or upconing from deeper sediments) and additional options to manage water quality o Reoperation or new wells to move production to other parts of the basin or different depths o Decreased production to reduce seawater intrusion or upwelling o Substitution of alternate supplies 4.3.2.2 Nitrate Elevated nitrate levels in portions of the basin have become an increasing concern over the past several years. Although concentrations have largely remained below MCLs, individual wells have shown sudden increases and trends suggest possible issues in the future. The source of nitrate in the basin has not been studied, but historical and current land use point to either previous agricultural land uses, including extensive cattle operations, or current urban and turf- grass uses. If trends continue, work may be needed to identify the source and to determine how the region could keep nitrate levels within desired levels, potentially through development of a salt and nutrient management plan or through other studies. . 4.3.2.2.1 Triggers This section defines nitrate monitoring, triggers, and actions on a well-by-well basis. Monitoring is based on existing DPH data collection efforts and local sampling of monitoring wells. Trigger 1 is based on 80 percent of the MCL, 36 mg/l, and Trigger 2 is based on 90 percent of the MCL, 41 mg/l. It should be noted that data presented in this section is representative of raw water quality. Raw water quality is different from the water served to customers, as water purveyors pump Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-17 South Westside Basin GWMP selectively from wells based on quality and provide blended water from both groundwater and surface water sources to maintain a safe water supply in compliance with state and federal regulations. Future nitrate monitoring should proceed annually, unless trends or levels indicate a need for more frequent measurements. 4.3.2.2.2 Actions If Trigger 1 is met for one or more wells, the Groundwater Task Force will meet to discuss the situation, including confirming the result, an analysis of trends, potential impacts to groundwater users or the environment, and the most appropriate actions, both immediate and upon Trigger 2 (if met). The Groundwater Task Force will consider the status of all wells, including the wells below the trigger threshold, the quantity and quality of other supply sources for blending, and will also consider water level data and other environmental and operational factors that could contribute to increases in nitrate concentrations. Actions will be based on the plan elements and programs defined in Section 5, Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan. If Trigger 2 is met, the actions defined for Trigger 1 and any additional measures, actions, or mechanisms deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force will be implemented. Historical estimates of nitrate concentrations and current groundwater quality BMO trigger status are shown in Table 4.3. Note that the triggers are part of adaptive management of the basin and are thus subject to change as additional data are collected and more information is learned about the basin. This is particularly true for wells with short periods of record, notably the “CUP” wells. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-18 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 4.3 Groundwater Quality BMO Triggers Well 1991-2010 Maximum Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Recent Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Trigger Status Burlingame-S < 1 ND Burlingame-M ND ND Burlingame-D 1 1 SB-15 15 5 SB-16 8 ND SB-17 6 5 SB-18 7 7 SB-20 7 1 01-14 82 76 Trigger 2 01-15 32 18 01-17 222 219 Trigger 2 01-18 85 76 Trigger 2 01-19 60 35 01-20 104 4 01-21 3 ND MW-CUP-M1 12 12 MW-CUP-10A-160 35 35 MW-CUP-10A-250 48 48 Trigger 2 MW-CUP-10A-500 36 36 Trigger 1 MW-CUP-10A-710 MW-CUP-18-230 7 7 MW-CUP-18-425 8 8 MW-CUP-18-490 2 2 MW-CUP-18-660 MW-CUP-19-180 Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-19 South Westside Basin GWMP Well 1991-2010 Maximum Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Recent Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Trigger Status MW-CUP-19-475 1 1 MW-CUP-19-600 ND ND MW-CUP-19-690 ND ND MW-CUP-22A-140 MW-CUP-22A-290 33 33 MW-CUP-22A-440 1 1 MW-CUP-22A-545 24 24 MW-CUP-23-230 MW-CUP-23-440 MW-CUP-23-515 MW-CUP-23-600 MW-CUP-36-160 26 26 MW-CUP-36-270 8 8 MW-CUP-36-455 ND ND MW-CUP-36-585 ND ND MW-CUP-44-1-190 35 35 MW-CUP-44-1-300 37 37 Trigger 1 MW-CUP-44-1-460 2 2 MW-CUP-44-1-600 ND ND SSFLP-MW120 ND ND SSFLP-MW220 1 1 SSFLP-MW440 ND ND SSFLP-MW520* ND ND Park Plaza MW 620* 1 < 1 Park Plaza MW 460* LMMW-6D Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-20 South Westside Basin GWMP Well 1991-2010 Maximum Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Recent Nitrate (as NO3) Concentration (mg/l) Trigger Status A-Street 170 98 Trigger 2 Jefferson 31 10 Vale 46 35 No. 4 Citrus 71 63 Trigger 2 Westlake 61 33 Junipero Serra 47 34 SFO-S 8 ND SFO-D ND ND Note: Blanks: Triggers are to be developed at a later date for wells with limited data 4.3.3 LIMIT THE IMPACT OF POINT SOURCE CONTAMINATION Point source contamination can also threaten water supplies in the South Westside Basin. Loss of a portion of the water supply due to point source contamination would require use of alternate supplies, which are limited. The point source contamination BMO seeks to coordinate with regulatory agencies to ensure potential impacts to water supplies and environmental receptors are fully incorporated into remedial actions and monitoring programs at contaminated sites. The BMO recognizes that clay layers only slow the migration of contaminants and that these contaminants, if not properly remediated, may reach the primary production aquifer at some concentration at some point in the future. No quantitative thresholds are set for this BMO as there are numerous potential contaminants; however, a qualitative objective of limiting the impact of point source contamination is defined through identifying and protecting areas of basin recharge, ensuring rapid response to new detections of contaminants at any well, and fully cleaning up contaminated sites, including perched aquifer systems that eventually recharge the deeper aquifer used for water supplies. Full cleanup may be through remediation programs or natural processes. The following are actions to achieve this BMO: o Use basin understanding and the existing Groundwater Model to identify important areas of basin recharge. Identify appropriate measures to protect those areas. o Actively engage with regulatory agencies and potentially responsible parties on existing sites. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-21 South Westside Basin GWMP o Notify regulators of contamination issues in wells, even for low-level detections, to ensure discovery of new problems as quickly as possible. o Coordinate with land use planners to ensure land uses are suitable for land overlying the aquifer. 4.3.4 EXPLORE NEED FOR LAND SUBSIDENCE MONITORING The land subsidence BMO focuses on increased understanding of the possible problem through potential additional monitoring activities. There has been no evidence of historical land subsidence, even though water levels have declined significantly from pre-development levels. Land subsidence is most rapid immediately after the initial dewatering of sediments. Thus, land subsidence is not anticipated from sediments that have been historically dewatered. Should water levels decline in the future, it is unlikely that subsidence would occur as these materials are similar to those historically dewatered and would likely exhibit similar limited compressibility. However, without any previous studies of subsidence, there is a potential that land subsidence may have occurred unnoticed or that deeper materials may behave differently. As such, there is a need to perform a subsidence study to assess the status of the subsidence in the South Westside Basin. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) studies are included in the implementation of the plan. The results of the InSAR study may confirm that no land subsidence is occurring in the South Westside Basin, or could show the need for more formalized monitoring and development of quantitative BMOs, which may be established under the reporting and updating element contained in Section 5.7, Reporting and Updating. 4.3.5 MANAGE THE INTERACTION OF SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER FOR THE BENEFIT OF GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY This BMO seeks to manage changes in surface flow and surface water quality and quantity that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater production in the basin. As discussed in Section 2.3.10, there is little interaction between surface water and groundwater in the South Westside Basin. Colma Creek is the largest surface water feature, but it is relatively small and lined for most reaches. Other creeks are very small and drain local watersheds. No quantitative thresholds are set for this BMO, however, the following qualitative objectives of maintaining or improving the interaction of surface water and groundwater are set: o Maintain natural watercourses and investigate potential benefits of removing lining from watercourses where feasible. Goal and Objectives for the Basin 4-22 South Westside Basin GWMP o Maintain baseflow in creeks. o Monitor groundwater levels to assist in water level studies at Lake Merced in San Francisco County in the North Westside Basin. 5-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 5 ELEMENTS OF THE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN California Water Code section 10753.8 states that a GWMP may include components relating to all of the following: o Control of saline water intrusion o Identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas o Regulation of migration of contaminated groundwater o Administration of a well abandonment and well destruction program o Mitigation of overdraft conditions o Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers o Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage o Facilitation of conjunctive use operations o Identification of well construction policies o Construction and operation by the local agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects o Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies o Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination These items are grouped and related back to the South Westside Basin GWMP goal and objectives in Table 5.1 and discussed in the following sections. Some of the items below call for consideration, evaluation, and the potential implementation of measures to address conditions in the groundwater basin. These items are intended to address goals and objectives of the GWMP, but do not propose specific actions or projects that might be developed on a case-by- case basis, as needed. Such specific actions or projects are not fully known at this time and may be subject to evaluation, including but not limited to environmental review, when and if proposed for implementation, and may require approval by regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed action following completion of any required environmental review. 5-2 South Westside Basin GWMP Table 5.1 Summary of GWMP Objectives and Elements Item BMOs Maintain Acceptable Groundwater Levels Maintain or Improve Groundwater Quality Limit the Impact of Point Source Contamination Explore the Need for Land Subsidence Monitoring Manage Interaction of Surface Water And Groundwater Stakeholder Involvement      Monitoring and Management Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage    Monitoring of groundwater quality    Monitoring of inelastic land subsidence  Monitoring of surface water/groundwater interaction    Groundwater Storage Mitigation of overdraft conditions    Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers    Facilitation of conjunctive use operations    Groundwater Quality Control of saline water intrusion    Identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas      Regulation of migration of contaminated groundwater     Administration of a well abandonment and well destruction program     Identification of well construction policies     Construction and operation by the local agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects      Coordinated Planning Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies      Coordination with IRWMP efforts      Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination     Reporting and Updating      5-3 South Westside Basin GWMP 5.1 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Ongoing stakeholder involvement is critical to successful implementation of the GWMP. Interested parties include agencies within and near the South Westside Basin, environmental interests, and individuals and companies that rely on the groundwater basin for water supply. Coordination with these groups is necessary to ensure that goals and objectives continue to be consistent with the desires of the community; that a full range of alternatives are considered along with potential adverse impacts; and that progress can be made toward meeting the goal and objectives. Actions A1. Distribute the GWMP in an electronic format to all parties that have expressed interest in the plan, including all agencies within and bordering the basin. A2. Hold Groundwater Task Force (see Section 6.1) meetings on a semi-annual basis to discuss ongoing groundwater management issues and activities. These discussions will include other agencies, thus enabling cooperation between public entities whose service areas or boundaries overlie the groundwater basin. Meetings will focus on progress towards meeting BMOs, implementation of projects in this plan, new or updated status on the condition of the groundwater basin, and new or updated plans or strategies. A3. Continue outreach to private groundwater producers, notably cemeteries, to involve these stakeholders in the ongoing groundwater management process. A4. Reorient the GWMP web site from its current plan-development focus to an implementation focus, highlighting implementation activities and soliciting public input. A5. Present actions implemented by the agencies at public meetings of the respective councils. A6. Provide public notice for any revisions to the GWMP. 5.2 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT Elements pertaining to Monitoring and Management of the South Westside Basin relate to groundwater levels and storage; groundwater quality; inelastic land subsidence; and changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping. 5.2.1 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND STORAGE The South Westside Basin needs additional groundwater level and quality monitoring to meet the objectives of this plan and the needs of the individual water agencies. Monitoring protocols Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-4 South Westside Basin GWMP are included in Appendix C. Coordination among the agencies is necessary to make existing and future monitoring as complete as possible with respects to spatial distribution and timing. Figure 5.1 shows all wells in the South Westside Basin with static water level measured at least once in 2009. Water level data are taken regularly by the water agencies, but typically static water levels are only taken when pumps are not operating due to maintenance activities. There is no existing basin-wide static groundwater level monitoring program. To the extent possible, groundwater level monitoring should continue at all wells that are currently or have recently been measured, as shown in Figure 5.1. Water levels should be measured minimally in the spring (April) and fall (October). Datalogging pressure transducers should be installed in selected wells to determine variability between readings, which may refine future timing of groundwater level measurements. Measurements should be taken when the well and, to the extent possible, nearby wells are not pumping, to represent static water levels. In addition to the measurement, the pumping status at the well and nearby wells should be noted and preserved in the database. Additional monitoring details are provided in Appendix C. Groundwater level monitoring should be coordinated with the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program, a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program that is intended to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. Daly City, CalWater, and San Bruno, through the South Westside Basin Voluntary Cooperative Groundwater Monitoring Association, are the monitoring entities for the portion of the South Westside Basin within their service area. Coordination with CASGEM should include consistent monitoring protocols between data provided to the CASGEM program and other data collected in the basin. A key element of monitoring and management of groundwater levels and storage is the Groundwater Model. The Groundwater Model is used primarily to improve the understanding of the groundwater system, but also is useful for the following: o Aggregating, organizing, and analyzing existing data o Identifying data gaps o Simulating impacts on groundwater levels and storage of various projects and of continuation of existing operations The Groundwater Model is available for use by all interested stakeholders from Daly City. Output from the model may be used in GWMP implementation to ensure that projects are designed to meet the stated goal and objectives. These activities result in a significant amount of data. Usage of a data management system, such as the existing HydroDMS, can assist in storing, accessing, and analyzing data across multiple agencies. !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D SFO - S,D CUP-23 -230,440, 515, 600 LMMW-6D DC-1,3 SB-12 13C, 13D SSFLP-120, 240, 440, 520 CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -180,475, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 Daly City (Vale) Park Plaza460, 620 Jefferson DC-8, 9 Calif. Water Service No. 02,14,15,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 CUP-44 -190, 300, 580, 460 §¨¦280 §¨¦380 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 Figure 5.1Wells Monitoredfor GroundwaterLevels 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\6.1 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 6.1 CFigure 6.1 Mon Wells GW Levels.mxd, March 21, 2011 Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-6 South Westside Basin GWMP Actions B1. Implement a basin-wide semi-annual static water level measurement program that builds upon existing monitoring. The program should include the wells belonging to the retail water agencies. Other wells may be included if feasible. B2. Use existing database structures with data from these databases imported into a central Data Management System (such as the existing HydroDMS) to facilitate data sharing between agencies. B3. Coordinate among agencies to ensure that wells continue to be monitored to provide long-term records of water levels at specific locations, and to ensure a consistent and, to the extent feasible, complete dataset. B4. Participate in the CASGEM program. 5.2.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY Water quality monitoring is performed for Title 22 compliance by the water agencies. Figure 5.2 shows the locations of wells monitored for water quality at least once in the most recent 5-year period with available data from DPH (2006 – 2010) or other local monitoring activity. Monitoring protocols are contained in Appendix C. Additional water quality monitoring is needed to ensure sufficient data to define nitrate concentrations for use by the water quality BMOs in this GWMP. Actions C1. Continue groundwater quality monitoring as needed to meet Title 22 requirements. C2. Standardize data collection protocols and timing through coordination among agencies. C3. Continue to use existing database structures, with data from these databases imported into a central Data Management System (such as the existing HydroDMS). C4. Fill gaps in the water quality monitoring network through sampling additional existing or newly constructed monitoring wells. C5. Coordinate with the USGS on its National Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program and GAMA program to potentially integrate its efforts with local monitoring efforts. C6. Consider development of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan to assist in permitting of future recycled water projects. !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(Skyline BlvdE l C a m i n o R e a l Cal Water Wellfield Burlingame - S,M,D 13C, 13D CUP-23 -230,440, 515, 600 LMMW-6D Park Plaza460, 620 SFO - S,D CUP-36-160, 220, 440, 520 SSFLP-120, 240, 440, 520 Thornton Beach MW-225, 360, 670 SB-20 SB-18 SB-17 SB-16SB-15 A St. Westlake MW-CUP-M-1 CUP-19 -180,475, 600, 690 CUP-22A -140,290, 440, 545 CUP-10A -160, 250, 500, 710 DC-4 Daly City (Vale) Jefferson Junipero Serra Calif. Water Service No. 14,15,17,18,19,20,21 CUP-18 -230, 425, 490, 660 CUP-44 -190, 300, 460, 580 §¨¦280 UV1 UV1 £¤101 UV82 UV35 §¨¦380 Figure 5.2Wells Monitoredfor GroundwaterQuality 0 1 20.5 Miles ² Legend !(Wells Highways Groundwater Basin Plan Area F:\6.2 - San Bruno\Figures\Figure 6.1 CFigure 6.1 Mon Wells WQ Levels.mxd, March 21, 2011 Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-8 South Westside Basin GWMP 5.2.3 INELASTIC LAND SUBSIDENCE Monitoring land subsidence in the South Westside Basin is limited by the cost of traditional surveys and extensometer compared to the limited historical impact of subsidence in the basin. If land subsidence is reported in the area, or if water levels drop below historical lows, additional land subsidence monitoring will be considered. Relatively new technology, InSAR, allows for more cost-effective, regional scale land subsidence monitoring. Over time, these technologies are becoming more powerful and less expensive. Lower costs and opportunities to partner with others such as USGS may allow for land subsidence monitoring in the future. Actions D1. Collect evidence, if any, of active inelastic land subsidence and assess the risk. D2. Develop a land subsidence monitoring program, if needed, using InSAR or traditional surveying and extensometer methods. D3. Partner with the USGS or nearby agencies to implement any needed monitoring. 5.2.4 CHANGES IN SURFACE FLOW AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT GROUNDWATER LEVELS OR QUALITY OR ARE CAUSED BY GROUNDWATER PUMPING Surface flow within the South Westside Basin is minimal, primarily Colma Creek and other small creeks, as discussed in Section 2. However, Lake Merced is a significant water body with recreational uses to the north in the North Westside Basin. This GWMP intends to support the actions developed under the North Westside Basin GWMP through coordination with that plan during development and updates. The action listed below are reflective of the actions of the North Westside GWMP. Action E1. Continue groundwater monitoring near Lake Merced to support ongoing studies. 5.3 GROUNDWATER STORAGE 5.3.1 MITIGATION OF OVERDRAFT CONDITIONS The South Westside Basin is currently considered not to be in a state of overdraft. Current pumping is estimated to be approximately at the basin yield, as estimated by the Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model (Hydrofocus, 2011). However, historical groundwater production has at times exceeded the basin yield, which has resulted in groundwater levels well below sea level. The groundwater level BMO is intended to serve as a prevention, coordination, and warning device. Currently, the decisions and plans on groundwater production are made independently by each agency based on each agency’s individual needs in coordination with the respective surface Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-9 South Westside Basin GWMP water supplies from the SFPUC. Under current basin management, there is little or no coordination among the agencies on the individual agency or total production from the basin. To manage the basin in a more robust and sustainable manner, there is a need to coordinate groundwater production among the agencies, along with appropriate level of monitoring and reporting of groundwater production, levels, and quality. This information can be used in several aspects of basin management, including: o Keeping the Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model updated and using the model to evaluate the impact of collective production in comparison to the basin yield. In addition to investigating basin-wide conditions, the model can also provide details on the impact of the geographic distribution of production throughout the basin, so as to assist in managing the basin in a more sustainable manner. While more detailed analyses typically have higher uncertainties than regional analyses, they can provide information on estimated changes in the basin operations that can assist in groundwater management strategies. o Updating the basin yield estimates over time as better data becomes available, and as operation of the basin evolves into a more coordinated manner. As a result, and in order to address any potential basin yield issues, there may be a need in the future to evaluate additional recharge opportunities or apportion production to each agency through voluntary agreements to assist in meeting groundwater level BMOs. Appropriate monitoring and robust modeling tools will assist in evaluating basin management options and safe yield should that become necessary in the future. Actions F1. Should groundwater levels decline, analyze conditions to determine if the South Westside Basin is in overdraft or if conditions are due to short-term climatic variability or other factors. Analysis will include the use of the most up-to-date groundwater model. F2. Should overdraft conditions occur, actions may include demand reduction through alternate supplies or conservation programs and increased recharge activities through in-lieu or direct recharge. F3. Implement a voluntary groundwater pumping metering program for private wells, such as at golf courses or cemeteries, to improve overall basin understanding. F4. Utilize the groundwater model to simulate the collective impacts of current, near-term, and long- term projected groundwater production F5. If current or future production is considered beyond the basin yield and is anticipated to result in not meeting the Groundwater Level BMO, voluntarily apportionment of pumping to each agency may be performed to provide certainty on future levels of production. The apportionment will be determined by the water agencies at that time, but should consider historical production, access to Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-10 South Westside Basin GWMP alternate sources, status of existing infrastructure, water quality considerations, and projected needs. 5.3.2 REPLENISHMENT OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTED BY WATER PRODUCERS Groundwater replenishment may take place to cost effectively increase stored water in the aquifer for normal and drought periods or to support regional water supply goals. As long as the South Westside Basin remains in a hydrologically balanced condition, replenishment will occur on a voluntary basis, as economically feasible projects and water sources become available. Actions Study the feasibility of and potential for implementing the following replenishment activities: G1. Direct recharge of storm water and other surface water, selecting replenishment water to best manage the quality of recharge waters and receiving waters G2. Substitution of other water supplies such as recycled water or imported water for groundwater G3. Conservation efforts G4. Study the suitability of near surface conditions for improved recharge from low impact development techniques such as permeable pavement, swales, and others. Study should include subsurface materials and perched groundwater conditions. G5. Should the basin become overdrafted for extended periods of time, appropriate actions for replenishment should be taken with proper governance structures. 5.3.3 FACILITATION OF CONJUNCTIVE USE OPERATIONS Conjunctive use operations can assist groundwater basin management as the agencies have access to both groundwater and surface water supplies. Conjunctive use in the South Westside Basin in the form of large-scale direct recharge through spreading basins may not be cost- effective due to high land costs and clay layers in the upper aquifer system, but potential options should be studied if identified. Conjunctive use could more likely take the form of in- lieu recharge, in which other supply sources, such as imports or recycled water, may replace groundwater, thus offsetting future groundwater pumping during times of reduced imported water supplies. Injection of water into the aquifer may also be considered. Consideration should be given to water quality changes that may occur due to recharge activities and the increase in groundwater levels, particularly with the potential mobilization of nitrate in the subsurface. Actions H1. Consider the development, implementation, and maintenance of programs and projects to recharge aquifers. Programs may be local or regional in scope. These may use imported water, recycled Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-11 South Westside Basin GWMP water, and other waters to offset existing and future groundwater pumping, except in the following situations: o Groundwater quality would be reduced, unless lower water quality provides maximum benefit o Available groundwater aquifers are full o Rising water tables threaten the stability of existing structures H2. Support regional groundwater banking operations that are beneficial to the South Westside Basin and the region and support the goals of this GWMP. 5.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 5.4.1 CONTROL OF SEAWATER INTRUSION The threat of seawater intrusion in the South Westside Basin includes the potential migration of seawater from the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. Control of this migration includes monitoring groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and groundwater production. Should monitoring indicate increased risk of seawater intrusion, actions should be evaluated that would raise groundwater levels through increased recharge or decreased extraction. Actions I1. Continue monitoring for seawater intrusion at the margins of the basin. Study the need for additional monitoring locations or inclusion of additional indicators or triggers. I2. Combine seawater intrusion monitoring results with monitoring of basin-wide groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and production to fully determine risk of seawater intrusion. I3. Evaluate the reduction of the gradient between sea level and groundwater levels through increased recharge or decreased production in the affected area. 5.4.2 IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS AND RECHARGE AREAS The entire South Westside Basin is a source of recharge and requires protection to ensure high quality recharge and to maintain or enhance existing recharge quantities. Pervious areas such as open spaces and the numerous parks, cemeteries, and golf courses allow water to percolate into the soil and recharge the aquifer. No significant land use changes are anticipated in the built-out South Westside Basin, and these pervious areas are unlikely to be paved or otherwise developed. However, if such actions are considered in the future, the impact to the groundwater basin should be studied. Additionally, opportunities to increase pervious areas should be explored. Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-12 South Westside Basin GWMP Drinking water source assessments produced by the groundwater agencies have identified uses that threaten groundwater quality in the South Westside Basin along with delineation of capture zones around wells. Uses that threaten some wells in the basin include: o Automobile repair shops o Automobile gas stations o Dry cleaners o Military installations o Sewer collection systems o Underground storage tanks - confirmed leaking tanks o Utility stations - maintenance areas Actions J1. Preserve and protect, to the extent possible, aquifer recharge areas. J2. Implement public outreach efforts. J3. Design recharge facilities to minimize pollutant discharge into storm drainage systems, natural drainage, and aquifers. J4. Decrease storm water runoff, where feasible, by reducing paving in development areas, and by using d esign practices such as permeable parking bays and porous parking lots with beamed storage areas for rainwater detention. Exercise caution to avoid contamination from oil, gas, and other surface chemicals. J5. Manage streams with natural approaches, to the maximum extent possible, where groundwater recharge is likely to occur. J6. Identify prime recharge areas and consider offering incentives to landowners in exchange for limiting their ability to develop their property due to its retention as a natural groundwater recharge area. These incentives will encourage the preservation of natural water courses without creating undue hardship on the property owners, and might include density transfer functions. J7. Submit the map of recharge areas (Figure 2.10) to local planning agencies and notify DWR and other interested persons when the map is submitted to those local planning agencies, as required by AB359 (Huffman) 5.4.3 REGULATION OF THE MIGRATION OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER It is important to regulate contaminated groundwater migration both for protecting existing sources of groundwater and for developing new sources of groundwater. Coordination with regulatory agencies and potentially responsible parties will give water managers input into the cleanup and containment of contaminated sites and will improve long-term planning efforts based on the predicted impact of those hazards. Additionally, new, improved, and more cost- Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-13 South Westside Basin GWMP effective treatment technologies can potentially result in additional potable or non-potable supplies from groundwater that was previously considered unavailable for use. Action K1. Coordinate with local regulatory agencies to share information about contaminated sites and about the South Westside Basin groundwater system and wells. Treatment systems will be investigated as new non-potable supply sources. K2. Coordinate with the SWRCB to verify the classification of contaminated media at sites within the basin in their GeoTracker website. 5.4.4 ADMINISTRATION OF A WELL ABANDONMENT AND WELL DESTRUCTION PROGRAM Abandoned or poorly constructed wells should be properly destroyed to prevent migration of contaminants down well bores from the surface to the aquifer or across clay layers within the aquifer. Well destruction in the basin is administered by San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program (GPP). Destruction of wells is performed in accordance with the procedures set forth in DWR’s California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90 (1990). Actions L1. Survey abandoned wells in the South Westside Basin both physically and from county records. L2. Coordinate with San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program on destruction standards and procedures, as well as on logging of status of abandoned and destroyed wells. L3. Encourage and, if feasible, provide funding for the destruction of abandoned wells. 5.4.5 IDENTIFICATION OF WELL CONSTRUCTION POLICIES Well construction in the South Westside Basin also is administered by San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program. San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program issues permits for the construction or abandonment of all water wells including, but not limited to driven wells, monitoring wells, cathodic wells, extraction wells, agricultural wells, and community water supply wells. The wells are inspected during different stages of construction to verify standards are met. All drinking water wells are evaluated once installation is complete to ensure compliance with California Well Standards set forth in DWR’s California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90 (1990) and minimum drinking water standards. Actions M1. Coordinate with San Mateo County’s Groundwater Protection Program staff to ensure all parties are aware of local and regional contamination plumes. Increased caution or restrictions may be necessary near these plumes. Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-14 South Westside Basin GWMP 5.5 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION BY THE LOCAL AGENCY OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CLEANUP, RECHARGE, STORAGE, CONSERVATION, WATER RECYCLING, AND EXTRACTION PROJECTS Properly designed, constructed, and operated projects can cost-effectively move the South Westside Basin towards meeting water quantity, water quality, and subsidence objectives. These projects could include: o Groundwater contamination cleanup Actions N1. Remediate basin groundwater from point-source (e.g., TCE, fuels) and non-point-source (e.g., nitrate) contamination, in a cost-effective manner. Point-source cleanup activities will include interfacing with regulatory agencies, potentially responsible parties, and other nearby agencies and municipalities. These actions will seek to return the contaminated area, to the extent possible, to a water supply source. Cleanup activities will be performed by the potentially responsible parties, and the regulatory agencies. Payment for impacts to the water system, if any, will be sought from the potentially responsible parties. o Recharge Actions N2. Evaluate and consider the construction and operation of projects to recharge good-quality surplus water to the groundwater basin. Recharge water may include storm water, surface water, recycled water, or imported water and will be captured through existing pumping facilities. Recharge water would be selected to mutually benefit groundwater quantity and quality. It is not anticipated that additional facilities will be needed to extract stored water. Facilities are anticipated to be small in scale, rather than large spreading basins that are not cost-effective in the urbanized South Westside Basin. o Storage – Additional surface storage, while beneficial, is not anticipated in the area beyond small scale water harvesting and detention basins. o Conservation – Conservation is a key part of water demand management in the South Westside Basin, exhibited by already low per-capita water use. CalWater and Millbrae are signatories to the MOU of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and participate in demand-side management measures. These agencies have committed to implementing best management practices to reduce water demand. Actions Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-15 South Westside Basin GWMP N3. Agencies should work to build upon already successful conservation efforts by considering signing the MOU and participating in the California Urban Water Conservation Council, or implementing equivalent local efforts. N4. Encourage installation of water-conserving systems such as dry wells and gray water systems where feasible, especially in new construction. Also encourage installation of rain gardens, cisterns, or infiltrators to capture rainwater from roofs for irrigation in the dry season and flood control during heavy storms. N5. Support outreach programs to promote water conservation and widespread use of water saving technologies. N6. Encourage continued outdoor irrigation water conservation. o Water recycling – Recycled water is available from Daly City’s tertiary treatment plant. Other treatment plants could potentially provide recycled water in the future. Actions N7. Evaluate and consider the expansion of existing recycled water programs, including efforts to utilize effluent from other treatment plants in the basin. Significant opportunities are available for usage of tertiary recycled water at the cemeteries, if appropriate funding mechanisms can be developed. o Extraction – Continued groundwater extraction will likely be necessary to meet future demand. Actions N8. Perform groundwater modeling during the planning stages to ensure there are no significant impacts from new wells. 5.6 COORDINATED PLANNING 5.6.1 DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES Federal and state regulatory agencies to develop of relationships with include the following: o Federal o EPA – contaminated sites o USGS – aquifer and watershed conditions, groundwater and surface water monitoring o State o DPH – drinking water quality and vulnerability o DTSC – contaminated sites o DWR – aquifer conditions Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-16 South Westside Basin GWMP o RWQCB – surface water quality and groundwater quality, permitting o Water Board – groundwater monitoring (GAMA) Actions O1. Coordinate with these federal and state agencies on issues related to monitoring and contaminated sites as well as on opportunities for grant funding. 5.6.2 COORDINATION WITH IRWMP EFFORTS As noted in Section 1, Introduction and Background, the Plan Area is part of the Bay Area IRWMP. Coordination during implementation of the GWMP with these IRWMP efforts is important to ensure that local efforts help meet regional goals and vice-versa. Action P1. Ensure that at least one member of the Groundwater Task Force is actively involved in the coordination of both the IRWMP and the GWMP. This member will provide dialogue between the two efforts. 5.6.3 REVIEW OF LAND USE PLANS AND COORDINATION WITH LAND USE PLANNING AGENCIES TO ASSESS ACTIVITIES THAT CREATE A REASONABLE RISK OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION As discussed in Section 5.4.2, Identification and Management of Wellhead Protection Areas and Recharge Areas, certain land uses and activities can potentially impact groundwater quality. Avoiding these uses in recharge areas and near wells is a better strategy than mitigation once the land uses are already in place. Elements of the Groundwater Management Plan 5-17 South Westside Basin GWMP Actions Q1. Coordinate between stakeholders and land use planning agencies to encourage protection of the groundwater resource by limiting activities that create an unreasonable risk to groundwater. Maps of well locations with soil properties will be provided to assist land use planning agencies in their decision process. Q2. Monitor environmental impact reports and comment on such reports to ensure the water resources are protected. Q3. Involve water agencies through water supply assessments as required under SB 610. The water supply assessment documents water supply sufficiency by identifying sources of water supply, quantifying water demands, evaluating drought impacts, and providing a comparison of water supply and demand. 5.7 REPORTING AND UPDATING Reporting on the status of the GWMP implementation is important for the fulfillment of the actions and projects listed in the plan. Updating the plan is important to reflect changing conditions and understanding of the basin. Actions R1. Report on the GWMP’s implementation progress every 2 years; include details on monitoring activities, trigger status of BMOs, project implementation, and new or unresolved issues. Post reports and status tables or maps for BMOs on the Internet. R2. Update the GWMP every 5 years, unless changes in conditions in the basin warrant updates on a different frequency. Updates will be limited to those sections that require updating. Notify the public of the update and develop the update with input from the public and the Groundwater Task Force. 6-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 6 IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 GOVERNANCE The current governance of the South Westside Basin is based on the individual interest model. Under the individual interest model, stakeholders govern and develop water resource projects individually. The individual interest model will be retained with representatives from each stakeholder eligible for participation in the Groundwater Task Force. Individual development of projects will be designed and implemented following the common goal, objectives, and elements described in this GWMP, and will be presented to the Task Force for informational and coordination purposes. Additionally, coordination between stakeholders will allow for easier implementation of projects spanning multiple jurisdictions or benefitting multiple jurisdictions. As a potential next step, the governance structure may be defined in a MOU, which may be developed and signed after the adoption of this GWMP. The primary feature of the governance of the South Westside Basin would be the South Westside Basin Groundwater Task Force (Groundwater Task Force), which would lead the implementation of this GWMP. 6.1.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Groundwater Task Force will Guide the implementation of the GWMP o Discuss and advance regional and local groundwater projects such as  Conjunctive use  Stormwater capture  Alternate supplies, such as recycled water o Coordinate on monitoring and CASGEM compliance o Coordinate on groundwater modeling and data management o Coordinate with larger regional efforts such as the Bay Area IRWMP o Coordinate on grant and loan opportunities o Develop reporting for GWMP implementation Share hydrogeological and operational information with others, such as o Groundwater levels o Groundwater quality o Well performance Provide a forum for public interaction on groundwater issues Provide a basis for future governance, if needed Implementation 6-2 South Westside Basin GWMP 6.1.2 MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION Membership in the Groundwater Task Force is anticipated to include representatives from San Bruno, Daly City, California Water Service Company, and SFPUC as well as other major stakeholders, as follows in alphabetical order: o Agricultural representative o BAWSCA o California Water Service Company o Cemetery representative o Town of Colma o City of Daly City o Environmental representative o Golf Course representative o Public representative o Representative for cities not using groundwater (Millbrae and Burlingame) o City of San Bruno o San Francisco Public Utilities Commission o San Mateo County Changes to the composition of the Groundwater Task Force may be made with unanimous consent of the signatories to the potential MOU and a majority of all members attending the meeting. Other entities are also encouraged to attend the meetings, including City of South San Francisco, RWQCB, United Airlines, and other interested groups or individuals. Participation by these groups in the meetings should be encouraged to allow for transfer of knowledge and a unified implementation of groundwater management. 6.1.3 ADMINISTRATION A Groundwater Task Force administrator is needed to provide leadership to maintain progress and meet the implementation goals of the GWMP. The potential MOU may establish the initial administrator and a procedure to change the administrator from time-to-time. The administrator must have adopted this GWMP. Responsibilities of the administrator include: o Scheduling regular meetings o Providing agendas and minutes o Monitoring or directing the monitoring of progress towards meeting implementation goals o Developing or directing the development of annual reports o Updating the GWMP as necessary Implementation 6-3 South Westside Basin GWMP 6.1.4 MEETINGS Groundwater Task Force meetings would provide a forum for representatives from stakeholder groups to discuss and resolve regional groundwater issues. The meetings would be at least twice a year and open to the public. The meetings would be intended to allow for the sharing of information as well as for the development of programs or projects needed to implement the GWMP. Information sharing may include changes to water supply infrastructure, new monitoring data, or new problems or opportunities. New programs and projects may be developed and implemented by individual stakeholders, by groups of stakeholders, or by all stakeholders. The ultimate project-making authority remains within the entity sponsoring the project. 6.1.5 VOTING The representatives on the Groundwater Task Force would coordinate on matters relevant to groundwater management in the South Westside Basin, using the goal, objectives, and elements of this GWMP to guide their decisions. Some occasions may require a formal vote by the Groundwater Task Force, specifically for the following: o Changing of the composition of the Groundwater Task Force o Changes to the MOU Decisions to change the composition of the group would require unanimous support among the signatories to the potential MOU and would require majority support among all members attending the meeting to move forward. Decisions of the group to change the MOU must be unanimous among the MOU signatories to move forward. Projects may move forward with the support of a subset of the group, but would do so outside of the auspices of the Groundwater Task Force. 6.1.6 POTENTIAL FUTURE GOVERNANCE If deemed necessary by the Groundwater Task Force, a MOU may be signed to create a more formalized governance structure. It is not anticipated at this time that future needs would require a more structured management system through a JPA. Advantages to the individual interest approach in this Plan and through the potential MOU include the following: o Agencies can focus their resources on projects specific to their needs o No loss of management control by local groundwater resources o Ease of implementation because it is a continuation of the current approach to groundwater management in the region. Implementation 6-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Moving to a mutual interest model based on a JPA could provide the following: o Ease pursuing regional projects that would benefit the entire South Westside Basin o Define who coordinates projects and what role each agency plays during regional project planning, construction, operation, and maintenance o Generate economies of scale for large projects o Increase likelihood of state funding for projects benefiting multiple entities o Prevent individual stakeholders from undertaking actions not complementary to the BMOs. o Improved framework for resolution of conflicts. Any potential future need to develop a MOU or JPA would be discussed through the Groundwater Task Force. 6.2 DISPUTE RESOLUTION Disputes relating to implementation of the GWMP will be resolved by the Groundwater Task Force. In the event that the Groundwater Task Force cannot resolve the dispute, an outside neutral third party will assist the parties in working towards a satisfactory resolution, with completion of all procedures within 60 to 90 days, unless the parties to the dispute agree to a longer timeframe. Costs incurred, if any, in this process will be equally shared by the involved parties. 6.3 FINANCING AND BUDGET Financing of projects will be on a project-by-project basis and will be the responsibility of the sponsoring agency or group, unless other agreements are made. Financing for the reporting and updating of the GWMP will be shared among the GWMP participants, with details to be mutually agreed upon. It is anticipated that SFPUC will, at their discretion, continue providing for the development of annual reports for the entire South Westside Basin, with support from the GWMP participants for data and review. Additional items not currently included in SFPUC’s annual reports but required by this GWMP may require a funding agreement from the water agencies adopting and agreeing to this GWMP. Implementation 6-5 South Westside Basin GWMP 6.4 SCHEDULE The following schedule highlights the key milestones for implementation of the Groundwater Management Plan. Item Reference Section Initial Completion Recurrence Meet with stakeholders to define and consider adoption of a governance structure 6.1 2 years n/a Implement basinwide semiannual static groundwater level monitoring 4.3.1, 5.2.1, App. C 1 year n/a Add additional pressure transducers to existing groundwater level monitoring network 5.2.1 App. C 2 year n/a Implement a voluntary groundwater level monitoring program for private groundwater producers App. C 2 years n/a Develop program to survey and destroy abandoned wells 5.4.4 3 years n/a Implement a voluntary groundwater production monitoring program for private groundwater producers App. C 3 years n/a Identify recharge strategies to increase yield 2.3.5, 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.5 5.6.3 2 years As needed Update Groundwater Model 4.3.1 1 years 1 year Complete subsidence analysis using InSAR 4.3.4 5 years As needed Continue public outreach and education 5.1 2 years Ongoing Report on GWMP 5.7 2 years 1 year Update GWMP 5.7 5 year 5 years 7-1 South Westside Basin GWMP 7 REFERENCES Alley, W. M., T. E. Reilly, and. O. E. Franke, 1999. Sustainability of Groundwater Resources. USGS Circular 1186, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1186. Bartell, M.J. 1914. Field Examinations. Prepared for M.M. O'Shaughnessy, City Engineer, City of San Francisco, Department of Public Works. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). 2009. BAWSCA Annual Survey – FY 2007-08. January. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). 2011. Spreadsheets of Monthly/Seasonal SFPUC Purchases Among BAWSCA Members. January. Bonilla, M.G.. 1998. Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South 7.5' quadrangle and part of the Hunters Point 7.5' quadrangle, San Francisco Bay area, California: A digital database. USGS Open-File Report 98-354 Brown and Caldwell. 2001. Water System Master Plan Update. July. Brown and Caldwell. 2011. City of Daly City 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Burlingame, City of. 2009. Waste Water Treatment Plant. http://www.burlingame.org/Index.aspx?page=82. Accessed on July 13. Burns & McDonnell and ERM-West. 2006. Building 84 Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan, United Airlines San Francisco Maintenance Center, San Francisco International Airport. May 15. California Department of Public Health (DPH). 2010. California Drinking Water Data. December 1. California Department of Public Health (DPH). 2009. California Regulations Related to Drinking Water. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Lawbook/dwregulati ons-08-13-2009.pdf. Accessed on August 25. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1975. California's Ground Water. Bulletin 118. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1980. Ground Water Basins in California. Bulletin 118-80. California Department of Water Resource (DWR). 1990. California Well Standards. Bulletin 74- 90. References 7-2 South Westside Basin GWMP California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. California’s Groundwater . Bulletin 118- 03. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2010. IWRIS: Integrated Water Resources Information System. http://app1.iwris.water.ca.gov/IWRIS. Accessed on February 4. California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS). 2009. Climatic data http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/monthlyEToReport.do. Accessed on March 23. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). 1996. San Francisco and Northern San Mateo County Beneficial Use Evaluation. April. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). 2007. San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan. January. California Water Service Company. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan South San Francisco District. June. Carollo. 2008. Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, Brisbane in coordination with Cal Water and SFPUC. Carollo. 2009. Recycled Water Facility Plan. Clifton, H.E., and Hunter, R.E., 1987, The Merced Formation and related beds; a mile-thick succession of late Cenozoic coastal and shelf deposits in the seacliffs of San Francisco, CA, in Hill, M.L., ed., Centennial field guide: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, v. 1, p. 257–262. Clifton, H.E., and Hunter, R.E., 1991, Depositional and other features of the Merced Formation in sea cliff exposures south of San Francisco, CA, in Sloan, Doris, and Wagner, D.L., eds., 1991, Geologic excursions in northern California; San Francisco to the Sierra Nevada: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 109, p. 35–44. Daly City, City of. 2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. December. Daly City, City of. 2009. Recycling/Reusing Treatment Plant By-product. http://www.dalycity.org/city_services/depts/wwr/waste_treatment.htm#5. Accessed on July 28. EKI. 2005. City of Burlingame Urban Water Management Plan. November. EKI. 2007. City of San Bruno Urban Water Management Plan. January. EKI. 2011. City of San Bruno Urban Water Management Plan. June. References 7-3 South Westside Basin GWMP ERM. 2005. Fourth Quarter 2004 Ground Water Monitoring Report United Airlines Building 84 FS/RAP San Francisco Maintenance Center. ESA. 2009. Harding Park Recycled Water Project Draft EIR. Fio, J.L., and Leighton, D.A., 1995, Geohydrologic framework, Historical Development of the ground- water system, and general hydrologic and water-quality conditions in 1990, south San Francisco Bay and Peninsula area, California: U.S. Geologic Survey Open-File Report 94- 357, 46 p. Gillespie, K. and B. Gillespie. 2009. An Overview of Daly City History. http://www.dalycityhistory.org/overview.htm. Accessed on September 1. Harden, D.R., 1998. California Geology. Hensolt, W. H. and Brabb, E.E.. 1990. Maps showing elevation of bedrock and implications for design of engineered structures to withstand earthquake shaking in San Mateo County, California. Open-File Report 90-496. U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. HydroFocus. 2003. Westside Basin Unified Groundwater Model. May 14. HydroFocus. 2011. Westside Basin Groundwater-Flow Model: Updated Model and 2008 No- Project Simulation Results. May. HydroMetrics. 2011. Water Year 2011, Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report, Seaside Basin, Monterey County, California. Prepared for Seaside Basin Watermaster. November. Izbicki, J.A., Borchers, J.W., Leighton, D.A., Kulongoski, J, Fields, L., Galloway, D.L., and Michel, R.L. 2003. Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifers Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4259, 71 p. Jones, B.F., A. Vengosh, E. Rosenthal, and Y. Yechieli. 1999. “Geochemical Investigations.” Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers: Concepts, Methods, and Practices. Jacob Bear, Saul Sorek, Driss Ouazar, Eds. Kennedy/Jenks. 2009. Monitoring Well Installation Technical Memorandum South Westside Basin Conjunctive Use Project (CS 879C). April 9. Kennedy/Jenks. 2010. Phase 2 Monitoring Well Installation Technical Memorandum. Kirker, Chapman & Associates. 1972. Daly City ground water investigation. San Francisco, CA, 159 pp., 1972. Land, M., Reichard, E.G., Crawford, S.M., Everett, R.R., Newhouse, M.W., and Williams, C.F. 2004. Ground-Water Quality of Coastal Aquifer Systems in the West Coast Basin, Los References 7-4 South Westside Basin GWMP Angeles County, California, 1999–2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5067, 80 p. Leake, S.A. 2004. Land Subsidence from Ground-Water Pumping. U.S. Geological Survey. Lee, C.H. and M. Praszker. 1969. “Bay Mud Developments and Related Structural Foundations.” Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill . California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 97. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). 2004. Update on the Conceptualization of the Lake-Aquifer System Westside Ground-Water Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. April. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). 2005. Results of In-Lieu Recharge Demonstration, Fall 2002 through Spring 2005, Westside Basin Conjunctive Use Pilot Project. October 13. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE). 2010. Final Task 8B. Technical Memorandum No. 1, Hydrologic Setting of the Westside Basin. May 5. MWH. 2007. Alternatives Analysis Report for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Project, Groundwater Conjunctive Use Project. October. Millbrae, City of. 2005. City of Millbrae 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. December. Millbrae, City of. 2009a. Water Pollution Control Plant. http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=98. Accessed on September 1. Millbrae, City of. 2009b. Ground Breaking Ceremony for the Water Pollution Control Plant Renovation Project. http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/index.aspx?page=24&recordid=116&returnURL=%2fi ndex.aspx%3fpage%3d93. Accessed on October 9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. NCDC Weather Station - San Francisco International Airport. Accessed online at http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/dly/DLY?randomnum=64485550W115507. Accessed on February 1. Oakland Museum of California. 2011. Guide to San Francisco Bay Area Creeks. Accessed online at http://museumca.org/creeks/1590-RescColma.html# on February 9, 2011. Phillips, S. P., Hamlin, S. N. and Yates, E.B.. 1993. Geohydrology, water quality, and estimation of ground-water recharge in San Francisco, California, 1987-92. Water- Resources Investigations Report 93-4019. U. S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA. Poland, J. F., And Ireland, R. L., 1988, Land Subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley, California as of 1982, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 497-F, 61 p. References 7-5 South Westside Basin GWMP RMC and Jones & Stokes. 2006. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). November. RMC. 2006. Vista Grand Watershed Study. Prepared for the City of Daly City and SFPUC. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region [RWQCB]. 2010. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan. December. Rogge, Erdmann. 2003. Dimensions of the Westside Groundwater Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. MS Thesis, San Francisco State University. May. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2005. Final Draft North Westside Basin Groundwater Basin Management Plan. April. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2008. Proposed Harding Park Recycled Water Project. Spring. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2010a. 2009 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Westside Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. May. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2010b. Annual Water Quality Report… San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2011. 2011 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Westside Basin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California. Sloan, D. 2006. Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region, California Natural History Guide Series No. 79, Berkeley, University of California Press, 318p. South San Francisco. 2009. General Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Drinking Water Contaminants. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html Accessed on August 25. Waltham, T. 2002. Foundations of Engineering Geology, 2nd Edition. Western Regional Climate Center. 2011. Climatic data. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7769 Accessed on March 1. Witter, R.C., Knudsen, K.L, Sowers, J.M., Wentworth, C.M., Koehler, R.D., Randolph, C.E., Brooks, S.K., and Gans, K.D. 2006. Maps of Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility in the central San Francisco Bay region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/). References 7-6 South Westside Basin GWMP WRIME. 2007. San Bruno Groundwater Monitoring Wells: Installation and Monitoring, An AB303 Project Report. April. South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX A – PUBLIC PROCESS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX B – CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX C – MONITORING PROTOCOLS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX D – BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE HYDROGRAPHS South Westside Basin GWMP APPENDIX E – SEAWATER INTRUSION INDICATORS Policy 7.05 EFFECTIVE 27 NOV 12 SUSTAINABILITY SUPERSEDES 14 SEP 10 IT IS THE POLICY OF THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO: Provide reliable, high-quality drinking water and wastewater service through sustainable operations, maintenance, planning, design, and construction activities that avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to the economy, environment, employees, and the public. Objective The District will strive to balance environmental, social, and economic objectives into its decision-making, policies, programs, and work practices. In doing so, the District will: • promote an environmental stewardship ethic in its staff and among other drinking water and wastewater treatment agencies; • adhere to principles of sustainability and environmental justice; • comply with environmental laws and regulations; • look for opportunities for continuous improvement of environmental performance including pollution prevention and resource conservation; • promote the purchase and use of recycled and recyclable products; • move towards zero waste and seek ways to recycle materials that cannot be used in its operations and activities; • establish a framework for setting and reviewing environmental objectives; and • foster communication with employees, contractors, other water and wastewater agencies, regulators, cities and counties, and the public about the environmental significance of the District’s current and future operations and activities. Sustainability Sustainability means using resources (economic, environmental, and human) in a responsible manner to meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet the needs of tomorrow. This approach applies a holistic view and strives to minimize waste; conserve water, energy, and natural resources; promote long-term economic viability; support safety and well-being for employees, communities, and customers; and be beneficial to society. Responsibilities To promote environmental stewardship and facilitate compliance with laws and regulations, the District will conduct compliance audits, administer staff training, and assist in the development and implementation of management and operational practices that support environmental, social, and economic considerations and ensure compliance. The District will maintain strong working relationships with local regulatory agencies, industry and public interest organizations, including exchanging information on District plans and procedures that support the development of sustainable environmental guidelines for the water and wastewater industry at large. To advance environmental leadership and awareness, the District will participate in water and wastewater organizations and associations, and work cooperatively with and solicit input from employees, the environmental community, and the public on District operations and activities. SUSTAINABILITY NUMBER PAGE NO.: EFFECTIVE DATE 7.05 2 27 NOV 12 To promote the use of recycled and recyclable products, the District has a preference for purchasing materials that include recycled and/or recyclable content without compromising the product’s fitness, quality, price, and availability. The District will establish a framework for setting, reviewing, and reporting on long- term sustainability performance objectives and outcomes. Staff will periodically report to the Board of Directors, management, and staff on the status of the District’s sustainability efforts which include regulatory compliance, environmental impacts, resource use, stewardship activities, waste reduction, etc. Environmental Justice The District will accord the highest respect and value to every individual and community, by developing and conducting business in a manner that promotes equity and affords fair treatment, accessibility, and protection for all people, regardless of race, age, culture, income, or geographic location. Authority Resolution No. 32881-94, September 13, 1994 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33120-98, September 22, 1998 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33684-08, September 10, 2008 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33780-10, September 14, 2010 Amended by Board Resolution No. 33904-12, November 27, 2012 Reference Policy 3.02 - California Environmental Quality Act Implementation Policy 4.12 – Purchasing and Materials Management Policy 7.07 – Renewable Energy Policy 7.09 – Workplace Safety and Health Policy 9.05 – Non-Potable Water Policy 8.02 – Biosolids Management Policy 9.04 – Watershed Management and Use Policy 9.06 – Bay/Delta Protection Procedure 900 – Water Supply Accounting and Reporting MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD POLICY NO.: 49 DATE: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Multi-Benefits/Integrated Water Management Projects Policy POLICY STATEMENT It is the policy of the Marin Municipal Water District to achieve multiple benefits in the planning and implementation of its water management projects, where appropriate, and to coordinate these projects with other agencies, to realize the maximum number of benefits from a project. It is the intent of this policy to encourage collaboration within and among MMWD and other agencies to conduct integrated water management planning and achieve multiple benefits on water management projects that provide appropriate opportunities. These may be water supply, stormwater management, flood control, public access, recreation, watershed resource management, and/or waste water management projects, where more than one benefit may be achieved. BACKGROUND The Marin Municipal Water District is a member agency of the North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA). The NBWA is a collaboration of City, County and public utility agencies and non-governmental organizations in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa Counties. All of the NBWA member agencies develop and implement projects to fulfill their respective duties. Population growth, environmental constraints, climate change, integrated land use planning, funding mechanisms, and other forces are driving a fundamental change in water management. State and Federal agencies are tying substantial water management funding to the development of Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs), such as State bond propositions 50 & 84 and other sources. These programs emphasize and give priority to integrated, multi-benefit projects and strategies. The NBWA member agencies encourage informal collaboration for future integrated, multi-benefit projects. DESCRIPTION OF MULTI-BENEFIT/INTEGRATED PROJECTS An integrated or multi-benefit project is one that is planned, designed, implemented, and maintained with the intended purpose of providing two or more benefits or of meeting two or more objectives. There is no limit on the number of combined benefits that a project can have, but it must have at least two intended benefits to be considered an integrated or multi-benefit project. The benefits from the project must also be intended and purposely planned into the project goals and objectives; they should not simply be mitigations for impacts from a single-purpose project. However, at the same time, BOARD POLICY NO. 49 (DATE: MAY 3, 2012) Page 2 incorporating project elements that add benefits can effectively minimize the potential impacts from other project elements. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE POLICY One of the goals of this policy is for water management projects within the MMWD sphere of influence and NBWA region to be eligible and competitive for State and Federal grant programs that fund integrated, multi-benefit projects. These programs prioritize integrated multiple benefit projects that: • protect communities from drought; improve water supply reliability and security; • support water conservation and water use efficiency; • protect and improve water quality; • improve storm water capture, storage, and treatment; • remove invasive plant species; • create and enhance wetland habitats; • acquire and protect open space and watershed lands; • improve recreation and access to public lands; • reduce and control non-point source pollution; • implement groundwater recharge, desalinization, reclamation, and other supply, treatment, and conveyance technologies; • encourage water banking and water exchange; • provide multipurpose flood control that protects property and protects or improves wildlife habitat; • restore and protect fisheries and ecosystem functions; • include watershed management planning and implementation; and • develop new drinking water treatment and distribution methods. The legislation and guidelines for these State and Federal grant programs stipulate that projects must be planned and implemented through an integrated approach in order to be eligible for funding. By coordinating projects with other agencies, multiple partnerships can be built around a project and conflicts with other projects and benefits can be avoided. This can reduce costs for the agency and may help minimize environmental impacts. Multi-benefit projects can achieve long-term goals in a single project, rather than over a series of projects. They can effectively resolve significant water-related conflicts within a region. It is most often in the public interest to develop integrated, multi-benefit projects. IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY The approach to implementing multi-benefit/integrated projects will be incorporated into all phases of a project, beginning with project conception and carried through the planning, permitting, design, construction, and monitoring phases. BOARD POLICY NO. 49 (DATE: MAY 3, 2012) Page 3 It is recognized that some projects, particularly maintenance of existing facilities, may not readily lend themselves to being able to have multiple benefits. However, this is not to exclude those projects from being considered to be multi-benefit projects. Multiple benefits should be considered and pursued in all appropriate instances, where more than one benefit might feasibly be achieved. It is also recognized that providing multiple objectives can add complexity and, in some instances, significantly increase the cost of a project. However, the cost-benefit analysis may still be acceptable when considering benefits of a project over a long time period. Therefore, cost-benefit analysis for a multi-benefit project will take a broad view of benefits over time and will consider the time period appropriate to all benefits that could be achieved. Also, the cost-benefit analysis will consider the costs that would be incurred by comparing the multi-benefit project with sum of the costs of several single- benefit projects that might be achieved individually. All possible benefits will be quantified in any cost-benefit analysis of a project. Coordination and communication about multiple benefits, amongst staff and between agencies, is necessary through all phases of the project. When a project is first developed, agencies will investigate where partnerships can help achieve a multi-benefit project. In some cases, informal collaboration may be sufficient for an integrated, multi- benefit project to be developed. In other cases, a more formal agreement between agencies may be necessary. Project planning will begin with a project team meeting to brainstorm and discuss potential multi-benefits of the project and to determine the feasible benefits to be included in the plan. The project team will consist of engineers, planners, and biologists/natural resource managers, or some comparable multidisciplinary group of personnel within the agency. The team meeting will include a discussion of the scope and timeline of a project and the time period in which benefits from a project can be realized to help evaluate costs and benefits. Staff training will be encouraged to foster communication and build expertise in the multi-benefit project approach. The training can focus on the approaches for determining, describing, prioritizing, and implementing projects that include multiple benefits. The training will help to solidify an institutional process for developing and implementing multi-benefit projects. F:\Bay_Area_IRWMP_2012\Final drafts\ready for final formatting\App B-3\NMWD integrated multi benefit projects .docx NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT POLICY: Integrated / Multi-Benefit Water Resource Projects POLICY NUMBER: 44 Effective Date: 11/4/2008 Background: The North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) is a group of 15 regional and local public agencies (including North Marin Water District) located throughout Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties. The NBWA was created to help regulated local and regional public agencies work cooperatively on water resources issues that impact areas beyond traditional boundaries in order to promote stewardship of the North Bay watershed. Agencies participate in the NBWA in order to discuss issues of common interest, explore ways to work collaboratively on water resources projects of regional concern and share information about projects, regulations and technical issues. NBWA has endorsed and encouraged member agencies to adopt a policy on Integrated / Multi-Benefit Water Resource Projects. Policy: It is the intent of North Marin Water District to plan and implement water resource projects to have multiple benefits where reasonably feasible and to coordinate said projects with other agencies (including NBWA members) to achieve greater benefit in the affected watersheds when possible. Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region Prepared by: Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District August 2013 August 2013 2 of 10 Table of Contents Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization ......................................................................................................... 3 Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area .......................................................................... 3 Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders .................................................................................................................... 4 Task 1.3 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives ................................................................ 4 Task 1.4 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data ........................................ 4 Task 1.5 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization .................................................................. 5 Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water .......................................................................................... 6 Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities .................................................... 6 Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals ................................................................... 6 Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources .................................................................. 6 Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin ............................................................................................... 6 Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity ........................................................................................... 7 Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools .................................................................................... 7 Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information ........................................................................................ 7 Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures ................................................................... 8 Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon ........................................................................................................ 8 Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads ................................................................................ 8 Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality .................................................................................................. 8 Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies ............................. 9 Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures .... 9 Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 10 Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination ......................................................... 10 August 2013 3 of 10 Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region August 2013 This Guidance Document was developed as a result of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) preparation effort. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, along with the Zone 7 Water Agency and Santa Clara Valley Water District are developing SNMPs in three priority groundwater basins (as identified by the Regional Water Board) for the San Francisco Bay Region. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The California state-wide Recycled Water Policy, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2009, indicates that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) are to be developed for groundwater basins in California, to address the potential for increased salt and nutrient loading from increased recycled water use and other sources. It is anticipated that SNMPs will contain the following components to be responsive to both the Recycled Water Policy requirements and the Basin Planning Amendment process undertaken by the Regional Water Board: ▪ General groundwater basin information and characteristics ▪ Beneficial use designation ▪ Goals for water recycling and stormwater recharge/use (as applicable); ▪ Salt and nutrient source identification; ▪ Water quality objectives (both narrative and numeric) ▪ Salt and nutrient source loading and assimilative capacity estimates; ▪ Implementation measures and management strategies; ▪ Antidegradation analysis, as needed; ▪ Development of a basin-wide monitoring plan; and ▪ A provision for monitoring Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) in recycled water used for groundwater recharge reuse. ▪ A statement regarding Plan limitations The purpose of this document is to describe the common steps that may be undertaken by Bay Area groups in preparing an SNMP. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is expected to consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. It may be appropriate to meet with Regional Water Board staff early in the process of developing an SNMP, to ensure common expectations before resources are expended. Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area ▪ Delineate the study area for salt and nutrient management planning. August 2013 4 of 10 ▪ Identify the areal extent of the groundwater basin, including if known, the watershed area tributary to the aquifer, known source loads or impacts within the watershed, the location of existing or proposed recycled water use areas, and/or jurisdictional boundaries. o In developing SNMPs, it is recognized that the SNMP may wish to address study areas using a sub-basin approach. o SNMPs interested in focusing on groundwater supply development may define the study area to encompass anticipated project sites other than recycled water, or source control needs such as control of pollutants from a dairy operation. Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders ▪ Develop a preliminary list of stakeholders (including potential interest, contact person, and contact information). Key stakeholders include local agencies involved in groundwater management, owners and operators of recharge facilities, water purveyors, water districts, wastewater agencies, known salt and nutrient contributing dischargers, and the general public. ▪ Perform outreach and obtain stakeholder feedback for planning process (now or near future). Task 1.3 Establish Communication with the Regional Water Board ▪ Identify a point of contact at the Regional Water Board with whom to coordinate the preparation of your SNMP. Task 1.4 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives ▪ Identify designated beneficial uses of the groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2). ▪ Identify water quality objectives for groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, starting on page 2-8). Task 1.5 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data ▪ Collect and review readily available and applicable regional groundwater and salt/nutrient management studies and data. Studies with data on groundwater quality, use, supply development, and salt and nutrient loading may be useful. The types of studies and data that may be useful include the following: o Planning documents, including Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and Groundwater Management Plans o Groundwater supply, storage, or conjunctive use studies; o Groundwater aquifer hydrogeologic investigations; o Groundwater quality studies or groundwater protection studies; o Groundwater models o Recycled water compliance, assimilative capacity, and Basin Plan studies; August 2013 5 of 10 o Pollutant modeling and transport studies; o Watershed studies; and o Source assessment evaluations. ▪ Collect and review readily available and applicable well data and information, as follows: o Existing and planned municipal supply wells or projects within the basin. o Private groundwater wells or private well areas within the basin. ▪ Contact organizations engaged in ongoing groundwater monitoring to determine if the collected data can be made available for use in the SNMP. Task 1.6 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization ▪ Review prior reference studies and data (collected as part of Task 1.5) and assess the reliability and specificity of the groundwater quality data, depth-to-water data, and estimates for hydrogeologic parameters, as applicable. ▪ Identify the parameters of interest for the plan which should include salts and nutrients but could include other parameters of interest that adversely affect groundwater quality. These parameters should be based on collected groundwater quality information and stakeholder input. ▪ Identify whether readily available data and information is sufficient to complete a baseline analysis to determine if the groundwater basin is currently meeting water quality objectives. If not, develop a plan for collecting data, collect the data, and then return to next step. ▪ If data are sufficient, review data to determine whether (1) water quality objectives are being exceeded, and (2) any trends that show an increase in salt or nutrient management concentrations. ▪ Select and justify preliminary planning horizon to look into the future (such as 20 years – similar to a UWMP planning horizon), depending on expected changes in the future such Potential Off-Ramp #1 Evaluate the potential feasibility of water uses for beneficial use consistent with land use within the region. If groundwater is not considered suitable for use as a municipal or domestic water supply by meeting an exception listed in State Board Resolution No. 88-63 - The Sources of Drinking Water Policy, then at a minimum, Best Management Practices can be documented along with the basin characterization and comprise the SNMP in lieu of the standard required elements listed in the Recycled Water Policy. Depending on stakeholder input, other elements, such as a simplified groundwater monitoring plan could also be included. If groundwater is used as a public water supply in the basin, proceed to next bullet. August 2013 6 of 10 as growth, land use changes, water supply changes and increases in recycled water application. ▪ Evaluate historical trends and anticipated projects that would contribute salt or nutrients to the groundwater, and estimate whether an exceedance of water quality objectives is anticipated within the planning horizon (document the evaluation and results). Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities ▪ Collect available data and information about current and predicted recycled water and recharge water (including stormwater or imported water)/use. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) can be used as an initial data source. Recycled water producers will also have information about recycled water and potential plans for future expanded use. Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals ▪ Identify the goals of the recycled water studies, and stormwater and other recharge water studies related to the basin. Goals should be consistent with the goals within the Recycled Water Policy to increase recycled water use and stormwater recharge. Gather data about the future quantitative goals for these projects. Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin ▪ Identify general land uses within the basin. ▪ Identify known sources of salt/nutrient loads within the basin, to supplement work from Task 1.4. Sources may include: o Applied Water (groundwater) Potential Off-Ramp #2 If there is a sound basis that water quality objectives will not be exceeded, this basin is a No Threat basin. Document the basin characterization, evaluation and results, including Best Management Practices. This documentation will comprise the SNMP unless stakeholders determine collaboratively that other elements suggested by the Recycled Water Policy (i.e. a groundwater monitoring plan) should be included. If it is estimated that water quality objectives would be exceeded, or if there is uncertainty regarding whether water quality objectives would be exceeded, proceed to next section (Step 2). August 2013 7 of 10 o Applied Water (surface water) o Recycled Water Application o Artificial Recharge of Stormwater Runoff o Artificial Recharge with Imported Water Supplies o Atmospheric Deposition o Biosolids Application o Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Facilities o Creek Recharge o Agriculture, including applied fertilizer and soil amendments o Dairy Operations o Mines o Natural Geologic Sources o Natural Soil Conditions o Point Source Wastewater Discharges o Rainfall o Seawater Intrusion o Septic Tank Discharges o Storage Ponds o Streamflow Infiltration o Subsurface Inflow (including upstream inflow and seawater intrusion) o Urban Runoff ▪ Identify the locations where source loads are impacting the basin. Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity ▪ Using water quality data gathered under Task 1, establish the baseline water quality. Calculation of constituent concentrations can be performed with a spatial averaging approach. ▪ Compare these values to the Basin Plan water quality objectives, taking dilution into account if appropriate, to determine the assimilative capacity of the basin. The assimilative capacity is the difference between the water quality objectives and the existing water quality, taking into account dilution if appropriate. If the basin has either an existing or potential beneficial use of municipal and domestic supply (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2), compliance with the water quality objectives for municipal supply should be assessed (see Basin Plan, Table 3-5). Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools ▪ Develop tools for assessing salt and nutrient loading, as well as fate and transport, of salts and nutrients. Examples of tools include geographical information system (GIS) relational models, groundwater flow/transport models (complex basins) or spreadsheet- based mass balance computations. Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information ▪ Gather information about the fate and transport of salts and nutrients in the basin. Reviewing California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 can be a starting point for this process. ▪ Additional tasks that may be useful are as follows: August 2013 8 of 10 o On the basis of available hydrogeological, water quality, or geologic studies, determine fault lines, bedrock constrictions, or vertical stratification that may affect transport and groundwater quality. o Identify known hydrogeologic parameters for the basin (e.g. hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, etc.) and the bases on which these parameters were estimated. o Assess the geographic completeness of existing groundwater quality data, depth- to-water data, and hydrogeologic parameters and determine if any data gaps exist that prevent geographic, seasonal, or depth-dependent characterization of groundwater quality, occurrence or transport. o Assess the geographic distribution of water quality concentrations for the salt/nutrient parameters of interest, and assess the depth-dependent distribution of water quality. Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon ▪ Determine an appropriate planning horizon (the number of years to look into the future), and justify the selection. A longer timeframe may be useful, such as the one established in the region's UWMPs (e.g., 25 years), especially if the region expects limited growth. If the region expects significant land use changes or projects with expected impacts to salt and nutrient loadings (such as recharge projects with stormwater or recycled water), a shorter time frame (e.g., 10 years) is recommended. Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads ▪ Prepare estimates for future recharge flow to the basin from surface and subsurface sources, discharge/withdrawal (flow) from the basin, and salt and nutrient loading from the sources identified in Task 3.1. Land use data may provide valuable information for estimating source loads. ▪ Building on the baseline calculations performed in Task 3.2, use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to compute predicted concentration estimates that are representative of the basin for the identified constituents of interest. Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality ▪ Develop a mixing model on an annual time step for the selected planning horizon to mix the load concentrations developed within the basin. A spreadsheet model is typically adequate for the mixing analysis. Available data from other basin models (e.g. existing USGS or other models) such as hydrogeology characteristics (depth of mixing), water balance and water quality concentration information may be extracted and used within the mixing model. Comment on limitations and sensitivities within the mixing model (i.e. mixing depth, timing of future land use or land management changes, etc). ▪ Determine the degree to which the basin will be exceeding applicable water quality objectives for the identified salt and nutrient parameters within the planning horizon. August 2013 9 of 10 ▪ Determine the impact of recycled water on the assimilative capacity of the basin. ▪ Assess the general level of effort for managing salts and nutrients in the basin. Consider the basin’s characteristics and uses in this assessment. Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies ▪ Identify the basin's existing implementation measures and strategies to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin. If future water quality trends are flat, BPOs are not being exceeded or projected to be exceeded, and recycled water project utilize less than 10% assimilative capacity (or 20% for multiple projects); existing management measures may be sufficient for managing salts and nutrients within the basin. ▪ If salt and/or nutrient concentrations are increasing, additional implementation measures may be necessary. In a collaborative manner with Plan participants, develop (as applicable) a list of additional, appropriate implementation measures and management strategies (additional measures) to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin on a sustainable basis. Examples of best management practices (BMPs) include: o Irrigation at agronomic rates o Configuration of irrigation and drainage facilities in land application fields to reasonably minimize runoff of applied animal waste o Fertilizer use workshops o Industrial discharge controls (local pretreatment limits, high strength surcharge for nutrients and/or salts) o Irrigation workshops o Land use policy modification o Recharge program adoption or modification (stormwater, recycled water, imported water) o Recycled water application limitations or quality guidelines o Septic system BMPs o Source load diversion/control Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures ▪ If additional measures are being considered, it may be of interest to evaluate the ability of the additional measures to achieve load reduction or groundwater quality improvement. Use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to assess the ranges of potential load reduction and water quality improvement effects associated with additional measures, if appropriate. ▪ Evaluate and compare the additional implementation measures and select the preferred measure(s) for implementation. It may be appropriate to consult among stakeholders to inform the process of making decisions about implementation measures. Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis ▪ Conduct an antidegradation analysis to demonstrate that implementation measures, including identified projects, included within the SNMP will collectively comply with the requirements of Resolution No. 68-16. August 2013 10 of 10 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan ▪ Identify existing monitoring wells and select appropriately located wells to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. Focus on water quality near water supply wells, but also consider wells near large water recycling projects and groundwater recharge projects. Consider a range of well depths to monitor shallow or deep zones, as appropriate. ▪ Propose additional (new) monitoring wells if appropriate. ▪ Determine appropriate salt and nutrient parameters and monitoring frequencies that are reasonable and cost-effective that may help determine whether the Basin Plan water quality objectives for salts and nutrients are being, or are threatening to be, exceeded. Monitoring data should be evaluated to understand the effectiveness of the BMPs developed as part of Task 4.4. Refer to the amended Recycled Water Policy (April 2013) for guidance on CEC monitoring requirements. ▪ Identify stakeholders responsible for maintaining, assessing, and storing the monitoring data. Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination ▪ Compile analyses in a Plan document. ▪ Coordinate with the Regional Water Board on next steps regarding Plan submittal and support of their Basin Plan Amendment and California Environmental Quality Act compliance process. Appendix A - Existing and Future Groundwater Quality Technical Memorandum August 2013 1 Technical Memorandum Todd Engineers Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Existing and Future Groundwater Quality Prepared For: Marcus Trotta, SVCSD Prepared by: Sally McCraven and Edwin Lin, Todd Engineers Reviewed by: Christy Kennedy, RMC Date: 8/22/13 Reference: 0047-008 Executive Summary The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin is located in southern Sonoma County, California abutting San Pablo Bay. Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is divided into a Baylands Area (containing the historical brackish groundwater) and an Inland Area for assessment of groundwater quality. Sonoma Creek is the main surface water feature draining the valley. The Sonoma Valley relies on groundwater, imported surface water, and recycled water to meet domestic, agricultural and urban demands. Recycled water is used for agricultural irrigation in the southern part of the subbasin to offset groundwater pumping and mitigate the potential for saline water intrusion from the bay related to groundwater pumping depressions within the Inland Area. Increased use of recycled water is planned in the future. The State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy encourages increased reliance on local water supplies such as recycled water and stormwater. Due to water quality concerns associated with recycled water, the Recycled Water Policy requires completion of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan that assesses the water quality impacts of recycled water (and all other salt and nutrient sources) in terms of the use of the groundwater basin available assimilative capacity by recycled water projects. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients assessed for this study. Assimilative capacity is the difference between average TDS and nitrate concentrations in the subbasin and the respective basin plan objectives. Generally, relatively low TDS and nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the Inland Area of the subbasin and water quality concentration trends over time are flat or stable. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Inland Area are below basin plan objectives, and there is available assimilative capacity. The use of the available assimilative capacity by recycled water projects in the subbasin for the future planning period through 2035 was estimated for this study. The Recycled Water Policy established an impacts evaluation criteria, such that a single recycled water project may use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity (and multiple recycled water projects may use less than 20% of the available assimilative capacity) until such time as a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan is adopted. If these criteria are satisfied, the associated anti-degradation analysis would only need to document the projected future assimilative capacity use. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 2 The analysis presented in this Technical Memorandum demonstrates that the recycled water irrigation projects planned for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin through 2035 use less than 10% of the available TDS and nitrate assimilative capacity. 1 Introduction This Technical Memorandum (TM) was prepared by Todd Engineers on behalf of the stakeholders of Sonoma Valley, including the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD), for the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP). The key components of this TM include:  Description of hydrogeologic conceptual model  Characterization of the existing average salt and nutrient (S/N) groundwater quality  Calculation of the existing available assimilative capacity for S/Ns  Description of the baseline period (1997 to 2006) basin water and S/N balances and loading calibration  Estimation of the water and S/N balances for the future planning period (2014 to 2035)  Prediction of future S/N groundwater quality  Calculation of the use of the available assimilative capacity by recycled water projects 2 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Much of the hydrogeologic conceptual model discussion below is based on data and analysis presented in the “Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground-Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California” prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2006). 2.1 Study Area Figure 2-1 shows the Sonoma Valley Subbasin (No. 2-2.02), or Study Area, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Bulletin 118-4 (DWR, 2003). The Sonoma Creek Watershed, which includes part of the Kenwood Valley Groundwater Basin located northwest of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, is also shown on Figure 2-1 and encompasses an area of 166 square miles (106,680 acres). Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to and northwest of San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is divided into a Baylands Area and an Inland Area as shown in Figure 2-1. The Baylands Area is defined for this study as the area beneath the tidal sloughs adjacent to San Pablo Bay generally containing groundwater with greater than 750 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS). The Sonoma Valley Subbasin, also referred to as Sonoma Valley, is located in southeastern Sonoma County. The Sonoma Valley is a northwest trending, elongated depression. Geologic units dipping toward the center of the valley are bounded on the southwest by the Sonoma Mountains and on the northeast by the Mayacamas Mountains (Figure 2-1). The uppermost part of the valley is relatively flat and stretches from Kenwood to near Glen Ellen. The middle part of the valley is narrower than the upper part and has a hilly topography. This portion is sometimes referred to as the Valley of the Moon and extends southward to near Boyes Hot Springs and includes the Glen Ellen area. The remainder of the valley slopes gently southward to San Pablo Bay, has flat topography, and extends to a maximum width of about 5 miles. Sonoma Creek is the main surface water feature draining the valley. The creek originates in the Mayacamas Mountains in the northeastern area of the watershed. The creek flows into the Kenwood Valley Basin before flowing south into the Sonoma Valley Subbasin and ultimately discharging into San Pablo Bay. Other smaller tributary creeks flow into Sonoma Creek from the east and west. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 3 Figure 2-1: Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 4 The watershed area comprises large tracks of native vegetation, as well as lands used for agriculture, primarily vineyards. Urban, residential, commercial, and industrial development constitutes a relatively small percentage of the watershed area and is primarily located in the valley areas. Sonoma is the largest city in the Study Area. Other cities and unincorporated areas in the valley include Kenwood, Glen Ellen, Boyes Hot Springs, El Verano, and Schellville (Figure 2-1). 2.2 Water Use The Sonoma Valley relies on groundwater, imported surface water, and recycled water to meet domestic, agricultural and urban demands. Based on the USGS study (2006), more than half of the water demand in 2000 was met with groundwater (57%). The remaining demand was met with imported water (36%), recycled water (7%), and local surface water (<1%). The largest use of groundwater in the Sonoma Valley in 2000 was irrigation (72%), followed by rural domestic use (19%), and urban demand (9%). In 2000, total water use in the Sonoma Valley (including groundwater and imported surface water) was estimated at 14,018 acre-feet (AF), of which 48% was used for irrigation, 41% for urban use, and the remaining 11% for rural domestic use. Groundwater serves approximately 25% of the Sonoma Valley population and is the primary source of drinking water supply for rural domestic and other unincorporated areas not being served by urban suppliers. Rural domestic demand is predominantly met by groundwater through privately owned and operated water wells. There are also mutual water companies in the Sonoma Valley that supply multiple households predominantly with groundwater although some companies also provide imported water. Agricultural water demands are largely met by groundwater supplies. It was estimated that as of 2000 the Sonoma Creek Watershed contained approximately 2,000 domestic, agricultural, and public supply wells (USGS, 2006). Imported surface water represents the primary source of drinking water to meet urban demands, which serves approximately 75% of the Sonoma Valley population. These imported water supplies are sourced from the Russian River and are provided via aqueduct by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to the Valley of the Moon Water District (VOMWD) and the City of Sonoma (City) who, in turn, provide water directly to their urban customers. The imported water is supplemented with local groundwater from the City and VOMWD public supply wells. The City and VOMWD boundaries are shown in Figure 2-1. The SCWA manages and operates the wastewater treatment facility owned by the SVCSD. During dry weather months from May through October, the SVCSD provides 1,000 to 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for vineyards, dairies, and pasturelands in the southern part of Sonoma Valley. As of 2007, recycled water accounted for approximately 7% of the total estimated water use in Sonoma Valley (SCWA, December 2007). The current and future areas of recycled water use for irrigation are shown in Figure 2-1. Recycled water irrigation areas are located in southern Inland Area and northern Baylands Area. 2.3 Groundwater Levels and Flow Groundwater levels in the Sonoma Valley are monitored and reported as part of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (GMP) (SCWA, 2011). The majority of wells monitored in the program are voluntary private wells, with a smaller but significant number of publicly-owned water supply wells. As of 2010, there were a total of 141 wells in the water level monitoring program with monitoring conducted generally twice per year in the spring (April) and fall (October/November). Groundwater elevation contour maps are prepared by the Agency for the shallow zone (less than 200-feet deep) and the deep zone (greater than 200-feet deep). Groundwater elevation contour maps for spring 2010 in the shallow and deep zones are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. There is a Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 5 Figure 2-2: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Shallow Zone, Spring 2010 Modified from: SCWA, 2011 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 6 Figure 2-3: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Deep Zone, Spring 2010 Modified from: SCWA, 2011 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 7 groundwater divide within the Kenwood Valley Basin, with groundwater in the northern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a northwestward direction toward Santa Rosa and groundwater in the southern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a southeasterly direction toward the Sonoma Valley Subbasin in both the shallow and deep zones. In general, groundwater in the mountains surrounding the Sonoma Valley flows towards lower elevations and follows the dips of the geologic units toward the center of the valley. Comparison of the shallow and deeper groundwater elevation contour maps indicates that groundwater elevations in the deep zone 1) are similar to groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in northern Sonoma Valley, and 2) are up to 100 feet lower than groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in southern Sonoma Valley, indicating a downward vertical gradient in southern Sonoma Valley. Two groundwater pumping depressions are apparent in the deep zone groundwater elevation contour map (Figure 2-3) southeast of the City of Sonoma and in the El Verano area. Measured groundwater levels are as low as 94 feet below mean sea level (-94 feet msl) southeast of the City and 63 feet below sea level (-63 feet msl) in deep zone wells southwest of El Verano. There is only one groundwater elevation monitoring well between the pumping depression southeast of the City and the area of saline groundwater. Groundwater elevations in this area are uncertain as shown with the dashed and queried zero elevation contour line. As a result, the potential for the pumping depression to draw brackish groundwater further north into the subbasin is not well characterized. This potential brackish water intrusion is being addressed through replacement of pumped groundwater with recycled water for irrigation in and north of the Baylands Area. Continued monitoring and assessment of groundwater levels and groundwater quality will be conducted to assess inland movement of the brackish water. This monitoring and assessment will be included in the triennial SNMP report. Faults can act barriers to groundwater flow. It has been proposed that the Eastside Fault shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-3 may restrict groundwater movement in the deep zone (USGS, 2006); however, no effects on groundwater levels are apparent in Figure 2-3. 2.3.1 Aquifer Parameters The most important sources of groundwater in the Study Area are the Quaternary alluvial deposits, the Glen Ellen Formation, the Huichica Formation, and the Sonoma Volcanics. These geologic units are widely distributed and contain zones of high porosity and permeability. Where the units contain a large fraction of silt and clay sized materials, permeability is greatly reduced. The alluvial units, where sufficiently thick and saturated, are the highest yielding materials in the valley. Most wells, except those near the valley axis, that were drilled in the past few decades are screened in both the alluvial units and deeper formations and volcanics (USGS, 2006). Bay Mud deposits crop out over a large area between Schellville and San Pablo Bay and are underlain by the Huichica and Glen Ellen formations. The Bay Mud exhibits low permeability and contains brackish groundwater. Figure 2-4 shows the surficial geology of the Sonoma Creek Watershed. Figure 2-5 is a cross section along the axis of the valley, and Figure 2-6 is a cross section perpendicular to the valley axis near the southern end of the subbasin (USGS, 2006). The cross sections show that alluvial deposits are at the surface in the northern two-thirds of the valley with Bay Muds at the surface in the southern portion of the valley near San Pablo Bay. In the northern two-thirds of the valley, alluvial deposits are underlain by the Glen Ellen Formation, which overlies the Huichica Formation, which overlies Sonoma Volcanics. In the southern portion of the valley, the Bay Muds are underlain by the Huichica Formation, which overlies the Sonoma Volcanics. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 8 Figure 2-4a: Geology of Sonoma Creek Watershed From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 9 Figure 2-4b: Explanation for Geology of Sonoma Creek Watershed From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 10 Figure 2-5: Cross Section A-A’ From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 11 Figure 2-6: Cross Section D-D’ From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 12 Groundwater in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin occurs under both confined and unconfined conditions. Generally unconfined conditions prevail at depths less than 200 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs). Groundwater is more commonly confined in deeper aquifers found in the Sonoma Volcanics and Huichica and Glen Ellen formations. An unconfined aquifer is saturated with water, and the surface of the water is at atmosphere pressure. The groundwater in a confined aquifer is under pressure. When a well penetrates a relatively impermeable layer (aquitard) that confines the aquifer, the water will rise above the confining layer in the well to the potentiometric (pressure) surface of the confined aquifer. In terms of fate and transport, unconfined aquifers are more vulnerable to releases at the land surface, while for deeper confined aquifers, the confining units provide some protection by limiting downward migration of contaminants. However, improperly constructed and abandoned wells can provide conduits for downward migration of contaminants into confined layers along improperly sealed well casings. In most parts of the valley and watershed, groundwater is obtained from wells that are less than 700 feet deep. 2.3.2 Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction Sonoma Valley is drained by Sonoma Creek, which discharges to San Pablo Bay. Seepage testing conducted by the USGS in 2003 showed Sonoma Creek to be a gaining (groundwater discharging to the creek) creek through most of the valley with the exception of a short reach in the northern part of the watershed where the creek enters the Kenwood Valley Basin from the Mayacamas Mountains crossing the alluvial fan between the mountain front and Highway 12 (USGS, 2006). Based on an average annual rainfall of 29.8 inches per year from 1953 through 2000 measured at the City, the USGS estimated that the Sonoma Creek watershed receives on average 269,000 AFY of precipitation. The mean annual runoff of surface water outflowing from the valley into San Pablo Bay is estimated to be approximately 101,000 AF (USGS, 2006). 3 Existing Groundwater Quality 3.1 Indicator Parameters of Salts and Nutrients Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients selected for the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Total salinity is commonly expressed in terms of TDS in mg/L. TDS (and electrical conductivity data that can be converted to TDS) are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. While TDS can be an indicator of anthropogenic impacts such as infiltration of runoff, soil leaching, and land use, there is also a natural background TDS concentration in groundwater. The background TDS concentration in groundwater can vary considerably based on purity and crystal size of the formation minerals, rock texture and porosity, the regional structure, origin of sediments, the age of the groundwater, and many other factors (Hem, 1989). Nitrate is a widespread contaminant in California groundwater. High levels of nitrate in groundwater are associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facility discharges. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. Nitrate data are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. Natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low, with concentrations typically less than 10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrate (nitrate-NO3) or 2 to 3 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N). Nitrate is commonly reported as either nitrate nitrate-NO3 or nitrate-N; and one can be converted to the other. Nitrate-N is the form of nitrate selected for assessment for this SNMP. 3.2 Water Quality Objectives Water quality objectives provide a reference for assessing groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin. The California Department of Public Health (DPH) has adopted a Secondary Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 13 Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for TDS. SMCLs address aesthetic issues related to taste, odor, or appearance of the water and are not related to health effects, although elevated TDS concentrations in water can damage crops, affect plant growth, and damage municipal and industrial equipment. The recommended SMCL for TDS is 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with an upper limit of 1,000 mg/L. It has a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) has established a basin plan objective (BPO) of 500 mg/L for TDS for municipal and domestic supply in their Basin Plan (December 2010). They have also established a limit for livestock watering at 10,000 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has also established a BPO for EC at 900 micromhos per centimeter (mmhos/cm). The primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate-NO3 is 45 mg/L based on a health concern due to methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby syndrome,” which affects infants, ruminant animals (such as cows and sheep) and infant monogastrics (such as baby pigs and chickens). Elevated levels may also be unhealthy for pregnant women (SWRCB, August 2010). The MCL for nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen (as N) is 10 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has established the BPOs at the MCLs for these constituents. Table 3-1 lists numeric BPOs for groundwater with municipal and domestic water supply and agricultural water supply beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay Region. Table 3-1: Basin Plan Objectives Constituent Units Municipal Concentration Agricultural Concentration TDS mg/L 500 10,000 EC mmhos/cm 900 Nitrate (as NO3) mg/L 45 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) mg/L 10 mg/L - milligrams per liter EC – electrical conductivity mmhos/cm – micromhos per centimeter 3.3 TDS and Nitrate Fate and Transport Salt and nutrient (S/N) fate and transport describes the way salts and nutrients move through an environment or media. In groundwater, it is determined by groundwater flow directions and rate, the characteristics of individual salts and nutrients, and the characteristics of the aquifer media. The S/N loading and unloading from the groundwater subbasin inflows and outflows are discussed below in Sections 4 and 5. Aquifer characteristics, groundwater flow directions and gradients, and surface water/groundwater interaction were discussed above in Section 2. Water has the ability to naturally dissolve salts and nutrients along its journey in the hydrologic cycle. The types and quantity of salts and nutrients present determine whether the water is of suitable quality for its intended uses. Salts and nutrients present in natural water result from many different sources including atmospheric gases and aerosols, weathering and erosion of soil and rocks, and from dissolution of existing minerals below the ground surface. Additional changes in concentrations can result due to ion exchange, precipitation of minerals previously dissolved, and reactions resulting in conversion of some solutes from one form to another such as the conversion of nitrate to gaseous nitrogen. In addition to naturally occurring salts and nutrients, anthropogenic activities can add salts and nutrients. TDS and nitrate are contained in the source water that recharges the Sonoma Valley. Addition of new water supply sources, either through intentional or unintentional recharge, can change the groundwater quality either for the worse by introducing contamination or for the better by diluting some existing contaminants in the aquifer. Another important influence on S/Ns in groundwater is unintentional recharge, which can occur, for example, when irrigation water exceeds evaporation and plant needs and Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 14 infiltrates into the aquifer (i.e., irrigation return flow). Irrigation return flows can carry fertilizers high in nitrogen and soil amendments high in salts from the yard or field into the aquifer. Similarly, recycled water used for irrigation also introduces salts and nutrients. TDS is considered conservative in that it does not readily attenuate in the environment. In contrast, processes that affect the fate and transport of nitrogen compounds are complex, with transformation, attenuation, uptake, and leaching in various environments. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. It is soluble in water and can easily pass through soil to the groundwater table. 3.4 Monitoring Programs Groundwater quality in the Study Area has historically been monitored under different monitoring programs including:  California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Monitoring  California DPH Required Monitoring  Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program Monitoring  USGS Special Studies These monitoring programs are described in more detail in the SNMP Monitoring Program TM. All available groundwater quality data have been compiled by the Agency. All available TDS, EC, and nitrate data were used to evaluate S/N groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin for this SNMP. 3.5 Analysis Methodologies 3.5.1 Lateral and Vertical Discretization Initially, the available groundwater quality data and well completion information were assessed to determine if the subbasin groundwater quality characterization could be divided into subareas and layers to assess differences in groundwater quality laterally and vertically. Unfortunately, well completion information for many of the monitored wells is unavailable, and the available data are considered insufficient to differentiate groundwater quality in the shallow and deep zones. The Baylands Area shown in Figure 2-1 is defined as the area with median TDS concentrations greater than 750 mg/L. This general area was recognized by Kunkel and Upson (1960) and the USGS (2006) as an area of historical saline groundwater. Due to the elevated salt in this area, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. Accordingly, this area is considered separately from the remainder of the subbasin referred to as the Inland Area. Figure 3-1 shows that there were a limited number of wells in the Baylands Area based on DWR well logs acquired for the USGS study (2006). Many of the wells in the Baylands Area have been destroyed and agricultural land use in the area is limited to non-irrigated crops such as hay. Available monitoring data do not indicate clear differences between groundwater quality in the northern and southern portion of the Inland Area. Therefore average groundwater quality in the subbasin is characterized for the Inland Area, the Baylands Area, and the combined Inland and Baylands areas as one aquifer. This approach was presented and approved by the Regional Water Board at the January 2013 project meeting (RMC, January 2013). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 15 Figure 3-1: Wells in Study Area From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 16 3.5.2 Groundwater Quality Averaging Period In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Recycled Water Policy, the available assimilative capacity shall be calculated by comparing the BPOs with the average ambient S/N concentrations in the subbasin over the most recent five years of available data (2007 to 2012) or a time period approved by the Regional Water Board. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2 show the number of wells sampled over the history of sampling in the subbasin. As shown in the figure and table, a significant number of wells were sampled in the 2000 to 2006 time period, predominantly as part of the work conducted by the USGS (2006). In order to provide a more robust dataset, data collected during the 12 year period from 2000 to 2012 are used to assess the average groundwater quality in the subbasin. This approach was presented and approved by the Regional Water Board at the January 2013 project meeting (RMC, January 2013). Evaluation of concentration trends finds overall relatively stable or flat trends for TDS and nitrate in most wells in the subbasin, which also supports use of a longer averaging period. Table 3-2: Summary of Available Water Quality Data Period EC TDS Nitrate 1940-1949 1 4 2 1950-1959 48 23 20 1960-1969 7 9 9 1970-1979 6 7 7 1980-1989 4 7 5 1990-1999 5 20 1 2000-2006 56 28 10 2007-2012 23 51 41 EC – electrical conductivity TDS – total dissolved solids Figure 3-2: Summary of Available Water Quality Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 17 3.5.3 Calculation of Existing Ambient Groundwater Quality and Assimilative Capacity The median groundwater concentration for samples collected from individual wells over the 12-year averaging period for TDS and nitrate are plotted on maps with different size and color circles representing median concentrations (dots maps). Well median concentrations were selected over arithmetic average concentrations to represent the ambient groundwater quality in each well. The median statistic is recommended over averages, because the median: 1) does not assume a normal distribution of data, 2) minimizes the effect of potential and/or actual data outliers without removing them from consideration, and 3) can be reliably calculated for datasets with a mix of censored (non-detect) and non-censored values, which is often important for nitrate datasets. The TDS and nitrate dots maps are then used to develop concentration contour maps for TDS and nitrate. The concentration contour maps were developed by first manually contouring the 2000-2012 median concentrations to address concentration variability in data-dense areas and to control the interpretation in data-poor areas. In some areas, older (pre-2000) water quality data were used to guide contouring (i.e. Baylands Area). Following manual contouring, the contours were used to generate interpolated surfaces representing the concentation of TDS and nitrate using the GIS Spatial Analyst “Topo to Raster” tool. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations in each area were directly extracted from the interpolated surfaces using the GIS Spatial Analyst “Zonal Statistics” tool. To calculate a volume-weighted average concentration for the combined Inland and Baylands Areas, the average concentration in each area is weighted by the representative volume of water in storage in each area. A uniform saturated aquifer thickness of 400 feet is assumed. Groundwater in storage is calculated by multiplying the constant saturated thickness (400 feet) by a constant effective porosity of 0.1. The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for each area (Inland and Baylands) and for the entire subbasin are compared to the BPOs to determine the current available assimilative capacity. Assimilative capacity is simply the difference between the average subbasin concentration and the BPO. 3.5.4 Time-Concentration Plots and Trends Time-concentration plots are prepared and evaluated to assess whether TDS and nitrate groundwater concentrations across the subbasin have been historically increasing, decreasing, or showing no significant change. The trend analysis facilitates the comparison of observed concentration trends in individual wells with simulated average groundwater concentration trends from the mixing model over the baseline period, from water year (WY) 1996-97 (WY 1997) through WY 2005-06 (WY 2006), for calibration purposes. A water year is from October 1 to September 30 of the following year and is commonly used for hydrogeologic analysis in North America. 3.5.5 Simulation of Baseline and Future Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality concentrations for TDS and nitrate are simulated for the baseline period and future planning period using a mixing model. Concentration estimates are based on water and S/N inflows and outflows (balances) mixed with the volume of water in the aquifer and the average ambient groundwater quality. The baseline period is from WY 1997 to 2006. This baseline period was selected based on the period for which water balances were available from the USGS (2006) groundwater flow model and updated groundwater model (Bauer, 2008). The future planning period is from WY 2014 to WY 2035 based on the planning horizon in supporting planning documents. The baseline period water balances estimate all groundwater inflows and outflows for the baseline period and the associated change in storage based on estimates provided in the groundwater model and updated model. Not all components of inflow important to the SNMP are specifically quantified by the model. For example, quantified model inflows include areal recharge from precipitation, stream recharge, and Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 18 mountain front recharge. Mountain front recharge includes both subsurface inflow and stream recharge at the base of the mountains. Other recharge sources such as irrigation return flows and septic system recharge are important sources of S/Ns, but are not specifically quantified in the model water balances. Accordingly these flows are quantified as part of the SNMP analysis as components of other model- defined inflows, while honoring the total modeled water balance flows. For the future planning period, the average of the baseline period water balance is used for each year of the future planning period and any changes in inflows suggested in the area planning documents are superimposed on top of the baseline averages. Future changes simulated include increased use of recycled water for irrigation and managed stormwater capture. TDS and nitrate concentrations are associated with each water balance inflow and outflow component. The TDS and nitrate concentrations of the various inflow components were estimated as described in Section 4. In order to simulate the effect of current and future S/N loading on groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, the spreadsheet mixing model mixes the volume and quality of each inflow and outflow with the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and tracks the annual change in groundwater storage and S/N mass for the baseline and future planning period. The existing volume of water in the groundwater basin is calculated based on the subbasin or subarea (Inland and Baylands) surface areas, a uniform saturated thickness of 400 feet and a porosity of 0.1. The mixing model produces an average TDS and nitrate concentration for each year of the baseline and future planning period. The baseline period mixing model simulation is conducted in order to calibrate the loading factors. The simulated baseline period annual concentrations and trends are compared with the predominant observed groundwater quality concentrations and trends. If the observed and simulated concentrations and trends are not in reasonable agreement, loading factors can be adjusted to achieve a more reasonable match. All loading factor assumptions generated from the baseline calibration process are applied to the future loading analysis. Similar to the water balance assumption, for the future planning period, the average of the baseline period S/N balance is used for each year of the future planning period, and any changes in S/N loading are superimposed on top of the baseline averages. As mentioned above, future changes simulated include increased use of recycled water for irrigation and managed stormwater capture. 3.5.6 Use of Assimilative Capacity by Recycled Water Projects In accordance with the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy, a recycled water irrigation project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a SNMP is being prepared, may be approved by the local RWQCB by demonstrating through a S/N mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity (or multiple projects use less than 20% of available assimilative capacity). Accordingly, the recycled water irrigation projects in place and planned for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are assessed in terms of their use of available assimilative capacity. 3.6 TDS in Groundwater Figure 3-3 shows the median TDS concentrations in wells sampled between 2000 and 2012. EC data were also used for the analysis. For wells with only EC data, EC was converted to TDS. The conversion factor was estimated from the EC/TDS relationship in wells that had both TDS and EC data. The upper chart on Figure 3-4 shows the strong relationship between TDS and EC. The bottom chart on Figure 3-4 shows ratio between the two measurements used to convert EC to TDS. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 19 Figure 3-3: Median Well Concentrations (2000 to 2012) Total Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 20 Figure 3-4: Total Dissolved Solids/Electrical Conductivity Relationship TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter EC – electrical conductivity μS/cm – microsiemens per centimeter Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 21 Generally, relatively low TDS concentrations (less than 500 mg/L) are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The BPO for TDS is 500 mg/L. A few wells with elevated concentrations (above 750 mg/L) are seen in the southeastern portion of the subbasin. The southeastern portion of the subbasin is an area of historical brackish groundwater. Kunkel and Upson (1960) mapped the zero groundwater elevation contour and stated that generally, salty water was found south of this contour line in the shallow zone. The area south of the historical zero groundwater elevation contour is shown in the hatched area in Figure 3-3. A TDS concentration contour map was generated based on the Figure 3-3 well median data plus some available older data in the area near San Pablo Bay. Figure 3-5 is a TDS concentration contour map. Again, relatively low (less than 500 mg/L) TDS concentrations are seen in most of the subbasin. As discussed above, the Baylands Area is defined as the area beneath the tidal sloughs adjacent to San Pablo Bay generally containing groundwater with TDS concentrations above 750 mg/L. This area along with the historical brackish groundwater area are illustrated on Figure 3-5. The area of very high TDS near San Pablo Bay with TDS greater than 1,500 mg/L is based on older well sampling conducted between 1954 and 1973 by DWR. Use of these older data is conservative in that their use results in higher average concentrations in the Baylands Area and there are no more recent data available for this area. The average TDS concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6. The average Inland Area TDS concentration is 372 mg/L, well below the BPO of 500 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 128 mg/L. As expected the average TDS concentration in the Baylands Area is high, with an average concentration of 1,220 mg/L, resulting in no available capacity. The average TDS concentration for the combined subbasin including both the Inland and Baylands Areas is 635 mg/L, also resulting in no available assimilative capacity. The analysis indicates the importance of preventing additional saline intrusion into the Inland Area. The USGS (2006) evaluated the change in EC in the southeastern area over time. Figure 3-7 shows the Kunkel and Upson area of historical brackish groundwater based on the zero groundwater elevation contour and EC contours mapped by the USGS based on September 2003 water quality data. The more recent USGS mapping shows both the 1,000 μS/cm and 500 μS/cm EC contours. USGS stated that the generalized contour lines suggest that the area affected by brackish groundwater in the southern part of the Sonoma Valley shifted between 1949–52 and 2003. The northern edge of the brackish area may have advanced as much as 1 mi north of Highway 12/121. This apparent movement of brackish groundwater may have been in response to groundwater pumping and the resulting depression of hydraulic heads southeast of the City (Figure 2-3). In contrast, the northwestern part of the 1949–52 area of brackish groundwater, near the intersections of Highways 12 and 121 and Sonoma Creek, may have diminished between 1949-52 and 2003. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 22 Figure 3-5: Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 23 Table 3-3: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 635 372 1,220 BPO 500 500 500 Available Assimilative Capacity -135 128 -720 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Figure 3-6: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity BPO = 500 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands AreaAverage TDS (mg/L)Total  Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 24 Figure 3-7: Comparison of Saline Area 1949-52 and EC Data 2003 From: USGS, 2006 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 25 The USGS report (2006) further concludes that conductivity measurements from September 2003 indicate that significant spatial variability in water quality exists with depth in the vicinity of the saline groundwater area. The vertical variability in conductivity may be illustrated by comparing the values from samples of two adjacent wells of different depths. For example, the conductivities of water from wells 5N/5W-29R6 (less than 200 feet deep) and -29R7 (greater than 500 feet deep), were 720 and 1,560 μS/cm, respectively (Figure 3-7). The variation of conductivity with depth may be indicative of different sources of salinity in the southern part of the Sonoma Valley. The primary source of salinity to shallow wells may be modern saltwater that has intruded the Bay Mud deposits along the tidal sloughs that extend northward from San Pablo Bay. High evaporation rates in the marshlands also could increase salinity in the shallow groundwater in or near the marshes. The source of salinity to intermediate and deep wells may be connate water incorporated into the sediments during deposition or modern saltwater in areas where abandoned or improperly constructed wells may act as conduits for the downward movement of surface water or shallow groundwater. The Baylands brackish groundwater area is a S/N concern in the Sonoma Valley. One of the objectives of developing and increasing the use of recycled water for irrigation is to reduce groundwater pumping in the southern Sonoma Valley, prevent additional saline intrusion, and potentially reduce the existing inland extent of brackish groundwater. Irrigation with recycled water began in 1992 and is projected to increase in the future. To date, the data are insufficient to determine if the replacement of groundwater with recycled water has reduced the areal extent of brackish groundwater. However, continued monitoring of this area is a key component of the ongoing GMP and SNMP. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show time-concentration plots for TDS and EC, respectively along with the applicable BPO. The well dot and charts are shaded to indicate the wells depths with red wells and charts indicating wells less than 200 feet deep, yellow wells and charts indicating wells between 200 and 500 feet deep, and green wells and charts indicating wells greater than 500 feet deep. Wells and charts shaded gray indicated wells with unknown completion depths. Both figures show relatively flat TDS and EC trends in the subbasin indicating generally stable conditions. However, Wells 5N/5W-28R1 and 5N/5W- 28N1 located in the southern portion of the subbasin near the Baylands Area show modest increasing concentration trends, which could be attributed increasing saline intrusion as well as other sources. One well is an intermediate zone well (200 to 500 feet deep) and the other is a shallow zone well (less than 200 feet deep). The shallow well (5N/5W-28N1) is owned by a dairy, and this well also shows increasing nitrate concentrations as discussed in the next section. Therefore, it is possible that the increasing TDS/EC concentrations could be associated with local surface sources rather than saline intrusion. The other intermediate well with increasing TDS/EC does not have a similar increasing nitrate trend. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 26 Figure 3-8: Time-Concentration Plots Total Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 27 Figure 3-9: Time-Concentration Plots Electrical Conductivity Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 28 3.7 Nitrate in Groundwater Figure 3-10 shows the median nitrate-N concentrations in wells sampled between 2000 and 2012. Generally low nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The nitrate-N BPO is 10 mg/L. While median nitrate-N concentrations are below the BPO in all wells, median nitrate concentrations in a few wells are between 5 and 10 mg/L. A nitrate concentration contour map (Figure 3-11) was generated based on the median well data shown on Figure 3-10 plus available older (pre-2000) data in the southern Baylands Area. Again, relatively low (less than 1.0 mg/L) nitrate-N concentrations are seen in most of the subbasin. The area of nitrate between 2.6 and 5.0 mg/L near the San Pablo Bay is based on older well sampling conducted by the DWR between 1954 and 1973. The average nitrate concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-12. The average Inland Area nitrate concentration is 0.06 mg/L, well below the BPO of 10 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 9.94 mg/L. The average nitrate concentration in the Baylands Area is 0.07 mg/L, resulting in 9.93 mg/L of available assimilative capacity. The average nitrate concentration for the combined subbasin including both the Inland and Baylands areas is 0.06 mg/L, resulting in 9.94 mg/L of assimilative capacity. Table 3-4: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 0.06 0.06 0.07 BPO 10.00 10.00 10.00 Available Assimilative Capacity 9.94 9.94 9.93 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Figure 3-13 show time-concentration plots for nitrate-N along with the applicable BPO. As discussed above, the wells and charts are shaded to indicate relative well depth. Generally flat concentrations are observed in most wells in the subbasin, typically well below the BPO of 10 mg/L. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 29 Figure 3-10: Median Well Concentrations (2000 to 2012) Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 30 Figure 3-11: Nitrate as N Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 31 Figure 3-12: Average Nitrate Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity BPO = 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands AreaAverage Nitrate as N (mg/L)Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 32 Figure 3-13: Time-Concentration Plots Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 33 4 Baseline Period Analysis The baseline period water balance tracks groundwater inflows and outflows and storage changes from WY 1996-97 through WY 2005-06. This period represents a recent time period characterized by average climatic conditions. The primary source of information used to develop the water balance is the Sonoma Valley groundwater flow model. The flow model was originally developed by the USGS (2006) and later updated by Bauer (2008). Annual water balances in the flow model were developed from WY 1974-75 through WY 2005-06 (historical flow model period). Groundwater recharge from natural precipitation in the flow model for the baseline period represented 94% of the natural recharge over the historical flow model period. Major inflows accounted for in the baseline water balance include:  deep percolation of precipitation and mountain front recharge,  natural stream recharge,  agricultural irrigation water return flow,  domestic/municipal irrigation water (including recycled water) return flow,  septic system return flow, and  subsurface groundwater inflow (from Baylands Area) Major outflows accounted for in the water balance include:  groundwater pumping,  groundwater discharge to streams, and  subsurface groundwater outflow (to Baylands Area) Areal anthropogenic recharge sources (return flows from agricultural and municipal irrigation and septic systems) are not independently considered in the flow model but instead subsumed within the model areal recharge rates. Model areal recharge rates were apportioned into natural sources (precipitation) and anthropogenic sources (return flows) based on the results of the S/N loading evaluation conducted for the SNMP (RMC, 2013). 4.1 Baseline Water Balance Table 4-1 summarizes the baseline water balance for the Inland Area of the subbasin. Figure 4-1 graphically illustrates the water balance. Inflows are stacked on top of one another above the zero line in the figure, while outflows are stacked below the zero line. The cumulative change in groundwater storage over the baseline period is depicted by the red line in the figure.   Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 34 Table 4-1: Baseline Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) AF – acre-feet Mtn. – mountain WY – water year     1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AverageINFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 117,453 50,265 41,773 1,081 66,655 20,883 17,009 69,074 58,101 56,852 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 5,350 5,596 6,017 6,891 6,662 6,737 7,266 6,675 6,256 6,180 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074Septic System Return 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899 899Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 54 56 54 49 48 49 47 48 51 52 51TOTAL INFLOWS 126,335 59,396 51,322 11,500 76,844 31,147 27,801 79,276 67,887 66,563 59,807OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,204 -8,281 -8,411 -8,466 -8,484 -8,476 -8,472 -8,654 -8,832 -8,576 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -75,270 -50,379 -40,834 -25,375 -38,768 -27,899 -23,797 -39,308 -40,798 -41,599 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -14,599 -12,864 -11,375 -8,737 -10,071 -9,186 -8,154 -9,955 -10,668 -10,821 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,667 -3,562 -3,218 -2,656 -2,802 -2,738 -2,481 -2,811 -3,070 -3,111 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -101,739 -75,086 -63,838 -45,234 -60,125 -48,298 -42,905 -60,727 -63,368 -64,108 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)24,596 -15,690 -12,515 -33,734 16,719 -17,151 -15,104 18,549 4,520 2,456 -2,736CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)24,596 8,906 -3,609 -37,343 -20,625 -37,776 -52,880 -34,331 -29,812 -27,356All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 35 Figure 4-1: Baseline Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) ‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,000‐150,000‐100,000‐50,000050,000100,000150,0001996‐971997‐981998‐991999‐002000‐012001‐022002‐032003‐042004‐052005‐06Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricutural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Storage Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 36 4.1.1 Inflows As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1, total annual subbasin inflows over the baseline period ranged from 11,500 AF in WY 2000 up to 126,335 AF in WY 1997, averaging 59,807 AFY. The large variability in annual inflows is dependent primarily on the volume of natural recharge derived from areal precipitation and mountain front recharge, which averaged 49,915 AFY (or 83% of total inflows). It is noted that mountain front recharge is simulated using the recharge package in the flow model and, while concentrated along the basin margins, is not separated from areal precipitation recharge. Sonoma Creek leakage is the second largest source of recharge (6,363 AFY on average; or 11% of total inflows). Return flows from agricultural irrigation (1,415 AFY), municipal irrigation (1,074 AFY), and septic systems (899 AFY) collectively contribute about 6% of total inflows. Agricultural recycled water return flows (91 AFY) and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area (51 AFY) represent minor inflows. 4.1.2 Outflows As shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1, total annual subbasin outflows over the baseline period averaged -62,543 AFY. The largest subbasin outflow is represented by groundwater discharge to streams. The model differentiates between groundwater discharge to tributary streams of Sonoma Creek (-40,403 AFY on average; 65% of total outflows) and groundwater discharge to Sonoma Creek (-10,643 AFY on average; 17% of total outflows). The next largest outflow is groundwater pumping (-8,486 AFY on average, 14% of total outflows) followed by subsurface outflow to the southern Baylands Area (-3,011 AFY; 5% of total outflows). While net subsurface flow is from the Inland area to the Baylands Area, a small portion of groundwater flows from the Baylands area to the Inland area (51 AFY). 4.1.3 Change in Storage Over the baseline period, a total of -27,356 AF was lost from groundwater storage, equivalent to -2,736 AFY on average. 4.2 Water Quality of Inflows and Outflows Initial and adjusted TDS and nitrate concentration estimates for subbasin inflows and outflows in the water balance are described below followed by a discussion of the baseline mixing model calibration and results. 4.2.1 Sonoma Creek Leakage TDS and nitrate data from available surface water quality monitoring stations in the watershed were assessed to characterize the water quality of stream leakage from Sonoma Creek, the second largest subbasin inflow. Figure 4-2 shows the locations of DWR and USGS surface water quality monitoring stations along Sonoma Creek and its tributaries. As shown in the figure, there are two USGS and fourteen DWR surface water monitoring stations with water quality data. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 37 Figure 4-2: Surface Water Monitoring Locations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 38 USGS stations USGS Sonoma Creek station 11458433 – Since October 2008, daily EC has been measured for this station located in the northern portion of the subbasin. From October 2008 through March 2013, daily TDS concentrations (estimated from EC data using the regression equation on Figure 3-3) ranged from 95 to 238 mg/L, averaging 191 mg/L. No nitrate data are available. USGS Sonoma Creek station 11458500 – While continuous EC data are not available for this station located in the central portion of the subbasin, discrete water quality data are available for two sampling events in 2002 and 2003:  TDS concentrations were 248 and 210 mg/l in November 2002 and June 2003, respectively.  Nitrate concentrations were non-detect (<0.06 mg/L) and 0.25 mg/L in November 2002 and June 2003, respectively. DWR stations Water quality sampling was conducted in May and November 2010 at fourteen DWR surface water monitoring stations shown on Figure 4-2. Table 4-2 summarizes the TDS and nitrate results. TDS concentrations for the fourteen DWR stations range from 140 to 301 mg/L. On average, TDS concentrations for the May 2010 samples (191 mg/L) were slightly lower than for the November 2010 samples (229 mg/L). This difference is expected given that the flow rate in Sonoma Creek (measured at USGS station 11458500) was much higher on May 4 and 5 (above 30 cubic feet per second [cfs]) (i.e. comprised predominantly of storm runoff versus groundwater discharge), compared to approximately 8 cfs on average from November 1 through 16. Average TDS concentrations of Sonoma Creek samples were only slightly higher (216 mg/L) compared to those collected from the other four tributary creeks (190 mg/L). The overall average TDS concentration for the fourteen DWR stations was 209 mg/L. For the SNMP, a constant TDS concentration of 210 mg/L was applied to Sonoma Creek leakage for the baseline period of WY 1996-97 to WY 2005-06. Nitrate concentrations for the fourteen DWR stations range from 0.01 to 1.2 mg/L. There is no significant difference in nitrate concentrations between the May and November samples. Average nitrate concentrations of samples collected from Sonoma Creek were lower (0.19 mg/L) compared to those collected from the other four tributary creeks (0.40 mg/L). The average nitrate concentration for the fourteen DWR stations was 0.24 mg/L. For the SNMP, a constant nitrate-N concentration of 0.19 mg/L was applied to Sonoma Creek leakage for the baseline period of WY 1996-97 to WY 2005-06. 4.2.2 Deep Percolation of Areal Precipitation and Mountain Front Recharge Recharge from deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge represents 65% of total subbasin inflows and is the primary controlling S/N load factor. Generally, precipitation contains minimal salts and nutrients. However, due to its low solute content, precipitation also dissolves (or leaches) salts and nutrients along its subsurface flow path from near-surface soils through the vadose zone sediments and saturated zone sediments. The degree of leaching is dependent on numerous site-specific factors and is difficult to predict reliably. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 39 Table 4-2: 2010 DWR Surface Water Quality Monitoring Results Station ID Stream Sampling Date TDS (mg/L) Nitrate-N (mg/L) SVGW-1 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 198 0.07 11/01/10 214 0.16 SVGW-2 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 213 0.05 11/15/10 301 SVGW-3 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 225 0.02 11/01/10 231 0.14 11/15/10 0.20 SVGW-4 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 218 0.02 11/01/10 230 0.32 11/16/10 0.01 SVGW-5 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 204 0.36 11/16/10 234 0.09 SVGW-6 Sonoma Creek 05/04/10 186 0.32 11/01/10 196 0.20 SVGW-7 Nathanson Creek 05/05/10 202 1.20 11/02/10 235 0.97 SVGW-8 Carriger Creek 05/05/10 171 0.07 SVGW-9 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 204 0.27 11/01/10 231 0.27 SVGW-10 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 194 0.25 11/02/10 222 0.23 SVGW-11 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 187 0.27 11/01/10 221 0.20 SVGW-12 Sonoma Creek 05/05/10 189 0.32 11/01/10 214 0.23 SVGW-13 Calabazas Creek 05/05/10 140 0.27 11/01/10 213 0.23 SVGW-14 Yulupa Creek 05/05/10 140 0.05 11/01/10 230 0.02 Average  May 2010 Samples 191 0.25 November 2010 Samples 229 0.25 Sonoma Creek Samples Only 216 0.19 All Samples 209 0.24 TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter Conf. – confluence Hwy - Highway Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 40 TDS concentrations for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge were estimated from available groundwater quality of wells located in the watershed outside of the subbasin. Figure 4-3 shows the median TDS concentrations (from 2000 to 2012) of 43 wells in the watershed outside of the subbasin. Median TDS concentrations for these wells ranged from 160 to 580 mg/L with an average of 245 mg/L. Based on these data, an initial constant concentration of 245 mg/L TDS was applied to deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge for the loading estimate. Based on the mixing model calibration, a final adjusted TDS concentration of 250 mg/L for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge was applied. The basis for this TDS adjustment is discussed in Section 4.3. The process by which airborne pollutants are deposited on the ground surface is known as dry deposition. Nitrogen is one of the pollutants commonly associated with dry deposition. Additionally, nitrogen leaching from dry deposition can occur. Nitrate concentrations for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge could not be estimated in the same manner as TDS, because there are no nitrate data for wells in the watershed outside of the subbasin. The USEPA manages the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), a national air quality monitoring network that provides data to assess trends in atmospheric deposition, among other purposes. The closest CASTNET monitoring station to the Sonoma Valley is in Hopland, California (CASTNET ID CA45) approximately 60 miles to the northwest of the valley. Annual data for the Hopland station show that precipitation nitrate concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.04 mg/L over the baseline period, with an average of 0.02 mg/L. Available nitrate deposition maps indicate that precipitation nitrate concentrations increase slightly to the south of the station toward Sonoma Valley. For the loading estimate, a constant nitrate concentration of 0.06 mg/L, equivalent to the ambient average nitrate concentration in the subbasin, was applied to deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge. 4.2.3 Return Flows – Agricultural (Groundwater and Recycled Water), Municipal, and Septic System Source water used for irrigation includes imported water, groundwater, and recycled water. In order to determine the quality of irrigation return flows that percolate to groundwater, the S/N concentrations for each source water used for irrigation was characterized. In addition to the S/N concentrations of the source water, S/Ns are added through use and concentrated by evapotranspiration, added through fertilizer use, and removed by plant uptake and attenuation processes in the root zone. Nutrient plant uptake is the process by which plants absorb nutrients from applied water and surrounding soil. For the loading estimate, TDS and nitrogen mass loads for agricultural (groundwater and recycled water source water) and municipal (groundwater and imported water source water) irrigation and septic system return flows were estimated. Documentation of the loading estimates for these return flows are provided in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013) included in Appendix C. Salt and nutrient loading for the return flows were extracted from the RMC loading model based on the land use category, irrigation source water, and presence of septic systems. Loading from agricultural return flows include grasslands, irrigated and non-irrigated agricultural lands, farmsteads, concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs) and dairies. Municipal return flows include paved areas, urban, commercial, and industrial sources. For the mixing model, the TDS and nitrogen mass load for each return flow component was mixed with its respective annual return flow volume to obtain a concentration. For the loading estimate, it was conservatively assumed that all nitrogen mass is converted to nitrate. Based on initial simulation results for the baseline period, nitrate loading from return flows was reduced by 15% to account for attenuation processes beneath the soil root zone and septic system, in order to provide a better match between simulated average concentrations and observed regional trends. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 41 Figure 4-3: Median TDS Concentration (2000 to 2012) Watershed Area Wells Outside Subbasin Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 42 Table 4-3 shows the initial calculated and adjusted (during calibration) TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations for each return flow component. The adjusted concentrations are applied as a constant concentration over the baseline period. Table 4-3: Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Mass and Concentrations for Baseline Period Analysis Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFYmg/Lmg/Lmg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Return 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Return 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted during calibration. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter As shown in Table 4-3, the initial and final adjusted TDS concentration of agricultural return flow (groundwater and recycled water source water) at about 4,300 mg/L is the highest of the return flow components. Differences between agricultural return flow concentrations/mass for groundwater and recycled water are attributable to differences in source water quality. The TDS concentration of municipal return flow (1,182 mg/L) is lower than for agricultural return flows. Septic system return flows have the lowest TDS concentration (572 mg/L) compared to the agricultural and municipal return flows. Overall, the volume weighted-average TDS concentration of the agricultural, municipal, and septic system return flows is 2,552 mg/L. Initial nitrate concentrations in the table represent the concentration of return flows at the base of the soil root zone or at the septic system. Based on the mixing model calibration, the nitrate concentration for each individual return flow component was adjusted downward by 15% in the mixing model to account for additional nitrate attenuation by soil bacteria below the root zone/septic system. The basis for this adjustment is described in more detail in Section 4.3. For nitrate, initial and adjusted agricultural return flow (groundwater and recycled water source water) have the same concentrations (28.0 mg/L and 23.8 mg/L, respectively). Similar to TDS, the initial and adjusted nitrate concentration of municipal return flow (23.9 mg/L and 20.3, respectively) are lower than for agricultural returns. Septic system return flows have a higher initial and adjusted nitrate concentrations (30.0 mg/L and 25.5 mg/L, respectively) compared to the agricultural and municipal return flows. Overall, the volume weighted-average initial and adjusted nitrate concentrations of the agricultural, municipal, and septic system return flows are 27.0 mg/L and 23.0 mg/L, respectively. 4.2.4 Subsurface Inflows from Baylands Area While groundwater levels and the flow model-based water balance indicate that subsurface groundwater flows generally from the Inlands area to the Baylands Area, there is a small component of subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area. This is likely caused by groundwater pumping, which has created a pumping depression in the southern portion of the subbasin. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 43 The concentrations applied to subsurface inflows from the Baylands Area were assumed to be the current average concentration in the Baylands Area (1,220 mg/L for TDS and 0.07 mg/L for nitrate-N). 4.3 Mixing Model Calibration and Salt and Nutrient Balance In order to simulate the effect of current S/N loading on groundwater quality in the Inland Area of the subbasin, a spreadsheet mixing model was developed. As discussed in Section 3.5.5, the simulated baseline period concentrations and trends are compared to the predominant pattern of observed concentrations and trends. Loading factors may be adjusted (calibrated) to achieve a better match between simulated and observed concentrations and trends. Based on initial baseline simulations, the estimated concentration for one TDS loading factor was adjusted. For the final calibration, the TDS concentration for deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge was adjusted upwards from 245 mg/L to 250 mg/L. This adjustment resulted in a more reasonable match between simulated and observed TDS trends. With respect to nitrate, preliminary mixing model results indicated that initial nitrate loading to groundwater was likely overestimated, resulting in the average concentration of nitrate in the Inland Area to increase measurably over the baseline period. For the final calibration, nitrate loading from return flows was reduced by 15% in the mixing model to account for additional attenuation by soil bacteria below the root zone and septic system, which was not considered in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). No other inflow loading estimates were adjusted for the baseline period calibration. Figure 4-4 shows the final simulated average subbasin TDS and nitrate concentrations over the 10-year baseline period (WY 1996 represents the hypothetical initial water quality condition equivalent to the current ambient condition). Figure 4-4: Final Simulated Baseline Average Groundwater Concentrations for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 300 320 340 360 380 400 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Nitrate as N (mg/L)TDS (mg/L)Water Year Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 44 As shown in the figure, simulated average subbasin TDS concentrations vary slightly from year to year, but exhibit no change over the 10-year baseline period. This flat trend compares well to observed flat trends in wells across the subbasin over the baseline period, as indicated in TDS and EC time- concentration plots shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively. In contrast to the TDS trend, simulated average nitrate-N concentrations increase by about 0.5 mg/L over the baseline period, despite nitrate loading from return flows being reduced by 15% to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system. Observed nitrate concentrations in monitoring wells across the subbasin (see Figure 3-13) are not increasing regionally, but instead show overall flat or stable concentrations over time. The discrepancy between simulated and observed trends may be caused by an overestimate of the nitrate load due to one or more of the following: 1. assumption that 100% of nitrogen is converted to nitrate; 2. potential underestimation of ambient average groundwater nitrate concentrations due to limited spatial distribution of wells with recent nitrate data; 3. Application of all nitrate loading associated with recycled water use within the Inlands area in the mixing model, despite portions of existing (and proposed future) recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2-1), 4. Underestimation of nitrate attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model For the reasons mentioned above, simulated nitrate concentrations generated from the calibrated mixing model are likely conservative and overestimated for both baseline and future nitrogen loading. While application of higher nitrate attenuation rate was considered, given the limited distribution of monitoring wells with long-term nitrate trend data in the subbasin, a 15% attenuation rate was maintained. Table 4-4 and Figure 4-5 show the baseline period TDS mass balance for the Inland Area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The mass balance is based on the annual volumetric flows and final calibrated TDS concentrations applied to each S/N loading factor. As shown in table and figure, the largest TDS load is from deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge, which represents 57% of the overall TDS loading to the subbasin. Agricultural (groundwater source water) return is the second largest TDS load (28% of total loading), followed by Sonoma Creek leakage (6%) and municipal return (6%). Septic system return, agricultural (recycled water) return, and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area each represent less than 2% of the total TDS loading in the subbasin. The annual change in TDS mass varies annually from about -9,000 tons to +5,600 tons. Over the baseline period, TDS mass decreased by about 15,300 tons. It is noted that the direction (positive or negative) of the change in mass does not necessarily correlate to a change in average TDS concentration in the same direction (increase or decrease). This is best explained by an example: in WY 2000-01, TDS mass in the subbasin increased by 5,400 tons. However, the average subbasin TDS concentration decreased by 1.8 mg/L that year, because groundwater storage gains outweighed the positive change in TDS mass that year due to the large influx of low-TDS areal precipitation and mountain front recharge. This example demonstrates the importance of evaluating the mass balance within the context of the water balance. Table 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show the nitrate mass balance for the baseline period for the Inland area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. As shown in table and figure, the largest nitrate load is agricultural (groundwater source water) return, which represents approximately 43% of the overall nitrate loading to the subbasin. Municipal return is the second largest TDS load (28% of total loading), followed by septic system return (20%), deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge (4%) and agricultural (recycled water source water) return (3%). Sonoma Creek leakage and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area represent minor nitrate loading factors in the subbasin. The change in nitrate mass varies annually from about +60 tons to +101 tons. Over the baseline period, nitrate mass increased by about 807 tons. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 45 Table 4-4: Baseline TDS Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AverageINFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 39,988 17,113 14,222 368 22,694 7,110 5,791 23,517 19,781 19,356 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,527 1,598 1,718 1,968 1,902 1,924 2,075 1,906 1,786 1,765 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538Municipal Irrigation Return 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inlow from Baylands 89 93 89 82 79 81 77 79 85 86 84TOTAL INFLOWS 52,714 29,913 27,138 13,526 35,783 20,223 19,051 36,611 32,761 32,315 30,003OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,149 -4,116 -4,184 -4,223 -4,289 -4,264 -4,296 -4,425 -4,488 -4,347 -4,278Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -38,072 -25,039 -20,313 -12,658 -19,597 -14,036 -12,066 -20,100 -20,733 -21,085 -20,370Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -7,384 -6,393 -5,658 -4,359 -5,091 -4,621 -4,134 -5,091 -5,421 -5,485 -5,364Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,855 -1,770 -1,601 -1,325 -1,416 -1,377 -1,258 -1,437 -1,560 -1,577 -1,518TOTAL OUTFLOWS -51,460 -37,319 -31,755 -22,565 -30,393 -24,298 -21,754 -31,053 -32,203 -32,493 -31,529Annual TDS Mass Change1,254 -7,406 -4,618 -9,040 5,390 -4,076 -2,702 5,558 558 -178 -1,526Cumulative TDS Mass Change1,254 -6,152 -10,769 -19,809 -14,419 -18,495 -21,197 -15,639 -15,081 -15,259All values in tons Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 46 Figure 4-5: Baseline TDS Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) ‐90,000‐60,000‐30,000030,00060,00090,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,000Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inlow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 47 Table 4-5: Baseline Nitrate-N Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AverageINFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 9.6 4.1 3.4 0.1 5.4 1.7 1.4 5.6 4.7 4.6 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow to Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 110.9 105.5 104.9 101.9 107.1 103.4 103.2 107.3 106.3 106.2 105.7OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.4 -2.1 -2.8 -3.5 -4.0 -4.6 -5.4 -5.9 -6.2 -3.7Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -7.2 -8.8 -10.2 -8.3 -15.8 -13.1 -13.0 -24.4 -27.3 -29.9 -15.8Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.4 -2.2 -2.9 -2.8 -4.1 -4.3 -4.4 -6.2 -7.1 -7.8 -4.3Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -0.3 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 -1.7 -2.1 -2.2 -1.2TOTAL OUTFLOWS -9.7 -13.1 -16.0 -14.7 -24.5 -22.7 -23.4 -37.7 -42.4 -46.2 -25.0Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change101.3 92.5 88.9 87.1 82.6 80.7 79.9 69.7 63.9 60.1 80.7Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change101.3 193.7 282.7 369.8 452.4 533.1 612.9 682.6 746.6 806.6All values in tons Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 48 Figure 4-6: Baseline Nitrate-N Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) ‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐100‐50050100150Cumulative Nitrate as N  Mass Change (tons)Nitrate as N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inlow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundawter Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 49 5 Future Planning Period Water Quality The Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013) identified future projections for imported water use, and increased recycled water use through the future planning period. These projections define the future projects simulated in this TM. Future project changes are superimposed over average water balance conditions during the 10-year baseline period to simulate future groundwater quality. The spreadsheet mixing model developed for the baseline analysis was modified to evaluate the effects of planned future S/N loading on overall groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin for the future planning period (WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). The mixing model methodology is described in Sections 3.5.5. Baseline conditions for the Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin between WY 1996-97 through WY 2005-06 were simulated with the mixing model. Comparison of simulated and actual observed water quality concentrations and trends during the baseline period were used to adjust key loading factors. The calibrated loading factors are then applied to the future loading assumptions. The mixing model is used to predict future water quality, water quality trends, and the percentage of the existing available assimilative capacity used by recycled water projects in the subbasin during the future planning period. The mixing model is designed to incorporate the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and track the annual change in groundwater storage and S/N mass for the subbasin as a whole. A No-Project scenario was simulated to evaluate the impacts of future recycled water projects. For the No-Project scenario, average water balance conditions (WY 1996-97 through WY 2013-14) over the baseline conditions were reproduced for each year of the future planning period. Future projected changes included the following:  Increased use of recycled water for agricultural irrigation (replacing groundwater). Two future scenarios were simulated: o Planned recycled water use by 2035 (Scenario 1) o Planned recycled water use by 2035 plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (Scenario 2) While recycled water use is projected to ramp up gradually over time, the maximum 2035 recycled water use conditions were applied beginning in WY 2013-14 and applied over the entire future planning period (from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). Additionally, while portions of existing and proposed future recycled water use areas are located south of the Inlands Area in the Baylands Area (see Figure 2-1), all S/N loading associated with recycled water use was applied in the Inlands Area. Thus, the simulated groundwater quality impacts from recycled water projects are considered highly conservative. Also, while future conditions within the Baylands Area were not explicitly simulated, it is expected that replacing groundwater with recycled water for irrigation will lower TDS levels in groundwater because recycled water has lower TDS concentrations than the average groundwater in the Baylands Area. Although future stormwater capture and recharge is planned for the area (approximately 50 AFY), to maintain a conservative projection, this recharge source water was not applied to the model. 5.1 Scenarios Three future scenarios were simulated:  Future Scenario 0 (No-Project): Assumes average baseline water balance conditions and no additional enhanced stormwater capture and recharge is applied. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 50  Future Scenario 1: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use of about 4,100 AFY (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35)  Future Scenario 2: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). 5.2 Water Balances The water balance for Scenario 0 (No-Project) is shown in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1. The water balance for Future Scenario 1 is shown in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-2. The water balance for Future Scenario 2 is shown in Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3. The table and figure shows that for all three future scenarios a total of 66,299 AF is lost from groundwater storage over the 22-year future planning horizon, corresponding to an average annual loss of 3,014 AFY. Agricultural (recycled water) irrigation return flows increase from No-Project (91 AFY) to Scenario 1 (508 AFY) to Scenario 2 (1,132 AFY), while agricultural (groundwater) irrigation return flows decrease from No-Project (1,415 AFY) to Scenario 1 (998 AFY) to Scenario 2 (374 AFY). 5.3 Water Quality The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for the baseline period were applied to all future scenarios for the following inflows:  deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge  leakage from Sonoma Creek  subsurface inflow from Baylands area Concentrations for future return flow components are described below. 5.3.1 Return Flows – Agricultural and Municipal Irrigation and Septic System The same methodology used to estimate TDS and nitrogen loading from return flows over the baseline period was used to estimate future return flow loading. Documentation of future loading estimates for return flows is provided in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). For the mixing model, mass loads for each return flow component were mixed with respective annual return flow volumes to obtain a concentration. Similar to the baseline period analysis, 100% of the nitrogen mass is assumed to convert to nitrate. To account for attenuation below the root zone, the same 15% reduction in nitrate loading from return flows applied in the baseline calibration was also applied in future simulations. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 51 Table 5-1: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain AF – acre-feet WY – water year Figure 5-1: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415 1,415Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,0741,074 1,074Septic System Return 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51TOTAL INFLOWS 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,52959,529 59,529 59,529OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486-8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -6,027 -9,041 -12,054 -15,068 -18,081 -21,095 -24,109 -27,122 -30,136 -33,149 -36,163 -39,176 -42,190 -45,204 -48,217 -51,231 -54,244 -57,258 -60,271 -63,285 -66,299All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 52 Table 5-2: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain AF – acre-feet WY – water year Figure 5-2: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998 998Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508 508Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,0741,074 1,074Septic System Return 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621Subsurface Inflow from Baylands51515151515151515151515151515151515151515151TOTAL INFLOWS 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,52959,529 59,529 59,529OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486-8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -6,027 -9,041 -12,054 -15,068 -18,081 -21,095 -24,109 -27,122 -30,136 -33,149 -36,163 -39,176 -42,190 -45,204 -48,217 -51,231 -54,244 -57,258 -60,271 -63,285 -66,299All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 53 Table 5-3: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain AF – acre-feet WY – water year Figure 5-3: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Water Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915 49,915Sonoma Creek Leakage 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363 6,363Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,1321,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,132Municipal Irrigation Return 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,074 1,0741,074 1,074Septic System Return 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621 621Subsurface Inflow from Baylands51515151515151515151515151515151515151515151TOTAL INFLOWS 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,529 59,52959,529 59,529 59,529OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486-8,486 -8,486 -8,486 -8,486Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403 -40,403Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643 -10,643Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011 -3,011TOTAL OUTFLOWS -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543 -62,543ANNUAL STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014 -3,014CUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF)-3,014 -6,027 -9,041 -12,054 -15,068 -18,081 -21,095 -24,109 -27,122 -30,136 -33,149 -36,163 -39,176 -42,190 -45,204 -48,217 -51,231 -54,244 -57,258 -60,271 -63,285 -66,299All values in acre-feet per year (AFY) unless otherwise noted‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000‐100,000‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000100,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Storage Change (AF)Volume (AFY)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCUMULATIVE STORAGE CHANGE (AF) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 54 Tables 5-4 through 5-6 show the calculated TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations of each return flow for Scenario 0 (No-Project), Scenario 1, and Scenario 2, respectively. The adjusted values are applied as a constant concentration over the entire future planning period. For both TDS and nitrate, the total cumulative mass and weighted-average concentration of return flows increases slightly from Scenario 0 (No-Project) to Scenario 1 to Scenario 2. Table 5-4: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Concentrations 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter Table 5-5: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Concentrations 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agircultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 998 4,481 29.3 24.9 Agircultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 508 4,479 29.3 24.9 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,615 27.6 23.5 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 55 Table 5-6: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Concentrations 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. TDS – total dissolved solids Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter 5.4 Future Salt and Nutrient Mass Balances 5.4.1 TDS Mass Balances Table 5-7 through 5-9 show the TDS mass balances for the three future scenarios. The mass balances are also depicted in Figures 5-4 through 5-6. The tables and figures show that the cumulative change in TDS mass from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35 is negative for all three scenarios. For Scenario 0 (No- Project), the cumulative change in TDS mass is -34,941 tons. The negative cumulative change in TDS mass is slightly smaller for Scenario 1 (-31,315 tons) and even smaller for Scenario 2 (-25,213 tons). For Scenario 0 (No-Project), TDS mass loading factors presented from largest to smallest are as follows: 1) areal precipitation and mountain front recharge 2) agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return 3) Sonoma Creek leakage 4) municipal irrigation return 5) agricultural (recycled water source water) return 6) septic system return 7) subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area For Scenario 1, TDS mass loading from agricultural (recycled water source water) irrigation return flow increases and represents the third largest TDS loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return flow decreases but remains the second largest TDS mass loading factor. All other factors have the same TDS mass loading as in the No-Project scenario. For Scenario 2, TDS mass loading from agricultural (recycled water source water) irrigation return increases and replaces agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return as the second largest TDS loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater source water) irrigation return decreases and represents the third largest TDS mass loading factor. All other factors have the same TDS mass loading as in the No- Project scenario. Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 374 4,706 31.6 26.8 Agircultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 1,132 4,706 31.6 26.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,722 28.7 24.4 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 56 Table 5-7: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year Figure 5-4: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363 8,363Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538Municipal Irrigation Return 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,182 1,1821,182 1,182Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inflow from Baylands84848484848484848484848484848484848484848484TOTAL INFLOWS 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,00330,003 30,003 30,003OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,292 -4,290 -4,288 -4,286 -4,284 -4,282 -4,281 -4,279 -4,278 -4,276 -4,275 -4,274 -4,272 -4,271 -4,270 -4,269 -4,268 -4,267-4,266 -4,265 -4,264 -4,263Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -20,436 -20,426 -20,416 -20,407 -20,398 -20,390 -20,382 -20,374 -20,367 -20,360 -20,354 -20,348 -20,342 -20,336 -20,331 -20,326 -20,321 -20,316 -20,312 -20,308 -20,304 -20,300Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -5,383 -5,381 -5,378 -5,376 -5,373 -5,371 -5,369 -5,367 -5,365 -5,363 -5,362 -5,360 -5,358 -5,357 -5,356-5,354 -5,353 -5,352 -5,351 -5,349 -5,348 -5,347Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,523 -1,522 -1,522 -1,521 -1,520 -1,520 -1,519 -1,519 -1,518 -1,518 -1,517 -1,517 -1,516 -1,516 -1,515 -1,515 -1,515 -1,514 -1,514 -1,514 -1,513 -1,513TOTAL OUTFLOWS -31,634 -31,629 -31,624 -31,619 -31,614 -31,610 -31,605 -31,601 -31,597 -31,594 -31,590 -31,587 -31,583 -31,580 -31,578 -31,575 -31,572 -31,570 -31,567 -31,565 -31,563 -31,561Annual TDS Mass Change-1,631 -1,625 -1,620 -1,615 -1,611 -1,606 -1,602 -1,598 -1,594 -1,590 -1,587 -1,583 -1,580 -1,577 -1,574 -1,571 -1,569 -1,566 -1,564 -1,562 -1,559 -1,557Cumulative TDS Mass Change-1,631 -3,256 -4,876 -6,492 -8,102 -9,708 -11,310 -12,908 -14,502 -16,092 -17,678 -19,262 -20,842 -22,419 -23,993 -25,564 -27,133 -28,699 -30,263 -31,824 -33,383 -34,941All values in tons‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000‐40,000‐30,000‐20,000‐10,000010,00020,00030,00040,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 57 Table 5-8: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year Figure 5-5: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081 6,081Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,0943,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094 3,094Municipal Irrigation Return 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,7261,726 1,726Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inflow from Baylands84848484848484848484848484848484848484848484TOTAL INFLOWS 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,278 30,27830,278 30,278 30,278OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,292 -4,293 -4,294 -4,295 -4,296 -4,297 -4,298 -4,299 -4,300 -4,301 -4,302 -4,302 -4,303 -4,304 -4,304 -4,305 -4,305 -4,306-4,306 -4,307 -4,307 -4,317Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -20,436 -20,441 -20,447 -20,452 -20,456 -20,461 -20,465 -20,469 -20,473 -20,477 -20,481 -20,484 -20,487 -20,491 -20,494 -20,496 -20,499 -20,502 -20,504 -20,506 -20,509 -20,555Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -5,383 -5,385 -5,386 -5,387 -5,389 -5,390 -5,391 -5,392 -5,393 -5,394 -5,395 -5,396 -5,397 -5,398 -5,398-5,399 -5,400 -5,401 -5,401 -5,402 -5,402 -5,415Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,523 -1,524 -1,524 -1,524 -1,525 -1,525 -1,525 -1,526 -1,526 -1,526 -1,527 -1,527 -1,527 -1,527 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,528 -1,529 -1,532TOTAL OUTFLOWS -31,634 -31,643 -31,651 -31,659 -31,666 -31,673 -31,680 -31,686 -31,692 -31,698 -31,704 -31,709 -31,714 -31,719 -31,724 -31,728 -31,732 -31,736 -31,740 -31,743 -31,747 -31,818Annual TDS Mass Change-1,356 -1,365 -1,373 -1,381 -1,388 -1,395 -1,402 -1,408 -1,415 -1,420 -1,426 -1,431 -1,436 -1,441 -1,446 -1,450 -1,454 -1,458 -1,462 -1,466 -1,469 -1,472Cumulative TDS Mass Change-1,356 -2,721 -4,094 -5,475 -6,863 -8,258 -9,660 -11,069 -12,483 -13,904 -15,330 -16,761 -18,197 -19,638 -21,084 -22,534 -23,988 -25,446 -26,908 -28,374 -29,843 -31,315All values in tons‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000‐40,000‐30,000‐20,000‐10,000010,00020,00030,00040,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 58 Table 5-9: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain TDS – total dissolved solids WY – water year Figure 5-6: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) TDS Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994 16,994Sonoma Creek Leakage 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817 1,817Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393 2,393Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,2447,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244 7,244Municipal Irrigation Return 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,7261,726 1,726Septic System Return 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483 483Subsurface Inflow from Baylands84848484848484848484848484848484848484848484TOTAL INFLOWS 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,740 30,74030,740 30,740 30,740OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -4,292 -4,296 -4,301 -4,305 -4,308 -4,312 -4,315 -4,319 -4,322 -4,325 -4,328 -4,330 -4,333 -4,335 -4,338 -4,340 -4,342 -4,344-4,346 -4,348 -4,349 -4,351Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -20,436 -20,456 -20,476 -20,495 -20,513 -20,530 -20,547 -20,562 -20,577 -20,591 -20,605 -20,617 -20,630 -20,641 -20,652 -20,663 -20,673 -20,683 -20,692 -20,700 -20,709 -20,717Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -5,383 -5,389 -5,394 -5,399 -5,404 -5,408 -5,412 -5,416 -5,420 -5,424 -5,428 -5,431 -5,434 -5,437 -5,440-5,443 -5,446 -5,448 -5,451 -5,453 -5,455 -5,457Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -1,523 -1,525 -1,526 -1,528 -1,529 -1,530 -1,531 -1,533 -1,534 -1,535 -1,536 -1,537 -1,538 -1,539 -1,539 -1,540 -1,541 -1,542 -1,542 -1,543 -1,544 -1,544TOTAL OUTFLOWS -31,634 -31,666 -31,697 -31,726 -31,754 -31,780 -31,806 -31,830 -31,853 -31,875 -31,896 -31,915 -31,934 -31,952 -31,970 -31,986 -32,002 -32,016 -32,031 -32,044 -32,057 -32,069Annual TDS Mass Change-894 -926 -957 -986 -1,014 -1,040 -1,066 -1,090 -1,113 -1,135 -1,156 -1,175 -1,194 -1,212 -1,230 -1,246 -1,262 -1,276 -1,291 -1,304 -1,317 -1,329Cumulative TDS Mass Change-894 -1,821 -2,778 -3,764 -4,778 -5,818 -6,884 -7,973 -9,086 -10,221 -11,376 -12,552 -13,746 -14,959 -16,188 -17,434 -18,696 -19,973 -21,263 -22,567 -23,884 -25,213All values in tons‐80,000‐60,000‐40,000‐20,000020,00040,00060,00080,000‐40,000‐30,000‐20,000‐10,000010,00020,00030,00040,0002013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative TDS Mass Change (tons)TDS Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative TDS Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 59 5.4.2 Nitrate-N Mass Balances Table 5-10 through 5-12 show the nitrate-N mass balances for the three future scenarios. The mass balances are also depicted in Figures 5-7 through 5-9. The tables and figures show that the cumulative change in nitrate-N mass from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35 is positive for all three scenarios. For Scenario 0 (No-Project), the cumulative change in nitrate-N mass is +1,410 tons. The cumulative change in nitrate-N mass is slightly higher for Scenario 1 (+1,440 tons) and even higher for Scenario 2 (+1,491 tons). For Scenario 0 (No-Project), nitrate mass loading factors presented from largest to smallest are as follows: 1) agricultural (groundwater) return 2) municipal return 3) septic system return 4) areal precipitation and mountain front recharge 5) agricultural (recycled water) return 6) Sonoma Creek leakage 7) subsurface inflow from Baylands For Scenario 1, nitrate mass loading from agricultural (recycled water) return increases and represents the fourth largest nitrate loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater) return decreases but remains the largest nitrate mass loading factor. All other factors have the same nitrate mass loading as in the No-Project scenario. For Scenario 2, nitrate mass loading from agricultural (recycled water) return increases and replaces agricultural (groundwater) return as the largest nitrate loading factor. Agricultural (groundwater) return decreases and represents the fourth largest nitrate mass loading factor, behind municipal and septic system return. All other factors have the same nitrate mass loading as in the No-Project scenario. 5.5 Assimilative Capacity and Use by Recycled Water Projects 5.5.1 Future TDS Groundwater Concentrations Figure 5-10 shows the simulated future TDS concentrations from the calibrated mixing model for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Also shown on the chart is the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Values depicted in the chart are tabulated in Table 5-13. The cumulative concentration change is translated into assimilative capacity use at the bottom of the table. The table also shows the difference between each of future Scenarios 1 and 2 and the Scenario 0 (No-Project). This difference represents the water quality and assimilative capacity impact of just the future project(s) with the background impacts of the No Project conditions removed. As depicted in Figure 5-10 and shown in Table 5-13, the following conclusions can be made:  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin are projected to decrease from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 0.9 mg/L for Scenario 0 (No-Project).  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin are projected to increase from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 1.4 mg/L for Scenario 1 and by 3.5 mg/L for Scenario 2. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 60 Table 5-10: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year Figure 5-7: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8 45.8Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7 105.7OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.5 -2.2 -2.8 -3.4 -4.0 -4.5 -5.0 -5.5 -6.0 -6.4 -6.9 -7.3 -7.7 -8.0 -8.4 -8.7 -9.0 -9.3 -9.6 -9.9 -10.2Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -3.8 -7.1 -10.3 -13.3 -16.1 -18.8 -21.4 -23.9 -26.3 -28.5 -30.6 -32.7 -34.6 -36.5 -38.2 -39.9 -41.5 -43.0 -44.5 -45.9 -47.2 -48.4Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.0 -1.9 -2.7 -3.5 -4.2 -5.0 -5.6 -6.3 -6.9 -7.5 -8.1 -8.6 -9.1 -9.6 -10.1 -10.5 -10.9 -11.3 -11.7 -12.1 -12.4 -12.8Subsurface Outflow to Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL OUTFLOWS -6.0 -11.0 -15.9 -20.5 -24.9 -29.2 -33.2 -37.0 -40.6 -44.1 -47.4 -50.6 -53.6 -56.5 -59.2 -61.8 -64.3 -66.6 -68.9 -71.0 -73.1 -75.0Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change99.7 94.7 89.8 85.2 80.8 76.5 72.5 68.7 65.1 61.6 58.3 55.1 52.1 49.2 46.5 43.9 41.4 39.1 36.8 34.7 32.6 30.7Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change99.7 194.4 284.2 369.4 450.1 526.7 599.2 667.9 732.9 794.5 852.8 907.9 960.0 1,009.2 1,055.7 1,099.6 1,141.0 1,180.1 1,216.9 1,251.6 1,284.2 1,314.9All values in tons‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐120‐90‐60‐3003060901201502013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change (tons)Nitrate‐N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 61 Table 5-11: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year Figure 5-8: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8 33.8Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.217.2 17.2Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0 108.0OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.5 -2.2 -2.8 -3.4 -4.0 -4.6 -5.1 -5.6 -6.1 -6.6 -7.0 -7.4 -7.8 -8.2 -8.6 -8.9 -9.2 -9.5 -9.8 -10.1 -10.4Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -3.8 -7.2 -10.4 -13.5 -16.4 -19.2 -21.8 -24.4 -26.8 -29.1 -31.3 -33.3 -35.3 -37.2 -39.0 -40.8 -42.4 -43.9 -45.4 -46.8 -48.2 -49.5Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.0 -1.9 -2.7 -3.6 -4.3 -5.1 -5.8 -6.4 -7.1 -7.7 -8.2 -8.8 -9.3 -9.8 -10.3 -10.7 -11.2 -11.6 -12.0 -12.3 -12.7 -13.0Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -0.3 -0.5 -0.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2.0 -2.2 -2.3 -2.5 -2.6 -2.8 -2.9 -3.0 -3.2 -3.3 -3.4 -3.5 -3.6 -3.7TOTAL OUTFLOWS -6.0 -11.2 -16.1 -20.9 -25.4 -29.7 -33.8 -37.7 -41.4 -45.0 -48.4 -51.6 -54.7 -57.6 -60.4 -63.1 -65.6 -68.0 -70.3 -72.5 -74.6 -76.6Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change102.0 96.8 91.9 87.1 82.6 78.3 74.2 70.3 66.5 63.0 59.6 56.4 53.3 50.4 47.6 44.9 42.4 40.0 37.7 35.5 33.4 31.4Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change102.0 198.9 290.7 377.9 460.5 538.8 613.0 683.2 749.8 812.8 872.4 928.7 982.0 1,032.4 1,080.0 1,124.9 1,167.2 1,207.2 1,244.9 1,280.4 1,313.8 1,345.2All values in tons‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐120‐90‐60‐3003060901201502013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change (tons)Nitrate‐N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 62 Table 5-12: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) Mtn. – mountain Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen WY – water year Figure 5-9: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) Nitrate-N Mass Balance for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 2014-2035) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35INFLOWSAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front Recharge 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1Sonoma Creek Leakage 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation Return 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.341.3 41.3Municipal Irrigation Return 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7Septic System Return 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5Subsurface Inflow from Baylands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0TOTAL INFLOWS 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8 111.8OUTFLOWSGroundwater Pumping -0.8 -1.5 -2.2 -2.9 -3.5 -4.1 -4.7 -5.3 -5.8 -6.3 -6.8 -7.2 -7.7 -8.1 -8.5 -8.9 -9.2 -9.5 -9.9 -10.2 -10.5 -10.7Groundwater Discharge to Tributary Streams -3.8 -7.3 -10.7 -13.8 -16.9 -19.8 -22.5 -25.1 -27.6 -30.0 -32.3 -34.5 -36.5 -38.5 -40.4 -42.1 -43.8 -45.5 -47.0 -48.5 -49.9 -51.2Groundwater Discharge to Sonoma Creek -1.0 -1.9 -2.8 -3.6 -4.4 -5.2 -5.9 -6.6 -7.3 -7.9 -8.5 -9.1 -9.6 -10.1 -10.6 -11.1 -11.5 -12.0 -12.4 -12.8 -13.1 -13.5Subsurface Outflow to Baylands -0.3 -0.5 -0.8 -1.0 -1.3 -1.5 -1.7 -1.9 -2.1 -2.2 -2.4 -2.6 -2.7 -2.9 -3.0 -3.1 -3.3 -3.4 -3.5 -3.6 -3.7 -3.8TOTAL OUTFLOWS -6.0 -11.4 -16.5 -21.4 -26.1 -30.6 -34.8 -38.9 -42.8 -46.5 -50.0 -53.3 -56.5 -59.6 -62.5 -65.2 -67.9 -70.4 -72.7 -75.0 -77.2 -79.2Annual Nitrate-N Mass Change105.9 100.5 95.3 90.4 85.7 81.3 77.0 72.9 69.1 65.4 61.9 58.5 55.3 52.3 49.4 46.6 44.0 41.5 39.1 36.8 34.7 32.6Cumulative Nitrate-N Mass Change105.9 206.4 301.7 392.1 477.9 559.2 636.2 709.1 778.2 843.5 905.4 963.9 1,019.2 1,071.5 1,120.8 1,167.5 1,211.4 1,252.9 1,292.0 1,328.9 1,363.5 1,396.1All values in tons‐6,000‐4,000‐2,00002,0004,0006,000‐150‐120‐90‐60‐3003060901201502013‐142015‐162017‐182019‐202021‐222023‐242025‐262027‐282029‐302031‐322033‐34Cumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change (tons)Nitrate‐N Mass (tons)Water YearSubsurface Inflow from BaylandsSonoma Creek LeakageAerial Precipitation / Mtn. Front RechargeSeptic System ReturnAgricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation ReturnMunicipal Irrigation ReturnAgricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation ReturnSubsurface Outflow to BaylandsGroundwater PumpingGroundwater Discharge to Sonoma CreekGroundwater Discharge to Tributary StreamsCumulative Nitrate‐N Mass Change Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 63 Figure 5-10: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations 340 360 380 400 420 2010201520202025203020352040TDS (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 64 Table 5-13: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity Use TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter AFY – acre-feet per year RW – recycled water WY – water year AC – assimilative capacity Future Scenario 0      (No‐Project)           Future  Scenario 1      (2035 Recycled  Water                 Conditions) Future Scenario 2.     (2035 RW Conditions  + 5,000 AFY RW) 2013 372.0 372.0 372.0 2014 371.9 372.1 372.4 2015 371.9 372.2 372.7 2016 371.8 372.3 373.1 2017 371.8 372.4 373.4 2018 371.7 372.5 373.7 2019 371.7 372.5 374.0 2020 371.6 372.6 374.3 2021 371.6 372.7 374.6 2022 371.5 372.8 374.8 2023 371.5 372.8 375.1 2024 371.4 372.9 375.3 2025 371.4 372.9 375.5 2026 371.4 373.0 375.7 2027 371.3 373.1 375.9 2028 371.3 373.1 376.1 2029 371.3 373.2 376.3 2030 371.2 373.2 376.5 2031 371.2 373.2 376.7 2032 371.2 373.3 376.8 2033 371.2 373.3 377.0 2034 371.1 373.4 377.1 2035 371.1 373.4 377.2 Basin Plan Objective Average Ambient TDS Concentration (mg/L) Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) 10% AC concentration  change  (mg/L) 10% AC concentration (mg/L) WY 2035 concentration (mg/L)371.1                             373.4                             377.2                              WY 2013 to WY 2035 change  (mg/L)(0.9)                                1.4                                  5.2                                   WY 2013 to WY 2035 (% AC Used) 0%1.1%4.1% Difference compared to No‐Project (mg/L)2.3                                  6.1                                   Difference compared to No‐Project (% AC)1.8%4.8% Water Year TDS (mg/L) 128.0 12.8 384.8 500.0 372.0 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 65  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected TDS concentrations remain well below the BPO of 500 mg/L. When considering the differences between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 1.8% (2.3 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity, while Scenario 2 use 4.8% (6.1 mg/L) of the assimilative capacity. 5.5.2 Nitrate-N Groundwater Concentrations Figure 5-11 shows the simulated results of the calibrated mixing model for nitrate for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The chart shows the simulated concentration trends for each scenario and the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Table 5-14 shows the mixing model simulated nitrate concentration change over the future planning period for each scenario in mg/L. The cumulative concentration change is translated into assimilative capacity use at the bottom of the table. The table also shows the difference between each of future Scenarios 1 and 2 and the Scenario 0 (No-Project). This difference represents the water quality and assimilative capacity impact of just the future project(s) with the background impacts of the No Project conditions removed. As depicted in Figure 5-11 and shown in Table 5-14, the following conclusions can be made:  Average nitrate concentrations in the subbasin are projected to increase similarly for all three scenarios from WY 2013 to WY 2035 (between 0.83 and 0.88 mg/L).  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected nitrate concentrations remain well below the BPO of 10 mg/L. When considering the difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 0.2% (0.02 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity (9.93 mg/L), while Scenario 2 uses 0.5% (0.05 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity. It is noted that projected increases in nitrate concentrations in the Inland area of the subbasin are considered conservative given the assumptions incorporated in the calibration of the mixing model for nitrate (see discussion in Section 4.3). Additionally, despite portions of existing and proposed future recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2- 1), all TDS and nitrate loading associated with recycled water use was applied within the Inlands area in the mixing model and S/N balance. Average groundwater nitrate concentrations are predicted to increase asymptotically toward the volume-weighted average nitrate concentration of basin inflows for each scenario (1.31 mg/L for Scenario 0, 1.33 mg/L for Scenario 1, and 1.38 mg/L for Scenario 2). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 66 Figure 5-11: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2010201520202025203020352040Nitrate-N (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 67 Table 5-14: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity Use Nitrate-N – nitrate as nitrogen mg/L – milligrams per liter AFY – acre-feet per year RW – recycled water WY – water year AC – assimilative capacity Future Scenario 0      (No‐Project)           Future  Scenario 1      (2035 Recycled  Water                 Conditions) Future Scenario 2      (2035 RW Conditions  + 5,000 AFY RW) 2013 0.07 0.07 0.07 2014 0.13 0.13 0.13 2015 0.19 0.19 0.19 2016 0.24 0.25 0.25 2017 0.29 0.30 0.31 2018 0.34 0.35 0.36 2019 0.39 0.40 0.41 2020 0.44 0.44 0.46 2021 0.48 0.49 0.50 2022 0.52 0.53 0.55 2023 0.56 0.57 0.59 2024 0.60 0.61 0.63 2025 0.63 0.64 0.66 2026 0.66 0.68 0.70 2027 0.70 0.71 0.73 2028 0.73 0.74 0.77 2029 0.76 0.77 0.80 2030 0.78 0.80 0.83 2031 0.81 0.83 0.86 2032 0.84 0.85 0.88 2033 0.86 0.88 0.91 2034 0.88 0.90 0.93 2035 0.90 0.92 0.95 Basin Plan Objective Average Ambient TDS Concentration (mg/L) Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) 10% AC concentration change  (mg/L) 10% AC concentration  (mg/L) WY 2035 concentration  (mg/L)0.90                                0.92                                0.95                                 WY 2013 to WY 2035 change  (mg/L)0.83                                0.85                                0.88                                 WY 2013 to WY 2035 (% AC Used)8.4%8.6%8.9% Difference compared to No‐Project (mg/L)0.02                                0.05                                 Difference compared to No‐Project (% AC)0.2%0.5% Water Year 0.99 1.06 Nitrate‐N (mg/L) 10.00 0.07 9.93 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM August 2013 68 6 References Bauer, Jacob P., December 2008, “Update to Regional Groundwater Flow Model simulation of Sonoma Valley Including a New Model for Recharge and Three Future Scenarios”, A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences and the committee on graduate studies at Stanford University City of Sonoma, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Hem, J.D., 1989, “Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water (third edition)”, U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254 RMC, January 10, 2013, “Meeting Notes, Sonoma Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan, Meeting with SF Bay Region RWQCB” RMC Water and Environment, May 2013, “Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), 2010, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program: 2010 Annual Report” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 2007, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan” San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), December 31, 2010, “San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)” RMC, January 10, 2013, “Meeting Notes, Sonoma Valley Salt & Nutrient Management Plan, Meeting with SF Bay Region RWQCB” State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), May 2009 Draft, amended September 2012, October 2012, and January 2013, approved January 2013, “Recycled Water Policy” State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), revised August 2010, “Groundwater Information Sheet Nitrate” United States Geological Survey, 2006, “Geohydrologic Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground- Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California”, Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5092. Valley of the Moon Water District, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Appendix B - Meeting Summaries for Regional Water Quality Control Board Meetings January 2013 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Minutes Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Meeting with SF Bay Region RWQCB Prepared For: Sonoma County Water Agency Attendees: Ralph Lambert, Alec Naugle, Barbara Baginska (RWQCB); Marcus Trotta, Kevin Booker (SCWA); Dave Richardson, Christy Kennedy (RMC); Tim Parker (Parker Groundwater); Sally McCraven (Todd Engineers) Prepared By: Christy Kennedy Date/Time: January 10, 2013: 2-3pm Location: SFRWQCB Office, Oakland Project Number: 0047-008.00 1. Purpose of Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to communicate process and progress of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), and to confirm the approach to the analysis. 2. Discussion Summary The Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) and RMC provided an overview of the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin, the Groundwater Management Plan and the Salt and Nutrient Plan process and progress to date. The Water Agency manages and operates the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (CSD), which is the primary purveyor of recycled water within the basin, and is leading development of the SNMP for Sonoma Valley. Handouts were provided and attached that highlight the key discussion items below. 2.1 Groundwater Management in Sonoma Valley 1. The Water Agency described the current groundwater basin setting and water management in Sonoma Valley. Currently, there is not a robust system of dedicated groundwater monitoring wells, and the Water Agency does not operate supply wells in the basin. 2. There are around 1,800 rural/domestic wells and 60% of the water use in the basin is groundwater, 40% is imported Russian River water for urban supplies. 3. The basin has an AB303 Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) and groundwater management group, which is a voluntary and non-regulatory program. 4. The Water Agency is the lead agency for the AB303 GMP, but does not have regulatory powers related to groundwater within the basin. 2.2 SNMP Approach 1. The approach to developing the SNMP collaboratively in Sonoma Valley is to hold a series of stakeholder workshops at key milestones within the technical analysis process. The workshops are held in conjunction with the Technical Advisory Committee and the Basin Advisory Panel for the Groundwater Management Plan. The next workshop being held on January 17, 2013 was discussed and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was invited to attend. Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes January 2013 Page 2 of 3 2.3 Baseline Groundwater Quality 1. Data sources include the Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), United States Geological Survey (USGS), State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program, and the Water Agency. While the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy recommends using the most recent five years of data to establish average groundwater quality for the basin, significant data from older studies will be used to provide a more robust data set. Specifically, the SNMP proposes using the 2003-2006 data from the USGS Study to supplement the data set in order to calculate basin averages. RWQCB staff agreed that it is reasonable to use the 2000-2012 period for establishing current basin averages. 2. Historic total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate concentration trends in shallow and deep aquifer zones are fairly flat across the period of record. 3. The areal distribution of water quality data and depth-discrete data were analyzed with the intent of developing local area and depth-discrete salt and nutrient averages and assimilative capacity estimates; however, it was determined that the data are too limited to support such an analysis. Accordingly, the proposed approach for establishing average TDS and nitrate and available assimilative capacity, is to average across the basin and all depth intervals to estimate one average TDS and nitrate concentration for the entire basin. a. RWQCB staff (BB) asked that shallow and deep zones be taken into account in the monitoring plan and potential implementation measures. While a depth discrete analysis of the assimilative capacity is preferred, the consultant team stated that it was not possible for this basin with the available data. b. Areas exceeding Basin Plan Objectives (BPOs) for TDS or nitrate would be considered when developing implementation measures, however, the source of elevated concentration may not be able to be determined based on available data. 4. Overall the basin has good water quality with very low nitrate levels and mostly flat trends for TDS. The southwestern portion of the basin (called “Baylands” area) is an area with historical saline groundwater due to the proximity of and possible intrusion from San Pablo Bay. The area is a marshy tidally-influenced wetland adjacent to the Bay. There are no active public water supply wells in the area and available water quality data is limited to data collected from seven wells prior to 1973 and three former public water supply wells prior to 1988 located at the former Skaggs Island Naval Communication Center which was decommissioned in 1993 (note: details on dates and number of wells added to minutes for reader clarification after the meeting with RWQCB). All historical water quality samples collected from these wells (between 1954 and 1988) exhibit TDS concentrations exceeding the BPO for TDS of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l), ranging from 520 to 2,740 mg/l. The Sonoma Valley SNMP approach is to develop an assimilative capacity estimate for the inland portion of the valley excluding this historically intruded area. RWQCB staff agreed that it made sense to break out the two areas (Inland and Baylands). There is available assimilative capacity for both TDS and nitrate in the Sonoma Valley basin when the historically saline groundwater from the Baylands area is excluded from the average calculations. 2.4 Loading Model 1. A GIS model is being used for the loading analysis, which looks at loading of TDS and nitrate to the groundwater basin. Key model assumptions and preliminary loading estimates for land cover categories with similar salt and nutrient characteristics were shared with the group. Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes January 2013 Page 3 of 3 2.5 Water Recycling and Stormwater Recharge Goals 1. For goal setting, the approach is to use the recycling water use goals from Urban Water Management Plans developed by the City of Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District, and for stormwater recharge, numeric goals will not be set for the SNMP. The SNMP will reference stormwater recharge efforts within the Valley and indicate that updates to the SNMP will be made when stormwater recharge projects are further developed. The RWQCB staff agreed with our proposed approach for goal setting. 2.6 SNMP Template for the Bay Area Region 1. The Sonoma Valley SNMP is being funded through a Prop. 84 Planning Grant, and as part of that grant the team will develop SNMP template. The template will be available to other agencies within the region to use as a guide when preparing their own SNMP. Specific direction was not provided for template development but RWQCB staff noted these templates could be useful, and that they had done outreach to Napa and the Westside basin along the San Francisco Peninsula. 2.7 Basin Plan Amendment 1. RWQCB staff (BB) requested that the SNMP Executive Summary (or other similar section) include text that could be readily used for the Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) description of the SNMP, should a BPA be required for the basin (note: there is still ongoing discussion of this requirement internally within RWQCB). The summary should include goals, why the plan was developed, where the region/basin is located, major components of the SNMP and should be a short summary of what was done as part of the SNMP process and how. 2. The group discussed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) needs for the SNMP. While some basins with extensive implementation measures (example: Zone 7) will require a CEQA analysis to amend the Basin Plan, it is unclear at this time if CEQA is necessary for the Sonoma Valley plan where implementation measures beyond what is currently being done in the basin. The Sonoma Valley team is not intending to complete a CEQA analysis on the SNMP at this time. RWQCB staff will be discussing this item with their management and will follow-up with the Sonoma Valley team. May 2013 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Minutes Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Coordination Meeting with SF Bay RWQCB Prepared For: Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Attendees: Alec Naugle, Barbara Baginska, Ben Livsey (RWQCB); Marcus Trotta, Kevin Booker, Jay Jasperse (SCWA); Dave Richardson, Christy Kennedy (RMC); Edwin Lin (Todd Engineers) Prepared By: Christy Kennedy Date/Time: May 14, 2013: 1:30-3:30pm Location: SFBRWQCB Office, Oakland Project Number: 0047-008.00 1. Purpose of Meeting The purpose of the meeting was to communicate progress of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP), convey the technical analysis findings, obtain input on approach to management measures and monitoring plan, and understand what is needed for plan finalization and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control (RWQCB). 2. Discussion Summary The Sonoma Valley team (SCWA/SVCSD, RMC and Todd Engineers) provided an overview of the Sonoma Valley SNMP process and progress to date. Handouts (amended in the attached version to include the dairy loading table) were provided and attached that highlight the key discussion items below. 2.1 Introduction Around the table introduction were made and Christy Kennedy, RMC, gave an overview of the SNMP progress to-date. The SNMP is being conducted in a collaborative manner utilizing the stakeholder infrastructure developed through the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) process. This consists of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which meets monthly and Basin Advisory Panel (BAP) that meets quarterly. Stakeholders include a wide cross-section of municipal agencies, non-profit organizations, environmental groups, private well owners, dairy owners, and various vineyard and agricultural groups that represent those with interest in groundwater management and salt and nutrient impacts within the basin. 2.2 Existing Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity 1. Edwin Lin, Todd Engineers, gave an overview of the existing water quality within the basin, utilizing a baseline period dataset from 2000-2012. The basin is divided into the Inland and Baylands areas at a dividing line of 750 mg/L TDS. The average concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate-N in the Inland area is 372 mg/L and 0.07 mg/L, respectively. Both constituents are well below the Basin Plan Objectives (BPOs) of 500 mg/L for TDS, and 10 mg/L for nitrate-N. Trends for TDS and nitrate are generally flat across the full data set representing up to about 50 years of data. 2. RWQCB staff (BB) asked if hotspots were present around dense septic areas. Edwin responded that no hotspots are visible within the existing dataset however the data is fairly limited and well completion reports are not available for all of the wells to denote their depth (shallow or deep). 3. Edwin gave an overview of the water balance and answered calibration questions, then described the mixing model. The mixing model was developed as one-layer or box for the Inland Area, and mixes over a reasonable depth of the basin (limited to a saturated depth of 400 feet for operating volume). Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes May 2013 Page 2 of 3 4. Christy described the loading model and gave an overview of loading parameters. It was noted that the TDS and nitrate-N values for septic system return are currently being refined (increased) but were not expected to change the findings. 2.3 Future Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity 1. Edwin gave an overview of the future water quality assessment. Three scenarios were run, 1- No project, 2 – Future recycled water estimates of 4,069 AFY, and 3 – Future recycled water estimates plus an additional 5,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water. Scenarios showed that recycled water projects will use <10% of the available assimilative capacity and average concentrations stay below BPOs for both TDS and nitrate. 2. Marcus Trotta, Sonoma County Water Agency, noted that recycled water programs are in place to help alleviate a pumping depression in the deeper aquifer zones by offsetting groundwater pumping through deliveries of recycled water for irrigation. Increasing the use of recycled water can reduce the potential for saline water intrusion into the groundwater basin. 2.4 Implementation Measures 1. The results of the technical analysis show good water quality with relatively flat trends through 2035, therefore, no implementation measures beyond continuing existing programs are recommended. RWQCB staff acknowledged that the approach to not recommend new implementation measures might be appropriate. Further consideration of this issue will be given once the draft SNMP is submitted for final review by RWQCB staff. 2. The voluntary Groundwater Management Program will be identified as a process that the SNMP will support, but programs and activities covered by the Groundwater Management Program will not be considered “implementation measures” for the SNMP. Other management measures that should continue but do not constitute “implementation measures” are recycled water permit requirement BMPs, agricultural BMPs, onsite wastewater treatment system (septic) BMPs and municipal wastewater treatment plant source control programs. 3. The Water Agency is also evaluating the feasibility of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) utilizing wintertime Russian River drinking water. The recycled water, stormwater recharge and ASR programs and studies are being conducted as voluntary programs to help manage water supply reliability within the basin and are not considered implementation measures within this SNMP. 4. The future expansion of the recycled water application in Sonoma Valley is already covered under existing CEQA/NEPA documents, and any GMP programs resulting in infrastructure projects like groundwater banking or stormwater recharge would be covered under a separate environment compliance process. 2.5 Groundwater Monitoring Program 1. The recommended groundwater monitoring program consists of existing wells monitored by CDPH, DWR and SVGMP. 2. The Groundwater Monitoring Plan will be submitted as a stand-alone document that is an appendix of the SNMP so that if modification of the monitoring plan is required it can be done without a complete SNMP update. 3. SCWA recently obtained outside funding through an AB303 grant to install additional monitoring wells within the basin. There is a data gap area around the Baylands-Inland area transition and future funding will be pursued to expand the monitoring network. 4. The monitoring program reporting should be uploaded in the RWQCB’s Geotracker online data system. This will be completed on a three-year interval. Sonoma Valley - Salt & Nutrient Management Plan Meeting Minutes May 2013 Page 3 of 3 2.6 Basin Plan Amendment and CEQA Process 1. The Sonoma Valley team asked for direction for RWQCB approval of the final SNMP. 2. The Final SNMP will likely go the SCWA Board of Directors as an informational item only and not be submitted for formal approval or adoption. After this action has been completed, the Final SNMP (including an Executive Summary for the RWQCB’s use in their BPA process) will be submitted to the RWQCB. 3. RWQCB staff is obtaining direction from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on the Basin Plan Amendment process. The SWRCB is considering whether the scientific peer review of the SNMP and/or BPA would be needed.. It is not known at this time if the Sonoma Valley SNMP which has no new implementation measures recommended, would need to go through this peer review process. The peer review process could add four+ months to the schedule. 4. If a peer review is required for the Sonoma Valley SNMP, RWQCB staff will request help from the Sonoma Valley team in providing responses to peer review comments. If necessary, the SNMP may require revisions from peer review findings. 5. It has not been determined at this time if CEQA for the Sonoma Valley SNMP is required. RWQCB staff may need to develop a “Substitute CEQA Document” but it is not clear if that is necessary if the Sonoma Valley SNMP is approved as a “non-regulatory” Basin Plan Amendment. RWQCB staff concurred that moving forward as a “non-regulatory” document for inclusion in the Basin Plan Amendment is an option, and is reasonable since no new implementation measures are recommended and no discretionary items are incorporated in the SNMP that require CEQA documentation. More information about the CEQA process will be forth coming in the June, CEQA specific meeting to be hosted by the RWQCB for the region (see bullet # 2 under Next Steps). The Sonoma Valley team requested that the Sonoma Valley basin be considered as a special case that may not require the same Basin Plan Amendment and CEQA actions that other basins with poorer water quality, increasing quality trends, and implementation measures may be subject to. 6. If a CEQA process is determined to be needed for the Sonoma Valley SNMP the RWQCB staff have requested assistance in the following areas: a. Developing CEQA alternatives - likely alternatives will be the “no-project” alternative, and Scenario 1 describing future recycling project implementation b. Scoping meeting coordination, noticing, and presentation of findings 2.7 Next Steps 1. The Sonoma Valley SNMP is being funded through a Prop. 84 Planning Grant, and as part of that grant the team will develop SNMP template. The template will be available to other agencies within the region to use as a guide when preparing their own SNMP. The template is being drafted and will be discussed and reviewed by the Bay Area agencies at the June 3rd Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) Coordinating Committee Meeting. After comments are incorporated into the template, it will be submitted to the RWQCB for review. 2. RWQCB staff (BB) noted they are planning to convene an all-agency meeting to go through the CEQA process requirements for SNMPs, and asked input on the benefits of this proposed meeting. The Sonoma Valley team agreed this meeting would be useful. This meeting will likely be scheduled in mid June. RWQCB will send out a list of questions in advance of the meeting and allow each agency up to 15 minutes to provide an overview of their basin and response to the submitted questions. 3. RWQCB staff (BL) is planning on attending the July 17, 2013 Sonoma Valley stakeholder workshop presenting the Draft SNMP. Appendix C - Guidance Document for SNMPs for the San Francisco Bay Region Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region Prepared by: Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District August 2013 August 2013 2 of 10 Table of Contents Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization ......................................................................................................... 3 Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area .......................................................................... 3 Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders .................................................................................................................... 4 Task 1.3 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives ................................................................ 4 Task 1.4 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data ........................................ 4 Task 1.5 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization .................................................................. 5 Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water .......................................................................................... 6 Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities .................................................... 6 Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals ................................................................... 6 Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources .................................................................. 6 Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin ............................................................................................... 6 Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity ........................................................................................... 7 Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools .................................................................................... 7 Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information ........................................................................................ 7 Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures ................................................................... 8 Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon ........................................................................................................ 8 Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads ................................................................................ 8 Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality .................................................................................................. 8 Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies ............................. 9 Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures .... 9 Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 10 Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination ......................................................... 10 August 2013 3 of 10 Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans San Francisco Bay Region August 2013 This Guidance Document was developed as a result of the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) preparation effort. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District, along with the Zone 7 Water Agency and Santa Clara Valley Water District are developing SNMPs in three priority groundwater basins (as identified by the Regional Water Board) for the San Francisco Bay Region. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The California state-wide Recycled Water Policy, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2009, indicates that Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) are to be developed for groundwater basins in California, to address the potential for increased salt and nutrient loading from increased recycled water use and other sources. It is anticipated that SNMPs will contain the following components to be responsive to both the Recycled Water Policy requirements and the Basin Planning Amendment process undertaken by the Regional Water Board:  General groundwater basin information and characteristics  Beneficial use designation  Goals for water recycling and stormwater recharge/use (as applicable);  Salt and nutrient source identification;  Water quality objectives (both narrative and numeric)  Salt and nutrient source loading and assimilative capacity estimates;  Implementation measures and management strategies;  Antidegradation analysis, as needed;  Development of a basin-wide monitoring plan; and  A provision for monitoring Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) in recycled water used for groundwater recharge reuse.  A statement regarding Plan limitations The purpose of this document is to describe the common steps that may be undertaken by Bay Area groups in preparing an SNMP. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is expected to consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. It may be appropriate to meet with Regional Water Board staff early in the process of developing an SNMP, to ensure common expectations before resources are expended. Step 1 Initial Basin Characterization Task 1.1 Identify the Basin and Delineate the Study Area  Delineate the study area for salt and nutrient management planning. August 2013 4 of 10  Identify the areal extent of the groundwater basin, including if known, the watershed area tributary to the aquifer, known source loads or impacts within the watershed, the location of existing or proposed recycled water use areas, and/or jurisdictional boundaries. o In developing SNMPs, it is recognized that the SNMP may wish to address study areas using a sub-basin approach. o SNMPs interested in focusing on groundwater supply development may define the study area to encompass anticipated project sites other than recycled water, or source control needs such as control of pollutants from a dairy operation. Task 1.2 Identify Stakeholders  Develop a preliminary list of stakeholders (including potential interest, contact person, and contact information). Key stakeholders include local agencies involved in groundwater management, owners and operators of recharge facilities, water purveyors, water districts, wastewater agencies, known salt and nutrient contributing dischargers, and the general public.  Perform outreach and obtain stakeholder feedback for planning process (now or near future). Task 1.3 Establish Communication with the Regional Water Board  Identify a point of contact at the Regional Water Board with whom to coordinate the preparation of your SNMP. Task 1.4 Identify Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives  Identify designated beneficial uses of the groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2).  Identify water quality objectives for groundwater basin (see 2011 Basin Plan, starting on page 2-8). Task 1.5 Identify, Collect, and Review Existing Groundwater Studies and Data  Collect and review readily available and applicable regional groundwater and salt/nutrient management studies and data. Studies with data on groundwater quality, use, supply development, and salt and nutrient loading may be useful. The types of studies and data that may be useful include the following: o Planning documents, including Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and Groundwater Management Plans o Groundwater supply, storage, or conjunctive use studies; o Groundwater aquifer hydrogeologic investigations; o Groundwater quality studies or groundwater protection studies; o Groundwater models o Recycled water compliance, assimilative capacity, and Basin Plan studies; August 2013 5 of 10 o Pollutant modeling and transport studies; o Watershed studies; and o Source assessment evaluations.  Collect and review readily available and applicable well data and information, as follows: o Existing and planned municipal supply wells or projects within the basin. o Private groundwater wells or private well areas within the basin.  Contact organizations engaged in ongoing groundwater monitoring to determine if the collected data can be made available for use in the SNMP. Task 1.6 Perform Initial Groundwater Quality Characterization  Review prior reference studies and data (collected as part of Task 1.5) and assess the reliability and specificity of the groundwater quality data, depth-to-water data, and estimates for hydrogeologic parameters, as applicable.  Identify the parameters of interest for the plan which should include salts and nutrients but could include other parameters of interest that adversely affect groundwater quality. These parameters should be based on collected groundwater quality information and stakeholder input.  Identify whether readily available data and information is sufficient to complete a baseline analysis to determine if the groundwater basin is currently meeting water quality objectives. If not, develop a plan for collecting data, collect the data, and then return to next step.  If data are sufficient, review data to determine whether (1) water quality objectives are being exceeded, and (2) any trends that show an increase in salt or nutrient management concentrations.  Select and justify preliminary planning horizon to look into the future (such as 20 years – similar to a UWMP planning horizon), depending on expected changes in the future such Potential Off-Ramp #1 Evaluate the potential feasibility of water uses for beneficial use consistent with land use within the region. If groundwater is not considered suitable for use as a municipal or domestic water supply by meeting an exception listed in State Board Resolution No. 88-63 - The Sources of Drinking Water Policy, then at a minimum, Best Management Practices can be documented along with the basin characterization and comprise the SNMP in lieu of the standard required elements listed in the Recycled Water Policy. Depending on stakeholder input, other elements, such as a simplified groundwater monitoring plan could also be included. If groundwater is used as a public water supply in the basin, proceed to next bullet. August 2013 6 of 10 as growth, land use changes, water supply changes and increases in recycled water application.  Evaluate historical trends and anticipated projects that would contribute salt or nutrients to the groundwater, and estimate whether an exceedance of water quality objectives is anticipated within the planning horizon (document the evaluation and results). Step 2 Recycled Water and Recharge Water Task 2.1 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water/Use Quantities  Collect available data and information about current and predicted recycled water and recharge water (including stormwater or imported water)/use. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) can be used as an initial data source. Recycled water producers will also have information about recycled water and potential plans for future expanded use. Task 2.2 Identify Recycled Water and Recharge Water Goals  Identify the goals of the recycled water studies, and stormwater and other recharge water studies related to the basin. Goals should be consistent with the goals within the Recycled Water Policy to increase recycled water use and stormwater recharge. Gather data about the future quantitative goals for these projects. Step 3 Comprehensive Review of Salt and Nutrient Sources Task 3.1 Evaluate Sources within the Basin  Identify general land uses within the basin.  Identify known sources of salt/nutrient loads within the basin, to supplement work from Task 1.4. Sources may include: o Applied Water (groundwater) Potential Off-Ramp #2 If there is a sound basis that water quality objectives will not be exceeded, this basin is a No Threat basin. Document the basin characterization, evaluation and results, including Best Management Practices. This documentation will comprise the SNMP unless stakeholders determine collaboratively that other elements suggested by the Recycled Water Policy (i.e. a groundwater monitoring plan) should be included. If it is estimated that water quality objectives would be exceeded, or if there is uncertainty regarding whether water quality objectives would be exceeded, proceed to next section (Step 2). August 2013 7 of 10 o Applied Water (surface water) o Recycled Water Application o Artificial Recharge of Stormwater Runoff o Artificial Recharge with Imported Water Supplies o Atmospheric Deposition o Biosolids Application o Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Facilities o Creek Recharge o Agriculture, including applied fertilizer and soil amendments o Dairy Operations o Mines o Natural Geologic Sources o Natural Soil Conditions o Point Source Wastewater Discharges o Rainfall o Seawater Intrusion o Septic Tank Discharges o Storage Ponds o Streamflow Infiltration o Subsurface Inflow (including upstream inflow and seawater intrusion) o Urban Runoff  Identify the locations where source loads are impacting the basin. Task 3.2 Quantify Basin Assimilative Capacity  Using water quality data gathered under Task 1, establish the baseline water quality. Calculation of constituent concentrations can be performed with a spatial averaging approach.  Compare these values to the Basin Plan water quality objectives, taking dilution into account if appropriate, to determine the assimilative capacity of the basin. The assimilative capacity is the difference between the water quality objectives and the existing water quality, taking into account dilution if appropriate. If the basin has either an existing or potential beneficial use of municipal and domestic supply (see 2011 Basin Plan, Table 2-2), compliance with the water quality objectives for municipal supply should be assessed (see Basin Plan, Table 3-5). Task 3.3 Develop Source Load Assessment Tools  Develop tools for assessing salt and nutrient loading, as well as fate and transport, of salts and nutrients. Examples of tools include geographical information system (GIS) relational models, groundwater flow/transport models (complex basins) or spreadsheet- based mass balance computations. Task 3.4 Gather Fate and Transport Information  Gather information about the fate and transport of salts and nutrients in the basin. Reviewing California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 can be a starting point for this process.  Additional tasks that may be useful are as follows: August 2013 8 of 10 o On the basis of available hydrogeological, water quality, or geologic studies, determine fault lines, bedrock constrictions, or vertical stratification that may affect transport and groundwater quality. o Identify known hydrogeologic parameters for the basin (e.g. hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, etc.) and the bases on which these parameters were estimated. o Assess the geographic completeness of existing groundwater quality data, depth- to-water data, and hydrogeologic parameters and determine if any data gaps exist that prevent geographic, seasonal, or depth-dependent characterization of groundwater quality, occurrence or transport. o Assess the geographic distribution of water quality concentrations for the salt/nutrient parameters of interest, and assess the depth-dependent distribution of water quality. Step 4 Salt/Nutrient Loading and Implementation Measures Task 4.1 Determine Planning Horizon  Determine an appropriate planning horizon (the number of years to look into the future), and justify the selection. A longer timeframe may be useful, such as the one established in the region's UWMPs (e.g., 25 years), especially if the region expects limited growth. If the region expects significant land use changes or projects with expected impacts to salt and nutrient loadings (such as recharge projects with stormwater or recycled water), a shorter time frame (e.g., 10 years) is recommended. Task 4.2 Estimate Future Salt/Nutrient Source Loads  Prepare estimates for future recharge flow to the basin from surface and subsurface sources, discharge/withdrawal (flow) from the basin, and salt and nutrient loading from the sources identified in Task 3.1. Land use data may provide valuable information for estimating source loads.  Building on the baseline calculations performed in Task 3.2, use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to compute predicted concentration estimates that are representative of the basin for the identified constituents of interest. Task 4.3 Determine Future Water Quality  Develop a mixing model on an annual time step for the selected planning horizon to mix the load concentrations developed within the basin. A spreadsheet model is typically adequate for the mixing analysis. Available data from other basin models (e.g. existing USGS or other models) such as hydrogeology characteristics (depth of mixing), water balance and water quality concentration information may be extracted and used within the mixing model. Comment on limitations and sensitivities within the mixing model (i.e. mixing depth, timing of future land use or land management changes, etc).  Determine the degree to which the basin will be exceeding applicable water quality objectives for the identified salt and nutrient parameters within the planning horizon. August 2013 9 of 10  Determine the impact of recycled water on the assimilative capacity of the basin.  Assess the general level of effort for managing salts and nutrients in the basin. Consider the basin’s characteristics and uses in this assessment. Task 4.4 Identify Appropriate Implementation Measures and Management Strategies  Identify the basin's existing implementation measures and strategies to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin. If future water quality trends are flat, BPOs are not being exceeded or projected to be exceeded, and recycled water project utilize less than 10% assimilative capacity (or 20% for multiple projects); existing management measures may be sufficient for managing salts and nutrients within the basin.  If salt and/or nutrient concentrations are increasing, additional implementation measures may be necessary. In a collaborative manner with Plan participants, develop (as applicable) a list of additional, appropriate implementation measures and management strategies (additional measures) to manage salt and nutrient loading in the basin on a sustainable basis. Examples of best management practices (BMPs) include: o Irrigation at agronomic rates o Configuration of irrigation and drainage facilities in land application fields to reasonably minimize runoff of applied animal waste o Fertilizer use workshops o Industrial discharge controls (local pretreatment limits, high strength surcharge for nutrients and/or salts) o Irrigation workshops o Land use policy modification o Recharge program adoption or modification (stormwater, recycled water, imported water) o Recycled water application limitations or quality guidelines o Septic system BMPs o Source load diversion/control Task 4.5 Assess Load Reduction & Water Quality Improvement Associated with Additional Measures  If additional measures are being considered, it may be of interest to evaluate the ability of the additional measures to achieve load reduction or groundwater quality improvement. Use the tool developed in Task 3.3 to assess the ranges of potential load reduction and water quality improvement effects associated with additional measures, if appropriate.  Evaluate and compare the additional implementation measures and select the preferred measure(s) for implementation. It may be appropriate to consult among stakeholders to inform the process of making decisions about implementation measures. Step 5 Antidegradation Analysis  Conduct an antidegradation analysis to demonstrate that implementation measures, including identified projects, included within the SNMP will collectively comply with the requirements of Resolution No. 68-16. August 2013 10 of 10 Step 6 Basin/Sub-basin Wide Monitoring Plan  Identify existing monitoring wells and select appropriately located wells to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. Focus on water quality near water supply wells, but also consider wells near large water recycling projects and groundwater recharge projects. Consider a range of well depths to monitor shallow or deep zones, as appropriate.  Propose additional (new) monitoring wells if appropriate.  Determine appropriate salt and nutrient parameters and monitoring frequencies that are reasonable and cost-effective that may help determine whether the Basin Plan water quality objectives for salts and nutrients are being, or are threatening to be, exceeded. Monitoring data should be evaluated to understand the effectiveness of the BMPs developed as part of Task 4.4. Refer to the amended Recycled Water Policy (April 2013) for guidance on CEC monitoring requirements.  Identify stakeholders responsible for maintaining, assessing, and storing the monitoring data. Step 7 Plan Documents and Regional Water Board Coordination  Compile analyses in a Plan document.  Coordinate with the Regional Water Board on next steps regarding Plan submittal and support of their Basin Plan Amendment and California Environmental Quality Act compliance process. Appendix D - Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading Technical Memorandum May 2013 1 Technical Memorandum Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading Prepared For: Marcus Trotta, SVCSD Prepared by: Chris van Lienden, RMC Reviewed by: Christy Kennedy, RMC, John Dickey, PlanTierra Date: 28 June 2013 Reference: 0047-008 1 Introduction An analysis of salt and nutrient loading occurring due to surface activities is presented to identify sources of salt and nutrients, evaluate their linkage with the groundwater system, and estimate the mass of salts and nutrients loaded to the Sonoma Valley groundwater subbasin associated with those sources. Salt and nutrient loading from surface activities to the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin are due to various sources, including:  Irrigation water (potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water)  Agricultural inputs (fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Residential inputs (septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Animal waste (dairy manure land application) Most of these sources, or “inputs”, are associated with rural and agricultural areas. Urban area salt and nutrient loads (e.g. due to indoor water use) are assumed to be primarily routed to the municipal wastewater system for recycling or discharge rather than to groundwater, except for landscape irrigation. Other surface inputs of salts and nutrients, such as atmospheric loading, are not considered a significant net contributing source of salts and nutrients and are not captured in the loading analysis. In addition to surface salinity inputs, potential subsurface inputs of high salinity waters from San Pablo Bay, thermal water upwelling and connate groundwater exists within the basin. These potential subsurface inputs are discussed in this Technical Memorandum (TM) and are further described along with other subsurface inputs in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM. The purpose of this TM is to document the inputs of salts and nutrients in the Sonoma Valley, along with the methodology used to estimate the effect of those inputs on water quality in the groundwater basin. 2 Methodology To support the Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) and to better understand the significance of various loading factors, a GIS-based loading model was developed. The loading model is a simple, spatially based mass balance tool that represents total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrogen loading on an annual-average basis. Calibration of the model was limited to focusing on comparing recent historical trends to changes in concentrations estimated through incorporating the loading model results into the mixing model. In addition to the limited calibration activities, extensive stakeholder coordination was performed to refine the parameters in the loading model, including land use, applied water, TDS and N application (in applied water, as fertilizers and amendments, and in land applied manure), irrigation water source quality, and sewer service areas (to determine septic loads). Given these activities, the model is considered suitable for this analysis of basin conditions. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 2 Primary inputs to the model are land use, irrigation water source and quality, recycled water storage pond locations and percolation, septic system areas and loading, and soil characteristics. These datasets are described in the following sections. The general process used to arrive at the salt and nutrient loads was:  Identify the analysis units to be used in the model. In the case of Sonoma Valley, parcels from the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office are the analysis units.  Categorize land use categories into discrete groups. These land use groups represent land uses that have similar water demand as well as salt and nutrient loading and uptake characteristics.  Apply the land use group characteristics to the analysis units.  Apply the irrigation water source to the analysis units. Each water source is assigned concentrations of TDS and nitrogen.  Apply the septic system assumption to the analysis units.  Apply the soil texture characteristics to the analysis units.  Estimate the water demand for the parcel based on the irrigated area of the parcel and the land use group.  Estimate the TDS load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure load. The loading model makes the conservative assumption that no salt is removed from the system once it enters the system. Other transport mechanisms (such as runoff draining to creeks exiting the basin) likely reduce the total quantity of salt in the basin.  Estimate the nitrogen load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure (e.g. wastewater ponds) load. The loading model assumes that a portion of the applied nitrogen is taken up by plants and (in some cases) removed from the system (through harvest of plant material). Additional nitrogen is converted to gaseous forms and lost to the atmosphere. Remaining nitrogen is assumed to convert to nitrate and to be subject to leaching. Soil texture is used to estimate and account for mobility of leaching water and the efficiency of nitrate transport through the root zone. 3 Data Inputs Data inputs to the model include the spatial distribution of land uses (with associated loading factors), irrigation water sources (with associated water quality), septic inputs, wastewater infrastructure loads, and soil textures. These inputs are discussed below. 3.1 Land Use Land use data are obtained from the 2012 Sonoma County Assessor’s Office parcel dataset. This dataset contains several hundred discrete land use categories. These categories are consolidated into the following land use groups for the Sonoma Valley basin area:  Flowers and nursery  Pasture  Vines  Other row crops  Dairies  Other confined animal feeding operations  Non-irrigated vines  Non-irrigated field crops  Non-irrigated orchard  Shrub/Scrub  Grassland/ Herbaceous  Barren land  Farmsteads  Urban commercial and industrial  Urban commercial and industrial, low impervious surface (e.g. maintenance yards, schools)  Urban landscape  Urban residential  Paved areas (roads and parking lots) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 3 Local stakeholders and Plan partners confirmed that the land use is substantially unchanged since the 2012 dataset, within the accuracy requirements of this type of analysis. The spatial distribution of land uses is shown in Figure 3-1. Upon review of the land use dataset, stakeholders provided updates to the dairies and grassland/herbaceous categories in the October 10, 2012 SNMP Workshop with the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program’s (SVGMP’s) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Because there are so many distinct categories, a discrete color for each type could not be assigned. Therefore, land use categories with similar characteristics (i.e. urban categories, non- irrigated agriculture categories, irrigated agriculture categories) are shown combined into a color category. Each land use group is assigned characteristics including:  Applied water  Percent irrigated  Applied nitrogen  Used nitrogen  Leachable nitrogen  Applied TDS Leachable nitrogen is assumed to be the applied nitrogen less 10 percent of the applied nitrogen for gaseous loss, less nitrogen removal in harvested plant material. Table 3-1 consists of a matrix of values for the land use categories and characteristics. These values were also presented to the stakeholder group and refined based on their input. Refinements included adjustments to vineyards, farmsteads/rural residential, and non-irrigated field crops. For vineyards, coordination with stakeholders included modification to applied TDS and irrigation volume to reflect practices in the area. For farmsteads/rural residential, modifications were made to applied TDS, applied N, and irrigation volume based on improved understanding of land uses on these diverse parcels. Finally, non-irrigated field crops were given the non-irrigated designation based on stakeholder input on the farming practices of what are generally small-grain hay crops in the southern portion of the basin. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 4 Figure 3-1: Land Use Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 5 Table 3-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent Cultivated1 Applied Water2 (in/yr) Applied Nitrogen3 (lbs/acre- year) Nitrogen Uptake4 (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen5 (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS6 (lbs/acre- year) Paved Areas 28 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Non-irrigated vines 284 80% 0 18 16 0 84 Non-irrigated Orchard 41 80% 0 75 60 8 292 Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 80% 0 34 22 8 170 Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 5% 48.5 92 60 23 657 Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 30% 48.5 92 60 23 438 Farmsteads/Rural- Residential7 5,608 10% 28.7 60 42 13 303 Urban Residential 2,238 15% 51.1 92 60 23 438 Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 75% 48.5 92 60 23 584 Pasture 2,266 40% 51.1 110 90 14 584 Vines8 13,075 100% 6.3 29 23 3 168 Other CAFOs 102 10% 0.0 84 -75 730 Dairy9 769 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: 1 Percent of land area assumed to be cultivated within each class is estimated is based review of aerial photography and agricultural scientist professional judgment of a reasonable, broad average for each class. 2 Applied water values and other climatic data are taken from Department of Water Resources (DWR) land and water use data (http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/anlwuest.cfm). On this website, four years of data are available. Climatic data averages, based on these four years of data, was compared to the 21-year average of available CIMIS climatic data for the Sonoma Valley area. As the two data sets correspond well, the average DWR applied water values were used, with some adjustment using crop coefficients for the Sonoma Valley area to fit the study land use classes. 3 Applied nitrogen estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied nitrogen was then calculated for total acreage and checked against fertilizer sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records, and adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region. 4 Uptake of nitrogen was estimated from available literature by multiplying reported yield figures by reported nitrogen concentrations for harvested plant parts. Balances between uptake and application were checked to ensure that nitrogen use efficiencies were in the reported ranges, adjusted for professional knowledge of irrigation and fertilization practice in each land cover class. 5 Maximum nitrogen leaching calculations for each land cover unit were calculated based on the balance between application, gaseous loss (volatilization and denitrification), and uptake. The maximum was then reduced based on soil conditions mapped for the area. 6 Applied TDS estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied TDS was then calculated for total acreage and checked against amendment sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records. Amendment application rates were adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region.Farmstead irrigated areas are assumed to be a mix of turf grasses and vineyards. 7 Assumes that irrigated vines have a larger percent cultivation due to increased production efficiency from irrigation and a conservative value of 100% cultivation was used. An additional assumption for vines is that vines irrigated with recycled water utilize the same fertilizer and amendment application rates as those irrigated with groundwater (conservative estimate). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 6 8 See discussion on dairy parcels below. Due to the importance of dairies, some additional consideration is applied to dairy parcels. To better reflect land use practices, the applied, used, and leachable nitrogen characteristics and the applied TDS characteristic are further subdivided into production areas, ponds, and land application areas. Leachable nitrogen is calculated the same way as for the other land use groups except that gaseous loss is assumed to be 20 percent, as opposed to the 10 percent assumed loss for other land use groups, mainly due to the regular timing and highly organic nature of applied nitrigen. Table 3-2 summarizes the assumed dairy characteristics. Table 3-2: Assumed Characteristic Dairy Values for the Loading Model Dairy Subdivision Designation Percent of Total Parcel Area Used Per Designation Applied Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Used Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS (lbs/acre- year) Production Area 6% 20 0 8 82 Ponds 1% 141 0 113 933 Land Application Area 93% 367 352 30 1,280 3.2 Irrigation Water Source The irrigation water source data input is the result of a compilation of several different data sets. Potable water service areas were used as the initial layer. Those areas not served by a potable municipal water source are then assumed to obtain irrigation water from local groundwater wells. The spatial extent of these water sources is determined by city water service limits, recycled water studies, local knowledge, and stakeholder input. Stakeholder input was specifically utilized to refine irrigation and frost protection volumes for vineyards; water supply sources for the Temelec area; irrigation volumes on pasture, grazing land, field crops, and farmsteads; and the percentage of irrigated land at the Sonoma Developmental Center. Parcels in a recycled water service area are assumed to use recycled water for irrigation. Based on recycled water use rates and estimated demands, it has been assumed that vineyards were receiving recycled water blended with groundwater (~60% recycled water) to irrigate. Based on imagery of the area receiving recycled water, it has also been assumed that pastures receiving recycled water only irrigate 10% of their total area. For irrigation water source from Valley of the Moon Water District and the City of Sonoma, TDS and nitrogen concentrations were obtained from annual water quality reports. The values assumed for groundwater are based on a basin-wide average calculated from groundwater samples collected from various public supply wells between the years 2000 to 2012 (the baseline period for the SNMP). More information on the existing groundwater quality can be found in the Existing and Future Water Quality TM. The values assumed for recycled water were estimated from effluent sampling conducted in 2012. Table 3-3 summarizes the water quality inputs used for each irrigation water source. The spatial distribution of water sources is shown in Figure 3-2. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 7 Table 3-3: Water Quality Parameters for Loading Model Water Sources Source TDS (mg/L) Nitrate (as N) (mg/L) Valley of the Moon Water District 162 0.2 City of Sonoma 172 0.4 Groundwater 372 0.1 Recycled Water 440 5.2 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 8 Figure 3-2: Water Sources Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 9 3.3 Septic Systems A dataset documenting which parcels have septic systems was not available. It has been assumed that parcels outside of the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Service Area use a septic system. Of those parcels, septic systems are assumed where a residence is identified in the land use dataset. Each parcel with a septic system is assumed to produce 263 gallons per day (gpd), based on 75 gpd/person with 3.5 people per system. The 75 gpd/person estimate is based domestic use quantity estimates per California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 697. An estimate of 3.5 persons per household is a conservative estimate which assumes that household size for homes with septic is larger than that that of homes within the City (per the census bureau, persons per household for 2007-2011 is 2.54 in Sonoma County, with the City at only 2.07 people per household, therefore the outlying areas must be greater than 2.54 persons per household). The septic waste is assumed to have TDS concentrations of 572 mg/L, based on typical groundwater concentrations plus an assumed household contribution of 200 mg/L (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). N concentrations were assumed to be 30 mg/L, based on typical wastewater concentrations for medium strength wastewater (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) of 40 mg/L minus an assumed volatization rate of 25 percent within the septic system. The areas within the basin that could potentially have septic systems are shown in Figure 3-3. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 10 Figure 3-3: Septic Systems Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 11 3.4 Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District operates five recycled water ponds within the groundwater basin; these are indicated in Attachment 1. Two of the ponds use clay liners, while the other three ponds use plastic liners. Due to the liners, it is assumed that no significant loading occurs at pond locations. It is also assumed that leakage from wastewater (sanitary sewer) and recycled water pipelines is not likely to be a significant source of salt and nutrient loading. An effort was also undertaken to quantify potential salt and nutrient loading from winery wastewater ponds. These ponds are often lined with plastic or clay and contain rinsewater with salt and TDS concentrations similar to the source water (likely groundwater) because no additional salts and nutrients are added in the winemaking process. This effort showed that salt and nutrient loading from these ponds were likely negligible, with biological oxygen demand (BOD) the primary concern. These loads were not included in the model, beyond the loads already included through irrigation of the vineyards. 3.5 Soil Textures Soil textures (NRCS, 2013) were obtained from the the Soil Survey of Sonoma County (SCS, 1972). Soil textures were assigned a hydraulic conductivity (NRCS, 1993). Hydraulic conductivity was used to develop an adjustment factor through linearly scaling the estimated conductivities from 0.1 (lowest) to 1.00 (highest). The adjustment factor is used to represent the proportion of nitrate that will migrate to the aquifer, relative to the other textural classes. Where conductivity is slower, it is reasoned (and observed) that nitrogen resides longer in the soil, increasing the proportion that is either taken up or lost through conversion to gaseous species. Similar logic is not applied to TDS as salts are mostly not subject to conversion to gaseous forms, and rapidly saturate soil capacity to adsorb and retain them. Table 3-4 summarizes soil textures within the basin boundaries and how those textures are represented in the loading model. The spatial distribution of textures is shown in Figure 3-4. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 12 Table 3-4: Loading Parameters for Surface Textures Surface SoilTexture Textural Class of Soil Matrix Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) Adjustment Factor1 Unweathered bedrock - 0 0 Clay Clay 0.03 0.1 Clay loam Clay loam 0.18 0.13 Cobbly clay loam Clay loam 0.18 0.13 Gravelly clay loam Clay loam 0.18 0.13 Silty clay loam Silty clay loam 0.23 0.14 Variable Variable 0.48 0.19 Gravelly silt loam Silty loam 0.48 0.19 Silt loam Silty loam 0.48 0.19 Gravelly loam Loam 0.73 0.24 Loam Loam 0.73 0.24 Very gravelly loam Loam 0.73 0.24 Fine sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Gravelly sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Very gravelly sandy loam Sandy loam 1.98 0.49 Gravelly sand Sand 4.49 1 Very gravelly sand Sand 4.49 1 Notes: 1 Adjustment factors are based on hydraulic conductivity. The factor linearly scales estimated conductivity from 0.1 (lowest) to 1.00 (highest). The adjustment factor is used to represent how likely the nitrogen is to migrate to the aquifer, relative to the other textural classes. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 13 Figure 3-4: Soil Surface Textures Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 14 4 Loading Model Results Based on the loading parameters and methodology described above, the loading model is used to develop TDS and nitrogen loading rates across the basin. Table 4-1 summarizes the overall contribution of each land use group to total TDS and nitrogen loading. The spatial distribution of TDS and nitrogen loading rates are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2, respectively. The loading analysis estimates somewhat higher loading of TDS in the rural and agricultural areas of the basin, while nitrate loading is higher in the urban areas largely due to the low nitrogen application rates on vineyards. These results areutilized in the Existing and Future Water Quality TM. Table 4-1: TDS and Nitrate Loading Results Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent of Total Area Percentage of Total TDS Loading Percentage of Nitrogen Loading Paved Areas 28 0% 0% 0% Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 17% 0% 0% Non-irrigated vines 284 1% 0% 0% Non-irrigated Orchard 41 0% 0% 0% Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 20% 5% 6% Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 2% 1% 8% Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 2% 5% 7% Farmsteads/Rural- Residential 5,608 13% 11% 37% Urban Residential 2,238 5% 6% 22% Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 1% 5% 1% Pasture 2,266 5% 17% 10% Vines 13,075 31% 42% 3% Other CAFOs 102 0% 0% 0% Dairy 769 2% 7% 5% The relative proportion of the land uses by area, nitrogen loading, and TDS loading are shown in Figure 4-3, Figure 4-4, and Figure 4-5, respectively. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 15 Figure 4-1: Estimated TDS Loading Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 16 Figure 4-2: Estimated Nitrate Loading Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 17 Figure 4-3 Percentage of Land Use in Study Area Grasslands/Barren/  Herbaceous 17%Non‐irrigated vines 1% Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 20% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 2%Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 2% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 13% Urban Residential 5% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 5% Vines 30% Dairy 2% Other 2% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of land area: paved areas, non‐irrigated orchards, other CAFOs Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 18 Figure 4-4 Percentage of TDS Loading in Study Area, by Land Use Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 5% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 1% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 5% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 11% Urban Residential 6% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 5%Pasture 17% Vines 43% Dairy 7% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of TDS loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated vines, non‐ irrigated orchards, other CAFOs Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 19 Figure 4-5 Percentage of Nitrogen Loading in Study Area, by Land Use 5 Brackish Groundwater Kunkel and Upson (1960) originally identified an area of historical brackish groundwater (conductivity greater than 1,000 uS/cm) located primarily beneath the marshlands south of Highway 12/121. In 2006, The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed new estimates of the extent of brackish water using conductivity measurements from 44 wells (USGS, 2006). The report found that intrusion had advanced as much as one mile north of Highway 121 in one area, and indicated the advancement may be attributed to increased groundwater pumping southeast of the City of Sonoma. In other areas (e.g., west of Highway 12), salinity levels diminished. Other potential subsurface inputs of salinity to the groundwater basin include upwelling of high-TDS thermal groundwater along fault zones and inflow connate groundwater. The occurrence and trends related to brackish groundwater in southern Sonoma Valley are further discussed in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM (Todd, 2013). Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 6%Urban Commercial  and Industrial 8% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 7% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 37% Urban Residential 22% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 10% Vines 3% Dairy 5% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of nitrogen loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated  vines, non‐irrigated orchards, other CAFOs Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 20 Figure 5-1: Groundwater Specific Conductance (SCWA, 2010) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 21 6 References California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 697 Census Data, 2007-2011; Sonoma County and City of Sonoma City of Sonoma, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Kunkel, F. and J.E. Upson, 1960. Geology and ground water in Napa and Sonoma Valleys, Napa and Sonoma Counties, California. USGS Water Supply Paper: 1495 Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill Natural Resource Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture (NRCS). 1993. Soil Survey Manual - Chapter Three; Guidelines for Ksat Class Placement. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual/contents/chapter3.html NRCS. 2013. Soil texture calculator. 20http://soils.usda.gov/technical/aids/investigations/texture/ SCWA, 2011, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program: 2010 Annual Report” Soil Conservation Service (SCS; now NRCS). 1972. Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California, as contained in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. USGS, 2006, “Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground-Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California” Valley of the Moon Water District, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source Loading TM June 2013 22 Attachment 1 – Current and Future Recycled Water Users "<M"<M "<M"<M"<M "<M "<M "<M"<M"<M"<M"<M"<M "<M "<M"<M "<M "<M "<M "<M "<M "<M "<M"<M "<M"<M"<M 3N 3N "M 3N 3N3N 3N 3N 3N3N 3N 3N "M 3N 3N "M "M 3N 3N "M 3N "M 3N "M "M "M Sonoma Valley Treatment Plant FM-B2A FM-B2C R4 inlet R4-Pump1R4-Pump2R4-Pump3 Ring Strom R4 Ground water Hudemen Slough G1T1 FM-E3FM-E1 RECYCLED WATER FEEDSTHROUGH MAHONEY BV LEVERONI DOMAINE DONUMRICCI HAIRE BV - 226 ACRES MULAS - 700 ACRES MULAS - 285 ACRES MANZONI - 300 ACRES SILVERADO SONOMA VINEYARDS MAHONEY MULAS CEJA FERGUSON MANZONI NO RW IRRIGATION HAL BAERG - 120 ACRES IRRIGATED BY MULAS LARSON ROMBAUER - NO RW IRRIGATION GONZALES DOUGLAS MATZ CALIFORNIA STATE OF CONSTELATIONS - 271 ACRES M AND H VINEYARDS INC BARTOLUCCI ANDREA AND SUSAN J TR UNKNOWN OWNERS ETAL CALIFORNIA STATE OF Napa County So n o m a C r e e k Schell CreekSecond Napa Slough Third N a p a S l o u g h Napa SloughHudeman Sl o u g h Hyde Creek Schell SloughHollran Creek Steamboat SloughChina S l o u g h Railroad Slough F ow l e r C r e e k Rainb o w S l o u g hArroyo Seco CreekAkers CreekBonil l a C r e e k Rodge r s C r e e k China S l o u g h Rainbow SloughNapa SloughBonilla CreekFM-D1 FM-Z5FM-Z4 FM-Z1 FM-C81FM-C83 FM-B2B R3 FM-F1 FM - B1A Larson (FM-Z2) Manzoni (FM-J2) ·|}þ121 ·|}þ12 ·|}þ121 8th StNapa R d Ramal Rd Duhig RdS k a g g s I s l a n d R dMillerick RdNoble RdPoehlman RdCentral AvBurndale RdRedding RdThiodo ro Rd Las Amigas Rd Dale Av Acacia Av Maf fe i Rd Westach Wy Bentley Wharf RdMill e r i c k L n Imperial Dr Knob Hill Rd Moffei Rd Haire L n Wagner Rd Lawler Rd Neunschwander Rd \\sd-data\proj\sanitation\sonoma valley csd\recycled water\3244_02\Recycled_Parcels_Users_2009.mxd SEPTEMBER 22, 2009-0 2,700 5,400 Feet WELLS TYPE "M POTABLE 3N NON-POTABLE DISCLAIMER This map document and associated data are distributed for informational purposes only “AS-IS”at the published scale and provided without warranty of any kind expressed or implied. Thepositional accuracy of the data is approximate and not intended to represent survey map accuracy.The Sonoma County Water Agency assumes no responsibility arising from use of this information. SVCSD Recycled Water Users and Parcels Sonoma County, California Appendix E - SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan August 2013 1 Technical Memorandum Todd Engineers Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Subject: Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program Prepared For: Marcus Trotta, Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Prepared by: Sally McCraven, Todd Engineers Reviewed by: Christy Kennedy, RMC Water and Environment Date: August 26, 2013 1 Introduction This technical memorandum (TM) describes a proposed Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) Groundwater Quality Monitoring Plan for the Sonoma Valley. In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Resolution No. 2009-0011, which established a statewide Recycled Water Policy. Draft amendments to the Recycled Water Policy were released in May 2012, September 2012, October 2012 (SWRCB hearing change sheets), and January 2013. The Recycled Water Policy Amendment was adopted by the SWRCB on January 22, 2013. With respect to monitoring, the Recycled Water Policy states that the SNMP should include a monitoring program that consists of a network of monitoring locations “. . . adequate to provide a reasonable, cost- effective means of determining whether the concentrations of salts, nutrients, and other constituents of concern as identified in the salt and nutrient plans are consistent with applicable water quality objectives.” Additionally, the SNMP “. . . must focus on basin water quality near water supply wells and areas proximate to large water recycling projects, particularly groundwater recharge projects. Also, monitoring locations shall, where appropriate, target groundwater and surface waters where groundwater has connectivity with the adjacent surface waters.” The preferred approach is to “. . . collect samples from existing wells if feasible as long as the existing wells are located appropriately to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. The monitoring plan shall identify those stakeholders responsible for conducting, sampling, and reporting the monitoring data. The data shall be reported to the Regional Water Board at least every three years.” With regards to constituents of emerging concern (CECs), the Recycled Water Policy Attachment A states that “Monitoring of health-based CECs or performance indicator CECs is not required for recycled water used for landscape irrigation due to the low risk for ingestion of the water.” While the policy does not discuss agricultural irrigation application uses, the conclusion of low risk for ingestion of the water applies to agricultural irrigation uses as well. In 2006, the Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) coordinated development of a voluntary, non-regulatory Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) in compliance with the 1992 Assembly Bill 3030 (AB3030) and the 2002 Senate Bill 1938 (SB1938) with the participation and collaboration of a broad range of local stakeholders who served as a Basin Advisory Panel. As part of the GMP, the Water Agency and stakeholders have identified implementation of a long-term water quality monitoring program as a funding-dependent component of the GMP (SCWA, 2007). The SNMP monitoring program incorporates the GMP monitoring program. Data gaps in the existing monitoring program are identified. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 2 The purpose of this TM is to describe the SNMP Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program for Sonoma Valley including groundwater sampling locations, sampling frequency, constituents monitored, sampling protocols and associated quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures, data analysis and evaluation criteria, and reporting. The entities responsible for monitoring and reporting will also be described. 2 SNMP Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program 2.1 Monitored Parameters Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients (S/Ns) selected for the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Total salinity is commonly expressed in terms of TDS in milligrams per liter (mg/L). TDS (and electrical [EC] conductivity data that can be converted to TDS) are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. While TDS can be an indicator of anthropogenic impacts such as infiltration of runoff, soil leaching, and land use, there is also a natural background TDS concentration in groundwater. The background TDS concentration in groundwater can vary considerably based on purity and crystal size of the formation minerals, rock texture and porosity, the regional structure, origin of sediments, the age of the groundwater, and many other factors (Hem, 1989). Nitrate is a widespread contaminant in California groundwater. High levels of nitrate in groundwater are associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facility discharges. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. Nitrate data are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. Natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low (typically less than 2 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N). Nitrate is commonly reported as either nitrate-NO3 or nitrate-N; and one can be converted to the other. Nitrate-N is the form of nitrate selected for assessment for this SNMP. The SNMP monitoring program focused on TDS, nitrate, and EC as S/N indicator chemicals. 2.2 Basin Groundwater Quality and S/N Loading As discussed in Chapter 5 of the SNMP, generally, relatively low TDS and nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the Inland Area of the subbasin and water quality concentration trends over time are flat or stable. The subbasin was divided into Inland and Baylands areas as shown in Figure 2-1. The Baylands Area is an area of historically elevated TDS concentrations due to proximity to San Pablo Bay. Due to the elevated salt in this area, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. Average TDS and nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N) groundwater quality were calculated for the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Inland/Baylands area. The average TDS concentrations of the Inland, Baylands, and combined areas are 372, 1,220, and 635 mg/L respectively. The average nitrate-N concentrations of the Inland, Baylands, and combined areas are 0.06, 0.07, and 0.06 mg/L, respectively. As discussed in Appendix A of the SNMP, TDS and nitrate loading to the subbasin is a function of the volume of water recharged and the concentration of that water. The largest TDS load to the subbasin is from deep percolation of aerial precipitation and mountain front recharge, which are the represent the largest volumes of recharge. These two sources represents 57% of the overall TDS loading to the subbasin. However, the TDS concentration of recharge from these source waters is low; 250 mg/L for both precipitation infiltration and mountain front recharge. So while these two sources add TDS load, they act to improve overall groundwater quality with respect to TDS because their TDS concentration is lower than the ambient average groundwater quality (372 mg/L in the Inland Area. Agricultural (groundwater source water) return flow is the second largest TDS load (28% of total loading). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 3 Figure 2-1: DWR Monitoring Wells August 2013 4 The TDS concentration of agricultural return flow is high (4,347 mg/L). As such, agricultural return flows add mass and reduce TDS groundwater quality. Sonoma Creek leakage (6% of total loading at a concentration of 21 mg/L) and municipal return (6% of total loading at a concentration of 1,182 mg/L) contribute the next highest mass of TDS to the subbasin. Septic system return flows (572 mg/L), agricultural (recycled water) return flow (4,344 mg/L), and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area (1,220 mg/L) combined represent less than 2% of the TDS loading to the subbasin. The largest nitrate load is agricultural (groundwater source water) return flow (at a concentration of 24 mg/L), which represents approximately 43% of the total nitrate loading to the subbasin. Municipal return flow (20 mg/L) is the second largest nitrate load (28% of total loading), followed by septic system return flow (20% at a concentration of 26 mg/L), deep percolation of aerial precipitation and mountain front recharge (4% at a concentration of 0.06 mg/) and agricultural (recycled water source water) return flow (3% at 24 mg/L). Sonoma Creek leakage (0.2 mg/L) and subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area (0.07 mg/L) represent minor nitrate loading factors in the subbasin. 2.3 Monitoring Programs Groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley has been monitored since 1949. Most data represent one-time samples for short-term studies or individual well-specific assessments. The GMP monitoring program and the proposed SNMP monitoring program rely on three existing ongoing programs:  California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Monitoring  California Department of Public Health (DPH) Required Monitoring  Sonoma County Water Agency (Water Agency) Monitoring The SNMP monitoring program will also collect and consider data from any other special studies conducted in the subbasin, such as studies conducted through the GMP to evaluate salinity sources in southern Sonoma Valley and studies conducted under the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. Each program is described in the following sections. 2.4 DWR Monitoring Beginning in the 1950s, DWR initiated the longest sustained water quality monitoring effort in the Sonoma Valley. Since the late 1950s the DWR has sampled and analyzed groundwater for major ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, chloride and sulfate), boron, nitrate, TDS, total alkalinity, specific conductance or electrical conductance, pH, and water temperature. DWR has monitored 12 private volunteer water supply wells in Sonoma Valley on a regular basis since 2004. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the current DWR monitoring wells. Table 2-1 lists the wells and provides approximate location; construction information (if available); and the period of data available for EC, TDS, and nitrate. Total well depths are available for all wells and screened interval information is available for seven of the 12 wells. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 5 Table 2-1: Current Wells Monitored by DWR Well No. DPH Well No. Latitude LongitudeDepth Drilled (feet)Depth Cased (feet)Depth of Top Perf. (feet)Depth of Bottom of Perf. (feet)Land Surface Elevation (ft-msl)EC TDS Nitrate5N/5W-8P238.2896 -122.4387250 245 170 240 100 1974–2002 1974–2002 1974–20105N/5W-18D238.2839 -122.460875 75 — — — 1958–2004 1958–2004 1958–20105N/5W-20R138.2611 -122.4297504 449 — — 32 1969–20101958 - 2010 1958 - 20105N/5W-28N138.2453 -122.4268130 110 — — 11 1951–2002 1951–2002 1951–20105N/5W-28R138.2472 -122.4103280 280 80 270 70 1971–2004 1971–2004 1971–20105N/6W-2N238.3038 -122.4983171 171 150 167 135 1972–2010 1972–2010 1972–20105N/6W-12F138.2950 -122.4747113 113 — — 80 1958–2004 1958–2004 1958–20105N/6W-12M138.2914 -122.479460 58 49 57 80 1972 - 2010 1972 - 2010 1972 - 20105N/6W-25P238.2440 -122.4760640 640 175 640 37 1968–20031970 - 2002 1970 - 20106N/6W-10M238.3791 -122.5172228 224 84 224 320 1975–20041985 - 20041975–20106N/6W-26E138.3382 -122.4982304 241 — — 180 1958 -2010 1958 - 2010 1958 - 20107N/6W-29P138.3381 -122.4981112 112 —6370 1957 - 2010 1957 - 2010 1957 - 2007EC - electrical conductivityTDS - total dissolved solidsPerf. - perforationPeriod of Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 6 One half of the wells are typically sampled in odd numbered years and the remaining half in even numbered years, so that wells are sampled once every two years. DWR has confirmed that funding is available to continue this regular monitoring program (Nordberg, 2013). Currently analyzed water quality parameters are listed in Table 2-2. Indicator S/Ns to be included in the SNMP monitoring program are highlighted in orange. Water quality data collected by DWR are provided to the Agency and incorporated into the GMP water quality database. Selected water quality data are analyzed and periodically reported in the GMP annual report (SCWA, 2011). The GMP reports are available online at the Agency website. Table 2-2: Constituents Monitored by DWR List of Constituents Monitored by DWR  pH  Specific conductance or electrical conductivity (EC) (field & lab)  Temperature  Hardness  Calcium  Magnesium  Potassium  Sodium  Alkalinity  Bicarbonate  Nitrate  Total dissolved solids (TDS)  Chloride  Sulfate  Boron  Bromide  Barium  Iron  Manganese  Arsenic  Stable Isotopes of Oxygen and Hydrogen 2.5 DPH Monitoring The DPH regulates public drinking water systems. A public drinking water system means a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. Private domestic wells and irrigation wells are not regulated by the DPH. The DPH regulates all public water systems in the State to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water from these systems. The DPH establishes the monitoring requirements for drinking water wells and all the data collected must be reported to DPH by the well owner. Production wells that supply drinking water are regulated under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 22 also establishes the regulatory limits for volatile organic compounds, non-volatile synthetic organic compounds, inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, disinfection byproducts, and other general physical constituents. Public groundwater purveyors are obligated to collect groundwater samples to determine compliance with maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in accordance with monitoring schedules developed by DPH based on the size of the water system. Purveyors are required to submit data directly to DPH via electronic transfer. The constituents monitored and the frequency of monitoring varies based on the well, size of the water system, and history of water quality monitoring results. DPH provides drinking water quality monitoring notification documents to water systems that identify upcoming required contaminant testing. These are updated periodically and vary for each water system. Sonoma’s (District 18) monitoring schedule for small water systems can be found at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Documents/Monitoringschedule/DistrictReports- Monitoring%20Page/SonomaDistrict18.pdf Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 7 There are currently 26 wells with recent data (2000 to 2012) for at least one of the S/Ns; EC, TDS, and nitrate. The well data reported to the DPH may change in the future as wells are put on standby or abandoned and as new wells are drilled and operated. Accordingly, the DPH data included in the SNMP may change over time. However, the general geographic distribution and sampling frequency is not anticipated to vary significantly. Figure 2-2 shows the approximate locations of wells in the DPH monitoring network. Table 2-3 provides information on the wells. The table lists 39 wells including several City of Sonoma and Valley of the Moon Water District wells that have not been sampled recently for EC, TDS, or nitrate. Well depth and screened interval information is available for 12 of the 39 wells. Water quality data reported to the DPH is incorporated by the Agency into the GMP water quality database. Selected water quality data are analyzed and periodically reported in the GMP annual report (SCWA, 2011). The GMP reports are posted on the Agency website. 2.6 SCWA Monitoring In 2011, the Agency and GMP stakeholders installed two nested monitoring wells with drilling and construction funded through a Local Groundwater Assistance (LGA) grant. Figure 2-3 shows the locations of the wells. Well depth and screened interval information is available for all the wells (Table 2-4). At SVMW-1, four target zones were selected and a nested groundwater monitoring well was constructed comprising four individual nested 3-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casings within a single borehole. At SVMW-2, five target zones were selected and a nested groundwater monitoring well was constructed comprising four individual nested 3-inch diameter PVC well casings within a single borehole and a separate shallow-zone groundwater monitoring well was constructed within a separate borehole adjacent to the nested well. Parameters analyzed by the Agency are shown in Table 2-5. Indicator S/Ns to be monitored for the SNMP monitoring program are highlighted in orange. The wells have been sampled twice since their installation in November 2011 and September 2012. The Agency and GMP stakeholders intend to sample the wells a minimum of once per year. The water quality data will be analyzed and periodically reported in the GMP annual report and the report will be posted on the Agency website. 2.7 Special Studies The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has also sampled and analyzed both surface and groundwater in Sonoma Valley for special studies. In 2002, 2003, and 2004, wells were sampled by USGS for the “Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground-Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California” (USGS, 2006). That report also incorporated sampling conducted under the (GAMA) Program for the North San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region (USGS, 2004). Special studies associated with the GAMA program have also been conducted in Sonoma Valley, including “Interpretation of Isotopic Data in Sonoma Valley, California” (Moran, et al., 2010 and a Shallow Aquifer Assessment Program (USGS, in preparation). Data from these special studies have been incorporated into the GMP water quality database. These and any future special studies that conduct S/N monitoring will be incorporated and reported through the SNMP monitoring program. 2.8 Monitoring Locations and Frequency Figure 2-4 shows the monitoring locations that will be included in the SNMP monitoring program. The sampling points, frequency, and monitored parameters are described in Table 2-6. As mentioned previously, the DPH required monitoring frequency and constituents monitored are variable based on the well and DPH requirements. All available DPH S/N data will be incorporated in the SNMP monitoring program and described in monitoring reports. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 8 Figure 2-2: DPH Monitoring Wells Note: Well locations are approximate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 9 Table 2-3: Wells Monitored for DPH State Well No.DPH Well No. Latitude Longitude Depth Drilled (feet) Depth Cased (feet) Depth of Top Perf. (feet) Depth of Bottom of Perf. (feet) Land Surface Elevation (ft-msl) EC TDS Nitrate 6N/6W-36M2 4910013-003 38.3020 -122.4940 214?214? 140 214?230 1989 - 2011 1989 - 2011 1989 - 2011 5N/6W-8B1 4900973-002 38.2770 -122.5140 380 380 90 380 968 1998 - 2012 1998 - 2012 1998 - 2012 5N/6W-12C1 4910012-005 38.2980 -122.4740 730 730 530 730 95 1982 - 2011 1982 - 2011 1982 - 2011 4910012-001 38.2960 -122.4540 405 395 100 395 98 1988 - 2002 5N/5W-7G1 4910012-002 38.2950 -122.4550 221 75 - -95 2008 5N/5W-7F1 4910012-003 38.2960 -122.4580 263 165 - -95 2008 5N/5W-7A2 4910012-004 38.2980 -122.4490 500 210 - -140 2008 5N/5W-7C2 4910012-006 38.2990 -122.4560 250 266 140 236 120 2008 5N/5W-17E1 4910012-013 38.2808 122.4409 861 666 473 646 69 2008 6N/6W-35A1 4910013-001 38.3260 -122.4860 - - - - - 2008 5N/6W-1J3 4910013-002 38.3040 -122.4660 460 440 140 440 125 2008 5N/6W-2P2 4910013-004 38.3200 -122.4780 425 360 60 350 118 2008 4910013-005 38.3240 -122.4830 - - - - - 2008 6N/6W-9A1 4910013-006 38.3850 -122.5200 265 258 41 258 320 1979 - 2001 1979 - 2001 1979 - 2001 4910013-019 38.3850 -122.5200 - - - - - 2009 4900533-001 38.3940 -122.5510 -----2000 - 2009 2000 - 2009 2000 - 2011 4900561-002 38.2480 -122.4740 -----1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 4900561-003 38.2480 -122.4740 -----1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 1994 - 2011 4900845-001 38.3060 -122.4740 -----1994 - 2009 1994 - 2009 1994 - 2009 4900909-002 38.2480 -122.4740 - - - --2010 -2010 2000 - 2011 4900918-001 38.3060 -122.4740 -----1992 - 2010 1992 - 2010 1992 - 2010 4900921-001 38.3640 -122.5140 - - - --1997 - 2011 4900924-001 38.2480 -122.4350 - - - --1997 - 2011 4900945-001 38.2770 -122.4740 - - - --2001 - 2010 4901061-001 38.2480 -122.4350 -----2010 - 2011 2010 -2010 2003 - 2011 4901069-001 38.2770 -122.4740 - - - --1997 - 2012 4901083-002 38.2770 -122.4350 - - - --2000 - 2011 4901193-001 38.2480 -122.4350 - - - --2000 - 2010 4901218-001 38.2710 -122.4370 -----2000 - 2000 2000 - 2000 2000 - 2012 4901225-001 38.2480 -122.4350 - - - --1998 - 1998 1998 - 1998 1998 - 2010 4901231-001 38.3640 -122.5140 -----1996 - 1996 1996 - 1996 1996 - 2012 4901234-001 38.2770 -122.4740 - - - --1998 - 1998 1998 - 1998 1998 - 2011 4901247-001 38.2480 -122.4350 -----2010 - 2011 2010 - 2010 1999 - 2011 4901258-001 38.2770 -122.4740 -----2000 - 2000 2000 - 2000 2000 - 2011 4901258-002 38.2770 -122.4740 -----2000 - 2000 2000 - 2000 2000 - 2011 4901273-001 38.2480 -122.4440 -----2002 - 2002 2002 - 2002 2002 - 2011 4901275-001 38.2190 -122.4740 - - - --2004 - 2011 4901278-001 38.2190 -122.4740 -----2010 - 2010 2010 - 2010 2010 - 2012 4901294-001 38.2480 -122.4350 -----2008 - 2011 2009 - 2011 2004 - 2012 EC - electrical conductivity TDS - total dissolved solids Perf. - perforation Period of Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 10 Figure 2-3: Agency Monitoring Wells Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 11 Table 2-4: Wells Monitored by the Agency Well No. DPH Well No. Latitude LongitudeDepth Drilled (feet)Depth Cased (feet)Depth of Top Perf. (feet)Depth of Bottom of Perf. (feet)Land Surface Elevation (ft-msl)Owner Well NameEC TDS NitrateSVMW-1-9538.2554 -122.4422 470 105 85 95 2.8712011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW1-23338.2554 -122.4422 470 243 223 233 22.8312011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW1-36538.2554 -122.4422 470 374 355 365 22.8512011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW1-45538.2554 -122.4422 470 465 440 455 22.8312011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-1SVMW2-52 38.2655 -122.4685 485 32 52 45.212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-10038.2655 -122.4685 485 110 80 100 45.4312011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-22038.2655 -122.4685 485 230 200 220 45.4212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-40938.2655 -122.4685 485 419 374 384 45.4212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2SVMW2-48038.2655 -122.4685 485 490 460 480 45.4212011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 2011 - 2012 SCWA MW-2EC - electrical conductivityTDS - total dissolved solidsPerf. - perforation1 - Top of casing elevationPeriod of Data Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 12 Table 2-5: Constituents Monitored by Agency List of Constituents Monitored by Agency  Temperature (field)  pH (field and lab)  Electrical conductivity (field and lab)  Aluminum  Antimony  Arsenic  Barium  Beryllium  Boron  Bromide  Cadmium  Calcium  Chloride  Chromium  Cobalt  Copper  Iron  Lead  Magnesium  Manganese  Mercury  Molybdenum  Nickel  Potassium  Selenium  Silver  Sodium  Strontium  Sulfate  Titanium  Vanadium  Zinc Bicarbonate  Carbonate  Hardness  Total Alkalinity  Total Dissolved Solids  Hydroxide  Iodide  Nitrate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 13 Figure 2-4: SNMP Monitoring Program Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 14 Table 2-6: SNMP Monitoring Program Program No. of Wells Monitoring Frequency Constituents DWR 12 Every 2 years EC, TDS, and nitrate DPH 26 1 Typically every 3 years EC, TDS, or nitrate Agency 9 Once per year EC, TDS, and nitrate DWR – California Department of Water Resources DPH – California Department of Public Health Agency – Sonoma County Water Agency EC – Electrical Conductivity TDS – total dissolved solids 1 – Number of wells sampled may vary 2.9 Adequacy of Proposed Monitoring Program and Recommendations for Additional Data In general, the proposed SNMP monitoring program described above is deemed adequate to monitor the spatial variability and transient change in S/N groundwater quality as required by the Recycled Water Policy. Specifically, the proposed monitoring program focuses on monitoring “basin water quality near water supply wells” and a number of wells are located within or proximate to areas of recycled water use. Additionally, shallow wells 5N/6W-12F1, 5N/6W-12M1 and SVMW2-52 are located in areas with connectivity with adjacent surface waters (i.e., Sonoma Creek). Nonetheless, three areas where additional data would benefit the SNMP monitoring program have been identified. These include:  Characterization of well completions for wells in the monitoring program  Additional monitoring well(s) immediately north of the Baylands Area  Collection of TDS, EC, and nitrate from all DPH monitored wells Well completion information for some wells is not available as shown in Tables 2-1, 2-3, and 2-4. More well completion information would allow better characterization of the vertical distribution of S/Ns in the subbasin. If a funding mechanism were available, the following is recommended for wells without well completion information:  Contact the DPH and well owners to ask for available well completion information  Review available DWR well logs for completion information on wells in the monitoring network Figure 2-4 shows an area just north of the Baylands Area where additional monitoring would be desirable to monitor potential changes in the area of saline intrusion, if a funding mechanism was available. The additional monitoring point or points could include existing production wells, ideally with completion information, or new nested monitoring wells. TDS, EC, and nitrate data are not available for all DPH monitored wells. It would be helpful if both TDS and nitrate were collected for all wells. The well owners could be asked to voluntarily provide both analyses to DPH, if not currently doing so. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 15 2.10 Data Analysis and Reporting Responsible Party The monitoring data described above will be collected by the Water Agency. The data will be analyzed and reported to the RWQCB every three years by the SVCSD. The SNMP report will include the following:  Discussion of TDS and EC water quality including o Water quality summary tables (TDS and specific conductance) o Water quality concentration maps (TDS and specific conductance) o Time-concentration plots (specific conductance) to assess trends o Comparison of detections with BPOs  Status of recycled water use and stormwater capture projects and implementation measures The SNMP monitoring program will be reviewed every three years as part of the triennial SNMP reporting. Nitrate As discussed in the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, nitrate concentrations are typically low and well below the basin plan objective (BPO) and time-concentration plots indicate generally stable trends. Only one well (28N1) in the monitoring program shows an increasing nitrate trend. Accordingly, nitrate has not been a focus of analysis for the triennial GMP water quality report. For future SNMP reporting it is recommended that nitrate data be presented in summary tables, any concentrations approaching the BPO or increasing trends should be noted, and a time-concentration plot for 28N1 should be included to track future trends in this well. Water quality concentration maps are not recommended unless increasing nitrate concentrations are observed in the future. Specific Conductance and TDS It is recommended that the TDS and specific conductance maps and specific conductance time- concentration plots continue to be presented in the future SNMP report. TDS and specific conductance are equivalent and it is not necessary to present time concentrations plots for both. In addition, specific conductance is more frequently monitored. It is recommended that the BPO be plotted for reference on the time-concentration charts. Evaluation Criteria The criteria or performance measures to evaluate groundwater quality are the TDS/specific conductance and nitrate trends and concentrations. The BPOs are the primary evaluation criteria used to evaluate S/N groundwater quality. Accordingly, the monitoring report should discuss whether S/N concentration trends are generally consistent with the patterns described and predicted in SNMP. TDS, specific conductance, and nitrate groundwater quality should be compared with BPOs to determine if overall basins groundwater quality meets basin plan objectives and will continue to meet BPOs in the future. Other The monitoring reports should also discuss the status of recycled water and stormwater recharge projects and S/N implementation measures. 3 Sampling Protocols and QA/QC Groundwater sampling is conducted by trained professionals from the Agency, DWR, USGS, and water providers (for DPH required monitoring). The DWR, USGS, DPH, and Agency sampling follows established industry standards. A formal sampling protocol and QA/QC program for the recently Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 16 installed Agency nested monitoring wells has not yet been established. Accordingly, this TM describes the recommended sampling protocol and QA/QC program for the Agency nested well sampling. Sampling protocols and QA/QC procedures for each of these four programs are described below. 3.1 DWR Sampling Procedures The DWR does not have formalized sampling procedures, but follows standard industry protocols (Nordberg, 2013). DWR typically samples a well from an outside water hose tap. Water is allowed to run through a flow-through cell until field parameters including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and TDS stabilize. Then, the sample is collected in prepared bottles provided by the laboratory. Samples are placed in coolers with ice packs and transported to an in-house laboratory called Bryte Labs following standard chain-of-custody procedures. Bryte Labs QA/QC procedures follow United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) policy guidelines outlined in the Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans, QAMS-005/80 and also meet the DPH, Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. QA/QC may include equipment, field, and trip blanks for field sampling; and duplicates, method and instrument blanks for laboratory checks. These blanks and duplicates monitor:  contamination from the collection, transport, and storage of the samples  contamination that originates in the lab or exists in the analytical procedure  repeatability or precision of the analytical method. The types of blanks and duplicates collected depend upon the constituents being analyzed. Trip blanks are typically only needed if volatile organic compounds are being analyzed. 3.2 DPH Sampling Procedures The DPH (formally California Department of Health Services (DHS)) has established formal sampling procedures Water Sampling Manual (DHS, 2006). Water suppliers are to send samples to State-certified laboratories and follow the sampling and QA/QC requirements of those laboratories. Samples are to be taken before the check valve on the wellhead and collected after the well has been pumped sufficiently to ensure that the sample represents the groundwater source (DPH, 2013). Laboratories are to meet various requirements available on DPH’s website: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Labinfo.aspx QA/QC may include the analysis of duplicates and equipment, field, trip, method, and instrument blanks. 3.3 SCWA Sampling Procedures The two nested monitoring wells will be sampled by the Water Agency. Purging and sampling of each of the nine intervals (four in SVMW-1 and five in SVMW-2) will follow standard monitoring well sampling guidelines such as those presented in the National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, 2010) http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/chapter4/html/Ch4_contents.html. These procedures are described in the following sections. 3.3.1 Purging and Sampling Generally, the nested wells may be purged prior to sample collection. Purging is conducted until field instruments indicate that water quality parameters (pH, ORP, specific conductance, and temperature) have stabilized and turbidity measurements are below five Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTUs). Industry- accepted purge methods include purging a standard three casing volumes as well as no-purge and low- flow purge methods. Any of these methods, as well as new industry- and regulatory-accepted sampling technologies, may be used. The method used will demonstrate that the sample collected is representative of formation water and not stagnant water in the well casing or well filter pack. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 17 All groundwater samples are collected in laboratory supplied pre-labeled containers and include prescribed preservatives. 3.3.2 Record Keeping and Sample Transport All field measurements will be recorded in a field logbook or worksheets and the sample containers will be labeled correctly and recorded on the chain-of-custody form. The applicable chain-of-custody sections will be completed and forwarded with the samples to the laboratory. Upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory, laboratory personnel will complete the chain-of-custody. Samples will be shipped to the laboratory in sealed insulated shipping containers (ice chests) to maintain the samples at approximately 4°C. 3.3.3 QA/QC Field QA/QC QA/QC assessment of field sampling will include field blanks and duplicates as described below. Field Blank - Field blanks identify sample contamination that is associated with the field environment and sample handling. These samples will be prepared in the field by filling the appropriate sample containers with the distilled water used for cleaning and decontamination of all field equipment. One field blank per sampling will be collected. Duplicates - Duplicates document the precision of the sampling and analytical process. A duplicate is a second sample collected concurrently with the primary sample using the exact same method and analysis. Duplicates will not be identified as to their primary sample source to the laboratory. One duplicate per sampling will be collected. Laboratory QA/QC Samples will be sent to a State-certified laboratory that has in place a documented analytical QA/QC program that includes procedures to reduce variability and errors, identify and correct measurement problems, and provide a statistical measure of data quality. The laboratory will conduct all QA/QC procedures in accordance with its QA/QC program. All QA/QC data shall be reported in the laboratory analytical report, including: the method, equipment, and analytical detection limits, the recovery rates, an explanation for any recovery rate that is less than 80 percent, the results of equipment and method blanks, the results of spiked and surrogate samples, the frequency of quality control analysis, and the name of the person(s) performing the analyses. Sample results shall be reported unadjusted for blank results or spike recovery. 3.4 USGS Special Studies USGS sampling is conducted in compliance with standard monitoring well sampling guidelines presented in the National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, 2010) http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Groundwater Monitoring Program TM August 2013 18 4 References California Department of Health Services (DHS) Drinking Water and Environmental Management Division, Sanitation and Radiation Laboratories Branch, Microbial Disease Laboratory Branch, January 06, 2006, “Water Sampling Manual” California Department of Public Health (DPH) Sonoma and Mendocino Field Office, April 24, 2013, “Personal Communication” California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), April 2012, “Bryte Chemical Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual, Quality Assurance Technical Document 8” Nordberg, Mark, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), April 2013, “Verbal communications” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 2007, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 30, 2011, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan 2010 annual Report” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), July 2012, “Well Completion Technical Memorandum for Nested Groundwater Monitoring Wells SVMW-1 & SVMW-2, Sonoma Valley” State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), May 2009, “Draft Recycled Water Policy”, amended September 2012, October 2012, and January 2013, approved January 2013 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Revised January 19, 2012, “Low Stress (Low Flow) Purging and Sampling Procedure for the Collection of Groundwater Samples from Monitoring Wells” United States Geological Survey, 2004, “Ground-Water Quality Data in the North San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Provinces, California, 2004: results from the California Ground-Water Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program”, Data Series 167 United States Geological Survey, 2006, “Geohydrologic Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground- Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California”, Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5092 United States Geological Survey (USGS), (variously dated) Compiled 2012, “National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 9 Chaps. A1- A9”, http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A Appendix F - Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Planning Template DRAFT Attachment A to Resolution No. __________ [NO THREAT BASIN EXAMPLE] Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – [Region] to Incorporate the Groundwater Quality Management Plan for the [Basin(s)] Adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, [Region] on [Date]. This groundwater quality management plan satisfies the Recycled Water Policy requirement for salt/nutrient management plans. This groundwater quality management plan applies to groundwater basin(s) considered a low threat for impairment of groundwater quality. Amendments: Table of Contents Chapter X. Groundwater Quality Management Plans <This would potentially be a new chapter to the Basin Plan> X-X Groundwater Quality Management Plan for Low Threat to Groundwater Quality Basins [List…] List of Figures, Tables and Inserts Chapter X. Groundwater Quality Management Plans Tables X-X [Basin(s)] Salt/Nutrient Management and Related Effects X-X.1 [Basin(s)] Salt/Nutrient Management and Related Effects: Elements X-X.2 [Basin(s)] Salt/Nutrient Management and Related Effects: Implementation Schedule Chapter X. Groundwater Quality Management Plan [Basin(s)] Groundwater Quality Management Plan This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was adopted by: The Regional Water Quality Control Board on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was approved by: The State Water Resources Control Board on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was approved by: The Office of Administrative Law on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan was approved by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on [Date]. This [Basin(s)] Groundwater Management Plan is effective on [Date]. The following tables include the elements of this Groundwater Quality Management Plan. DRAFT Attachment A to Resolution No. __________ Table X-X.1. [Basin] Groundwater Quality Management Plan and Related Effects: Elements Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions Purpose Statement Is the groundwater basin impaired or threatened to be impaired by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]? Overall, water quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is very good and the subbasin is not impaired. Generally, TDS is less than Basin Plan Objectives (BPOs) of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) through most of the basin, with concentrations reaching above 500 mg/L in the southeastern portion of the basin that borders San Pablo Bay due to brackish water intrusion. These elevated concentrations are consistent with historical brackish groundwater reported in that area of the basin. This southeastern portion of the basin (delineated as “Baylands Area” in the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan [SNMP]) is impaired (brackish), and further brackish water intrusion is a concern in the basin. Nitrate levels are generally very low with a basin average of roughly 0.06 mg/L, well below the BPO of 10 mg/L, therefore the basin is not impaired or threatened to be impaired by nutrients. What are the effects of increased levels of [nutrients, salts, and other constituents] on the beneficial uses of groundwater and surface water? What detrimental effects are attributed to [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]? Concerns involving taste and odor, toxicity, human health, crop yields, etc. Increased TDS levels from brackish water intrusion affect the municipal and agricultural beneficial uses of the groundwater subbasin in the Baylands Area. Highly saline water becomes non-potable (due to taste), and from an agricultural perspective, there exists the potential for crop damage and stunted plant growth. While TDS levels within the subbasin are not high enough to warrant a health threat to humans, levels above 1,000 mg/L may have an objectionable taste and odor. Increased levels of nutrients could also affect the beneficial uses of the groundwater subbasin; however, basin- wide average nitrate levels are far below the BPO and nitrate contamination is not a concern. Are surface water and/or groundwater affected by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]? Groundwater is affected by brackish water intrusion in the southeastern portion of the subbasin, which borders San Pablo Bay, but is not affected by salts and nutrients in the Inland Area due to the few sources and high amount of flushing from precipitation and mountain front recharge. Surface water is affected by excess sediment, Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions pathogens and nutrients and there are existing total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs in place for these constituents. Is groundwater quality affected by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents] in surface water; and vise versa? Because both groundwater and surface water quality (for TDS and nitrate) are good and below BPOs, water quality impacts from one on the other are minimal. A small percentage of inflow (11% or about 6,400 acre-feet per year [AFY]) into the groundwater subbasin is from surface waters, which have a low estimated average TDS concentration of 210 mg/L and average nitrate concentration of 0.19 mg/L. Average Inland Area (excluding the Baylands Area) groundwater quality is 372 mg/L for TDS and 0.07 mg/L for nitrate. Therefore, surface water leakage to groundwater adds TDS and nitrate load, but improves TDS groundwater quality (i.e., average TDS in surface water is lower than in groundwater) and degrades nitrate groundwater quality very slightly (i.e., average nitrate in surface water is higher than in groundwater). Groundwater discharge to surface water is about 51,000 AFY. Groundwater discharge to surface water adds TDS and nitrate load; degrades TDS surface water quality slightly (i.e., average TDS in groundwater is higher than in surface water) and improves nitrate surface water quality slightly (i.e., average nitrate in groundwater is lower than in surface water). What are the beneficial uses (i.e., MUN, AGR, IND, FRSH, AQUA, etc.) of groundwater in the [Basin(s)]? The Sonoma Valley Subbasin has both MUN and AGR as existing beneficial uses. IND and PROC are listed as potential beneficial uses. What regulatory provisions are there to protect beneficial uses related to impacts by [nutrients, salts, and other constituents]; such as, Resolution No. 68-16 (Antidegradation Policy), etc.? Resolution No. 68-16 protects the beneficial uses of water bodies related to impacts associated with increased nutrients, salts, and other constituents. The Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District provides recycled water to the area under a Recycled Water Permit (Order 92-067), which includes stringent guidelines to ensure proper application to minimize runoff. The SNMP finds that the use of recycled water can be increased while still protecting groundwater quality. Narrative and Numeric Water Quality Objectives (Interpretation of the narrative and numeric water What are the bases for narrative and numeric Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for the Groundwater Quality Management Plan? The Water Quality Objective (WQO) for TDS is based on the California Department of Public Health’s Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions quality objective, used to calculate the load allocations) (CDPHs) adoption of a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) for TDS. SMCLs address aesthetic concerns like odor, taste, and color and are not related to health concerns. The BPO for TDS is 500 mg/L, following the SMCL adopted by the CDPH. The objective for TDS allows an upper limit of 1,000 mg/L with a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L. For nitrates, the BPO is set at the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L. What are the narrative and numeric WQOs? Narrative: Bacteria, Organic and Inorganic Chemical Constituents, Radioactivity, and Taste and Odor Relevant numeric WQOs for Municipal and Agricultural Supply: TDS = 500 mg/L (municipal), 10,000 mg/L (agricultural) Nitrate-N = 10 mg/L (municipal), 22.22 mg/L (agricultural) Source Analysis Point sources and non-point sources: <Explain and identify sources and loads from sources. Sources should be inventoried.> Most of the constituent sources are associated with point sources from agricultural and rural areas. These sources include irrigation water, agricultural inputs, residential inputs, and animal waste. 1. Irrigation water. This includes potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water. 2. Agricultural inputs. This includes fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water. 3. Residential, commercial and industrial inputs. This includes septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water. 4. Animal waste. This includes dairy manure land application. Urban loads are assumed to be routed to municipal wastewater systems for recycling or discharge rather than to the groundwater, with the exception of landscape irrigation. Non- point sources, like atmospheric deposition, are not considered to be a main source of the constituents of concern. Potential subsurface inputs of high salinity include San Pablo Bay, thermal water upwelling, and existing connate groundwater within the basin. Explain factors that contribute to the basin not being impaired or threatened to be impaired (e.g., high precipitation, few and low-volume sources, etc.). The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values resulting from a combination Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions of factors including the high percentage of mountain front and precipitation recharge with very low TDS and nitrate concentrations, the low amount of loading from the few sources identified, and the low volume and high quality of recycled water used for irrigation. Basin Water Quality Is groundwater quality being maintained? What is the mass balance of constituents within the basin? Current groundwater quality within the basin is being maintained. Both TDS and nitrate have relatively stable concentrations from the period of record, which are predicted into the future through 2035. What is the basin-wide average concentration for constituents? TDS: Inland Area = 372 mg/L; Baylands Area = 1,220 mg/L Nitrate-N: Inland Area = 0.06 mg/L; Baylands Area = 0.07 mg/L Provide maps showing basin characteristics: locations of wells, water quality, contour maps of TDS, nitrogen and other contaminants. Groundwater subbasin, drainages, recycled water use areas: Figure 2-1 Groundwater elevation map: Figure 2-2 Location of wells: Figures 5-3, 5-5, 9-1 Water quality: Figures 5-3 (TDS), 5-5 (Nitrate) Contour map of TDS: Figure 5-2 Contour map of nitrate: Figure 5-4 Land use: Figure 6-1 Potential for Impairment Acknowledge types of activities or land uses that have the potential to degrade groundwater (fertilizer use, manure spreading, recycled water application etc.). Land uses that have the most potential to degrade groundwater quality are vineyards, pasture land, urban residential areas, and farmsteads or rural-residential areas. Other land uses which contribute to the TDS and nitrate loading of the basin are dairy operations, urban landscape or golfing areas, non-irrigated field crops, and urban commercial and industrial areas. Each of these land uses was a designated loading factor for nitrogen and TDS, as well as applied water and percent irrigated. Recycled Water Projects List recycled water projects/uses. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the SNMP, planned future recycled water projects include expanding agricultural irrigation within the Valley; serving irrigation water to large, urban landscape areas (i.e. Sonoma Valley High School, The Plaza, Sonoma Mission Inn Golf Course, etc); and environmental enhancement through the Napa-Sonoma Salt Marsh Restoration Project. Provide general information, categories and/or specific Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions discharges. The volume of recycled water currently used within the Sonoma Valley Subbasin is approximately 1,110 AFY; and is expected to increase to around 4,100 AFY by 2035. The majority of recycled water application is for irrigation and therefore, it is most typically applied in the summer and fall months. Recycled water application follows stringent guidelines within the Recycled Water Permit (Order 92-067). These guidelines include irrigating at agronomic rates and other best management practices (BMPs) which target minimizing irrigation runoff. Limitations Describe limitations and uncertainties associated with the development of the Plan. Spatially, while historical information from the Baylands brackish area was available, no known wells currently exist in the Baylands Area and therefore no current groundwater quality information was available. Vertically within the aquifer, many wells lack well construction information rendering the depth of many wells unknown. Without sufficient depth-specific well screen information, water quality for shallow and deep zones could not be distinguished. Therefore, the simplicity of the mixing model is a limitation, because it simulates two big “buckets” (Inland and Baylands areas with movement between) and mixing is instantaneous. Additionally, verification of assumptions/estimates for individual anthropogenic loading sources during the calibration process was limited by the sensitivity of groundwater quality to and dominance of natural inflows (precipitation and stream recharge) in Sonoma Valley. Data collected as part of the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program will help to determine if relatively flat trends predicted by the SNMP are verified in the future. Information used to derive future conditions was obtained from planning documents such as Urban Water Management Plans; however, this information is projected on a 20-year planning horizon and can change. For instance recycled water expansion is planned to serve additional agricultural irrigation customers and the urban area of the City of Sonoma; however, exact sites and demands may shift as projects are implemented in the future. To address this, the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan will assess changes in recycled water use on a triennial basis. Monitoring Plan Monitoring Plan: What are the types of monitoring is required (i.e., ambient, site specific, groundwater, surface water, discharges, recycled water, effectiveness of the Implementation Plan, etc.)? What is the goal or need of the monitoring program(s)? The Plan requires groundwater monitoring, with the ultimate goal of determining if the salt and nutrient concentrations remain below BPOs and future trends are consistent with those outlined in the SNMP. Who is responsible for implementing the monitoring Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions program(s)? Because the SNMP monitoring program relies on three existing programs, those responsible for implementing the existing programs will also be responsible for implementing the SNMP monitoring program. Those entities are the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (SVGMP). What shall be analyzed and the frequency? Electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), and nitrate are analyzed. Because the monitoring plan relies on the current monitoring conducted by DWR, CDPH, and SVGMP, the frequency will follow those monitoring schedules. Namely, DWR wells will be monitored every 2 years, CDPH wells will be monitored between one and three years, and SVGMP wells will be monitored annually. Where are the monitoring locations? The 47 monitoring locations are spread throughout Sonoma Valley, with the majority clustered in the northern portion of the subbasin. What are the reporting requirements? Monitoring results will be reported through the Geotracker database system to the Regional Water Board every three years and will include an SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Review period and reopener: The basin monitoring plan will be reviewed on a _3_ year basis. Implementation Schedule, Table X-X.2 Implementation Plan Describe any actions resulting from the plan. There are no new implementation measures resulting from the SNMP, the SNMP only endorses current groundwater supply and quality management measures underway within the subbasin and these are not considered actions resulting from the Plan. Special Studies (What special studies are needed and why? The schedule for the special studies [Implementation Schedule, Table X-X.2]? No special studies are recommended to be undertaken as part of this SNMP. Include goals and objectives for recycled water and stormwater recharge/use. The overall goal for both recycled water and stormwater recharge/use is to increase water supplies and supply reliability within the groundwater subbasin, and decrease the amount of pumping and strain on groundwater supplies. For the SNMP, recycled water goals and objectives are based on information provided in 2010 UWMPs and 2012 recycled water usage data. Recycled water goals were set based on 2010 UWMP recycled water use projections. No quantitative goals were set for stormwater recharge/use in this SNMP because planning efforts and specific projects for Element Key Findings and Regulatory Provisions stormwater recharge in the basin are now underway which would establish these objectives. Environmental Considerations   Because the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan does not recommend or require any new  implementation measures, it does not fit the definition of a “project” under CEQA, and thus does not  require the completion of a CEQA document.  According to Section 21065 of CEQA:     “Project” means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a  reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment     As described in further detail in the table on the following pages, the SNMP does not include  implementation of any new actions that would have potential to affect any environmental resources.       Resource Categories Potential Impacts Significance  Aesthetics  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no aesthetic impacts  are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Agriculture and  Forest Resources  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no agriculture and  forest resources impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Air Quality  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no air quality impacts  are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Biological Resources  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no biological resource  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Cultural Resources  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no cultural resource  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval.  No impact  Geology and Soils  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no geology and soil  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Greenhouse Gas  Emissions  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no greenhouse gas  emissions are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Hazards and  Hazardous Materials  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no hazard and  hazardous material impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Hydrology and Water  Quality  No negative impacts.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no negative  hydrology and water quality impacts are anticipated as part  of Plan approval.  Plan approval does result in beneficial  water quality outcomes by formalizing a groundwater  monitoring program and through a number of projects in  which the Plan promotes.  No negative  impact/  Beneficial  impact  Land Use and  Planning  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no negative land use  and planning impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Mineral Resources  None.  The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no negative mineral  resource impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact    Resource Categories Potential Impacts Significance  Noise  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no noise impacts are  anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Population and  Housing  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no population and  housing impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Public Services  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no public service  impacts are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Recreation  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no recreation impacts  are anticipated as part of Plan approval. No impact  Transportation/Traffic  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no  transportation/traffic impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Utilities and Service  Systems  None.   The SNMP does not recommend new  implementation measures; therefore, no utilities and  service system impacts are anticipated as part of Plan  approval. No impact  Mandatory Findings  of Significance  While the SNMP does not recommend new implementation  measures, the projects and activities it endorses provide a  net benefit to the region.  Beneficial  impact  Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Prepared for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District September 2013 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Final Report Prepared by: In Association with: Todd Engineers PlanTierra, Inc. Prepared for the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District September 2013 September 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i  ES-1 Recycled Water Policy Background and Salt and Nutrient Plan Requirement ... i  ES-2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin ............................................... i  ES-3 Developing a Plan Collaboratively .......................................................................... i  ES-4 Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals ................................................................. ii  ES-5 Existing Groundwater Quality ................................................................................. ii  ES-6 Source Identification and Loading ........................................................................ iii  ES-7 Future Groundwater Quality .................................................................................. iii  ES-8 Implementation Measures ...................................................................................... iv  ES-9 Groundwater Monitoring Program ........................................................................ iv  ES-10 Antidegradation Analysis ....................................................................................... iv  ES-11 Plan Finalization Process ....................................................................................... iv  ES-12 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... iv  Chapter 1 Introduction and Background .............................................................................. 1-1  1.1 Plan Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-1  1.2 Plan Organization .................................................................................................... 1-1  1.3 Plan Limitations ....................................................................................................... 1-2  Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin ........................................... 2-1  2.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 2-1  2.2 Groundwater Levels and Flow ................................................................................ 2-3  2.2.1 Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction ............................................................... 2-5  2.3 Water Use ............................................................................................................... 2-5  2.3.1 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 2-5  2.3.2 Imported Surface Water .......................................................................................... 2-5  2.3.3 Recycled Water ....................................................................................................... 2-5  2.4 Groundwater Management Program ....................................................................... 2-6  Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach ....................................................... 3-1  3.1 Stakeholder Group .................................................................................................. 3-1  3.2 Workshop Process .................................................................................................. 3-1  3.3 Regulatory Coordination ......................................................................................... 3-3  3.4 Coordination with the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ..... 3-3  Chapter 4 Goals ...................................................................................................................... 4-1  4.1 Recycled Water Goals ............................................................................................ 4-1  4.2 Stormwater Recharge Goals ................................................................................... 4-1  Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis .............................................................. 5-3  5.1 Existing Groundwater Quality .................................................................................. 5-3  5.1.1 Indicator Parameters of Salts and Nutrients ........................................................... 5-3  5.1.2 Water Quality Objectives ......................................................................................... 5-3  5.1.3 TDS and Nitrate Fate and Transport ....................................................................... 5-3  5.1.4 Analysis Methodologies .......................................................................................... 5-4  5.1.5 TDS in Groundwater ............................................................................................... 5-5  5.1.6 Nitrate in Groundwater ............................................................................................ 5-9  Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis ...................................................... 6-1  6.1 Methodology for Loading Model .............................................................................. 6-1  6.2 Data Inputs .............................................................................................................. 6-2  6.2.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 6-2  6.2.2 Irrigation Water Source ........................................................................................... 6-6  6.2.3 Septic Systems ....................................................................................................... 6-6  September 2013 6.2.4 Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure ............................................................. 6-7  6.2.5 Soil Textures ........................................................................................................... 6-7  6.3 Loading Model Results ............................................................................................ 6-7  Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis ................................................................. 7-1  7.1 Simulation of Baseline and Future Groundwater Quality ........................................ 7-1  7.2 Use of Assimilative Capacity by Recycled Water Projects ...................................... 7-1  7.3 Baseline Period Analysis ......................................................................................... 7-1  7.3.1 Water Quality of Inflows and Outflows .................................................................... 7-2  7.3.2 Mixing Model Calibration and Salt and Nutrient Balance ........................................ 7-3  7.4 Future Planning Period Water Quality ..................................................................... 7-4  7.4.1 Future Scenarios ..................................................................................................... 7-5  7.4.2 Future Water Quality Results .................................................................................. 7-6  Chapter 8 Implementation Measures .................................................................................... 8-1  8.1 Existing Implementation Measures and Ongoing Management Programs ............. 8-1  8.2 Agricultural BMPs .................................................................................................... 8-1  8.2.1 Vineyard .................................................................................................................. 8-1  8.2.2 Dairy ........................................................................................................................ 8-1  8.2.3 Other Agriculture ..................................................................................................... 8-2  8.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs ............................................................................. 8-2  8.4 Groundwater Management Plan – Ongoing Programs ........................................... 8-2  8.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Management ............................................. 8-3  8.6 Municipal Wastewater Management ....................................................................... 8-3  Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 9-1  9.1 Existing Monitoring Programs ................................................................................. 9-1  9.2 SNMP-Specific Groundwater Monitoring Program .................................................. 9-1  9.3 Data Gaps ............................................................................................................... 9-2  Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment ............................................................................ 10-1  10.1 Recycled Water Irrigation Projects ........................................................................ 10-1  10.2 SWRCB Recycled Water Policy Criteria ............................................................... 10-1  10.3 Assessment ........................................................................................................... 10-1  Chapter 11 Plan Approval Process ....................................................................................... 11-1  Chapter 12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 12-1  References .............................................................................................................................. 13-1  List of Tables Table 1-1: Document Organization and Chapter Summary ................................................. 1-2  Table 4-1: Current Use and Future Goals for Recycled Water............................................. 4-1  Table 4-2: Basin Water Management Studies and Timeline ................................................ 4-2  Table 5-1: Basin Plan Objectives ............................................................................................ 5-3  Table 5-2: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity ................. 5-6  Table 5-3: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity ......... 5-9  Table 6-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors ...................................................................... 6-5  Table 6-2: Assumed Characteristic Dairy Values for the Loading Model ........................... 6-6  Table 6-3: Water Quality Parameters for Loading Model Water Sources ........................... 6-6  Table 6-4: TDS and Nitrate Loading Results ....................................................................... 6-10  Table 7-1: Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Mass and Concentrations for Baseline Period Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7-3  Table 7-2: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) ............................................................................. 7-5  Table 7-3: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) .......................................... 7-6  September 2013 Table 7-4: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) ................................................................................................................................. 7-6  Table 9-1: SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program ............................................................ 9-2  Table 10-1: Antidegradation Assessment ........................................................................... 10-2  List of Figures Figure 2-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................. 2-2  Figure 2-2: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Deep Zone, Spring 2010 . 2-4  Figure 3-1: Collaborative Plan Development Process .......................................................... 3-1  Figure 5-1: Summary of Available Water Quality Data ......................................................... 5-5  Figure 5-2: Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) ...................... 5-7  Figure 5-3: Time-Concentration Plots Total Dissolved Solids ............................................. 5-8  Figure 5-4: Nitrate as N Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012)....................................... 5-10  Figure 5-5: Time-Concentration Plots Nitrate as N ............................................................. 5-11  Figure 6-1: Land Use ............................................................................................................... 6-4  Figure 6-2: TDS Loading in Study Area ................................................................................. 6-8  Figure 6-3: Nitrate Loading in Study Area ............................................................................. 6-9  Figure 6-4: Percentage of Land Use in Study Area ............................................................ 6-11  Figure 6-5: Percentage of TDS Loading in Study Area, by Land Use ............................... 6-12  Figure 6-6: Percentage of Nitrogen Loading in Study Area, by Land Use ........................ 6-13  Figure 7-1: Final Simulated Baseline Average Groundwater Concentrations ................... 7-4  Figure 7-2: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations ....................................... 7-6  Figure 7-3: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations ............................... 7-7  Figure 9-1: SNMP Monitoring Program .................................................................................. 9-3  Appendices Appendix A – Existing and Future Groundwater Quality Technical Memorandum Appendix B – Meeting Summaries for Regional Water Quality Control Board Meetings Appendix C – Draft Guidance Document for SNMPs for the San Francisco Bay Region Appendix D – Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading Technical Memorandum Appendix E – SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan Appendix F – Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Planning Template List of Acronyms AF Acre-Feet AFY Acre-Feet per Year BAP Basin Advisory Panel BMPs Best Management Practices BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BPO Basin Plan Objective CDPH California Department of Public Health CEC Constituents of Emerging Concern DWR Department of Water Resources EC Electrical Conductivity GMP Groundwater Management Plan IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management LID Low Impact Development September 2013 MCL Maximum Contaminant Level OWTS Onsite Wastewater Treatment System SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan SVCSD Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District SVGMP Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Technical Advisory Committee TDS Total Dissolved Solids USGS United States Geological Survey UWMPs Urban Water Management Plans VOMWD Valley of the Moon Water District Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 i Executive Summary ES-1 Recycled Water Policy Background and Salt and Nutrient Plan Requirement In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board established a statewide Recycled Water Policy to encourage the use of recycled water and local stormwater capture. The Recycled Water Policy also required local water and wastewater entities, together with local salt and nutrient contributing stakeholders to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for each groundwater basin or subbasin in California. In addition to promoting reliance on local, sustainable water sources such as recycled water and stormwater, the SNMP’s purpose is to manage salts and nutrients from all sources to ensure water quality objectives are met and sustained, and beneficial uses of the groundwater basin are protected. The information in this SNMP is limited to the available data for the subbasin. ES-2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin This SNMP was developed for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, defined as basin number 2-2.02 in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118-4 (DWR, 2003). The Sonoma Valley Subbasin encompasses an area of approximately 70 square miles and is located within the larger 166 square mile Sonoma Creek Watershed. Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to and northwest of San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin was divided into a Baylands Area (containing the historical brackish groundwater) and an Inland Area for the analyses within this SNMP. There are distinct shallow and deeper groundwater zones with the subbasin, and two groundwater pumping depressions are apparent in the deep zone southeast of the City of Sonoma (City) and in the El Verano area. Groundwater serves approximately 25% of the Sonoma Valley population and is the primary source of drinking water supply for rural domestic and other unincorporated areas not being served by urban suppliers. More than half of the water demand in 2000 was met with groundwater and the remaining demand was met with imported water (36%), recycled water (7%), and local surface water (<1%). The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) manages and operates the wastewater treatment facility owned by the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD). During dry weather months from May through October, the SVCSD provides 1,000 to 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for vineyards, dairies, and pasturelands in the southern part of Sonoma Valley. In 2006, a collaborative group of over twenty stakeholders began development of a non-regulatory Groundwater Management Plan (GMP). The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (SVGMP) arising from the GMP locally manages groundwater resources for all beneficial uses. ES-3 Developing a Plan Collaboratively The SNMP was coordinated through the efforts of the SVGMP’s existing stakeholder groups, the Basin Advisory Panel (BAP) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Development of the SNMP was a collaborative effort that utilized a series of six workshops at key milestones in the plan development and technical analysis. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), has also been heavily involved in the Plan development and progress through two inter-regional regulatory meetings, and three Sonoma Valley SNMP-specific meetings. These meetings were held to share findings and obtain concurrence on critical elements of the technical analysis and the development approach for the SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 ii The Sonoma Valley SNMP received partial funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for the SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans for the San Francisco Bay Region was developed as a result, and is included as Appendix B. ES-4 Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals The goals for use of recycled water and stormwater recharge in the subasin were developed based on stakeholder input and on the information contained in UWMPs and other planning documents. Currently, approximately 1,100 AFY of recycled water is utilized within the subbasin for agricultural irrigation. Future planned use, and hence the recycled water goal for the subbasin is 4,100 AFY for irrigation of urban areas and agricultural, and environmental enhancement. Agencies and stakeholders in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are actively working to increase the ability to put stormwater to beneficial use. However, the benefit of recharging stormwater (which is likely to be low in TDS) is not included in the groundwater quality analyses in this Plan due to uncertainties in the projected quantity and volumes of stormwater recharge at this time. ES-5 Existing Groundwater Quality TDS and nitrate were utilized as indicator parameters within this SNMP. A period of 2000-2012 was utilized to establish baseline groundwater quality conditions. Generally, relatively low TDS concentrations (less than 500 mg/L) are observed throughout most of the subbasin. A few wells with elevated concentrations (above 750 mg/L) are seen in the southeastern portion of the subbasin in an area of historical brackish groundwater (Baylands Area). This Baylands Area has been recognized for decades as an area of historical brackish groundwater (Kunkel and Upson, 1960; USGS, 2006). Due to the elevated salt in this area and land cover which is primarily tidal marshlands, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. Accordingly, this area is considered separately from the remainder of the subbasin referred to as the Inland Area to assess average groundwater quality. Average groundwater quality in the subbasin is characterized for the Inland Area, the Baylands Area, and the combined Inland and Baylands areas as one aquifer. The average TDS concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table ES-1. The average Inland Area TDS concentration is 372 mg/L, well below the BPO of 500 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 128 mg/L. Table ES-1: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 635 372 1,220 BPO 500 500 500 Available Assimilative Capacity -135 128 -720 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 iii Generally low nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The average nitrate concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table ES-2. Table ES-2: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 0.06 0.06 0.07 BPO 10.00 10.00 10.00 Available Assimilative Capacity 9.94 9.94 9.93 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter ES-6 Source Identification and Loading Salt and nutrient loading from surface activities to the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are due to various sources, including:  Irrigation water (potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water)  Agricultural inputs (fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Residential inputs (septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Animal waste (dairy manure land application) To better understand the significance of various loading factors for the SNMP analysis, a GIS-based loading model was developed. Data inputs to the model include the spatial distribution of land uses (with associated loading factors), irrigation water sources (with associated water quality), septic inputs, wastewater infrastructure loads, and soil textures. The loading analysis found somewhat higher loading of TDS in the rural and agricultural areas of the subbasin, while nitrate loading was higher in the urban areas largely due to the low nitrogen application rates on vineyards. Loading model outputs were utilized to determine future water quality conditions. ES-7 Future Groundwater Quality A mixing model was used to predict future water quality, water quality trends, and the percentage of the existing available assimilative capacity used by recycled water projects in the subbasin during the future planning period (through 2035). Three future scenarios were simulated:  Future Scenario 0 (No-Project): Assumes average baseline water balance conditions and no additional enhanced stormwater capture and recharge is applied.  Future Scenario 1: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use of 4,100 AFY (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35)  Future Scenario 2: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity for both TDS and nitrate, and projected concentrations remain well below the BPO of 500 mg/L for TDS and 10 mg/L for nitrate. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Executive Summary September 2013 iv ES-8 Implementation Measures The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values, well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) indicates good water quality and stable trends. Therefore, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time; however, it is recommended that existing measures or practices to manage groundwater quality in the basin continue. ES-9 Groundwater Monitoring Program A Groundwater Monitoring Plan is a required element of all SNMPs. For the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program, 47 wells that are currently monitored by DWR, CDPH, and SVGMP will be included in the monitoring program. Wells will be monitored on the same schedule as their current monitoring, and results will be reported through the Geotracker database system to the Regional Water Board every three years in an SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Parameters to be monitored include EC, TDS and nitrate. ES-10 Antidegradation Analysis Recycled water project(s) in the Sonoma Valley include existing (agricultural irrigation) and projected increased use of recycled water for irrigation and environmental enhancement through the end of the future planning period in 2035. Irrigation with recycled water contributes only very minor salt and nutrient loading to the subbasin and recycled water projects do not use more that 10 % of the available assimilative capacity. In addition to the minimal negative water quality impacts associated with recycled water irrigation project(s) in the Subbasin, the Recycled Water Policy and other state-wide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. The SNMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting and improving groundwater quality for beneficial uses. ES-11 Plan Finalization Process Following the presentation of the Draft SNMP at the July 18, 2013 public workshop, public comments on the Draft SNMP Report were considered and incorporated into this Final SNMP Report. This SNMP is being submitted to the Regional Water Board (in September 2013) for their review and incorporation to their Basin Planning process and subsequent environmental documentation process. The Final SNMP Report has been posted online at the following web address: www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/ ES-12 Conclusion The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values (well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs), resulting from a combination of factors including the high percentage of mountain front recharge with very low TDS and nitrate concentrations, the low amount of loading from the few sources identified, and the low volume and high quality of recycled water used. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) also indicates good water quality and stable trends. In conclusion, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 1 Introduction and Background September 2013 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction and Background In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Resolution No. 2009- 0011, which established a statewide Recycled Water Policy. The policy encourages increased use of recycled water and local stormwater capture. It also requires local water and wastewater entities, together with local salt and nutrient contributing stakeholders to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for each groundwater basin or subbasin in California. The Sonoma Valley SNMP was developed through a collaborative process over an 18-month period starting in January 2012. This SNMP was prepared for the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin in Sonoma County, California. The community overlying the groundwater subbasin includes urban areas as well as a significant amount of rural and agricultural land. Groundwater is an important resource to the area. Recycled water is currently used for agricultural irrigation and there are plans for expanded use of recycled water to augment or offset existing water supplies. As the primary local distributor of recycled water, the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD) is leading the development of this SNMP. 1.1 Plan Purpose The purpose of this SNMP is to:  Promote reliance on local sustainable water sources such as recycled water and stormwater  Manage salts and nutrients from all sources on a sustainable basis to ensure attainment of water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses 1.2 Plan Organization This SNMP is a comprehensive summary document of both the technical and planning work that went into development of the SNMP. The body of the report provides a high-level overview of the work completed in developing of the SNMP. The detailed technical analysis and assumptions for the groundwater quality trend and assimilative capacity analysis, loading and antidegradation analysis, and groundwater monitoring plan are contained within a series of technical memoranda attached as appendices to this SNMP. This document first describes the groundwater basin characteristics and existing conditions, the collaborative process undertaken to develop this SNMP, existing groundwater quality, salt and nutrient loading analysis, future groundwater quality, goals, implementation measures, groundwater monitoring plan, and how this plan will be used. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 1 Introduction and Background September 2013 1-2 Table 1-1: Document Organization and Chapter Summary Chapter No. Chapter Title Chapter Overview 1 Introduction and Background Plan purpose, recycled water policy requirement overview, and summary of document organization 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin Groundwater subbasin characterization, water uses, groundwater levels, and water budget 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach Description of the collaborative process undertaken to develop the SNMP including stakeholders, meetings, and regulatory coordination 4 Goals Documentation of recycled water and stormwater recharge goals within the Sonoma Valley Subbasin 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis Approach, methodology, and existing groundwater quality 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis Characterization of salt and nutrient sources, methodology for loading analysis, and findings 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis Approach, methodology, and future groundwater quality 8 Implementation Measures Documentation of groundwater management measures and volunteer efforts underway within the groundwater subbasin 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan Overview of SNMP groundwater monitoring plan and reporting 10 Antidegradation Assessment Description of the antidegradation assessment 11 Plan Approval Process Plan approval process and future updating criteria 12 Conclusion A summary of findings from the SNMP process 1.3 Plan Limitations Limitations and uncertainties associated with the development of this SNMP are mainly data related. Spatially, while historical information from the Baylands brackish area was available, no known wells currently exist in the Baylands and therefore no current groundwater quality information was available. Vertically within the aquifer, many well locations were lacking well construction detail information rendering the depth of the well unknown. Without depth-specific well screen information, water quality for shallow and deep zones was unable to be distinguished. Therefore the simplicity of the mixing model is a limitation because it simulates two big “buckets” (Inland and Baylands with movement between) and mixing is instantaneous. Additionally, verification of assumptions/estimates for individual anthropogenic loading sources during the calibration process was limited by the sensitivity of groundwater quality to and dominance of natural inflows (precipitation and stream recharge) in Sonoma Valley. Data collected as part of the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program will help in determining if flat trends predicted by the SNMP are verified. Information used to derive future conditions was obtained from planning documents such as Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs); however this information is projected on a 20-year planning horizon and can change. For instance recycled water expansion is planned to serve additional agricultural irrigation customers and the urban area of the City of Sonoma however exact sites and demands may shift as projects are implemented in the future. To address this, the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan will assess changes in recycled water use on a triennial basis. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-1 Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin This chapter provides an overview of the hydrogeologic conceptual model of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Subbasin located in Sonoma County, the subbasin for which this SNMP was developed. 2.1 Study Area Per the Policy, SNMPs are to be developed for all groundwater basins in California. This SNMP was developed for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, defined as basin number 2-2.02 in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118-4 (DWR, 2003). The Sonoma Valley Subbasin encompasses an area of approximately 70 square miles and is located within the larger 166 square mile Sonoma Creek Watershed, which also includes part of the Kenwood Valley Groundwater Basin, located northwest of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Due to an area of historical brackish groundwater located adjacent to and northwest of San Pablo Bay, the Sonoma Valley Subbasin was divided into a Baylands Area (containing the historical brackish groundwater) and an Inland Area as shown in Figure 2-1 for this SNMP. The Baylands Area is defined for this study as the area beneath the tidal sloughs adjacent to San Pablo Bay generally containing groundwater with greater than 750 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS). The Sonoma Valley is a northwest trending, elongated depression. Geologic units generally dipping toward the center of the valley are bound on the southwest by the Sonoma Mountains and on the northeast by the Mayacamas Mountains (Figure 2-1). The uppermost part of the valley is relatively flat and stretches from Kenwood to near Glen Ellen. The middle part of the valley is narrower than the upper part and has a hilly topography. This portion is sometimes referred to as the Valley of the Moon and extends southward to near Boyes Hot Springs and includes the Glen Ellen area. The remainder of the valley slopes gently southward to San Pablo Bay, has flat topography, and extends to a maximum width of about 5 miles. Sonoma Creek is the main surface water feature draining the valley. The creek originates in the Mayacamas Mountains in the northeastern area of the watershed. The creek flows into the Kenwood Valley Basin before flowing south into the Sonoma Valley Subbasin and ultimately discharging into San Pablo Bay. Other smaller tributary creeks flow into Sonoma Creek from the east and west. The watershed area comprises large tracks of native vegetation, as well as lands used for agriculture, primarily vineyards. Urban, residential, commercial, and industrial development constitutes a relatively small percentage of the watershed area and is primarily located in the valley areas. Sonoma is the largest city in the Study Area. Other cities and unincorporated areas in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin include Glen Ellen, Boyes Hot Springs, El Verano, and Schellville (Figure 2-1). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-2 Figure 2-1: Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-3 2.2 Groundwater Levels and Flow Groundwater levels in the Sonoma Valley are monitored and reported as part of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) (SCWA, 2011). There is a groundwater divide within the Kenwood Valley Basin, with groundwater in the northern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a northwestward direction toward Santa Rosa and groundwater in the southern half of the Kenwood Basin flowing in a southeasterly direction toward the Sonoma Valley Subbasin in both the shallow and deep zones Comparison of the shallow and deeper groundwater elevation contour maps (see Appendix A) indicates that groundwater elevations in the deep zone 1) are similar to groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in northern Sonoma Valley, and 2) are up to 100 feet lower than groundwater elevations in the shallow zone in southern Sonoma Valley, indicating a downward vertical gradient in southern Sonoma Valley. As shown in Figure 2-2, two groundwater pumping depressions are apparent in the deep zone groundwater elevation contour map southeast of the City of Sonoma (City) and in the El Verano area. The pumping depression southeast of the City of Sonoma has the potential to induce intrusion of brackish water from the Baylands Area. This potential brackish water intrusion is being addressed through replacement of pumped groundwater with recycled water for irrigation in and north of the Baylands Area. Continued monitoring and assessment of groundwater levels and groundwater quality will be conducted to assess inland movement of the brackish water. This monitoring and assessment will be included in the triennial SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-4 Figure 2-2: Generalized Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, Deep Zone, Spring 2010 Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-5 2.2.1 Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction Sonoma Valley is drained by Sonoma Creek, which discharges to San Pablo Bay. Seepage testing conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2003 showed Sonoma Creek to be a gaining (groundwater discharging to the creek) creek through most of the valley with the exception of a short reach in the northern part of the watershed where the creek enters the Kenwood Valley Basin from the Mayacamas Mountains crossing the alluvial fan between the mountain front and Highway 12 (USGS, 2006). 2.3 Water Use The Sonoma Valley relies on groundwater, imported surface water, and recycled water to meet domestic, agricultural and urban demands. Based on the USGS study (2006), more than half of the water demand in 2000 was met with groundwater and the remaining demand was met with imported water (36%), recycled water (7%), and local surface water (<1%). The largest use of groundwater in the Sonoma Valley in 2000 was irrigation (72%), followed by rural domestic use (19%), and urban demand (9%). In 2000, total water use in the Sonoma Valley (including groundwater and imported surface water) was estimated at 14,018 acre-feet (AF), of which 48% was used for irrigation, 41% for urban use, and the remaining 11% for rural domestic use. 2.3.1 Groundwater Groundwater serves approximately 25% of the Sonoma Valley population and is the primary source of drinking water supply for rural domestic and other unincorporated areas not being served by urban suppliers. Rural domestic demand is predominantly met by groundwater through privately owned and operated water wells. There are also mutual water companies in the Sonoma Valley that supply multiple households predominantly with groundwater although some companies also provide imported water. Agricultural water demands are largely met by groundwater supplies. It was estimated that as of 2000 the Sonoma Creek Watershed contained approximately 2,000 domestic, agricultural, and public supply wells (USGS, 2006). 2.3.2 Imported Surface Water Imported surface water represents the primary source of drinking water to meet urban demands, which serves approximately 75% of the Sonoma Valley population. These imported water supplies are sourced from the Russian River and are provided via aqueduct by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) to the Valley of the Moon Water District (VOMWD) and the City who, in turn, provide water directly to their urban customers. The imported water is supplemented with local groundwater from the City and VOMWD public supply wells. The City and VOMWD boundaries are shown in Figure 2-1. 2.3.3 Recycled Water SCWA manages and operates the wastewater treatment facility owned by the SVCSD. During dry weather months from May through October, the SVCSD provides 1,000 to 1,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for vineyards, dairies, and pasturelands in the southern part of Sonoma Valley. As of 2007, recycled water accounted for approximately 7% of the total estimated water use in Sonoma Valley (SCWA, December 2007). The current and future areas of recycled water use for irrigation exist in both the Inland and Baylands Areas and are shown in Figure 2-1. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 2 Conceptual Model of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin September 2013 2-6 2.4 Groundwater Management Program In recognition of the increasing demands and challenges facing the Sonoma Valley groundwater subbasin, a collaborative group of over twenty stakeholders began development of a non-regulatory Groundwater Management Plan in 2006. This group, called the Basin Advisory Panel (BAP) represents varied groundwater interests including local agriculture, dairies, government, local water purveyors, business, and environmental interests. The BAP, assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), developed the non-regulatory Groundwater Management Plan, which was adopted by SCWA, the City, VOMWD, and SVCSD in late 2007. The Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program (SVGMP) identifies a range of voluntary management actions to maintain the health of the groundwater basin including increasing recycled water use and enhancing groundwater recharge. The SVGMP goal is to locally manage, protect, and enhance groundwater resources for all beneficial uses, in a sustainable, environmentally sound, economical, and equitable manner for generations to come. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-1 Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach The SNMP was developed in a collaborative setting with input from a wide array of stakeholders and interested parties. The SNMP was able to utilize the existing stakeholder infrastructure set up by the SVGMP to hold meetings and obtain input on technical analysis and direction of the Plan. The stakeholder group make-up, workshop process and regulatory coordination elements of the process are outlined below. 3.1 Stakeholder Group The SNMP was coordinated through the efforts of the SVGMP’s existing stakeholder groups, the BAP and the TAC. Stakeholders that also participated in the SNMP process include:  Municipal agencies: SCWA, SVCSD, VOMWD, the City  Resource groups: Sonoma Resource Conservation District  Agricultural interests: members of the North Bay Agricultural Alliance and Sonoma Valley Vintners & Growers Alliance, Sonoma County Winegrape Commission, Mulas Dairy, and individual vineyard owners  Others: Sonoma Ecology Center, private well owners  Regulatory/Government Agencies: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality (Regional Water Board), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), DWR, USGS 3.2 Workshop Process Development of the SNMP was a collaborative effort that utilized workshops at key milestones. As the technical analysis progressed, additional meetings were held with the TAC and other specific stakeholders to help develop and refine land use practices, water use information and loading parameter input. A total of six workshops were held through-out the 18-month SNMP development process. In addition to the six workshops, as part of data collection and regional coordination, the following meetings were held:  Four meetings were held with the TAC (2012: November; 2013: January, April, July)  Two conference calls were held with the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission (November 2013, January 2013)  Four meetings were held with the Regional Water Board (2012: January; 2013: January, May, June)  One meeting was held with the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Coordinating Committee (April 22, 2013) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management PlanChapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development ApproachSeptember 2013 3-1 Implementation Measures Integration into Bay Area RWMP Anti‐degradation Analysis Potential Source Identification Land Use Verification Draft GW Monitoring Plan RW & Stormwater Goals & Objectives Assimilative Capacity, Fate & Transport Salt & Nutrient Plan Compilation Final Plan & BAIRWMP Document Workshop 4Workshop 6Workshop 5Workshop 5 with Bay Area Coordinating Committee – June 2013 Loading Results Nov 2012, Jan 2013 TACs May, June 2013RWQCB June 2012 TAC Baseline WQ Assessment Preliminary Loading Workshop 2Oct 2012 TAC Work shop 1 Jan 2013 BAP Workshop 3Apr 2013 TAC/BAP Jan 2013 RWQCB Coordination Figure 3-1: Collaborative Plan Development Process Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-1 Workshops were structured to present the technical analysis methodology and findings, and to obtain input and direction on assumptions and key elements of the plan moving forward. Each of the six workshops along with the major topics of discussion and outcomes are shown below. Workshop 1 - June 13, 2012 (held with TAC)  Discussion Topics o Recycled Water Policy Requirements o Sonoma Valley Planned Approach o Input on Land Cover Changes o Constituents to Address in the Plan o Schedule  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder agreement on SNMP Plan development process o Refinements to land use and land cover (updated dairy areas, future recycled water areas) o Agreement on constituents to address in SNMP Workshop 2 - October 10, 2012 (held with TAC)  Discussion Topics o Existing Groundwater Water Quality Analysis and Findings o Salt and Nutrient Loading Model and Mixing Model Approach o Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder understanding of existing water quality o Confirmation of recycled water and stormwater recharge goals for the basin Workshop 3 - January 17, 2013 (held as a public workshop following the BAP meeting)  Discussion Topics o Background Recycled Water Policy and SNMP Requirements o Existing Groundwater Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity o Salt and Nutrient Loading Analysis and Findings o Recycled Water and Stormwater Goals o Mixing Model Approach o Bay Area IRWM Guidance Document Development  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder understanding of existing water quality and assimilative capacity Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-2 o Confirmation of technical approach o Input on land management practices for dairy operations Workshop 4 - April 18, 2013 (held with BAP)  Discussion Topics o Future Water Quality and Assimilative Capacity o Existing Implementation Measures o SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program o Next Steps for SNMP Finalization  Meeting Outcomes o Stakeholder understanding of technical analysis o Agreement with approach of utilizing existing implementation measures o Confirmation of plan for Groundwater Monitoring Workshop 5 - June 3, 2013 (held with Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee)  Discussion Topics o Proposition 84 Planning Grant SNMP Element o Key Steps in Preparing an SNMP o Review of Draft Guidance Document for SNMPs for the Bay Area Region and Off-Ramp Language within Document o Incorporation of Guidance Document into IRWM Plan Update  Meeting Outcomes o Confirmation of approach o Modification of title wording and revisions to introductory text Workshop 6 - July 18, 2013 (held as a public workshop following the BAP meeting)  Discussion Topics o Background on Recycled Water Policy and SNMP Requirements o Review SNMP Process and Findings o Process for Providing Input on Draft SNMP Report o Regulatory Coordination and SNMP Finalization  Meeting Outcomes o Informed public of SNMP Process o Received clarifying questions Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-3 3.3 Regulatory Coordination Sonoma Valley is one of three groundwater basins in the Bay Area Region that is nearing completion of its SNMP. The Regional Water Board has been part of the SNMP development processes over the last 18- months through a series of meetings and region-wide workshops. Two Bay Area Region-wide SNMP coordination meetings have been held with the Regional Water Board, SVCSD, Zone 7 Water Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the first in January 2012, and the second in June 2013. The inter-regional coordination meetings provided a forum to share SNMP develop approaches and progress; and to understand and provide feedback on the Regional Water Board’s planning process. In addition to the two inter-regional regulatory meetings, three Sonoma Valley SNMP-specific meetings have been held with the Regional Water Board to share findings and obtain concurrence on critical elements of the technical analysis and the development approach for the SNMP. These coordination meetings were held at critical points in the technical analysis to obtain feedback on preliminary findings so that modifications and new approaches could be accounted for. Meeting minutes from the January and May meetings which pertained directly to the Sonoma Valley SNMP are included as Appendix B. The first meeting was held in January 2013, in which the SNMP plan development process, collaboration and stakeholder make-up, existing water quality and assimilative capacity findings, goal setting, and the approach for the loading analysis and future water quality analysis was shared. The Regional Water Board staff agreed with the SNMP’s approach for using the 2000-2012 period for establishing current basin averages, and agreed with the goal setting (utilizing recycled water use goals from the 2010 UWMPs, and not including numeric goals for stormwater recharge until recharge projects in Sonoma Valley are further developed). Additionally, Regional Water Board staff agreed that it made sense to continue to distinguish between the Inland and Baylands area for the assimilative capacity assessment. There was significant discussion regarding the proposed approach for establishing average TDS and nitrate and assimilative capacity, which was to average across the basin and across all depth intervals to estimate one TDS and one nitrate concentration for the entire subbasin. While Regional Water Board staff preferred a depth discrete analysis of the assimilative capacity, this was not possible given the limited data set. Moving forward, a reasonable mixing depth was assumed for the basin in the mixing analysis (approximately 400 feet), and the shallow and deep zones are accounted for in the monitoring plan. The second meeting held in May 2013 shared the methodology and findings from the loading and future water quality analysis, future assimilative capacity, existing implementation measures, and planned SNMP groundwater monitoring program. The results of the technical analysis showing good water quality with relatively flat trends through 2035 were shared. A third meeting with the Regional Water Board was held on June, 24 2013 to present and discuss the Draft Guidance Document for SNMP for the Bay Area Region (Appendix C). 3.4 Coordination with the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan The Guidance Document for Salt and Nutrient Management Plans for the San Francisco Bay Region was developed as a result of the Sonoma Valley SNMP preparation effort. The SVCSD, along with the Zone 7 Water Agency and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are leading SNMP development efforts in three groundwater basins for the San Francisco Bay Region. The Sonoma Valley SNMP received partial funding through the Proposition 84 Planning Grant for the SNMP preparation and development of a guidance document to assist other Bay Area agencies wanting to undergo a similar process in developing their SNMPs. The purpose of the Guidance Document (included as Appendix C) is to describe the common steps that may be undertaken by Bay Area groups in preparing an SNMP. The Regional Water Board is expected to Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 3 Collaborative Plan Development Approach September 2013 3-4 consider the size, complexity, level of activity, and site-specific factors within a basin in reviewing the level of detail and the specific tasks required for each SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 4 Goals September 2013 4-1 Chapter 4 Goals This chapter presents the goals for using recycled water and stormwater in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The goals were developed based on stakeholder input and on the information contained in UWMPs and other planning documents. The UWMPs are developed by the individual water purveyors (SCWA, VOMWD, and the City), so the information contained in those UWMPs was summarized and merged together to meet the needs of this Plan. Additionally, water conservation programs provide a useful basis for understanding and assessing recycling activities. The agencies within the basin implement extensive water conservation programs, ranging from residential, commercial, industrial and municipal to agricultural programs. More information on individual agency conservation programs can be found in each individual agency’s UWMP. 4.1 Recycled Water Goals Recycled water goals are based on information provided in 2010 UWMPs and 2012 recycled water usage data. Recycled water goals were set based on 2010 UWMP recycled water use projections. Existing recycled water use is presented in Table 4-1, and is based on 2012 recycled water usage data provided by SVCSD. These values represent recycled water use within the Subbasin, which is currently used for agricultural irrigation. Future expansion of the recycled water system is planned to provide recycled water to urban areas in the City, environmental enhancement, and more water for agricultural customers. Table 4-1 also presents the projected 2035 recycled water use in the basin. These future estimates represent the recycled water goals for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Table 4-1: Current Use and Future Goals for Recycled Water Provider 2012 Use (AFY) 2035 Use (AFY) SVCSD 1,100 4,100 Increase over 2012 usage n/a 2,750 4.2 Stormwater Recharge Goals Agencies and stakeholders in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are actively working to increase the ability to put stormwater to beneficial use. For example in 2012, SCWA completed a watershed scoping study for a stormwater management/groundwater recharge project in the Sonoma Valley and performed similar studies for other area watersheds. The goal of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing multi-benefit projects that will provide stormwater detention and groundwater recharge, while maximizing opportunities for flood control, water quality enhancement, and potential open space benefits. Additionally, there is a trend towards requiring implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) features in development and redevelopment that increase recharge of stormwater. The Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District recently published the “Slow It, Spread It, Sink It” LID Guidance Document for Sonoma Valley. Water management planning efforts related to stormwater and their corresponding implementation schedules are shown in Table 4-2. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 4 Goals September 2013 4-2 Table 4-2: Basin Water Management Studies and Timeline Study/Project General Scope Implementing and Cooperating Agencies Schedule Stormwater LID Technical Design Manual Provide design guidance to mitigate water quality impacts due to development and encourage infiltration of storm water.a. City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency, County of Sonoma Completed in 2011 Groundwater Banking Feasibility Study Evaluate feasibility of using excess wintertime water from Russian River drinking water facilities for storage and subsequent recovery in the Santa Rosa Plain and/or Sonoma Valley groundwater basins during dry weather conditions or emergency situations. Sonoma County Water Agency, Cities of Cotati, Rohnert Park and Sonoma, Town of Windsor, Valley of the Moon Water District Complete by Winter 2013 Sonoma Valley Stormwater Management and Groundwater Recharge Scoping Study Assess potential projects in the watershed that can provide both flood control and groundwater recharge. Sonoma County Water Agency Scoping Study Completed Spring 2012 a. SCWA is also developing a “WaterSmart Manual” to promote water smart practices including conservation, recycling and low impact development. The WaterSmart Manual is scheduled to be completed in Winter 2013. While these efforts and others are continuing in the subbasin, the benefit of recharging stormwater (which is likely to be low in TDS) is not included in the groundwater quality analyses in this Plan due to uncertainties in the projected quantity and volumes of stormwater recharge at this time. Not including stormwater in the future water quality analysis at this point is a conservative approach as stormwater would likely decrease TDS and nitrate concentrations in the subbasin. Future updates to the Plan will consider these efforts as they continue to be developed and implemented. Future updates to the Plan could also include quantitative goals for stormwater recharge as they are established through these planned efforts. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 0 September 2013 5-3 Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis Determining the existing groundwater quality is a critical step in SNMP technical analysis. A summary of the existing groundwater quality is presented below with additional detail contained in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM (Todd, 2013) attached as Appendix A. 5.1 Existing Groundwater Quality 5.1.1 Indicator Parameters of Salts and Nutrients TDS and nitrate are the indicator salts and nutrients selected for the Sonoma Valley SNMP. Total salinity is commonly expressed in terms of TDS in mg/L. TDS (and electrical conductivity data that can be converted to TDS) are available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the valley. While TDS can be an indicator of anthropogenic impacts such as infiltration of runoff, soil leaching, and land use, there is also a natural background TDS concentration in groundwater. Nitrate is a widespread contaminant in California groundwater. High levels of nitrate in groundwater are generally associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facility discharges. Nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. Natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low, with concentrations typically less than 10 mg/L for nitrate as nitrate (nitrate-NO3) or 2 to 3 mg/L for nitrate as nitrogen (nitrate-N). Nitrate is commonly reported as either nitrate-NO3 or nitrate-N; and one can be converted to the other. Nitrate-N is selected for the assessment in this SNMP. 5.1.2 Water Quality Objectives Water quality objectives provide a reference for assessing groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The CDPH has adopted a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for TDS. SMCLs address aesthetic issues related to taste, odor, or appearance of the water and are not related to health effects, although elevated TDS concentrations in water can damage crops, affect plant growth, and damage municipal and industrial equipment. The recommended SMCL for TDS is 500 mg/L with an upper limit of 1,000 mg/L. It has a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has established a basin plan objective (BPO) of 500 mg/L for TDS for municipal and domestic supply in their Basin Plan (December 2010). The MCL for nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen (as N) is 10 mg/L. The Regional Water Board has established the BPOs at the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for these constituents. Table 5-1 lists numeric BPOs for groundwater with municipal and domestic water supply and agricultural water supply beneficial uses in the San Francisco Bay Region. Table 5-1: Basin Plan Objectives Constituent Units BPOs TDS mg/L 500 Nitrate-N mg/L 10 5.1.3 TDS and Nitrate Fate and Transport Salt and nutrient fate and transport describes the way salts and nutrients move and change through an environment or media. In groundwater, it is determined by groundwater flow directions and rate, the characteristics of individual salts and nutrients, and the characteristics of the aquifer media. Water has the ability to naturally dissolve salts and nutrients along its journey in the hydrologic cycle. The types and quantity of salts and nutrients present determine whether the water is of suitable quality for its intended uses. Salts and nutrients present in natural water result from many different sources including Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-4 atmospheric gases and aerosols, weathering and erosion of soil and rocks, and from dissolution of existing minerals below the ground surface. Additional changes in concentrations can result due to ion exchange, precipitation of minerals previously dissolved, and reactions resulting in conversion of some solutes from one form to another such as the conversion of nitrate to gaseous nitrogen. In addition to naturally occurring salts and nutrients, anthropogenic activities can add salts and nutrients. TDS and nitrate are contained in the source water that recharges the Sonoma Valley. Addition of new water supply sources, either through intentional or unintentional recharge, can change the groundwater quality either for the worse by introducing contamination or for the better by diluting some existing contaminants in the aquifer. Another important influence on salts and nutrients in groundwater is unintentional recharge, which can occur, for example, when irrigation water exceeds evaporation and plant needs and infiltrates into the aquifer (i.e., irrigation return flow). Irrigation return flows can carry fertilizers high in nitrogen and soil amendments high in salts from the yard or field into the aquifer. Similarly, recycled water used for irrigation also introduces salts and nutrients. TDS is considered conservative in that it does not readily attenuate in the environment. In contrast, processes that affect the fate and transport of nitrogen compounds are complex, with transformation, attenuation, uptake, and leaching in various environments. Nitrogen is relatively stable once in the saturated groundwater zone and nitrate is the primary form of nitrogen detected in groundwater. It is soluble in water and can easily pass through soil to the groundwater table. 5.1.4 Analysis Methodologies Lateral and Vertical Segmentation Initially, the available groundwater quality data and well completion information were assessed to determine if the subbasin groundwater quality characterization could be divided into subareas (north and south) and layers (shallow and deep) to assess differences in groundwater quality laterally and vertically. Unfortunately, well completion information for many of the monitored wells is unavailable, and the available data are considered insufficient to reliably differentiate groundwater quality in the shallow and deep zones. The Baylands Area shown in Figure 2-1 is defined as the area with median TDS concentrations greater than 750 mg/L. This general area has been recognized for decades as an area of historical brackish groundwater (Kunkel and Upson, 1960; USGS, 2006). Due to the elevated salt in this area and land cover which is primarily tidal marshlands, groundwater pumping is limited, and the area is unlikely to be developed for groundwater supply in the future. There are a limited number of wells in the Baylands Area based on DWR well logs acquired for the USGS study (2006). Many of the wells in the Baylands Area have been destroyed and agricultural land use in the area is primarily limited to non- irrigated crops such as hay. Accordingly, this area is considered separately from the remainder of the subbasin referred to as the Inland Area. Available monitoring data do not indicate clear differences between groundwater quality in the northern and southern portion of the Inland Area. Therefore average groundwater quality in the subbasin is characterized for the Inland Area, the Baylands Area, and the combined Inland and Baylands areas as one aquifer. This approach was shared with the Regional Water Board in January 2013. Groundwater Quality Averaging Period In accordance with the Policy, the available assimilative capacity shall be calculated by comparing the BPOs with the average ambient salt and nutrient concentrations in the subbasin over the most recent five years of available data (2007 to 2012) or a time period approved by the Regional Water Board. Figure 5-1 shows the number of wells sampled over the history of sampling in the subbasin. As shown in the figure, a significant number of wells were sampled in the 2000 to 2006 time period, predominantly as part of the work conducted by the USGS (2006). In order to provide a more robust dataset, data collected during the 12 year period from 2000 to 2012 are used to assess the average groundwater quality in the subbasin. The Regional Water Board approved this baseline period duration in the January 2013 regulatory coordination meeting. Evaluation of concentration trends finds overall relatively stable or flat Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-5 trends for TDS and nitrate in most wells in the subbasin, which also supports use of a longer averaging period. Figure 5-1: Summary of Available Water Quality Data Calculation of Existing Ambient Groundwater Quality and Assimilative Capacity The median groundwater concentration for samples collected from individual wells over the 12-year averaging period for TDS and nitrate are plotted on maps with different size and color circles representing median concentrations (dots maps). The TDS and nitrate dots maps are then used to develop concentration contour maps for TDS and nitrate. The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for each area (Inland and Baylands) and for the entire subbasin are compared to the BPOs to determine the current available assimilative capacity. Time-Concentration Plots and Trends Time-concentration plots are prepared and evaluated to assess whether TDS and nitrate groundwater concentrations across the subbasin have been historically increasing, decreasing, or showing no significant change. The trend analysis facilitates the comparison of observed concentration trends in individual wells with simulated average groundwater concentration trends from the mixing model over the baseline period, from 1996-97 (water year 1997) through 2005-06 (WY 2006), for calibration purposes. A water year is from October 1 to September 30 of the following year and is commonly used for hydrogeologic analysis. 5.1.5 TDS in Groundwater Figure 5-2 shows TDS concentration contours in the subbasin. Generally, relatively low TDS concentrations (less than 500 mg/L) are observed throughout most of the subbasin. A few wells with elevated concentrations (above 750 mg/L) are seen in the southeastern portion of the subbasin. The southeastern portion of the subbasin is an area of historical brackish groundwater. The area of very high TDS near San Pablo Bay with TDS greater than 1,500 mg/L is based on older well sampling conducted between 1954 and 1973 by DWR. Use of these older data is conservative in that their use results in higher average concentrations in the Baylands Area and there are no more recent data available for this area. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-6 The average TDS concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 5-2. The average Inland Area TDS concentration is 372 mg/L, well below the BPO of 500 mg/L, resulting in available assimilative capacity of 128 mg/L. As expected the average TDS concentration in the Baylands Area is high, with an average concentration of 1,220 mg/L, resulting in no available assimilative capacity. The average TDS concentration for the combined subbasin including both the Inland and Baylands Areas is 635 mg/L, also resulting in no available assimilative capacity. Table 5-2: Average TDS Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 635 372 1,220 BPO 500 500 500 Available Assimilative Capacity -135 128 -720 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter TDS Trends Figure 5-3 shows time-concentration plots for TDS, along with the applicable BPO. The well dots and charts are shaded to indicate the wells depths with red wells and charts indicating wells less than 200 feet deep, yellow wells and charts indicating wells between 200 and 500 feet deep and green wells and charts indicating wells greater than 500 feet deep. Wells and charts shaded gray indicated wells with unknown completion depths. The figure shows relatively flat TDS trends in the subbasin indicating generally stable conditions. However, Wells 5N/5W-28R1 and 5N/5W-28N1 located in the southern portion of the subbasin near the Baylands Area show modest increasing concentration trends, which could be attributed increasing saline intrusion as well as other sources. One well is an intermediate zone well (200 to 500 feet deep) and the other is a shallow zone well (less than 200 feet deep). The shallow well (5N/5W- 28N1) is owned by a dairy, and this well also shows increasing nitrate concentrations as discussed in the next section. Therefore, it is possible that the increasing TDS concentrations could be associated with local surface sources rather than saline intrusion. The other intermediate well with increasing TDS does not have a similar increasing nitrate trend. The analysis indicates the importance of preventing additional saline intrusion into the Inland Area. The Baylands brackish groundwater area is a concern in the Sonoma Valley. One of the objectives of developing and increasing the use of recycled water for irrigation is to reduce groundwater pumping in the southern Sonoma Valley, prevent additional saline intrusion, and potentially reduce the existing inland extent of brackish groundwater. Irrigation with recycled water began in 1992 and is projected to increase in the future. To date, the data are insufficient to determine if the replacement of groundwater with recycled water has reduced the areal extent of brackish groundwater. However, continued monitoring of this area is a key component of the ongoing SVGMP and SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-7 Figure 5-2: Total Dissolved Solids Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-8 Figure 5-3: Time-Concentration Plots Total Dissolved Solids Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-9 5.1.6 Nitrate in Groundwater A nitrate concentration contour map is shown in Figure 5-4. Generally low nitrate concentrations are observed throughout most of the subbasin. The nitrate-N BPO is 10 mg/L. The area of nitrate between 2.6 and 5.0 mg/L near the San Pablo Bay is based on older well sampling conducted by the DWR between 1954 and 1973. The average nitrate concentration in the Inland Area, Baylands Area, and combined Sonoma Valley Subbasin area are shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Average Nitrate-N Concentrations and Available Assimilative Capacity Concentrations in mg/L Sonoma Valley Subbasin Inland Area Baylands Area Average 0.06 0.06 0.07 BPO 10.00 10.00 10.00 Available Assimilative Capacity 9.94 9.94 9.93 TDS – total dissolved solids mg/L – milligrams per liter Nitrate Trends Figure 5-5 shows time-concentration plots for nitrate-N along with the applicable BPO. As discussed above, the wells and charts are shaded to indicate relative well depth. Generally flat concentrations are observed in most wells in the subbasin, typically well below the BPO of 10 mg/L. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-10 Figure 5-4: Nitrate as N Concentration Contours (2000 to 2012) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 5 Existing Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 5-11 Figure 5-5: Time-Concentration Plots Nitrate as N Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-1 Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis An analysis of salt and nutrient loading occurring due to surface activities is presented to identify sources of salt and nutrients, evaluate their linkage with the groundwater system, and estimate the mass of salts and nutrients loaded to the Sonoma Valley groundwater subbasin associated with those sources. Salt and nutrient loading from surface activities to the Sonoma Valley groundwater basin are due to various sources, including:  Irrigation water (potable water, surface water, groundwater, and recycled water)  Agricultural inputs (fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Residential, commercial, and industrial inputs (septic systems, fertilizer, soil amendments, and applied water)  Animal waste (dairy manure land application) Most of these sources, or “inputs”, are associated with rural and agricultural areas except for turf irrigation in commercial and industrial areas. Urban area salt and nutrient loads (e.g. due to indoor water use) are assumed to be primarily routed to the municipal wastewater system for recycling or discharge rather than to groundwater, except for landscape irrigation. Other surface inputs of salts and nutrients, such as atmospheric loading, are not considered a significant net contributing source of salts and nutrients and are not captured in the loading analysis. In addition to surface salinity inputs, potential subsurface inputs of high salinity waters from San Pablo Bay, thermal water upwelling and connate groundwater exists within the basin. 6.1 Methodology for Loading Model To support the Sonoma Valley SNMP and to better understand the significance of various loading factors, a GIS-based loading model was developed. The loading model is a simple, spatially based mass balance tool that represents TDS and nitrogen loading on an annual-average basis. Calibration of the model was limited to focusing on comparing recent historical trends to changes in concentrations estimated through incorporating the loading model results into the mixing model. In addition to the limited calibration activities, extensive stakeholder coordination was performed to refine the parameters in the loading model, including land use, applied water, TDS and nitrogen application (in applied water, as fertilizers and amendments, and in land applied manure), irrigation water source quality, and sewer service areas (to determine septic loads). Given these activities, the model is considered suitable for this analysis of basin conditions. Primary inputs to the model are land use, irrigation water source and quality, recycled water storage pond locations and percolation, septic system areas and loading, and soil characteristics. These datasets are described in the following sections. The general process used to arrive at the salt and nutrient loads was:  Identify the analysis units to be used in the model. In the case of Sonoma Valley, parcels from the Sonoma County Assessor’s Office are the analysis units.  Categorize land use into discrete groups. These land use groups represent land uses that have similar water demand as well as salt and nutrient loading and uptake characteristics.  Apply the land use group characteristics to the analysis units.  Apply the irrigation water source to the analysis units. Each water source is assigned concentrations of TDS and nitrogen.  Apply the septic system assumption to the analysis units.  Apply the soil texture characteristics to the analysis units.  Estimate the water demand for the parcel based on the irrigated area of the parcel and the land use group. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-2  Estimate the TDS load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure load. The loading model makes the conservative assumption that no salt is removed from the system once it enters the system. Other transport mechanisms (such as runoff draining to creeks exiting the basin) likely reduce the total quantity of salt in the subbasin.  Estimate the nitrogen load applied to each parcel based on the land use practices, irrigation water source and quantity, septic load, and infrastructure (e.g. wastewater ponds) load. The loading model assumes that a portion of the applied nitrogen is taken up by plants and (in some cases) removed from the system (through harvest of plant material). Additional nitrogen is converted to gaseous forms and lost to the atmosphere. Remaining nitrogen is assumed to convert to nitrate and to be subject to leaching. Soil texture is used to estimate and account for mobility of leaching water and the efficiency of nitrate transport through the root zone. 6.2 Data Inputs Data inputs to the model include the spatial distribution of land uses (with associated loading factors), irrigation water sources (with associated water quality), septic inputs, wastewater infrastructure loads, and soil textures. These inputs are summarized below, and are further described in the Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). 6.2.1 Land Use Land use data were obtained from the 2012 Sonoma County Assessor’s Office parcel dataset. This dataset contains several hundred discrete land use categories. These categories are consolidated into the following land use groups for the Sonoma Valley subbasin area:  Flowers and nursery  Pasture  Vines  Other row crops  Dairy production areas  Other livestock operations  Non-irrigated vines  Non-irrigated field crops  Non-irrigated orchard  Shrub/Scrub  Grassland/ Herbaceous  Barren land  Farmsteads  Urban commercial and industrial  Urban commercial and industrial, low impervious surface (e.g. maintenance yards, schools)  Urban landscape/golf course  Urban residential  Paved areas (roads and parking lots) Local stakeholders and SNMP partners confirmed that the land use is substantially unchanged since the 2012 dataset, within the accuracy requirements of this type of analysis. The spatial distribution of land uses is shown in Figure 6-1. Upon review of the land use dataset, stakeholders provided updates to the dairies and grassland/herbaceous categories in the October 10, 2012 SNMP Workshop with the SVGMP’s TAC. Because there are so many distinct categories, a discrete color for each type could not be assigned. Therefore, land use categories with similar characteristics (i.e. urban, non- irrigated agriculture, irrigated agriculture) are shown combined into a color category. Each land use group is assigned characteristics including:  Applied water  Percent irrigated  Applied nitrogen Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-3  Used nitrogen  Leachable nitrogen  Applied TDS Leachable nitrogen is assumed to be the applied nitrogen less 10 percent of the applied nitrogen for gaseous loss, less nitrogen removal in harvested plant material. Table 6-1 consists of a matrix of values for the land use categories and characteristics. These values were also presented to the stakeholder group and refined based on their input. Refinements included adjustments to vineyards, farmsteads/rural residential, and non-irrigated field crops. For vineyards, coordination with stakeholders included modification to applied TDS and irrigation volume to reflect practices in the area. For farmsteads/rural residential, modifications were made to applied TDS, applied N, and irrigation volume based on improved understanding of land uses on these diverse parcels. Finally, non-irrigated field crops were given the non-irrigated designation based on stakeholder input on the farming practices of what are generally small-grain hay crops in the southern portion of the basin. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-4 Figure 6-1: Land Use Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-5 Table 6-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent Cultivated1 Applied Water2 (in/yr) Applied Nitrogen3 (lbs/acre- year) Nitrogen Uptake4 (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen5 (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS6 (lbs/acre- year) Paved Areas (roads and parking lots) 28 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Non-irrigated vines 284 80% 0 18 16 0 84 Non-irrigated Orchard 41 80% 0 75 60 8 292 Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 80% 0 34 22 8 170 Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 5% 48.5 92 60 23 657 Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 30% 48.5 92 60 23 438 Farmsteads/Rural- Residential7 5,608 10% 28.7 60 42 13 303 Urban Residential 2,238 15% 51.1 92 60 23 438 Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 75% 48.5 92 60 23 584 Pasture 2,266 40% 51.1 110 90 14 584 Vines8 13,075 100% 6.3 29 23 3 168 Other Livestock Operations 102 10% 0.0 84 -75 730 Dairy9 769 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: 1 Percent of land area assumed to be cultivated within each class is estimated is based review of aerial photography and agricultural scientist professional judgment of a reasonable, broad average for each class. 2 Applied water values and other climatic data are taken from Department of Water Resources (DWR) land and water use data (http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/anlwuest.cfm). On this website, four years of data are available. Climatic data averages, based on these four years of data, was compared to the 21-year average of available CIMIS climatic data for the Sonoma Valley area. As the two data sets correspond well, the average DWR applied water values were used, with some adjustment using crop coefficients for the Sonoma Valley area to fit the study land use classes. 3 Applied nitrogen estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied nitrogen was then calculated for total acreage and checked against fertilizer sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records, and adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region. 4 Uptake of nitrogen was estimated from available literature by multiplying reported yield figures by reported nitrogen concentrations for harvested plant parts. Balances between uptake and application were checked to ensure that nitrogen use efficiencies were in the reported ranges, adjusted for professional knowledge of irrigation and fertilization practice in each land cover class. 5 Maximum nitrogen leaching calculations for each land cover unit were calculated based on the balance between application, gaseous loss (volatilization and denitrification), and uptake. The maximum was then reduced based on soil conditions mapped for the area. 6 Applied TDS estimates are based on literature review for individual land cover classes and professional judgment. Applied TDS was then calculated for total acreage and checked against amendment sales records for Sonoma County (available from the California Department of Food and Agriculture). Application rates were then scaled to match sales records. Amendment application rates were adjusted if appropriate based on discussions with growers in the region. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-6 7 Farmstead irrigated areas are assumed to be a mix of turf grasses and vineyards. 8 Assumes that irrigated vines have a larger percent cultivation due to increased production efficiency from irrigation and a conservative value of 100% cultivation was used. An additional assumption for vines is that vines irrigated with recycled water utilize the same fertilizer and amendment application rates as those irrigated with groundwater (conservative estimate). 9 See discussion on dairy parcels below. Due to the importance of dairies, some additional consideration is applied to dairy parcels. To better reflect land use practices, the applied, used, and leachable nitrogen characteristics and the applied TDS characteristic are further subdivided into production areas, ponds, and land application areas. Leachable nitrogen is calculated the same way as for the other land use groups except that gaseous loss is assumed to be 20 percent, as opposed to the 10 percent assumed loss for other land use groups, mainly due to the regular timing and highly organic nature of applied nitrogen. Table 6-2: Assumed Characteristic Dairy Values for the Loading Model Dairy Subdivision Designation Percent of Total Parcel Area Used Per Designation Applied Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Used Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS (lbs/acre- year) Production Area 6% 20 0 8 82 Ponds 1% 141 0 113 933 Land Application Area 93% 367 352 30 1,280 6.2.2 Irrigation Water Source The irrigation water source forms the basis to determine the TDS and nitrate loads that result from irrigation of the land uses described above. Source water quality for any given parcel was identified based on the location of the parcel relative the water retailers in the area. Parcels not supplied by potable municipal water sources or recycled water are assumed to obtain irrigation water from local groundwater wells. Table 6-3 summarizes the water quality inputs used for each irrigation water source. Table 6-3: Water Quality Parameters for Loading Model Water Sources Source TDS (mg/L) Nitrate (as N) (mg/L) Valley of the Moon Water District 162 0.2 City of Sonoma 172 0.4 Groundwater 372 0.1 Recycled Water 440 5.2 6.2.3 Septic Systems Salt and nutrient loads due to septic systems were estimated based on typical wastewater production and TDS and nitrate concentrations. It has been assumed that parcels outside of the SVCSD Service Area use a septic system or multiple systems. Of those parcels, septic systems are assumed where a residence is identified in the land use dataset. Each parcel with a septic system is assumed to produce 263 gallons per day (gpd), based on 75 gpd/person with 3.5 people per system. The 75 gpd/person estimate is based domestic use quantity estimates per California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 697. An estimate of 3.5 persons per household is a conservative estimate which assumes that household size for homes with septic is larger than that that of homes within the City (per the census bureau, persons per household for Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-7 2007-2011 is 2.54 in Sonoma County, with the City at only 2.07 people per household, therefore the outlying areas must be greater than 2.54 persons per household).The septic waste is assumed to have TDS concentrations of 572 mg/L, based on typical groundwater concentrations plus an assumed household contribution of 200 mg/L (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003 Table 3-7). Nitrate-N concentrations were assumed to be 30 mg/L, based on typical wastewater concentrations for medium strength wastewater (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003) of 40 mg/L minus an assumed volatization rate of 25% within the septic system. 6.2.4 Wastewater/Recycled Water Infrastructure SVCSD operates five recycled water ponds within the groundwater basin; these are indicated in Attachment 1 of Appendix D. Two of the ponds use clay liners, while the other three ponds use plastic liners. Due to the liners, it is assumed that no significant loading occurs at pond locations. It is also assumed that leakage from wastewater (sanitary sewer) and recycled water pipelines is not likely to be a significant source of salt and nutrient loading. An effort was also undertaken to quantify potential salt and nutrient loading from winery wastewater ponds. These ponds are often lined with plastic or clay and contain rinsewater with salt and TDS concentrations similar to the source water (likely groundwater), because no additional salts and nutrients are added in the winemaking process. This effort showed that salt and nutrient loading from these ponds were likely negligible, with biological oxygen demand (BOD) the primary concern. These loads were not included in the model, beyond the loads already included through irrigation of the vineyards. 6.2.5 Soil Textures Soil textures (NRCS, 2013) were obtained from the Soil Survey of Sonoma County (SCS, 1972). Soil textures were assigned a hydraulic conductivity (NRCS, 1993). Hydraulic conductivity was used to develop an adjustment factor through linearly scaling the estimated conductivities from 0.1 (lowest) to 1.00 (highest). The adjustment factor is used to represent the proportion of nitrate that will migrate to the aquifer, relative to the other textural classes. Where conductivity is lower, it is reasoned (and observed) that nitrogen resides longer in the soil, increasing the proportion that is either taken up or lost through conversion to gaseous species. Similar logic is not applied to TDS as salts are mostly not subject to conversion to gaseous forms, and rapidly saturate soil capacity to absorb and retain them. 6.3 Loading Model Results Based on the loading parameters and methodology described above, the loading model is used to develop TDS and nitrogen loading rates across the subbasin. Table 6-4 summarizes the overall contribution of each land use group to total TDS and nitrogen loading. The spatial distribution of TDS and nitrogen loading rates are shown in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3, respectively. The loading analysis estimates somewhat higher loading of TDS in the rural and agricultural areas of the subbasin, while nitrate loading is higher in the urban areas largely due to the low nitrogen application rates on vineyards. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-8 Figure 6-2: TDS Loading in Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-9 Figure 6-3: Nitrate Loading in Study Area Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-10 Table 6-4: TDS and Nitrate Loading Results Land Use Group Total Area (acres) Percent of Total Area Percentage of Total TDS Loading Percentage of Nitrogen Loading Paved Areas (roads and parking lots) 28 0% 0% 0% Grasslands/Barren/ Herbaceous 7,212 17% 0% 0% Non-irrigated vines 284 1% 0% 0% Non-irrigated Orchard 41 0% 0% 0% Non-irrigated field crops (hay) 8,489 20% 5% 6% Urban Commercial and Industrial 1,018 2% 1% 8% Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 807 2% 5% 7% Farmsteads/Rural- Residential 5,608 13% 11% 37% Urban Residential 2,238 5% 6% 22% Urban Landscape/Golf Course 327 1% 5% 1% Pasture 2,266 5% 17% 10% Vines 13,075 31% 42% 3% Other livestock operations 102 0% 0% 0% Dairy 769 2% 7% 5% The relative proportion of the land uses by area, nitrogen loading, and TDS loading are shown in Figure 6-4, Figure 6-5, and Figure 6-6, respectively. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-11 Figure 6-4: Percentage of Land Use in Study Area Grasslands/Barren/  Herbaceous 17%Non‐irrigated vines 1% Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 20% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 2%Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 2% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 13% Urban Residential 5% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 5% Vines 30% Dairy 2% Other 2% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of land area: paved areas, non‐irrigated orchards, livestock  operations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-12 Figure 6-5: Percentage of TDS Loading in Study Area, by Land Use Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 5% Urban Commercial  and Industrial 1% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 5% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 11% Urban Residential 6% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 5%Pasture 17% Vines 43% Dairy 7% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of TDS loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated vines, non‐ irrigated orchards, livestock operations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 6 Source Identification and Loading Analysis September 2013 6-13 Figure 6-6: Percentage of Nitrogen Loading in Study Area, by Land Use Non‐irrigated field  crops (hay) 6%Urban Commercial  and Industrial 8% Urban C&I, Low  Impervious Surface 7% Farmsteads/Rural‐ Residential 37% Urban Residential 22% Urban  Landscape/Golf  Course 1% Pasture 10% Vines 3% Dairy 5% Other 0% Other: Categories contributing less than 1% of nitrogen loading: paved areas, grasslands/barren/shrubs, non‐irrigated  vines, non‐irrigated orchards, livestock operations Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-1 Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis This chapter describes the development and results from the future groundwater quality analysis. The future groundwater quality analysis is described in more detail in the Existing and Future Groundwater Quality TM (Todd, 2013) included as Appendix A. 7.1 Simulation of Baseline and Future Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality concentrations for TDS and nitrate are simulated for the baseline period and future planning period using a mixing model. Concentration estimates are based on water and mass inflows and outflows (balances) mixed with the volume of water in the aquifer and the average ambient groundwater quality. The baseline period is from WY 1997 to 2006. This baseline period was selected based on the period for which water balances were available from the USGS (2006) groundwater flow model and updated groundwater model (Bauer, 2008). The future planning period is from WY 2014 to WY 2035 based on the planning horizon in supporting planning documents. The baseline period water balances estimate all groundwater inflows and outflows for the baseline period and the associated change in storage based on estimates provided in the groundwater model and updated model. Future changes simulated include increased use of recycled water for irrigation. TDS and nitrate concentrations are associated with each water balance inflow and outflow component. In order to simulate the effect of current and future salt and nutrient loading on groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin, the spreadsheet mixing model mixes the volume and quality of each inflow and outflow with the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and tracks the annual change in groundwater storage and salt and nutrient mass for the baseline and future planning period. The existing volume of water in the groundwater basin is calculated based on the subbasin or subarea (Inland and Baylands) surface areas, a uniform saturated thickness of 400 feet and a porosity of 0.1. The mixing model produces an average TDS and nitrate concentration for each year of the baseline and future planning period. 7.2 Use of Assimilative Capacity by Recycled Water Projects In accordance with the Policy, a recycled water irrigation project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a SNMP is being prepared, may be approved by the Regional Water Board by demonstrating through a salt and nutrient mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity (or multiple projects use less than 20% of available assimilative capacity). Accordingly, the recycled water irrigation projects in place and planned for the Sonoma Valley Subbasin are assessed in terms of their use of available assimilative capacity. 7.3 Baseline Period Analysis The baseline period water balance tracks groundwater inflows and outflows and storage changes from WY 1996-97 through WY 2005-06. This period represents a recent time period characterized by average climatic conditions. The primary source of information used to develop the water balance is the Sonoma Valley groundwater flow model. The flow model was originally developed by the USGS (2006) and later updated by Bauer (2008). Groundwater recharge from natural precipitation in the flow model for the baseline period represented 94% of the natural recharge over the historical flow model period. Major inflows accounted for in the baseline water balance include:  deep percolation of precipitation and mountain front recharge,  natural stream recharge,  agricultural irrigation water return flow,  domestic/municipal irrigation water (including recycled water) return flow, Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-2  septic system return flow, and  subsurface groundwater inflow (from Baylands Area) Major outflows accounted for in the water balance include:  groundwater pumping,  groundwater discharge to streams, and  subsurface groundwater outflow (to Baylands Area) Areal anthropogenic recharge sources (return flows from agricultural and municipal irrigation and septic systems) are not independently considered in the flow model but instead subsumed within the model aerial recharge rates. Model areal recharge rates were apportioned into natural sources (precipitation) and anthropogenic sources (return flows) based on the results of the salt and nutrient loading evaluation conducted for the SNMP (RMC, 2013). 7.3.1 Water Quality of Inflows and Outflows Initial and adjusted TDS and nitrate concentration estimates for subbasin inflows and outflows in the water balance are described below followed by a discussion of the baseline mixing model calibration and results. Sonoma Creek Leakage TDS and nitrate data from available surface water quality monitoring stations in the watershed were assessed to characterize the water quality of stream leakage from Sonoma Creek, the second largest subbasin inflow. Based on recent water quality sampling a constant TDS concentration of 210 mg/L and constant nitrate-N concentration of 0.19 mg/L was applied to Sonoma Creek leakage for the baseline period. Deep Percolation of Areal Precipitation and Mountain Front Recharge Recharge from deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge represents 65% of total subbasin inflows and is the primary controlling salt and nutrient load factor. Generally, precipitation contains minimal salts and nutrients. However, due to its low solute content, precipitation also dissolves (or leaches) salts and nutrients along its subsurface flow path from near-surface soils through the vadose zone sediments and saturated zone sediments. The degree of leaching is dependent on numerous site- specific factors and is difficult to predict reliably. Based on available groundwater quality wells located in the watershed, nitrate deposition information, and mixing model calibration, a constant concentration of 250 mg/L TDS and 0.06 mg/L nitrate-N was applied to deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge was applied. Return Flows – Agricultural (Groundwater and Recycled Water), Municipal, and Septic System Salt and nutrient loads from agricultural, municipal, and septic sources are described in Chapter 6 - Source Identification and Loading Analysis. For the mixing model, the TDS and nitrogen mass load for each return flow component was mixed with its respective annual return flow volume to obtain a concentration. For the loading estimate, it was conservatively assumed that all nitrogen mass is converted to nitrate. Based on initial simulation results for the baseline period, nitrate loading from return flows was reduced by 15% to account for attenuation processes beneath the soil root zone and septic system, in order to provide a better match between simulated average concentrations and observed regional trends. Table 7-1 shows the initial calculated and adjusted (during calibration) TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations for each return flow component. The adjusted concentrations are applied as a constant concentration over the baseline period. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-3 Table 7-1: Return Flow TDS and Nitrate-N Mass and Concentrations for Baseline Period Analysis 1Initial TDS and nitrate concentrations calculated from mass loading estimates in Salt and Nutrient Source Identification and Loading TM (RMC, 2013). Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted during calibration. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. As shown in Table 7-1, the initial and final adjusted TDS concentration of agricultural irrigation water (groundwater and recycled water source water) at about 4,300 mg/L is the highest of the return flow components. Differences between agricultural return flow concentrations/mass for groundwater and recycled water are attributable to differences in source water quality. The TDS concentration of municipal irrigation water (1,182 mg/L) is lower than for agricultural irrigation. Septic system return flows have the lowest TDS concentration (572 mg/L) compared to the irrigation return flows. Overall, the volume weighted-average TDS concentration of the irrigation and septic system return flows is 2,552 mg/L. Subsurface Inflows from Baylands Area While groundwater levels and the flow model-based water balance indicate that subsurface groundwater flows generally from the Inlands area to the Baylands Area, there is a small component of subsurface inflow from the Baylands Area. This is likely caused by groundwater pumping, which has created a pumping depression in the southern portion of the subbasin. The concentrations applied to subsurface inflows from the Baylands Area were assumed to be the current average concentration in the Baylands Area (1,220 mg/L for TDS and 0.07 mg/L for nitrate-N). 7.3.2 Mixing Model Calibration and Salt and Nutrient Balance In order to simulate the effect of current salt and nutrient loading on groundwater quality in the Inland Area of the subbasin, a spreadsheet mixing model was developed. In the mixing model, the simulated baseline period concentrations and trends were compared to the predominant pattern of observed concentrations and trends. From this comparison, loading factors were adjusted (calibrated) to achieve a better match between simulated and observed concentrations and trends. Figure 7-1 shows the final simulated average subbasin TDS and nitrate concentrations over the 10-year baseline period (WY 1996 represents the hypothetical initial water quality condition equivalent to the current ambient condition). Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-4 Figure 7-1: Final Simulated Baseline Average Groundwater Concentrations for Inland Area of Sonoma Valley Subbasin (WYs 1997-2006) As shown in the figure, simulated average subbasin TDS concentrations vary slightly from year to year, but exhibit no change over the 10-year baseline period. This flat trend compares well to observed flat trends in wells across the subbasin over the baseline period. In contrast to the TDS trend, simulated average nitrate-N concentrations increase by about 0.5 mg/L over the baseline period, despite nitrate loading from return flows being reduced by 15% to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system. Observed nitrate concentrations in monitoring wells across the subbasin are not increasing regionally, but instead show overall flat or stable concentrations over time. The discrepancy between simulated and observed trends may be caused by an overestimate of the nitrate load due to one or more of the following: 1. Assumption that 100% of nitrogen is converted to nitrate 2. Potential underestimation of ambient average groundwater nitrate concentrations due to limited spatial distribution of wells with recent nitrate data 3. Application of all nitrate loading associated with recycled water use within the Inland Area in the mixing model, despite portions of existing (and proposed future) recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2-1) 4. Underestimation of nitrate attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model For the reasons mentioned above, simulated nitrate concentrations generated from the calibrated mixing model are likely conservative and overestimated for both baseline and future nitrogen loading. While application of higher nitrate attenuation rate was considered, given the limited distribution of monitoring wells with long-term nitrate trend data in the subbasin, a 15% attenuation rate was maintained. 7.4 Future Planning Period Water Quality The spreadsheet mixing model developed for the baseline analysis was modified to evaluate the effects of planned future salt and nutrient loading on overall groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley Subbasin for the future planning period (WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). Future project changes are superimposed over average water balance conditions during the 10-year baseline period (described above) to simulate future groundwater quality. 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 300 320 340 360 380 400 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006Nitrate as N (mg/L)TDS (mg/L)Water Year Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-5 The mixing model is used to predict future water quality, water quality trends, and the percentage of the existing available assimilative capacity used by recycled water projects in the subbasin during the future planning period. The mixing model is designed to incorporate the existing volume of groundwater and mass of TDS and nitrate in storage and track the annual change in groundwater storage and salt and nutrient mass for the subbasin as a whole. Three future scenarios were simulated:  Future Scenario 0 (No-Project): Assumes average baseline water balance conditions and no additional enhanced stormwater capture and recharge is applied.  Future Scenario 1: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use of 4,100 AFY (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35)  Future Scenario 2: Assumes 2035 planned recycled water use plus an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water (applied consistently from WY 2013-14 through WY 2034-35). 7.4.1 Future Scenarios The average TDS and nitrate concentrations for the baseline period were applied to all future scenarios for the following inflows:  Deep percolation of areal precipitation and mountain front recharge  Leakage from Sonoma Creek  Subsurface inflow from Baylands area Concentrations for future return flow components are described below. Return Flows – Agricultural, Municipal Irrigation and Septic System The same methodology used to estimate TDS and nitrogen loading from return flows over the baseline period was used to estimate future return flow loading. Table 7-2 through Table 7-4 show the estimated TDS and nitrate mass and concentrations of each return flow for Scenario 0 (No-Project), Scenario 1, and Scenario 2, respectively. The adjusted values are applied as a constant concentration over the entire future planning period. For both TDS and nitrate, the total cumulative mass and weighted-average concentration of return flows increases slightly from Scenario 0 (No-Project) to Scenario 1 to Scenario 2. Table 7-2: Future Scenario 0 (No-Project) 1Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 1,415 4,347 28.0 23.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 91 4,344 28.0 23.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,552 27.0 23.0 Volumetric Rate Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-6 Table 7-3: Future Scenario 1 (2035 recycled water conditions) 1Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. Table 7-4: Future Scenario 2 (2035 recycled water conditions plus 5,000 AFY recycled water) 1Initial TDS concentrations for return flows were not adjusted for future simulations. Adjusted nitrate concentrations reflect 15% reduction to account for additional attenuation below the root zone/septic system in the mixing model. 7.4.2 Future Water Quality Results TDS Groundwater Concentrations Figure 7-2 shows the simulated future TDS concentrations from the calibrated mixing model for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland Area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. Also shown on the chart is the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Figure 7-2: Simulated Future Groundwater TDS Concentrations The following conclusions can be made for future TDS groundwater concentrations: Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 998 4,481 29.3 24.9 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 508 4,479 29.3 24.9 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,615 27.6 23.5 Volumetric Rate Return Flows Iniitial and Adjusted TDS Concentration1 Initital Nitrate-N Concentration1 Adjusted Nitrate-N Concentration1 AFY mg/L mg/L mg/L Agricultural (Groundwater) Irrigation Return 374 4,706 31.6 26.8 Agricultural (Recycled Water) Irrigation 1,132 4,706 31.6 26.8 Municipal Irrigation 1,074 1,182 23.9 20.3 Septic System 621 572 30.0 25.5 Total 3,201 Weighted-average 2,722 28.7 24.4 Volumetric Rate 340 360 380 400 420 2010201520202025203020352040TDS (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-7  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin Inland Area are projected to decrease from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 0.9 mg/L for Scenario 0 (No-Project).  Average TDS concentrations in the subbasin Inland Area are projected to increase from WY 2013 through WY 2035 by 1.4 mg/L for Scenario 1 and by 3.5 mg/L for Scenario 2.  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected TDS concentrations remain well below the BPO of 500 mg/L. When considering the differences between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 1.8% (2.3 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity, while Scenario 2 use 4.8% (6.1 mg/L) of the assimilative capacity. Nitrate-N Groundwater Concentrations Figure 7-3 shows the simulated results of the calibrated mixing model for nitrate for the three future scenarios from WY 2013-14 through 2034-35 for the Inland Area of the Sonoma Valley Subbasin. The chart shows the simulated concentration trends for each scenario and the 10% assimilative capacity threshold. Figure 7-3: Simulated Future Groundwater Nitrate-N Concentrations The following conclusions can be made for future nitrate-N groundwater concentrations:  Average nitrate concentrations in the subbasin Inland Area are projected to increase similarly for all three scenarios from WY 2013 to WY 2035 (between 0.83 and 0.88 mg/L).  For all three scenarios, recycled water projects use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity, and projected nitrate concentrations remain well below the BPO of 10 mg/L.  When considering the difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 and the No-Project Scenario (i.e., loading associated with the No Project components is removed), Scenarios 1 uses 0.2 % (0.02 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity (9.93 mg/L), while Scenario 2 uses 0.5 % (0.05 mg/L) of the available assimilative capacity. It is noted that projected increases in nitrate concentrations in the Inland area of the subbasin are considered conservative given the assumptions incorporated in the calibration of the mixing model for nitrate. Additionally, despite portions of existing and proposed future recycled water use areas being located south of the Inlands area in the Baylands area (see Figure 2-1), all TDS and nitrate loading associated with recycled water use was applied within the Inlands area in the mixing model and salt and 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2010201520202025203020352040Nitrate-N (mg/L)Water Year 10% AC Future 2. 2035 RW Conditions + 5,000 AFY RW Future 1. 2035 RW Conditions No-Project (Average Baseline) Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 7 Future Groundwater Quality Analysis September 2013 7-8 nutrient balance. Average groundwater nitrate concentrations are predicted to increase asymptotically toward the volume-weighted average nitrate concentration of basin inflows for each scenario (1.31 mg/L for Scenario 0, 1.33 mg/L for Scenario 1, and 1.38 mg/L for Scenario 2). Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 8 Implementation Measures September 2013 8-1 Chapter 8 Implementation Measures The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values, well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) indicates good water quality and stable trends. Therefore, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time; however, the SNMP would like to endorse existing measures or practices already in place to manage groundwater quality in the basin and see that they continue. 8.1 Existing Implementation Measures and Ongoing Management Programs Given that future groundwater quality concentration estimates are not expected to exceed BPOs for TDS and nitrate, and recycled water projects do not use more than 10% of the basin’s assimilative capacity, no new implementation measures are recommended to manage salts and nutrients within the basin. Several programs are already underway in the basin, which help manage groundwater supplies and quality. These programs fall under five categories, as follows:  Agricultural  Recycled Water Irrigation  Groundwater Management  Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Management  Municipal Wastewater Management Implementation measures that are underway in the basin within these broad categories are described below. 8.2 Agricultural BMPs Agricultural best management practices (BMPs) are categorized for vineyard, dairy or other agriculture below. 8.2.1 Vineyard Land management practices within vineyards include various on-going BMPs. Several practices are listed below:  Drip irrigation – water application is minimized by focusing the amount and area applied.  Soil and petiole testing – it is common practice for vineyard managers to conduct annual soil testing to understand soil characteristics for grape production and flavor. Soil testing includes review of TDS and nitrate. Vineyard managers also typically test petioles to further refine vine nutrient needs.  Focused application of fertilizer and soil amendments – application of salts and nutrients is limited to the area at the point of the irrigation drip emitter, rather than broadcast across a large area. 8.2.2 Dairy Land management practices at dairy operations include various on-going BMPs. Several practices are listed below:  Pavement and cover (roofing) in intensive manure areas to control runoff Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 8 Implementation Measures September 2013 8-2  Spreading liquid manure at agronomic rates  Manure application (solids) on vegetated fields – spreading on vegetated areas allows for greater uptake of nutrients by plants  Organic dairies utilize larger land base for grazing area, allowing for greater uptake of nutrients. 8.2.3 Other Agriculture In Sonoma Valley, the bulk of agriculture that is non-viticulture occurs mainly over the brackish groundwater area (referred to as “Baylands” area in the SNMP) and was not a focus for cataloging implementation measures. 8.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs The implementation of recycled water is regulated by the Title 22 California Code of Regulations (Title 22). Numerous BMPs and operating procedures are required to be followed when using recycled water for irrigation to ensure safety. The following BMPs are implemented in recycled water operations:  Water quality monitoring at the treatment plant to ensure regulatory compliance with Title 22, and meet monitoring requirements for indicator emerging contaminants as part of the Recycled Water Policy.  Irrigation at agronomic rates – irrigation is applied at a rate that does not exceed the demand of the plants and does not exceed the field capacity of the soil.  Site Supervisor – a site supervisor who is responsible for the system and for providing surveillance at all times to ensure compliance with regulations and Permit requirements is designated for each site. The Site Supervisor is trained to understand recycled water, and supervision duties. In addition to monitoring the recycled water system, the Site Supervisor must also conduct an annual self-inspection of the system.  Minimize runoff of recycled water from irrigation –Irrigation is not allowed to occur at any time when uncontrolled runoff may occur, such as during times of rainfall or very low evapotranspiration; and any overspray must be controlled. 8.4 Groundwater Management Plan – Ongoing Programs The SVGMP set forth a management structure and process for conducting projects to maintain the health of the groundwater basin. The SVCSD will continue to participate with the SVGMP. Programs underway as part of the SVGMP, include the following:  Basin-wide groundwater level monitoring  Groundwater quality monitoring  Installation and monitoring of two new multi-level groundwater wells  Plans for additional monitoring well installation and development of grants to fund installation  Groundwater banking study and pilot-project  Stormwater management-groundwater recharge study and pilot-project  Encouraging LID to increase stormwater recharge and limit nutrient loading to runoff. The County of Sonoma has an LID Design Manual which requires capture and treatment requirements for runoff at new construction of a certain size, and the Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District developed a “Slow It, Spread It, Sink It” guidance manual for stormwater management. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 8 Implementation Measures September 2013 8-3  Offstream infiltration study and project  Water recycling projects to offset groundwater pumping  Public Outreach Plan  Seepage runs to understand basin water balance inflow and outflows  Development of a rainfall monitoring program  Study to develop seawater intrusion mitigation measures  Encouraging conservation and BMPs for viticulture and non-viticulture agriculture  Update to land cover maps, and groundwater flow model 8.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Management A large percentage of the groundwater basin is overlain by ranchettes and farmsteads with houses and structures that manage waste through individual onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), also known as septic systems. Individual property owners are responsible for managing their own system and employ a variety of BMPs such as monitoring and frequent pumping to manage the operation of the system. In June of 2012, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. The intent of the Policy is “to allow the continued use of OWTS, while protecting water quality and public health”. BMPs required in the Policy include site evaluations, setbacks, and percolation tests for new systems. 8.6 Municipal Wastewater Management SVCSD owns and operates the only large-scale wastewater treatment plant within the groundwater basin. SVCSD implements source control programs including industrial waste management measures (i.e. educational outreach, coordination with wineries, and I/I programs) to control salinity and nutrients in influent waters, which ultimately improves the quality of recycled water. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan September 2013 9-1 Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan A Groundwater Monitoring Plan is a required element of all SNMPs. A comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Plan has been developed for the Sonoma Valley SNMP and is included as Appendix E. The Recycled Water Policy states that the SNMP should include a monitoring program that consists of a network of monitoring locations “. . . adequate to provide a reasonable, cost-effective means of determining whether the concentrations of salts, nutrients, and other constituents of concern as identified in the salt and nutrient plans are consistent with applicable water quality objectives.” Additionally, the SNMP “. . . must focus on basin water quality near water supply wells and areas proximate to large water recycling projects, particularly groundwater recharge projects. Also, monitoring locations shall, where appropriate, target groundwater and surface waters where groundwater has connectivity with the adjacent surface waters.” The preferred approach is to “. . . collect samples from existing wells if feasible as long as the existing wells are located appropriately to determine water quality throughout the most critical areas of the basin. The monitoring plan shall identify those stakeholders responsible for conducting, sampling, and reporting the monitoring data. The data shall be reported to the Regional Water Board at least every three years.” With regards to constituents of emerging concern (CECs), the Recycled Water Policy Attachment A states that “Monitoring of health-based CECs or performance indicator CECs is not required for recycled water used for landscape irrigation due to the low risk for ingestion of the water.” 9.1 Existing Monitoring Programs Groundwater quality in the Sonoma Valley has been monitored since 1949. Most data represent one-time samples for short-term studies or individual well-specific assessments. The SVGMP monitoring program and the proposed SNMP monitoring program rely on three existing ongoing programs:  DWR Monitoring  CDPH Required Monitoring  SVGMP Monitoring The SNMP monitoring program will also collect and consider data from any other special studies conducted in the subbasin, such as studies conducted through the GMP to evaluate salinity sources in southern Sonoma Valley and studies conducted under the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. 9.2 SNMP-Specific Groundwater Monitoring Program For the SNMP Monitoring Program, 47 wells that are currently monitored by DWR, CDPH, and SVGMP will be included in the monitoring program (Table 9-1 and Figure 9-1). Wells will be monitored on the same schedule as their current monitoring, and results will be reported through the Geotracker database system to the Regional Water Board every three years in an SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report. Parameters to be monitored include electrical conductivity (EC), TDS and nitrate. The SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Report will include the following:  Discussion of TDS and EC water quality including o Water quality summary tables (TDS and specific conductance) o Water quality concentration maps (TDS and specific conductance) o Time-concentration plots (specific conductance) to assess trends o Comparison of detections with BPOs  Status of recycled water use and stormwater capture projects and implementation measures Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan September 2013 9-2  Review of future planned use of recycled water and any changes in planned use (which may trigger CEC monitoring requirements) The SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program will be reviewed and assessed every three years as part of the triennial SNMP groundwater monitoring reporting. Table 9-1: SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program Program No. of Wells Monitoring Frequency Constituents DWR 12 Every 2 years EC, TDS, and nitrate CDPH 26 (varies) Between 1-3 years EC, TDS, or nitrate SVGMP 9 Once per year EC, TDS, and nitrate 9.3 Data Gaps Additional monitoring data in the area where the Baylands zone transitions to the Inland area would be useful in the future to better understand if there is movement in the salinity intrusion area. When additional funding becomes available for the installation of additional monitoring wells, this will be the target area. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 9 Groundwater Monitoring Plan September 2013 9-3 Figure 9-1: SNMP Monitoring Program Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment September 2013 10-1 Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment 10.1 Recycled Water Irrigation Projects Recycled water project(s) in the Sonoma Valley include existing and projected increased use of recycled water for irrigation through the end of the future planning period in the WY 2035. 10.2 SWRCB Recycled Water Policy Criteria Section 9 Anti-Degradation of the SWRCB’s Recycled Water Policy states, in part: a. The State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 68-16 as a policy statement to implement the Legislature’s intent that waters of the state shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. b. Activities involving the disposal of waste that could impact high quality waters are required to implement best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to ensure that pollution or nuisance will not occur, and the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained….. d. Landscape irrigation with recycled water in accordance with this Policy is to the benefit of the people of the State of California. Nonetheless, the State Water Board finds that the use of water for irrigation may, regardless of its source, collectively affect groundwater quality over time. The State Water Board intends to address these impacts in part through the development of salt/nutrient management plans described in paragraph 6. (1) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is in place may be approved without further antidegradation analysis, provided that the project is consistent with that plan. (2) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is being prepared may be approved by the Regional Water Board by demonstrating through a salt/nutrient mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub- basin (or multiple projects using less than 20 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub-basin). 10.3 Assessment The average TDS and nitrate concentrations and the available assimilative capacities for baseline conditions and the future planning period with the recycled water irrigation project(s) were discussed in Section 7. Irrigation with recycled water contributes only very minor salt and nutrient loading to the subbasin and recycled water projects do not use more that 10 % of the available assimilative capacity. In addition to the minimal negative water quality impacts associated with recycled water irrigation project(s) in the Subbasin, the Recycled Water Policy and other state-wide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. As stated in the Recycled Water Policy “The collapse of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, climate change, and continuing population growth have combined with a severe drought on the Colorado River and failing levees in the Delta to create a new reality that challenges California’s ability to provide the clean water needed for a healthy environment, a healthy population and a healthy economy, both now and in the future. …….We strongly encourage local and regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local water for California by emphasizing appropriate water recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 10 Antidegradation Assessment September 2013 10-2 infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of supply are drought-proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long-term.” Clearly, the benefits in terms of sustainability and reliability of recycled water use cannot be overstated. Another benefit of recycled water use for irrigation is that it reduces groundwater pumping in the southern part of the subbasin in the vicinity of a pumping depression helping to mitigate saline water intrusion from the Baylands Areas. The SNMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting and improving groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Table 10-1 provides an explanation of why proposed future recycled projects are in compliance with SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. Table 10-1: Antidegradation Assessment SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 Component Anti-Degradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State.  The irrigation projects will not use more than 10% of the available AC  Recycled water irrigation project(s) will not cause groundwater quality to exceed applicable BPOs  Use of recycled water for irrigation reduces groundwater pumping and helps mitigate saline water intrusion from the Baylands Area The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State.  Concentrations of TDS and nitrate in recycled water produced by SVCSD are 440 mg/L and 5.2 mg/L, respectively. Concentrations are well below BPOs of 500 mg/L and 10 mg/L. The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development.  The recycled water projects are an integral part of Subbasins UWMPs Implementation measures are being or will be implemented to help achieve BPOs in the future.  Various measures, as described in Chapter 8 have been or will be implemented in the subbasin to address salts and nutrients   Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 11 Plan Approval Process September 2013 11-1 Chapter 11 Plan Approval Process Following the presentation of the Draft SNMP at the July 18, 2013 public workshop, public comments on the Draft SNMP Report were considered and incorporated into this Final SNMP Report. This SNMP is being submitted to the Regional Water Board (in September 2013) for their review and incorporation to their Basin Planning process and subsequent environmental documentation process. The Regional Water Board template to be utilized for incorporating this SNMP into their Basin Planning Process has been filled in and is included as Appendix F along with environmental considerations. The Final SNMP Report has been posted online at the following web address: www.scwa.ca.gov/svgroundwater/ It is anticipated that this SNMP will be updated in the future. The timing of an SNMP update is not tied to a scheduled reoccurrence interval, however, an update could be triggered by the following:  Major changes in land use or land management practices  New information from the SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Program  Changes in basin management (e.g. recharge projects) Any future SNMP updates would be conducted utilizing a similar collaborative process as was utilized for development of this SNMP. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Chapter 12 Conclusion September 2013 12-1 Chapter 12 Conclusion The findings from the technical analysis completed for the SNMP indicate that overall groundwater quality in the basin is stable with low salinity and nutrient values (well below the Regional Water Board’s BPOs), resulting from a combination of factors including the high percentage of mountain front recharge with very low TDS and nitrate concentrations, the low amount of loading from the few sources identified, and the low volume and high quality of recycled water used. Analysis of future water quality (through 2035) also indicates good water quality and stable trends. In conclusion, no new implementation measures or BMPs as part of the SNMP process are recommended at this time. The SNMP would like to endorse existing measures or practices already in place to manage groundwater supplies and quality in the basin and see that they continue. Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan References September 2013 References Bauer, Jacob P., December 2008, “Update to Regional Groundwater Flow Model simulation of Sonoma Valley Including a New Model for Recharge and Three Future Scenarios”, A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences and the committee on graduate studies at Stanford University City of Sonoma, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” Hem, J.D., 1989, “Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water (third edition)”, U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254 Metcalf & Eddy. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), 2010, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Program: 2010 Annual Report” Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), December 2007, “Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan” San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), December 31, 2010, “San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), May 2009 Draft, amended September 2012, October 2012, and January 2013, approved January 2013, “Recycled Water Policy” United States Geological Survey, 2006, “Geohydrologic Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground- Water Flow Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California”, Scientific Investigation Report 2006-5092. Valley of the Moon Water District, 2011, “Annual Water Quality Report” S anta Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan NOVEMBER 2014 This page is intentionally left blank REVISED FINAL SALT AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN: SANTA CLARA SUBBASIN Originally posted online in November, 2014; Revised in June 2016 to add San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board comments and Santa Clara Valley Water District responses ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREPARED BY: Thomas Mohr, P.G., H.G. Senior Hydrogeologist UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: James Fielder Chief Operating Officer, Water Utility Enterprise Garth Hall Deputy Operating Officer Water Supply Division Behzad Ahmadi Unit Manager,Groundwater (retired) CONTRIBUTORS: Chanie Abuye, Civil Engineer Randy Behrens, Geologist Ellen Fostersmith, Geologist (retired) Ardy Ghoreishi, Engineering Technician Robert Siegfried, Soil Scientist (retired) Miguel Silva, Associate Civil Engineer Xiaoyong Zhan, Civil Engineer GRAPHICS DESIGN: Benjamin Apollo BOARD OF DIRECTORS: John L. Varela, District 1 Barbara Keegan, District 2 (Chair) Richard Santos, District 3 Linda J. LeZotte, District 4 Nai Hsueh, District 5 Tony Estremera, District 6 Gary Kremen, District 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan i ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................. 5 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5 1.2 State Water Resources Control Board 2009 Recycled Water Policy ......................... 5 1.3 Stakeholder Participation .......................................................................................... 7 1.4 Related Plans and Policies ....................................................................................... 8 1.4.1 Anti-Degradation Policy....................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Plan ................................................................... 8 1.4.2.1 Beneficial Uses ............................................................................................. 8 1.4.2.2 Water Quality Objectives ............................................................................... 8 1.4.3 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Objectives ................................... 9 1.4.4 District Board Ends Policies ...............................................................................10 1.4.5 Groundwater Management Plan Basin Management Objectives ........................10 1.5 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................11 1.5.1 Waste Discharge Permitting Program ................................................................11 1.5.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads ...............................................................................13 1.5.3 Local Regulations ..............................................................................................13 1.5.4 Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water and Stormwater ................................14 CHAPTER 2: GROUNDWATER SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION ..................................... 15 2.1 Groundwater Basin ..................................................................................................16 2.1.1 Santa Clara Plain Hydrogeology ........................................................................16 2.1.2 Santa Clara Plain Pumping and Recharge .........................................................17 2.1.3 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Elevation Trends ..............................................24 2.1.4 Santa Clara Plain Storage Capacity ...................................................................24 2.1.5 Santa Clara Plain Water Budget ........................................................................24 2.1.6 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Quality ..............................................................25 2.2 Coyote Valley Hydrogeology ....................................................................................27 2.2.1 Coyote Valley Pumping ......................................................................................28 2.2.2 Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping Trends ....................................................28 2.2.3 Coyote Valley Storage Capacity .........................................................................29 2.2.4 Coyote Valley Water Budget ..............................................................................29 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ii 2.2.5 Coyote Valley Groundwater Elevation Trends ....................................................30 2.2.6 Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality ...................................................................31 2.3 Sources of Supply....................................................................................................31 2.4 Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Water Budget ..................................................31 2.5 Groundwater Quality – Salts and Nutrients ..............................................................33 2.5.1 Total Dissolved Solids ........................................................................................33 2.5.2 Nitrate ................................................................................................................34 2.5.3 Trends in TDS and Nitrate .................................................................................35 2.5.4 TDS Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 ................................................36 2.5.5 Nitrate Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 .............................................36 CHAPTER 3: ESTIMATING CURRENT AND FUTURE SALT AND NUTRIENT LOADING AND ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY ................................................................ 39 3.1 Sources of Salts and Nutrients.................................................................................39 3.2 Fate and Transport of Salts and Nutrients ...............................................................40 3.3 Methodology for Estimating Salt and Nutrient Loading and Removal .......................42 3.3.1 Wet Loading Categories.....................................................................................43 3.3.1.1 Rainfall Recharge .........................................................................................43 3.3.1.2 Mountain-front Recharge ..............................................................................44 3.3.1.3 Basin Inflow and Saline Intrusion .................................................................46 3.3.1.4 Managed Recharge in Streams ....................................................................49 3.3.1.5 Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds ....................................................50 3.3.1.6 Agricultural Irrigation ....................................................................................50 3.3.1.7 Landscape Irrigation – Municipal and Domestic Water Sources ...................51 3.3.1.8 Landscape Irrigation – Recycled Water ........................................................53 3.3.1.9 Conveyance Losses .....................................................................................54 3.3.1.10 Drainage Losses ..........................................................................................55 3.3.2 Dry Loading .......................................................................................................57 3.3.2.1 Agricultural Fertilizer and Lawn Fertilizer ......................................................57 3.3.2.2 Atmospheric Deposition ...............................................................................59 3.3.3 Salt and Nutrient Removal .................................................................................60 3.3.3.1 Groundwater Pumping .................................................................................60 3.3.3.2 Basin Outflow ...............................................................................................61 3.3.3.3 Gaining Reaches of Streams........................................................................61 3.3.3.4 Groundwater Infiltration into Sewer Lines and Storm Drains ........................61 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan iii 3.3.3.5 Storm Drain Infiltration..................................................................................61 3.3.4 Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance ........................................................................62 3.4 Assimilative Capacity ...............................................................................................64 3.4.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality ............................................................................64 3.4.2 Volume-Weighted Average Basin Concentrations ..............................................67 3.4.3 Estimated Basin Assimilative Capacity ...............................................................68 3.4.4 Projecting Future Assimilative Capacity .............................................................68 3.4.4.1 Assumptions for Future Loading ...................................................................68 3.4.4.2 Methodology and Assumptions for Mixing Calculation ..................................71 3.4.5 Future Assimilative Capacity Projections ...........................................................72 3.4.5.1 Future Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation ..........................73 3.4.5.2 Future Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge ..................................75 3.4.5.3 Future Loading from Recycled Water ...........................................................78 3.4.5.4 Future Loading from Conveyance and Drainage Losses ..............................80 3.4.5.5 Future Loading from Dry Loading Sources ...................................................82 3.4.5.6 Salt and Nitrate Removal Projections ...........................................................82 3.4.5.7 Net Loading/Removal and Assimilative Capacity..........................................83 3.4.5.8 Allocation of Future Assimilative Capacity ....................................................86 CHAPTER 4: SALT AND NUTRIENT MONITORING PLANT ........................................... 88 CHAPTER 5: ANTI-DEGRADATION ANALYSIS .............................................................. 89 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 91 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 92 SNMP GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 97 APPENDIX 1 – Recycled Water Policy ............................................................................... A1-1 APPENDIX 2 – Groundwater Management Plan ................................................................ A2 -1 APPENDIX 3 – Groundwater Monitoring Plan ................................................................... A3 -1 APPENDIX 4 – Groundwater Quality Management ........................................................... A4 -1 APPENDIX 5 – Groundwater Infiltration to Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains ............. A5 -1 APPENDIX 6 – San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Comments and District Responses to Comments ............................................................................... A6 -1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan iv TABLES Table 1 – Net Loading of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Subbasin ............................................ 2 Table 2 – Projected Salt and Nutrient Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity ................................ 3 Table 3 – Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP Stakeholders and Stakeholder Meetings ........ 7 Table 4 – Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives ............................................................................................ 9 Table 5 – San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 6 – San Francisco Bay RWQCB General Orders for Discharges that Could Contribute Salt and Nutrients to Groundwater....................................................................................................................... 13 Table 7– Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Water Budget (2002 to 2011) ........................................... 23 Table 8 – Santa Clara Plain Shallow Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics ........ 26 Table 9 – Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics ....... 26 Table 10 – Coyote Valley Water Budget (2002 to 2011)............................................................................. 30 Table 11 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics ..................................................... 31 Table 12 – 2012 TDS Testing Results ........................................................................................................... 34 Table 13 – 2012 Nitrogen Constituent Testing Results ............................................................................. 35 Table 14 – 15-year TDS and Nitrate Concentration Trend Analysis Results (1998-2012) ................... 35 Table 15 – Sources and Removal of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin .... 39 Table 16 – Nitrate Attenuation Factor Assumptions by Loading Category* ......................................... 43 Table 17 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Rainfall Infiltration ............................................... 44 Table 18– Santa Clara Plain Model Mountain-Front Recharge Estimates ............................................. 45 Table 19 – Estimated Salt and Nutrient Loading from Mountain-Front Recharge ............................... 46 Table 20 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Basin Inflow to the Santa Clara Plain ............... 46 Table 21 – Estimated 10-year Median Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Streams .. 49 Table 22 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds ...... 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan v Table 23 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Irrigation .......................................... 51 Table 24 – Indoor-Outdoor Water Use Estimates by Water Use Category ............................................ 52 Table 25 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation† ........... 52 Table 26 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water ................................................................................................................................................ 53 Table 27 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses ............................. 55 Table 28 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Drainage Losses ................................... 56 Table 29 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Fertilizer .......................................... 58 Table 30 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Lawn Fertilizer ...................................................... 58 Table 31 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Atmospheric Deposition .................................... 60 Table 32 – Salt and Nutrient Removal .......................................................................................................... 62 Table 33 – Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance ................................................................................................ 63 Table 34– Factors Used to Determine Volume-Weighted Average Concentrations ........................... 67 Table 35 – Assimilative Capacity in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ...................................... 68 Table 36 – Basis of Future Loading Projections by Category ................................................................. 70 Table 37 – Retailer Demand Projections after Conservation Savings(1) (AF/year) .............................. 73 Table 38 – Schedule and Capacity of Recharge Capital Improvement Projects .................................. 76 Table 39 – Schedule and Capacity of Indirect Potable Reuse Recharge Projects ............................... 76 Table 40 – Recycled Water Master Plans: Expansion and Water Quality Improvements ................. 78 Table 41 – Factors Used to Project Future Sewer Line Losses ............................................................... 80 Table 42 – Annual Consumption of TDS Assimilative Capacity (AC) by Loading Categories .......... 87 Table 43 – Anti-Degradation Assessment ................................................................................................... 90 Table 44 – Example City Requirements for Stormwater Pollution Prevention ................................. A4 -3 Table 45 – Compost and Mulch Programs in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin .................. A4 -8 Table 46 – Potentially Contaminating Activities Contributing Salt and Nitrate to Groundwater A4-11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan vi Table 47 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in SJ-SC WPCP Tributary Area .................... A4-16 Table 48 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in Tributary Areas for All 3 POTWs ............. A4-17 Table 49 – Changes to Assimilative Capacity for the 50:50 Blend IPR Scenario .......................... A4-19 Table 50 – Comparison of Qualitative Changes to Future Assimilative Capacity from Unquantified Potential Changes to Future TDS Loading .......................................................................................... A4-24 Table 51 – Comparison of 3 Different Methods to Estimate Groundwater Infiltration to Sewers .. A5-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan vii FIGURES Figure 1 – Locations of Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley .................................................................. 15 Figure 2 – Generalized Geologic Cross-Section of the Santa Clara Plain ............................................. 19 Figure 3 – Santa Clara Plain Index Well Hydrograph ................................................................................ 20 Figure 4 – Santa Clara Plain 2010 Groundwater Use ................................................................................ 21 Figure 5 – 2010 Groundwater Pumping in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin ........................... 22 Figure 6 – Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge ................................... 23 Figure 7 – Historical Water Levels, Land Subsidence, and Groundwater Recharge Milestones ...... 25 Figure 8 – Coyote Valley Generalized Cross Section ................................................................................ 27 Figure 9 – Coyote Valley 2010 Groundwater Use ...................................................................................... 28 Figure 10 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge ........................................ 29 Figure 11 – Groundwater Elevation in Coyote Valley Well 09S02E02J002 ........................................... 30 Figure 12 – 2002–2011 Average Groundwater Budget for the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ..... 32 Figure 13 – 15-year TDS Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) .................. 37 Figure 14 – 15-year Nitrate as NO3 Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) 38 Figure 15 – Relationship of Salt and Nutrient Sources to Groundwater ................................................ 40 Figure 16 – Mountain-front Recharge Zones in Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Flow Model ........... 45 Figure 17 – Zone of Saline Intrusion into the Shallow Aquifer, Santa Clara Plain ................................ 48 Figure 18 – Locations of Current and Proposed Recycled Water Irrigation as of 2012 ...................... 54 Figure 19– Locations of Areas Served by Septic Tanks ........................................................................... 57 Figure 20 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ........................................................ 65 Figure 21 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Nitrate as NO3 in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley ...................................................................... 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan viii Figure 22 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain ........ 74 Figure 23 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain ... 74 Figure 24 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley .............. 75 Figure 25 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley ......... 75 Figure 26 – Salt Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain .................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 27 – Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain ...................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 28 – Salt Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley ........................ 77 Figure 29 – Nitrate Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley ................... 78 Figure 30 – Salt Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain ............................................... 79 Figure 31 – Nitrate Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain .......................................... 79 Figure 32 – TDS and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses in the Santa Clara Plain, tons per year .................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 33 – TDS Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain ............................................ 81 Figure 34 – Nitrate as NO3 Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain .......................... 81 Figure 35 – TDS Removal in the Santa Clara Plain .................................................................................... 82 Figure 36 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Santa Clara Plain.................................................................. 82 Figure 37 – TDS Removal in the Coyote Valley .......................................................................................... 83 Figure 38 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Coyote Valley ........................................................................ 83 Figure 39 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain .... 84 Figure 40 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain ......................................................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 41 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Coyote Valley .... 85 Figure 42 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Coyote Valley ................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 43 – District Board Policy Framework ......................................................................................... A2-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ix Figure 44 – Relation Between District Policy and 2012 GWMP ........................................................... A2-3 Figure 45 – Relation Between Basin Management Objectives, Strategies, and Programs ............ A2-8 Figure 46 – Interpretation of Continuous Wastewater TDS Monitoring Data (RMC, 2011) .......... A4-16 Figure 47 – 2013 Water Supply............................................................................................................... A4-22 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan x ACRONYMS LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments AF Acre-feet AF/yr Acre-feet per year (about 326,000 gallons) AGR agricultural water supply AWWA American Water Works Association BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BMO basin management objectives (defined in the Groundwater Management Plan) CASTNET Clean Air Status and Trends Network CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CDPH California Department of Public Health CECs Constituents of Emerging Concern CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement model CVMOD Coyote Valley Groundwater Flow Model CVP Central Valley Project DDW Division of Drinking Water (part of SWRCB, formerly part of CDPH) DPR direct potable reuse DSOD Division of Safety of Dams DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District GIS Geographic Information System gpad gallons per acre per day gpimd gallons per inch diameter per mile of sewer per day GWI groundwater infiltration GWMP Groundwater Management Plan ha hectare INAAP Infield Nutrient Assessment Assistance Program IND Industrial water supply IPR Indirect Potable Reuse (of recycled water) IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan LAMS LAMS = Large Area Mosaicing Software LID Low Impact Development MCL Maximum Contaminant Level M&I municipal and Industrial (pumping) MFR Mountain Front Recharge MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimate (a statistical method) MGD million gallons per day MODFLOW the USGS's three-dimensional, modular, finite-difference groundwater flow model used for simulating and predicting groundwater conditions and groundwater/surface-water interactions. MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium MRP Municipal Regional Permit (for Stormwater/NPDES) MUN Municipal and domestic water supply Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan xi NAPD National Atmospheric Data Program NO3 nitrate as nitrate NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OM Outcome Measures in the Groundwater Management Plan OWTS On-site Wastewater Treatment System OWTSO Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Ordinance PARWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant PCA Potentially Contaminating Activities PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls (a class of toxic and bioaccumulative chemicals used as dielectric coolant in transformers) PROC industrial process supply RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board ROWD Report of Waste Discharge RW Recycled Water SBWR South Bay Water Recycling SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (computer system for gathering and analyzing real time data) SDWA Safe Water Drinking Act SCPMOD Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Flow Model SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SJ-SC RWF San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SJWC San Jose Water Company SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level S/N salt and nutrient SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan SRWS Self Regenerating Water Softener SSO Sanitary System Operator SVAWPC Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center SVWPCP Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant SWID Stormwater Infiltration Device SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total Dissolved Solids TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TPY Tons Per Year USGS United States Geological Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe VWA Volume-weighted average WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements WSIMP Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the statewide Recycled Water Policy that encourages increased use of recycled water and local stormwater, together with enhanced water conservation. The Recycled Water Policy calls for basin-wide management of salts and nutrients from all sources with the goal of attaining water quality objectives (WQOs) and protecting beneficial uses of groundwater. Because recycled water can contribute salts and nutrients to groundwater, the Recycled Water Policy requires local entities to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) to support streamlined permitting of new recycled water projects while managing salts and nutrients basin-wide. This SNMP for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin was prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) with input from stakeholders, including the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara County, water retailers and recycled water producers, the farm bureau, and interested stakeholders such as environmental groups. The purpose of this SNMP is to comply with the SRWCB Recycled Water Policy by:  Evaluating all sources of salt and nutrient loading to the Santa Clara Subbasin,  Determining whether current and projected salt and nutrient concentrations are consistent with applicable WQOs  Developing recycled water and stormwater goals and objectives,  Providing a plan for long-term groundwater monitoring, and  Identifying sustainable measures to manage salt and nutrient loading to groundwater. An overview of the SNMP, including key findings, is provided below. Study Area The Study Area for this SNMP is the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin1 in northern Santa Clara County, including the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Groundwater typically provides about 45 percent of the water used in the Santa Clara Plain. Treated water provides the majority of the water used, with minor portions served by local surface water and recycled water. Tertiary-treated recycled water is used for irrigation and industrial purposes in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas. Advanced-treated recycled water from the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center is now blended into recycled water serving San Jose and Santa Clara. The Coyote Valley relies almost entirely on groundwater, with small amounts of surface water used. Water supply management of the Santa Clara Subbasin includes active groundwater replenishment operations conducted by the District. Significant volumes of imported water and surface water released from local reservoirs, along with local runoff are recharged in ponds and in-stream facilities. On average, the District’s Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) represents two- 1 The Santa Clara Subbasin is part of the Department of Water Resources-defined Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 2 thirds of the annual groundwater pumping in the Santa Clara Plain and 120% of pumping in the Coyote Valley. Existing Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality within the Santa Clara Subbasin is very good and is acceptable for all beneficial uses designated in the Basin Plan. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate (as NO3) are used as representative salt and nutrient indicators for this SNMP. The volume-weighted average for the Santa Clara Subbasin is 425 mg/L. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations were compared with the recommended secondary drinking water standard of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the primary drinking water standard of 45 mg/L, respectively. Average TDS and nitrate concentrations in all areas are well below their respective WQOs. Accordingly, there is available assimilative capacity. Trend analyses indicate nearly all wells analyzed show stable or decreasing trends for TDS and nitrate. Salt and Nutrient Sources Major current sources of TDS loading to the Santa Clara Plain include landscape irrigation and managed aquifer recharge, and in Coyote Valley, managed aquifer recharge and agricultural irrigation. Minor sources of TDS loading include recycled water, drainage and conveyance losses (leaks in storm drain, sewer, and water transmission pipes). The primary sources of nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain are landscape irrigation with potable and recycled water, and groundwater flowing into the Santa Clara Plain from Coyote Valley. In the Coyote Valley, agricultural fertilizer and irrigation, and septic systems are the primary sources of nitrate. All sources of groundwater recharge add salt and nutrient load to the subbasin. Recharge sources with lower TDS and nitrate than ambient groundwater will result in improved groundwater quality. Average concentrations of TDS and nitrate in all sources of groundwater recharge combined are much lower than average groundwater concentrations. Salts and nutrients are removed from the subbasin through groundwater pumping, basin outflow, gaining reaches of streams, and groundwater infiltration into storm drains and sewer mains. The difference between total salt and nutrient loading and removal determines whether there is currently net loading or net removal, as summarized in Table 1. Table 1 – Net Loading of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Subbasin Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin TDS Nitrate TDS Nitrate TDS Nitrate Total Loading, tons per year 89,600 1,130 7,850 226 97,450 1,356 Total Removal, tons per year 58,080 890 10,860 670 68,940 1,560 Net Loading, tons per year 31,520 240 - 3,010 - 444 28,510 - 204 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 3 Future Salt and Nutrient Loading and Assimilative Capacity Loading and removal categories were quantified to support a salt and nutrient mass balance. Fate and transport of salt and nutrients was estimated, and nitrate attenuation factors were developed. A ten-year baseline mass balance was developed for 2001-2010 to establish median loading rates by category. Forecasts were developed for future loading and removal, accounting for improvements to recycled water quality through advanced treatment, planned indirect potable reuse projects, water supply demand projections, and other factors. These forecasts were used to project future TDS and nitrate concentrations, compare those concentrations to applicable WQOs, and evaluate available assimilative capacity. For the SNMP planning horizon ending in 2035, TDS concentrations are projected to decrease in Coyote Valley and increase the Santa Clara Plain. Nitrate is projected to decrease in both the Coyote Valley and Santa Clara Plain. Under the future salt and loading forecast in this SNMP, it is projected that there will be available assimilative capacity for both TDS and nitrate as shown in Table 2, below. Table 2 – Projected Salt and Nutrient Concentrations and Assimilative Capacity Sub-Area/Aquifer Volume Weighted Average TDS, mg/L TDS Assimilative Capacity Volume Weighted Average Nitrate as NO3 NO3 Assimilative Capacity Basin Plan Objective 500 45 Santa Clara Plain – Shallow 528 -28 9.1 35.9 Santa Clara Plain – Principal 410 90 11.0 34.0 Santa Clara Subbasin 425 75 10.7 34.3 Coyote Valley 377 123 20.0 25.0 Assimilative capacity is the difference between the Basin Plan Objective and the average groundwater concentration. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 4 Anti-Degradation Analysis The SNMP analysis finds that current and planned recycled water use by 2035 causes only minor water quality changes to the subbasin with respect to salts and nutrients. Accordingly, recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State and can be increased while still protecting groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Salt and Nutrient Groundwater Quality Management Programs Projects and programs to manage salt and nutrient loading on a sustainable basis have been implemented by the District and subbasin stakeholders for many years. The SWRCB Recycled Water Policy states that within one year of the receipt of a proposed SNMP, the RWQCBs shall consider for adoption revised Basin Plans for groundwater basins where WQOs for salts and nutrients are being, or are threatening to be exceeded. Accordingly, the need for implementation measures to limit and reduce salt and nitrate concentrations is determined by comparing current average and simulated future groundwater quality with WQOs. Current and projected TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Santa Clara Subbasin do not exceed WQOs, so implementation measures are not required. Nonetheless, many groundwater quality management initiatives have been conducted in the Santa Clara Subbasin by the District and SNMP stakeholders, and may continue as deemed appropriate by their proponents. A summary of groundwater quality management initiatives is provided in Appendix 4. SNMP Monitoring Program For many years the District has conducted regular and comprehensive monitoring that includes TDS and nitrate, as well as other water quality parameters. The District also analyzes data from public water supply wells. The proposed SNMP Monitoring Program is the District’s voluntary subbasin monitoring and reporting for TDS and nitrate. The District prepares an annual groundwater report that documents monitoring results, provides trend analyses for TDS and nitrate, and compares detections with WQOs. District reports are available on the District website. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This chapter provides an overview of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, including related state and local policy. This chapter also summarizes the stakeholder process related to the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP. 1.1 Introduction This SNMP was developed through a stakeholder process led by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District), the manager of the Santa Clara groundwater Subbasin. The District was formed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act (District Act)2 for the primary purpose of providing comprehensive management for all beneficial water uses and protection from flooding within Santa Clara County. Per Sections 4 and 5 of the District Act, the District’s objectives and authority related to groundwater management are to recharge groundwater basins, conserve water, manage and store water for beneficial and useful purposes, increase water supply, protect surface and groundwater from contamination, prevent waste or diminution of the District's water supply, and do any and every lawful act necessary to ensure sufficient water is available for present and future beneficial uses. Sources of water for Santa Clara County include local reservoirs, groundwater, imported surface water from the State and Federal Water Projects (including water banking in Kern County), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission supplies, and recycled water. In addition, the District operates a highly successful water conservation program. As much as half the water used in the county is pumped from the ground with the proportion of water supplied by groundwater varying by city and by different water companies. Consequently, groundwater protection from salt and nitrate accumulation is critical to ensure long-term water supply reliability in Santa Clara County. Recycled water is a small but important and growing source of water in Santa Clara County. It is currently used for non-potable uses including irrigation, industrial applications (e.g., cooling), and agriculture. Using recycled water helps conserve drinking water supplies, provides a drought-proof, locally controlled water supply, and reduces dependency on imported water and groundwater. The District has established partnerships with the four recycled water producers in the county to expand recycled water use. Future recycled water plans include use of advanced treated recycled water for indirect potable reuse and possibly direct potable reuse. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) recognizes the importance of recycled water as a key element in local water supply portfolios and adopted the 2009 Recycled Water Policy to guide the preparation of SNMPs to support expanding recycled water uses. The purpose of this Santa Clara SNMP is to evaluate all sources of salts and nutrients (S/Ns) loading to groundwater in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, develop recycled water and stormwater goals and objectives, provide a plan for long term groundwater monitoring for S/Ns, and identify measures to manage S/N loading to groundwater on a sustainable basis. 1.2 State Water Resources Control Board 2009 Recycled Water Policy SWRCB Resolution, 2009-0011 adopted a policy for water quality control for recycled water (Recycled Water Policy). The Recycled Water Policy encourages increased use of recycled 2 Santa Clara Valley Water District Act, Water Code Appendix, Chapter 60. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 6 water and local stormwater to enhance drought-proof, reliable, and sustainable water supplies over the long-term. The intent of the Policy is to ensure that every groundwater basin/subbasin in California has a consistent SNMP. The SWRCB found that the appropriate way to address S/N issues is through the development of regional or sub-regional S/N management plans rather than through imposing requirements solely on individual recycled water projects. A full copy of the Recycled Water Policy is provided in Appendix 1. The key provisions of the Recycled Water Policy related to S/N planning are:  SNMPs will be developed for each groundwater basin/subbasin in California by local water and wastewater entities, together with local S/N contributing stakeholders, through a locally driven and controlled collaborative processes open to all stakeholders and with participation by the RWQCB staff;  The salt and nutrient management planning process should comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);  The SWRCB intends that stormwater use and recharge become a component within the SNMPs because this water is typically lower in nutrients and salts and can augment local water supplies, providing a long-term sustainable use of water in California;  SNMPs must address and implement provisions, as appropriate, for all sources of salts and nutrients to groundwater basins, including recycled water irrigation projects and groundwater recharge reuse projects; and  The policy requires that SNMPs be completed and proposed to the RWQCB by 2014. However, if the stakeholders can demonstrate substantial progress towards completion, a two-year extension may be granted. The Recycled Water Policy also specifies that each SNMP include the following components: • A subbasin wide monitoring plan that includes an appropriate network of monitoring locations; • A provision for annual monitoring of Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs), such as endocrine disruptors, personal care products, pharmaceuticals consistent with recommendations by the California Department of Public Health and any SWRCB action; • Water recycling and stormwater recharge/use goals; • S/N source identification, subbasin assimilative capacity, and loading estimates; • Implementation measures to manage S/N loading in the subbasin on a sustainable basis; and • An anti-degradation analysis demonstrating that the projects included within the plan will collectively satisfy the requirements of SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 7 1.3 Stakeholder Participation The District, as the groundwater management agency for the county, led the salt and nutrient management planning effort in collaboration with local water and wastewater entities, contributors of salts and nutrients, and stakeholders. Table 3 lists SNMP stakeholders, stakeholder meeting dates, and topics addressed. Table 3 – Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP Stakeholders and Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholders Meetings Topics California Water Services Company City of Milpitas City of Mountain View City of Palo Alto City of San Jose City of Santa Clara City of Sunnyvale San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Jose Water Company Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative Santa Clara County Farm Bureau South Bay Water Recycling Stanford University May 31, 2011 • Introduction to SNMPs • Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Overview • Approach to developing SNMP • Stakeholder Input October 12, 2011 • SNMP Process • S/N Source Identification • Approach to Loading Estimates • Stakeholder Input April 11, 2013 • Overview of SWRCB Recycled Water Policy Update • Recycled water and stormwater goals • Basin Water Balance • Loading Estimates • Assimilative Capacity June 20, 2013 • Review of SNMP Process • Loading analysis results • Forecasted Assimilative Capacity • Causes of trends • Implementation Measures • SNMP Monitoring Plan Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 8 1.4 Related Plans and Policies Several state, regional, and local water quality plans and policies are related to the SWRCB’s Recycled Water Policy and its provision for the development of SNMPs. These plans and policies are discussed below. 1.4.1 Anti-Degradation Policy The SWRCB adopted the Anti-Degradation Policy in 1968 (Resolution 68-16). This policy states that existing high water quality should be maintained and that dischargers should use best practicable treatment to avoid pollution. The policy provides for some degradation of water quality if such degradation is consistent with maximum benefits to the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water, and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in Regional Water Quality Control Plans. Projects that are included in the SNMP will need to satisfy the requirements of the Anti-Degradation Policy. 1.4.2 Regional Water Quality Control Plan Each RWQCB prepares a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for their region. The Basin Plans are designed to achieve the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. The San Francisco Bay Basin Plan designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for waters of the State, including surface waters and groundwater. The plan also includes implementation programs to achieve water quality objectives. The beneficial uses for northern Santa Clara County groundwater and associated water quality objectives related to salts and nutrients are discussed below. 1.4.2.1 Beneficial Uses Existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater in northern Santa Clara County are municipal and domestic water supply (MUN), industrial water supply (IND), industrial process supply (PROC), and agricultural water supply (AGR). Unless otherwise designated by the RWQCB, all groundwater is currently considered suitable, or potentially suitable, for municipal or domestic water supply. 1.4.2.2 Water Quality Objectives The Basin Plan identifies water quality objectives for groundwater throughout the region. The maintenance of existing high quality of groundwater (i.e., “background”) is the primary groundwater objective. At a minimum, groundwater may not contain concentrations of chemical constituents or substances producing taste and odor in excess of the objectives listed in Table 4. An exception is made when naturally occurring background concentrations are greater than the thresholds listed in Table 4. As explained in Section 2.3, the water quality parameters used as surrogates for salt and nitrate in this SNMP are Total Dissolved Solids and Nitrate as NO3. Table 4 lists numeric objectives for salt (as Total Dissolved Solids – TDS) and nutrients (as Nitrate) for municipal and domestic water supply (MUN) and agricultural water supply (AGR) beneficial uses. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 9 Table 4 – Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives Parameter Units MUN AGR TDS mg/L 500 10,000 Nitrate (as NO3) mg/L 45 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) mg/L 10 30 1.4.3 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Objectives Water, wastewater, flood protection, and stormwater management agencies, together with cities, counties, and environmental interests, have developed an Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. IRWM is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and, attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The Bay Area IRWM Plan specifies regional goals and objectives. Table 5 lists the regional goals and objectives that apply to salt and nutrient management planning for Santa Clara County groundwater: Table 5 – San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Goals and Objectives Regional Goal Objectives Promote Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability • Minimize health impacts associated with polluted water. • Develop policies, ordinances and programs that promote IRWM goals, and determine areas of integration among projects. • Promote community education involvement and stewardship. Contribute to improved supply reliability and quality • Provide adequate water supplies to meet demands. • Provide clean, safe, and reliable drinking water. • Implement water use efficiency to meet or exceed state and federal requirements. • Increase recycled water use of potable water replaced by non- potable supply. • Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater. • Provide for groundwater recharge while protecting groundwater resources from overdraft. • Protection of groundwater resources from contamination. Protect and improve watershed health and function • Minimize point-source and nonpoint-source pollution. • Improve infiltration capacity. • Control pollutants of concern (TMDLs, 303(d) etc.) • Manage floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 10 1.4.4 District Board Ends Policies The District Board has adopted Ends Policies that provide direction to staff on the intended results, organizational products, impacts, benefits, outcomes, recipients, and their relative worth. The following Ends Policies are related to salt and nutrient management planning: 1.1 An integrated and balanced approach in managing a sustainable water supply, effective natural flood protection, and healthy watersheds is essential to prepare for the future. 1.2 Effective public engagement in accomplishing the District mission is achieved through communication that involves the community and key stakeholder groups in a transparent and open manner. 2.1 Current and future water supply for municipalities, industries, agriculture and the environment is reliable. 2.1.1 Aggressively protect groundwater from the threat of contamination and maintain and develop groundwater to optimize reliability and to minimize land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. 2.1.2 Protect, maintain, and develop local surface water. 2.1.4 Protect, maintain, and develop recycled water. The CEO has adopted interpretations of the Board policy. The interpretations include strategies to increase recycled water use to ten percent of total water demands by 2025 in partnership with the community and agencies in the county, and maintaining contaminant concentrations below Basin Plan water quality objectives in wells. 1.4.5 Groundwater Management Plan Basin Management Objectives The purpose of the District’s Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) is to describe basin management objectives. Objectives include strategies, programs, and activities that support those objectives, and outcome measures to gauge performance (District, 2012b). A more detailed discussion of the GWMP, objectives, and outcome measures is provided in Appendix 2. The GWMP establishes the following basin management objectives (BMOs): • BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. • BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including saltwater intrusion. These BMOs describe the overall goals of the District’s groundwater management program. The basin management strategies are the methods that will be used to meet the BMOs. Many of these strategies have overlapping benefits to groundwater resources and act to improve water supply reliability, minimize subsidence, and protect or improve groundwater quality. The strategies are listed below: Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 11 a. Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize saltwater intrusion and land subsidence. b. Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. c. Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. d. Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. The District has developed the following outcome measures to gauge performance in meeting the basin management objectives: Projected end of year groundwater storage is greater than 278,000 AF in the Santa Clara Plain and 5,000 in Coyote Valley. a. Groundwater levels are above subsidence thresholds at the subsidence index wells. b. At least 95% of countywide water supply wells meet primary drinking water standards and at least 90% of South County wells meet Basin Plan agricultural objectives. c. At least 90% of wells in both the shallow and principal aquifer zones have stable or decreasing concentrations of nitrate, chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS). d. Programs and policies that achieve management of groundwater quality are described in Appendix 4. 1.5 Regulatory Framework This section describes how S/N discharges to groundwater are regulated and controlled by regional and local agencies. 1.5.1 Waste Discharge Permitting Program The RWQCB generally controls point source discharges to surface water through waste discharge requirements issued under the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Although the NPDES program was established by the federal Clean Water Act the permits are prepared and enforced by the RWQCB per California’s delegated authority for the act. Issued in five-year terms, a NPDES permit usually contains components such as discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and necessary specifications and provisions to ensure proper treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste. The permit often contains a monitoring program that establishes monitoring stations at effluent outfall and receiving waters. Under the state’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste within the region (except discharges into a community sewer system) that could affect the quality of the waters of the state is required to file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD). The RWQCB reviews the nature of the proposed discharge and adopts Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to protect the beneficial uses of waters of the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 12 state. WDRs are issued for discharges to land, including discharge of treated wastewater to land, landfills, agricultural activities, and water recycling programs. Waste discharge requirements could be adopted for an individual discharge, or a specific type of discharges, in the form of a general permit. The RWQCB may waive the requirements for filing a ROWD or issuing WDRs for a specific discharge where such a waiver is not against the public interest. NPDES requirements may not be waived. Acceptable control measures for point source discharges must ensure compliance with NPDES permit conditions, including discharge prohibitions and the effluent limitations specified in the Basin Plan. In addition, control measures must satisfy water quality objectives set forth in the Basin Plan unless the RWQCB judges that related economic, environmental, or social considerations merit a modification after a public hearing process has been conducted. Control measures employed must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate future changes in technology, population growth, land development, and legal requirements. Table 6 summarizes general permits that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has issued for discharges that could contribute salts and/or nutrients to groundwater. In addition, individual permits have been issued to the following types of operations: • Food processing wastewater treatment and disposal. • Alternative and large septic systems. • Package sanitary wastewater treatment systems. Individual orders are discussed further in Section 1.6 on potential S/N contributors and sources. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 13 Table 6 – San Francisco Bay RWQCB General Orders for Discharges that Could Contribute Salt and Nutrients to Groundwater Order Number Name Description 96-011 General Water Reuse Requirements for Municipal Wastewater and Water Agencies The Order serves as a General Water Reuse Order authorizing municipal wastewater reuse by producers, distributors, and users of non-potable recycled wastewater throughout the region. The intent of this Order is to streamline the permitting process and delegate the responsibility of administrating water reuse programs to local agencies to the fullest extent possible. The Order is intended to serve as a region-wide general permit for publicly owned wastewater and water agencies that recycle treated municipal wastewater. It is intended to replace individual reuse Orders. 97-10-DWQ Discharges to Land By Small Domestic Wastewater Systems SWRCB general WDRs. Revisions being considered consistent with AB 885. Basin Plan includes criteria for onsite wastewater systems. Small systems are typically regulated by the County of Santa Clara in accordance with the Basin Plan and through delegation of authority from the RWQCB. R2-2009-0074 Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Waste Discharge Requirements and NPDES Permit for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems of the following jurisdictions and entities: the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. Included are the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara County, which have joined together to form the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (Santa Clara Permittees). 1.5.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are action plans to restore clean water. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that states identify water bodies -- bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas -- that do not meet water quality standards, and the pollutants that impair them. TMDLs examine the water quality problems, identify sources of pollutants, and specify actions that create solutions. These plans have been adopted by the RWQCB as amendments to the region's Basin Plan. Several water bodies within northern Santa Clara County do not meet water quality standards. The impairments that have been identified include mercury, PCBs, pesticides, sediment, and trash. None of these impairments are significant in terms of salt and nutrient management in groundwater. 1.5.3 Local Regulations Local land use agencies also play a role in managing S/N loading to groundwater. Specific examples are listed here and enumerated further in Appendix 4. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 14 • City and County General Plans provide policies and strategies for protecting water quality and maintaining water supply reliability. • County Septic Ordinance regulates the location, construction, and operation of smaller septic systems, which are potential sources of salts and nutrients. • County Design Guidelines for golf courses include guidelines related to water quality protection from fertilizers. • Urban Runoff Management programs are typically implemented to meet the Municipal Regional Stormwater permit requirements and include provisions to protect water quality. • Santa Clara Valley Water District Stormwater Infiltration Device Policy regulates the use of stormwater infiltration devices and is being updated to be consistent with Municipal Regional Stormwater permit requirements. 1.5.4 Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water and Stormwater The District has established the following goals and objectives for recycled water and stormwater: • Recycled Water:  Goal: Protect, maintain, and develop recycled water.  Objective: At least 10% of total annual county water demands are met with recycled water by 2025. • Stormwater:  Goal: Promote natural recharge and the infiltration of high quality stormwater.  Objective: Maintain facilities to recharge about 50,000 AF of stormwater each year and evaluate opportunities to expand recharge capacity. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 15 CHAPTER 2: GROUNDWATER SUBBASIN CHARACTERIZATION This chapter describes the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, which includes the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley areas (see Figure 1). Basin-wide groundwater attributes are described, including water balance, storage capacities, inflows and outflows for both the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley subareas. Trends in pumping, groundwater elevations, and groundwater quality are also included. The description of the subbasin provided in this chapter will aid in understanding the S/N source analysis that is presented in later chapters. Figure 1 – Locations of Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 16 2.1 Groundwater Basin The groundwater basins in Santa Clara County transmit, filter, and store water. Water enters the basin through recharge areas and undergoes natural filtration as it is transmitted into deeper aquifers. Groundwater recharge and basin inflow replaces water removed from the basin by basin-outflow and by groundwater pumping. The District’s managed aquifer recharge program maintains aquifer pressure, which helps avoid land subsidence. Storing surplus water in the groundwater basin enables part of the County’s supply to be carried over from wet years to dry years. Santa Clara County includes portions of two groundwater basins as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 Update 2003 – the Santa Clara Valley Basin (Basin 2-9) and the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Basin (Basin 3-3). The Santa Clara Valley Basin generally forms an elongated valley bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and Diablo Range to the east, and extends north into San Mateo and Alameda Counties. The boundary between the Santa Clara Valley and the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Groundwater Basins is the Coyote Creek alluvial fan in the Morgan Hill area. The alluvial fan comprises a topographic and hydrologic divide between the groundwater and surface water flowing to the San Francisco Bay and water flowing to the Monterey Bay. The groundwater divide is approximately located at Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill. The boundary moves as much as a mile to the north or south depending on local groundwater conditions. The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, which includes the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley subareas, is located in the Santa Clara Valley Basin. The Llagas Groundwater Subbasin is located within the Gilroy-Hollister Valley Groundwater Basin. A separate SNMP has been prepared for the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin (Todd Groundwater, 2014). While basin boundaries are primarily based on geologic and hydrologic information, subbasins are commonly based on institutional boundaries. DWR Bulletin 118 Update 2003 states that “subbasins are created for the purpose of collecting and analyzing data, managing water resources, and managing adjudicated basins.” The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, as defined by DWR, extends from the southern boundary of the Santa Clara Valley Basin in Morgan Hill north to the San Francisco Bay and the county boundaries. The subbasin includes two study areas – the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley. Although hydraulically connected to the Santa Clara Plain, the District refers to the Coyote Valley separately since it is largely an agricultural area and water supply is provided exclusively by municipal, domestic, and agricultural wells. The Santa Clara Plain portion of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is largely urban/suburban and primarily served by major water retailers using both groundwater and treated surface water. Some of the groundwater supplied to customers in the Santa Clara Plain is pumped in Coyote Valley. 2.1.1 Santa Clara Plain Hydrogeology The Santa Clara Plain is the northern area of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, which is the southern extension of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The Santa Clara Plain is 280 square miles, comprising a large trough-like depression filled with alluvium, or unconsolidated sediments such as gravel, sand, silt, and clay, that were deposited from the mountains by water and gravity into the valley. The alluvium comprises inter-fingering alluvial fans, stream deposits, and terrace deposits The thickness of the alluvium varies from a few feet Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 17 at the subbasin boundaries to over 1,500 feet in the basin interior.3 The alluvium thins towards the western and eastern edges of the Santa Clara Plain. The Santa Clara Plain is divided into confined and recharge (unconfined) areas (Figure 1). The recharge area includes the alluvial fan and deposits found along the edge of the groundwater subbasin where high lateral and vertical sediment allow surface water to infiltrate the aquifers. Surface water replenishes unconfined groundwater within the recharge area and contributes to the recharge of deep aquifers in the confined area through subsurface flow. As groundwater pumping exceeds natural recharge, the District operates managed groundwater recharge facilities within the recharge area to replenish groundwater storage. The confined area of the Santa Clara Plain is located in the northern and central portion of the subbasin. It is characterized by upper and lower aquifers, divided by laterally extensive, low- permeability clays and silts, which restrict the vertical flow of groundwater. The District refers to these aquifers as the shallow and principal aquifer zones. The shallow and principal aquifer zones are represented by wells primarily drawing water from depths less than and greater than 150 feet, respectively. The principal aquifer zone is less vulnerable to contamination than shallow aquifers since the confining layers also restrict the movement of contaminants that may be present in infiltrating water. The boundary between the confined and recharge areas is a simplification of the natural conditions in the subbasin and two prior versions of this boundary have been published by the USGS4 and State Water Resources Control Board.5 A generalized cross-section of the Santa Clara Plain is shown in Figure 2. Groundwater in the Santa Clara Plain is found at different depths in the unconfined aquifer and under artesian conditions in the confined aquifer. Groundwater movement generally follows surface water patterns, flowing to the northwest. Local groundwater also moves toward areas of intense pumping. Regional groundwater elevations in the Santa Clara Plain range from 60 to 90 feet below sea level in the middle of the subbasin, to 220 to 480 feet above mean sea level near the southern extent of the eastern and western hills of the Santa Clara Plain. There has been a significant recovery in groundwater levels since the District’s managed groundwater recharge program was started. As seen in the hydrograph (Figure 3) typical seasonal fluctuations are about 10 to 20 feet. 2.1.2 Santa Clara Plain Pumping and Recharge In 2010, groundwater pumping in the Santa Clara Plain was approximately 81,100 AF. As shown on Figure 4, 96% of the water pumped was for municipal and industrial uses, with minor amounts used for agriculture and domestic purposes. Figure 4 also shows the number of wells reporting groundwater pumped for each of these uses in 2010. It should be noted that a single well may be used for more than one purpose. Water retailer pumping accounted for nearly 90% of the groundwater pumped from the Santa Clara Plain in 2010. Although there is some variation from year to year, this represents typical recent pumping patterns for the Santa Clara Plain. Subbasin water levels reflect the amount of groundwater in storage and are strongly influenced by groundwater pumping. The distribution and pumping of these wells for 2010 indicate that the 3 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Standards for the Construction and Destruction of Wells and other Deep Excavations in Santa Clara County, June 1989. 4 USGS, Ground water in Santa Clara Valley, California, Water-Supply Paper 519, 1924. 5 California State Water Resources Control Board, Santa Clara Valley Investigation, Bulletin Number 7, 1955. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 18 greatest numbers of high production wells (500 to 4,000 AF per year) are in the central and southern portion of the Santa Clara Plain as shown in Figure 5. The annual groundwater production for the Santa Clara Plain is shown in Figure 2–6. For the time period shown, the maximum groundwater production of 181,000 AF in the Santa Clara Plain occurred in 1985. A sharp decrease in groundwater production in the Santa Clara Plain can be noted in 1989, the year that the District’s third and largest water treatment plant (Santa Teresa) came on-line to utilize water imported from the Central Valley Project. Prior to 1989, the average annual pumping in the Santa Clara Plain was 157,000 AF. After the Santa Teresa plant came on-line, average pumping dropped to 106,000 AF per year. Managed recharge provides the majority of water available for groundwater production, as shown in Table 7 and Figure 6. The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is actively managed by the District. On average, more than 76,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of local reservoir and imported water are percolated into Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin aquifers through the District’s Managed Aquifer Recharge programs. The addition of water through planned or incidental recharge sustains the groundwater supply, and can improve water quality by diluting existing contaminants in the aquifer, diminish water quality by introducing contaminants6, or induce geochemical changes in the aquifers. The District has been recharging local reservoir water into the aquifers since the 1930s and water imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta since the 1960s. The District’s managed recharge program is an important management tool that has contributed to aquifer storage recovery, cessation of unacceptable levels of inelastic land subsidence, and improved water quality in impacted areas. Another important influence on groundwater quality is infiltration from applied irrigation water or stormwater. Applied irrigation water from any source can contribute salt and other constituents. Recycled water has a higher concentration of S/Ns than groundwater or treated water. Salts and Nutrients are introduced to groundwater through landscape irrigation with tertiary treated recycled water. Recycled water producers are actively pursuing advanced treatment and other measures to reduce the salinity of recycled water. For example, the District constructed the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center that produces water with TDS that is about 5% of tertiary treated recycled water. The City of Palo Alto has achieved recycled water salinity reduction by repairing sections of submerged sewer lines subject to infiltration of saline groundwater near the Bay. 6 The District’s Recharge Water Quality Monitoring Program periodically confirms that only high quality water is used to recharge the subbasin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 19 Figure 2 – Generalized Geologic Cross-Section of the Santa Clara Plain PRINCIPAL AQUIFER SHALLOW AQUIFER The boundary between the shallow aquifer and the principal aquifer shown above is approximate; it is not a clear geologic divide that is present at all locations. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 20 Figure 3 – Santa Clara Plain Index Well Hydrograph -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Water Elevation (feet msl) Year Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 21 Figure 4 – Santa Clara Plain 2010 Groundwater Use Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 22 Figure 5 – 2010 Groundwater Pumping in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 23 Table 7- Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Water Budget (2002 to 2011) Water Budget Component Acre-Feet Inflow Managed Recharge 64,000 Natural Recharge 30,000 Subsurface Inflow 8,000 Total Inflow 102,000 Outflow Groundwater Pumping 95,000 Subsurface Outflow 6,000 Total Outflow 101,000 Change in Storage 1,000 Notes: 1. Managed recharge represents direct replenishment by the District using local and imported water. 2. Natural recharge includes all uncontrolled recharge, including the deep percolation of rainfall, septic system and/or irrigation return flows, and natural seepage through creeks. 3. Subsurface inflow represents inflow from adjacent aquifer systems, including inflow from the Coyote Valley. 4. Groundwater pumping is based on pumping reported by water supply well owners. 5. Subsurface outflow represents outflow to adjacent aquifer systems, including outflows to San Francisco Bay. Figure 6 – Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 24 2.1.3 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Elevation Trends Groundwater elevations are affected by natural and managed recharge and groundwater extraction, and are an indicator of how much groundwater is in storage at a particular time. Both low and high elevations can cause adverse conditions. Low groundwater levels can lead to land subsidence or saltwater intrusion, and high water levels can lead to groundwater intrusion into basements, parking garages, elevator shafts, and other below-ground structures. Figure 7 depicts changes in groundwater elevations over the last hundred years for the Santa Clara Plain. Annual fluctuations reflect recharge in winter and spring and pumping in summer. The increase in groundwater elevations through the late 1930s and 1940s are attributed to the expansion of the District’s conjunctive use program. An increase in groundwater elevations are also attributed with the construction of the District’s local reservoirs and increased volumes of recharge utilizing reservoir releases. Downward trends beginning in 1940 are a result of increased agricultural pumping. Long term declines, starting in the late 1940s and later, reflect growing municipal and industrial demands in Silicon Valley that correlate with rapid population growth. The increase in groundwater elevations in the late 1960s and 1970s is due to the delivery of State Water Project water through the South Bay Aqueduct, and the completion of the District’s Rinconada and Penitencia Water Treatment Plants. Even with a significant drought from 1987 to 1992, groundwater elevations improved beginning in 1989 with the addition of federal Central Valley Project deliveries and the completion of the Santa Teresa Water Treatment Plant. 2.1.4 Santa Clara Plain Storage Capacity The operational storage capacity of the Santa Clara Plain has been estimated to be 350,000 AF.7 The operational storage capacity represents the volume of groundwater that can be stored while avoiding adverse impacts such as inelastic land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. The District is currently working to refine this estimate based on historically observed data. 2.1.5 Santa Clara Plain Water Budget A water budget for the Santa Clara Plain for calendar years 2002 through 2011 is shown in Table 7. The water budget is based on the District groundwater flow model8 for the Santa Clara Plain, and represents inflows and outflows for the principal aquifer. A majority of the inflow to the Santa Clara Plain is a result of managed recharge of local and imported supplies. Although the water budget can vary significantly from year to year, on average, there was a slight annual increase in storage for the Santa Clara Plain over this 10-year period. 7 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012 Groundwater Management Plan 8 The District uses MODFLOW to forecast groundwater supply and assess the annual water budget. Separate MODFLOW models are used for Santa Clara Plain, Coyote Valley, and the Llagas Subbasin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 25 Figure 7 – Historical Water Levels, Land Subsidence, and Groundwater Recharge Milestones 2.1.6 Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Quality The Santa Clara Plain generally produces water of excellent quality for municipal, irrigation, and domestic supply. Within the Santa Clara Plain calcium and magnesium constitute the principal cations, and bicarbonate as the most prevalent anion. The total dissolved solids (TDS) content is typically 200 to 500 mg/L, with the exception of localized areas including the Evergreen area of San Jose, and all of Palo Alto (see Figure 17). The median TDS content for the principal aquifer zone is 400 mg/L. The median is the preferred statistic to represent water quality because it represents the middle of the data set and is less affected by outliers and skewed data. Some shallow aquifers adjacent to the San Francisco Bay have been affected by saltwater intrusion. High TDS is also noted in some wells close to the Bay. Very few wells sampled each year contain contaminants above primary MCLs.9 A summary of the shallow and principal aquifer water quality from 2002 to 2011 is presented in Tables 8 and 9. Groundwater quality is discussed in more detail in section 2.5. 9 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012 Groundwater Quality Report. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 26 Table 8 – Santa Clara Plain Shallow Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics Parameter2 2002 – 2011 Results3 Population Median4 MCL5 n6 25th Percentile 50th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile Lower Upper Primary Secondary Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) 0.30 1.4 6.4 0.60 3.3 45 NE 35 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 410 588 840 440 820 NE 500 31 Table 9 – Santa Clara Plain Principal Aquifer Zone1 Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics Parameter2 2002 – 2011 Results3 Population Median4 MCL5 n6 25th Percentile 50th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile Lower Upper Primary Secondary Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) 4.2 9.3 20.8 8.1 10.7 45 NE 288 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 337 400 490 384 410 NE 500 273 Notes: 1. The shallow aquifer zone is represented by wells primarily drawing water from depths less than 150 feet, while the principal aquifer zone is represented by wells primarily drawing water from depths greater than 150 feet. 2. mg/L = milligrams per liter (or parts per million) 3. The percentile is the value below, which a certain percent of observations fall (e.g., the 50th percentile, or median, is the value below which half of the observations fall). For parameters with results reported at multiple reporting limits, the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) method is used. 4. The lower and upper estimates of the population median are determined using a 95% confidence interval (alpha = 0.05). 5. Primary and secondary MCLs are from the California Code of Regulations. Primary MCLs are health-based drinking water standards, while secondary MCLs are aesthetic-based standards. For secondary MCLs with a range, the lower, recommended threshold is shown. NE= Not Established 6. n represents the number of wells tested. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 27 2.2 Coyote Valley Hydrogeology The Coyote Valley is the southern extension of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, covering a surface area of 17 square miles. The Coyote Valley is approximately 7 miles long, and ranges from 3 miles wide to about a half mile wide at the boundary with the Santa Clara Plain to the north. The alluvial sediments overlying the Santa Clara Formation vary in thickness from a few feet or less along the west side of the subbasin, to more than 400 feet along the east side. The alluvial sediments are mainly composed of thick sequences of alluvial sand and gravel with inter-bedded thin and discontinuous clays. The absence of a continuous horizon of clay limits the delineation of shallow and principal aquifers in Coyote Valley. Accordingly, the Coyote Valley alluvium is treated as a single unconfined aquifer. A generalized cross-section of the Coyote Valley is presented in Figure 8. Figure 8 – Coyote Valley Generalized Cross Section The Coyote Valley is generally unconfined and groundwater is typically encountered between 5 and 40 feet below ground surface. Groundwater movement follows surface water patterns, flowing to the northwest and draining into the Santa Clara Plain. Regional groundwater elevations in Coyote Valley range from 200 to 220 feet near the Coyote Narrows, to about 350 feet at Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill. Groundwater levels in the Coyote Valley respond rapidly to changes in hydrology and pumping. Local groundwater moves toward areas of intense pumping, especially at the southeastern and northern parts of the subbasin where retailer groundwater production wells are located. Groundwater recharge occurs along Coyote Creek due to the District managed recharge releases from Anderson Reservoir and stream seepage. The District does not have off-stream managed groundwater recharge facilities in the Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 28 2.2.1 Coyote Valley Pumping In 2010, groundwater pumping in the Coyote Valley was approximately 12,300 AF. As shown on Figure 9, 53% of groundwater pumped was for municipal and industrial uses (M&I), and 45% of groundwater pumped was used for agriculture. Only 2% of groundwater pumping was for domestic use. Pumping by water retailers accounted for over 60% of pumping in the Coyote Valley in 2010. Although there is some variation from year to year, this figure represents typical recent pumping patterns for the Coyote Valley. Figure 9 – Coyote Valley 2010 Groundwater Use 2.2.2 Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping Trends As shown in Figure 6, high production wells (500 to 4,000 AF/yr) are in the southern portion of the Coyote Valley. The District assumed management of the Coyote Valley and Llagas Subbasin in 1987; prior to that date, limited groundwater pumping data are available. Coyote Valley groundwater production remained fairly consistent until 2006, when new water retailer wells began pumping water to serve customers in the Santa Clara Plain. Managed recharge provides the majority of water available for groundwater production, as shown in Table 10 and Figure 10. Managed recharge in the Coyote Valley supports the maintenance of subsurface flows to the Santa Clara Plain. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 29 Figure 10 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Pumping and Managed Recharge 2.2.3 Coyote Valley Storage Capacity The operational storage capacity of the Coyote Valley ranges between 23,000 and 33,000 AF.10 The District is currently working to refine the operational storage capacity estimate based on historically observed data. 2.2.4 Coyote Valley Water Budget Average Coyote Valley inflows and outflows for calendar years 2002 to 2011 are presented in Table 10. The Coyote Valley is dependent on Coyote Creek for its water supply, which is largely fed by releases from the Anderson-Coyote reservoir system. Imported water from the San Felipe Project can also be released to Coyote Creek. Natural recharge from rainfall and other sources typically account for less than 25% of the inflows to the Coyote Valley. Over the 10-year period evaluated, the Coyote Valley has seen a slight annual decrease in storage. 10 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Operational Storage Capacity of the Coyote and Llagas Groundwater Subbasins, April 2002. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 30 Table 10 – Coyote Valley Water Budget (2002 to 2011) Water Budget Component Acre-Feet Inflow Managed Recharge 12,000 Natural Recharge 2,500 Subsurface Inflow 0 Total Inflow 14,500 Outflow Groundwater Pumping 10,000 Subsurface Outflow 5,000 Total Outflow 15,000 Change in Storage - 500 Notes: 1. Managed recharge represents direct replenishment by the District using local and imported water. 2. Natural recharge includes all uncontrolled recharge, including rainfall, septic system and/or irrigation return flows, and natural seepage through creeks. 3. Subsurface inflow represents inflow from adjacent aquifer systems. 4. Groundwater pumping is based on pumping reported by water supply well owners. 5. Subsurface outflow represents outflow to adjacent aquifer systems. 2.2.5 Coyote Valley Groundwater Elevation Trends Groundwater elevations are affected by natural and managed recharge and groundwater extraction, and are an indicator of how much groundwater is in storage at a particular time. Groundwater elevations have been relatively stable since about 1970, although there has been a slight decreasing trend since the late 1990’s. A typical hydrograph is shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 – Groundwater Elevation in Coyote Valley Well 09S02E02J002 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 Water Elevation (feet msl) Year Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 31 2.2.6 Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality The Coyote Valley produces water of good quality for municipal, irrigation, and domestic supply. The typical water type is dominated by calcium-magnesium and bicarbonate. The median TDS concentration is 368 mg/L, which is below the recommended secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. The median nitrate concentration is 15 mg/L, below the MCL of 45 mg/L. Typically, very few wells sampled each year contain contaminants above primary MCLs. A summary of Coyote Valley water quality data is presented in Table 11. Groundwater quality is discussed in more detail in section 2.5. Table 11 – Coyote Valley Groundwater Quality Summary Statistics Parameter1 2002 – 2011 Results2 Population Median3 MCL4 n5 25th Percentile 50th Percentile (Median) 75th Percentile Lower Upper Primary Secondary Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) 3.7 15.0 43.0 4.5 29.8 45 NE 39 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 320 368 414 328 405 NE 500 29 Notes: 1. mg/L= milligrams per liter (parts per million) 2. The percentile is the value below, which a certain percent of observations fall (e.g., the 5 0th percentile, or median, is the value below which half of the observations fall). For parameters with results reported at multiple reporting limits, the Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE) method is used . 3. The lower and upper estimates of the population median are determined using a 95% confidence interval (alpha = 0.05). 4. Primary and secondary MCLs are from the California Code of Regulations. Primary MCLs are health-based drinking water standards, while secondary MCLs are aesthetic-based standards. For secondary MCLs with a range, the lower, recommended threshold is shown. NE= Not Established 5. n represents the number of wells tested. 2.3 Sources of Supply A majority of the inflow to the Santa Clara Plain is a result of artificial recharge of local and imported supplies. Even with supplemental recharge, groundwater alone provides insufficient water supply to support this heavily developed area. Treated surface water deliveries have been critical to the area for half a century – first with SFPUC Hetch-Hetchy delivery to local water retailers, and later with District treated water deliveries. The Los Gatos, Westside, Penitencia, Guadalupe, and the Coyote Valley recharge systems are operated to actively recharge the Santa Clara Plain using imported and local reservoir water. The Coyote Valley is almost entirely dependent on Coyote Creek for its water supply, which is largely fed by releases from the Anderson-Coyote reservoir system. Imported water from the Federal Central Valley Project may also be released to Coyote Creek. 2.4 Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Water Budget The water budget for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is summarized in Figure 12. Long-term groundwater pumping for the Santa Clara Plain averages about 95,000 AF per year Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 32 based on data from 2002 to 2011. Historical pumping has been as high as 180,000 AF per year. The subsurface outflow from the Santa Clara Plain, which includes outflow to the San Francisco Bay, was 6,000 AF per year. Average recharge to the Santa Clara Plain is estimated to be 102,000 AF per year with sources including the District’s managed recharge of local and imported water, deep percolation of rainfall, natural seepage from creeks, and subsurface inflow from surrounding hills (mountain front recharge). Two-thirds of recharge to the Santa Clara Plain comes from the District’s managed recharge program. Subsurface inflow from adjacent aquifer systems is estimated to be 8,000 AF per year. The average annual change in groundwater storage between 2002 and 2011 is approximately 500 AF. Figure 12 – 2002–2011 Average Groundwater Budget for the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley The Coyote Valley water budget is based on the District groundwater flow model for the Coyote Valley, and represents general inflows and outflows. The natural recharge term used in the budget is the sum of mountain front recharge, stream seepage, rainfall, septic return, and agricultural and landscape return. The net subbasin outflow term represents the combination of subsurface outflow to the Santa Clara Plain aquifers gaining reaches of streams and evapotranspiration. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 33 2.5 Groundwater Quality – Salts and Nutrients The District monitors groundwater quality throughout Santa Clara County to evaluate groundwater quality with respect to the RWQCB’s Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives, and to provide data needed to support protection of the long-term reliability of the resource. Data on a variety of water quality constituents is collected and analyzed on an annual basis. The results of testing by the District and water suppliers are compared to drinking water standards and Basin Plan Agricultural Objectives. In addition, trends for key constituents are evaluated. This section focuses on water quality parameters pertinent to salt and nutrient management, including nitrate and total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin and is based on the District’s 2010 Groundwater Quality Report.11 2.5.1 Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is a measure of the combined content of all solutes in a water sample. It is a prime indicator of the general suitability of water, especially for domestic and municipal use. TDS is a comprehensive measure of all salts in groundwater, and is therefore used as the indicator parameter for salts in this SNMP. Tracking individual salts such as sodium, magnesium, or calcium is less informative for salt management because these solutes are subject to cationic exchange, which may decrease concentrations of one solute while increasing another. The relative proportions of calcium, sodium or magnesium may change from geochemical reactions, but the TDS stays relatively constant and is therefore a more robust measure of salts in groundwater. Limitations to TDS measurement accuracy can make comparison of TDS analyzed by different methods difficult. However, the consistent application of a single method employed for analysis of District samples makes TDS the best overall indicator of salt in groundwater. Dissolved solids in groundwater are related to the interaction of water with the atmosphere, soil, and rock, as well as the quality of water entering the aquifer by managed and incidental recharge. Although not considered a “primary” contaminant associated with health effects, it is used as an indication of the aesthetic characteristic of drinking water. TDS in groundwater can be artificially elevated due to runoff, soil leaching, land use, recharge with high salinity water, or intrusion of saltwater from in the tidal reaches of creeks near the bay. The Division of Drinking Water (DDW)12 has adopted a SMCL, 500 mg/L for TDS, which is also the RWQCB’s Basin Plan Objective. SMCLs address aesthetic issues related to taste, odor, or appearance of the water and are not related to health effects. The District compares concentrations of TDS to both the “recommended” and an “upper” SMCL as identified by DDW. Table 2–6 summarizes 2012 data for TDS in the principal aquifer zones of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. Thirty-two of 101 wells (31.7%) tested in the Santa Clara Plain were found to contain TDS in excess of the “recommended” SMCL of 500 mg/L. When wells in the zone of saline intrusion are excluded from the count of wells with TDS in excess of the SMCL (4 wells), there are 27 of 96 wells (28%) with TDS greater than 500 mg/L. Two of the wells tested in the Santa Clara Plain principal aquifer exceeded the “upper” SMCL of 1,000 mg/L for TDS. Both wells with TDS greater than 1,000 mg/L are deep monitoring wells located in the same 11 Additional information is available in the District’s most recent annual groundwater report at http://www.valleywater.org/services/Groundwater.aspx. 12 In July, 2014, the California Department of Public Health Division of Drinking Water was reorganized into the State Water Resources Control Board. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 34 cluster in Palo Alto, where marine sediments contribute to elevated TDS (Metzger and Fio, 1997). In the Coyote Valley, 2 of 20 wells (10%) tested contained TDS above the “recommended” SMCL. None of the wells tested in Coyote Valley exceeded the “upper” SMCL of 1,000 mg/L for TDS. Table 12 – 2012 TDS Testing Results Constituent Units SMCL1 Santa Clara Plain2 Coyote Valley Median Range Median Range Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 500 (1000) 395 174 – 2,5203 358 236 – 630 1. The lower recommended limit is listed and the upper limit is shown in parentheses. Source: 2012 Annual Groundwater Report. 2. Santa Clara Plain results are for the principal aquifer zone (wells with a total depth greater than 150 feet). 3. The well with elevated TDS is screened at 780 feet below ground in a zone of marine sediments (Metzger and Fio, 1997). 2.5.2 Nitrate Nitrate is regulated with a MCL due to acute health effects (methemoglobinemia)13 in infants exposed to elevated nitrate levels. Elevated nitrate concentrations have been an ongoing groundwater quality challenge in the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin in the southern part of the County.14 Groundwater in the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley is generally well below the nitrate MCL with a few localized exceptions. The primary sources of nitrate added to the Santa Clara Plain include irrigated groundwater, sewer system exfiltration, and recycled water. The area overlying the Santa Clara Plain consists mostly of urban and suburban development. Almost all areas are served by municipal wastewater systems, and the use of individual septic systems is limited to the southern end of the Almaden Valley. While once prevalent, today only a few pockets of agricultural land remain in the Santa Clara Plain. Moderately elevated nitrate in the western portion of the Santa Clara Plain is likely due to past agricultural legacy land uses. Land use in the northern portion of the Coyote Valley is predominantly agricultural, and the southern portion contains both agricultural land use and residential development. Septic systems are common in much of the Coyote Valley because no municipal wastewater collection system exists. The primary sources of nitrate are agricultural fertilizers and septic tank leach fields (SCVWD, 1994). Table 2–7 summarizes 2012 data for nitrate and other nitrogen constituents in the principal aquifer zones of the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley. One of 210 wells tested located in the Santa Clara Plain was found to contain nitrate in excess of the MCL (less than 1%). In Coyote Valley, 6 of 39 wells (15%) tested contained nitrate above the MCL. The Basin Plan Agricultural Objective of 5 mg/L for nitrate + nitrite (as N) was also exceeded in several wells in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. Thirty seven of 210 wells (18%) in the 13 Methemoglobinemia is the presence of methemoglobin in the blood due to conversion of part of the hemoglobin to this inactive form, and can be induced from consumption of excessive concentrations of nitrate in food or water. 14 See the Llagas Subbasin SNMP for further details on nitrate and TDS in the Llagas Subbasin. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 35 principal aquifer zone of the Santa Clara Plain exceeded the agricultural objective, and 22 wells (56%) in the Coyote Valley exceeded the agricultural objective for nitrate + nitrite.15 Table 13 – 2012 Nitrogen Constituent Testing Results Constituent Units MCL Santa Clara Plain1 Coyote Valley Median Range Median Range Nitrate (as NO3) mg/L2 45 12.4 ND3 – 45.6 10.6 ND – 58 1. Santa Clara Plain results are for the principal aquifer zone or wells with a total depth greater than 150 feet. Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District 2010 Groundwater Quality Report. 2. mg/L = milligrams per liter (parts per million). 3. ND = Not detected at testing limit. 2.5.3 Trends in TDS and Nitrate Trends in TDS and nitrate were evaluated from 1998 to 2012, using the non-parametric, non–- seasonal Mann-Kendall trend test. This procedure was chosen due to its ability to handle non- detect data and ease of use. All trend tests were evaluated at the 95% confidence level (alpha = 0.05). Trends were tested at all wells having a minimum of 5 data points over the fifteen-year period. Table 14 provides a summary of nitrate and TDS trend results by area and aquifer zone. Maps showing the spatial distribution of TDS and nitrate concentration trends are shown in Figures 13 and 14. Table 14 – 15-year TDS and Nitrate Concentration Trend Analysis Results (1998-2012) Total Dissolved Solids Study Area Category # wells w/ upward trend # wells w/ downward trend # wells w/ no trend Total Range of Change upward rate of change (mg/L/yr) downward rate (mg/L/yr) Santa Clara Plain – principal zone 3 6 138 147 7.6–9.9 4.9–22.4 Santa Clara Plain – shallow zone 2 5 14 21 27.1–104.9 2.5–56.4 Coyote Valley 2 0 15 17 5.4–18 – Total 7 11 167 185 – – Nitrate as NO3 Santa Clara Plain – principal zone 10 48 171 229 0.2 – 0.7 0.03 – 1.68 Santa Clara Plain – shallow zone 1 2 18 21 0.51 1.05 – 1.63 15 Agricultural objective evaluated against nitrate data only, which are more abundant. If nitrate concentration exceeded agricultural objective, it was assumed that an analysis for nitrate + nitrate would also show exceedance of the agricultural objective. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 36 Coyote Valley 2 8 18 28 1.07 – 1.15 0.04 – 1.44 Total 13 58 207 278 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.5.4 TDS Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 In the Santa Clara Plain shallow aquifer, TDS trends were tested on 21 wells, with upward trends detected in 2 wells, downward trends in 5 wells, and no trend in 14 wells (67%). TDS trends were tested for 147 Santa Clara Plain principal aquifer wells. Upward trends were detected in 3 wells and downward trends were found in 6 wells. No trend was detected in the remaining 138 wells (94%). In the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, wells having a downward trend in TDS are primarily located along or near Coyote Creek. In the Coyote Valley, TDS was evaluated on 17 wells for 1998–2012. No trend was detected in 15 wells (88%) and an upward trend was detected in 2 wells (12%). 2.5.5 Nitrate Trends in Monitoring Wells, for 1998–2012 Nitrate trends were tested at 21 wells in the Santa Clara Plain shallow aquifer. An upward trend was detected in 1 well and downward trends were found in 2 wells, while no trends were detected in the remaining 18 wells (86%). In the Santa Clara Plain principal aquifer, trends were tested for 147 wells, with an upward trend found in 3 wells and downward trend in 6 wells, and the remaining 138 wells displayed no trend (94%). In the Coyote Valley, nitrate trends were tested on 28 wells. An upward trend was indicated in 2 wells and a downward trend in 8 wells, with 18 wells showing no trend (64%). Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 37 Figure 13 – 15-year TDS Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 38 Figure 14 – 15-year Nitrate as NO3 Trends in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin (1998-2012) Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 39 CHAPTER 3: ESTIMATING CURRENT AND FUTURE SALT AND NUTRIENT LOADING AND ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY The SWRCB Recycled Water Policy specifies that SNMPs include S/N source identification, basin/sub-basin assimilative capacity and loading estimates, and the fate and transport of salts and nutrients. This chapter summarizes the attributes of S/N loading, and current and future assimilative capacity. 3.1 Sources of Salts and Nutrients Salts and nutrients are introduced to the subbasin by “wet loading” and “dry loading”. Wet loading includes the introduction of dissolved salts and nutrients through recharge from all sources of water, including rainfall, stream losses, irrigation, conveyance losses, drainage losses, basin inflow, mountain front recharge, and managed aquifer recharge. Dry loading includes dry fertilizer and soil amendments, and atmospheric deposition of particulate nitrogen, primarily from vehicle emissions. All known sources of salts and nutrients were reviewed and grouped to generate a comprehensive list of sources, summarized in Table 15. Avenues by which salts and nutrients are removed from the groundwater subbasin are also listed in Table 15. Table 15 – Sources and Removal of Salts and Nutrients in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Wet Sources Dry Sources Rainfall Fertilizer Basin In-flow and Saline Intrusion Soil Amendments Mountain Front Recharge Atmospheric Deposition Managed Recharge – Streams Managed Recharge – Ponds Removal Irrigation – Landscape/Municipal Supplies Groundwater Pumping Irrigation – Landscape/Recycled Water Gaining Reaches of Streams Irrigation – Landscape/Local Supply Wells Basin Outflow Irrigation – Agriculture Sewer Line and Storm Drain Infiltration Conveyance Losses – Pipeline Leaks Drainage Losses – Septic Tank Leach Fields Drainage Losses – Sewer Line Losses Drainage Losses – Storm Drain Losses Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 40 Figure 15 demonstrates the relationship between the S/N loading sources in Table 15 and groundwater. Figure 15 – Relationship of Salt and Nutrient Sources to Groundwater 3.2 Fate and Transport of Salts and Nutrients Solutes (dissolved minerals) in irrigation water and dissolved from fertilizer and soil amendments may undergo physical and biological processes that affect their concentration and rate of migration. These processes are known as “fate and transport” processes, and contribute to removal of salt and nitrate as water percolates through the unsaturated zone to groundwater. Nitrate is prone to transformation and translocation by plants and microbes and may undergo volatilization, ammonification, nitrification and denitrification, adsorption or desorption, and fixation (Canter, 1997). Consequently, only a portion of the nitrate originally present in irrigation water or applied fertilizer will arrive at the water table and impact groundwater quality. The occurrence and rates of these processes depend on geochemical conditions such as the presence of soil organic matter or dissolved oxygen, soil moisture content, and temperature, all of which are highly variable. Rather than attempt to represent the geographic and seasonal variation in nitrate transformation processes, this SNMP estimates the fate and transport of salts and nitrates with a universal value that approximates the degree to which salts and nitrate leach to groundwater. Mineral cations and anions excluding nitrate may also be involved in sorption and desorption and cationic exchange processes. A conservative assumption is made that salts in the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 41 unsaturated zone have attained steady-state, i.e., any salts added to the surface will produce an equivalent addition of salts to the water table. Uptake of salts in crops and other vegetation is considered to be negligible, but a salt uptake value is assigned to turf (see below). By contrast, nitrate can undergo substantial root uptake, volatilization, and denitrification. Therefore, attenuation factors are used to estimate nitrate loading to groundwater. To estimate an appropriate attenuation factor for nitrate, we reviewed the range of values reported in the literature and other SNMPs and settled upon 50% crop uptake, 15% denitrification and volatilization, and 35% leaching to groundwater. A few of the literature studies and agency reports reviewed are summarized here: • The Santa Rosa Plain draft SNMP (RMC, July, 2012) uses 25% applied nitrogen as leachable, 10% is off-gassed, and the balance is “used”. No technical citations are provided. • The District Llagas Nitrate Source Area Identification Study (1994) used 30% as the leaching factor for a typical crop of strawberries. • Malone et al., 2007, measured 29% of total applied nitrogen leaching to groundwater for fertilization of corn and soybeans. • Reports indicate NO3-N losses from crops amounting to 24 to 55% of the N applied at recommended rates. The apparent crop uptake of applied N is on the order of 40 to 80%, depending on the timing of fertilizer applications, crop type, irrigation management, and other factors (WDOE, 2000). • Typical N uptake efficiencies of major agronomic crops range from 30 to 70% (WDOE, 2000). • Observed range of nitrogen volatilization in applied fertilizer was 2 to 50% N-emissions for soil pH > 7 and 0 to 25% emissions for soil pH < 7. If the N source is mixed into an acid soil, the emissions are usually greatly reduced (0 to 4% lost) (Meisinger and Randall, 1991). Selecting a leaching factor of 35% for nitrate dissolved from crop fertilizer and in irrigated water may overestimate the degree of nitrate leaching to groundwater in some settings, while underestimating it in others. Underestimation can occur where double-cropping or macropore flow through root channels occurs (Sidle and Kardos, 1979), and from underestimating the amount of post-harvest leaching due to lack of over-winter cover crops (McCracken et al., 1994). Fertilizer applied to lawns has a considerably higher degree of nitrate attenuation due to the accumulation of thatch in the turf root zone. The following assumptions are made for nitrogen fertilizer applied to lawns: • All applied nitrogen (N) is converted to nitrate. • Total N application rate is 3.5 pounds per 1,000 ft² (~150 lbs N/acre) in 50% of the lawns per year (UCD, 2002). • 80% of applied nitrogen is taken up by turf. • 15% of applied nitrogen is volatilized. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 42 • 5% of applied nitrogen is converted to nitrate and leached to groundwater (based on Kopp and Guillard, 2005).16 To estimate salt loading from lawn fertilizer, the following assumptions were made: • Total fertilizer applied was taken as applied nitrogen divided by 33% to estimate salt loading. • Total salt loading from fertilizer application to turf is 161 lbs/acre, using the ratio salt leaching to N-uptake (111%) from 11 varieties of hay (NCCE, 2008). In the managed aquifer recharge setting, nitrate attenuation is assumed to be greater for in- stream recharge than for percolation ponds due to the greater presence of natural organic matter in stream sediments. Presence of readily available organic carbon and absence of oxygen are prerequisites for microbial denitrification of nitrate in recharge water (Canter, 1997). Percolation ponds are designed and maintained to optimize percolation rates and have less organic carbon and residence time in an anaerobic sediment zone than occurs in natural streams. Nitrate attenuation was assigned as 80% to in-stream recharge and 50% to percolation ponds (i.e., the amount of nitrate leached to groundwater is 20% and 50%, respectively). A summary of the nitrate attenuation factors assigned for the loading analysis in this SNMP is provided in Table 16. 3.3 Methodology for Estimating Salt and Nutrient Loading and Removal The approach for estimating S/N loading from wet sources involves obtaining measurements or estimates of the volumes of water in each wet loading category, and the S/N content of each wet source. The water quality parameters used to represent all salts and nutrients are total dissolved solids (TDS)17 and nitrate (NO3). The total annual loading is taken as the product of the estimated annual volume and average annual concentration of TDS or nitrate, and for nitrate, an attenuation factor: Volume/year  Concentration  Attenuation Factor = Mass Loading/year The attenuation factor represents the degree to which the nitrate concentration is reduced due to denitrification or other processes. For example, if 50% of nitrate is taken up by roots, and 15% is converted from nitrate to nitrogen gas by denitrification, then 35% of nitrate concentration leaches to groundwater, and the attenuation factor is 65%. Table 16 lists the nitrate attenuation factors assigned to each loading category. When groundwater is removed or leaves the basin, the nitrate in that groundwater is removed, i.e., there is no attenuation factor applied to groundwater removal. Dissolved salts, represented as TDS, are considered conservative solutes because their concentrations are not substantially attenuated by processes such as root uptake, geochemical 16 The UCD 2012 nitrate study recommends using 10 kg N/hectare leached to groundwater (39.5 lbs NO 3/acre). Using 3.5 lbs/1,000 ft² and 5% leaching (the figures shown above) produces an estimate of 34 lbs/acre NO3 /year for fertilized lawns. 17 Total Dissolved Solids is commonly measured as Total Filterable Residue by Standard Method 2540 or EPA Method 160.1. In some instances, where TDS measurements are not available but specific conductance has been measured, an estimated value of TDS is used based on the basin-specific conversion factor from specific conductance to TDS. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 43 conversion, sorption, or microbial processes. For most loading categories, TDS was assigned an attenuation factor of zero. For fertilizer applied to turf however, a larger amount of root uptake is assumed, as explained in Section 3.2. Because nitrate is a component of TDS, TDS loading from irrigation was adjusted to account for root uptake and denitrification of nitrate. Table 16 – Nitrate Attenuation Factor Assumptions by Loading Category* Loading Category Root Uptake Denitrification/ Volatilization Leached to Groundwater Crop Fertilizer 50% 15% 35% Lawn Fertilizer (Dry) 80% 15% 5% Irrigated Water 50% 15% 35% Rainfall 50% 15% 35% Conveyance Losses 0% 15% 85% Mountain Front Recharge 0% 15% 85% Drainage Losses 0% 15% 85% Recycled Water 50% 15% 35% Atmospheric Deposition 80% 15% 5% Managed Recharge – Ponds 0% 50% 50% Managed Recharge – Streams 0% 80% 20% *The basis for these assumptions is detailed in Section 3.2 3.3.1 Wet Loading Categories Volume estimates for wet loading categories were obtained primarily from the District’s groundwater flow models for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, i.e., the Santa Clara Plain model (“SCPMOD”), and the Coyote Valley Model (“CVMOD”), and adjusted as described below for the 2001-2010 baseline period. The water balances for each of these subareas of the Santa Clara Subbasin are described in Section 2.1.4 (see Tables 7 and 10). 3.3.1.1 Rainfall Recharge Rainfall contains only trace amounts of solutes and is allocated among three pathways relevant to the overall salt balance: runoff, infiltration with subsequent evapotranspiration, and infiltration with deep percolation. Only the water involved in deep percolation is added to groundwater, however, the salt and nitrate in rainfall remains in the soil profile. This salt will ultimately migrate to groundwater, whereas the nitrate added to soil from rainfall will be attenuated by root uptake and denitrification, with 35% assumed to migrate to groundwater. The volume of rainfall that ends up as percolation, or infiltration with subsequent evapotranspiration, cannot be measured directly and must therefore be estimated. Many factors determine the volume of rainfall that infiltrates such as soil type, vegetative cover, slope, etc. Assessing the variability of rainfall infiltration by accounting for all these factors is a time- consuming undertaking that is beyond the scope of this analysis. Rainfall contributes only a minor amount of salt and nitrate compared to other loading categories. Total estimated volumes of rainfall were obtained from the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley groundwater flow models. Estimated rainfall infiltration was taken as 22% of total rainfall, which is the 10-year median rainfall net of evaporation divided by 10-year median of total rainfall for the Los Gatos rain gauge station. Deep percolation was estimated using formulas applied to seven rainfall zones in the Santa Clara Plain model, and four rainfall zones in the Coyote Valley Model. Deep Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 44 percolation estimates range from 10 to 15% and are determined for each model cell based on empirical formulae applied to rainfall data from local rainfall gages. The estimated volumes of rainfall contributing salt and nitrate to groundwater through deep percolation and infiltration followed by evapotranspiration are 13,300 AF/yr in the Santa Clara Plain, and 5,000 AF/yr in the Coyote Valley. Appendix 4 provides details for the rainfall infiltration volume estimates. Rainfall quality is highly variable. For example, TDS in rainfall measured at the US Geological Survey offices in Menlo Park ranged from 8.2 to 38 mg/L (Hem, 1985). The estimates of salt and nitrate loading from rainfall, 10 mg/L and 1.2 mg/L, respectively, were selected from literature values as representative concentrations to be applied uniformly to rainfall infiltration in both the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley subareas (SWRCB, 2010; NADP, 2012). The total estimated salt and nitrate loading from rainfall is given in Table 17. Calculation details are provided in Appendix 4. Table 17 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Rainfall Infiltration Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Rainfall Infiltration, AF/yr 13,300 5,000 18,300 Salt Loading as TDS, tons/yr 180 29.9 210 Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr 8.2 1.4 9.6 3.3.1.2 Mountain-front Recharge Mountain-front recharge (MFR) accounts for subsurface inflows from bedrock in the hills surrounding the Santa Clara Plain, and for inflow from uncontrolled reaches of streams. The source for the MFR estimates is the Santa Clara Plain groundwater flow model (SCPMOD). For the Santa Clara Plain, a rainfall-runoff approach was used to estimate MFR (CH2M HILL, 1992), as shown in Table 18. The SCPMOD model distributes MFR for each mountain range across all model cells bordering the mountain range, in proportion to the length of cell perpendicular to the mountains, as shown in Figure 16. For SCPMOD, MFR is treated as a groundwater gain (11,855 AF/yr), regardless of weather conditions. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 45 Figure 16 – Mountain-front Recharge Zones in Santa Clara Plain Groundwater Flow Model Table 18- Santa Clara Plain Model Mountain-Front Recharge Estimates Mountain-front recharge Estimated recharge (inches/yr) Estimated recharge (AF/yr) Diablo Range  1 2,900 Silver Creek Ridge  .5 300 Santa Teresa Hills  1 400 Santa Cruz Mountains  1 8,255 Total 11,855 Recharge rates shown are for all years independent of hydrology. MFR is considered negligible and is excluded in the Coyote Valley groundwater flow model. For SNMP, salt and nitrate loading from the minor amount of MFR is also excluded. Salt and nitrate concentrations in groundwater in the bedrock hills are not monitored by the District. To estimate MFR water quality attributes, the values assigned to MFR are based on measured water quality in nearby streams and monitoring wells near the basin boundaries. The 1 2 3 4 Diablo Range Silver Creek Ridge Santa Teresa Hills Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 46 volume-weighted average of the TDS assigned to the four MFR zones is 286 mg/L, and for nitrate as NO3, 3.2 mg/L. The resulting loading estimates from MFR are listed in Table 19. Table 19 – Estimated Salt and Nutrient Loading from Mountain-Front Recharge Mountain-front recharge zone Representative Creeks Composite Creek & Groundwater TDS* Composite Creek & Groundwater NO3*  Diablo Range Penitencia Creek-Upper; Silver Creek, Flint Creek 366 2.4  Silver Creek Ridge Coyote Creek 301 3.7  Santa Teresa Hills Alamitos Creek 314 4.1  Santa Cruz Mountains Stevens Creek, Saratoga Creek 256 3.5 * Assumed creek/groundwater mix for composite values is 80/20. Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total MFR Volume, AF/yr 11,855 0 11,855 MFR Salt Loading, tons/yr 4,600 0 4,600 MFR Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr 44 0 44 3.3.1.3 Basin Inflow and Saline Intrusion As described in section 2.1.1 and Figure 1, groundwater from the Coyote Valley flows into the Santa Clara Plain area, which adds salt and nitrate. The Coyote Valley is bounded by bedrock on its eastern and western edges, and abuts the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin on its southern edge. The boundary between the Coyote Valley area and the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin is a topographic high that is considered a hydrologic divide. Accordingly, Coyote Valley does not have basin inflow from the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin. The basin inflow to the Santa Clara Plain from the Coyote Valley (8,200 AF/yr) is estimated using the groundwater flow models. Estimated loading from basin inflow is provided in Table 20. Table 20 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Basin Inflow to the Santa Clara Plain Volume, acre-feet/yr Coyote Valley TDS, mg/L Coyote Valley NO3, mg/L TDS loading to Santa Clara Plain, tons/yr NO3 loading to Santa Clara Plain, tons/yr 8,200 376 24.6 4,140 230 Groundwater in the northern end of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is prone to saline intrusion due to the incursion of saline water from the San Francisco Bay in the lower reaches of creeks. The extent of saline intrusion in the shallow aquifer is limited and located primarily above the confined aquifer, i.e., the principal aquifer is not impacted by saline intrusion from the San Francisco Bay. Figure 17 displays the extent of saline intrusion in the shallow aquifer defined as chloride concentrations of 100 mg/L or more. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 47 Saline intrusion is mapped from data obtained from annual groundwater sampling events. Net decrease in the chloride content is measured in wells monitored continuously over many years. The current mapped extent of saline intrusion is considerably smaller than the extent originally mapped in 1980. The decrease in the area impacted by saline intrusion may be due to a combination of reduced pumping near the bay, limited pumping in the shallow zone, and salt removal in gaining reaches of streams. Saline intrusion is considered to be limited to the shallow aquifer along the tidal reaches of streams and close to the bay or salt evaporation ponds. As detailed in Section 3.3, the Santa Clara Plain was not subdivided for analysis of S/N loading, therefore the salt load from saline intrusion was not included as a salt loading term because the areal extent of saline intrusion is limited and decreasing. The impact of saline intrusion on groundwater quality is incorporated into the determination of assimilative capacity (see Section 3.3). Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 48 Figure 17 – Zone of Saline Intrusion into the Shallow Aquifer, Santa Clara Plain Chloride contours: SCVWD, 2013; SE salinity zone: SCVWD, 1989; NW salinity zone: Metzger and Fio, 1997; see Section 3.4.1. Evergreen High Salinity Area Menlo Park/Palo Alto High Salinity Area Localized occurrence of elevated Total Dissolved Solids in Principal Aquifer Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 49 3.3.1.4 Managed Recharge in Streams The District’s recharge operations sustain groundwater supplies in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin by percolating imported water and surface water from local reservoirs. Recharge operations include managed recharge in streams, profiled in this section, and managed recharge in percolation ponds discussed in the next section. The quality of water used for managed aquifer recharge in streams is better than ambient groundwater with respect to TDS and nitrate. Managed recharge in streams results in the addition of TDS and nitrate to the aquifers. The volume of water in managed recharge in streams is tracked by stream gauging, by tracking the amount of water released at turnouts, and by periodic surface water balance. Managed recharge involves releasing water from upstream reservoirs or pipeline turnouts during summer and fall months. Natural recharge from rainfall runoff occurs during the winter and spring. The total volumes are given as ten-year medians in Table 21. The quality of water used in managed recharge in streams varies depending on water source (reservoirs or imported water), time of year, discharges, and runoff. Managed recharge in streams involve local reservoir and imported water sources, so blended water quality was calculated from each source. The overall range, median, and volume-weighted average (VWA) concentration values for TDS and nitrate of water used in managed recharge in streams are given in Table 21. While streams are used for managed recharge, they are natural features that host aquatic ecosystems. The sediments through which groundwater recharge occurs are rich in organic matter, which can create an anoxic environment conducive to denitrification. As shown in Table 16, a higher nitrate attenuation factor is assumed for streams, so only 20% of nitrate in stream water is assumed to migrate to groundwater. Table 21 – Estimated 10-year Median Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Streams Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Stream Recharge Volume 36,680 AF/yr 14,470 AF/yr 51,150 AF/yr TDS Concentration Statistics Range = 227 – 460 mg/L Range = 186 – 320 mg/L Median = 286 mg/L Median = 238 mg/L VWA = 135 mg/L VWA = 248 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Concentration Statistics Range = .84 – 7.2 mg/L Range = .5 – 1.9 mg/L Median = 1.22 mg/L Median = .84 mg/L VWA = .38 mg/L VWA = .96 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS 7,960 tons/year 4,680 tons/year 12,640. tons/year Nitrate as NO3 Loading 19 tons/year 3.3 tons/year 22.4 tons/year VWA = volume-weighted average Volumes are 10-year medians of 2001-2010. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 50 3.3.1.5 Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds Managed recharge in percolations ponds follows the same pattern as recharge in streams, except a greater degree of control is exerted over source water quality, as most facilities exclude runoff. Percolation ponds are also maintained to remove accumulated sediment. In addition, percolation ponds create aquatic ecosystems in which algae and plants contribute organic matter, enhancing denitrification. As listed in Table 16, percolation ponds are assigned an assumed nitrate attenuation factor of 50%. Because percolation rates far exceed evaporation rates by 20 to 110 times (summer vs. winter), evaporative concentration of salts and nitrate are considered negligible. As water quality samples from ponds used for this analysis reflect both dry season and wet season conditions, an evaporation factor was not included. The volume of water recharged through percolation ponds is measured by gauging pond depths and reading flow meters. Source water and pond water quality is also monitored by the District so the salt and nitrate loading can be estimated. Table 22 summarizes quantities, quality, and salt and nitrate loading from managed recharge in percolation ponds in the Santa Clara Plain. There are no percolation ponds in the Coyote Valley. Table 22 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge in Percolation Ponds Santa Clara Plain Percolation Pond Recharge Volume 24,810 AF/yr TDS Concentration Statistics Range = 190 – 306 mg/L Median = 251 mg/L VWA = 497 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Concentration Statistics Range = .78 – 9.93 mg/L Median = .84 mg/L VWA = .96 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS 16,760 tons/yr Nitrate as NO3 Loading 20.3 tons/yr 3.3.1.6 Agricultural Irrigation Irrigation of landscaping and crops leads to the addition of salts to aquifers because most of the water is taken up by plants or evaporated. Root uptake of salts is minimal due to semi- permeable membranes in root hairs that regulate solutes. Most of the mineral salts in irrigation water are excluded, while half the nitrate is taken up by roots. Consequently, while only 20% of irrigated water may percolate through the unsaturated zone to groundwater, nearly all of the mineral salt present in irrigated water is assumed to remain in the soil profile and will ultimately migrate to groundwater. Because nitrate is a constituent of TDS, the TDS load from irrigation water was reduced by the amount of nitrate attenuation to account for root uptake and denitrification. Nitrate in irrigated water is needed by plants and is taken up by their roots. Rates of root uptake of nitrate in irrigation water will vary depending upon crop types, soil types, soil moisture, and many other factors. For the purposes of this plan, a single factor, 50% root uptake, is applied Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 51 for nitrate in irrigated water, and 15% denitrification is assumed, so that 35% of nitrate in irrigated water is presumed to migrate to groundwater. The volume of irrigated water is obtained from records of pumping which is classified as agricultural. A separate water rate for agricultural pumping facilitates an inventory of pumping for agricultural irrigation. Smaller agricultural water use, such as irrigating home orchards and gardens, is included in the assessment of outdoor irrigation loading from domestic wells and municipal water (Section 3.3.1.7). In the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, agricultural irrigation is concentrated in the Coyote Valley and supplied by locally pumped groundwater. The water quality for agricultural irrigation is assumed to be the volume-weighted average salt and nitrate concentration. Similarly, the minor amount of groundwater pumped from the wells classified as agricultural is assigned the volume-weighted average salt and nitrate concentration. Table 23 summarizes the volumes and quality of water used in irrigated agriculture in the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley and the resulting salt and nitrate loading. Table 23 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Irrigation Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Irrigation Water Volume, AF/yr* 660 AF/yr 4,300 AF/yr 4,960 AF/yr Volume-weighted TDS Concentration * 425 mg/L 375 mg/L Volume Weighted Nitrate as NO3 Concentration* 11 mg/L 25 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS, tons/yr* 320 tons 2,070 tons 2,390 tons Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr* 3 tons 49 tons 52 tons * Ten-year median 3.3.1.7 Landscape Irrigation – Municipal and Domestic Water Sources Outdoor water use for landscape irrigation comprises a large portion of water demand. A large amount of salt is included with this water use. Most of the water used for outdoor irrigation of residences, businesses, corporate, and municipal landscaping, is used by plants or evaporated. The majority of the salt carried by irrigation water is retained in the soil profile and ultimately leaches to groundwater. Nitrate in irrigation water is consumed by plants and subject to denitrification. For irrigated turf the nitrate attenuation factors in Table 16 apply i.e., 50% is taken up by roots, while 15% is lost to denitrification. Water retailers serve a wide range of water types, each having its own nitrate and TDS concentrations that vary from year to year. For example, a city may serve a combination of treated surface water, groundwater, and water from the Hetch-Hetchy system. To assess the salt and nitrate loading from landscape irrigation, each water retailer service area was broken out into sub-areas by water type and by areas located within the subbasin vs. outside the subbasin. Volumes of each type of water were determined for each sub-area, and the amount of indoor vs. outdoor use was estimated using figures provided in each water retailer’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The water use categories distinguish single-family homes from multi-family homes, and amounts of water used in applications that are mostly indoor (industrial) to mostly outdoor uses (municipal/parks). Estimates of the indoor/outdoor water use split for each water use category were obtained from the City of Santa Clara’s UWMP. Table 24 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 52 lists the indoor/outdoor splits used for all water retailers. The overall indoor/outdoor split for each retailer’s in-basin water use depends on the breakdown of water use categories. The indoor/outdoor split for the entire Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is 55.5%/44.5%, i.e., 44.5% of residential water use is outdoors. Table 24 – Indoor-Outdoor Water Use Estimates by Water Use Category Indoor vs. Outdoor (Landscape) Water Use Indoor Outdoor Single Family 50.5% 49.5% Multi Family 76.4% 23.6% Industrial 77.3% 22.7% Commercial 60.8% 39.2% Institutional 35.9% 64.1% Municipal 26.7% 73.3% Water quality data used to estimate salt and nitrate loading was obtained for each water type for each of the ten baseline years (2001–2010).18 Groundwater quality was taken as the ten-year median value of all the active wells within each water retailer service area. Loading was then determined by multiplying the salt and nitrate concentrations with the in-basin outdoor use volumes for each water type, for each year. The resulting median salt and nitrate loading estimates are summarized in Table 25. The majority of salt and nitrate loading summarized in Table 24 is from outdoor water use. Landscape irrigation is also supplied by sources such as domestic wells and wells that supply cemeteries, golf courses, and other water users. These sources make up less than 1% of outdoor irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain, but in the Coyote Valley, where most of the residences are supplied by domestic wells, they comprise 87% of the non-agricultural outdoor irrigation. Table 25 – Median Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation† Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total In-basin, Outdoor Irrigation Volume* 109,440 AF/yr 1,740 AF/yr 111,180 AF/yr TDS Concentration** 284 mg/L 375 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Concentration** 2 mg/L 17 mg/L Salt Loading as TDS* 42,270 tons 840 tons 43,110 tons Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 322 tons 18 tons 340 tons * Ten-year median ** Ten-year median of volume weighted averages for all water types. † Includes residential outdoor irrigation supplied by water retailers, domestic well landscape irrigation, and non-retailer pumping for landscape irrigation uses (parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.). 18 Water quality for SCVWD treated water and Hetch Hetchy water taken from retailer Consumer Confidence Reports and from District records. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 53 3.3.1.8 Landscape Irrigation – Recycled Water The three wastewater treatment plants operating in the Santa Clara Plain currently produce tertiary-treated recycled water used to irrigate parks, golf courses, street trees, and landscaping in corporate business parks, housing developments and industrial uses. Advanced treated recycled water is also produced at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. The advanced treated water is blended with tertiary treated recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling system. Blending advanced treated recycled water with tertiary treated recycled water results in lower TDS and nitrate concentrations than current tertiary-treated recycled water. In 2013, recycled water accounted for 5% of all water used in Santa Clara County. Locations of current and planned recycled water irrigation as of 2012 are shown in Figure 18. Recycled water used for irrigation contributes salt and nitrate to groundwater and has the potential to increase groundwater nitrate and TDS concentration because concentrations are higher in recycled water than in groundwater. The volume-weighted average TDS of recycled water from all three systems is 746 mg/L while the volume-weighted groundwater TDS concentration is 425 mg/L. Similarly, the volume weighted average nitrate (as NO3) content in recycled water listed in Table 1 is 45.9 mg/L while the median groundwater nitrate concentration in the Santa Clara Plain is 10.8 mg/L. Recycled water volumes and concentrations of TDS and nitrate were obtained from wastewater plant operators to estimate the total salt and nitrate loading. The nitrate attenuation factors, listed in Table 16, are the same as applied to irrigation (i.e., 50% root uptake, 15% denitrification, and 35% of nitrate leaches to groundwater). Table 26 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from In-Basin Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water Santa Clara Plain In-basin, Outdoor Recycled Water Irrigation Volume* 6,640 AF/yr TDS Recycled Water Concentration * 746 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Recycled Water Concentration* 46 mg/L Recycled Water Salt Loading as TDS* 6,725 tons/yr Recycled Water Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 141 tons/yr * Ten-year median concentrations are volume weighted for all three recycled water producers. Recycled water is not used for irrigation in Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 54 Figure 18 – Locations of Current and Proposed Recycled Water Irrigation as of 2012 3.3.1.9 Conveyance Losses Losses from regional raw and treated water pipelines and losses from water utility local distribution networks are grouped together as conveyance losses. Conveyance losses occur below the root zone, so all the water moves to groundwater and contributes salt and nitrate to groundwater. Water lost from pipelines is treated drinking water, groundwater, or raw water en route to treatment plants, and contains salt and nitrate which is included in the overall salt balance. An estimate of water utility distribution network loss rates was developed by taking the system losses reported by 9 water retailers as a percentage of total water supplied in the retailers Urban Water Management Plans. Based on data supplied by San Jose Water Company, we assumed half the system losses are “real” losses that result in salt and nitrate addition to groundwater, while the other half are losses attributable to hydrant testing, line flushing, and meter uncertainty. An assumed loss rate of 0.1% in regional raw water and treated water pipelines is based on the technical literature. District operators report that no losses are observed within the limits of measurement by flow meters. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 55 The concentrations of TDS and nitrate in losses from District raw and treated water pipelines are similar and low, while the ten-year median of volume-weighted average TDS and nitrate concentrations for losses from retailer distribution systems, which include groundwater sources, are higher. Because losses occur below the root zone only denitrification plays a role in nitrate attenuation for which a 15% nitrate attenuation rate is assigned (see Table 16). Table 27 lists the volumes, concentrations, and mass of salt and nitrate contributed by conveyance losses. There are no treated water pipelines in the Coyote Valley, and only a small area of residential development connected to the City of Morgan Hill water, so the volume of conveyance losses in the Coyote Valley is negligible. Table 27 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Combined Conveyance Loss Volume* 10,050 AF/yr 40 AF/yr 10,100 AF/yr Overall Conveyance Loss TDS Concentration * 256 mg/L 323 mg/L Overall Conveyance Loss Nitrate as NO3 Concentration* 4 mg/L 8 mg/L Combined Salt Loading as TDS* 3,500 tons 20 tons 3,520 tons Combined Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 58 tons 0.45 tons 58 tons * Ten-year median 3.3.1.10 Drainage Losses Losses from storm drains, sewer laterals, and sewer mains loading from septic tank leach fields are grouped together as drainage losses. Because the quality and volumes of drainage losses are not directly measured, estimates from the technical literature are used for loading from this source. Sanitary system operators were also contacted to gain their perspectives and estimates of drainage loss volumes. Exfiltration rates are considerably smaller than infiltration rates because wastewater causes soil clogging and sedimentation can plug sewer pipe defects (Karpf and Krebs, 2004). For most soil types, unsaturated soil transmits water less efficiently than the saturated conditions present during infiltration (i.e., unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is lower than saturated hydraulic conductivity). Leaks from sewers are self-sealing due to the rich organic content and microbial growth combining to form biofilms, called colmation layers which limit the volume of exfiltration (Ellis, J.B., 2001). However, colmation layers in sewers can be dislodged by flow surges caused by inflow during heavy rainfall events, sewer cleaning, or local increase in flow velocity following breakthrough of partial backup/blockages. It is therefore reasonable to assume some exfiltration and to assign S/N loading factors to exfiltration. The rate of sewer line exfiltration was estimated based on pipe diameter and assumes 100 gallons per inch of internal diameter per mile of sewer over 24-hours (adapted from ASTM C 969). This method was applied for all parts of the sewer systems within the Santa Clara Plain and outside the zone where depth to water is 10 feet or less, i.e., where groundwater intrusion Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 56 to sewer lines may occur. The resulting volume is about 1.8% of the average daily flow to all three wastewater treatment plants. This percentage is at the low end of the range of sewer system losses reported in the technical literature (Amick and Burgess, 2000). A low estimate of sewer line exfiltration is appropriate for SNMP based on two considerations. First, sewer system management plans published for the sewer systems in the Santa Clara Plain identify specific preventive maintenance measures and vigilant inspection programs. Second, sewer line defects are often self-sealing as described above. To estimate loading we used the volume-weighted average of the TDS and nitrate measured on the influent to all three wastewater plants serving the Santa Clara Plain, based on 10-year medians for each plant. Most of the Coyote Valley is not sewered. For this analysis, the residential section of Morgan Hill that is sewered and located within the Coyote Valley is ignored. The estimated average volume of septic effluent is 99,000 gallons per septic system per year, based on literature data for per capita wastewater generation. There are only about 70 septic tanks in the Santa Clara Plain, located at the southern end of the Almaden Valley, while the Coyote Valley has about 600 septic tanks. Locations of areas served by septic tanks are shown in Figure 19. The estimated volume of stormwater losses is based upon assumptions regarding the amount of rainfall that runs through storm drains to creeks, and an assumed exfiltration rate of 1.3%. The quality of water in the drainage loss term was determined from measurements and from literature values. Wastewater quality measurement of specific conductance (electrical conductivity) and ammonia were converted to TDS and nitrate to obtain volume-weighted averages for all three wastewater plants. The quality of septic effluent was estimated as the median of values presented in 18 literature studies that measured septic effluent quality.19 Stormwater quality is estimated based on creek samples reported by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). Table 28 summarizes estimated volumes, concentrations, and salt and nitrate loading from drainage losses. Table 28 – Median Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Drainage Losses Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Combined Drainage Loss Volume* 2,470 AF/yr 162 AF/yr 2,630 AF/yr Overall Drainage Loss TDS Concentration* 824 mg/L 575 mg/L Overall Drainage Loss Nitrate as NO3 Concentration* 33 mg/L 169 mg/L Combined Salt Loading as TDS* 2,770 tons/yr 127 tons/yr 2,900 tons/yr Combined Nitrate as NO3 Loading* 112 tons/yr 32 tons/yr 144 tons/yr * Ten-year median 19 Brown K.W., et al., 1978; Feth, J.H., 1966; Popkin, R.A., and Bendixen, T.W., 1968; Brown and Caldwell, 1981; Biggar, J. W., and Coney, R.B., 1969; Taylor, J., 2003; Zhan & Mackay, 1998 (citing Canter & Knox); Effert, D., et al., 1985; Dudley, J .G., and Stephenson, D.A., 1973; Otis R.J., et al., 1975; Metcalf & Eddy, 1972; Hansel, M.J., and Machmeier, R.E., 1980; Bicki, T.J., et al., 1984; Brooks J.L., et al., 1984; Lowe, K., et al., 2007 SCVWD, 1994; Alhajjar, et al., 1989; Canter, L.W., and Knox, R.C., 1985; Conn, K.E., and Siegrist, R.L., 2007; Panno, S.V., et al., 2005; Kaplan, O.B., 1991. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 57 Figure 19- Locations of Areas Served by Septic Tanks 3.3.2 Dry Loading Dry loading refers to the salt and nitrate loading from dry sources such as fertilizer, soil amendments, and atmospheric deposition. Salt and nitrate loading from dry sources is not directly measured, so estimates were developed from 2011 crop data and University of California Cooperative Extension guidance of fertilizer application rates, from literature on lawn fertilizer, and from published model results of regional atmospheric deposition rates for nitrogen. 3.3.2.1 Agricultural Fertilizer and Lawn Fertilizer Fertilizers applied to crops and turf at parks and on residential lawns contribute salt and nitrate to groundwater where conditions favor leaching. To estimate nitrate and salt loading from agricultural fertilizer use, 2011 cropping patterns were obtained from the County Agricultural Commissioner’s office. Crop fertilizer application rates by type were compiled from University of California Cooperative Extension agriculture technical literature. Rates of fertilizer application vary by crop type, and cropping patterns vary over time. For the purposes of this SNMP, the 2011 crop acreages are considered representative of a typical year, and loading rates Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 58 developed for 2011 were applied to 2001–2010. Fertilizer adds mineral salts in addition to nitrogen. The rate of salt loading from agricultural fertilizer application was estimated from the typical fertilizer application rates for the crops grown in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin, and the common composition of each fertilizer type. The area of parks and residential lawns where fertilizers may be applied was estimated from the LAMS GIS raster.20 No local data on the frequency and rate of fertilizer application on residential lawns and municipal parks was available. To render an estimate, the assumption is made that half the lawns and parks apply fertilizer in a given year. The rate of application was taken as 3.5 lbs nitrogen per 1,000 square feet, i.e., about 150 lbs per acre (UCD, 2002). The rate of nitrate attenuation for dry lawn fertilizer, listed in Table 16 (95%), was determined from a review of the technical literature. Only 5% of nitrogen in lawn fertilizer is assumed to leach to groundwater as nitrate. Because nitrate is 4.43 times heavier than nitrogen, the effective leaching rate for nitrate to groundwater from lawn fertilizer is 34 lbs NO3/acre. Tables 29 and 30 list the estimated salt and nitrate loading rates from agricultural and lawn fertilizer. Table 29 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Agricultural Fertilizer Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Acres fertilized 1,007 acres 1,273 acres 2,280 acres Average fertilizer nitrate leaching rate – per acre 155 lbs NO3 184 lbs NO3 171 lbs NO3 Fertilizer salt loading as TDS 40 tons/year 56 tons/year 96 tons/year Fertilizer Nitrate as NO3 Loading (leached to groundwater /year) 78 tons NO3 117 tons NO3 195 tons NO3 Table 30 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Lawn Fertilizer Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Total Acres fertilized/year* 4,475 acres 175 acres 4,650 acres Average application rate, pounds NO3 per acre (includes 95% attenuation) 34 lbs NO3 leached to groundwater per fertilized acre 34 lbs NO3 leached to groundwater per fertilized acre 34 lbs NO3 leached to groundwater per fertilized acre Average application rate, pounds salt per acre 161 lbs TDS per acre 160 lbs N per acre 160 lbs N/acre Fertilizer salt loading as TDS 360 tons/year 15 tons/year 375 tons/year Fertilizer Nitrate as NO3 Loading 76 tons/year 3 tons/year 79 tons/year *Assumes 50% of lawns and parks are fertilized in a given year. 20 LAMS = Large Area Mosaicing Software, a high-resolution infrared-band imagery coverage from which irrigated land uses can be differentiated. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 59 3.3.2.2 Atmospheric Deposition Atmospheric deposition refers to particles, aerosols, and gases that move from the atmosphere to ground surface.21 Dry deposition originates from a variety of natural and air pollution sources that contribute nitrate and salt to groundwater. Dry deposition is difficult to measure so estimates of dry deposition rely on models that combine measured concentrations of nitrogen species with calculated deposition velocities. Uncertainties in dry deposition estimates are between 30 to 50%. Dry deposition data were obtained from US EPA, which maps deposition patterns nationally, based on modeled interpolation of a sparse regional network of non-urban atmospheric deposition monitoring stations. The monitoring stations are located primarily in national parks. The nearest available dry deposition data for total nitrogen (Fremont) was obtained from the California Air Resources Board. An interpolated grid of nitrogen dry deposition model estimates was obtained from California Energy Commission reports and interpreted following the approach used in a local study by Weiss (1999). Applying a series of scaling factors based on relationships among air pollution factors, the estimated total N dry deposition rate for open grassland or cultivated areas in Coyote Valley is calculated to be on the order of 11 to 15 kg nitrogen/hectare/year (N/ha/yr) (Weiss, 1999). For this calculation, the low end of the range was used (11 kg N/ha/yr) for the Coyote Valley. For the Santa Clara Plain, the modeled estimates of atmospheric depositions range from 3.9 to 8.4 kg N/ha/yr (Tonnesen et al., 2007). Vehicle emissions represent the primary source of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in close proximity to high-traffic freeways and roads (Collins, 1998). Land within 100 meters of high- traffic corridors (freeways, highways, and expressways/arterial roads) was assigned a higher nitrogen flux value and added to the grid of modeled nitrogen loading to account for the Bay Area funnel effect that directs smog from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda counties into the Santa Clara Valley. Nitrogen deposition in Santa Clara County is dominated by dry deposition due to the pattern of long dry summers and winter rains, and often exceeds wet deposition by 10 to 30 times (Blanchard, et al., 1996). For land within 100 meters of high-traffic corridors, 11 kg N/ha yr was used. Traffic corridors in Coyote Valley are included with the 11 kg N/ha/yr estimate. The properties of the surfaces upon which nitrogen is deposited determine whether nitrate is added to the groundwater basin. Impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, and parking lots, transfer nitrogen of atmospheric origin to stormwater, and ultimately to the Bay. Land areas that are cultivated, landscaped, or undeveloped facilitate deep percolation of a portion of the atmospheric nitrogen to groundwater. Once deposited to vegetated ground surfaces, nitrogen of atmospheric origin may volatilize, be taken up by plants (through the root zone or through leaf stomata), or become dissolved in water, some of which will run off as surface water, and some of which will contribute to deep percolation of nitrate to underlying groundwater. Dissolved nitrate may further undergo denitrification in the subsurface. The following assumptions regarding nitrate fate and transport are made (as listed in Table 16): • 80% of the nitrogen is taken up by plants (primarily grasses). • 15% is volatilized or denitrified to gaseous nitrogen. • 5% is converted to nitrate and percolates to groundwater. 21 Atmospheric deposition also refers to wet precipitation (rain and snow), which also contribute salt and nitrate to groundwater, and are addressed in Section 3.3.1.1. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 60 Inspecting the LAMS image data and the MRLC22 cover imagery in GIS, the average ratio of irrigated and vegetated area to total area in the Santa Clara Plain area of the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is 24%. Therefore, 76% of the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is likely removed by rainfall runoff. Table 31 – Estimated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Atmospheric Deposition Category Total N kg/ha/yr Annual Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr 1 Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Subbasin Total Areal Deposition on Santa Clara Plain from CMAQ² modeled estimate 3.9–8.4 10 1.25 11.25 High-Traffic Corridors + Coyote Valley 11 11.5 0.3 11.8 Total Nitrate 21.5 1.55 23 Salt as Dry Deposition of TDS 4 5 yr range kg/ha/yr Santa Clara Plain 3 Coyote Valley Subbasin Total 0.22 – 1.29 30 1.8 32 1Total N-deposition converted to nitrate as NO3 (multiply by stoichiometric conversion factor 4.43) subject to deep percolation to groundwater (5%). 2 CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement model. See Tonneson et al, 2007. 3 On average 76% of Santa Clara Plain ground surface is impervious and assumed to facilitate removal of atmospheric salt and nitrate deposits to stormwater, which removes it from the groundwater subbasin. 4 TDS is taken as the sum of US EPA’s Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) data for sulfate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium. 3.3.3 Salt and Nutrient Removal Groundwater leaving the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin aquifers carries salt and nitrate and comprises a removal term in the overall salt balance. Groundwater removal occurs naturally through basin outflow and in gaining reaches of streams. Groundwater removal also occurs through groundwater pumping and through groundwater infiltration into sewer pipes and storm drains located beneath the water table. This section inventories the volumes of groundwater leaving the subbasin and the associated salt and nitrate removal. Table 32 summarizes salt and nitrate removal from all of these removal categories following their descriptions in the next sections. 3.3.3.1 Groundwater Pumping The District meters pumping from major production wells and uses reported production from other wells to account for a detailed and accurate inventory of groundwater pumping. Pumping categories include municipal and industrial, environmental, domestic, and agricultural wells. For each category, reported volumes were multiplied by groundwater concentrations of nitrate and salt. The largest volume of pumping is from municipal supply wells. S/N removal from municipal supply wells was calculated by multiplying metered volumes and S/N concentrations corresponding to the retailer service areas, using water quality data supplied by retailers to 22 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium – www.MRLC.gov Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 61 DDW . No attenuation is assigned for pumping, which removes S/N already dissolved in groundwater. For industrial, environmental, domestic, and agricultural wells, the groundwater basin average concentrations were used. Some of the salt and nitrate in groundwater is returned to the basin, which is accounted for in the wet loading terms described in Section 3.3.1. Table 32 summarizes S/N removal by groundwater pumping. 3.3.3.2 Basin Outflow The volume of groundwater leaving the subbasin by flowing into aquifers north of the Santa Clara Plain or from the Coyote Valley into the Santa Clara Plain is not measured directly. Groundwater flow models are used to estimate basin outflow volumes, which are multiplied by volume-weighted average concentrations for TDS and nitrate. Estimates of S/N removal attributable to basin outflow are provided in Table 32. 3.3.3.3 Gaining Reaches of Streams Where groundwater elevations are higher than the stream bottom23 groundwater may discharge into the stream. Groundwater discharge to streams generally occurs in sections of streams located near the Bay called gaining reaches of streams. Gaining reaches of streams also occur in Fisher and Coyote Creeks at the northern end of the Coyote Valley, where decreasing depth to bedrock causes a shallow groundwater condition. The volume of groundwater discharging to streams was estimated by stream gauging and calibration of groundwater flow models. The estimated removal of S/N from Coyote Valley that is attributable to gaining reaches of streams was obtained by multiplying this volume by the volume-weighted average concentrations of TDS and nitrate in Coyote Valley. The Santa Clara Plain groundwater flow model was calibrated without including a module for gaining reaches of streams, so an estimate of groundwater discharge to streams is not available. Stream gauging to estimate groundwater discharge to streams in the Santa Clara Plain is made difficult by tidal fluctuations in the lower reaches of streams. Table 32 summarizes S/N removal by gaining reaches of streams in Coyote Valley. 3.3.3.4 Groundwater Infiltration into Sewer Lines and Storm Drains Where sewer mains and storm drains are buried below the water table, groundwater may enter under hydrostatic pressure through defective joints, cracks, or other openings. A detailed review of Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) estimation methods and estimates of the mass of S/N removed by GWI is provided as Appendix 5. Results of these estimates are included in Table 32. 3.3.3.5 Storm Drain Infiltration Storm drains in both the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley may remove groundwater where they are submerged year-round or seasonally. In the lower reaches of the Guadalupe River, Coyote Creek, and other creeks, stormwater is discharged through flood control levees using stormwater pumps. The occasional operation of these pumps during the summer is due to storm drain conveyance of infiltrated groundwater. While the volumes pumped during summer are not measured, the discharges are regular and move a substantial volume of groundwater. To estimate the magnitude of groundwater infiltration into storm drains, an estimate of exfiltration was developed and the ten-fold infiltration estimation factor described in 23 The “stream bottom” is the thalweg, i.e., the deepest point in the stream channel cross-section – akin to the invert in an engineered channel. Discharge into the stream may be impeded by clay layers. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 62 3.3.1.10 was applied. The analysis of groundwater infiltration into storm drains is presented in Appendix 5, and results are included in Table 32. Table 32 – Salt and Nutrient Removal Category Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley 10-year Median Volume-weighted TDS concentration † Shallow: 536 mg/L Overall: 427 mg/L 376 mg/L 10-year Median Volume-weighted NO3 concentration † Shallow: 9 mg/L Overall: 11 mg/L 20 mg/L 1. Groundwater Pumping Volume 91,800 AF/yr 13,600 AF/yr Salt Removal 49,000 tons/yr 6,700 tons/yr Nitrate Removal 730 tons/yr 400 tons/yr 2. Basin Outflow Volume 6,000 AF/yr 4,870 AF/yr Salt Removal 3,360 tons/yr 2,490 tons/yr Nitrate Removal 90 tons/yr 160 tons/yr 3. Gaining Reaches of Streams Volume - 3,280 AF/yr Salt Removal - 1,670 tons/yr Nitrate Removal - 110 tons/yr 4. Infiltration into Sewer Lines Volume 2,930 AF/yr - Salt Removal 2,520 tons/yr - Nitrate Removal 28 tons/yr - 5. Infiltration to Storm Drains Volume 4,380 AF/yr - Salt Removal 3,200 tons/yr - Nitrate Removal 46 tons/yr - TOTALS Volume 105,100 AF/yr 21,750 AF/yr Salt Removal 58,080 tons/yr 10,860 tons/yr Nitrate Removal 890 tons/yr 670 tons/yr † In the Santa Clara Plain, shallow concentrations were applied for sewer line and storm drain infiltration, and total basin concentrations were applied to basin outflow and gaining reaches of streams . Shallow and deep aquifers are not differentiated in the Coyote Valley. 3.3.4 Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance The sum of all the individual salt and nitrate loading and removal categories provides the overall salt balance for the Santa Clara Plain and for the Coyote Valley. Table 33 provides the overall salt balance. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 63 Table 33 – Overall Salt and Nitrate Balance Salt and Nutrient Loading Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % Rainfall Recharge 180 0.2% 8.2 0.7% 29.9 0.38% 1.4 0.6% Mountain-front Recharge 4,600 5.1% 44 3.9% - - - - Basin Inflow 4,140 4.6% 230 20.4% - - - - Managed Recharge† 24,720 27.6% 39 3.5% 4,684 60% 3 1.5% Agricultural Irrigation 320 0.4% 3 0.3% 2,070 26% 49 21.7% Landscape Irrigation 42,270 47.1% 322 28.5% 844 10.8% 18.2 8.1% Landscape Irrigation with Recycled Water 6,725 7.5% 141 12.5% - - - - Conveyance Losses 3,500 3.9% 58 5.1% 20 0.25% 0.45 0.2% Drainage Losses 2,770 3.1% 112 9.9% 127 1.6% 32 14.1% Agricultural Fertilizer 40 0.04% 78 6.9% 56 0.71% 117 52% Lawn Fertilizer 360 0.4% 76 6.7% 15 0.19% 3.1 1.4% Atmospheric Deposition 30 0.03% 21.5 1.9% 1.8 0.02% 1.5 0.7% TOTAL LOADING 89,660 100% 1,130 100% 7,850 100% 226 100% Salt and Nutrient Removal Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % TDS, tons/yr % Nitrate as NO3, tons/yr % Groundwater Pumping 49,000 84.4% 730 82% 6,700 62% 400 60% Basin Outflow 3,360 5.8% 90 10% 2,490 23% 164 24% Gaining Reaches of Streams - - - - 1,670 15% 110 16% Infiltration into Sewer Lines 2,520 4.3% 28 3% - - - - Infiltration into Storm Drains 3,200 5.5% 46 5% - - - - Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 64 TOTAL REMOVAL 58,080 100% 890 100% 10,860 100% 670 100% NET LOADING 31,520 tons/yr 240 tons/yr - 3,010 tons/yr - 444 tons/yr † The value listed is the median of the 10-year sums of creek and pond recharge, which differs from the sum of the 10-year medians of creek and pond recharge listed in Tables 21and 22, because the median is not a distributive property. 3.4 Assimilative Capacity Assimilative capacity is the difference between the ambient groundwater quality and the Basin Plan Objective. For example, if measured TDS averaged over the groundwater basin is 300 mg/L, and the Basin Plan Objective is 500 mg/L, assimilative capacity is 200 mg/L. The SWRCB Recycled Water Policy stipulates that the available assimilative capacity should be calculated using the most recent five years of available data or a time period approved by the RWQCB. This SNMP uses data from 2008 through 2012 to calculate assimilative capacity. 3.4.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality Data for the two indicator parameters, TDS and nitrate as NO3, were obtained from the District’s regional groundwater monitoring program and from data reported by water retailers to the DDW. Where multiple analyses are available for a given well in the same year, the average of all the sample results was used for that year. The Santa Clara Plain has a zone of saline intrusion in the Baylands as described in Section 3.3.1.3. A regional aquitard separates the shallow aquifer from the principal aquifer as described in Section 2.1. There are two areas where TDS is high in the principal aquifer due to mineral salts of geogenic origin. The two areas with elevated TDS are located in Palo Alto and in a portion of the Evergreen area (see Figure 17). Sediments of marine origin may contain salts of the original seawater that may be the source of these higher dissolved solids (Metzger and Fio, 1997). The areas in question are of limited extent; however they were included in the determination of volume-weighted average concentration. Figure 20 shows the locations of wells used to determine the basin average TDS concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain, and wells used to determine basin average nitrate concentration are shown in Figure 21. In general, shallow monitoring wells have higher TDS than the wells completed in the principal aquifer below the confined zone. Therefore, averages for TDS and nitrate as NO3 were determined separately for the shallow and deep aquifers. A single volume-weighted average was determined for both the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 65 Figure 20 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 66 Figure 21 – Locations of Wells used to Determine Volume Weighted Average Concentration of Nitrate as NO3 in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 67 3.4.2 Volume-Weighted Average Basin Concentrations Volume-weighted averages were developed for yearly data from 2008 through 2012 for the saturated thickness of the shallow and principal aquifers. MODFLOW model grid cells and depth to water data were used to estimate saturated aquifer volume, and the wells were assigned to shallow or principal aquifers based on their depths. Concentration data from wells corresponding to each model layer were gridded using Surfer Software’s universal kriging option. Gridded values were averaged over the model cells, and the concentrations assigned to each model cell were multiplied by the cell volume and the estimated porosity. The mass of TDS or nitrate as NO3 was summed for each model layer, and the totals from each layer were summed to obtain the overall mass in the Santa Clara Plain. The overall mass was divided by the overall volume to obtain volume-weighted averages for the shallow and principle aquifers, and for a single average, as summarized in Table 34. For the Coyote Valley, available water quality data was interpolated using Thiessen polygons24 ArcGIS software. Values in the Thiessen polygons were assigned to model grid cells to estimate mass, and divided by the total volume in the Coyote Valley, to yield a volume-weighted average concentration. The resulting concentrations for both subareas are contrasted with the Basin Plan Objectives to determine assimilative capacity in Table 34. To determine the basin volume available for mixing, a specific yield was considered representative of the volume involved with active, short-term mixing. Nitrate and the solutes measured in TDS analysis participate in diffusion over the long term, which includes the total effective porosity. Therefore, porosity was used instead of specific yield. Staff considered the estimated porosities of basin aquifer materials, and used a porosity of 30% for the shallow aquifer and 25% for the principal aquifer in the Santa Clara Plain, and 30% for all of the Coyote Valley. Table 34- Factors Used to Determine Volume-Weighted Average Concentrations SANTA CLARA PLAIN Available Mixing Volume, AF Vol-Wt. Avg. Conc. 2008 – 2012 Aquifer Saturated Volume, AF Porosity TDS, mg/L Nitrate as NO3, mg/L Shallow 10,790,700 30% 3,237,200 528 9.1 Principal 86,682,200 25% 22,509,700 410 11.0 Overall 97,472,900 25% 25,746,900 425 10.7 COYOTE VALLEY Vol-Wt. Avg. Conc. 2008 – 2012 TDS, mg/L Nitrate as NO3, mg/L Overall 644,650 30% 644,650 377 20.0 24 Thiessen Polygons, also called Voronoi Cells, are a method for subdividing an area based on locations of data points (e.g., wells or rain gages). Polygons are formed by line segments perpendicular to the midpoints of lines formed by connecting adjacent points. Thiessen polygons are used to develop an area-weighted distribution of data across a spatial domain to lessen the effect of clustered data or data gaps. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 68 Table 35 – Assimilative Capacity in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley Sub-Area/Aquifer Vol-Wt. Avg TDS, mg/L TDS Assimilative Capacity Vol-Wt. Avg Nitrate as NO3 NO3 Assimilative Capacity Basin Plan Objective 500 45 Santa Clara Plain – Shallow 528 -28 9.1 35.9 Santa Clara Plain – Principal 410 90 11.0 34.0 Santa Clara Plain – Overall 425 75 10.7 34.3 Coyote Valley 377 123 20.0 25.0 3.4.3 Estimated Basin Assimilative Capacity The assimilative capacities listed in Table 34 show that for the Santa Clara Plain overall, there is an assimilative capacity of 75 mg/L for TDS and 34.3 mg/L for nitrate as NO3. The Coyote Valley has lower average TDS concentration, with an assimilative capacity of 123 mg/L. Nitrate as NO3 concentrations in the Coyote Valley are higher with an assimilative capacity of 25 mg/L. 3.4.4 Projecting Future Assimilative Capacity Future assimilative capacity can change with variation in salt loading and removal and associated changes in TDS and nitrate concentrations. The approach used for projecting future concentrations involves projecting changes to TDS and nitrate loading and removal. This section discusses the basis for the assumptions applied to make these projections, and explains the results of calculations of future assimilative capacity. 3.4.4.1 Assumptions for Future Loading The Recycled Water Policy stipulates that SNMPs should calculate S/N loading impacts for no less than a ten-year time frame. In order to coincide with the planning period for the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the planning horizon selected is 2010 through 2035. In this timeframe, a number of anticipated changes will impact water use and quantities of salt and nitrate in groundwater. These anticipated changes are based on projections for water demand and water conservation detailed in the Urban Water Management Plans published every five years. Future actions that can affect (increase or decrease) the salt and nitrate loading include the following: • Improved recycled water quality from advanced treatment. • Planned increases in recycled water use. • Planned indirect potable reuse using advanced-treated recycled water. • Planned rehabilitation of known problems with infiltration of saline water into sewer lines. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 69 • Decreasing trends in pumping for environmental remediation. • Planned outdoor water conservation initiatives. • Planned capital improvements to increase recharge system capacity. • Anticipated increases in drainage losses due to increased sewer flows and storm drain losses (septic component is assumed to be constant). • Anticipated increases in conveyance losses associated with increases in water use. While there are many forecasts for long-term variation in rainfall, evapotranspiration, and sea level rise in response to climate change (i.e., in 50 to 100+ years), there are only a few studies available that estimate local conditions in the near term (i.e., in the next 25 years). For the SNMP planning horizon, there are not sufficient local studies of rainfall and evapotranspiration changes to render a projection, so these factors were held constant. Similarly, the possible effects from sea level rise on delta water quality and local saline incursion of streams over the next 25 years is not considered for these projections due to lack of a reliable short-term forecasts. Table 35 lists the numeric factors used to forecast changes to salt and nitrate loading to groundwater. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 70 Table 36 – Basis of Future Loading Projections by Category LOADING Tied to Urban Water Management Plan water demand and water conservation projections; assumes 45% outdoor water use overall. About 90% of SJWC’s projected 7,000 AF new recycled water irrigation is retrofit displacing existing landscape irrigation with potable water. Increased loading from irrigating with higher TDS recycled water is included in the Recycled Water Category. Landscape Irrigation Other Irrigation Held constant. Includes domestic well outdoor irrigation parks, golf course irrigation, and agricultural irrigation. Managed Recharge 20,000 AF/yr of advanced treated recycled water is forecasted to be available for additional groundwater recharge by 2030. Future loading includes the IPR scenario (20,000 AF/yr by 2030), and new recharge from upgrade of the Kirk Diversion Dam (920 AF/yr by 2015), Alamitos Diversion Dam (440 AF/yr by 2018), and the Coyote Diversion Dam (1,000 AF/yr by 2020) per the 5- year Capital Improvements Program report. In addition, the Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan includes a new recharge facility in the west part of the Santa Clara Plain with a 3,300 AF/yr capacity, for which 1,650 AF/yr recharge is projected (total of all new recharge = 4,000 AF/yr). Natural Recharge Held constant. Recycled Water Non-potable recycled water used for irrigation is projected to increase from about 7,000 AF in 2010 to 26,500 AF in 2035. Advanced treated recycled water will be blended with tertiary-treated recycled water to achieve a TDS of 500 mg/L. Sunnyvale plans long term addition of 2,061 AF/yr and forecasts improved TDS at 760 mg/L. Palo Alto achieved a TDS reduction from 950 mg/L to 770 mg/L in 2013 and forecasts achieving 600 mg/L by 2018 if identified projects are funded and completed (included in the forecast). Drainage Losses Drainage losses will increase from 2,100 tons TDS/year to 2,600 tons per year according to projected increases in wastewater and stormwater volumes, and the resulting loading will increase slightly based on projected water quality changes in response to water conservation. Conveyance Losses Increases proportional to projected increases in demand. Fertilizer Held constant. Atmospheric Deposition Held constant – assumes increased number of vehicles is offset by improved emissions controls and increased use of alternative fuel vehicles. REMOVAL In 2013, Palo Alto sleeved Mountain View Trunk Line reducing TDS from 950 to 775 mg/L. This trunk line contributes 31% of the 21.7 MGD total flow to the plant. The reduction in annual removal from saline infiltration of sewer lines is 732 tons per year in 2013, and 2,240 by 2022 (included in the forecast).B Saline Infiltration of Sewer Lines Retailer pumping Increases per 2010 UWMP Projections. Non-Retailer Pumping Agricultural pumping decreases in both the Coyote Valley and the Santa Clara Plain per the projection in Urban Water Management Plan. C Overall, the Santa Clara Plain non-retailer pumping decreases due to the continuing trend of declining environmental pumping. Basin outflow/gaining streams Held constant. Definitions: Other Irrigation = agricultural irrigation, irrigation from domestic wells, irrigation of parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.; Managed Recharge = combined recharge from percolation ponds and in-stream recharge (includes Indirect Potable Reuse, which is not counted in the Recycled Water Category); Natural Recharge = mountain front, rainfall, and losing reaches of streams; Drainage Losses = sewer line exfiltration, storm drain exfiltration, and septic tank leach field effluent; Conveyance Losses = real losses from retailer distribution systems and regional transmission losses; Fertilizer = combined agricultural and lawn and garden fertilizer; Atmospheric Deposition = dry deposition of nitrogen exclusive of rainfall. References: A) RMC, 20 13 B) City of Palo Alto, 2013 C) SCVWD, 2010 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 71 3.4.4.2 Methodology and Assumptions for Mixing Calculation The procedure used to determine the change in concentration resulting from loading and removal of salts and nitrate is a basic mixing equation, in which the following assumptions are made: • Mixing occurs within the year that the loading occurs, i.e., mixing is considered to be instantaneous. • Mixing involves the entire saturated volume, including both the shallow and principal aquifers. Accordingly, the geographic locations of different loading sources (e.g., recycled water vs. septic tanks) are inconsequential for determining a change in basin-wide average concentration for the combined shallow and principal aquifers. • The role of the confining clay layer (aquitard) in isolating the principal aquifer can be ignored for the purposes of determining changes in overall basin concentration. • The effects of changes in rates of loading or removal are instantaneous. • The unsaturated zone is in steady state with respect to sorption therefore, transit of salt and nitrate through the unsaturated zone is taken as instantaneous. • Attenuation of nitrate due to root uptake and denitrification does not delay its transit across the unsaturated zone. • The volume of water in the groundwater basin remains constant. • The relevant time step for determining changes in concentration is one year. These assumptions allow for a simplified calculation of basin concentrations. Some of these assumptions exaggerate the effects of salt and nitrate loading and are therefore conservative. For example, the residence time of nitrate in the unsaturated zone may span 40 to 80 years, causing long-term delayed effects from present-day loading (Sebiloa et al., 2013). By assuming a single mixing volume, local variations in rates of concentration changes are not considered. This approach to forecasting future changes in concentrations cannot be applied to estimating salt and nitrate concentration changes in individual wells or specific areas. This simplified approach allows determination of basin-wide concentration changes that match available data for groundwater and source-water quality. Subdividing the basin for salt and nitrate loading analysis based on hydrologic, geologic, and land-use characteristics was not pursued because data limitations would make the analysis of sub-areas less reliable. The number of available monitoring data points varies substantially from year-to-year within smaller areas. Moreover, the variation of land use throughout the subbasin subareas is relatively small. For example, the Santa Clara Plain is primarily suburban/urban with no substantial agricultural areas. The most pronounced variation in land use is between the Coyote Valley, which is primarily rural/suburban, and the Santa Clara Plain, which is primarily suburban/urban; therefore, these two subareas were evaluated separately. The mixing equation used to evaluate future groundwater salt and nitrate concentrations (S/N) can be stated verbally and symbolically as follows: Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 72 New Concentration = [Mass S/N Added + Mass S/N already in groundwater – Mass S/N removed] groundwater volume where Cn+1 is the new concentration, MLn is the mass of salt/nitrate loaded in year n, MRn is the mass of salt/nitrate removed in year n, Cn is the groundwater salt/nitrate concentration in year n, and V is the subarea aquifer saturated porosity volume. The calculated new basin concentration is applied to groundwater sources of loading for the next year, setting up a feedback loop that accounts for salt accumulation or depletion due to successive net loading or net removal. Where the quantity of S/N loaded exceeds the quantity of S/N removed, the mixing equation will result in concentrations that are larger than the prior years, resulting in an upward trend. While measured concentrations in individual wells show flat or very slightly increasing or decreasing trends in salt and nitrate over the past fifteen years, the mixing equation predicts trends in the basin-wide averages that increase or decrease more rapidly. This departure in trend is attributable to the assumptions of instantaneous mixing, which does not reflect the relatively slow movement of groundwater. Accordingly, the projections provided for 2011–2035 are by nature, inflated because the concentrations changes will take much longer than 25 years to manifest. 3.4.5 Future Assimilative Capacity Projections Long–term changes in basin–wide groundwater quality are typically slow and gradual because of the large volume of groundwater in storage. In order to account for variable hydrologic conditions, the starting concentration used to forecast future groundwater quality is taken as the median concentration in the 10–year baseline period (2001–2010). The Recycled Water Policy requires that groundwater quality be estimated a minimum of 10 years into the future. This SNMP includes projections from 2010 through 2035 – the planning horizon for the Urban Water Management Plans – to evaluate long-range changes to current trends that may result from planned changes to land and water use. To estimate future loading and removal for factors that are not expected to change loading and removal, rates were held constant at the median value from the 2001–2010 baseline period. Other loading and removal factors were systematically adjusted to reflect future changes in land use and water use, and are included in Urban Water Management Plans, Master Plans, and other planning documents, as noted in Table 35. Ongoing programs and policies that achieve groundwater quality management to mitigate S/N loading are described in Appendix 4. The primary determinant of future changes in loading is forecasts of increased water use, including landscape irrigation with potable and recycled water. The Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) prepared by each water retailer and the District’s 2010 UWMP forecasts demand increase in response to population growth and planned developments, as well as conservation goals mandated by California’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan and District water conservation efforts. Table 36 summarizes the changes in overall water use anticipated in the 2010 UWMPs. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 73 Table 37 – Retailer Demand Projections after Conservation Savings(1) (AF/year) Retailer 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Cal Water Service Co. 14,060 12,710 12,920 13,120 13,330 Great Oaks Water Co.(3) 13,260 13,420 13,830 14,250 14,660 Milpitas, City of(4) 15,280 16,240 17,220 18,240 19,320 Morgan Hill, City of(4) 8,970 8,520 8,990 9,580 10,160 Mountain View, City of(5) 14,280 14,860 15,430 16,000 16,750 Palo Alto, City of(2) 14,190 14,460 14,690 15,500 16,310 Purissima Hills Water District(5) 3,130 3,320 3,490 3,660 3,830 San José Municipal Water(6) 32,140 35,230 38,460 42,120 45,780 San José Water Company 143,790 147,860 150,930 154,080 157,290 Santa Clara, City of 31,260 33,050 34,610 36,070 37,430 Stanford University(2) 5,100 5,740 6,250 6,860 7,470 Sunnyvale, City of(5) 27,480 27,900 28,390 28,920 29,800 Independent Groundwater Pumping(7) 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 Totals 338,540 348,910 360,810 374,000 387,730 County-wide Agricultural Demand Projection(8) 29,110 28,140 27,160 26,180 25,250 (1) Includes conservation savings goal for both urban and agricultural conservation. See Table 43 for total District water conservation program water savings goal with 1992 base year. (2) 2035 values are a linear extrapolation of retailer provided data. (3) From District developed demand projections based on ABAG Projections 2009 calibrated with actual use data. (4) Figures shown are total demand for Morgan Hill. This SNMP accounts for Morgan Hill wells pumping in Coyote Valley and commercial/residential use north of Cochrane Road. (5) Projections are based on the BAWSCA Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy Phase I Scoping Report (Table A-2, May, 2010) with adjustments for active conservation. (6) Projections are consistent with the City of San Jose Envision 2040 Draft General Plan Update Preferred Alternative. Includes all of San Jose Municipal’s service areas and portions of Coyote Valley where the actual retailer to serve this area has not yet been defined. (7) Demands for independent pumpers were assumed to continue at the same average level observed in the historical pumping record (2000 – 2009). (8) Calculated from estimates of projected total agricultural acreage and a water use factor (1.7 AF/yr). 3.4.5.1 Future Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation To determine future loading from landscape and agricultural irrigation, the retailer demand projections listed in Table 36 were apportioned to each retailer according to the in-basin/out- basin use splits, indoor-outdoor use splits, and water sources splits (groundwater, treated imported water, SFPUC water, and/or local reservoir water) described in Section 3.3.1.7. The Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 74 period from 2010–2015 is not addressed in the UWMP projections shown in Table 36. The large increase in loading from 2010–2015 shown in Figure 22 is due to extrapolating from the 2010 measured values to the volume for the projected 2015 retailer demand. This suggests that the retailer demand projected in the 2010 UWMP for 2015 and possibly subsequent years is overestimated. During the 2013-2014 drought, landscape irrigation has declined, rather than increased. Drought conservation measures are not reflected in the projections because the analysis was based on the 2010 UWMP projections. Agricultural water demand projections shown in Table 36 apply primarily to the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin. The percent change for each five-year interval was applied to the agricultural acreages in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Figures 22-25 chart the projected loading from landscape irrigation by retailer water and agricultural wells, domestic wells and other supply wells used to irrigate parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc. (non-retailer irrigation). Figure 22 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 23 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Ag & Other irrigation, TPY Lansdcape Irrigation , TPY Salt Loading from Landscape Irrigation - Santa Clara Plain Landscape Irrigation Ag Irrigation Domestic & Other Irrigation 0 5 10 15 0 100 200 300 400 500 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Ag & Other irrigation, TPY Ladnscape Irrigation, TPY Nitrate Loading from Landscape Irrigation - Santa Clara Plain Landscape Irrigation Domestic & Other Irrigation Ag Irrigation Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 75 Figure 24 – Salt Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley Figure 25 – Nitrate Loading from Landscape and Agricultural Irrigation in the Coyote Valley 3.4.5.2 Future Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge Projections for natural recharge are held constant for the planning horizon as mountain-front recharge and basin inflow are assumed to remain the same. Projected increases in managed recharge are based on capital projects included in the District’s 5-year Capital Improvements Projects Plan that will increase operational recharge capacity to the extent that water supply is available. The 2012 Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan also identifies a new recharge facility in the western Santa Clara Plain. For the purposes of this SNMP, the capacities of the improvements and increased recharge volumes assumed to come on-line according to the schedule are shown in Table 38. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Agricultural Irrigation, tons per year Landscape & Domestic Irrigation, tons per year Salt Loading from Agricultural and Landscape Irrigation - Coyote Valley Ag Loading Landscape Irrigation Domestic & Other Irrigation 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Ag Irrigation, TPY Landscape Irrigation + Domestic, TPY Nitrate Loading from Agricultural and Landscape Irrigation - Coyote Valley Landscape Irrigation Domestic & Other irrigation Ag Irrigation Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 76 Table 38 – Schedule and Capacity of Recharge Capital Improvement Projects Project Average Yield Increase Capacity, AF/yr Assumed Increase in Recharge, AF/yr Estimated Completion Date Alamitos Diversion Dam 2,200 440 2018 Coyote Diversion Dam 5,000 1,000 2020 Kirk Diversion Dam 4,600 920 2015 New Recharge Facility 3,300 1,650 2026 TOTALS 15,100 4,010 Managed recharge is also projected to increase as Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) projects come on-line. IPR projects take advanced treated recycled water blended with current sources of recharge to provide lower TDS water for recharging the subbasin. The assumed quality of water supplied with IPR projects is 168 mg/L TDS and 2 mg/L nitrate as NO3. Actual quality of water used for IPR may have higher or lower concentrations depending on operational constraints and other factors. The assumed schedule of increased recharge volumes from IPR projects is as follows: Table 39 – Schedule and Capacity of Indirect Potable Reuse Recharge Projects Project Average Yield Increase (AF/yr) Estimated Completion Date Los Gatos Recharge System 20,000 AF/yr 2032 Schedule and volumes included in the 2012 Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan (SCVWD, 2012). Water supply for recharge projects is highly variable due to its dependency on available imported water and rainfall-supplied local reservoirs. The baseline volumes for managed recharge are based on the sum of recharge facility 10-year median volumes. The range of managed recharge volumes from 2001 through 2010 is from 64,629 to 88,507 AF/yr. The projected salt and nitrate loading from managed recharge shown below in Figures 26-29 includes managed recharge in percolation ponds and creeks. A significant source of variability in recharge water quality is the quality of water imported from the state and federal water projects and used in recharge operations. Depending on how current and/or future pumping facilities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta are operated, overall salinity (TDS) of imported water may decrease between 50 and 100 mg/L. If no changes are made to delta operations and severe climate change scenarios are realized, imported water salinity may increase substantially. Because both scenarios (improved or deteriorated delta water quality) are highly uncertain, the projections for SNMP have held imported water TDS and nitrate constant by water source. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 77 Figure 26 – Salt Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 27 – Nitrate Loading from Managed Recharge, Natural Recharge, and Indirect Potable Reuse in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 28 – Salt Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Natural Recharge & IPR, TPY Managed Recharge , TPY MAR Natural IPR Start IPR in 2032 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Natural Recharge & IPR Recharge Loading, TPY MAR Natural IPR Start IPR in 2032 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Natural Recharge Loading, TPY Managed Recharge Loading, TPY MAR Natural Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 78 Figure 29 – Nitrate Loading from Natural and Managed Recharge in the Coyote Valley 3.4.5.3 Future Loading from Recycled Water Future loading projections for recycled water include improved water quality from advanced treatment of recycled water, sewer line rehabilitation, and increased utilization of recycled water. Recycled water master plans were reviewed for each of the three producers (South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR), Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), and Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQP). The planned schedule of improvements and expansion used for SNMP projections are listed in Table 40. Table 40 – Recycled Water Master Plans: Expansion and Water Quality Improvements System Volume Increases Future TDS Starting Year Notes SBWR 0 500 mg/L 2014 – 2017 Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center comes on-line; tertiary treated recycled water blended with purified water to lower TDS from 725 mg/L to 500 mg/L, phased in system-wide by 2017; assume linear change. SBWR 4,850 500 mg/L 2015 – 2035 SJWC UWMP baseline + projected 4,850 AF/yr new SJWC projects in next 25 yrs; add 970 AF/yr every 5 yrs. SBWR 3,300 500 mg/L 2020 – 2035 SJ UWMP baseline + projected 3,300 AF/yr new RW SJ Muni. RW projects; adding 825 AF/yr every 5 yrs in 2020. SBWR 100 500 mg/L 2020 Adds 100 AF/yr for Milpitas BART Station development in 2020. SVWPCP 1,885 760 mg/L 2020 – 2033 Treatment improves TDS from 856 mg/L TDS to 760 mg/L in 2023. Increased volume from Apple and other expansion; 495 AF/yr by 2020; 764 AF/yr by 2025; 140 AF/yr by 2030; 486 AF/yr by 2030. PARWQCP 0 770 mg/L – 600 mg/L 2013 – 2018 PARWQCB resleeved a sewer main in Mtn. View producing immediate improvement to TDS by eliminating saline groundwater intrusion. Additional resleeving projects are planned to bring TDS to 600 mg/L by 2018. PARWQCP 5,500 600 mg/L 2027 Palo Alto Phase III recycled water expansion projects 5,500 AF/yr increase by 2027. Up to 915 AF/yr additional expansion may occur in current Phase II, which is not yet serving at full capacity. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Recharge Loading, TPY MAR Natural Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 79 The quality of source water before it becomes wastewater and recycled water varies significantly under different scenarios. As mentioned in 3.3.5.2, TDS in imported water may increase or decrease, depending on whether improvements are made to managing delta pumping and whether climate change scenarios are realized. Changes to source water quality can shift the quality of recycled water, depending on the type and degree of treatment. The future projections for recycled water reflect planning scenarios only, and exclude delta conveyance improvements and climate change scenarios. Groundwater quality also changes in response to loading and removal, so the source water that becomes recycled water may change as groundwater quality changes or as the blend of supplies shifts. These potential variations in recycled water quality are not incorporated into the future planning scenarios evaluated here. The schedule of planned improvements is also subject to change. For example, the PARWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan calls for addition of reverse osmosis and micro-filtration by 2050, but changing conditions could lead to bringing advanced treatment online sooner, possibly within the SNMP planning horizon. Similarly, planned improvements for SBWR and Sunnyvale WPCP could come on-line earlier or later than the SNMP planning scenarios. Figures 22 and 23 display the projected loading from recycled water in the scenario outlined in Table 40. Figure 30 – Salt Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 31 – Nitrate Loading from Recycled Water in the Santa Clara Plain Notes: SBWR = South Bay Water Recycling; SWPCP = Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant; PARWQCP = Palo Alto Water Pollution Control Plant. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Recycled Water Loading, TPY SBWR SWPCP PARWQCP Total 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Recycled Water Loading, TPY SBWR SWPCP PARWQCP Total Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 80 3.4.5.4 Future Loading from Conveyance and Drainage Losses As described in 3.3.1.9 and 3.3.1.10, conveyance losses include that portion of water distribution system losses that ultimately recharge groundwater. Similarly, drainage losses are losses from storm drains, sewer lines, and septic leachfield effluent that recharge groundwater. Conveyance losses are treated as proportional to the volume of water served, and indexed to projected changes in annual total volume of water served by water retailers inside the Santa Clara Plain or inside the Coyote Valley (including the portion of Morgan Hill that is in Coyote Valley). Storm drain losses are proportional to future volumes of runoff. To make an approximation, storm drain losses are indexed to population growth, which is taken as an indicator of the increase in impervious surfaces. Assuming that most new development is multi-family housing, the percent increase in impervious surface area was taken as the percentage of population increase. Septic leachfield volumes are assumed to remain constant. The County’s new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Ordinance could lead to some improvements in septic tank management, potentially decreasing loading from this source. The impacts of the ordinance are subject to many variables that are not easily assessed, so a constant value was used. Sewer line losses are indexed to the SCVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan projections for wastewater treatment flows to obtain volume increases. Wastewater concentration is indexed to measured values from 2010, which increase as a result of water conservation. Indoor water conservation results in increased TDS concentration of influent at wastewater treatment plants which can negatively impact the quality and quantity of recycled water. The degree to which wastewater concentration changes in response to water conservation is unknown; however this effect is widely observed (Wistrom, et al., 2006). An assumption is made that wastewater TDS concentration increases by 1/10th the amount of projected increases in water conservation volumes. Table 41 summarizes the assumptions made for sewer line loss projections. Figure 32 displays loading projections from conveyance losses in the Santa Clara Plain, and Figures 33 and 34 provide loading projections for drainage losses in the Santa Clara Plain. Both conveyance losses and drainage losses in Coyote Valley are small and fixed at constant values throughout the 25-year period evaluated. Table 41 – Factors Used to Project Future Sewer Line Losses Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Wastewater Volume, MGD 169 177 184 192 194 Percent WW Volume change 4.5% 4.7% 4.0% 4.3% 1.0% Conservation Goal, AF/yr 63,100 76,100 86,700 98,800 98,800 Concentration Increase % (assumed) 2.47% 2.06% 1.39% 1.36% 0.0% Source: SCVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 81 Figure 32 – TDS and Nitrate Loading from Conveyance Losses in the Santa Clara Plain Note: conveyance losses in Coyote Valley are small (ranging from 12 to 15 tons per year TDS and 0.4 to 0.5 tons per year nitrate), and are therefore not displayed. Nitrate as NO3 is displayed on the right axis. Figure 33 – TDS Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain Note: Nitrate as NO3 loading from drainage losses (septic tanks) in Coyote Valley are held constant throughout the planning period (127 tons TDS per year), and are therefore not displayed. Figure 34 – Nitrate as NO3 Loading from Drainage Losses in the Santa Clara Plain Note: Nitrate as NO3 loading from drainage losses (septic tanks) in Coyote Valley are held constant throughout the planning period (79 tons nitrate as NO3 per year), and are therefore not displayed. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Nitrate as NO3 Loading, tons/yr Salt as TDS loading, tons/yr TDS NO3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Septic TDS Load, tons/yr Sewer/Storm/Total TDS Load, tons/yr TOTAL Sewer Storm Septic 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 50 100 150 200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Storm/Spetic Nitrate Load, tons/yrSewer/Total Nitrate Load, tons per yearSewer TOTAL Storm Septic Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 82 3.4.5.5 Future Loading from Dry Loading Sources Dry loading includes fertilizer, soil amendment application, and atmospheric deposition. Combined, these categories contribute only minor amounts of salt and nitrate. The factors that could change rates of fertilizer use or rates of atmospheric deposition are not quantified. Atmospheric deposition could decrease in response to more alternative fuel vehicles and improved emissions controls, and fertilizer application could decrease with land use changes. Because these changes are not easily predicted, for SNMP analysis, they were left as fixed values equal to the 2001-2010 median loading rates. 3.4.5.6 Salt and Nitrate Removal Projections As listed in Table 15 and shown in Figure 15, salt and nitrate are removed when groundwater is removed by pumping, basin outflow, gaining reaches of streams, and groundwater infiltration into sewer lines and storm drains. The primary variable in salt and nitrate removal is the rate of groundwater pumping. Projected demand by water source was obtained from the Urban Water Management Plans and pro-rated to annual increments to project rates of salt and nitrate removal due to groundwater pumping. Infiltration of saline groundwater to sewer lines has been reduced in Palo Alto and additional projects will further reduce infiltration. Gaining reaches of streams in the Santa Clara Plain have not been quantified; though there might be some groundwater discharging to streams in the northern reaches of streams. Figures 35-38 summarize the projected rates of salt and nitrate removal. Figure 35 – TDS Removal in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 36 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Santa Clara Plain 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 TDS removed, tons/yr Total Removal - left axis Municipal Pumping - left axis Basin outflow - right axis Non-Retailer Pumping - right axis Inflow to Sewer Lines - right axis Inflow to Storm Drains - right axis 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Nitrate-NO3 Removed, tons/yr Municipal Pumping - left axis Non-Retailer Pumping - right axis Total Removal - left axis Inflow to Sewer Lines - right axis Basin outflow - right axis Inflow to Storm Drains - right axis Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 83 Figure 37 – TDS Removal in the Coyote Valley Figure 38 – Nitrate as NO3 Removal in the Coyote Valley 3.4.5.7 Net Loading/Removal and Assimilative Capacity The sum of all loading projections, minus the sum of all removal projections, gives the net loading or removal. In the Santa Clara Plain, net loading of TDS is projected to start at 25,000 tons per year and grow to 47,000 tons per year by 2035. The primary causes of the net loading are outdoor irrigation, imported water used for groundwater recharge, and increasing irrigation with recycled water. Currently, about 90,000 AF of water is imported and used in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin for outdoor irrigation and managed aquifer recharge. Imported water used outdoors or for recharge represents about 26,000 tons of new salt per year (TDS), with about 7,000 tons salt added to groundwater through recharge, and about 19,000 tons salt added through landscape irrigation.25 Nitrate addition from imported water is low due to the low concentration of nitrate found in imported water. Concurrent with the addition of 26,000 tons of salt to groundwater per year from imported water, groundwater is removed from the subbasin via groundwater pumping and basin outflow. Pumping and basin outflow remove a combined 49,000 tons of salt per year. The TDS in water served by municipal retailers is returned to the 25 These figures exclude imported water used for outdoor irrigation at homes and businesses located in the foothills outside the groundwater Subbasin. Imported Water refers to State Water Project, Federal Water Project water from the San Luis Division, and Hetch-Hetchy water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 TDS Removal, tons per year Municipal Pumping Non-Retailer Pumping Gaining reaches of streams Basin outflow Total Removal 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Nitrate as NO3 Removal, tons / year Municipal Pumping Non-Retailer Pumping Basin outflow Gaining reaches of streams Total Removal Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 84 groundwater basin at an average rate of about 45% (the percentage of municipal water used for outdoor irrigation), while about 55% of the salt goes to the wastewater treatment plants and to the Bay, with a small fraction getting processed as recycled water. The nitrate in imported water is much lower than in groundwater, so groundwater pumping combined with root uptake and denitrification, cause a net removal of nitrate from the groundwater basin. While the amount of new salt introduced to the subbasin each year is large, the volume of water into which the salt is mixed in this analysis is also large. Table 34 presents the mixing volume – 25,746,900 AF. The starting net loading amount in 2011, tons per year when divided by the mixing volume equates to a net change in TDS concentration of 0.88 mg/L per year. By 2035, the net loading is projected to increase to 47,000 tons per year, producing a net change in TDS concentration of 1.31 mg/L/yr. To determine future estimated basin concentrations, the net loading is added to the mass of salt already dissolved in groundwater at ambient concentrations. The overall basin average TDS concentration calculated in Section 3.3.2 is 425 mg/L. The existing mass of salt dissolved in groundwater is 17,260,184 tons. The net loading forecasted for each year is added to the prior year’s total salt mass and divided by the basin saturated porosity volume to get the next year’s concentration. The new concentration is used to determine net removal from groundwater pumping and net loading from landscape irrigation with groundwater. Figures 39-42 show the net loading, future TDS and nitrate concentrations, and corresponding assimilative capacity. The fluctuation in net loading is due to use of actual recharge volumes for 2010–2012 and projected 2013 based on January-October data. Figure 39 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/L Net Loading, tons/year Net Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L Basin Plan Objective assimilative capacity Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 85 Figure 40 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain Figure 41 – Net TDS Loading and Projected Average TDS Concentrations in the Coyote Valley Figure 42 – Net Nitrate as NO3 Loading and Projected Average NO3 Concentrations in the Coyote Valley 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/L Net Loading, tons/year Net Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L Basin Plan Objective assimilative capacity 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 -5,000 -4,000 -3,000 -2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/L Net Loading, tons/year Net Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L Basin Plan Objective assimilative capacity 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 (350) (300) (250) (200) (150) (100) (50) 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Concentration, mg/LNet Loading, tons/yearNet Loading, TPY Conc, mg/L BasinPlan Objective assimilative capacity Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 86 The net removal of both TDS and nitrate in Coyote Valley is partly attributable to pumping that supplies water to consumers in the Santa Clara Plain, i.e., the water is moved from one subarea to the other (about 3,100 tons per year TDS and 86 tons per year nitrate as NO3). There is also a net basin outflow from Coyote Valley, about 2,500 tons per year TDS and 160 tons per year nitrate. In addition, Coyote Valley has gaining reaches of streams that remove about 1,700 tons per year TDS and about 110 tons per year nitrate. The net removal of salt and nitrate produces a steady decrease in estimated concentrations as shown in Figures 41 and 42, above. 3.4.5.8 Allocation of Future Assimilative Capacity The allocation of future assimilative capacity consumption by loading category is listed in Table 42. The sum of all planned recycled water irrigation and groundwater recharge projects in the Santa Clara Plain consumes 9.2% of the TDS assimilative capacity in the 25 year planning timeframe ending in 2035. The assimilative capacity of nitrate as NO3 is projected to increase due to net nitrate removal from groundwater pumping, basin outflow, and sewer line infiltration; therefore, recycled water projects do not consume any assimilative capacity for nitrate as NO3. At the end of the 25 year evaluation period in 2035, 41% of the 75 mg/L TDS assimilative capacity is projected to be consumed overall (30.75 mg/L), with 44.25 mg/L TDS assimilative capacity remaining. The TDS assimilative capacity consumed by all planned Santa Clara Plain recycled water projects (including landscape irrigation and indirect potable reuse), 6.3%, is below the Recycled Water Policy 20% threshold for multiple projects. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 87 Table 42 – Annual Consumption of TDS Assimilative Capacity (AC) by Loading Categories % AC Consumed overall % AC by Recycled Water % AC by Managed Recharge % AC by Indirect Potable Reuse % AC by Irrigation (excludes recycled water) % AC by Natural Recharge Drainage + Conveyance & Dry Loading 2011 1.29% 0.12% 0.33% 0.67% 0.17% 2012 1.25% 0.12% 0.32% 0.64% 0.16% 2013 1.43% 0.16% 0.39% 0.70% 0.18% 2014 1.41% 0.16% 0.38% 0.70% 0.17% 2015 1.42% 0.16% 0.38% 0.71% 0.17% 2016 1.42% 0.16% 0.38% 0.71% 0.17% 2017 1.42% 0.16% 0.38% 0.71% 0.17% 2018 1.46% 0.17% 0.38% 0.72% 0.18% 2019 1.49% 0.19% 0.39% 0.73% 0.18% 2020 1.54% 0.20% 0.40% 0.75% 0.18% 2021 1.57% 0.22% 0.41% 0.76% 0.18% 2022 1.59% 0.23% 0.41% 0.77% 0.19% 2023 1.61% 0.24% 0.41% 0.77% 0.19% 2024 1.64% 0.25% 0.41% 0.78% 0.19% 2025 1.67% 0.26% 0.42% 0.79% 0.19% 2026 1.72% 0.28% 0.43% 0.81% 0.19% 2027 1.76% 0.29% 0.44% 0.82% 0.20% 2028 1.79% 0.31% 0.44% 0.83% 0.20% 2029 1.82% 0.32% 0.45% 0.85% 0.20% 2030 1.86% 0.34% 0.45% 0.86% 0.20% 2031 1.85% 0.34% 0.45% 0.86% 0.20% 2032 1.76% 0.35% 0.37% 0.023% 0.84% 0.20% 2033 1.75% 0.35% 0.37% 0.022% 0.84% 0.20% 2034 1.75% 0.34% 0.36% 0.022% 0.84% 0.20% 2035 1.75% 0.34% 0.36% 0.022% 0.84% 0.20% TOTAL 41.3% 6.2% 10.2% 0.1% 20% 4.8% Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 88 CHAPTER 4: SALT AND NUTRIENT MONITORING PLAN The Recycled Water Policy requires development of a SNMP Monitoring Plan for each groundwater basin in California. The District is the groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County, which includes the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. For many years the District has conducted regular comprehensive monitoring that includes TDS and nitrate, as well as other water quality parameters. The District also analyzes data from municipal wells reported to DDW. The District prepares annual water quality reports that document the monitoring results and provides trend analyses for TDS and nitrate, and a comparison of detections with WQOs. District monitoring reports are made available on its website. The proposed SNMP Monitoring Program includes the District’s voluntary subbasin monitoring and reporting for TDS and nitrate. The District currently conducts monitoring for selected CECs at a recycled water irrigation site. CEC monitoring is not a required component of the Recycled Water Policy for basins where recycled water reuse is limited to irrigation (there are currently no active recycled water recharge projects). The District’s ongoing groundwater monitoring and reporting is voluntary and relies on monitoring District monitoring wells and private wells under agreements with the well owners. The Salt and Nutrient Monitoring Plan, provided as Appendix 3, is a subset of the District’s regional monitoring program, which covers more water quality parameters than are required by the Recycled Water Policy. The goals established in the Recycled Water Policy for the Salt and Nutrient Monitoring Plan are met by the District’s annual sampling. Monitoring well locations coincide with recharge locations, recycled water operations, and groundwater production. The plan presented in Appendix 3 fulfills the objectives set forth in the Recycled Water Policy. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 89 CHAPTER 5: ANTI-DEGRADATION ANALYSIS The regional and cumulative impacts analysis presented in Chapter 3 of this SNMP demonstrates that multiple recycled water projects in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin use a minor amount of the available TDS assimilative capacity. The analysis shows that assimilative capacity is expected to increase (i.e., concentrations are projected to decline) for both nitrate and TDS in the Coyote Valley, and for nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain. Groundwater TDS concentrations are projected to increase in the Santa Clara Plain by 2035, but are not projected to exceed the Basin Plan objective. Chapter 3 demonstrates that the minority of the projected Santa Clara Plain TDS increase is attributable to recycled water irrigation. As noted in Chapter 3, the simplifying assumptions made for this SNMP (e.g., instantaneous mixing, no attenuation of salts in the unsaturated zone) have the effect of overstating the rate of salt accumulation. For example, the concentration trends associated with future projections are not mirrored in observed trends from the last 15 years, yet the same S/N loading and removal processes have been ongoing. The District has invested in the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC) to substantially improve recycled water quality. The District and water retailers are engaged in a continuous effort to increase water conservation, which can further reduce the amount of salt loading. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan, if implemented, could also play a major role in reducing the importation and accumulation of salt. As improvements are made to limit conveyance losses and drainage losses and to increase outdoor water conservation, the rate of salt accumulation will slow. Similarly, employing micro-irrigation technologies and limiting fertilizer use to agronomic demands will help to reduce S/N loading. The Recycled Water Policy and other statewide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. As stated in the Recycled Water Policy, “The collapse of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, climate change, and continuing population growth have combined with a severe drought on the Colorado River and failing levees in the Delta to create a new reality that challenges California’s ability to provide the clean water needed for a healthy environment, a healthy population and a healthy economy, both now and in the future.” As the policy notes, “We strongly encourage local and regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local water for California by emphasizing appropriate water recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of supply are drought-proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long- term.” With the current severe drought, the benefits of recycled water use in terms of sustainability and reliability cannot be overstated. Use of recycled water in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of Santa Clara County. The SNMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Table 43 provides an explanation of why recycled projects are in compliance with SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 90 Table 43 – Anti-Degradation Assessment SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 Component Anti-Degradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State.  The Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives are being met in average ambient groundwater and will continue to be met in the future  Recycled water irrigation project(s) and other S/N loading sources will not cause average groundwater quality to exceed the SMCL for TDS or the primary MCL for nitrate-NO3.  Use of recycled water for irrigation to replace groundwater is consistent with the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy, which encourages increased reliance on local, drought-resistant water supplies. The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State.  The recycled water used for irrigation is tertiary-treated water that meets California’s Title 22 unrestricted use classification.  The District is now producing up to 8 MGD advanced treated water from the SVAWPC. The City of Sunnyvale Plans to improve recycled water quality, and the City of Palo Alto has resleeved some sewer mains resulting in lower TDS recycled water. The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development.  The recycled water projects are an integral part of water and wastewater master plans for the subbasin. Groundwater management programs are being or will be implemented to continue attaining WQOs.  The Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is actively managed with numerous programs, projects, and plans to manage groundwater, as described in Appendix 4. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 91 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This SNMP tracks the addition and removal of salts and nutrients to and from the groundwater basin, revealing a dynamic interplay between water uses and salt accumulation and dilution. In the Coyote Valley, concentrations of both TDS and nitrate are found to decrease over time. In the Santa Clara Plain, nitrate concentrations are projected to decrease while TDS concentration is projected to increase, without exceeding basin water quality objectives. The rate of increase in TDS concentration does not correspond closely with the individual well TDS concentration trends analyzed in the District’s annual groundwater reports. This suggests that the simplifying assumptions used to make the projections may be too aggressive, such that the projected rate of accumulation exceeds the measured concentration trends. The categories contributing the greatest amount of S/N loading (outdoor irrigation of landscaping by potable water and managed recharge) are also linked to the largest means of S/N removal (groundwater extraction, consumptive uses of water, and basin outflow). Nevertheless, salt accumulation is indicated for the Santa Clara Plain, which warrants consideration of the following recommendations for additional salt and nutrient management measures: 1. New and continuing initiatives for outdoor water conservation will continue to diminish the quantities of S/N loading from outdoor irrigation with potable water. 2. New and continuing advanced treatment of recycled water will further reduce the minor amount of salt loading from this category. 3. If adopted and implemented, future indirect potable reuse with low TDS, advanced- treated recycled water can diminish the demand for imported water for managed recharge. Similarly, contingent on funding and approval, direct potable reuse of low TDS, advanced-treated recycled water finished at the District’s drinking water plants can displace higher salinity groundwater and imported water currently distributed for indoor and outdoor water uses. 4. Adoption of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is likely to significantly reduce the salinity of imported water used for both managed recharge and outdoor irrigation with potable water. 5. New and continuing city initiatives to improve sewer lines to prevent intrusion of saline groundwater will decrease salt loading from tertiary-treated recycled water used for irrigation. 6. Continued District monitoring and analysis of groundwater quality data will be useful for observing any changes to the long-term trends in TDS and nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 92 REFERENCES Alhajjar, B.J., Chesters, G., and Harkin, J.M., 1990. Indicators of Chemical Pollution from Septic Systems. Ground Water 28(4): 550–568. Amick, R.S., and Burgess, E.H., 2000. Exfiltration in Sewer Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. EPA/600/R-01/034. Aquacue, 2011. Uncovering Leaks and Other Mysteries, Faster than Traditional Methods, with New Real- Time Technology http://www.icwt.net/wtc/p12/u-330.pdf ASTM, 2009. ASTM C969 – 02 Standard Practice for Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines. http://www.astm.org/Standards/C969.htm Bicki, T.J., R.B. Brown, M.S. Collins, R.S. Mansell, and D.F. Rothwell, 1984. Impact of On ‐site Sewage Disposal Systems on Surface and Ground Water Quality. Report to Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Contract Number LC‐170. Biggar, J. W., and Coney, R. B., 1969. Agricultural Drainage and Eutrophication. In Eutrophication : Causes, Consequences, and Correctives. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1969. Blanchard, C.L., Michaels, H. and Tannenbaum, S., 1996. Regional Estimates of Acid Deposition Fluxes in California for 1985-1994. California Air Resources Board Contract No. 93-332. Brooks, J.L., Rock, C.A., and Struchtemeyer, R.A.,1984. Use of peat for on-site wastewater treatment: II. Field studies. J. Environ. Qual. 13: 524-530. Brown and Caldwell and Geotechnical Consultants Inc., 1981. San Martin Water Quality Study – Phase 1 report. Prepared for Santa Clara County. Brown, K.W. and Thomas, J.C., 1978. Uptake of N by grass from septic fields in three soils. Agronomy Journal. 70: 1,037–1,040. Canter, L.W., and Knox, R.C., 1985. Septic tank system effects on ground water quality. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. Canter, L.W., 1997. Nitrates in Groundwater. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. CH2MHill, 1992, Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Model Project, Hydrogeologic Interpretation CH2MHill, 2005, Llagas Basin Numerical Groundwater Model City of Palo Alto, 2012. Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Prepared by Carollo Engineers, May, 2012. City of Palo Alto, 2013. Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan, 2013: The Pollution Prevention Plan for the City of Palo Alto's Regional Water Quality Control Plant. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33315 City of Santa Clara, 2010. Sewer System Management Plan. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 93 Collins, S., 1998. Modeling Spatial Variations in Air Quality Using GIS. In: GIS and Health. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, London, United Kingdom. Conn, K.E., and Siegrist, R.L., 2007. Occurrence and Fate of Trace Organic Contaminants in Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems and Implications for Water Quality Management. Colorado Water Institute. Dudley, J .G., and Stephenson, D.A., 1973. Nutrient Enrichment of Ground Water from Septic Tank Disposal Systems. Inland Lake Renewal and Shoreland Management Demonstration Project Report. University of Wisconsin at Madison. Department of Water Resources (DWR), December 1975, Bulletin No 118-1 Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: South San Francisco Bay, Volume III: Northern Santa Clara County Area Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Update 2003 DWR, 2013. Public Draft Report to the Legislature on Urban Water Management Plan Demand Management Measures Reporting and Requirements. http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/committees/urban/u2/docs/ITP_UWMP_Leg_Report_Public_Draft_1 2-24-13.pdf EBMUD, 2013. East Bay Regional Private Sewer Lateral Program: Presentation to Real Estate Professionals Information Meeting, December 10, 2013. www.eastbaypsl.com/eastbaypsl/doc/REPInfo.pdf Effert, D., J. Morand, and M. Cashell, 1985. Field performance of three onsite effluent polishing units. In Proc. 4th Nat. Symposium on individual and small community sewage systems, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. pp. 351-361. Ellis, J.B., 2001. Sewer performance: inflow, infiltration and exfiltration. In: Proceedings of the INTERURBA II Conference, Session on Interactions between sewers, treatment plants and receiving water in urban areas. Lisbon, Portugal, February 19-22, 2001. Feth, J.H., 1966 Nitrogen Compounds in Natural Water--A Review. Water Resources Research, 2(1): 41–58. Hansel, M.J., and R.E. Machmeier, 1980. On-site Wastewater Treatment on Problem Soils. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 52(3): 548–558. Helsel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch, 1992. Statistical Methods in Water Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Elsevier Science Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2254 Iwamura, T.I.. 1980. Saltwater Intrusion Investigation in the Santa Clara County Baylands Area, California, Santa Clara Valley Water District Report. Kaplan, O.B., 1991. Septic Systems Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Karpf, C. and Krebs, P., 2004. Application of the leakage model to assess exfiltration. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling, Dresden 2004, pp. 217–224. Kopp, K., and K. Guillard, 2005. Clipping Contributions to Nitrate Leaching from Creeping Bentgrass Under Varying Irrigation and N Rates. University of Connecticut Digital Commons. Plant Science Articles. Paper 12. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/plsc_articles/12 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 94 LAFCO, 2011. Santa Clara Countywide Water Service Review Public Review Draft http://www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov/service_reviews/water_2011_publicdraft/SC_Water_MSR_Public_Rev iew_Draft_resized.pdf Lowe, K.; Rothe, N., Tomaras, J., DeJong, K., Tucholke, M., Drewes, J., McCray, J., and Munakata- Marr, J., 2007. Influent Constituent Characteristics of the Modern Waste Stream. from Single Sources: Literature Review. WERF, 04-DEC-1. 89pg. PDF available at: www.ndwrcdp.org/publications Malone, R.W., N. Huth, P.S., Carberry, L. Ma, T.C. Kaspar, D.L. Karlen, T. Meade, R.S. Kanwar, and P. Heilman. 2007. Evaluating and predicting agricultural management effects under tile drainage using modified apsim. Geoderma 140:310-322. McCloskey, T. F. and Finnemore, E. J., 1995, Estimating Hydraulic Conductivities in an Alluvial Basin from Sediment Facies Models. Vol.34, No.6-Ground Water November-December 1995. McCracken, D.V., M.S. Smith, J.H. Grove, C.T. MacKown, and R.L. Blevins, 1994. Nitrate leaching as influenced by cover cropping and nitrogen source. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1476–1483. Meisinger, J.J., and G.W. Randall, 1991. Estimating Nitrogen Budgets for Soil-Crop Systems. In: R.F. Follett, D.R. Keeney, and R.M. Cruse (eds.), Managing Nitrogen for Groundwater Quality and Farm Profitability. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 85-124. Metcalf & Eddy, 1972. Wastewater Engineering: collection, treatment, disposal. McGraw Hill, New York. Metzger, L.F., and Fio, J.L., 1997. Ground-Water Development and the Effects on Ground – Water Levels and Water Quality in the Town of Atherton, San Mateo County, California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4033. U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. Milly, et al., 2008. Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science, February, 2008: Vol. 319 no. 5863 pp. 573-574. NADP, 2012. National Atmospheric Deposition Program Database. http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ Accessed June 14, 2012. NCCE (North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service), 2008. Nutrient Removal by Crops in North Carolina. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/Soilfacts/ag-439-16W.pdf Newhouse M.W., Hanson R.T., Wentworth C.M., Everett R. R., Williams C.F., Tinsley J.C., Noce T.E., and Carkin B.A., 2004, Geologic, Water-Chemistry, and Hydrologic Data from Multiple-Well Monitoring Sites and Selected Water-Supply Wells in the Santa Clara Valley, California, 1999–2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5250, USGS. Otis, RJ., Boyle, W.C., and Sauer, D.K., 1975. The performance of household wastewater treatment units under field conditions. Proc. National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium., ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. 191- 201. Panno, S.V., Kelly, W.R., Martinsek, A.T., and Hackley, K.C., 2006. Estimating Background and Threshold Nitrate Concentrations Using Probability Graphs. GROUND WATER, September–October 2006, 44(5):697–709. Popkin, R.A., and Bendixen, T.W., 1968. Improved Subsurface Disposal. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation Vol. 40(8):1499–1514. RMC Water and Environment, 2011. South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study. http://www.sawpa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/05/Task-2-Source-Loading-TM_20110812-2.pdf Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 95 RMC Water and Environment, 2012. Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. Final Report, March, 2012. Prepared for City of Santa Rosa. SCVURPPP, 2006. Water Quality Monitoring and Watershed Assessment. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/pdfs/0506/monitoring%20factsheet.pdf SCVWD, 1994. Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study – Nitrate Source Area Identification. Santa Clara Valley Water District. SCVWD, 1996, Llagas Subbasin Nitrate Study Final Report. Santa Clara Valley Water District. SCVWD, 2006. Pilot water softener rebate program, final report. Santa Clara Valley Water District. California. Department of Water Resources. SCVWD, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/UWMP2010.aspx SCVWD, 2012 Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx SCVWD, 2013. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2012. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/Clean_Reliable_Water/Where_Does_Your_Water_Come_From/Groundwater/An nual_Groundwater_Report_for_Calendar_Year_2012.aspx SCVWD, 2013a. Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/PAWS2013.aspx SCVWD, 2013b. Preliminary Analysis of Bay Delta Conservation Plan Benefits and Costs to Santa Clara County. Agenda memo to Santa Clara Valley Water Board of Directors, December 9th, 2013. http://cf.valleywater.org/About_Us/Board_of_directors/Board_meetings/_2013_Published_Meetings/PublishedMeetin gs.htm Sidle, R.C. and Kardos, L.T., 1979. Nitrate Leaching in a Sludge-Treated Forest Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. Vol. 43 No. 2, p. 278-282. doi:10.2136/sssaj1979.03615995004300020006x Siegrist R.L., M.D. Witt, and W.C. Boyle. 1976. The Characteristics of Rural Household Wastewater. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 102(3): 533-548. Taylor, J., 2003. Evaluating Groundwater Nitrates from On-Lot Septic Systems, a Guidance Model for Land Planning in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University. WateReuse, 2006 Characterizing and Managing Salinity Loadings in Reclaimed Water Systems. American Water Works Association Research Foundation and WateReuse. http://www.watereuse.org/files/images/91099.pdf Weiss, S., 1999. Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies: Nitrogen Deposition and Management of Nutrient-Poor Grasslands for a Threatened Species. Conservation Biology 13(6):1476–1486. SWRCB, 2010. State Water Resources Control Board, Groundwater Information Sheet: Salinity. Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program. Taylor, J., 2003. Evaluating Groundwater Nitrates from On-Lot Septic Systems, a Guidance Model for Land Planning in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State University. Todd Groundwater/Kennedy Jenks, 2010, Groundwater Vulnerability Study Santa Clara, California http://www.valleywater.org/Services/GroundwaterStudies.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 96 Todd Groundwater, 2014. Salt and Nutrient Management Plan: Llagas Subbasin. October, 2014. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Tonnesen, G., Wang, Z, Omary, M., and Chien, C.J., 2007. Assessment of Nitrogen Deposition: Modeling and Habitat Assessment CEC PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC -500-2005- 032. UCD, 2002. Practical Lawn Fertilization. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8065. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/ UC Davis, 2012. Nitrogen Sources and Loading to Groundwater, Technical Report 2, Assessing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water, With a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater: Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature. US EPA, 1993, Ground Water Resource Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, October 1993. EPA 813-R-93-003. US EPA, 2006, Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA Quality System Series documents, QA/G-4. Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C., February 2006. EPA/240/B-06/001. Washington Department of Ecology, 2000. Nitrogen Use by Crops and the Fate of Nitrogen in the Soil and Vadose Zone – A Literature Search. Washington State University and Washington Department of Ecology, Interagency Agreement No. C9600177, Publication No. 00-10-015 Wistrom, A., Rohwer, B., Lynch, A., Lynch, S., 2006. Salinity Impacts to Water Recycling in Southern California. Presentation to the WEFTEC 2006 Conference, October 21-25, 2006. Dallas, Texas. Water Environment Foundation. www.WEFTEC.org Zhan, H., and Mackay, W.A., 1998. An Assessment of Nitrate Occurrence and Transport in Washoe Valley, Nevada. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience IV(4):479–489. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 97 SNMP GLOSSARY acre-foot – the amount covering one acre to a depth of one foot, equal to 43,560 cubic feet (325,850 gallons) advanced treatment – treatment techniques such as microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and UV disinfection to produce highly-purified (near distilled quality) recycled water anti-degradation analysis – an analysis to demonstrate that existing high quality water will be maintained, or that any change to existing water quality will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water, and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies aquitard – A layer of low-permeability soil (e.g. a clay) that retards but does not prevent the flow of water to or from an adjacent aquifer assimilative capacity – the capacity for a water body to absorb constituents without exceeding a water quality objectives bio-swale –landscape elements designed to remove silt and pollution from surface runoff water confined aquifer – an aquifer that is overlain by a low permeability, confining layer, often made up of clay. The groundwater below the confining layer is under pressure greater than atmospheric and if penetrated with a well, the water level can rise above the top of the aquifer constituents of emerging concern (emerging contaminants) – a broad range of unregulated chemical components found at trace levels in many of our water supplies, including surface water, drinking water, wastewater, and recycled water conveyance losses – the combined volume of real losses from retailer distribution systems and regional transmission losses denitrification – the microbially facilitated process of nitrate reduction that may ultimately produce molecular nitrogen (N2) through a series of intermediate gaseous nitrogen oxide products disinfection byproducts – chemicals formed when disinfectants used in water treatment plants react with bromide and/or natural organic matter present in the source water. Disinfection byproducts for which regulations have been established fpr drinking water, include trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, bromate, and chlorite drainage losses – the combined quantity of water from sewer line exfiltration, storm drain exfiltration, and septic tank leach field effluent effective porosity – the volume of pore space that will drain in a reasonable period of time under the influence of gravity endocrine disruptors – chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 98 gaining stream – a stream whose flow increases in the downstream direction due to the discharge of groundwater into the streambed groundwater basin/subbasin – an area underlain by permeable materials capable of furnishing a significant supply of groundwater to wells or storing a significant amount of water. A groundwater basin is three-dimensional and includes both the surface extent and all of the subsurface fresh water yielding material groundwater divide – the boundary between two adjacent groundwater basins, which is represented by a high point in the water table groundwater recharge reuse – use of recycled water for groundwater recharge projects. Hetch-Hetchy system – the water system constructed and owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission that serves water from Hetch-Hetchy reservoir in the Sierra Nevada mountains to Milpitas, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University, in addition to San Francisco and numerous other municipalities inelastic land subsidence – permanent subsidence that results when sediments are compressed beyond their previous maximum effective stress, which generally occurs when groundwater levels decline past historic low levels land subsidence – the gradual settling of the land surface owing to compaction of aquifer materials managed aquifer recharge – the practice of artificially increasing the amount of water that enters a groundwater reservoir by diverting water to percolation ponds and timing reservoir releases to optimize in-stream recharge mountain front recharge – subsurface inflows from bedrock in the hills surrounding the Santa Clara Plain, and inflow from uncontrolled reaches of streams permeability – a measure of how well porous soil or bedrock can transmit water or other fluids personal care products – consumer products including fragrances, topical agents such as cosmetics and sunscreens, laundry and cleaning products; and all the “inert” ingredients that are part of these products saline intrusion – movement of saline water into aquifers, most often due to the incursion of saline water in the lower reaches of creeks in the Santa Clara Plain San Felipe Project – the San Felipe Division of the federal Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project, includes the Santa Clara Valley. The project delivers 132,400 acre-feet of water annually for municipal and industrial use to users in Santa Clara and San Benito counties sewer line exfiltration – movement of wastewater outside sewer pipes into soil and groundwater due to defects in sewer pipe materials, construction, or due to damage storage capacity – the amount of groundwater of suitable quality that can be economically withdrawn from storage within economic, institutional, physical, and/or chemical constraints total dissolved solids – represents the total concentration of dissolved substances in water. TDS is made up of inorganic salts, as well as a small amount of organic matter. Common inorganic salts that can be found in water include calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium, Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 99 which are all cations, and carbonates, nitrates, bicarbonates, chlorides and sulfates, which are all anions. Cations are positively charged ions and anions are negatively charged ions unconfined aquifer – an aquifer that is open to receive water from the surface, and whose water table surface is free to fluctuate up and down, depending on the recharge/discharge rate. There are no overlying "confining beds" of low permeability to physically isolate the groundwater system water banking – the practice of forgoing water deliveries during certain periods, and “banking” either the right to use the forgone water in the future, or saving it for someone else to use in exchange for a fee or delivery in kind Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A1-1 APPENDIX 1 – Recycled Water Policy State Water Resources Control Board Recycled Water Policy and Amendments Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-1 APPENDIX 2 – Groundwater Management Plan Groundwater Management Plan Basin Management Objectives and Strategies Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-2 Figure 43 – District Board Policy Framework Board Ends Policies (Goals and Objectives) Board direction as to the intended results, organizational products, impacts, benefits, outcomes, recipients, and their relative worth. District Mission The mission of the District is a healthy, safe, and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara County through the comprehensive management of water resources in a practical, cost-effective, and environmentally-sensitive manner. CEO Interpretations Chief Executive Officer direction regarding strategies to achieve the Board Ends Policies and outcome measures to gauge performance in meeting the Ends. District Act The Act grants the District specified authority related to the management of water for all beneficial uses and protection from flooding in Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-3 Figure 44 – Relation Between District Policy and 2012 GWMP A-1.2 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Using the District’s overall water supply management objectives, the following basin management objectives (BMOs) were developed: BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including saltwater intrusion. These BMOs describe the overall goals of the District’s groundwater management program. The rationale and meaning of these objectives, as well as their relationship to District policies, are discussed below. Water Supply Reliability and Minimization of Land Subsidence (BMO 1) BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. The District relies on groundwater for a significant portion of the county’s water supply, particularly in South County where groundwater provides more than 95% of supply for all beneficial uses and 100% of the drinking water supply. Local groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by the District’s comprehensive water supply management activities in order to reliably meet the needs of county residents, businesses, agriculture and the environment. The District relies on the Board Ends Policies Basin Management Objectives Strategies Outcome Measures Basin Management Strategies Outcome Measures District Board Policy 2012 GWMP CEO Interpretations Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-4 conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water to meet the county’s water demands now and in the future. The District’s goal of minimizing land subsidence is combined with the water supply reliability goal since the actions taken to address one also addresses the other. Significant historical land subsidence due to groundwater overdraft was essentially halted by about 1970 through the District’s expanded conjunctive use programs, which allowed groundwater levels to recover substantially. The avoidance of inelastic (or permanent) land subsidence has been a major driver for the District over its history given the extremely high costs associated with reduced carrying capacity of flood control structures, damage to infrastructure, and saltwater intrusion. BMO 1 reflects the District’s integrated approach to water supply reliability and commitment to minimizing land subsidence and is consistent with the following Board policies: Board Water Supply Goal 2.1: Current and future water supply for municipalities, industries, agriculture, and the environment is reliable. Board Water Supply Objective 2.1.1: Aggressively protect groundwater from the threat of contamination and maintain and develop groundwater to optimize reliability and to minimize land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. Groundwater Quality Protection (BMO 2) BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including saltwater intrusion. While surface water goes through significant treatment processes before being served as drinking water, groundwater in this county typically does not require wellhead treatment before being served. Although the District does not serve groundwater directly to consumers, as the local groundwater management agency the District works to help ensure that the groundwater used by the residents and businesses of Santa Clara County is of reliably high quality. In highly urbanized areas such as the Bay Area, there are numerous threats to groundwater quality including urban runoff, industrial chemicals, and underground storage tanks. Residential and agricultural use of pesticides and nitrogen-based fertilizers can also impact groundwater quality. Although the process of moving through soil layers provides some filtration of water, this natural process is not effective for all contaminants. Groundwater degradation may lead to costly treatment or even make groundwater unusable, resulting in the need for additional supplies. Preventing groundwater contamination is more cost effective than cleaning up polluted groundwater, a process that can take many decades or longer depending on the nature and extent of the contamination. Notable contamination sites in the county requiring significant groundwater cleanup include large solvent releases at the IBM and Fairchild sites in south San Jose in the 1980s, and the Olin perchlorate release in Morgan Hill, which was discovered in the early 2000s. Historically, saltwater intrusion has been observed in the shallow aquifer adjacent to San Francisco Bay during periods of higher groundwater pumping and land subsidence. Significant increases in groundwater pumping or sea level rise due to climate change could potentially lead to renewed saltwater intrusion. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-5 The goal of the District’s groundwater quality protection programs is to ensure that groundwater is a viable water supply for current and future beneficial uses. In addition to the primary deep drinking water aquifers, the District works to protect the quality of all aquifers in the subbasins, including shallow groundwater, as these are potential future sources for drinking water or other beneficial use. Section 5 of the District Act authorizes the District to prevent the pollution and contamination of District surface water and groundwater supplies. BMO 2 is consistent with the District Act and with Board Water Supply Objective 2.1.1. A-2.3 Basin Management Strategies The basin management strategies are the methods that will be used to meet the BMOs. Many of these strategies have overlapping benefits to groundwater resources, acting to improve water supply reliability, minimize subsidence, and protect groundwater quality. The strategies are listed below and are also described in detail in this section. 1. Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize saltwater intrusion and land subsidence. 2. Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. 3. Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. 4. Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. Strategy 1: Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize saltwater intrusion and land subsidence. The District relies on groundwater subbasins to help meet water demands, naturally transmit water over a wide area, and provide critical storage reserves for emergencies such as droughts or other outages. Because groundwater pumping far exceeds what is replenished naturally, the District manages groundwater and surface water in conjunction to ensure the groundwater subbasins remain an important component in meeting current and future water demands. Maintaining the District’s comprehensive managed recharge program using both local and imported waters is critical to sustaining groundwater supplies. This requires maintaining water supply sources and existing recharge facilities as well as developing additional recharge facilities to help support future needs as identified in the District’s Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan. Currently, several of the District reservoirs have restricted storage capacity due to limitations imposed by Division of Safety of Dam (DSOD). Resolving dam safety issues that currently restrict reservoir storage is also an important component of this strategy. Just as important as direct recharge are the availability of SFPUC supplies to the county, the District’s treated water deliveries, water conservation and water recycling programs, which serve as in-lieu recharge by reducing groundwater demands. Together these programs help to Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-6 maintain adequate groundwater storage, keep groundwater levels above subsidence thresholds, and maintain flow gradients toward San Francisco Bay. This, in turn, supports groundwater pumping and minimizes risks related to land subsidence and saltwater intrusion. The District’s managed recharge and in-lieu programs are described in detail in Chapter 4 and specific outcome measures related to groundwater levels and storage are discussed in Chapter 6. Strategy 2: Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. Groundwater in Santa Clara County is generally of very high quality, with few public water systems requiring wellhead treatment prior to delivery to customers. The District evaluates groundwater quality and potential threats so that changes in groundwater quality can be detected and appropriate action can be taken to protect the quality of groundwater resources. This includes assessing regional conditions and trends, evaluating threats to groundwater quality including emerging contaminants, conducting technical studies such as vulnerability assessments, and implementing strategies to protect groundwater from contaminant sources. Groundwater protection programs are described in detail in Chapter 4 and specific outcome measures related to groundwater quality are presented in Chapter 6. Strategy 3: Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. Comprehensive monitoring programs provide critical data to understand groundwater conditions and support operational decisions, including the timing and location of managed recharge. The District has implemented programs to regularly monitor groundwater levels, groundwater quality (including monitoring near recycled water irrigation sites), recharge water quality, surface water flow, and land subsidence. Local water retailers also collect groundwater quality data for compliance with California Department of Public Health regulations and monitor groundwater levels. Data from these programs is essential to evaluating current conditions, preventing groundwater overdraft and subsidence, and measuring the effectiveness of basin management programs and activities. These monitoring programs and related monitoring protocols are described in Chapter 5. The District has also developed models to support operational decisions and long-term planning. These include operational and water supply system models, as well as models specific to groundwater. The District has developed calibrated flow models for the Santa Clara Plain, Coyote Valley, and the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin, which are used to evaluate groundwater storage and levels under various operational and hydrologic conditions. These models are used to support ongoing water supply operational decisions as well as long-term planning efforts. Maintaining calibrated models that can reasonably forecast groundwater conditions is critical to the District’s comprehensive groundwater management strategy. Strategy 4: Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. Since the 1950s, land use in the Santa Clara Plain has changed from largely rural and agricultural to a highly developed urban area. The increased amount of land covered by impervious materials has increased runoff and reduced natural recharge. Although not as urbanized as the Santa Clara Plain, the Llagas Groundwater Subbasin serves the growing cities Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-7 of Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and significant development has been considered in the Coyote Valley. This strategy calls for working with land use agencies to maximize natural recharge by protecting groundwater recharge areas and supporting the use of low-impact development. Increased urbanization also increases the risk of contamination particularly in groundwater recharge areas, which are more vulnerable due to the presence of highly permeable sediments. The District coordinates with land use agencies with regard to potentially contaminating land use activities and resource protection. Regulatory agencies also play a critical role in groundwater protection with regard to the establishment of water quality objectives and the cleanup of contaminated sites. The District will continue to work with these agencies and identify opportunities for enhanced cooperation to minimize impacts from existing contamination and prevent additional contamination from occurring. This includes the development of technical studies, participation in policy development, and coordination on proposed development. The relationship between the basin management objectives, strategies, and related programs and activities, is shown below in Figure 17. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A2-8 Figure 45 – Relation Between Basin Management Objectives, Strategies, and Programs Basin Management Objectives BMO 1: Groundwater supplies are managed to optimize water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence. BMO 2: Groundwater is protected from existing and potential contamination, including salt water intrusion. Basin Management Strategies 1. Manage groundwater in conjunction with surface water through direct and in-lieu recharge programs to sustain groundwater supplies and to minimize salt water intrusion and land subsidence. 2. Implement programs to protect or promote groundwater quality to support beneficial uses. 3. Maintain and develop adequate groundwater models and monitoring systems. 4. Work with regulatory and land use agencies to protect recharge areas, promote natural recharge, and prevent groundwater contamination. Programs and Activities (Chapter 4) Programs to maintain water supply reliability and minimize land subsidence Programs to protect groundwater quality Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A3-1 APPENDIX 3 – Groundwater Monitoring Plan SNMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 1 APPENDIX 4 – Groundwater Quality Management Local Government Groundwater Quality Management Program Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 2 Groundwater Quality Management Programs Salt and nitrate loading projections show that the average basin concentrations of TDS and nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley comply with the RWQCB’s Basin Plan Objectives throughout the 25-year evaluation period. Nitrate concentrations are projected to decrease in both the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. Salt concentrations (as TDS) are projected to decrease in Coyote Valley, but will increase in the Santa Clara Plain at a rate of approximately 1.1 mg/L/year, while Basin Plan Objectives are not projected to be exceeded through 2035. Accordingly, Implementation Measures are not required for the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin SNMP. Good groundwater management practice includes programs that can proactively protect groundwater quality from salt loading in the long term and there are a variety of programs and policies that cause a net reduction in salt loading. This section describes programs that have the added benefit of groundwater quality protection by limiting or reducing salt loading. Developing a quantitative enumeration of the reduction in salt loading attributable to each activity is a major undertaking that is made difficult by the inherent uncertainties of future projections. Accordingly, a qualitative description of these activities is provided. The benefit of the water quality protection programs described below is incorporated into the projections for future assimilative capacity. A-4.1 Existing Programs and Activities that Mitigate Salt and Nutrient Loading Existing programs can be categorized by the medium from which they reduce salt loading, which correlates to Figure 15 (Relationship of Salt and Nutrient Sources to Groundwater). For example, surface water management activities include stormwater management and conjunctive use. Wastewater management includes pretreatment programs and improvements to recycled water quality. Groundwater quality programs can include groundwater quality monitoring and reducing direct loading to groundwater from lawn and garden fertilizers. Water quality protection activities are described in more detail in the following sections. A-4.1.1 Surface Water Programs Programs, policies, and activities that improve the quality of surface water that infiltrates to groundwater are listed below: • Construction stormwater management. • Mitigation of drainage impacts from new developments (low impact development). • Enforcement of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements (e.g., eliminating non-stormwater discharges to storm drains). • Rainwater capture, storage, and infiltration. The majority of the programs that reduce salt and nitrate loading are required by or addressed in the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) issued in October 2009. The cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara County, have joined together to form the Santa Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 3 Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). SCVURPPP’s goals include prohibiting non-stormwater discharges and reducing pollutants in stormwater runoff, as well as administering compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit. The SCVURPPP program has been operating since 1990 and continues to promote awareness of and compliance with the MRP requirements. The centerpiece of the SCVURPPP program is the Watershed Watch Campaign, a multi-year education and outreach effort designed to increase the public’s awareness of urban runoff issues including pollution prevention. SCVURPP also provides on-line resources such as guidance on low impact development (LID), rainwater harvesting, and contractor compliance with stormwater management requirements. All of the cities in the Santa Clara Plain participate in and promote the SCVURPPP programs. Because stormwater recharges groundwater, improvements to stormwater quality can decrease salt and nitrate loading to groundwater. The cities and towns in the Santa Clara Plain have codified requirements for stormwater pollution prevention. Many of these municipal codes require permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures for development and redevelopment projects that will reduce water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the site for the life of the project. For example, the City of Mountain View has published Storm Water Quality Guidelines for Development Projects. Similar requirements are included in the municipal codes and city policies as listed in Table 44, below. The cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and Los Gatos formed the West Valley Clean Water Program to reduce pollutants in storm drain discharges and maximize the effectiveness of pollution prevention efforts by the four West Valley Communities. Table 44 – Example City Requirements for Stormwater Pollution Prevention City Requirement Reference San Jose Minimize and treat stormwater runoff from new/re- development projects per MRP: use LID Council Policy 6-29 Milpitas Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Muni Code Ch 16 Santa Clara Control of unauthorized discharges City Code Ch 13.20 Sunnyvale Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control: LID reqs. Muni Code Ch12.60 Mountain View Stormwater Treatment at New/Redevelopment Projects Muni Code Ch 35.34 Palo Alto Treat storm water runoff using LID techniques Muni Code Ch 16.11 Los Altos Treatment of stormwater runoff with LID measures, including rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapo- transpiration or biotreatment Muni Code Ch 10.16 Cupertino Discharge to storm drains prohibited Storm Water Prevention Plan (SWPPP) http://www.cleancreeks.org/ Cupertino Muni Code 9.18.040, 9.18.090; Los Gatos Muni Code Ch. 12; Saratoga Campbell Los Gatos Individual City Stormwater Requirements may include extensive measures to protect stormwater quality. For example, the City of Mountain View requires the following: • Development projects shall submit a stormwater management plan in accordance with the city's guidelines. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 4 • Property owners must ensure that permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures are inspected twice annually to ensure they are working properly, and written inspection must be submitted to the city annually (an enforceable requirement). • The city has the right of entry to inspect and repair stormwater pollution prevention measures. New development and redevelopment projects that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface are required to implement Low Impact Development site design, source control, and treatment measures to address stormwater runoff pollutants and prevent increases in runoff flows. In addition, projects that add or replace one acre or more of impervious surface are required to include hydromodification control measures. These requirements limit post-project runoff to the estimated pre-project runoff rates and durations. Stormwater treatment and site design measures, such as grassy swales, bioretention, and detention in landscaping all help to detain and infiltrate increased flows. To gauge the effectiveness of stormwater pollution prevention measures, SCVURPPP conducts a range of surface water quality monitoring activities at varying spatial scales. These include studies designed to assess water quality and beneficial uses in local creeks and the San Francisco Bay, and loading studies to evaluate the proportion of pollutants entering the Bay from local tributaries. Studies on local water bodies are typically conducted through the Program's Multi-Year Monitoring Program. Monitoring activities are conducted to evaluate pollutant loading to San Francisco Bay. These studies are conducted through regional partnerships (e.g., the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality).26 The Multi-Year Monitoring Program has collected and analyzed screening level water quality monitoring data from 73 creek sites located within the Santa Clara Plain in the last ten years. Water samples were analyzed for conventional water quality parameters, chemical pollutants (metals and organic contaminants), aquatic toxicity, and pathogen indicators (SCVURPPP, 2006). A-4.1.2 Stormwater Infiltration Devices Low-impact development initiatives often promote design with stormwater infiltration devices to reduce runoff and increase groundwater recharge. Stormwater infiltration devices such as dry wells and infiltration basins help to reduce runoff to creeks that carries pollutants to the bay. However, these devices also have the potential to introduce pollutants to groundwater. Dry wells may be constructed to penetrate saturated aquifers, eliminating the benefit of soil filtration that removes some dissolved constituents. Infiltration basins that are excavated to a depth that penetrates the saturated zone may also introduce salts and nutrients to groundwater. Other stormwater infiltration devices, such as bio-swales, are designed to enhance filtration of stormwater before it percolates to groundwater. While bio-swales may facilitate precipitation or adsorption of metals, oil and grease, these structures can be expected to transmit dissolved salts and nitrate (with some nitrate attenuation). The Federal Clean Water Act requires local municipalities to implement measures to control pollution from their storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. Under the auspices of the Clean Water Act, the San Francisco RWQCB issued an area-wide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES MS4) to the fifteen co-permittees of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) for the discharge 26 http://www.sfei.org/node/1074 Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 5 of storm water from urban areas in Santa Clara County. The fifteen SCVURPPP co-permittees are the thirteen municipalities within the Santa Clara Basin watershed area27, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The SCVURPPP Permit requires each of the co-permittees to ensure the reduction of pollutant discharges from development projects through incorporation of treatment and other appropriate source control and site design measures. The SCVURPPP NPDES Permit establishes minimum design criteria and maintenance requirements in certain types of development projects. In order to protect groundwater from pollutants that may be present in urban runoff, treatment control measures such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins must meet the following conditions: a. Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to the extent necessary to protect groundwater quality at sites where infiltration devices are to be used. b. Infiltration devices may not contribute to degradation of groundwater quality. c. Infiltration devices must be adequately maintained to maximize pollutant removal capabilities. d. The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater must be at least 10 feet. e. Unless storm water is first treated by a means other than infiltration, infiltration devices may not be used in areas of: • industrial or light industrial activity; • areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic on main roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting roadway); • automotive repair shops, car washes, fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); • nurseries; • any other land use or activity which may pose a high threat to groundwater quality, as designated by the City. f. Infiltration devices must be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any known water supply wells. The SCVURPPP Permit is available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/R2-2009- 0074_Revised.pdf In 2012, the District partnered with SCVURPPP to develop updated stormwater infiltration device standards for the Regional NPDES stormwater permit. The standards are included in Appendix A of the C.3 Stormwater Handbook.28 27 Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, and the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 6 A-4.1.3 Water Conservation Programs A major source of salt loading identified in Section 3.2.1.7 is landscape irrigation. Due to evaporation, the TDS concentration in irrigated water is effectively concentrated as much as ten-fold and nearly all of the salt in irrigated water ultimately migrates to groundwater . Therefore, conservation of outdoor irrigation water has a direct effect on reducing salt loading. The District Board of Directors established Water Supply Objective (E-2.1.5) to “maximize water use efficiency, water conservation and demand management opportunities.” The District CEO has also established a specific Outcome Measure (OM 2.1.5.a) for this objective, which aims to conserve at least 98,000 AF/yr by the year 2030. Indoor and outdoor water conservation is already a core stratagem for managing water supply reliability however, most water conservation savings have been realized from indoor water conservation measures. As discussed in 3.3.5.4, one consequence of indoor conservation is higher TDS and nitrate in wastewater. When indoor water conservation measures are employed (e.g., shorter showers, low-flush toilets), salt and nitrate added to wastewater through household activities is dissolved into a smaller volume of water, with a corresponding increase in salt and nitrate concentration. As a result, the TDS and nitrate concentrations of tertiary- treated recycled water are increased. Outdoor water conservation includes replacing water intensive lawns and gardens with drought- resistant native plants that require substantially less water, improving efficiency of lawn sprinklers, promoting weather-based irrigation controllers, and other measures. For example, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), comprised of cities whose water is supplied in part by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, hosts workshops on sustainable landscaping, water-use efficiency in the landscape, use of California native and drought tolerant plants, alternatives to lawns, water efficient irrigation practices, and more.29 An added benefit to replacing lawns with native or drought-tolerant plants is to reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental fertilizers, which cause salt and nitrate loading to groundwater. The Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Jose Water Company offer residents free “water- wise house calls” in which an inspector advises homeowners of opportunities to save water, including evaluating the efficiency of sprinkler systems, issuing an individualized irrigation schedule, identifying irrigation leaks, broken or mismatched sprinkler heads, and other common irrigation problems. For example, in 2012, San Jose Water Company completed 1,936 water use audits, including: • 1,045 Single Family residential; • 400 landscape only; • 59 indoor only; • 242 multi-family residential; • 35 commercial; • 155 dedicated irrigation sites. 28 http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_A-Infiltration_Guidelines_2012.pdf 29 The Cities participating in BAWSCA include Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Purissima Hills Water District, and Stanford University. The sustainable landscaping Green Gardner Program is described here: http://www.mywatershedwatch.org/greengardener.html. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 7 The San Jose Water Company and Santa Clara Valley Water District have also created demonstration gardens at their campuses to educate homeowners on landscape design with drought tolerant native plants. The District also operates a Landscape Rebate Program, in which residents and businesses can receive rebates for upgrading irrigation hardware, installing weather-based irrigation controllers, and replacing high-water using landscape with qualifying low-water using plants. The District is currently planning a Landscape Water Use Evaluation Program, which will provide real-time water use reports comparing actual water usage against a recommended water budget to large landscape sites. On-site surveys will be performed as needed. The estimated savings from outdoor water conservation programs operated by the District in 2012 is 1,200 AF/yr. The projected savings from District managed outdoor water conservation for 2030 is 10,300 AF, which would avert future TDS loading of about 4,000 tons salt per year. Gray water (non-toilet wastewater, i.e., from washing machines, dishwashers, showers and baths, kitchen sink water, etc.) is another potential source of irrigation water. The District is promoting gray water use through a rebate program that funds installation of systems that take washing machine effluent directly into drip irrigation systems. The program is limited in scope and is expected to decrease the demand for outdoor irrigation water by 300 AF, depending on the extent of homeowner participation. While gray water displaces retailer water now used for outdoor irrigation, it has higher TDS than the water it is displacing. Household wastewater typically has TDS that is ~200 mg/L higher than the source water (Kaplan, 1991). Of the sources of TDS in wastewater, 42% comes from washing machines using conventional detergents (Siegrist et al., 1976). On this basis, 300 AF/yr of graywater use would add ~34 tons of salt/year. However, best management practices for graywater systems include promoting low-salt detergents. Therefore, at the subbasin scale, TDS loading from graywater use is expected to be negligible for the volumes considered in the District’s graywater system rebate program. A-4.1.4 Groundwater Management Programs Several groundwater management programs and policies decrease salt and nitrate loading or increase recharge with water that is low in salts and nitrates. A wide range of existing programs that focus on other objectives is aligned with loading reduction and increased recharge of high quality water. A-4.1.4.1 Composting Composting greenwaste generated from gardening activities and then adding compost to soil lowers the plant demand for fertilizers. While compost is not itself a fertilizer, soils amended with compost have improved capacity for storing nutrients for gradual release. Compost added to soil also improves soil water retention capacity, thereby reducing demand for irrigation water. Mulch also serves to conserve irrigation water for landscaping. Increasing the use of compost and mulch in gardens is the goal of several outreach programs, which have the joint objective of reducing solid waste generation. Table 45 lists some of the ongoing compost and mulch outreach programs. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 8 Table 45 – Compost and Mulch Programs in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin Jurisdiction Program Link SCVURPPP + Solid Waste Programs Eco-Gardeners Program http://www.bayareaecogardens.o rg/ City of Palo Alto Garden Workshops – Composting http://www.cityofpaloalto.org City of Mountain View Composting & Yard Trimmings Program http://www.ci.mtnview.ca.us City of Sunnyvale Monthly Home Composting Workshops www.recycling.insunnyvale.com City of Santa Clara Partners with County of Santa Clara Master Composter Program http://www.sccgov.org/sites/iwm/ hc/Pages/How-to-Compost.aspx City of San Jose Composting classes and bin sales http://www.sanjoseca.gov/calend ar.aspx City of Milpitas Partners with County of Santa Clara Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission Programs http://www.sccgov.org/sites/iwm/ hc/pages/classes.aspx City of Campbell Partners with County of Santa Clara City of Cupertino Free compost; Partners with County of Santa Clara City of Saratoga Compost bin sales and partners with County of Santa Clara City of Morgan Hill Partners with County of Santa Clara A-4.1.4.2 Fertilizer Management Agricultural fertilizer use in the Santa Clara Plain is a minor component of overall estimated nitrate loading (78 tons per year or 8.7%), but is the primary component of nitrate loading estimates for Coyote Valley (117 tons per year or 54.8% – see Table 29). Estimated nitrate loading from lawn fertilizer (76 tons per year) makes up 8.4% of nitrate loading in the Santa Clara Plain and 1.4% (3 tons) of nitrate loading in Coyote Valley. Several programs educate homeowners on optimal fertilization rates, timing, and application methods. For example, the Santa Clara County Integrated Pest Management program provides outreach materials for healthy lawn care practices that achieve both fertilizer and irrigation reduction (www.sccgov.org). The Santa Clara County Master Gardeners program conducts similar outreach for “water-wise lawns” (http://www.mastergardeners.org/scc.html). The University of California Cooperative Extension –“Healthy Crops, Safe Water Initiative” promotes reduced agricultural fertilizer use. Some achievements include: • Developed best management practices to minimize nitrate leaching in irrigated crop production. • Developed “nitrate quick test” for managing fertilizer decisions in vegetable production. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 9 • Studying the nitrogen use efficiency of high-nitrogen crops to improve timing of fertilizer application. • Promoting fall-planted non-legume cover crops that can take up in excess of 100 lb N/acre (nitrogen that otherwise could leach to groundwater). In the past, the District operated the Infield Nutrient Assessment Assistance Program (INAAP). The INAAP program provides: • Free testing of agricultural pumps and irrigation systems. • Irrigation scheduling consultation. • Testing and consultation in plant nutrient status and fertilizer management for three years. The program’s objectives were to increase water and nutrient use efficiencies and reduce nitrogen fertilizer loading to groundwater. The program ended in 2008 due to insufficient funding and participation. A-4.1.4.3 Septic Tank Management Effluent from septic tank leach fields adds nitrate and salt to groundwater. About 10% (38 tons) of the estimated nitrate loading in Coyote Valley is from septic tanks, while there are fewer than 100 septic tanks in the Santa Clara Plain. The County of Santa Clara issues septic tank permits. In December, 2013, the County adopted a new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Ordinance (OWTSO), which became effective on December 26, 2013. The OWTSO modernizes construction standards and citing requirements for the disposal of wastewater on site, and allows for alternative treatment technologies. The OWTSO requires applicants to conduct a backhoe excavation to verify the soil profile to a depth of 5 feet below ground surface, and a wet weather groundwater investigation where the water table is high. The County’s septic tank ordinance requires groundwater to be at least 5 feet below the leachfield in soils with moderate percolation rates, and 20 feet in highly permeable soils. For alternative OWTS a 2 to 5-foot separation to groundwater is required. The County has published an extensive Onsite Systems Manual,30 which provides updated information regarding design details and guidelines for conventional and alternative systems, and system operating and monitoring requirements. To the extent that new systems may replace older, conventional systems, some reduction in nitrate loading may be realized. For example, recirculating sand filters (e.g., Venhuizen Standard Denitrifying Sand Filter) can provide additional nitrogen removal, as can aerobic treatment units and alternative media filters. However, the OWTSO does not require that older or failing systems be replaced rather, OWTSO requires that they be repaired. Some homeowners may be motivated to install alternative treatment technologies to address challenging soil conditions, extend the life of the leach field, or to achieve other advantages. Nevertheless, it is difficult to predict the effect that the new OWTSO will have on nitrate loading. 30 http://www.sccgov.org/sites/deh/Consumer%20Protection%20Division/Program%20and%20Services/Land%20Use% 20Program/Pages/Onsite-Wastewaster-Treatment-Systems-Ordinance.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 10 A-4.1.4.4 Livestock Manure Management In addition to onsite wastewater management, many rural residences in Coyote Valley and some parts of the Santa Clara Plain must also deal with livestock wastes. The County has recommended best management practices for mud and manure management to owners of horses, goats, sheep and other livestock (http://livestockandland.org/resources/). The website includes guidance on manure composting, manure management, designing horse paddocks to protect water quality, stormwater management, and more, in both English and Spanish. At Stanford University, the equestrian program includes manure composting and stormwater management. A-4.1.4.5 Groundwater Monitoring Programs As described in Appendix 3, the District operates a county wide groundwater monitoring program that includes analysis for nitrate and TDS. Annual reports include summary statistics by subbasin and trend analyses in individual wells. Monitoring does not in itself change loading, but it is a required element of salt and nutrient management in order to determine the condition of the groundwater basin on an ongoing basis. In addition to gaining a basin-wide understanding of groundwater conditions, it is important for individual domestic well owners to understand the quality of their well water. The District currently operates a free basic water quality-testing program for domestic well owners, which includes analysis of nitrate and has produced a detailed picture of the distribution of nitrate in domestic wells. Results from the domestic well testing program are included in the District’s Annual Groundwater Report. In order to understand the long-term impacts of recycled water on groundwater quality, the District has undertaken two programs to monitor groundwater beneath sites irrigated with recycled water (one in Edenvale/south San Jose and the other at two locations in Gilroy). Shallow monitoring wells are sampled at the Edenvale and Gilroy sites, and groundwater and recycled water are analyzed for TDS and nitrate, as well as a wide range of other constituents associated with recycled water, including constituents of emerging concern. Analyzing the concentration trends of TDS, nitrate, and other constituents over time provides insights to the impact of irrigation with tertiary treated recycled water on shallow groundwater at a local scale. At the San Jose site, this monitoring program may also allow observation of the time lag between initiation of irrigation with lower TDS recycled water (tertiary treated recycled water blended with advanced treated recycled water, TDS of 500 mg/L), and any corresponding changes to groundwater TDS concentrations. Understanding the amount of time needed for groundwater quality to change in response to recycled water application can assist with refining salt loading projections. The City of San Jose has also undertaken long term shallow groundwater monitoring at recycled water irrigation sites, using six shallow monitoring wells installed in 1997, and six deep production wells. Recycled water application at the shallow monitoring well sites began in 1999. Statistical analysis of long term concentration trends is updated periodically based on annual sampling in March each year. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 11 A-4.1.4.6 Drinking Water Source Assessment Program and District Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment The 1996 reauthorization of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) included an amendment requiring states to develop a program to assess sources of drinking water and encouraging states to establish drinking water source protection programs. The Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWSAP) includes delineation of the areas around drinking water sources through which contaminants might move and reach drinking water supplies. The DWSAP includes an inventory of “potentially contaminating activities” (PCAs) that might contribute to the release of contaminants within the delineated area. This enables a determination to be made as to whether the drinking water source might be vulnerable to contamination. The DWSAP was administered by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and implemented by each water retailer. DWSAP guidance identifies PCAs that have the potential to contribute salt or nitrate to groundwater, listed in Table 46. Table 46 – Potentially Contaminating Activities Contributing Salt and Nitrate to Groundwater Potentially Contaminating Activity Nitrate Contribution Salt Contribution Agricultural Drainage   Car Washes  Cement/concrete plants  Food processing plants   Metal plating/finishing/ fabricating  Dairies   Lagoons (for animal waste or irrigation tail water) and Agricultural Drainage   Golf Courses, Parks, Schools, Sports Fields, Cemeteries  Housing (lawn maintenance, swimming pools, etc.)   Landfills, Waste Transfer and Recycling, Composting   Mines/gravel pits  Livestock operations   Irrigated crops   Apartments and condominiums   Sewer Lines and Septic Systems   Groundwater contamination from the above PCAs could result from the misuse and improper disposal of liquid and solid wastes; illegal dumping of household, commercial, or industrial wastes; accidental spills; and ongoing leaching from septic leach fields, construction sites, infiltration of roadway and parking lot runoff, and leaching of fertilizers from farms, landscaping, and lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and sports fields. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 12 The DWSAP does not have an ongoing funding mechanism or mandate to update the inventories of PCAs. The intended benefit of the DWSAP program is to increase public awareness of the interconnection of land use activities and groundwater quality, and for planners to consider groundwater vulnerability in their permitting decisions. In 2010, the District published a comprehensive Groundwater Vulnerability Study for Santa Clara County.31 The study analyzed the two key components of groundwater vulnerability: 1) groundwater sensitivity, and 2) risk from potentially contaminating activities. Four factors were found to be the most important in characterizing groundwater sensitivity. These include 1) soil media characteristics in the unsaturated zone, 2) groundwater recharge, 3) depth to top of well screens, and 4) annual groundwater production. The potentially contaminating activities risk analysis found that large portions of the Santa Clara Plain are at high risk due to the high level of development and many associated industrial and commercial contaminant release sites, along with the lingering impacts of past agricultural releases. Although the confined zone in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin affords relatively good protection from surface contamination, the outer western unconfined zone appears to be highly sensitive to contamination due to the significant groundwater production in this area. Relatively lower overall risks from potentially contaminating activities are associated with the Coyote Valley, which is rural and less developed with far fewer industrial/commercial contaminant release sites. Nonetheless, most of Coyote Valley shows a moderate level of risk associated with irrigated agriculture. Although the risk from potentially contaminating activities is lower than in the Santa Clara Plain, the Coyote Valley exhibits high to very high vulnerability, which is driven by high sensitivity due to high recharge rates and permeable soils. Coyote Valley has the most potential for future development and thus the most potential for an increase in groundwater vulnerability in the future. The Groundwater Vulnerability Study produced a detailed vulnerability map of the study area along with a Geographical Information System (GIS) tool, which allows the District to better focus groundwater management programs and assess potential groundwater quality impacts from future changes in land use. The tool features sensitivity (for Shallow and Principal Aquifers), PCA risk, and vulnerability maps (for Shallow and Principal Aquifers). Additional maps are also provided to enhance the usefulness of the tool. Pull-down menus feature tables with explanatory fields. The tool enables District staff to work interactively with the vulnerability study analysis. The objectives of the tool are to enable District staff to: • Evaluate potential impacts of new developments. • Prioritize basin management activities. • Prioritize oversight of known contamination sites. A-4.1.4.7 Water Distribution System Leak Detection Programs Water utilities and water companies are motivated to locate and correct leaks in water distribution system piping to conserve costs and avoid nuisance conditions and possible secondary damage to streets and landscaping. Most water retailers are prepared to respond to major leaks or breaks 24/7 and are able to be on site within 30-minutes of dispatch. Water distribution piping is subjected to significant stresses that cause leaks to occur relatively frequently. Seven of the 13 water retailers serving the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley 31 http://www.valleywater.org/Services/GroundwaterStudies.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 13 reported the number of water main line and service connection breaks or leaks in the 2011 LAFCO report, “Santa Clara Countywide Water Service Review”. These seven retailers have 130,608 connections, and collectively experienced a total of 273 water main line leaks or breaks and 473 service connection leaks or breaks in 2010 (LAFCO, 2011). Leak detection programs are pursued at the initiative of the water retailers to meet their system management and business needs. For example, the City of Sunnyvale conducted a pilot program to install “Smart Meters” allowing real-time monitoring using web-based analysis tools of water use at parks and City Facilties. The meters allow water use to be optimized, and the data collected to be analyzed to identify leaks. The program identified one leak of 224 gallons per hour (Aquacue, 2011). Other approaches commonly used for leak detection include temporary or permanent installation of acoustic data loggers that can detect leaks based on the sound produced by a leaking pipe. To address leaks detected on privately owned service connections, many cities have Water Waste Ordinances. These ordinances prohibit water waste due to unattended open hoses, broken sprinkler heads or irrigation lines, plumbing leaks, and excessive irrigation running off property or spraying on sidewalks or gutters. Upon detecting a leak or violation, the party who owns the leaking pipe or irrigation system is given notice and a timeframe to correct the problem. Water retailers also have capital improvement plans to periodically replace aging infrastructure. While leak detection programs help to locate and eliminate some system leaks, pipeline replacement with new materials installed using superior construction methods go much further to mitigating salt and nitrate loading from system losses. The District operates 140 miles of pipelines for treated and untreated water. The District’s Leak Detection Program includes continuous 24 hour monitoring of meters on all major conveyance facilities, daily flow records, monthly pipeline inspections, and water balances. Meters are calibrated regularly as part of the District’s Preventative Maintenance Program. Average summertime raw water conveyance through District pipelines is approximately 200 million gallons per day. Flows in major facilities are monitored continuously with a SCADA system at the District's Operations Center and at each of the District's water treatment plants. Technicians and operators perform daily inspections and record metered and gaged flows daily to verify system integrity. Each month the right of way in which facilities are buried is inspected by helicopter for signs of leakage. An overall water balance and a treated water balance is conducted monthly to establish distribution and to identify possible meter problems or leakage. The District operates a facility for meter testing where smaller meters up to 24 inches are tested based upon volume or time period following AWWA standards, larger meters are periodically tested using volumetric methods where feasible, and all meters are calibrated to manufacturer's specifications regularly as part of the District's preventative maintenance program. For the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the California Department of Water Resources is considering several amendments to plan reporting requirements. An Independent Technical Panel on Demand Management Measures released a public draft report to the legislature on Urban Water Management Plan Demand Management Measures Reporting and Requirements (DWR, 2013). The report notes that substantial system losses are commonplace, and recommends that for the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan update, water utilities quantify their distribution system water losses a minimum period of one year prior to 2015. For all subsequent UWMP updates, water utilities would report the distribution system water loss for each of the five years preceding the plan update. If these recommendations are adopted, the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 14 method for quantifying the distribution system water loss would be reported in accordance with a standardized worksheet based on the water system balance methodology (water audit software) developed by the American Water Works Association. Several of the water retailers in the Santa Clara Plain using SFPUC Hetch Hetchy water are already carrying out loss reporting by this standard following best management practices promoted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council.32 A-4.1.4.8 Managing Swimming Pool Water Swimming pools must be drained occasionally to allow pool maintenance. Pool water has elevated chlorine, which converts to chloride and can contribute to salt loading. To prevent discharge to creeks, ordinances and public information campaigns guide the public to discharge to sewer cleanouts instead of storm drains. Because most creeks also recharge groundwater, and sewer lines transmit their contents with only minor losses, mandating sewer line discharge of pool water and prohibiting storm drain discharge of pool water will control and reduce salt loading to groundwater. SCVURPPP has prepared educational brochures to be placed in pool supply stores and community centers. Many city ordinances expressly prohibit the discharge of chlorinated pool water to storm drains. These outreach programs and controls are particularly important in view of the trend toward saltwater swimming pools and chlorine free pool systems that rely on copper and silver biocides and algaecides. A-4.1.4.9 Water Softener Technology Improvements Water softeners that require dosing with salt for regeneration contribute substantial amounts of salt to wastewater, which in turn contributes to higher TDS in recycled water. Most water softeners are ion-exchange resin bed systems. Water softener resin beds exchange sodium or potassium on the resin for magnesium and calcium in the treated water, thereby reducing water hardness. The ongoing exchange increases the total sodium in the wastewater from businesses and homes that use water softeners. Water softening resins use sodium chloride brines for regeneration. The quantity and rate of addition of salt to water softening systems can be used to predict the total loading of salt to the sewer system. Reducing salt use by water softeners is a strategy employed to control the salinity of recycled water. Timer-based water softeners are regenerated twice as often as demand-initiated regenerations, and therefore use twice as much salt. Substituting potassium for sodium can also improve the quality of recycled water, increasing its suitability for landscape irrigation however, the TDS contribution from regenerations would not change signficantly. Rebate programs to motivate replacement of timer-based water softener regeneration with demand-initiated regeneration are effective at lowering both salt discharge to the sewer and total water use. In 2003 and 2004, the District conducted a pilot program to issue rebates to residents who upgrade their water softeners to more efficient models. The pilot program issued rebates for 400 water softeners, saving an estimated 1.2 million gallons per year, and reducing salt discharge by approximately 120 tons per year (SCVWD, 2006). A survey of Santa Clara County residential water use in 2004 found that 17% ( 3.6%) of the 410 single-family residences canvassed and 3% ( 2.3%) of the 187 multi-family residences canvassed used water softeners. The survey identified 71% of single-family residences using self-regenerating water softeners and 40% of multi-family residences using self-regenerating water softeners. Extrapolated over the many single-family and multi-family residences overlying 32 http://www.cuwcc.org/resource-center/resource-center.aspx Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 15 the Santa Clara Plain, there is a large number of water softeners in use, representing a significant potential for reducing wastewater influent salinity content, as enumerated in Table 48. On average, each water softener dischages about 3 pounds salt per day to the sewer (SCVWD, 2006). The City of San Jose commissioned the South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study to assess salt discharges to the sanitary sewer (RMC, 2011). The study included: • Sample collection (composite samples) and laboratory analysis of key industrial dischargers with high flows and/or suspected high salinity discharges. • Continuous conductivity monitoring of the influent flows at the WPCP for a one month period. • Continuous conductivity and flow monitoring (in the collection system) of representative residential and commercial sites around the tributary area to better understand residential consumptive use, residential water softener use, and the commercial contribution of key commercial categories. Conductivity monitors were installed for a one week period at each site. • Hourly composite sample collection and laboratory analysis of TDS at a key pump station in Alviso, using a 24-hour sample collector. Hourly samples were collected for a four day period at the site. The continuous monitoring of wastewater TDS determined that about 70 mg/L of wastewater TDS is contributed by water softener discharges, as depicted in Figure 46 (RMC, 2011). The data show periodic spikes in wastewater TDS concentration which reflect discharges from timer- based water softener regeneration, The 2011 South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study also estimated the total salt discharges to sewers from self-regenerating water softeners. The estimate used three approaches: • Alternative 1: Water Softener Load Based on Survey of Bags of Salt Used Per Month. • Alternative 2: Water Softener Additions Estimated from Collection System Monitoring. • Alternative 3: Water Softener Worksheet Estimate of 35.3 mg/l TDS added area wide. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 16 Figure 46- Interpretation of Continuous Wastewater TDS Monitoring Data (RMC, 2011) The salt discharge estimates from the three methods were integrated with the District’s 2004 survey of water softener use. In conjunction with housing metrics (i.e., single family and multifamily dwelling units) for the City, an estimated 10% of San Jose households in the tributary area are assumed to have self regenerating water softeners (RMC, 2011). The estimate based on survey data for salt use varies substantially from the estimates based on collection system monitoring data and on the water softener worksheet basis: Table 47 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in SJ-SC WPCP Tributary Area Method for Estimating Water Softener Discharge to Sewer Salt Added in SJ-SC WPCP Tributary Area (as TDS) 1. Water Softener Load Based on Survey of Bags of Salt Used Per Month 22,200 tons/yr 2. Water Softener Additions Estimated from Collection System Monitoring 4,200 tons/yr 3. Water Softener Worksheet Estimate of 35.3 mg/l TDS added area wide 4,400 tons/yr Data from RMC 2011. Estimates were carried across 410,546 homes. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 17 The confidence level in all three estimates is low due to the variability of source water quality and numerous variables that impact water softener regeneration however, methods 2 and 3 are in relatively close agreement. The San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (SJ-SC RWF) tributary area covers about three quarters of the area of the Santa Clara Plain. Applying these assumptions for all the households within incorporated cities (and presumably on sewer) for the enitire Santa Clara Plain, gives the following results: Table 48 – Estimates of Water Softener Discharge in Tributary Areas for All 3 POTWs Method for Estimating Water Softener Discharge to Sewer Salt Added in SJ-SC WPCP, Sunnyvale WPCP, and Palo Alto RWQCP Tributary Areas 1. Water Softener Additions Estimated from Collection System Monitoring 5,610 tons/yr 2. Water Softener Worksheet Estimate of 35.3 mg/l TDS added area wide 5,880 tons/yr Based on 548,412 households (US Census 2010 – by city) exclusive of homes on sewer in the unincorporated county areas. This estimate may be in error where homes inside city limits are on septic or where homes in the unincorporated area are connected to sewers. New technology for salt free water softening using physical, rather than chemical methods is now commercially available. Electromagnetic and electrically-induced precipitation devices can reduce scale formation by approximately 50 percent. Another approach called template- assisted crystallization reduces scale formation by greater than 90 percent. While none of the municipalities in Santa Clara County have prohibited conventional water softeners, some communities such as Santa Clarita Valley in southern California have already banned the use of ion exchange water softeners to improve wastewater quality for water reuse applications. The development of viable, salt free alternatives is a critical step toward eliminating brine discharges to wastewater. A few of the commercially available salt free water softeners are listed here:33 • Pelican NaturSoft • Next Filtration Technology – nextScaleStop • LifeSource Water System – ScaleSolver • NuvoH20 – Home Salt-Free Water Softener • Aquasana SimplySoft • Eddy Electronic Descaler • AQUA REX • AQUA EWP • BIOSTAT2000 Industries also use water softeners and reverse osmosis systems to condition water for various industrial applications. Reverse osmosis systems can also be a source of salinity in wastewater because 15 to 20% of the water treated is rejected to the sewer, bearing salts at five to seven times the initial TDS of the source water. Similarly, some cooling towers used in factories and 33 No commercial product endorsement is implied. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has not tested these systems and cannot recommend one system over another. Other systems not listed here may be equally effective. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 18 other facilities discharge evapo-concentrated wastewater that may carry as much as seven times the source water salinity content to the sewer. The 2011 South Bay Water Recycling Salinity Study estimated industrial salt discharge to sewers using data from the 2007 US Economic Census to determine the number of each of these commercial businesses that are located in the tributary area. Water use data from each type of business was obtained from the 2006 City of Santa Clara Sewer Capacity Analysis to estimate average commercial sewer flows by industry type. TDS values for each of the types of commercial businesses were added from 2011 sewer monitoring data, if available, or from the report, “Characterizing and Managing Salinity Loadings in Reclaimed Water Systems” (WateReuse, 2006). Several city ordinances include provisions limiting the discharge of salt to the sewer. For example, the City of Mountain View’s City Code (§35.33.13.3) requires that the average TDS of discharges to the sewer not exceed 5,000 mg/L, and the maximum TDS not exceed 10,000 mg/L. Industrial pretreatment inspections may test for specific conductance or sample for TDS to check for compliance however, compliance testing is not usually conducted for residential dischargers. A-4.2 Future Measures and Activities to Mitigate and Remove Salts and Nutrients Future developments that are incorporated into long range plans or are under consideration can change the S/N balance in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. Over the 25-year planning horizon for SNMP, it is likely that some plans and forecasts will not materialize, while other developments may occur that have not yet been anticipated. This section examines the potential impacts of planned and foreseeable changes to the S/N balance in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. A-4.2.1 Advanced Treatment of Recycled Water Recycled water produced at the South Bay Water Recycling, Sunnyvale WPCP, and Palo Alto RWQCP has TDS ranging from 725 to 865 mg/L. Construction of the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC) adjacent to the SJ-SC RWF was completed in 2013, and the system began operating in March 2014. Plans are under consideration for additional treatment at both the Sunnyvale WPCP and the Palo Alto RWQCP, which will improve the quality of recycled water by lowering TDS. A-4.2.1.1 Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center The SVAWPC is designed to treat tertiary treated recycled water to produce 8 million gallons per day of low-TDS water.34 Salts are removed using micro-filtration and reverse osmosis, and pathogens are removed using ultraviolet light. The highly purified water produced at SVAWPC will have an average TDS concentration of around 40 milligrams per liter. The addition of this purified water to tertiary-treated recycled water from South Bay Water Recycling will reduce the TDS levels from the current average of 725 mg/L to 500 mg/L for irrigation, and to 50 mg/L or less for indirect potable reuse (augmenting managed aquifer recharge). The reduction in TDS from advanced treatment of recycled water for irrigation and indirect potable reuse is incorporated into the assimilative capacity projections presented in Section 3.3.5.3. 34 The 8 MGD figure is the current capacity as constructed. Future capacity can be achieved by expanding SVAWPC with additional storage and treatment capacity. The SVAWPC facility was designed to accommodate future expansion. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 19 One of the goals of the Water Supply Infrastructure Master Plan is to provide advanced treated recycled water for blending with local reservoir water to produce 20,000 AF/yr of indirect potable reuse (IPR) by 2030 (SCVWD, 2012). Using recycled water for IPR will replace the imported water currently used for some recharge ponds. Advanced treated water may be blended with local reservoir water or used directly, depending on the logistical constraints at the recharge facilities slated for future IPR. The quality of advanced treated water used for IPR will depend on several factors including operational capacity, availability of local reservoir water for blending, blending ratios, and the quality of advanced treated water produced at SVAWPC. The quality of IPR water recharged to groundwater can range from 40 mg/L to 500 mg/L TDS. Advanced water purification provides another new opportunity for recycled water use as a raw water source for drinking water treatment. Advanced treated water is free of pathogens and has low dissolved solids. With modifications, constituents of emerging concern such as NDMA, 1,4- dioxane, and perfluorinated, compounds can also be removed. Advanced water purification is capable of producing high-quality water that consistently and reliably meets the California Department of Public Health Title 22 Drinking Water Standards. It is therefore a natural fit to integrate this high-quality, drought proof drinking water source into the District’s drinking water treatment and treated water distribution system. Incorporation of advanced treated recycled water into drinking water treatment is referred to as Direct Potable Reuse (DPR). Planning for DPR adds operational flexibility to decrease reliance on imported water whose availability is subject to change in the event of prolonged drought, levee or pump failure, or seismic disruption. For planning purposes, a 50:50 blend scenario was evaluated. A 50:50 blend of advanced treated water at 50 mg/L TDS and current sources of recharge (volume-weighted average TDS of 286 mg/L) will produce recharge water quality of 168 mg/L TDS. Table 49 presents the forecasted future assimilative capacity under this scenario. Table 49 – Changes to Assimilative Capacity for the 50:50 Blend IPR Scenario Scenario 2035 Santa Clara Plain TDS, mg/L 2035 Assimilative Capacity Rate of TDS increase, mg/L/year Baseline 456.8 43.2 1.23 TDS = 168 mg/L 456.0 44.0 1.20 A-4.2.1.2 Sunnyvale Recycled Water Improvements The Sunnyvale WPCP produces tertiary-treated recycled water with a TDS of approximately 870 mg/L (TDS ranged from 771 to 965 mg/L between 2002 and 2011). Plans for additional treatment would reduce TDS to 760 mg/L in 2023, and increase the volume of recycled water produced for landscape irrigation. The future reduced TDS for recycled water produced at Sunnyvale WPCP is incorporated into the projections shown in Section 3.5.3.3. A-4.2.1.3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Improvements The Palo Alto RWQCP Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan describes a Phase III recycled water expansion project to add 5,500 AF/yr of recycled water irrigation by 2027. Up to 915 AF/yr additional expansion may occur in the current Phase II, which is not yet serving at full capacity. Changes to recycled water treatment are not planned within the 25-year planning horizon for SNMP however, Palo Alto’s Long Range Facilities Master Plan mentions advanced Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 20 treatment of recycled water using ultra-filtration and reverse-osmosis by 2050 (City of Palo Alto, 2012). A-4.2.1.4 Dual Plumbing with Recycled Water New developments present the opportunity to incorporate recycled water into household plumbing so that toilets are flushed using recycled water. Toilets use a minor portion of total indoor water use (10 – 20%), and only a small fraction of recycled water production is projected for indoor purposes (3%). The effect of indoor uses for recycled water is to conserve treated drinking water, which also increases the salinity of wastewater and in turn can increase the TDS concentration of tertiary-treated recycled water. Because the volumes in question are small (~ 1,400 AF/yr in 2035),35 dual plumbing of recycled water was not incorporated into future loading analysis. A-4.2.3 Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements As discussed in Section 3.2.3.4 (Groundwater Infiltration into Sewer Lines), where sewer mains are buried below the water table, groundwater may flow under hydrostatic pressure into the sewers through defective joints, cracks, or other openings. The shallow groundwater condition where sewer lines are submerged is found near the bay, where groundwater is locally saline. Infiltration of saline groundwater into sewer lines contributes a significant amount of salt to wastewater, and recycled water may have elevated TDS as a result. Projects to reduce intrusion of saline groundwater to sewer lines favor better quality recycled water. One such project, funded and managed by the City of Mountain View, upgraded the Mountain View Trunk Line, which carries wastewater to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and is located within an area of highly saline groundwater. The Mountain View Trunk Line was resleeved36 in 2013, reducing TDS in recycled water from 950 to 775 mg/L. This trunk line contributes 31% of the 21.7 MGD total flow to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Plant. Additional capital improvements to wastewater infrastructure in Mountain View and Palo Alto are expected to achieve a reduction in recycled water TDS from the present 775 mg/L to 600 mg/L by 2022. Resleeving sewer mains will also result in a reduction in salt removal of 2,240 tons TDS per year. The reduction in salt loading from Palo Alto recycled water and the reduction in salt removal from saline intrusion into sewer lines are incorporated into the forecasts presented in Section 3.3.5.6. In recent years, the City of Sunnyvale completed a major sewer trunk line rehabilitation project on Borregas Avenue, and the City of San Jose has been following a maintenance-driven schedule of sewer line repairs and replacements. To the extent that these improvements reduce intrusion of saline groundwater to sewer lines, a reduction of recycled water TDS will result. The City of San Jose sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 2,250 miles of sewer mains ranging in diameter from 6 to 90 inches, and includes 16 pump stations. San Jose has identified potential improvements to recycled water quality from rehabilitating sewer mains where intrusion of saline groundwater occurs. The 2011 South Bay Water Recycling Salinity 35 This volume equates to about 1.2 million gallons per day, which is less than 1% of the current wastewater treatment capacity at the SJ-SC WPCP, and a still smaller fraction of 2035 wastewater treatment capacity. 36 Resleeving a pipe involves inserting a smaller diameter intact pipe inside a larger diameter defective pipe or inserting a flexible epoxy liner that is cured to form a rigid and durable pipe. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 21 Study reports monitoring results for a site was selected in Alviso for hourly sampling of wastewater TDS over a 4-day period. The results show TDS ranged from 7,000 to more than 30,000 mg/L, and visible groundwater intrusion was observed in the course of the test. The total annual salt load from intrusion of saline groundwater at this single Alviso manhole, after subtracting source water quality and consumptive use salinity, was 1,250 tons per year (RMC, 2011). The City of San Jose’s 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan identifies 17 major sewer improvement projects, including the Alviso section studied in 2011. The City plans to spend $2 million to upgrade sections of sewer mains in Alviso by mid 2016, which is also expected to eliminate significant salt addition to wastewater from intrusion of saline groundwater. Stanford University also conducts routine video monitoring of campus sewer lines, and has an ongoing Capital Improvement Project to replace aging and deteriorating sewer pipes. A-4.2.4 Managed Recharge Infrastructure Improvements The District currently operates 393 acres of recharge ponds and 91 miles of controlled in-stream recharge. Water used for managed recharge comes from three sources: 1) imported water 2) local reservoirs and 3) stormwater runoff. As described in Sections 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.1.5, the volume-weighted average recharge water concentrations are 191 mg/L and 0.6 mg/L for TDS and nitrate in the Santa Clara Plain, and 238 mg/L and 0.36 mg/L for TDS and nitrate in Coyote Valley. Capital projects are underway to improve three diversion dams for recharge ponds in the Santa Clara Plain. As described in Table 38, the improvements will allow more flexible operations that will increase the number of days per year that flow in streams is partially diverted to fill recharge ponds. Replacing flashboard dams with inflatable dams allows quicker dam removal with less labor, so that the dams can remain in place longer before storm events and releases from upstream dams require dam removal. The estimated increased recharge capacity from these improvements at three diversion dams is 11,800 AF/yr (SCVWD, 2010). The projects will be completed in 2014, 2018, and 2020. However, the addition of recharge capacity does not directly translate into increased volume of groundwater recharge. If the subbasin is in a relatively full condition, recharge operations are typically scaled back. Similarly, recharge operations are typically scaled back when surface water supplies are limited. In addition to new capacity from diversion dam improvement projects, the Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan identifies increased recharge capacity from constructing new recharge ponds in the western Santa Clara Plain. The yield from the new ponds is projected to be about 3,300 AF/yr. The recharge ponds could be located on the west side of the valley, along Saratoga Creek near Highway 85 (SCVWD, 2012). For planning purposes, we assume that on average, 20% of the increased capacity created by the dam diversion improvements, and 50% of new recharge facility capacity is used, i.e., the net additional recharge for determining loading is 4,000 AF/yr. We further assume that all of the additional recharge would be with local sources and not advanced treated recycled water. This increased recharge is incorporated into the projections in Section 3.3.5.2. A-4.2.5 Imported Water Quality Improvements As shown in Figure 47, water imported for treatment and/or distribution to retailers comprised about 182,000 AF in 2013, which is about 48% of the water used by retailers and other beneficial uses (SCVWD, 2013a)37. Even though imported water is of good quality with low 37 Includes water used for banking outside Santa Clara County and Hetch Hetchy water from SFPUC, and excludes imported water used for recharge. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 22 TDS in many years, any improvements to imported water quality will produce a significant reduction of overall loading. Imported water quality is controlled by conditions in the south Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where pumping stations convey runoff from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the State Water Project and Central Valley Water Projects (SWP and CVP). The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) includes alternative water conveyance arrangements that could improve protection of sensitive fish species in the Delta and reliability of water supplies. The new conveyance facility would withdraw water from further north in the Delta, where salinity levels are lower than in the south Delta. Figure 47 – 2013 Water Supply A Includes net district and non-district surface water supplies and estimated rainfall recharge to groundwater basins. B Includes municipal, industrial, agricultural, and environmental uses. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 23 Operation of the proposed new north delta intakes is anticipated to decrease the average annual TDS of SWP and CVP Delta exports by about 22 percent under the BDCP proposed project when compared with the BDCP future “no action” scenario (SCVWD, 2013b). This would reduce the salt loading of deliveries to the District’s three drinking water treatment plants, and to the District’s managed groundwater recharge program. Current drinking water treatment plant processes cause minor increases in the salt content of the source water.38 Any improvement in the salinity of source water translates to a reduction in salt loading from landscape irrigation and managed recharge as well as lower-TDS recycled water at plants without advanced treatment. Reducing the TDS of imported water by 22 percent would reduce the amount of salt loading to the basin through landscape irrigation, managed recharge, and conveyance losses by approximately 9,300 tons per year. Because the outcome of BDCP is not yet known, this reduction in salt loading was not incorporated into the future loading projections. A-4.3 Future Assimilative Capacity Changes from Additional Groundwater Quality Management Programs and Other Changes The majority of the water quality management strategies identified in Sections A-4.2 and A-4.3 are programs and measures that are already being carried out. The benefit of existing programs is incorporated into the projections for future assimilative capacity. Future changes that are not yet incorporated into the projection include the following categories described in Section A-4.2. • As yet unidentified rehabilitation of sewer lines where intrusion of saline groundwater occurs (would improve quality of tertiary-treated recycled water). • As yet unplanned conversion of brine-regenerated water softeners to no-salt alternatives. • Imported water quality improvements. • As yet unidentified changes to recycled water quality and quantity, e.g., Palo Alto adopting advanced treatment before 2050. The effect that these changes may have on future assimilative capacity is difficult to estimate quantitatively due to the lack of detailed information on key parameters. However, a qualitative assessment can be made, with a comparison of which future measures will lead to larger or smaller changes in future assimilative capacity. A qualitative comparison of possible future scenarios is shown in Table 49. 38 Drinking water treatment disinfects imported surface water and removes suspended solids, but is not designed to remove salt. The treatment processes used to disinfect the water and remove natural organic matter add salt to treated water. The 10-year average increase of median TDS in treated water compared to raw water at Penitencia, Santa Teresa, and Rinconada Water Treatment Plants is 7.8%, 4.1%, and 10.3%, respectively. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A4- 24 Table 50 – Comparison of Qualitative Changes to Future Assimilative Capacity from Unquantified Potential Changes to Future TDS Loading Prospective Change Change in Future Loading from Change in Future Assimilative Capacity Sewer Line Rehabilitation to mitigate infiltration of saline groundwater Recycled Water   Decreased recycled water loading = increased assimilative capacity Sewer Line Rehabilitation to mitigate exfiltration Drainage Losses   Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Lower-TDS Recycled Water Irrigation (i.e., <500 mg/L) Salt Loading   Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Water Softener Conversion to No-Salt Alternatives Recycled Water TDS Drainage Losses    Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Improved Quality of Imported Water Outdoor Irrigation Managed Recharge Conveyance Losses Recycled Water      Decreased loading = increased assimilative capacity Size of arrows indicate relative magnitude of change Not included in Table 49 is any change to rainfall and evapotranspiration that may occur due to climate changes such as prolonged drought or prolonged periods of cooler and wetter conditions. Like many other hydrologic forecasts, future projections for this SNMP make the assumption of stationarity, i.e., that the natural systems controlling natural recharge fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of variability. The stationarity assumption is widely considered to be inadequate for managing water resources, in view of anthropogenic changes in recent decades that influence hydrologic outcomes (Milly, et al., 2008). These anthropogenic changes did not influence earlier records of rainfall or other climate factors, so assuming that early climatic patterns will persist (assuming stationarity) may be ignoring a long-term or near-term shift in rainfall, temperature, evaporation, etc. The alternative is detailed stochastic modeling of hydrologic responses to future climate scenarios predicted by global-scale climate models, which are also limited by inherent uncertainty. It is beyond the scope of this SNMP to engage in “Monte Carlo” style conditional simulations of future salt-loading outcomes in response to prospective future hydrology scenarios. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 1 APPENDIX 5 Groundwater Infiltration to Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 2 Groundwater Infiltration to Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains The magnitude of groundwater infiltration (GWI) to sanitary sewers can be estimated by several different methods. These include: 1. Applying estimates generated by sanitary system operators (SSOs). 2. Applying literature values for infiltration based on the diameter of the pipes within the areas where the water table is above the pipes. 3. Applying literature values for infiltration based on the number of acres or sewered areas within the zone of high groundwater (applies to sanitary sewers only). 4. Contrasting wet season and dry season baseline flows and subtracting estimated total wastewater based on per capita wastewater generation literature values and census data (applies to sanitary sewers only). Estimates of GWI to storm drains were made using method 2. To increase confidence in the GWI estimate for sewers currently used in the District’s flow model, estimation methods 2 and 3 above were carried out for sewers and compared. The results are shown in Table 51. Sewer GWI Estimates Generated by Sanitary System Operators The City of San Jose estimated GWI into the Santa Clara-San Jose (SJSC) sanitary sewer system in 1992. This estimate (5,600 AF/yr) has been used for the District’s groundwater flow model and is about 4.5% of the 10-year median SJSC-WPCP flows in 2001-2010 (CH2M Hill, 1992). The same ratio was applied to the inflow volumes for the Palo Alto and Sunnyvale wastewater plants to arrive at a total estimated GWI into sewers of 7,520 AF/yr. To determine the amount of salt removed by this GWI estimate, we applied the locally interpolated average TDS concentrations for groundwater in the shallow aquifer. The Coyote Valley is not served by a sanitary sewer system, so there is no salt and nitrate removal by this mechanism. The SSO estimate includes GWI within the zone of saline intrusion north of the 100 mg/L chloride contour, which was also excluded from the SNMP loading analysis. The value may therefore over-estimate the salt removal within the domain of the SNMP analysis. Sewer GWI Estimates Using Literature Rates Based on Pipe Diameter Typical sewer laterals are constructed at depths 4 feet for houses on slabs and 8 feet for houses with basements. Sewer mains are typically constructed 8 to 10 feet below ground. Sewer mains are most commonly located beneath streets; hence, street maps are a suitable surrogate for sewers in the Santa Clara Plain. The distribution of sewer line materials, diameters, and ages from available sanitary system data was applied to the street surrogates for sewer lines in all areas subject to GWI. This approach excludes sewer laterals on private property, which are generally assumed to be above the water table. The portion of the sewer system residing in the area where depth to water was 10 feet or less was selected for the infiltration evaluation.39 The following assumptions and approximations are made for estimating GWI in the zone with depth to water less than 10 feet (exclusive of the saline intrusion zone): 39 Depth to water was mapped for the principal aquifer for the Fall of 2002. Spring depth to water is generally shallow so that the area with depth to water less than 10 feet is larger. To capture year-round infiltration and dry years, the Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 3 • The rate of GWI used, 100 gpimd,40 represents the majority of the system and corresponds to the 65% of pipes older than 45 years (EPA, 1971). • 1/3 of the area has year-round GWI. • 2/3 of the area has GWI from December through April (150 days, or 41%). • Roads classified as “Class 1” (e.g., freeways) are assumed not to represent locations of sewers. • 95% of sewer pipes are made of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). • The distribution of VCP diameter in all areas follows the general pattern for sanitary systems with available data: 6" 65% 8" 20% 10" 5% 12" 3% • Pipes older than 45 years infiltrate at 10 times the estimated exfiltration rate. • Pipes between 45 years and 25 years old infiltrate at 5 times the estimated exfiltration rate. • Pipes between 25 years and 15 years old infiltrate at the same rate as assumed exfiltration. • Pipes younger than 15 years old have no infiltration. • The ~5% of sewers made of materials other than VCP (e.g., ductile iron pipe, PVC pipe, HDPE pipe, reinforced concrete pipe) may be larger in diameter but are generally less vulnerable to infiltration and are ignored for this analysis. The result of combining these assumptions is shown in Table 51. Sewer Line Infiltration Estimates Based on Area Methods GWI into sewers is sometimes estimated based on acres of development. For example, the City of Santa Clara Sanitary System Management Plan uses design criteria of 1,000 gallons infiltration per acre per day (gpad) for construction north of Highway 101, and 750 gallons per acre per day for construction south of Highway 101 (City of Santa Clara, 2010). Because it is difficult to predict GWI rates based on physical system data alone, estimates of GWI based on actual flow monitoring data are considered more reliable. The City of Santa Clara estimated GWI based on minimum flows during non-rainfall periods and during a wet weather flow monitoring period. Minimum flows typically occur at night or during early morning hours when base wastewater flows are lowest. GWI can also be estimated as the difference between average metered flows during non-rainfall periods and computed average base Fall groundwater depths were used to estimate the portion of the system in which infiltration may occur. The principal aquifer is used as a surrogate for the water table however, that assumption may not be valid where there is a cone of depression or upward vertical gradients outside the artesian zone. 10 gpimd = gallons per inch diameter per mile of sewer per day Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 4 wastewater flow. In either case, the resulting GWI is expressed on a unit basis (gpd/acre or gpad) by dividing by the sewered acreage of the monitored area. Typical GWI rates may range from 100 to over 1,000 gpad (City of Santa Clara, 2010). The assumed GWI for this SNMP is 250 gpad in areas with year-round infiltration, and 100 gpad in areas with infiltration occurring only from December through April. One-third of the area mapped in Fall 2002 as 0 to 10 ft depth to water is presumed to have year-round GWI, while two-thirds is presumed to have GWI from December through April. The result of the area-based estimation method is included in Table 51, below. Table 51 – Comparison of 3 Different Methods to Estimate Groundwater Infiltration to Sewers System Operator Estimate* Literature Rates, Pipe Diameter Method** Santa Clara Area Method Groundwater Infiltration 7,520 AF/yr 2,930 AF/yr 3,500 AF/yr TDS removed 6,550 tons/yr 2,520 tons/yr 3,130 tons/yr Nitrate removed 56 tons/yr 28 tons/yr 16.2 tons/yr * includes areas in zone of saline intrusion that are excluded from SNMP loading analysis. **this method was selected for estimating GWI The difference between the SSO estimate and the pipe diameter and area methods may be due to a combination of:  The inclusion of areas excluded from SNMP analysis in the SSO estimate.  Use of factors that may be too low (e.g., 100 gpidm instead of 150 or higher).  Using Fall depth to groundwater contours instead of Spring. These choices are made to ensure that salt and nitrate removal by GWI is not over-estimated to avoid understating the long-term effects of salt and nitrate loading. The area method may overstate the magnitude of GWI because land uses were not differentiated when selecting the area within the zone of shallow groundwater where sewer lines are submerged. Accordingly, the pipe diameter method was selected for estimating GWI. Storm Drain Infiltration Storm drains in both the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley may remove groundwater where they are submerged year-round or seasonally. To estimate the magnitude of groundwater infiltration into storm drains, an estimate of exfiltration was developed and the ten- fold infiltration estimation factor described in 3.3.1.10 was applied. Sanitary sewer lines made of concrete typically have an exfiltration rate of less than 200 gallons per inch of internal diameter per mile of sewer over 24-hours (ASTM C 969). For this analysis, we assume that the rate is 100 gallons per inch of internal diameter per mile (gpidm) of sewer length over 24 hours. Applying this leakage rate to an average 3,000-ft reach of concrete storm sewer with a diameter of 60-inches, the rate of stormwater loss would be 4,380 gallons per day. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 5 Storm sewers however, are not held to the tight leakage standards required of sanitary sewers so the rate of exfiltration could be greater. For sanitary sewers, we assume that exfiltration is 10% of infiltration. Exfiltration usually occurs when the pipe is carrying less than total capacity and has lower pressure head driving the leakage. When a storm drain is submerged in groundwater, hydrostatic pressure drives groundwater into the pipe from all directions, resulting in a substantially higher flow of water into the storm drain.41 For consistency, we also assume that groundwater infiltration into storm drains is 10-fold the rate of exfiltration. The District has compiled GIS coverages of storm drain locations and lengths, and mapped the depth to groundwater (using Fall, 2002 as explained in 3.3.3.4). To estimate the length of storm drains that are submerged, the following simplifying assumptions are made:  One-third of the storm drains within the mapped 0 to 10 feet depth to groundwater zone are submerged year-round.  Two-thirds of the storm drains within the mapped 0 to 10 feet depth to groundwater zone are submerged seasonally, i.e., between December 1st and April 30th.  The average diameter of all storm drains is 24 inches. There are 371 miles of storm drains within the area mapped as 0 to 10 feet minimum depth to groundwater, exclusive of the “saline intrusion zone” where chloride exceeds 100 mg/L. The storm drains included in the groundwater infiltration estimate are shown in Figure 48. Applying the assumptions listed above, the 100 gpidm ASTM exfiltration factor, and the 10-fold infiltration assumption, the estimated annual groundwater infiltration to storm drains is 4,380 AF/yr. Using the volume-weighted average shallow groundwater concentration spatial distribution42 for TDS, nitrate as nitrogen, and assigning concentrations to storm drain reaches, the annual salt and nitrate removal is estimated to be 3,200 and 46 tons per year, respectively. 41 For example, the East Bay Municipal Utility District reports that during the rainy season, inflow and infiltration can lead to a 10-fold increase in the volume of wastewater that makes its way to EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant (EBMUD, 2013). Inflow refers to rainfall runoff entering sewers through manholes, while infiltration refers to movement of groundwater into storm drains that are positioned below the water table. 42 See Section 3.4.2 for derivation of basin-wide volume-weighted average concentrations for the shallow and principal aquifers. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan A5- 6 Figure 48 – Storm Drains Located in Zone of Minimum Depth to Groundwater Less than 10 Feet NOTE: Zone of 10-foot depth to water approximated from elevations of groundwater pressure surface from principal aquifer mapped for Fall, 2002 and USGS land surface elevation contours. Storm Drain map may not reflect recent development in this area. Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Page A6-1 APPENDIX 6 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Comments and District Responses to Comments May 15, 2015 Dr. Keith Roberson San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, 14th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan – Response to Regional Water Board and State Water Board Comments Dear Dr. Roberson: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) appreciates the Water Board’s participation in the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) stakeholder process for the Santa Clara Subbasin. We received the Regional and State Water Boards’ detailed and helpful comments on the Draft SNMP. This letter provides responses to your comments. The District has updated the SNMP based on comments received from the Water Board and basin stakeholders. The District has posted the updated report to our website, and will send you a hard copy for your reference. The District requests that the Water Board formally concur with the findings of the Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP. Comments on Analysis Approach 1. Please discuss the appropriateness of using the median as the best indicator of groundwater quality. A graph of the ranked median concentration by well from lowest to highest would be a helpful way to summarize the data and quickly see clusters and outliers. Response: There is significant range in the groundwater quality data, which are not normally distributed due to a wide range of values for some parameters and low- and high-concentration outliers. As it represents the 50th percentile, or middle of the sample population, the median is the most robust value to represent the basin-wide groundwater quality, and is superior to the mean. The District reports median values for water quality data in the Annual Groundwater Report, which will also be used for SNMP monitoring reporting. For consistency, the District completed the SNMP analysis using median concentrations; however, basin-wide volume-weighted averages were used to assess assimilative capacity. A chart of ranked median concentration by well to show clusters and outliers would not retain the spatial component of the data, as not all wells monitor the same groundwater features (e.g. shallow vs. principal aquifer, Coyote Valley vs. Santa Clara Plain, recharge zone vs. confined zone, land use variation, etc.). A justification for using the median concentration was added to the SNMP. 2. For the various salt and nutrient loading sources, was there any attempt to model the effects of loading based on where within the basin it occurs? For example, section Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 2 May 15, 2015 3.3.1.8 discusses 6,725 tons of salt loading due to landscape irrigation with 6,640 acre- feet of recycled water. Was it assumed that all the salt load instantaneously mixes throughout the basin? Response: Mixing assumptions and rationale are described in Section 3.4.4.2. To simplify calculations, salts and nutrients are assumed to mix completely throughout the saturated volume of the basin in the same year they are added. Due to this simplifying assumption, the geographic location of loading sources did not need to be modeled. 3. Was salt and nitrate loading from septic systems accounted for? If so how? Is there a spatial component to it? Response: Yes, loading from septic systems was included in the analysis under the loading category of “drainage losses” – see Sections 3.3.1.10, 3.4.5.4., and Figure 3-13a and b. The District added Figure 3-5 to show the general locations of septic tanks in the Santa Clara Subbasin. 4. Section 3.4.2 (page 65) – Is there a particular reason that the volume-weighted average concentrations for the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley were based on data from 2006-2010 when there appears to be ample data available for the period 2002 – 2012 as presented in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5? Response: The District updated the volume-weighted average data in Tables 3-21 and 3-22 with the most recent five years of data available (2008–2012). 5. What is the rationale for combining the shallow and principal aquifer zones of the Santa Clara Plain as one for net TDS and nitrate loading evaluation such as in Figures 3-13 and 3-13b? Figure 3-13 shows approximately a 30 mg/L TDS increase for these zones over 25 years based on the various loading assumptions. That’s about a 7% increase or use of assimilative capacity. Could this be determined for each aquifer zone independently? Response: The Recycled Water Policy calls for comparison of basin assimilative capacity to Basin Plan water quality objectives. Because the Basin Plan does not distinguish between shallow and principal aquifers, a combined assimilative capacity approach was used. The SNMP findings indicate there is available assimilative capacity for both salts and nutrients, even under the conservative assumption of instantaneous, basin-wide mixing. While it is possible to assess available assimilative capacity separately for the shallow and principal aquifers with more time and effort, the results still need to be added to predict total consumption of assimilative capacity, which is the metric upon which the Recycled Water Policy is focused. 6. For the Santa Clara Plain it appears that the largest increase in TDS loading is due to projected recycled water use over the next 25 years. Currently 6,600 acre-feet of Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 3 May 15, 2015 recycled water is applied as landscape irrigation for a TDS loading of 6,700 tons. That’s about 8% of the total TDS loading to the sub-basin. Over the next 25 years, recycled water use could increase to 16,000 acre-feet (Table 3-27) for a TDS loading of nearly 25,000 tons (Figure 3-9a). What percentage of total TDS loading would that constitute in 25 years? Response: In 2035, the percentage of TDS loading contributed by recycled water is about 19% as shown in Table 3-29 (percentage is the ratio of TDS assimilative capacity consumed by recycled water to the total for 2035). However, to gage cumulative consumption of assimilative capacity over the 25 year evaluation period, the yearly TDS loading from all sources is divided by the basin volume and a revised basin TDS concentration is calculated. By 2035, 41% of available basin assimilative capacity is projected to be consumed by TDS loading from all sources, of which 6.2% is due to loading from recycled water irrigation in the Santa Clara Plain (see Table 3-29). 7. Would the greatest loadings still be due to the managed recharge and landscape irrigation using non-recycled water sources? Response: Yes. Bear in mind that the loading charts (e.g., Figures 3-9 through 3-13) show only half the balance, before accounting for the removal terms. Of the 41% assimilative capacity consumed, the portion consumed by recycled water is 15%, while the portion consumed by managed recharge and irrigation with distributed water is 73%. These percentages are derived from the ratios of the total assimilative capacity consumption in Table 3-29. 8. The references for the literature used to estimate the nitrate attenuation factor seem to be pretty old. A better explanation of how the attenuation factors were arrived at would be a good addition. Response: Most of the literature cited was published in the last three decades (and some in the last few years); the information used is still valid and relevant. The nitrate leaching estimate of 35% used in the SNMP is in reasonable agreement with a median value for leaching of applied nitrogen used in the 2012 UC Davis study on nitrogen sources and loading prepared for the State Water Board (30.2 percent). 9. Some justification should be provided for using TDS as the sole indicator of salinity. Response: As described in Section 2.5.1: “TDS is a comprehensive measure of all salts in groundwater, and is therefore used as the indicator parameter for salts in this SNMP. Tracking individual salts such as sodium, magnesium, or calcium is less informative for salt management because these solutes are subject to cation exchange with clays and other minerals, which may decrease concentrations of one solute while increasing another. The relative proportions of calcium, sodium or magnesium may change from geochemical reactions, but the TDS stays relatively constant and is therefore a more robust measure of salts in groundwater. Limitations to TDS measurement accuracy can make comparison of TDS analyzed by different methods difficult. However, the Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 4 May 15, 2015 consistent application of a single method employed for analysis of District samples makes TDS the best overall indicator of salt in groundwater for this SNMP.” 10. The Santa Clara Plain model was not calibrated to include a module for gaining reaches of streams. Some explanation or correction factor could be considered. Response: Gaining reaches of streams are expected to occur in tidal reaches, which makes it difficult to gage streams with sufficient accuracy to discern volumes of groundwater discharge. Resolution of the water balance for the District’s Santa Clara Plain flow model is made by adjusting other lumped terms from which gaining reaches of streams cannot be separated. Because the discharge of groundwater and associated salts and nutrients to streams is not included in the SNMP analysis, the estimates for net loading are conservative in terms of basin protection. In spite of loading estimates being biased high, projections show that the Santa Clara Subbasin does not accumulate enough salt in 25 years to exceed Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives. 11. As far as assimilative capacity and baseline, these should be estimated with vertical boundaries (shallow and principal aquifers) because the loading happens in one or the other aquifer (usually the shallow) and groundwater does not mix the way they are assuming. The statement that simplifying assumptions have the effect of overstating the rate of salt accumulation is only partially true, because the rate of salt accumulation in the shallow aquifer is being underestimated. However, because the major sources of anticipated loading are irrigation and managed recharge, this may not be as critical because these sources lend themselves to potential controls. Response: This SNMP was prepared using the groundwater basin boundaries described in the Basin Plan, which does not distinguish between the shallow and principal aquifers when considering beneficial uses. The best opportunity to curtail salt and nitrate loading in the subbasin is from conservation of water used for outdoor irrigation. Due to the extreme drought, the District has offered residents of Santa Clara County rebates for outdoor water conservation measures. Since 2013, these rebate programs have converted more than 1,380,000 square feet of residential lawns to drought-resistant landscaping and paid for smart irrigation controls, permanently reducing loading from irrigation. If implemented, measures in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan may also reduce the salinity of imported water, thereby decreasing loading from landscape irrigation using non-recycled water, and from managed recharge. 12. Regarding potential controls, the document should include some implementation plan to lower salt loading in the Santa Clara Plain because the use of assimilative capacity in this basin is predicted to increase. This will be the main gist of the SNMP and will figure prominently in the decision to adopt a Basin Plan Amendment. Response: The District has provided an inventory of ongoing programs and projects that limit or reduce salt and nutrient loading (Appendix 4). However, the conclusion of the SNMP analysis, which relied on conservative assumptions, is that Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives will not be exceeded within the 25 year planning horizon. Per the Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 5 May 15, 2015 Recycled Water Policy, a formal implementation plan is therefore not required (see Section 6.b.(2)). The Recycled Water Policy allows consumption of some assimilative capacity to enhance water supply reliability by supporting recycled water projects, particularly those that incorporate advanced treatment. Comments on Document Clarity (Text, Tables, Figures) 13. The resolution of Figure 2-2 is poor and could be improved to show the demarcation between the shallow and principal aquifers. According to footnote 1 the boundary is at the 150 foot depth. Response: This Figure has been replaced with a better quality graphic. Additional lines and explanatory text were added to indicate that the approximate location of the 150 foot boundary between shallow and principal aquifer, and to advise that this demarcation is conceptual and not a clear geologic boundary that is consistently present in boring logs at all locations. 14. On page 20 (section 2.1.1) there is mention of the Evergreen area and the zone of saline intrusion. No figures are referenced but Figure 3-3 does show the zone of saline intrusion. Please consider referencing Figure 3-3 here and also showing the zone of saline intrusion on Figures 2-13 and 2-14. Also, is the Evergreen area shown on any figure? Is the source of elevated TDS and/or nitrate in that area discussed somewhere? Response: The District adjusted Figure 3-3 to show the location of the Evergreen area and to indicate the zone of saline intrusion. The source of elevated TDS is described in Section 3.4.1. 15. Figure 3-3 shows 4 wells in the zone of saline intrusion. Are there additional monitoring wells in this area? Response: There are 15 monitoring wells shown on Figure 4-1 that are used to measure changes in groundwater salinity near the bay. Four of these wells have consistently measured > 100 mg/L chloride. 16. Division of the Santa Clara Plain into shallow and principal aquifers is only mentioned as a footnote to table 2-2. Better discussion of this division is warranted, especially because Figure 2-2 does not seem to support it. Similarly, the decision not to separate Coyote Valley into shallow and principal aquifers should be addressed. (e.g. no major aquitard etc.) Response: Figure 2-2 was revised to make the shallow/principal designation more clear, and language was added language to Section 2.1.1 to explain this designation. For the Coyote Valley, text was edited to explain why it is treated as a single, unconfined aquifer. Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 6 May 15, 2015 17. On page 23, I believe the figure being referenced should be 2-5. If so, I don’t really see the correlation between the statement that high production wells are in the southern portion of Coyote Valley in that figure. Maybe it’s a drafting issue? Response: Yes, it was a drafting issue. Pumping in the Llagas Subbasin was shown, which obscured production wells at the southern end of Coyote Valley. Figure 2-5 was revised to show only Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley pumping. 18. There is a lack of information regarding the modeling software used. What is the “District groundwater flow model” (p.27)? What are the SCPMOD and CVMOD models? (p.38). Are they MODFLOW with associated interfaces? Response: A footnote was added to Section 2.1.5 with a brief explanation of the District’s MODFLOW models. 19. Both the TDS and Nitrate sections of Table 2-8 are identical. This would be quite a coincidence and may be a cut and paste error. Response: This was a cut and paste error; the table has been corrected. 20. The text in the Nitrate Trends section on page 31 does not match the associated table and does not appear to match Figures 2-13 and 2-14. Response: The incorrect language was for the entire county, including the Llagas Subbasin. The wording and counts in the nitrate trends section have been updated, and the text was re-written so that the sections are now parallel. Note that in the PDF copy on the District website, the page number referenced is now 33. 21. There are a number of tables listing values that do not align with the corresponding values shown in Table 3-20. Response: The disparity between values in individual loading category tables and the summary table were primarily the result of rounding. Each table was checked and updated to confirm agreement with the underlying calculations and the summary table, which is numbered 3-19 in the PDF version on the District’s website. 22. Is basin inflow loading included with managed recharge? The numbers seem to indicate this but I’m not sure it’s advisable. Response: Basin inflow was inadvertently omitted from Table 3-20 (now Table 3-19 in the online PDF version). It has been added in and the percentages in Table 3-19 have been adjusted. The District appreciates the Water Boards’ participation in the development of the Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP as well as the detailed review of the Draft SNMP. If these responses require Dr. Keith Roberson, SFBRWQCB Page 7 May 15, 2015 any further resolution, please contact me at (408) 630-2051 or Vanessa De La Piedra at (408) 630-2788. Sincerely, Thomas Mohr, P.G., H.G. Senior Hydrogeologist cc: Alec Naugle, San Francisco Bay Water Board Diane Barclay, State Water Board V. De La Piedra, G. Hall September 1, 2015 Sent via electronic mail: No hardcopy to follow Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686 Attn: Mr. Thomas Mohr Email: tmohr@valleywater.org Subject: Comments on the Revised Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Santa Clara Subbasin, dated November 2014 Dear Mr. Mohr: The revised SNMP provides a solid foundation for guiding decision making, and we appreciate the District’s efforts to address our comments on the initial July 2014 draft. In order for the Water Board to endorse the SNMP, we require additional information about the location and distribution of existing salt and nutrient concentrations in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley. While we recognize that our Basin Plan does not explicitly distinguish between the shallow and deep aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain, SNMPs must provide us with a better understanding of any localized areas (shallow and deep) where elevated salt and nutrient concentrations exist. This information is critical for the Water Board to effectively evaluate the need for source control measures in the context of waste discharge permitting related to salt and nutrient source discharges (e.g., OWTS and recycled water use). Just as we must understand the location of solvent and petroleum contaminants within shallow and deep aquifers, we must also understand the specific locations of salt and nutrient problems. Attached are additional suggestions for improving the SNMP and our remaining outstanding questions. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (dwhyte@waterboards.ca.gov, 510-622- 2441) or Keith Roberson (kroberson@waterboards.ca.gov 510-622-2404). Sincerely, Dyan Whyte Assistant Executive Officer Page 2 SF Bay Regional Water Board staff questions and comments on the Revised Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Santa Clara Subbasin, dated November 2014 1. Executive Summary a. Consider including a brief summary of the District’s role (or lack thereof) with managing fertilizer use and septic system regulation. 2. Introduction a. Section 1.1 – Consider including a brief summary of the current and projected recycled water use here. It’s not until section 3.3.1.8 where the first quantification recycled water use is mentioned (6,6,40 AF), and that is the current use only. Table 3-23 indicates projected recycled water use by 2035 will be 26,500 AF. b. Section 1.2 - Consider including a brief summary of the District’s plans for recharge/use of stormwater as per the State Board’s Recycled Water Policy. 3. Chapter 2: Groundwater Subbasin Characterization a. The locations and spatial distribution of wells with elevated TDS and nitrate in the shallow and deep aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley should be provided on figures (see comment s d and e below for further detail). b. While Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show the locations of wells with increasing TDS and nitrate trends, concentrations do not need to be increasing to pose a problem if they already exceed WQOs. The locations of wells where TDS and nitrate concentrations are currently elevated above WQOs should be provided (see comment s d and e below for further detail). c. Section 2.5.2 - The “Basin Plan agricultural objective” for nitrate + nitrite of 5 mg/L is not a water quality objective (WQO). Rather it is a threshold, and the objective is the “limit” value of 30 mg/L (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan). While this objective might be more appropriate to use as a basis for comparison, it would still be valuable for Water Board staff to know the locations of wells exceeding the agricultural guidelines (see comment s d and e below for further detail). d. Section 2.5.1 - Total Dissolved Solids – While we recognize that figures 3-7 and 3-8 do show the monitoring well locations used to estimate basin-wide average TDS and nitrate concentrations, respectively, for the Santa Clara Plain (shallow and deep) and the Coyote Valley, there are no figures that show the location-specific TDS or nitrate concentrations. Providing such figures would be very helpful to our evaluation of the SNMP and understanding the nature of localized areas of elevated TDS and nitrate that could affect our future source control/permitting efforts. Please consider providing figures that include: • All shallow aquifer wells in the SCP that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L (as summarized in Table 2-2); include the zone of saline intrusion above 500 mg/L. • All 32 wells in the SCP principal (i.e., deep) aquifer that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L ; the four (or is it five?) that are within the zone of saline Page 3 intrusion; the 27 that are outside it; and the distribution by shallow and deep (i.e., principal) aquifer. • The two wells that exceed the TDS SMCL in the Coyote Valley. • The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending TDS or TDS > SMCL that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. e. Section 2.5.2 – Nitrate – Same as 3d above, except regarding nitrate concentrations. Please consider providing figures that include: • All shallow and deep aquifer wells in the SCP and CV that exceed the Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives Threshold and Limit values for Agricultural Supply of 5 mg/L and 30 mg/L, respectively, for nitrate + nitrite (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan), and the MCL of 45 mg/L, as summarized in section 2.5.2 and tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5. • The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending nitrate, or nitrate > Ag or MCL objectives that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. 4. Chapter 3: Salt and Nutrient Loading a. Section 3.4.1 – Ambient Groundwater Quality – This section describes two areas with naturally-occurring elevated TDS (i.e., Evergreen and Palo Alto). Are there similar localized elevated TDS areas of non-natural origin? b. Table 3-23 and figure 3-11a suggest that as recycled water use for landscape irrigation increases from about 7,000 AF today to 25,000 AF, so does the loading, in tons. That’s about a 1-1 correlation (1 ton of salt loading per every 1,000 acre-feet of recycled water use). Is that meant to be a static assumption? Does it account for the addition of advanced-treated water with lower TDS? Also, what is the projected breakdown of tertiary vs. advanced-treated recycled water use for landscape irrigation over the 25 year planning period? c. Table 3-22 (and ES-2) clearly shows that the shallow aquifer in the Santa Clara Plain has no assimilative capacity (negative 28 mg/L TDS). Section 3.4.1 indicates that the zones of naturally-occurring elevated TDS (Evergreen and Palo Alto) were included in the estimate. Was the area of saline intrusion also included? Our concern is that for purposes of projecting assimilative capacity use over the next 25 years, the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP are averaged together. This yields an apparent positive assimilative capacity of 75 mg/L TDS. We are interested to know what the shallow zone would look like if it did not include certain portions of the zone of saline intrusion and/or the naturally-occurring areas of elevated TDS. 5. Chapter 4: Salt and Nutrient Monitoring Plan a. This chapter concludes that the District’s existing groundwater monitoring program adequately accomplishes the monitoring necessary to assess salt and nutrient loading in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley basins. However, as noted in Chapter 2, there are localized areas where TDS and nitrate already exceed WQOs. Is the groundwater monitoring capability in these particular areas adequate to Page 4 provide the information necessary to assess threats to water quality and human health? Are there any places where additional wells would be beneficial? 6. Appendix 3: Groundwater Monitoring Plan a. Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 indicate that the index well coverage for the SCP and CV is incomplete – the SCP shallow zone has 11 of 18 wells needed (61% coverage); the SCP deep zone has 20 of 35 wells needed (57% coverage); the CV has 8 of 11 wells needed (73% coverage). The specific well locations are shown in figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 of Appendix 3. What is the plan and schedule to reach 100% monitoring coverage in these basins? b. Section 3.7.2 – South Bay Water Recycling Program – This section indicates that the SBWRP monitors six deep supply wells and six shallow monitoring wells in the vicinity of San Jose’s recycled water use locations. Were the data from these monitoring wells included in the baseline groundwater quality evaluation for the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP? The data from these wells should also be included with figures requested under 3d and 3e above. Any other wells specifically monitored in association with recycled water projects should be included c. Section 4.2 – Salt Water Intrusion Monitoring Network – The District’s 22 shallow aquifer monitoring wells for salt water intrusion should be included in figures requested under 3d above. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 1 November 18, 2015 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT RESPONSES TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD’S SEPTEMBER 1, 2015, COMMENTS Water Board Comment 1: Executive Summary - Consider including a brief summary of the District’s role (or lack thereof) with managing fertilizer use and septic system regulation. SCVWD Response: Since the 1990s, the District has implemented numerous programs and activities to address elevated nitrate. The District's nitrate management strategy is to implement programs and work with stakeholders, regulatory and land use agencies to: 1) define the extent and severity of nitrate contamination, 2) identify potential sources, 3) reduce nitrate loading to groundwater, and 4) reduce customer exposure to elevated nitrate. Recently, the District was the recipient of the Groundwater Resources Association of California’s esteemed Kevin J. Neese award for its free nitrate testing program for domestic wells. District efforts to address elevated nitrate include: x Conducting ongoing monitoring and analysis of nitrate trends and hot spots, x Recharging low-nitrate surface water through district recharge facilities to help dilute nitrate in groundwater, x Initial pilot testing of approximately 600 South County domestic wells for nitrate in 1998, x Providing in-field nutrient assistance for growers between 2002 and 2007, x Conducting outreach through workshops and targeted materials including nitrate fact sheets and nutrient management guidelines for growers, x Leading efforts to develop Salt and Nutrient Management Plans in collaboration with basin stakeholders (including the agricultural community) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, x Working with the Resource Conservation Districts to provide irrigation efficiency and nutrient management resources to Santa Clara County growers, x Working to influence state and/or local legislation and policies related to nitrate, including participation in efforts such as the Wastewater Advisory Group related to the Santa Clara County Onsite Wastewater Treatment System ordinance update, x Offering basic water quality testing to eligible domestic well owners, with over 1,150 individual wells tested since 2011 http://www.valleywater.org/Services/FreeTestingProgram.aspx, x Offering rebates for nitrate treatment systems for well users exposed to elevated nitrate beginning in fall 2013 as part of the Safe, Clean, Water and Natural Flood Protection Program approved by county voters http://www.valleywater.org/NitrateRebate/, x Maintaining a Nitrate in Groundwater Web Page and comprehensive Private Well Owner’s Guide. District staff will continue to work in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, agricultural community, and other basin stakeholders to address elevated nitrate in South County groundwater and wells. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 2 November 18, 2015 Water Board Comment 2a: Introduction Section 1.1 – Consider including a brief summary of the current and projected recycled water use here. It’s not until section 3.3.1.8 where the first quantification recycled water use is mentioned (6,640 AF), and that is the current use only. Table 3-23 indicates projected recycled water use by 2035 will be 26,500 AF. SCVWD Response: An updated summary is provided below: Current and Projected Recycled Water Use (updated October 2015) The three wastewater treatment plants operating in the Santa Clara Plain currently produce tertiary treated recycled water for landscape irrigation and industrial uses. Advanced treated recycled water (“purified water”) is also produced at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. Purified water is currently blended with tertiary treated recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling system, which results in substantially lower TDS and nitrate concentrations for recycled water users. In response to the District Board of Directors policy to “protect, maintain, and develop recycled water” the District’s Chief Executive Officer has identified a goal of that at least 10% of the County’s water demands be met with recycled water by 2025. In response to the continuing drought, the District is expediting potable reuse projects, including groundwater recharge projects using purified water in existing and new percolation ponds and injection wells. The preliminary target is to produce 45,000 acre-feet of purified water by 2020; however, the quantity and schedule are subject to change pending outcome of ongoing planning studies. The District is currently producing up to 8 million gallons per day of purified water, which has a salt content averaging 50 mg/L (as total dissolved solids). A summary of the projected recycled water production for each facility located in the Santa Clara Plain is listed in Table A6-1 below. Table A6-1 Current and Projected Recycled Water Production and Quality System Current Production and Quality Future Production and Quality South Bay Water Recycling (San Jose/Santa Clara) 10,200 AFY 500 mg/L TDS 25,000 AFY tertiary + adv. 500 mg/L TDS Sunnyvale 1,700 AFY tertiary 760 to 1,100 mg/L TDS 3,100 AFY advanced 760 mg/L TDS Palo Alto 1,500 AFY tertiary 770 mg/L TDS 7,000 AFY tertiary 600 mg/L TDS Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center 9,000 AFY 50 mg/L TDS currently blended with SBWR tertiary for irrigation and industrial uses 45,000 AFY 50 mg/L TDS to be used for indirect potable reuse or possible future direct potable reuse Recycled Water Production Figures Updated October 2015; average values rounded to nearest 100 AFY. Note that all future projections are subject to change. The projected increase of 15,000 AFY for the South Bay Water Recycling System is included in the 45,000 AFY projected for the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 3 November 18, 2015 Water Board Comment 2b: Introduction Section 1.2 - Consider including a brief summary of the District’s plans for recharge/use of stormwater as per the State Board’s Recycled Water Policy. SCVWD Response: The District’s plans for recharge and use of stormwater are stated in Section 1.5.4 Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water and Stormwater. The District actively recharges stormwater, which is incorporated into managed aquifer recharge operations throughout the County. As a member of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, the District works with other co-permittees to maximize stormwater infiltration while protecting groundwater quality. Section A-4.1.2 in the SNMP provides a detailed description of this effort. Water Board Comments 3a and 3b: Chapter 2 - Groundwater Subbasin Characterization a. The locations and spatial distribution of wells with elevated TDS and nitrate in the shallow and deep aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain and the Coyote Valley should be provided on figures (see comments d and e below for further detail). b. While Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show the locations of wells with increasing TDS and nitrate trends, concentrations do not need to be increasing to pose a problem if they already exceed WQOs. The locations of wells where TDS and nitrate concentrations are currently elevated above WQOs should be provided (see comments d and e below for further detail). SCVWD Response: Figures A6-1, A6-2, and A6-3 have been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of wells in which Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives are exceeded. Water Board Comment 3c: Section 2.5.2 - The “Basin Plan agricultural objective” for nitrate + nitrite of 5 mg/L is not a water quality objective (WQO). Rather it is a threshold, and the objective is the “limit” value of 30 mg/L (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan). While this objective might be more appropriate to use as a basis for comparison, it would still be valuable for Water Board staff to know the locations of wells exceeding the agricultural guidelines (see comments d and e below for further detail). SCVWD Response: Thank you for the clarification. Because the distinction between “threshold” and “limit” in Table 3-6 of the Basin Plan was not clear, the SNMP compared local groundwater quality against the more conservative “threshold” values. Figures A6-4 and A6-5 show locations where the threshold for water quality in agricultural supply (Table 3-6 of the Basin Plan) was exceeded. The Basin Plan 30 mg/L limit was not exceeded in any shallow or principal zone wells. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 4 November 18, 2015 Given the Water Board’s clarification, the last paragraph of Section 2.5.2 is updated to read: The Basin Plan Agricultural Objective of 30 mg/L for nitrate + nitrite (as N) was not exceeded in any shallow or principal zone wells in the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin. For the more conservative “threshold” of 5 mg/L, thirty seven of 210 wells (18%) in the principal aquifer zone of the Santa Clara Plain exceeded the threshold, as did 22 wells (56%) in the Coyote Valley. Water Board Comment 3d: Section 2.5.1 - Total Dissolved Solids While we recognize that figures 3-7 and 3-8 do show the monitoring well locations used to estimate basin-wide average TDS and nitrate concentrations, respectively, for the Santa Clara Plain (shallow and deep) and the Coyote Valley, there are no figures that show the location- specific TDS or nitrate concentrations. Providing such figures would be very helpful to our evaluation of the SNMP and understanding the nature of localized areas of elevated TDS and nitrate that could affect our future source control/permitting efforts. Please consider providing figures that include: x All shallow aquifer wells in the SCP that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L (as summarized in Table 2-2); include the zone of saline intrusion above 500 mg/L. x All 32 wells in the SCP principal (i.e., deep) aquifer that exceed the TDS SMCL of 500 mg/L; the four (or is it five?) that are within the zone of saline intrusion; the 27 that are outside it; and the distribution by shallow and deep (i.e., principal) aquifer. x The two wells that exceed the TDS SMCL in the Coyote Valley. x The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending TDS or TDS > SMCL that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. SCVWD Response: Figures A6-1 and A6-2 have been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of wells in which Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives are exceeded. These figures include TDS SMCL exceedances in the zone of saline intrusion. Figure A6-6 is added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the location of monitoring wells intended to monitor the effects of recycled water irrigation. A separate City of San Jose monitoring program for recycled water irrigation has been conducted to evaluate trends in shallow groundwater during more than a decade of recycled water irrigation. The District incorporates the City’s findings in the Annual Groundwater Report. For example, the general water quality findings related to groundwater monitoring at Santa Clara Plain recycled water irrigation sites per the District’s 2013 Annual Groundwater Report are listed in Table A6-2, below: SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 5 November 18, 2015 Table A6-2 Summary of General Water Quality Findings for Santa Clara Plain Recycled Water Irrigation Monitoring Wells Recycled Water Irrigation Groundwater Monitoring Site General Water Quality Observations IDT x Basic chemical composition is stable compared to previous events. x Increasing trends continue to be observed at three of the four wells for salts (bromide, chloride, calcium, sodium, TDS) and dissolved oxygen. SBWR x The basic chemical composition for various wells indicates a shift towards more saline water, primarily due to increasing chloride at the Curtner, Kelley Park, Columbus Park, Watson Park, and Evergreen Park wells. x Increasing trends continue to be observed for salts (including chloride, boron, sodium, and sulfate) at the majority of SBWR monitoring wells. The City of San Jose commissioned a report on the SBWR recycled water irrigation groundwater monitoring network in 2009. A plot of TDS trends from the City’s 2009 analysis is included as Figure A6-7. Figure A6-8 had been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of recycled water irrigation monitoring wells within the Santa Clara Plain with upward trending TDS. There is no recycled water irrigation in the Coyote Valley and, as such, no related monitoring wells. Water Board Comment 3e: Section 2.5.2 – Nitrate Same as 3d above, except regarding nitrate concentrations. Please consider providing figures that include: • All shallow and deep aquifer wells in the SCP and CV that exceed the Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives Threshold and Limit values for Agricultural Supply of 5 mg/L and 30 mg/L, respectively, for nitrate + nitrite (see Table 3-6 in the Basin Plan), and the MCL of 45 mg/L, as summarized in section 2.5.2 and tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-5. • The location of any wells within the SCP or CV with upward trending nitrate, or nitrate > Ag or MCL objectives that are intended to monitor the effects of recycled water use. SCVWD Response: Figure A6-3 shows the locations of wells in which the MCL for nitrate is exceeded. Figures A6-4 and A6-5 show locations of wells in which the Ag Water Quality Threshold is exceeded. None of the monitored wells in the Santa Clara Subbasin exceed the Ag Water Quality Objective from Table 3-6 of the Basin Plan (30 mg/L nitrate + nitrite as N). The District’s Annual Groundwater Reports summarize significant trends for monitored parameters at recycled water irrigation sites. SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 6 November 18, 2015 Figure A6-9 has been added to the SNMP in this appendix to show the locations of recycled water irrigation monitoring wells within the Santa Clara Plain with upward trending nitrate. Trend determination is based on District analysis (as reported in the Annual Groundwater Report) or the 2009 SBWR evaluation as noted on the figure. There is no recycled water irrigation in the Coyote Valley and, as such, no related monitoring wells. Water Board Comment 4a: Section 3.4.1 Ambient Groundwater Quality – This section describes two areas with naturally-occurring elevated TDS (i.e., Evergreen and Palo Alto). Are there similar localized elevated TDS areas of non-natural origin? SCVWD Response: The District monitors 58 shallow and principal zone wells in the Santa Clara Plain annually, and merges that data with municipal well data from the Division of Drinking Water database. The District is not aware of any spatial patterns that reflect localized elevated TDS of non-natural origin. Water Board Comment 4b: Table 3-23 and Figure 3-11a suggest that as recycled water use for landscape irrigation increases from about 7,000 AF today to 25,000 AF, so does the loading, in tons. That’s about a 1-1 correlation (1 ton of salt loading per every 1,000 acre-feet of recycled water use). Is that meant to be a static assumption? Does it account for the addition of advanced-treated water with lower TDS? Also, what is the projected breakdown of tertiary vs. advanced-treated recycled water use for landscape irrigation over the 25 year planning period? SCVWD Response: Per Figure 3-11a, the salt loading from all recycled water use within the Santa Clara Plain is nearly 25,000 AF in 2035, which is essentially a 1:1 correlation (1 ton of salt loading per 1,000 AF of recycled water use) in that year. However, this is not a static assumption, as the projected loading for each year is assessed independently considering recycled water use and water quality. For example, since 2014, the District has been operating the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC), which produces 8 million gallons per day of advanced-treated water with TDS less than 60 mg/L. Purified water is blended with SBWR tertiary treated recycled water to produce delivered water with TDS of about 500 mg/L. The SNMP analysis accounts for increased recycled water irrigation from SBWR, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto, as well as water quality improvements over the 25 year planning period, which are summarized in Table 3-27. At present, SBWR delivers a blend of tertiary treated and advanced-treated water with TDS of about 500 mg/L, while Palo Alto and Sunnyvale deliver recycled water with TDS ranging from 700 to 1,100 mg/L. The volumes and quality of recycled water used for irrigation in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale may change significantly within the SNMP planning horizon. Recently, the City of Palo Alto and the District formed a joint committee to explore opportunities to produce purified water to further lower the TDS of recycled water used for irrigation. The City of Sunnyvale is in the final stages of preparing an EIR for upgrades to their Water Pollution Control Plant, which may include advanced treatment. Sunnyvale anticipates producing lower TDS recycled water to irrigate more sites, including the new SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 7 November 18, 2015 Apple II campus in Cupertino. These improvements may produce substantial decreases in salt loading from the current practice of using tertiary treated recycled water for irrigation. As the expected water quality is not known with certainty, the SNMP conservatively assumes that the current tertiary treated water will continue to be used for irrigation. Water Board Comment 4c: Table 3-22 (and ES-2) clearly shows that the shallow aquifer in the Santa Clara Plain has no assimilative capacity (negative 28 mg/L TDS). Section 3.4.1 indicates that the zones of naturally-occurring elevated TDS (Evergreen and Palo Alto) were included in the estimate. Was the area of saline intrusion also included? Our concern is that for purposes of projecting assimilative capacity use over the next 25 years, the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP are averaged together. This yields an apparent positive assimilative capacity of 75 mg/L TDS. We are interested to know what the shallow zone would look like if it did not include certain portions of the zone of saline intrusion and/or the naturally-occurring areas of elevated TDS. SCVWD Response: The area of saline intrusion as delineated by the extent of the 100 mg/L chloride contour was excluded from the calculation of shallow aquifer assimilative capacity, as indicated in SNMP section 2.5.1 on page 31. The locations of naturally occurring elevated TDS are within the principal aquifer, so they do not affect the determination of assimilative capacity in the shallow aquifer. Therefore, assimilative capacity in the shallow aquifer is expected to remain negative in the next 25 years. However, there are a few mitigating factors that could lead to improvements in shallow aquifer TDS: x Since the District implemented its turf replacement rebate program, well over 4 million square feet of irrigated turf has been replaced with xeriscape or other low-water landscaping alternatives in 2015 alone, bringing the total turf replaced since the program began to nearly 7 million square feet. This program reduces outdoor irrigation, a primary source of salt loading and was not incorporated into the projected salt loading from outdoor irrigation. x As described above, the District’s Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center is now producing 8 million gallons per day of purified water with TDS less than 60 mg/L. That water is blended with tertiary treated recycled water, to lower TDS from the 750 to 950 mg/L TDS range to approximately 500 TDS. These factors were included in the projected assimilative capacity calculation for the subbasin as a whole. New plans are in development to double the capacity of indirect potable reuse projects. The scale and volume of the planned program far exceeds the projections included in this SNMP. As the District’s expedited indirect potable reuse program is still in development, the configuration and volume of projects is not finalized. The projections included in the SNMP also assumed a 50:50 blend of purified and local water. Current plans are to use 100% purified water for IPR, pending the outcome of geochemical compatibility studies. This would result in water with much lower TDS being recharged to groundwater than assumed in the SNMP. Percolating greater volumes of purified water is expected to significantly dilute shallow aquifer TDS in the long term. x The cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto are working to resleeve sections of sewer trunk mains in which saline shallow groundwater is infiltrating. Completion of the first section of pipe near Shoreline Amphitheater resulted in an immediate and significant SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 8 November 18, 2015 decrease in the TDS of recycled water used for irrigation in Palo Alto. Planned continuation of this program will result in decreased salt loading. Water Board Comment 5: This chapter concludes that the District’s existing groundwater monitoring program adequately accomplishes the monitoring necessary to assess salt and nutrient loading in the Santa Clara Plain and Coyote Valley basins. However, as noted in Chapter 2, there are localized areas where TDS and nitrate already exceed WQOs. Is the groundwater monitoring capability in these particular areas adequate to provide the information necessary to assess threats to water quality and human health? Are there any places where additional wells would be beneficial? SCVWD Response: The District’s groundwater monitoring network provides extensive areal coverage of the Santa Clara Subbasin, which encompasses nearly 300 square miles. The District samples 70 wells each fall for many constituents, including nitrate and TDS. Through our voluntary domestic well testing program, the District tests nitrate at 200 to 300 domestic wells every year, including many in Coyote Valley, which is more prone to elevated nitrate due to agricultural fertilizers and septic tanks. In addition to this District monitoring, we evaluate water quality data (including nitrate and TDS) from hundreds of public water supply wells each year. Although we believe the District’s monitoring network is comprehensive and adequate to assess threats to water quality, we continually work to maintain and improve the monitoring network as needed. The District is in the process of updating the Groundwater Management Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The findings of the SNMP and ongoing monitoring results may further shape the District’s groundwater monitoring efforts. Findings from annual groundwater sampling, including updated long term trend analysis, are available in the District’s Annual Groundwater Report 1. The District believes that salt and nutrient monitoring data and analysis included in the Annual Groundwater Report satisfies the intent of the 2009 Recycled Water Policy. Water Board Comment 6a: Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 indicate that the index well coverage for the SCP and CV is incomplete – the SCP shallow zone has 11 of 18 wells needed (61% coverage); the SCP deep zone has 20 of 35 wells needed (57% coverage); the CV has 8 of 11 wells needed (73% coverage). The specific well locations are shown in figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 of Appendix 3. What is the plan and schedule to reach 100% monitoring coverage in these basins? SCVWD Response: In addition to the response to Comment 5, above, we note that the statistical analysis undertaken to identify the number of monitoring wells was meant to serve as a guideline for planning purposes. There are practical considerations that must be considered such as related costs to ratepayers, available land, and available funding. As compared to many other areas, the District conducts very extensive monitoring. Through our current network 1 http://www.valleywater.org/Services/Groundwater.aspx SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 9 November 18, 2015 and ongoing modifications as conditions or needs change, we believe we are meeting our goal of obtaining adequate data to assess regional groundwater conditions. Water Board Comment 6b: Section 3.7.2 – South Bay Water Recycling Program – This section indicates that the SBWRP monitors six deep supply wells and six shallow monitoring wells in the vicinity of San Jose’s recycled water use locations. Were the data from these monitoring wells included in the baseline groundwater quality evaluation for the shallow and deep aquifers of the SCP? The data from these wells should also be included with figures requested under 3d and 3e above. Any other wells specifically monitored in association with recycled water projects should be included. SCVWD Response: The data from the shallow South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) recycled water irrigation monitoring wells was not included in the baseline groundwater quality evaluation for the shallow aquifers of the Santa Clara Plain. Wells used for deep monitoring were included as they are part of the Division of Drinking Water database. The data from the SBWR shallow monitoring wells is not ideally suited to merging with the District’s regional monitoring because several of the wells had elevated nitrate or other constituents prior to initiation of recycled water irrigation. The District has not validated the SBWR data or incorporated it into its GIS and database; hence, it was excluded from the SNMP analysis. Figure A6-6 is provided to show the location of both the SBWR monitoring wells and the District’s south San Jose recycled water irrigation monitoring wells (the “IDT” site). Data from the IDT wells was incorporated in the SNMP analysis. See responses to Comment 3d above to review the findings of the SBWR monitoring. Water Board Comment 6c: Section 4.2 – Salt Water Intrusion Monitoring Network – The District’s 22 shallow aquifer monitoring wells for salt water intrusion should be included in figures requested under 3d above. SCVWD Response: The zone of saline intrusion is mapped in Figure 3-3 of the SNMP. This figure presents chloride concentration, which is conservatively indicative of saline intrusion where it exceeds 100 mg/L. New Figure A6-1, provided for this response to comments, includes the shallow monitoring wells currently used to monitor saline intrusion. ! ! ¬!¬!¬! ! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! ¬! ¬! ¬! ! ¬! ! ! ¬! ¬!! ! ! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! !!¬!¬! ¬! ¬! ! ! ! ¬! ¬!¬! ¬! Legend 2012 100 mg/L Chloride Contour TDS (mg/L) Shallow Zone !< 500 (below SMCL) ¬!500 - 1000 ¬!1000 - 1500 ¬!1500- 60000 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10Miles Figure A6-1 Shallow Aquifer Wells with TDS above SMCL Water Quality Objective (2000 - 2012 Median) SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 10 ! ! ¬!! ¬! ! !!¬! ! ! !¬! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ¬!! !!! !! ! ! !¬!! ¬!¬! !! ¬! ! ! !! !! ¬! ! ¬! ! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! ¬! ¬!¬!¬! ! ! !! !¬! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¬! ¬!! ! ¬! !!! ¬! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ¬!! ¬!¬!! ! ¬!¬! ! ¬! !! ¬!¬!!! !¬!!! ! ! ¬!¬!¬!¬!¬! ! ! ! ¬! ¬! !! ! !!! !!!! !!!!! ! ¬! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ¬!!!! ! !!! !! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !¬!¬!! !! ! ¬!! ! !¬! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! !!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ¬!! ! ! ¬! ! ¬! ¬! ¬! ! ¬! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! ¬!¬! ! ! ! ! !! ! ¬! ! !! ¬!¬!! ! ! ! ! ¬!¬! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!¬! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ¬! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Legend TDS (mg/L) Principal Zone !< 500 (below SMCL) ¬!500 - 1000 ¬!1000 - 1500 ¬!1500 - 6000 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-2 Principal Aquifer Wells with TDS above SMCL Water Quality Objective (2000 - 2012 Median) ¬!¬! SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 11 !! !!!! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!!! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !!! !!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !!!!!! !!! !!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !¬! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!! !! !! ! !! !!! !! !!! !! ¬! ¬!!!¬!¬!!!!! !!! !¬!! ! !(237 !(85 §¨¦280 §¨¦680 £¤101 §¨¦880 £¤101 Legend Nitrate as NO3 (mg/L) Principal Zone !< 45 (below MCL) ¬!45 - 58 ¬!58 - 70 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-3 Principal Aquifer Wells with Nitrate above MCL Water Quality Objective (2000 - 2012 Median) Note: Shallow Aquifer Wells had no Nitrate above MCL Water Quality Objective between 2000 and 2012 SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 12 ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ¬! ! ¬!! !!!!!! !! !! ! ! ¬!!!¬!·! !! !(237 !(85 §¨¦280 §¨¦680 £¤101 §¨¦880 £¤101 Legend Nitrate (mg/L) as N !< 5 (below Ag Threshold) ¬!5 - 7.5 ·!7.5 - 10 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Notes: 1. No wells exceeded the 30 mg/L Basin Plan Water Quality Objective. 2. Because nitrate as N is above 5 mg/L, nitrate + nitrite is assumed to be above 5 mg/L. Figure A6-4 Shallow Aquifer Wells Exceeding Basin Plan Agricultural Water Quality Threshold for Nitrate + Nitrite as N (2000 - 2012 Median) ¬! ¬! ¬! Area of Enlargement S i l v e r C re e kV alleyRd.IDT Site and Wells SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 13 !! !!!! XWXWXW!!!XW !!! !!!!XW!XW ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! ! !! ! XWXW!!XW! XW !! ! !XWXWXW! ! !XWXW !XWXWXW!XWXW ! !!XWXW !! ! ! XWXW ! !!!!!!! !XW!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !XWXWXW !XWXW!XWXWXW! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !XW! !! !XW !!!! ! XW ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! XWXWXWXW ! !XWXW!!XW!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !XWXWXWXW! !!XW!XWXW!XW ! !XW!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! !XW ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!! !!! !! ! !! !!!XW ! !!!! !XW!XWXW!XWXW XWXW !!XW !XWXW!XWXW XW XW ! ! XWXWXW ! ! ! !XWXW ! ! ! ! ! ! !! XW XW ! ! ! ! !! ! XW ! ! ! ! ¬!¬!¬!¬! !¬!! !!!¬!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ¬! ¬!!¬!! ¬!!!¬! !¬!¬!! !¬!¬!!! ¬! !! ! ! ¬!¬!! !!!!!!! ! !¬!!!!!!!!! !¬! ¬!¬! !¬!¬! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !!!¬!¬! !! ! ¬!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !¬!¬!¬! !¬!¬!!!!!!!!!¬!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!! !¬!¬!¬!! !!¬! ! ¬!! !¬!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! !! ¬!! !!!!¬!!!! ¬! Legend Nitrate as N !< 5 (below Ag Threshold) XW 5 - 10 XW 10 - 20 Nitrate + Nitrite as N !<5 (below Ag Threshold) ¬!5 - 10 !!10 - 15 @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Notes: 1. No wells exceeded the 30 mg/L threshold Basin Plan Water Quality Objective. 3. Because nitrate as N is above 5 mg/L, nitrate + nitrite is assumed to be above 5 mg/L. 2. Analyses reported as nitrate + nitrite as N, or nitrate (as N or NO3) Figure A6-5 Principal Aquifer Wells Excceding Basin Plan Agricultural Water QualityThreshold for Nitrate + Nitrite (2000 - 2012 Median) SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 14 ") ") ")&% &% &% &% &% ") ") ") &% @A@A@A@A Columbus Park SJWC Mabury #1 SJWC Gish #2 Watson Park SJWC 17th #11 SJWC Cottage Grove #4 SJWC 12TH #8 Kelly ParkKelly Gardens Curtner Solari Park Evergreen Park Legend @A IDT Monitoring Wells SBWR Monitoring Wells ")Shallow Zone &%Principal Zone @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles @A @A @A @A MW-3 MW-4 MW-1 MW-2 IDT Site(Area of Enlargement) Integrated Device Technology (IDT)site and monitoring wells Silver Cr e e k V a lley R o a dFigure A6-6 Location of Wells Used to Monitor Recycled Water Irrigation SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 15 1000150020002500olved Solids  (mg/L)Watson UA1Kelley Park UA2Columbus UA3Solari FA1Evergreen FA2Curtner FA3Cottage Grove LA1Kelley Park Garden LA205001997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Total Disso12th St #8 LA317th St #10 LA4Mabury #1 LA5Gish #2 LA6Figure E14Total DissolvedSolidsCity of San Jose GMMP UpdateJuly 2009TODD ENGINEERSAlameda, CaliforniaFigure A6-7 TDS Concentrations in SBWR Recycled Water Irrigation Monitoring WellsSource: SBWR Technical Memorandum No. 2 Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation Program Update Project, November 2009SCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 201516 !! !!ÞÞÞÞ!! !!Þ! !Þ!! !!!!!!!! SJWC Cottage Grove #4 SJWC 12TH #8 Kelly Park Curtner Legend Principal Zone Nitrate Trends !No Trend ÞUpwards Trend Shallow Zone Nitrate Trends !!No Trend ÞÞUpwards Trend @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-8 Post-Irrigation Nitrate Trends in Recycled Water Monitoring Wells !! !! !! !! Integrated Device Technology (IDT)Area of Enlargement Silve r C r e e k V a lle yR oadSCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 17 ! !Þ!Þ!ÞÞ!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!ÞÞEvergreen Park IDT Site Legend Shallow Zone TDS Trends TDS_Trend ÞÞUpward Trend !!No Trend Principal Zone TDS Trends ÞDownward Trend !No Trend @@ Approximate Extent of Confined Area Groundwater Subbasins DWR Subbasins Santa Clara (2-9.02) District Groundwater Areas Santa Clara Plain Coyote Valley Hydrographic Units Santa Clara Plain Confined Area Santa Clara Plain Recharge Area Coyote Valley Recharge Area ® 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Figure A6-9 Post-Irrigation TDS Trends in Recycled Water Irrigation Monitoring Wells Note: no principal zone recycled water irrigation monitoring wells have increasing TDS trends !! !! !!ÞÞSCVWD Response to SFBRWQCB Comments on Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan November 18, 2015 18 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 1 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT RESPONSES TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD’S FEBRUARY 3rd 2016 COMMENTS ON SANTA CLARA SUBBASIN SALT AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN  Water Board Comment 1: The District’s annual groundwater report for 2013 indicates that many domestic wells in the Coyote Valley are affected by nitrate and highlights differences between the District’s regional monitoring program wells and purely domestic wells in the south county, which includes the Coyote Valley and Llagas sub-basin. Specifically, the regional wells have a median nitrate concentration of 17.6 mg/L, while 286 domestic wells tested throughout the south county have a median of 33.1 mg/L, and 34% of them exceed the MCL (45 mg/L). At the same time, the SNMP (Figure 3-19) indicates that about 75% of the total nitrate loading in the Coyote Valley is due to irrigated agriculture and fertilizer use, while about 15% is due to septic systems and other drainage losses. SCVWD Response: The apparent disparity noted between nitrate concentrations in the regional monitoring program wells and domestic wells is an artifact of the well groupings used in various tables in the District’s 2013 Annual Groundwater Report. Table 9 lists the median nitrate concentration for “Zone W-5, South County” as 33.1 mg/L; however, Zone W-5 is a water revenue charge zone that includes both Coyote Valley and the Llagas Subbasin. It is more informative to compare the regional monitoring wells used to obtain the 17.6 mg/L median in Table 7 of the 2013 Annual Report and the 2013 median of domestic wells located only within the Coyote Valley. With regard to nitrate results in the Coyote Valley for calendar year 2013, the District database includes data from 9 monitoring wells, 24 wells sampled by public water systems, and 35 domestic wells sampled under the District’s domestic well testing program. The median nitrate concentration for all 68 wells was 23 mg/L, while the median of domestic wells was 21.1 mg/L. If domestic wells are excluded, the median was 25.8 mg/L. When results for only Coyote Valley are considered, the median nitrate concentration from the District’s regional monitoring program wells and domestic wells are in reasonable agreement. The Llagas Subbasin is addressed in a separate SNMP that was submitted to and accepted by the Central Coast RWQCB1. While we hope this clarifies the Water Board’s specific question regarding 2013 data, the broader thrust of the question is to understand the overall occurrence of nitrate when considering all data. Because the number of wells tested varies by year, there is value in examining data from all wells for all years. Attachment 1 provides summary statistics, maps, and charts of nitrate test results for the Coyote Valley. Important limitations to the data are noted. 1 The Llagas Subbasin SNMP is available on the District’s website:   http://www.valleywater.org/GroundwaterStudies/   4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 2 Water Board Comment 2: We would like to discuss with the District the details of an implementation plan to address this situation. District Response: The District engages in many groundwater quality management activities that are similar to the type of measures included in an implementation plan. A summary of these past and ongoing activities is provided in Appendix 4 to the SNMP. Our understanding is that implementation plans are necessary when the SNMP finds that assimilative capacity is either not available or will be exhausted within the 25-year SNMP planning horizon. The Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP finds that assimilative capacity is still available in 2035. We believe that the District’s ongoing groundwater quality management activities are proactive and effective, within the limits of the District’s jurisdiction. Because the District is not a land use agency, we do not have authority over land uses that have the potential to increase nitrate loading. As regards Coyote Valley, SNMP projections forecast that average nitrate concentrations will decrease substantially in the 25-year period ending in 2035, because nitrate loading is projected to decrease. Substantial groundwater pumping by Great Oaks Water Company for distribution in the Santa Clara Plain is a key factor that causes nitrate and salt to be removed from Coyote Valley. As groundwater is exported from Coyote Valley, significant quantities of nitrate and other salts are removed as well. While the District’s interpretation of the Recycled Water Policy does not include the need for preparing an implementation plan, the District would like to collaborate with RWQCB on groundwater protection activities in Coyote Valley. As discussed in our April 20th conference call, the District will begin sharing private well nitrate testing data with the Water Board beginning in early May 2016. Water Board Comment 3: Is there any effort to better identify the agricultural sources and locations? SCVWD Response: The District has conducted surveys of nitrate sources and nitrate occurrence in groundwater in the past. Most of these efforts have focused primarily on the Llagas Subbasin, while one has also included Coyote Valley. The findings of nitrate studies conducted by the District, Brown and Caldwell, and Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in the Llagas Subbasin are largely transferrable. The District’s conceptual model ascribes the majority of nitrate found in groundwater to known non-point sources, including crop and lawn fertilizers and septic tanks2. Possible exceptions may include historic or current composting or food processing operations, and poultry or dairy operations. A list of relevant nitrate occurrence studies is provided below.                                                              2 On a local scale, septic tanks are point sources; on the basin scale, the wide distribution of numerous septic tanks (about 600 in Coyote Valley) manifests as an areal source. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 3  Brown and Caldwell, 1981. San Martin Area Water Quality Study: Prepared for the County of Santa Clara  Santa Clara County Health Department, 1988. Santa Clara County Private Well Sampling Program-Final Report  SCVWD, 1994. Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Sample Point Selection Report, 25 p.  SVCWD, 1993. Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Nitrate Data Review, 42 p.  SCVWD, 1992 (revised 1993). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Laboratory Contract to Provide Services for the Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study, 29 p.  SCVWD, 1994. Santa Clara Valley Water District Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Nitrate Source Area Identification, December, 1994, 56 p. (Section 205G) grant funds under Assistance Agreement C6009585-91-1 to the State Water Resources Control Board and by Contract No. 1-053-250-0, US EPA).  SCVWD, 1996. Santa Clara Valley Water District Llagas Groundwater Basin Nitrate Study Final Report. October, 1996, 105 p.  SCVWD, 1998. Private Well Water Testing Program Nitrate Data Report [Llagas Subbasin and Coyote Valley]. December, 1998.  LLNL and SWRCB, 2005. California GAMA Program: Sources and transport of nitrate in shallow groundwater in the Llagas Basin of Santa Clara County, California. (UCRL-TR-213705).  Carle, S., Esser, B., Moran, J., 2005. High-Resolution Simulation of Basin Scale Nitrate Transport Considering Aquifer System Heterogeneity. Geosphere (UCRL-JRNL-214721). The Water Board expressed interest in understanding cropping patterns and fertilizer loading in Coyote Valley. We are providing 2015 cropping patterns in the Coyote Valley for your reference (see Attachment 1). It should be noted that cropping patterns frequently change from year to year, and multiple crops may be grown on the same field within a calendar year. Water Board Comment 4: How is the nitrate loading scenario for agriculture and onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS/septic systems) projected to change over time as land use changes? SCVWD Response: Per Table 3-23, agricultural fertilizer use was held constant through 2035 for the Santa Clara Subbasin SNMP, including Coyote Valley. Septic leach field volumes are assumed to remain constant. The County’s new Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) Ordinance could lead to some improvements in septic tank management, potentially decreasing loading from this source. The impacts of the ordinance are subject to many variables, so a constant value was used. These assumptions should conservatively estimate future nitrate loading from these sources. Water Board Comment 5: Are there nitrate hotspot areas where there is no access to delivered water or alternative supplies? SCVWD Response: The Coyote Valley domestic wells in which nitrate has been detected above the MCL are located in an elongated area extending nearly five miles from the southern border of Coyote Valley, i.e., an area encompassing about 2 square miles that covers more than half the length of Coyote Valley. However, about two-thirds of the wells in the area where most MCL exceedances occur have median nitrate concentrations below the MCL. While the definition of a “hot spot” is subjective, elevated nitrate appears to be more common in the southwest portion of the Coyote Valley. That area is not currently served by a major public water system; however, there are several small mutual water companies that serve groundwater. The District is currently offering rebates for well 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 4 users exposed to nitrate above the MCL. This program offers rebates of up to $500 for the installation of treatment units certified for nitrate removal. Rebate program information is sent to thousands of domestic well owners annually. Well owners participating in the District’s domestic well testing program receive test results by mail and those with elevated nitrate are given a fact sheet and application for the rebate program. Although it has been in place for several years, the rebate program has had low participation. Most well owners contacted by the District are not participating in the rebate program because they drink bottled water or they have already installed treatment units. The District continues to look for opportunities to expand participation. We are not aware of any plans to extend service connections from nearby municipal water systems or private water utilities to the unincorporated areas in Coyote Valley. Water Board Comment 6: Does the District have any plans to further investigate the nature/extent of the nitrate sources and their longevity? SCVWD Response: While we manage the groundwater subbasin, our jurisdictional mandate does not extend to water quality issues arising from land use. We assess current conditions and trends in nitrate, an effort supported by our free domestic well testing program. As described above, we are also working to reduce well owner exposure to nitrate by offering rebates for point of use treatment systems. In the Llagas Subbasin, which extends from Cochrane Road near Morgan Hill south to the Pajaro River, we are working with the Central Coast Water Board to share information on patterns and trends in nitrate occurrence; however, that work does not extend to identifying sources. The District supports a similar exchange of data and information with the San Francisco Bay Water Board if it is of interest to the Water Board. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 – NITRATE OCCURRENCE IN COYOTE VALLEY Nitrate groundwater quality data from wells in the Coyote Valley is available from one well as early as 1949, and in multiple wells from the 1980s and later. Figure 1 provides a summary of past nitrate testing in Coyote Valley wells. Figure 1 includes samples from municipal wells and agricultural wells, but the great majority of wells shown are domestic wells. Figure 1 – Number of Coyote Valley Wells Tested for Nitrate per Year Nitrate concentrations are elevated in some wells in the southwestern portion of Coyote Valley. A summary of nitrate detections with respect to the MCL is provided in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and map of nitrate detections from all wells is provided in Figure 5. 1 0001 0 1 2 3 4 22334 3 2 3 4 6 7 8 7 12 67 18 13 21 19 16 19 26 28 20 27 24 22 52 47 57 37 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of Wells Tested for Nitrate per YearYear Coyote Valley Wells Tested  for Nitrate by Year 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 6 Figure 2 – Median Nitrate Concentrations in Coyote Valley Wells Tested 4 Times or More Figure 3 – Average Nitrate Concentration by Well for All Wells Tested in Coyote Valley 22 10 7 5 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 0‐15 15.1‐30 30.1‐45 45.1‐60 60.1‐75# of WellsNitrate as NO3, mg/LNitrate MCL = 45 mg/L, Nitrate as NO356 30 32 25 10 2 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0‐15 15.1‐30 30.1‐45 45.1‐60 60.1‐75 75.1‐90 >90# of WellsNitrate as NO3, mg/LNitrate MCL = 45 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 7   Figure 4 –Median Coyote Valley Nitrate Concentration in Years with 10 or More Wells Tested 0 15 30 45 60 1997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Nitrate  as NO3 (mg/L)Coyote Valley ‐Median Nitrate and  95% Non‐Parametric Confidence Intervals, by Year MCL = 45 mg/L Nitrate as NO3 Note ‐data should not be used to interpret a trend.  The number of wells sampled varies significantly by year, some wells  are close to sources of recharge, and wells are screened at different depths. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 8 Figure 5 – Map of All Coyote Valley Nitrate Well Test Results 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 9 Figure 6 – 2015 Cropping Patterns in Coyote Valley (Based on Data from the Santa Clara County Agriculture Commissioner’s Office) The SNMP discusses nitrate from fertilizer application in Section 3.3.2.1. The factors used to estimate fertilizer type and use for different crops were obtained from the University of California Cooperative Extension. Factors used and calculations of nitrogen loading are provide in Tables 1 and 2, below, using 2011 crop data obtained from the Santa Clara County Agriculture Commissioner’s office. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 10 Commodity Nitrogen, lbs/acre/yr lbs NO3/acre /yr, leached Commodity Nitrogen, lbs/acre/yr lbs NO3/acre /yr, leached ALFALFA 115 178.3 LETTUCE HEAD 190 294.6 ALMOND 200 310.1 LETTUCE LEAF 190 294.6 AMARANTH, EDIBL 75 116.3 LETTUCE ROMAINE 220 341.1 APPLE 21 32.6 MELON 137 212.4 APRICOT 40 62.0 MINT 200 310.1 ARRUGULA 125 193.8 MIZUNA 190 294.6 ARTICHOKE 200 310.1 NAPA CBG TGHT H 180 279.1 ARTICHOKE SEED 200 310.1 NECTARINE 150 232.6 BARLEY 65 100.8 N-GRNHS FLOWER 0 0.0 BASIL 100 155.1 N-GRNHS PLANT 0 0.0 BEAN DRIED 96 148.8 N-OUTDR FLOWERS 0 0.0 BEAN DRIED SEED 96 148.8 N-OUTDR PLANTS 0 0.0 BEAN SPROUT 00.0N-OUTDR TRANSPL 0 0.0 BEAN SUC SEED 96 148.8 OAT 150 232.6 BEAN SUCCULENT 165 255.8 OF-FLWRNG PLANT 0 0.0 BEAN UNSPECIFD 130 201.6 OLIVE 135 209.3 BEET 165 255.8 ONION DRY ETC 180 279.1 BLACKBERRY 60 93.0 OP-FLWRNG PLANT 0 0.0 BOK CHOY LSE LF 175 271.3 OP-FOLIAGE PLNT 0 0.0 BROCCOLI 220 341.1 OP-TURF 100 155.1 BROCCOLI SEED 220 341.1 ORANGE 110 170.6 CABBAGE 180 279.1 OT-PALM 0 0.0 CAULIFLOWER 240 372.1 PASTURELAND 42 65.1 CAULIFLOWR SEED 240 372.1 PEACH 150 232.6 CELERY 200 310.1 PEAR 150 232.6 CHERRY 60 93.0 PEPPER FRUITNG 388 601.6 CHRISTMAS TREE 92 142.6 PEPPERMINT 200 310.1 CHRYSAN GARLAND 00.0PERSIMMON 108 167.5 CILANTRO 148 229.5 PLUM 125 193.8 CORN, FIELD 240 372.1 PRUNE 150 232.6 CORN, HUMAN CON 210 325.6 PUMPKIN 137 212.4 CUCUMBER 190 294.6 RADICCHIO 125 193.8 CUCUMBER SEED 190 294.6 RANGELAND 0 0.0 FORAGE HAY/SLGE 80 124.0 RAPE 175 271.3 FRISEE 180 279.1 RASPBERRY 60 93.0 GAI CHOY LSE LF 180 279.1 RESEARCH COMMOD 0 0.0 GAI LON TGHT HD 180 279.1 SPINACH 60 93.0 GARLIC 200 310.1 SQUASH 317 491.5 GF-CARNATION 00.0STRAWBERRY 150 232.6 GF-CHRYSANTHMUM 00.0SUNFLOWER 95 147.3 GF-FLOWER SEED 00.0SWISS CHARD 180 279.1 GF-FLWRNG PLANT 00.0TOMATO 164 254.3 GF-FOLIAGE PLNT 00.0TOMATO PROCESS 182 282.2 GRAPE 20 31.0 VEGETABLE 104 161.3 GRAPE, WINE 20 31.0 WALNUT 200 310.1 GT-FLWRNG PLANT 00.0WATERCRESS 50 77.5 KALE 180 279.1 WHEAT 100 155.1 KIWI 161 249.6 WHEAT FOR/FOD 100 155.1 Table 1 – University of California Cooperative Extension Crop Factors for Nitrogen Loading. Note: These factors were used to calculate fertilizer loading in Table 3-15 in the SNMP. 4/21/16 Responses to SFBRWQCB Round 3 Comments, February 2016 Page 11 Commodity Nitrogen, lbs/ acre/ year Nitrate as NO3 lbs /acre/year , leached Acres Nitrate as NO3 Loading, lbs/yr Salt as TDS Loading, lbs/yr Acres Nitrate as NO3 Loading, lbs/yr Salt as TDS Loading, lbs/yr Nitrate as NO3 Loading, lbs/yr Salt as TDS Loading, lbs/yr Alfalfa 115 178 313.3 55,869 36,033 55,870 36,030 Amaranth, Edible 75 116 4.5 525 338 520 340 Apple 21 33 10.5 343 222 2 50 32 390 250 Apricot 40 62 35.9 2,226 1,436 78 4,839 3,121 7,070 4,560 Basil 100 155 2.3 356 229 360 230 Bean Succulent 165 256 1 383 247 380 250 Bean Unspecified 130 202 3.0 602 389 600 390 Bok Choy 175 271 14.1 3,828 2,469 3,830 2,470 Cherry 60 93 378.8 35,243 22,730 11 988 637 36,230 23,370 Corn, retail 210 326 81.9 26,670 17,201 16 5,364 3,459 32,030 20,660 Forage Hay/Silage 80 124 131 16,287 10,504 16,290 10,500 Grape 20 31 0 10 7 10 7 Grape, Wine 20 31 6.5 202 130 56 1,732 1,117 1,930 1,250 Kiwi 161 250 3.7 935 603 930 600 Oat 150 233 121.1 28,172 18,169 240 55,884 36,043 84,060 54,210 Olive 135 209 150 31,484 20,306 31,480 20,310 Op-Turf 100 155 15.7 2,438 1,573 2,440 1,570 Orange 110 171 15 2,528 1,631 2,528 1,631 Pastureland 42 65 150 9,753 6,290 9,753 6,290 Peach 150 233 1 153 99 150 100 Peppers, Fruiting 388 602 71.5 43,024 27,749 2 1,204 776 44,230 28,520 Prune 150 233 3 589 380 590 380 Squash 317 492 1 490 316 490 320 Tomato 164 254 2 509 328 510 330 Walnut 200 310 1 254 164 250 160 Wheat 100 155 172.7 26,782 17,273 136 21,025 13,560 47,810 30,830 Wheat (Fodder) 100 155 37.3 5,784 3,731 11 1,748 1,127 7,530 4,860 TOTAL, tons per year 1,273 116 75 1,007 78 50 194 125 Coyote Valley Santa Clara Plain Santa Clara Subbasin TotalUCCE Crop Factors Table 2 – Calculated Salt and Nitrate Loading from Fertilizer Sources in the Santa Clara Subbasin, Based on 2011 Cropping Patterns (used to calculate values presented in SNMP Table 3-15) June 1, 2016 Ms. Vanessa de la Piedra Groundwater Monitoring and Analysis Unit Manager Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Sent via Email to vdelapiedra@valleywater.org SUBJECT: Concurrence with the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Santa Clara Subbasin, Santa Clara County Dear Ms. de la Piedra: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Water District’s 2014 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Santa Clara Subbasin (SNMP). We’re pleased to concur with the SNMP as it provides a solid foundation for guiding decision making and promotes recycled water use in the Santa Clara Valley. As a result of this process, we’ve come to better understand groundwater conditions in the Santa Clara and Coyote Valleys, and the challenges the District faces related to the quality and reliability of imported surface water that is used for groundwater recharge. We applaud the innovative solution to use advanced purified water to help manage salt and nutrient contributions to the basin and achieve the District’s 10% recycled water goal. We also recognize the District’s efforts to address elevated nitrate conditions in the Coyote Valley and provide outreach and solutions to private well owners. We would like to acknowledge the professionalism and hard work of District staff to address our feedback on earlier SNMP versions. As a result, we are confident that the SNMP will effectively manage salts and nutrients from all sources, and will attain water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses of groundwater. As such, the SNMP meets the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2009 “Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water”. Water Board staff will continue working cooperatively with District staff to implement the recommendations presented in the SNMP. In particular, we will collaborate with District staff to better understand the nature of elevated nitrate concentrations in groundwater within the Coyote Valley, and how sources can most effectively be addressed to protect domestic use of groundwater. Ms. De la Piedra - 2 - June 1, 2016 Santa Clara Valley Water District In the next few months we anticipate bringing a resolution of support for the District’s SNMP to our Board and will coordinate with District staff as appropriate. If you have any questions, please contact Alec Naugle of my staff at (510) 622-2510 or via email at alec.naugle@waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, Dyan Whyte Assistant Executive Officer Cc: Tom Mohr (tmohr@valleywater.org) Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686 Phone: (408) 265-2600 Fax: (408) 266-0271 www.valleywater.org NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN LIVERMORE VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN July 2015 PREPARED BY: ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 (925) 454-5000 PREPARED BY: ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY STAFF Matt Katen, P.G. – Principal Geologist Tom Rooze, P.G. – Associate Geologist Contributors: Jill Duerig, P.E. – General Manager Kurt Arends, P.E. – Assistant General Manager Jarnail Chahal, P.E. – Engineering Manager Colleen Winey, P.G. – Assistant Geologist Nutrient Management Plan I July 2015 Table of Contents Page ES Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................i ES 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................i ES 2 Groundwater Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations .............................................................. ii ES 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation...................................................................................................................... ii ES 4 Antidegradation Analysis ........................................................................................................................... iv ES 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies ............................................................................................... v ES 6 Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................. vii 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Management Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Master Water Recycling Permit and Salt Management Plan ...................................................... 3 1.3.2 State Recycled Water Policy ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3.3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) ....................................................................... 4 1.3.4 Zone 7 Wastewater Management Plan ....................................................................................... 4 1.3.5 Groundwater Management Plan and Annual Reports ................................................................ 5 1.4 Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 CEQA Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 6 2 Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations ................................................................................. 9 2.1 Groundwater Basin Overview ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Main and Fringe Basins ............................................................................................................ 11 2.1.3 Aquifer Zones ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Groundwater Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.2.1 Conjunctive Use ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Groundwater Storage ................................................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Groundwater Production .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.4 Groundwater Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 17 Nutrient Management Plan II July 2015 2.3 Basin Water Quality (Nutrients) ............................................................................................................... 19 2.3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3.2 Nitrate Concentrations .............................................................................................................. 20 2.3.3 Assimilative Capacity ............................................................................................................... 26 2.4 Areas of Concern ...................................................................................................................................... 26 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 35 3.1 Historical Sources of Nitrate .................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................................................... 36 3.2.1 Fate and Transport of Nitrate .................................................................................................... 36 3.2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 37 3.3 Nitrogen Loading Calculations ................................................................................................................. 41 3.3.1 Current Nitrogen Loading ........................................................................................................ 41 3.3.2 Future Nitrate Loading ............................................................................................................. 46 3.4 Projected Nitrate Concentrations ............................................................................................................. 51 4 Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis ................................................................................ 55 4.1 Recycled Water Projects ........................................................................................................................... 55 4.2 Stormwater Capture Projects .................................................................................................................... 56 4.3 State Water Board Recycled Water Policy Criteria .................................................................................. 56 4.4 Antidegradation Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 57 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... 59 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 59 5.2 Investigate Areas of Concern .................................................................................................................... 59 5.3 Minimize Nitrogen Loading ...................................................................................................................... 59 5.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 59 5.3.2 Fertilizer Application................................................................................................................ 60 5.3.3 Recycled Water Irrigation ........................................................................................................ 60 5.3.4 Livestock Manure Management ............................................................................................... 60 5.3.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems .................................................................................... 61 5.4 Enhanced Attenuation ............................................................................................................................... 62 6 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 63 6.1 Investigate Boundaries of Areas of Concern ............................................................................................. 63 6.2 Implementation Measures to Minimize Nitrogen Loading ........................................................................ 63 6.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 63 6.2.2 Fertilizer BMPs ........................................................................................................................ 64 6.2.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs ............................................................................................. 64 6.2.4 Livestock Manure Management ............................................................................................... 65 6.2.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ............................................................................. 65 Nutrient Management Plan III July 2015 6.3 Implementation Measures to Enhance Nitrate Attenuation ...................................................................... 77 6.3.1 Low Impact Development BMPs ............................................................................................. 77 6.4 Basin Monitoring Programs ..................................................................................................................... 77 6.4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 77 6.4.2 Nutrient Specific Monitoring Programs ................................................................................... 78 6.5 Implementation Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 80 7 References ................................................................................................................................................ 81 List of Figures Page Figure ES-1: Nitrate Concentrations (Upper Aquifer) and Areas of Concern ............................................ ii Figure ES-2: Projected Nitrate Concentrations by Basin .......................................................................... iii Figure ES-3: Antidegradation Assessment ................................................................................................. iv Figure ES-4: Summary of Goals and Strategies ......................................................................................... vi Figure ES-5: Proposed OWTS Requirements Inside Areas of Concern ................................................... viii Figure 2-1: Map of Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins (DWR, 1974) ........................... 9 Figure 2-2: Recharge Area and Confining Layer above Upper Aquifer ................................................... 12 Figure 2-3: Gradient in Upper Aquifer, October 2013 ............................................................................. 13 Figure 2-4: Gradient in Lower Aquifer, October 2013 ............................................................................. 14 Figure 2-5: Map of Municipal Wells ......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-6: Groundwater Supply and Demand Components .................................................................... 18 Figure 2-7: Maximum Concentration of Nutrients in Basin Areas ............................................................ 19 Figure 2-8: Nitrate Concentrations in Upper Aquifer ............................................................................... 20 Figure 2-9: Nitrate Concentrations in Lower Aquifer ............................................................................... 21 Figure 2-10: Schematic Cross Section ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2-11: Nitrate Concentrations by Node ........................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-12: Storage (AF), Nitrate Concentrations (as NO3 in mg/L) and Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) by Node, Subbasin, and Basin Area .................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2-13: Nitrate Concentrations by Subbasin, Aquifer, and Basin Area ............................................ 25 Figure 2-14: Average Nitrate Concentrations and Assimilative Capacities by Basin Area ...................... 26 Figure 2-15: Nitrate Areas of Concern ...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 2-16: Nitrate Areas of Concern and Trends................................................................................... 33 Figure 3-1: Historical and Existing Sources of Nitrate ............................................................................. 35 Figure 3-2: Existing Nitrogen Sources and Removal ................................................................................ 37 Figure 3-3: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Horse Boarding, Rural Properties, and Wineries .................. 38 Figure 3-4: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Fertilized Irrigation by Land Use ........................................... 39 Figure 3-5: Source Water Application Rates from Irrigation by Land Use .............................................. 40 Figure 3-6: Nitrate Concentrations in Irrigation Source Water ............................................................... 40 Figure 3-7: 2013 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 3-8: 2013 Source Water Distribution ............................................................................................. 42 Figure 3-9: Total Nitrate Loading (in lbs N/acre) ..................................................................................... 43 Figure 3-10: Net Nitrogen Loading by Basin, Current Land Use with Average Rainfall ......................... 44 Figure 3-11: Summary of Current Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal ................................................ 45 Nutrient Management Plan IV July 2015 Figure 3-12: Percentage Loading by Source - Current Conditions .......................................................... 45 Figure 3-13: Land Use at Buildout ............................................................................................................ 47 Figure 3-14: Source Water Distribution at Buildout ................................................................................. 48 Figure 3-15: Net Nitrogen Loading by Basin, Land Use at Buildout with Average Rainfall .................... 49 Figure 3-16: Summary of Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal at Buildout ........................................... 50 Figure 3-17: Percentage Loading by Source at Buildout .......................................................................... 50 Figure 3-18: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Main Basin ................................................................. 51 Figure 3-19: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin North .................................................... 52 Figure 3-20: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin Northeast .............................................. 52 Figure 3-21: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin East ...................................................... 53 Figure 4-1: Existing and Future Recycled Water Use ............................................................................... 55 Figure 4-2: Antidegradation Assessment ................................................................................................... 58 Figure 6-1: Special OWTS Permit Areas ................................................................................................... 70 Figure 6-2: Happy Valley Area of Concern ............................................................................................... 71 Figure 6-3: May School Area of Concern ................................................................................................. 72 Figure 6-4: Buena Vista/Greenville Areas of Concern .............................................................................. 73 Figure 6-5: Mines Road Area of Concern ................................................................................................. 74 Figure 6-6: Tank OWTS Permit Requirements for Areas of Concern ....................................................... 75 Figure 6-7: Graphs of OWTS Limits.......................................................................................................... 76 Figure 6-8: Map of Program Wells ........................................................................................................... 79 Figure 6-9: Proposed Schedule for Areas of Concern ............................................................................... 80 Figure A-1: Groundwater Gradient Map, Upper Aquifer, Fall 2013 ........................................................ 83 Figure A-2: Groundwater Gradient Map, Lower Aquifer, Fall 2013 ........................................................ 83 Figure A-3: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2013 Water Year ......................... 83 Figure A-4: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Lower Aquifer, 2013 Water Year ......................... 83 Figure A-5: Nodal Constants for Storage Calculations ............................................................................ 83 Figure A-6: Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2008 Water Year .................................................... 83 Figure A-7: Map of Wells in Groundwater Quality Program ................................................................... 83 Figure A-8: Horsley Witten Group, 2009 Executive Summary .................................................................. 83 Figure A-9: Land Use Related Loading Factors, from RMC, 2012 .......................................................... 83 Figure A-10: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations; 25% Nitrogen Leaching Rate ....................................... 83 Figure A-11: Historical Nitrate Concentrations in Wells Outside Areas of Concern, Fringe Basin North ............................................................................................................................................................ 83 Nutrient Management Plan V July 2015 Acronyms and Abbreviations Abbrev Description Abbrev Description AC Assimilative Capacity LWRP Livermore Water Reclamation Plant ACEH Alameda County Environmental Health MCL Maximum contaminant level AF Acre-feet mg/L Milligrams per liter AF/yr Acre-feet per year N Nitrogen bgs Below ground surface NMP Nutrient Management Plan BMO Basin Management Objective NO3 Nitrate Ion BMP Best Management Practices OWTS Onsite Wastewater Treatment System BOs Basin Objectives PO4 Phosphate Ion CASGEM CA Statewide GW Elevation Monitoring POTW Publicly owned treatment works CDA Community Development Agency ROWD Request of Waste Discharge CDPH California Department of Health Services RRE Rural Residential Equivalence CEC Constituents-of-emerging-concern SBA South Bay Aqueduct CIMIS California Irrigation Management System SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District CEQA California Environmental Quality Act SCWA Sonoma County Water Agency CWS California Water Service SMP Salt Management Plan DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District SNMP Salt Nutrient Management Plan DWR California Department of Water Resources State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board EIR Environmental Impact Report SWP State Water Project ft Feet TAF Thousand acre-feet GIS Geographic information systems TDS Total dissolved solids GWMP Groundwater Management Plan TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen GPQ Groundwater Pumping Quota USGS U.S. Geological Survey LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board LAMP Local Agency Management Program WDR Waste Discharge Requirements lbs Pounds WWMP Wastewater Management Plan Nutrient Management Plan ES-1 July 2015 ES Executive Summary ES 1 Background This Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) was developed for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] Basin No. 2-10) by the Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). The NMP provides an assessment of the existing and future groundwater nutrient concentrations relative to the current and planned expansion of recycled water projects and future development in the Livermore Valley. The NMP also presents planned actions for addressing positive nutrient loads and high groundwater nitrate concentrations in localized Areas of Concern where the use of onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) (i.e., septic tank systems) is the predominant method for sewage disposal. The NMP was prepared as an addendum to Zone 7’s Salt Management Plan (SMP) which was adopted by the Zone 7 Board of Directors in 2004 to address salt loading in the groundwater basin and to fulfill the requirements of the joint Master Water Recycling Permit (Order No. 93-159) and General Water Reuse Order (General Order No. 96-011). Because the SMP was incorporated into Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) for the Basin in 2005, the NMP is now also incorporated into Zone 7’s GWMP. This NMP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and a notice of exemption has been filed with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted a Recycled Water Policy in 2009 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011) and an amendment to the policy in 2013 (State Water Board, Resolution No. 2013-0003) to encourage and facilitate the increased use of recycled water statewide. The policy requires among other things, that Salt/Nutrient Management Plans (SNMP) be completed for all groundwater basins in California. With the addition of this NMP, Zone 7’s SMP is akin to the SNMP required by the State’s Recycled Water Policy. The NMP was developed with support and input from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), Alameda County Environmental Health Department (ACEH), Alameda County Community Development Agency (Alameda CDA), Zone 7’s Retailers (City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, Dublin San Ramon Services District [DSRSD], and California Water Service), and other stakeholders and interested public. For this purpose, several meetings were held with these stakeholders between June 2013 and June 2015. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-2 July 2015 ES 2 Groundwater Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is an inland alluvial basin underlying the east-west trending Livermore-Amador Valley (Valley) and Livermore Uplands in northeastern Alameda County. For this NMP, the groundwater basin has been divided into four basin areas:  Main Basin  Fringe Basin North  Fringe Basin Northeast  Fringe Basin East The Main Basin has been further divided into an upper and lower aquifer. The Main Basin is a portion of the groundwater basin that contains the highest yielding aquifers and generally the best quality groundwater. It is an important source of drinking water for the communities that overly it. The fringe basins contain slightly higher salinity water and generally yield low quantities of water to wells. Some groundwater flows from the Fringe Basin North into the Main Basin aquifer where it comingles with Main Basin groundwater, but it is believed that very little of the groundwater in the two eastern fringe basins comingles with Main Basin groundwater. The aquifers beneath the Livermore upland areas south of Livermore and Pleasanton typically only yield small amounts of groundwater to wells, and are not expected to be impacted by existing or planned recycled water projects; therefore, with the exception of the high OWTS use area of unincorporated Happy Valley, the upland portion of the groundwater basin is not addressed in this plan. The locations of the groundwater basin areas and Happy Valley are shown below in Figure ES-1. Zone 7’s GWMP program monitors groundwater quality throughout the basin areas. Of the two main groundwater quality parameters being monitored as nutrient contamination indicators (nitrate and phosphate), only nitrate has been detected at significant concentrations in the basin areas. The Basin Objective (BO) for nitrate in groundwater is 45 mg/L (measured as NO3) or less for all of the NMP basin areas (California State Water Board, 2011). This is the same value adopted by the California Department of Health as the maximum contamination limit (MCL) for drinking water. Average nitrate concentrations (as NO3) in the Main and Fringe Basins range from 11 to 15 mg/L. Assimilative capacity, which represents the capacity of a groundwater basin to absorb pollutants, is calculated by subtracting the average concentration from the BO. The assimilative capacities of the basins range from 30 to 34 mg/L. While average nitrate concentrations in the basin areas are below the BO, and ample assimilative capacity exists in each basin area for nitrate, there are ten localized Areas of Concern within the groundwater basin that have nitrate concentrations above the BO (see Figure ES-1 below). These ten “hot spots” are believed to be vestiges of past agricultural land uses and processes, and former municipal wastewater and sludge disposal practices; however, five of the areas are outside of municipal Urban Growth Boundaries where sewage disposal continues to be by OWTS. They are:  Happy Valley  Buena Vista  Mines Road  May School  Greenville ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-2 July 2015 Figure ES-1: Nitrate Concentrations (Upper Aquifer) and Areas of Concern ES 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nitrate contamination in groundwater supplies is typically the result of nitrogen-containing compounds being leached from the surface or soil column and mixing with the ambient groundwater. Nitrogen exists in the environment in many forms and can change forms as it moves through the soil. Sources of nitrogen loading include: fertilizers used on croplands, parks, golf courses, lawns, and gardens; sewage and other wastewaters disposed of onsite; decaying vegetation and other organic materials; animal manure and urine from pastures, animal enclosures, and other livestock boarding facilities; and nitrogen-fixing crops such as alfalfa, clover and vetch. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-3 July 2015 Within the soil zone, nitrogen compounds readily convert to ammonium and nitrate and/or are lost to volatilization, plant uptake and denitrification processes. Because nitrate is highly leachable and readily moves with water through the soil profile, excessive rainfall or over-irrigation will cause nitrate to leach below the plant's root zone and may eventually mix with groundwater. Groundwater nitrate concentrations are good indicators of nutrient contamination, and graphing concentrations versus time can indicate whether nitrate conditions are changing or stable; however this NMP uses estimates of nitrogen loading from various identified sources to help evaluate whether nitrate concentrations will increase or decrease in the long-term. For this effort, annual nitrogen loading from each known source was estimated and summed spatially using geographic information systems (GIS) software. The results were then applied to a Zone 7-developed spreadsheet model to predict future nitrate concentrations for each basin area, taking into account planned land use changes and expansions of recycled water use. The model results predict that average nitrate concentrations will decrease over time in the Main and Northeast Fringe basin areas, and will increase only slightly in the North and East fringe basin areas. The incremental increases in predicted nitrate concentrations due to the planned recycled water use expansions (shown on Figure 3-14 and Figure 4-1) in the Main and Northeast Fringe basin areas are less than 1 mg/L over the 37 year model period, or about 3% of the assimilative capacity for these two areas. The future average total nitrate concentrations as predicted by the Zone 7 model are summarized by basin area in Figure ES-2 below: Figure ES-2: Projected Nitrate Concentrations by Basin 0 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-4 July 2015 ES 4 Antidegradation Analysis The State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy requires SNMPs to include an antidegradation analysis demonstrating that the recycled water projects included within the plan will collectively satisfy the requirements of State Water Board’s “Antidegradation Policy” (Resolution No. 68-16). The antidegradation analysis for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is summarized below in Figure ES- 3: Figure ES-3: Antidegradation Assessment State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 Component Antidegradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State. The irrigation projects will:  contribute only a minimal increase (<1 mg/L) in groundwater nitrate concentrations at urban buildout.  not use more than 20% of the available Assimilative Capacity  not cause groundwater quality to exceed Basin Plan Objectives The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. Because all planned recycled water projects over the groundwater basin are landscape irrigation projects, most of the nitrogen from these projects will be removed by plant uptake and volatilization (and some by bacterial denitrification under certain conditions). Additional nitrogen loading will be avoided with the continued use of recycled water and fertilizer use best management practices (BMPs) (Section 6.1) The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. The recycled water projects are crucial for continued sustainability of the Valley’s water supply and are part of the urban growth plans for Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Implementation measures are being or will be implemented to help achieve Basin Plan Objectives in the future. Both the SMP and the NMP contain measures that have been or will be implemented to address current and future salt and nutrient loading of the Groundwater Basin. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-5 July 2015 ES 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies Although overall basin groundwater quality is not expected to degrade significantly due to ongoing and anticipated future nutrient loading, there is still a need to further assess, reduce or manage, and monitor nutrient loading to make sure that new high nitrate areas are not created by poor waste management practices or over-application of fertilizers and irrigation waters. In general, the NMP’s short-term goals are to improve the understanding of current and historical nutrient impacts to the groundwater basin, and to minimize current and future nutrient loading while allowing for a reasonable amount of new loading from rural development and recycled water use increases. The long-term goal is to meet Basin Objectives in all parts of the groundwater basin. The NMP strategies for achieving these goals include promoting the continued use of “best management practices” (BMPs) requirements aimed at minimizing nutrient loading from certain land uses (i.e., irrigated and fertilized turf and landscapes, confined livestock operations, vineyards and wineries). The NMP also promotes the enforcement of current County OWTS regulations and Zone 7 Wastewater Management policies and the future development and implementation of ACEH’s Local Area Management Program (LAMP) to minimize nutrient loading from current and future development in unsewered areas of the basin. In order to address the localized high nitrate conditions in the Areas of Concern, the NMP advocates an adaptive management strategy that begins with: 1) Increasing the understanding of the extent and source(s) of the high nitrate concentrations in the Areas of Concern, and adjusting Area of Concern boundaries as appropriate; 2) Requiring new development projects within the unsewered Areas of Concern to minimize, or when practical, reduce the overall nutrient loading on the project parcel by installing only new, advanced OWTSs with nitrogen–reducing treatment; and 3) Continuing the monitoring of the nitrate concentrations and the success of these actions to reduce them. Figure ES-4, below, provides a summary of the nutrient loading-specific goals for the active sources and the strategies developed to achieve the specific goals. FIGURE ES‐4 SUMMARY OF GOALS AND STRATEGIES NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Goals Strategies Strategy 1a: Identify and sample additional existing domestic supply wells. Strategy 1b: Encourage additional hydrogeology studies in Areas of Concern as part of new commercial developments. Strategy 2a: Promote the use of fertilizer BMPs (Section 6.1.2 ) to avoid over-application of fertilizers. Using results of soil and irrigation water chemical testing to determine the appropriate amount of additional fertilizer to apply is a good way to lessen excess leachable nitrogen in the soil. Strategy 2b: Limiting irrigation water application to the crop and landscape plants’ agronomic rates will reduce the amount of nutrient-rich leachate that migrates below the vegetation root zone and into the underlying aquifer(s). Strategy 3a: Follow Recycled Water Policy guidance for landscape irrigation projects. Minimize recharge of nitrogen by irrigating landscapes to the prescribed agronomic rates. Account for the nitrogen content of the recycled water when determining how much fertilizer to apply. Strategy 3b: Maintain low levels of nitrogen in the produced recycled water by keeping the nitrogen concentrations in the source water low and/or optimize low nitrogen levels in recycled water production. Goal 4: Minimize nitrogen loading from concentrated livestock facilities such as horse boarding, training, and breeding facilities Strategy 4: Promote the use of BMPs (Section 6.1.4 ) such as manure management and controlling site drainage to prevent nutrient contamination of rainfall runoff and irrigation return flows that may percolate to groundwater and/or flow into surface water bodies. Strategy 5a: Require local wine producers and bottlers to apply for and comply with RWQCB WDRs for the proper treatment and disposal of winery process waste streams. Strategy 5b: Develop guidance document(s) to assist both project proponents and RWQCB staff with Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and WDR development and evaluations. Strategy 6a: Continue applying Zone 7 policies and County Ordinance and Regulation provisions, e.g., 1 Rural Residential Equivalence (RRE)/5 Ac max. Strategy 6b: Continue to work with ACEH to ensure that: 1) they are aware of groundwater nitrate issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin; 2) variance requests are given the appropriate scrutiny; and 3) their OWTS approvals are consistent with adopted NMP goals and objectives. Strategy 7a: Increase understanding of existing conditions and causes, and set realistic management goals and apply adaptive management as necessary. Strategy 7b: Require new development projects utilizing OWTS in the Areas of Concern to reduce and/or minimize the overall nitrogen loading to the property. Strategy 7c: On at least an annual basis, assess performance of wastewater treatment systems, estimate area-wide nitrogen loading, and monitor groundwater quality beneath the Areas of Concern. Goal 8: Increase capture and infiltration of stormwater recharge to dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater Strategy 8: Promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to capture and infiltrate rainfall runoff and irrigation return flow ACEH = Alameda County Enviromental Health RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board BMPs = Best Management Practices Enhanced Attenuation Investigate Areas of Concern Goal 1: Obtain additional information in shallow aquifer zones of the Areas of Concern Goal 6: Minimize nitrogen loading from new onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), e.g., septic tank systems. Goal 3: Minimize nitrogen loading from recycled water irrigation projects Goal 7: Reduce nitrogen loading from OWTS in Areas of Concern Septic Tanks - Inside Areas of Concern Fertilizer Application Recycled Water Irrigation Livestock Manure Management Winery Process Wastewater Septic Tanks - Outside Areas of Concern Goal 2: Minimize nitrogen loading from fertilizer application using BMPs Goal 5: Minimize nitrogen loading from onsite disposal of winery process wastewater 7/22/2015 E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigES‐04‐ImplementationPlan.xlsx Figure ES‐4 ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-7 July 2015 ES 6 Plan Implementation Zone 7 plans to simultaneously refine the extent of the Areas of Concern and minimize nitrogen loading from existing sources. To further characterize the range and size of nitrate contamination, Zone 7 will work with ACEH and CDA on encouraging or requiring hydrogeologic studies as part of new commercial developments, and with existing well owners to sample existing shallow wells for nitrate, and with permitees planning new wells or soil borings near Areas of Concern to include electronic logs (elogs) and/or groundwater sampling in their construction plans. To minimize nitrogen loading from existing sources, the NMP encourages continued use of existing BMPs to minimize groundwater impacts from fertilizer and recycled water applications, livestock manure, and winery wastewater. Landscape and agriculture management industries promote careful metering of fertilizers and irrigation water as cost saving measures as well as environmental preservation measures. The State’s Recycled Water Policy has built-in prohibitions for over application and runoff of recycled water. Permitted livestock facilities, such as commercial equine boarding facilities, typically have requirements for active manure management conditioned in their County-issued Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Likewise, onsite treatment and disposal (or recycling) of industrial wastewater, such as that generated by winemaking processes, requires a waste discharge permit from the Water Board which often contains provisions for minimizing and monitoring the nutrient loading from the onsite operations. The NMP also encourages continued use of existing Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to increase the capture and infiltration of stormwater in order to help attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater. With continued implementation of these BMPs, future nitrate concentrations are projected to remain below 20% of the assimilative capacities calculated for each of the four Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin areas. Continued application of these BMPs also helps to minimize nutrient loading in the high nitrate Areas of Concern. In the five Areas of Concern that are within sewered areas, fertilizer and recycled water use BMPs are important for keeping nitrogen loading low, whereas fertilizer use and manure management BMPs and Waste Discharge Requirements for wineries help prevent nitrate concentrations from worsening in the five Areas of Concern that are in the unincorporated portions of the Valley. However, because there is potential for onsite disposal of residential and commercial sewage to be a significant nitrogen loading component in the five unincorporated Areas of Concern, the NMP recommends implementing additional OWTS performance measures that will, at a minimum, prevent nitrogen loading from OWTS from increasing, and in the long term, should help decrease the loading in these nitrate “hot spots.” The recommended OWTS design criteria for new development in the five Areas of Concern that are outside municipal urban growth boundaries are summarized below in Figure ES-5. These criteria are designed to minimize nitrogen loading from new OWTS use and reduce existing loading in the five Areas of Concern over time by replacing conventional OWTS with new treatment systems when the opportunities arise. ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-8 July 2015 The NMP recommends that the special OWTS permit requirements described in Figure ES-5 be incorporated into the LAMP, which ACEH anticipates completing a draft in 2016, and finalizing it by 2018. Figure ES-5: Proposed OWTS Requirements Inside Areas of Concern 1 Does not apply to existing, properly-working, and properly-sized OWTS. 2 Loading rates calculated based on 1 RRE = 34 lbs/yr. 3 Assume that 18% of rainfall naturally recharges to groundwater unless study demonstrates otherwise. Zone 7 has a comprehensive water resources monitoring program in place as part of its GWMP. Monitoring elements include groundwater level monitoring, groundwater quality sampling, and climatological, surface water, land use, and wastewater and recycled water monitoring. Zone 7 wil l continue to use the data collected as part of these monitoring program elements to refine the nitrate concentration maps, Area of Concern boundaries, and the extent of the special OWTS permitting areas. Zone 7 will identify data gaps and suggested locations and depths for new monitoring wells and/or soil borings for expedited groundwater sampling in the Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will provide this information to property owners and developers to assist in developing efficient strategies for fully characterizing nitrate concentrations and nitrogen loading for projects inside Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will also work with ACEH to develop an OWTS monitoring plan that may require that owners and developers install additional monitoring wells up-gradient and down-gradient of the high nitrate areas. NMP-related monitoring results will be reported along with other groundwater sustainability and management information in Zone 7’s annual Groundwater Management Program reports. Minor updates to the SMP/NMP will also be reported in the annual reports. As the assigned Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the groundwater basins located within its service areas, Zone 7 plans to incorporate the then OWTS Scenario Parcel Size New Requirement Max Nitrogen Loading Rate2 ≤ 7 acres Must install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s). 23.8 lbs/year Per Parcel Total nitrogen loading on the parcel must not exceed the Maximum Nitrogen Loading Rate. Commercial uses must also install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s). 3.4 lbs/year Per Parcel Acre OR Prepare hydrogeologic study that assesses current groundwater nitrate conditions beneath the site and demonstrates that nitrate concentration of total onsite recharge 3 does not exceed 36 mg/L (80% of MCL) or the maximum concentration at the site, whichever is lower. 6.8 lbs/year Per Parcel Acre > 7 acres New, upgraded, or replacement OWTS required by County OWTS Ordinance 1 ES - Executive Summary Nutrient Management Plan ES-9 July 2015 current SMP/NMP into a Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin before the due date of January 31, 2022. Nutrient Management Plan 1 July 2015 1 Background 1.1 Introduction Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has actively managed the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] Basin No. 2-10) for over 50 years. Zone 7 prepared a Salt Management Plan (SMP) in 2004 to address the increasing level of total salts in the Main Basin of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. The SMP was designed to protect the long-term water quality of the Main Basin and is a permit condition of the Master Water Recycling Permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Order No. 93-159, issued jointly to Zone 7, the City of Livermore, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The SMP was approved by the Water Board in October 2004 and was incorporated into Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) in 2005. The status of salt management is updated in Zone 7's annual GWMP reports, copies of which are submitted to the Water Board to satisfy associated permit reporting requirements. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted a Recycled Water Policy in February 2009 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011) to encourage and facilitate the increased use of recycled water statewide. The policy requires among other things, that Salt/Nutrient Management Plans (SNMPs) be completed for all groundwater basins. The policy was amended in January 2013 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2013-0003) to include provisions regarding the monitoring of Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs). Because there is already an approved SMP for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, a new SNMP is not required. However, to make the existing SMP comparable to the SNMP described in the Recycled Water Policy, Zone 7 has prepared this Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) as an addendum to its 2004 SMP, and, by extension, its GWMP. This plan does not cover other groundwater basins within the Zone 7 Service Area (Sunol Valley, San Joaquin – Tracy Subbasin) because there are no recycled water projects planned in those basins. This report is organized into the following sections:  Section 1: Introduction – provides an overview of the report.  Section 2: Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin Characteristics – provides an overview of the groundwater basin including groundwater inventory and basin water quality.  Section 3: Basin Nutrient Evaluation – describes how Zone 7 manages the groundwater basin for storage and water quality.  Section 4: Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis – describes the proposed recycled water irrigation projects and how this plan addresses the State’s antidegradation policy (State Water Board Resolution Number 68 – 16).  Section 5: Goals and Strategies – describes the nutrient management options and strategies and outlines the nutrient management goals for groundwater, wastewater, and recycled water.  Section 6: Plan Implementation – describes the implementation measures and provides an overview of the basin monitoring program.  Section 7: References – a list of reports and documents that were used to prepare this report. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 2 July 2015 1.2 Purpose and Management Objectives This NMP summarizes Zone 7's approach to managing nutrient loading in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. The main purposes of this nutrient management plan are to:  Provide an assessment of the existing and future groundwater nutrient concentrations;  Address the additional nutrient loading anticipated from the planned expansion of recycled water use over the groundwater basin; and  Identify specific high groundwater nitrate areas and describe the planned management actions developed to address these impacted areas. Zone 7’s primary groundwater Basin Management Objective (BMO) is to provide for the control, protection and conservation of groundwater for future beneficial uses. The Water Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) designates the following beneficial uses for groundwater in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin:  Municipal and Domestic Supply  Industrial Service and Process Supply  Agricultural Supply The Basin Plan also specifies Groundwater Quality Objectives for total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin as follows: Central Basin TDS: Ambient or 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L), whichever is lower Nitrate (as NO3): 45 mg/L Fringe Subbasins TDS: Ambient or 1,000 mg/L, whichever is lower Nitrate (as NO3): 45 mg/L Upland and Highland Areas California domestic water quality standards set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and current county standards. Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal water supply shall not contain concentrations of chemicals in excess of natural concentrations or the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, particularly Tables 64431-A and 64431-B of Section 64431, Table 64444-A of Section 64444, and Table 4 of Section 64443. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 3 July 2015 This “living” NMP incorporates adaptive management strategies. Regular updates will be provided in Zone 7’s GWMP Annual Reports. 1.3 Regulatory Framework 1.3.1 Master Water Recycling Permit and Salt Management Plan In 1993, the Water Board issued a joint Master Water Recycling Permit (Master Permit) (Order No. 93- 159) to Zone 7, DSRSD, and the City of Livermore authorizing the three agencies to produce, distribute and manage recycled water throughout the Livermore-Amador Valley (Valley). The Master Permit required that an SMP be developed to fully offset both current salt loading from natural sources and operations and any future salt loading associated with new recycled water projects before any extensive water recycling projects could be implemented in the Valley. Between 1994 and 1999, Zone 7 developed a draft SMP for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin through a collaborative process with its retail water supply customers and the public. The SMP was finalized and approved by the Water Board in 2004, and later incorporated into Zone 7’s GWMP. DSRSD and the City of Livermore have since filed for, and have been granted, coverage under a regional General Water Reuse Order (General Order No. 96-011) to administer their current and future landscape irrigation recycled water projects within their individual jurisdictions. As with the Master Permit, the General Order requires that an SMP be developed and approved. The Master Permit has been kept active by the Water Board at the request of DSRSD and Livermore only to address potential future groundwater recharge projects. The City of Pleasanton has applied for permit coverage for their planned recycled water use projects under the same general order that DSRSD and City of Livermore’s recycled water programs are operating under (General Order No. 96-011), and references Zone 7’s approved SMP in its application to satisfy the order’s SMP requirement. 1.3.2 State Recycled Water Policy In 2009, the State Water Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy (State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011) which requires that SNMPs be completed for all groundwater basins using recycled water in California. However, since an approved SMP already exists for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, a new SNMP is not required. In June 2014, the State Water Board adopted General Water Quality Order No. 2014-0090-DWQ to promote and regulate landscape irrigation recycled water projects within the state. This general order was written to be consistent with the State’s Recycled Water Policy in that it requires an SNMP be prepared 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 4 July 2015 and adopted by the Water Board. This NMP will be submitted to the Water Board as an amendment to the previously adopted SMP, and by extension Zone 7’s GWMP. 1.3.3 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) In June 2012, the State Water Board adopted a new policy that establishes siting, design, operation, and maintenance criteria for OWTS statewide. The purpose of this policy is to allow the continued use of OWTS by providing local agencies a streamlined regulatory tool with clear criteria and a flexible alternative for protecting water quality and public health from OWTS impacts where local conditions call for special requirements to be implemented. The OWTS Policy gives the Regional Water Boards the principal responsibility to oversee implementation, and calls for incorporating the OWTS Policy requirements into all Basin Plans. The San Francisco Bay Water Board adopted a Basin Plan amendment in June 2014 that incorporates the State's new OWTS Policy. Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) enforces the State Water Board’s policies for the operation, installation, alteration, and repair of individual onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), (i.e., septic tank systems) in all of Alameda County under the authority of Chapter 15.18 of the Alameda County General Ordinance. The County’s 2007 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems and Individual/Small Water Systems Regulations were developed in collaboration with the Water Board and Zone 7, and include special provisions for the Upper Alameda Creek Watershed, above Niles; such as a moratorium for new OWTS in unincorporated Happy Valley and a 5-acre minimum parcel size requirement for new OWTS in the remainder of the watershed. The recent OWTS Policy allows for local agencies such as ACEH to implement or continue additional requirements like these that address local conditions and special concerns, but mandates that they be detailed in a Local Area Management Program (LAMP) developed in consultation with the Water Board. As such, ACEH is planning to work with Water Board staff and other local entities to develop an LAMP for Alameda County. ACEH anticipates completing a draft LAMP by 2016 and finalizing it by 2018. More information on the LAMP provisions envisioned for the areas overlying the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is provided in Section 6.2.5. 1.3.4 Zone 7 Wastewater Management Plan In 1982, Zone 7 adopted its Wastewater Management Plan for the Unsewered, Unincorporated Area of Alameda Creek Watershed above Niles (WWMP) (Zone 7, 1982), which provides wastewater management policies intended to prevent further degradation of water quality from onsite wastewater disposal systems in the Livermore Valley, Sunol Valley, and Niles Cone groundwater basins. An additional policy was added in 1985 that limited the use of OWTS for new commercial development (Zone 7 Resolution 1165). Although ACEH issues permits for OWTS in Alameda County, Zone 7 requires special approval for any of the following OWTS located within the Valley: 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 5 July 2015  Any new OWTS constructed, partially or fully, for a commercial or industrial use;  Any conversion of a residential OWTS to a commercial or industrial use; or  Any new residential OWTS that discharges greater than one rural residential equivalence of wastewater (i.e., greater than an annual average of 320 gallons/day) per 5 acres. 1.3.5 Groundwater Management Plan and Annual Reports In 2005, Zone 7 compiled and documented all of its groundwater management policies, objectives, and programs, including its WWMP and SMP, into its comprehensive GWMP for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which the DWR recognizes as a SB1938-compliant GWMP. Zone 7’s GWMP provides a detailed description of the groundwater management goals and practices used for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, as well as detailed descriptions of the subbasin boundaries, hydrologic settings, historical groundwater use and overdraft, practices and measures used to prevent future overdraft and groundwater quality degradation, and stakeholder involvement during the development of the GWMP. Another significant portion of the GWMP addresses the numerous monitoring programs and protocols employed by Zone 7 to quantify, manage and protect the basin’s groundwater supplies. The GWMP itself is intended to be a “living document,” and as such, undergoes periodic reevaluations and updates as conditions and management goals may change. Periodic adjustments to the GWMP are noted in the Annual Reports for the Groundwater Management Program (years 2005 to 2013), available online at www.zone7water.com. Major revisions are handled through a formal revision or addendum process that involves collaboration between Zone 7, the Water Board, Zone 7’s retailers, and other stakeholders in an open public process. In 2014, California passed three new bills (Senate Bills 1168 and 1319, Assembly Bill 1739) designed to achieve sustainable groundwater management in the state within the next 20 years. In SB 1168, Zone 7 was deemed the exclusive local agency to manage groundwater within its statutory boundaries with powers to comply with this new part of the Water Code. 1.4 Stakeholder Involvement This NMP was developed with cooperation and input from regulatory agencies (e.g., Water Board, ACEH, Alameda County Community Development Agency [Alameda CDA]), property owners, Zone 7’s Retailers (City of Livermore, DSRSD, City of Pleasanton, California Water Service), and other interested parties. The following meetings took place from June 2013 to June 2015 to discuss the calculation methods, results, and proposed actions:  June 2013: Meeting at the Water Board with Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), RMC, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) also in attendance. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 6 July 2015  July 2013: Status meetings with Zone 7 Retailers.  October 2013: Status meeting with Zone 7 Retailers  October 2013: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee discussing preliminary results.  January 2014: Follow-up public meeting and presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee.  March 2014: Progress meeting with the Water Board, SCVWD, SCWA.  April 2014: Public stakeholder meeting with property owners and residents in May School, Buena Vista and Greenville Areas of Concern. Staff from ACEH and Alameda CDA were also in attendance.  July 2014: Progress meeting with the Water Board, ACEH and Alameda CDA  October 2014: Progress meeting with Zone 7 Retailers to discuss final results.  November 2014: Progress meeting with the Water Board, ACEH, and Alameda CDA to discuss final results.  November 2014: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee to discuss final results.  February 2015: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board to present draft report.  March 2015: Meeting with the Water Board to discuss comments on draft report.  April 2015: Follow-up meeting with the Water Board to further discuss proposed revisions to draft report.  May 2015: Follow-up meeting with the Water Board and ACEH staff to review changes to draft report. A copy of the draft NMP report was also provided to CDA for comments.  June 2015: Public meeting with presentation to Zone 7’s Board Water Resources Committee to discuss draft report. In addition, a webpage was created on Zone 7’s website at www.zone7water.com and maintained for the NMP project. Public meeting announcements, meeting presentation slides, and draft NMP documents were posted on the webpage or elsewhere on the website during the development and review of the draft NMP. 1.5 CEQA Considerations This Nutrient Management Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A notice of exemption has been filed with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder. This Plan is an addendum to the existing Groundwater Management Plan, which in 2005 was also found to be exempt from CEQA. 1- Background Nutrient Management Plan 7 July 2015 The NMP provides a focused assessment of current and anticipated issues and concerns relating to nitrate concentrations in the groundwater basin. Best management practices are identified – focused primarily on minimizing nitrogen loading over the groundwater basin. The BMPs are inherently protective measures for the environment, and therefore no significant impacts will occur as a result of implementation of the Plan. The plan does not identify the need for new or modified infrastructure. Should Zone 7 wish to undertake such a project in the future to help meet NMP related goals, it would require project-specific analysis under CEQA. Nutrient Management Plan 9 July 2015 2 Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations 2.1 Groundwater Basin Overview This section provides a brief summary of the hydrogeologic setting of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. A more detailed description can be found in Zone 7’s GWMP (Zone 7, 2005a). The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Figure 2-1) is an inland alluvial basin underlying the east-west trending Livermore-Amador Valley (Valley) in northeastern Alameda County. Figure 2-1: Map of Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins (DWR, 1974) The Main Basin is a portion of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin that contains the highest yielding aquifers and generally the best quality groundwater. The Fringe Basins consist primarily of shallow, lower-yielding alluvium containing relatively poor quality groundwater. The upland area portions of the groundwater basin consist primarily of lower-yielding bedrock of the Livermore, Tassajara, and Green Valley Formations. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 10 July 2015 Six principal streams flow into and/or through the Main Basin and join in the southeast where the Arroyo de la Laguna flows out of the Valley. The five arroyos shown in Figure 2-1 and listed below are essentially tributaries to the Arroyo de la Laguna:  Arroyo Valle,  Arroyo Mocho,  Arroyo Las Positas,  South San Ramon Creek,  Tassajara Creek, and  Alamo Creek/Canal. Average precipitation ranges from 14 inches per year at the eastern edge of the Valley to over 20 inches per year in the western portion. 2.1.1 Geology The Valley and portions of the surrounding uplands overlie groundwater-bearing materials. These materials consist of deposits from alluvial fans, streams, and lakes (of Pleistocene-Holocene age; less than about 1.6 million years old) that range in thickness from a few feet along the margins to nearly 800 feet (ft) in the west-central portion. The alluvium consists of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The southeastern region of the Valley is the most important groundwater recharge area and consists mainly of sand and gravel that was deposited by the ancestral and present Arroyo Valle and Arroyo Mocho. The Livermore Formation (Pleistocene age; 11,000 to 1.6 million years old), found below the majority of the alluvium in the groundwater basin, consists of beds of clayey gravels and sands, silts, and clays that are unconsolidated to semi-consolidated. However, the contact between the overlying alluvium and the Livermore Formation is nearly impossible to discern from drill cuttings and electrical logs. This formation is estimated to be 4,000 ft thick in the southern and western portion of the basin. These sediments tend to have low-yielding groundwater in the upland areas. The Tassajara and Green Valley Formations, located in the Tassajara Uplands north of the Valley, are roughly Pliocene in age (1.6 to 5.3 million years old). They basically consist of sandstone, tuffaceous sandstone/siltstone, conglomerate, shale, and limestone. Water movement from these formations to the alluvium of the fringe and Main Basins is minimized by faults and angular unconformities or by stratigraphic disconformities along the formation-alluvium contacts. The lateral movement of groundwater is restricted by the presence of geologic structures which create boundaries. These include the Parks Boundary (which was initially considered to be fault-related, but may be a depositional boundary between recent alluvium and older material), as well as the Livermore, Pleasanton, Calaveras, and Greenville faults. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 11 July 2015 2.1.2 Main and Fringe Basins The Main Basin and Fringe Basins (shown on Figure 2-1) are comprised of the subbasins listed below: Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East  Castle  Bernal  Amador  Mocho II  Bishop  Camp  Dublin  Altamont  Cayetano  May  Spring  Vasco  Mocho I (northern portion)  Mocho I (southern portion) All of the Valley’s municipal supply wells are completed in the Main Basin aquifers, which have the highest transmissivity in the Valley. Figure 2-2 (from Zone 7, 2014) shows the recharge area for the Main Basin. The most relevant of the Fringe Basins to the NMP is the Fringe Basin North due to its connectivity with the Main Basin (Section 2.1.3.1) and because of the amount of recycled water use, both existing and proposed, in that portion of the basin. 2.1.3 Aquifer Zones 2.1.3.1 Overview Water levels in the Main Basin typically vary with seasonal recharge and extraction. The highest water levels usually are found at the end of the rainy season and lowest water levels at the end of the high demand summer/fall seasons; however, this trend can change during periods of extended drought or multi-year storage replenishment (Section 2.2.1). Zone 7 maintains a system of Key Wells that is used to monitor general conditions in each of the Main Basin’s Subbasins. Although multiple aquifers have been identified in the Main Basin alluvium, wells have been classified generally as being in one of two aquifer zones (upper or lower), separated by a relatively continuous silty- clay aquitard up to about 50 ft thick. Groundwater in both the upper and lower aquifer zones generally follows a westerly flow pattern, similar to the surface water streams, along the structural central axis of the valley toward municipal pumping centers. The Main Basin is connected to the fringe areas primarily through the shallow alluvium, especially across the northern boundaries of the Main Basin. Subsurface inflow into the deeper portions of the Main Basin from the fringe subbasins is considered to be minor. The deeper aquifers of the Main Basin are primarily recharged through vertical migration of groundwater within the Main Basin itself. GROUNDWATERBASINBOUNDARY Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR/CW 100 North Canyons Parkway, Livermore, CA REVIEWED: MK Figure 2-2Recharge Area and Confining LayerAbove Upper Aquifer Scale: Date: Oct 3, 2014 7,000 0 7,0003,500 Feet Legend Approximate Limit of Confining LayerConfining LayerGroundwater BasinMain BasinRecharge Area . File: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig2-02-RechargeMap.mxd 1 " = 7,000 ft 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 13 July 2015 2.1.3.2 Upper Aquifer Zone The upper aquifer zone consists of alluvial materials, including primarily sandy gravel and sandy clayey gravels. These gravels are usually encountered underneath a confining surficial clay layer typically 5 to 70 ft below ground surface [bgs] in the west and exposed at the surface in the east. The base of the upper aquifer zone ranges from 80 to 150 ft bgs. Groundwater in this zone is generally unconfined; however, when water levels are high, portions of the Upper Aquifer Zone in the western portion of the Main Basin can become confined. Figure 2-3: Gradient in Upper Aquifer, October 2013 The groundwater gradient in the Upper Aquifer is generally from east to west towards the Bernal Subbasin, then to the south where groundwater flows out of the Main Basin (see Figure 2-3 and Figure A- 1). The gradient typically ranges from 0.005 to 0.025 with isolated areas of flatter or steeper gradients, especially near subbasin boundaries. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 14 July 2015 2.1.3.3 Lower Aquifer Zone All sediments encountered below the clay aquitard in the center portion of the basin have been known collectively as the Lower Aquifer Zone. The aquifer materials consist of semi-confined to confined, coarse-grained, water-bearing units interbedded with relatively low permeability, fine-grained units. It is believed that the Lower Aquifer Zone derives most of its water from the Upper Aquifer Zone through the leaky aquitard(s) when groundwater heads in the upper zone are greater than those in the lower zone. Figure 2-4: Gradient in Lower Aquifer, October 2013 In the Lower Aquifer, the groundwater gradient within the Mocho II and Amador Subbasins ranges from 0.001 to 0.05 with groundwater flowing generally westward along the longitudinal axis of the Livermore- Amador Valley (see Figure 2-4 and Figure A-2). In the Bernal Subbasin, the gradient (typically less than 0.006) is slightly to the north and east towards the Hopyard and Mocho Wellfields. Typically, the lowest elevations correspond to the municipal pumping wellfields within each subbasin. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 15 July 2015 There are two major subsurface structural features that act as partial barriers to the lateral movement of groundwater in the Lower Aquifer. These features define the sub-basin boundaries between the Mocho II and Amador Subbasins, and between the Dublin and Camp fringe basins and the Main Basin. Groundwater levels are significantly higher on the up-gradient sides of these partial barriers, but it is believed that groundwater cascades across these linear features providing some subsurface recharge for the adjacent subbasin. 2.1.4 Land Use The majority of the land use over the Main and Fringe Basins is considered urban (60%), 7% is dedicated to gravel mining, 6% is used for irrigated agriculture, and the remaining areas are open space (27%). Zone 7 has an established Land Use Monitoring Program that identifies changes in land use with an emphasis on changes in impervious areas and the volume and quality of irrigation water that could impact the volume or quality of water recharging the Main Basin. Land use data are derived from aerial photography, permit applications, field observations, and City and County planning documents. The current land use categories are:  Residential (rural)  Residential (low density)  Residential (medium density)  Residential (high density)  Commercial and Business  Industrial  Public  Public (Irrigated Park)  Agriculture (vineyard)  Agriculture (non-vineyard)  Mining Area – Pit  Water Body  Golf Course  Open Space The source of the water that supplies each of the land use polygons is also catalogued. The sources of water are identified as:  Delivered (municipal) water  Groundwater  Recycled water Land use and source water information are used to calculate rainfall and applied water recharge and salt and nutrient loading. Current and future land uses and their associated loading contributions are discussed in more detail in Section 3. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 16 July 2015 2.2 Groundwater Inventory 2.2.1 Conjunctive Use Zone 7 imports extra surface water from the State Water Project’s (SWP) South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and artificially recharges it in the Main Basin (currently using stream percolation in losing reaches). This recharged SWP water is then available to Zone 7 for pumping during dry years. In normal years, Zone 7 operates its wells to augment production during demand peaks and whenever a shortage or interruption occurs in surface water supply or treatment. However, Zone 7 has also pumped groundwater as a salt management strategy. The decision of which well(s) to pump first is based on pumping costs, pressure zone needs, delivered aesthetic water quality issues, operational status, and demineralization facility capacity. Although reduced groundwater pumping may have a positive impact on groundwater storage and delivered water quality, increased groundwater pumping has a beneficial impact on the basin’s salt loading because much of the salt in the pumped groundwater eventually leaves the basin as wastewater export. 2.2.2 Groundwater Storage The Main Basin is estimated to hold up to 254 thousand acre-feet (TAF) whereas the fringe basins are estimated to hold 243 TAF. Zone 7 quantifies the total groundwater storage of the Main Basin by averaging the values computed by two independent methods: a groundwater elevation method and a hydrologic inventory method. Additional information on these two methods can be found in Zone 7’s annual GWMP reports. One of Zone 7’s groundwater basin management objectives is to maintain water levels above historical lows to minimize the risk of inducing land subsidence. Therefore, not all of the total groundwater storage is considered accessible. “Operational” or “Available” Storage is the approximate amount of storage available above the historical low groundwater surface (about 126 TAF). The remainder (approximately 128 TAF) is estimated reserves stored below historical lows. 2.2.3 Groundwater Production Zone 7 provides water resources management services to about 220,000 residents of the Valley. Zone 7 integrates management of both surface and groundwater supplies for conjunctive use and reliability of water supplies. Groundwater typically makes up 15-25% of the water supplied by Zone 7 to its retail water supply agencies; however, higher groundwater use can occur during droughts and surface water outages. In addition, two of the four retailers independently operate supply wells, as do other domestic and agricultural users, so the total amount of groundwater makes up a higher percentage of the total regional supply (typically 20-40%). All of the Valley’s municipal supply wells are completed in Main Basin aquifers (Figure 2-5). 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 17 July 2015 Figure 2-5: Map of Municipal Wells 2.2.4 Groundwater Sustainability Zone 7 strives to manage the basin’s groundwater sustainably. To assure sustainability, Zone 7 quantifies the supply and demand components (Figure 2-6) and their calculated annual volumes each year and makes sure that the long-term averages do not indicate overdraft conditions. The results are presented in Zone 7’s Annual Reports for the GWMP (see Zone 7, 2014 for the most recent example). The Main Basin’s “natural,” sustainable, groundwater yield is defined as the amount of water that can be pumped from the groundwater basin and replenished by long-term average, natural supply. The long- term, natural sustainable yield is calculated based on local precipitation and natural recharge over a century of hydrologic records and projections of future recharge conditions. Applied water recharge has been historically included in the “natural” sustainable yield because of its sustainable contribution to groundwater recharge. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 18 July 2015 Figure 2-6: Groundwater Supply and Demand Components Inflow and Outflow Components Normal Water Year (AF/yr) Natural Sustainable Yield Supply Natural Stream Recharge 5,700 Arroyo Valle Prior Rights 900 Rainfall Recharge 4,300 Applied (Irrigation) Water Recharge 1,600 Subsurface Inflow 1,000 Basin Overflow -100 Inflow Total 13,400 Natural Sustainable Yield Demand Municipal pumping by Retailers 7,214* Other groundwater pumping 1,186 Agricultural pumping 400 Mining Area Losses 4,600 Outflow Total 13,400 Managed Supply Artificial Stream Recharge Inflow Total Varies† Managed Demand Municipal Pumping by Zone 7 Outflow Total Varies† *Retailer Groundwater Pumping Quota (GPQ) for a Calendar Year †Artificial stream recharge and Zone 7 pumping amounts are determined by the availability of surface water The long-term, natural sustainable yield in the Main Basin was estimated to be about 13,400 acre-feet (AF) annually (Zone 7, 1992). While the natural sustainable yield approximates long-term-average natural recharge, the actual amount of natural recharge varies from year to year depending on the amount of local precipitation and irrigation during the year. Zone 7’s artificial recharge operations allow the groundwater basin to yield additional water, which is as sustainable as the supply of imported surface water. Zone 7 contracts with the SWP to import water that is released from the SBA or from Lake Del Valle (an SWP reservoir also operated by the California Department of Water Resources) into the arroyos for the purpose of augmenting the natural stream recharge. Historically, Zone 7’s annual groundwater pumping has varied with the availability of imported surface water and the capacity to treat that surface water. However, Zone 7 also operates its wells for salt management, to supply short-term demand peaks, and to compensate for treatment and conveyance system interruptions. The decision of which well(s) to pump is based on groundwater elevations, pumping costs, pressure zone needs, delivered aesthetic water quality issues, salt management needs, operational status, and groundwater demineralization facility capacity. Although reduced groundwater pumping may have a positive impact on groundwater storage and delivered water quality, increased groundwater pumping has a beneficial impact on the basin’s salt loading because much of the salt in the pumped groundwater eventually leaves the basin as wastewater export. Annual variability can be accommodated as long as the long-term average groundwater demands don’t exceed the sustainable average recharge. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 19 July 2015 2.3 Basin Water Quality (Nutrients) 2.3.1 Overview In addition to managing the basin for supply sustainability, Zone 7 manages the basin for groundwater quality. In general, groundwater quality throughout most of the Main Basin is suitable for most types of urban and agriculture uses with some minor localized water quality degradation. Zone 7’s annual GWMP reports (see Zone 7, 2014 for the 2013 report) present more details of the groundwater quality monitoring and management programs for the basin. The nutrient constituent of concern for this plan is nitrate since it is the only nutrient that has had a significant impact on groundwater quality. The Basin Objective (BO) for nitrate is 45 mg/L (measured as NO3) for both the Main and Fringe Basins (California State Water Board, 2011). Phosphate is also monitored as part of the GWMP, but is encountered in concentrations well below the water quality standards and is not considered a significant nutrient of concern for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Figure 2-7 below shows the maximum concentrations encountered in each of the basin areas. Figure 2-7: Maximum Concentration of Nutrients in Basin Areas Nutrient Standard Concentration Max (2001-2014) Main Basin Fringe North Fringe Northeast Fringe East mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Nitrate (as NO3) 45(1) 95 340(2) 190 163 Phosphate (as PO4) 5(3) 2.85 3.65 1.93 0.34 (1) MCL from CDPH and BO from the Water Board (2) Only 2 sample results above 100 mg/L (3) Recommended limit from World Health Organization 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 20 July 2015 2.3.2 Nitrate Concentrations The results from Zone 7’s annual groundwater sampling are used to prepare nitrate concentration maps each year for Zone 7’s Groundwater Management Program annual reports. Where data gaps exist, Zone 7 uses historical data and geologic expertise to estimate the extent of nitrate concentrations. The nitrate concentration contours maps from the upper and lower aquifers from the 2013 Annual Report (Zone 7, 2014) are shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9 below, and in more detail in Figure A-3 and Figure A-4 in Appendix A: Figure 2-8: Nitrate Concentrations in Upper Aquifer 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 21 July 2015 Figure 2-9: Nitrate Concentrations in Lower Aquifer 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 22 July 2015 A conceptual cross section through the Fringe Basin East and southeast portion of the Main Basin is shown in Figure 2-10 below. Figure 2-10: Schematic Cross Section To calculate Main Basin groundwater storage for Zone 7’s Annual Groundwater Management Plan reports, Zone 7 uses polygonal subareas originally developed by DWR (California DWR, 1974) and referred to as nodes. The groundwater storage of each node is calculated using the nodal thickness, average groundwater elevations from the fall semiannual measuring event, storage coefficient, and total area of each node (see Figure A-5 for the values used for each node). The fringe basin nodes only have upper aquifer zones whereas the Main Basin nodes have upper and lower aquifer zones. The total Main Basin groundwater storage is equal to the sum of all the nodal storage values for the 22 nodes in the Main Basin. Groundwater basin storage varies considerably spatially, especially in the Main Basin. Therefore, Zone 7 calculated a volume-weighted average nitrate concentration for each of the basins using the nodal storage 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 23 July 2015 volumes used in the Zone 7’s 2013 annual GWMP report (Zone 7, 2014). Zone 7 used ArcGIS’s Spatial Analyst to calculate the average nitrate concentration for each groundwater storage node from the nitrate concentration maps (shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9, and in detail in Figure A-3 and Figure A-4). These average nodal concentrations were then averaged by the nodal storage volume to calculate the volume-weighted, average nitrate concentration of each basin. Figure 2-11 shows the layout of the nodes, and the average upper or upper and lower aquifer nitrate concentrations for each node from the 2013 monitoring well sampling results (Zone 7, 2014). Figure 2-11: Nitrate Concentrations by Node Figure 2-12 below shows the storage volume of each node from the 2013 annual report, average nitrate concentrations, and assimilative capacity (AC) by node, aquifer, subbasin, and basin areas (see Section 2.3.3 for discussion on how assimilative capacity is calculated). 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 24 July 2015 Figure 2-12: Storage (AF), Nitrate Concentrations (as NO3 in mg/L) and Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) by Node, Subbasin, and Basin Area Upper Lower Total Basin NODE Basin Subbasin Storage NO3 AC Storage NO3 AC Storage NO3 AC NODE 1 FBN 28,888 1 44 - - - 28,888 1 44 NODE 2 FBN 3,363 3 42 - - - 3,363 3 42 NODE 3 FBN 6,303 6 39 - - - 6,303 6 39 NODE 4 FBN 6,236 14 31 - - - 6,236 14 31 NODE 5 FBN 5,914 14 31 - - - 5,914 14 31 NODE 6 FBN 7,349 11 34 - - - 7,349 11 34 NODE 7 FBN 6,825 11 34 - - - 6,825 11 34 NODE 8 FBN 4,263 2 43 - - - 4,263 2 43 NODE 9 FBN 5,119 5 40 - - - 5,119 5 40 NODE 10 FBN 7,219 11 34 - - - 7,219 11 34 NODE 11 FBN 4,918 6 39 - - - 4,918 6 39 NODE 12 FBN 10,142 3 42 - - - 10,142 3 42 NODE 13 FBN 8,035 3 42 - - - 8,035 3 42 NODE 14 FBN 5,495 5 40 - - - 5,495 5 40 NODE 15A FBN 106 1 44 - - - 106 1 44 NODE 16A FBN 96 2 43 - - - 96 2 43 NODE 15 MB Bernal 535 11 34 1,771 12 33 2,306 12 33 NODE 16 MB Bernal 600 4 41 2,654 13 32 3,253 11 34 NODE 17 MB Bernal 1,499 12 33 1,602 9 36 3,100 11 34 NODE 18 MB Bernal 2,649 10 35 5,457 12 33 8,106 12 33 NODE 19 MB Bernal 3,784 14 31 5,579 12 33 9,363 13 32 NODE 20 MB Bernal 913 1 44 3,656 7 38 4,569 6 39 NODE 21 FBN 17,445 10 35 - - - 17,445 10 35 NODE 22 FBN 11,837 20 25 - - - 11,837 20 25 NODE 23 MB Amador 2,129 11 34 2,812 15 30 4,942 13 32 NODE 24 MB Amador 2,660 15 30 2,993 17 28 5,653 16 29 NODE 25 MB Amador 7,483 12 33 6,979 11 34 14,462 12 33 NODE 26 MB Amador 8,884 7 38 8,923 17 28 17,807 12 33 NODE 27 FBN 17,655 27 18 - - - 17,655 27 18 NODE 28 FBN 7,814 31 14 - - - 7,814 31 14 NODE 29 MB Amador 4,620 27 18 1 26 19 4,621 27 18 NODE 30 MB Amador 7,216 18 27 5,735 21 24 12,951 19 26 NODE 31 MB Amador 8,402 3 42 15,010 8 37 23,412 6 39 NODE 32 FBN 1,024 22 23 - - - 1,024 22 23 NODE 33 MB Amador 639 18 27 479 19 26 1,118 19 26 NODE 34 MB Amador 2,755 25 20 5,618 13 32 8,373 17 28 NODE 35 MB Amador 8,831 7 38 22,775 11 34 31,607 9 36 NODE 36 MB Amador 10,863 1 44 1 7 38 10,865 1 44 NODE 37 MB Amador 209 6 39 0 12 33 209 6 39 NODE 38 MB Mocho II 4,915 37 8 1,629 30 15 6,544 35 10 NODE 39 MB Mocho II 10,011 19 26 4,251 24 21 14,263 21 24 NODE 40 MB Mocho II 10,930 27 18 2,267 10 35 13,197 24 21 NODE 41 MB Mocho II 10,889 4 41 1 2 43 10,890 4 41 NODE 42 MB Mocho II 7,647 36 9 1,759 33 12 9,406 35 10 NODE 43 FBNE 8,622 27 18 - - - 8,622 27 18 NODE 44 FBE 6,830 15 30 - - - 6,830 15 30 NODE 45 FBNE 62,141 14 31 - - - 62,141 14 31 NODE 46 FBNE - 11 34 - - - - 11 34 NODE 47 FBNE - 7 38 - - - - 7 38 Bernal 9,981 11 34 20,717 11 34 30,698 11 34 Amador 64,692 10 35 71,326 12 33 136,018 11 34 Mocho II 44,392 22 23 9,908 24 21 54,299 22 23 Main Basin 119,064 15 30 101,951 13 32 221,015 14 31 FB-North 166,046 11 34 166,046 11 34 FB-Northeast* 70,762 15 30 70,762 15 30 FB-East 6,830 15 30 6,830 15 30 TOTAL* 362,702 13 32 101,951 13 32 464,653 13 32 * not including Nodes 46 and 47 (no storage info available) Storage in AF, NO3 Concentration in mg/L, AC = Assimilative Capacity 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 25 July 2015 The average volume-weighted concentrations were then calculated for each subbasin, aquifer, and basin area; and the results are as shown in Figure 2-13 below. Figure 2-13: Nitrate Concentrations by Subbasin, Aquifer, and Basin Area The 2013 total average nitrate concentration in the upper aquifer is 15 mg/L, with all subbasins between 9 mg/L and 27 mg/L. The average nitrate concentration in the lower aquifer is 13 mg/L, with all subbasins between 11 mg/L and 24 mg/L. The overall concentration for the Main Basin is 14 mg/L. The average concentrations in the Fringe Basins (which only consist of an upper aquifer) ranged between 11 mg/L and 15 mg/L. All average basin concentrations are well below the BO (45 mg/L); however, there are Areas of Concern (described in Section 2.4) where local nitrate concentrations do exceed the BO. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 26 July 2015 2.3.3 Assimilative Capacity Assimilative Capacity, the natural capacity of the groundwater basin to absorb pollutants, is the difference between the BO (45 mg/L) and the average concentration of the basin with a relatively conservative contaminant like nitrate. The assimilative capacity estimated for each of the nodes and basins are shown in Figure 2-14 and are summarized below by basin area. Figure 2-14: Average Nitrate Concentrations and Assimilative Capacities by Basin Area BASIN AREA Average NO3 (mg/L) Basin Objective (mg/L) Assimilative Capacity (mg/L) Main Basin 14 45 31 Upper Aquifer 15 45 30 Lower Aquifer 13 45 32 Fringe Basin – North* 11 45 34 Fringe Basin – Northeast* 15 45 30 Fringe Basin – East* 15 45 30 * Fringe Basins consist of only an upper aquifer The average nitrate concentrations on which the assimilative capacity was calculated are based on nitrate concentration contours and nodal storage volumes calculated for the 2013 Annual Report. Where data gaps existed, Zone 7 used historical data (for example 2008 data in the May School area, Section 2.4) and geologic expertise to estimate the extent of nitrate concentrations contours. 2.4 Areas of Concern Average nitrate concentrations are well below the BO (45 mg/L) in all four groundwater basin areas in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, however there are ten local areas where nitrate concentrations are above the BO. These “Areas of Concern” are shown in orange and red on Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16 and are described below, roughly from West to East. Five of the ten Areas of Concern have a higher-than-average density of OWTS in use, which has led to the development of special requirements for new OWTS applications in these areas. The OWTS management goals and strategies and associated implementation plan for these five Areas of Concern are discussed in detail in Sections 5.3.5 and 6.2.5. 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 27 July 2015 Figure 2-15: Nitrate Areas of Concern 1. Happy Valley – This unincorporated, unsewered area has been subdivided into 1 to 5 acre lots and developed with rural residences relying on domestic wells for water supply. There are currently about 100 OWTS in use in Happy Valley. Very little additional development has been planned for the Happy Valley because Alameda County has placed a moratorium on new OWTS construction in the Happy Valley area due to high nitrate detections in some of the domestic wells. There are no dedicated monitoring wells in the area; however, many of the domestic wells have been tested for nitrate since 1973. In 2013, Zone 7 and ACEH conducted voluntary testing of water samples from domestic wells in Happy Valley. Seven of the 31 wells had nitrate concentrations that exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 45 mg/L, with one reaching 124 mg/L. Most of the high nitrate occurrences were detected in the central portion of this enclosed sub-basin, which consists of only one upper aquifer. The results of this study have not yet been finalized as of the date of this plan, however, the approximate extent of nitrate concentrations above 45 mg/L are shown in Figure 2-15. In a 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 28 July 2015 letter dated October 3, 2014, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has asked the City of Pleasanton to report back within six months to the commission on the results of a study to identify how water and sewer services will be provided to the Happy Valley area. 2. Staples Ranch – This elongated Area of Concern runs from west to east in the southern portion of the Camp Subbasin in the eastern portions of Dublin and Pleasanton. This area was heavily farmed in the past, and then left largely as undeveloped open space until recently. It is now planned for low- to medium-density residential and commercial development with connections to the municipal sewer, water, and recycled water. While only two monitoring wells in the upper aquifer (3S/1E 5K 6 and 3S/1E 2M 3) currently have nitrate concentrations above 45 mg/L, several surrounding wells in both the upper and lower aquifers have nitrate concentrations above the average. Concentrations have been slowly rising in monitoring well 3S/1E 2M 3 to a maximum concentration 66.43 mg/L in the 2013 Water Year (see graph below). The contamination is likely a remnant of past agricultural operations that included row crops, alfalfa cultivation, small dairy operations, and OWTS clusters. There is still some dry farming of hay in the area and a golf driving range in the eastern part with approximately 16 acres of irrigated turf. The future planned commercial development may effectively cap any potential buried nutrient sources from the historical agricultural land use, minimizing their leaching during rainfall events. 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Gree Staples Ranch (3S/1E 2M 3) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 29 July 2015 3. Bernal – This Area of Concern is based on nitrate concentrations from one well (3S/1E 22D 2) in the southern portion of the upper aquifer of the Amador West Subbasin. The long-term trend of concentrations in this well (see graph below) has been slowly declining; however, recently concentrations have been fluctuating around the MCL. This area is primarily sewered, and developed as medium-density residential (about 2 to 8 dwellings per acre) with no future additional development planned. The source of high nitrate and the reason for the fluctuating concentrations has not been identified, but it is speculated that the nitrate may have been entering the Main Basin as hill-front recharge and/or subsurface inflow from the neighboring Livermore Uplands to the south. These sources are likely diminishing as urban development spreads into the Upland area. 4. Jack London – This Area of Concern extends from the eastern portion of the Mocho II Subbasins to the northeastern portion of the Amador Subbasin. The eastern portion is primarily sewered medium-density residential while the western portion is sewered commercial (including the Livermore airport) with little future development currently planned. A horse boarding facility operates in the most western part. Portions of this nitrate plume date back to at least the 1960s. Two wells in the upper aquifer have consistently had concentrations above the 45 mg/L (3S/1E 11G 1 and 3S/2E 7H 2), however several surrounding wells in both the upper and lower aquifers also have elevated nitrate concentrations. Nitrate concentrations appear to have stabilized in 3S/1E 7H 2 at just above the MCL (see graph below). The most significant nutrient contributor is believed to have been the historical municipal wastewater disposal that was practiced at several locations along this nitrate plume before the LAVWMA wastewater export pipeline was constructed. Historical and current agricultural practices, and current recycled water use are other potential nutrient loading sources for this area, although considered to be less significant. 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3)(mg/L)Bernal (3S/1E 22D 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Jack London (3S/1E 7H 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 30 July 2015 5. Constitution – This Area of Concern exists near the boundary of the Mocho II, Camp, and Amador Sub-basins and is up-gradient from the Las Positas Golf Course in Livermore. This area is primarily sewered commercial with little future land use development. Nitrate concentrations above the 45 mg/L have only been detected in 3S/1E 1F 2 (see graph below), which shows an upward trend; however, elevated concentrations have also been detected in downgradient monitoring well 3S/1E 2R 1 (see Figure 2-16). The source of the nitrate is unconfirmed, but may be from historical OWTS use and agricultural practices, and current landscape fertilizer application and/or recycled water use. 6. May School - The highest nitrate concentration detected in the groundwater basin is located near May School Rd in the upper aquifer of the May Subbasin. There currently is only one Zone 7 monitoring well in this Area of Concern (2S/2E 28D 2), and it had a nitrate concentration of 189 mg/L in 2013 (see graph below). However, in the 2008 WY, as part of a “snapshot” water quality assessment for this area, Zone 7 sampled and analyzed several domestic wells to determine the extent of the nitrate contamination. These results, presented in the 2008 Annual Report for the Groundwater Management Program, Zone 7, 2009, (see Figure A-6) suggested that the nitrate appeared to be relatively localized, with the highest concentration in the vicinity of 2S/2E 28D 2. The source of high nitrate was not identified; however, it likely comes from agricultural land use in that area. Also, this unsewered area has a concentration of rural residences on Bel Roma Rd that are served by OWTS. There are no known future development plans for the area. 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Constitution (3S/1E 1F 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3)(mg/L)May School (2S/2E 28D 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 31 July 2015 7. Buena Vista - This nitrate plume is defined by several wells in the central and eastern portion of the Mocho II Subbasin in both the upper and lower aquifers. This area is primarily unsewered low- to medium-density residential, vineyard and winery land uses with some future vineyard and winery development planned. Figure 2-10 shows a schematic cross- section that includes the southeastern portion of this Area of Concern. The concentration in 3S/2E 22B 1 (see graph below), near the proximal end of the plume, fluctuates above and below the MCL, but has been above the MCL for the last few years (61.56 mg/L in the 2013 WY). The potential sources of the nitrate are existing OWTS and historical agricultural practices, livestock manure, and composting vegetation. There are over 100 OWTS still in use near the proximal end of the plume, documented historical poultry ranching, and crop and floral farming along Buena Vista Avenue. There are also numerous wineries in the area. 8. Charlotte Way- This Area of Concern exists in the western portion of the Mocho I Subbasin and may commingle with the Buena Vista Area of Concern in the eastern portion of the Mocho II Subbasin. The area is primarily sewered and developed as medium-density residential. There is no future development planned for the area. Elevated nitrate concentrations have been detected in at least three wells, but have historically been greatest in the upper aquifer monitoring well 3S/2E 14A 3 (see graph below). Concentrations in this well have fluctuated above and below 45 mg/L, but dropping below the MCL to 38.31 mg/L in the 2013 WY. The cause is believed to be historical OWTS, fertilizer applications, and other agricultural land uses that no longer exist in the area, but continue to have impact on groundwater quality. 0 20 40 60 80 100 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Buena Vista (3S/2E 22B 1) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Charlotte Way (3S/2E 14A 3) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 2-Basin Characteristics and Nitrate Concentrations Nutrient Management Plan 32 July 2015 9. Greenville – This Fringe Basin East Area of Concern is represented by a single monitoring well in the upper aquifer located on Greenville Road, near the corner of Tesla Road (3S/2E 24A 1). This area is primarily developed as unsewered low-density residential, vineyard, and wineries with future additional vineyard and winery uses planned. Figure 2-10 above shows a schematic cross-section through the Greenville and southeastern portion of the Buena Vista Areas of Concern. The highest concentration of nitrate recorded for the monitoring well was 163.90 mg/L in 2001 Water Year. The 2013 WY concentration was 156.33 mg/L (see graph below). The source of nitrate in this well is unconfirmed, but may be from historical chicken farming, and other agricultural land uses located up-gradient of the monitoring well. There is concern for the potential increase in onsite wastewater disposal from future commercial development planned for this area. 10. Mines Road – This Area of Concern, which is also represented by a single well; 3S/2E 26J 2 (see graph below). It is located in the southern portion of the Main Basin upper aquifer along Mines Road. Nitrate concentrations in this well have fluctuated widely, ranging from non- detect to a maximum of 94.77 mg/L in October 2011. The reason for the fluctuations are unknown, but may be related to agriculture and changes in precipitation. This area is primarily unsewered low-density residential with little future development planned. 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Greenville (3S/2E 24A 1) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L 0 50 100 150 200 19761977197819791980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)Mines Rd (3S/2E 26J 2) Maximum Contaminant Level = 45 mg/L May SchoolGreenvilleMines Rd.Buena VistaJ. LondonStaples RanchBernalConstitutionConstitutionStaples RanchBernalJack LondonBuena VistaGreenvilleMay SchoolCharlotte WayCharlotte WayNITRATE AREAS OF CONCERN AND TRENDSMines RoadFIGURE 2-16y = 0.0022x ‐41.992R² = 0.0218040801201602001980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012Nitrate Concentration mg/L3S/1E 4J 5 Nutrient Management Plan 35 July 2015 3 Nutrient Loading Evaluation 3.1 Historical Sources of Nitrate The most significant historical sources of nitrate in the basin (shown in Figure 3-1) are from:  Decaying vegetation (buried and surficial)  Municipal wastewater and sludge disposal  OWTS (i.e., septic systems)  Concentrated animal boarding/ranching (horse boarding, chicken and/or cattle ranching)  Applied fertilizers (crops and landscape) Figure 3-1: Historical and Existing Sources of Nitrate 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 36 July 2015 Several of these historical sources are no longer active, but appear coincident with or are slightly up- gradient from several Areas of Concern as described in Section 2.4. The nitrogen loading from these inactive historical sources is difficult to estimate due to the uncertainties about the original nature of the source (e.g., location, size, time frame, nitrogen loading rates). Most of these historical sources ceased several decades ago and are likely to already be in equilibrium with the groundwater basin. Therefore the current nitrogen loading from these inactive historical sources is assumed to be negligible. However, some of the historical nutrient loading processes are still active today (e.g., fertilizer application, onsite wastewater disposal, livestock manure production), albeit in much smaller quantities. These are addressed in the following sections. Since a complete database of active and historical nutrient sources such as existing wineries, concentrated livestock operations, OWTS, and historical municipal wastewater disposal areas was not available for this study, some assumptions were made for their quantities and locations. Computer searches and aerial photo review were performed to identify the active (or recent) wineries and equine facilities shown in Figure 3-1. The areas shown as “Existing Parcels with OWTS” in Figure 3-1 were synthesized using the county tax assessment roll and ArcGIS. Parcels containing structures in the unincorporated, unsewered areas were assumed to be served by an OWTS and therefore shaded accordingly in the figure. The historical OWTS and wastewater disposal areas were taken from figures and exhibits contained in Zone 7’s Wastewater Management Plan (Camp, et al, 1983) and Land Application of Wastewater and Its Effect on Ground-water Quality in the Livermore-Amador Valley (USGS, 1983). Fertilizer application areas are not shown in Figure 3-1 because they are assumed to be widespread and a function of land use. 3.2 Conceptual Model 3.2.1 Fate and Transport of Nitrate To determine if groundwater nitrate concentrations will rise or drop over the long-term, one must calculate the net nitrate loading on the groundwater basin. However, net nitrate loading is difficult to calculate because nitrate readily converts to and from other nitrogen compounds (e.g., nitrite, ammonia, elemental nitrogen) in the unsaturated soil zone. Therefore, it is common to use total nitrogen as the metric for determining potential net nitrate loading. The fate and transport of nitrogen compounds in the unsaturated zone is complex, with transformation, attenuation, uptake, and leaching in various environments. The following excerpt is from Moran, et al, 2011. Nitrogen may be applied to crops in various forms such as animal manure, anhydrous ammonia, urea, ammonium sulfate, calcium nitrate, or ammonium nitrate, but all forms may eventually be converted to nitrate and transported away from the shallow soil zone to streams or groundwater. Denitrification, which converts nitrate to nitrogen or nitrous oxide gas, can mitigate nitrate loading to streams and groundwater, and can occur in any zone where certain geochemical conditions are met, viz. low oxygen, the presence of an electron donor such as organic carbon or reduced sulfur, and a population of 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 37 July 2015 denitrifying bacteria. The hyporheic zone of streams, riparian buffer zones, poorly drained soils, and saturated zones with low dissolved oxygen are all environments where bacteria are generally present and conditions favorable for denitrification may exist. However, once in the saturated groundwater zone, nitrogen is relatively stable, and primarily exists as nitrate. Some denitrification can occur in the saturated zone, but not readily in the oxygen-rich conditions that are so common in the shallow aquifers of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Since nitrate is soluble in water, it is transported with the groundwater through the aquifers. 3.2.2 Methodology 3.2.2.1 Introduction To calculate the net nitrogen loading, Zone 7 sums the current nitrogen loading from all the sources and removal components, which are shown in Figure 3-2 below. Figure 3-2: Existing Nitrogen Sources and Removal NITROGEN SOURCES NITROGEN REMOVAL Stream Recharge Soil Processes Rainfall Recharge  Denitrification Pipe Leakage  Soil texture (absorption) Subsurface Inflow  Plant Uptake Horse Boarding (manure) Groundwater Pumping (wastewater export) Mining Export Subsurface Outflow Rural (OWTS and livestock manure) Mining Export Winery (OWTS and process water) Subsurface Outflow Applied water (well water and recycled) water ) Fertilizers (agriculture and turf) In most cases, current nitrogen loading from each component above (e.g., stream recharge, rainfall recharge, pipe leakage, etc.) can be quantified by multiplying water volume, which Zone 7 calculates annually as part of its groundwater inventory, by the concentration of nitrogen compounds in the water. For example, to calculate the nitrogen loading from stream recharge, the volume of stream recharge is multiplied by the average nitrate concentration in the stream water. Nitrogen loading from historical sources is assumed to have already occurred, and therefore it is considered to have negligible consequence to the current loading (Section 3.1). 3.2.2.2 Manure, OWTS, and Wastewater To calculate the nitrogen loading from horse boarding facilities, rural properties with OWTS, and wineries; Zone 7 calculated the number of facilities or properties from aerial photographs and land use 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 38 July 2015 data and then applied a nitrogen loading rate obtained from literature review as shown on Figure 3-3 below. Figure 3-3: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Horse Boarding, Rural Properties, and Wineries LAND USE CATEGORY Annual Nitrogen Loading Horse Boarding (Manure)1 75 lbs/acre Rural (OWTS and Manure)2 49 lbs/parcel Wineries (OWTS & process water)2 Small 54 lbs/facility Medium 200 lbs/facility Large 355 lbs/facility 1 From RMC 2012, RMC 2013 2 From RMC 2002 3.2.2.3 Irrigation and Fertilizer Application Nitrogen loading from fertilized irrigation or “fertigation” includes the nitrogen from the fertilizer as well as the irrigation source water, and the assumed removal due to soil processes (evapotranspiration, denitrification, soil absorption) and plant uptake. It was calculated using the following formula (where N = nitrogen): Leached N to Groundwater = N from Applied Fertilizer + N in Source Water – (N lost to Soil + Plant Uptake) Where N from Applied Fertilizer is calculated using land use estimates for irrigated acreage, irrigation season, and fertilizer application rates as follows: N from Applied Fertilizer = Percentage Irrigated Area x Percentage of Year Irrigated x N Application Rate The land use values for irrigation are listed below in Figure 3-4: 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 39 July 2015 Figure 3-4: Nitrogen Loading Rates from Fertilized Irrigation by Land Use LAND USE CATEGORY Irrigation Constants Applied Nitrogen Irrigated Area1 Irrigation Season in Fertilizer Application2 % Months lbs N/irr acre Agriculture - Other 72% Apr - Sep 133 Agriculture - Vineyard 48% Apr - Sep 29 Golf Course 60% Oct - Sep 91 Mining Area Other 0% NA 0 Mining Area Pit 0% NA 0 Mining Area Pond 0% NA 0 Open Space 0% NA 0 Public (Schools, Government Bldgs, etc.) 10% Oct - Sep 91 Roads 0% NA 0 Rural Residential 1% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Commercial and Industrial 10% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Park 49% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Residential High Density 27% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Residential Low Density 8% Oct - Sep 91 Urban Residential Medium Density 32% Oct - Sep 91 Water 0% NA 0 1 Pervious Area x Irrigated Portion of Pervious Area, adapted from NHC, 2007. 2 Adapted from RMC, 2012. N from Source Water, which is the nitrogen that is already in the irrigation water before fertilizer is added, is calculated using estimated water application rates by land use and source water concentration. Zone 7 calculated average water application rates by land use (see Figure 3-5 below, in units per acre of land use and per acre of irrigated area) using its areal recharge spreadsheet model, which calculates applied water recharge (along with rainfall recharge and unmetered groundwater pumping) for the Main Basin and Fringe Basin North. The model uses rainfall, evaporation, soil type, irrigation efficiency, pervious area, pervious area irrigated, and irrigation season to calculate applied water rates for 500 ft by 500 ft cells that correspond to those used in Zone 7’s groundwater model. 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 40 July 2015 Figure 3-5: Source Water Application Rates from Irrigation by Land Use LAND USE CATEGORY Water Application Rate Water Application Rate AF/acre AF/irr acre Agriculture - Other 0.7 1.0 Agriculture - Vineyard 0.6 1.3 Golf Course 1.1 1.8 Public (Schools, Government Bldgs, etc.) 0.5 5 Rural Residential 0.6 6 Urban Commercial and Industrial 0.3 3 Urban Park 1.1 2.2 Urban Residential High Density 0.7 2.6 Urban Residential Low Density 0.4 5 Urban Residential Medium Density 1.0 3.1 The concentration of the source water was calculated using data collected as part of Zone 7’s groundwater annual monitoring programs. The concentration ranges for the last ten years and the average used in the calculations is presented below in Figure 3-6. Figure 3-6: Nitrate Concentrations in Irrigation Source Water Water Type NO3 Range mg/L NO3 Average mg/L Delivered (municipal) ND-19.8 3.6 Groundwater (supply wells) ND-147 23.3 Recycled water* 108-196 152 *All nitrogen from NO3, NO2, and TKN assumed to convert to nitrate. ND = Not Detected above the Detection Limit Nitrate concentrations for recycled water in the Valley are usually below detection limits, however other compounds (nitrite, ammonia, and organic nitrogen) contain nitrogen and can be converted to nitrate in the subsurface. Zone 7 assumed that all the nitrogen from these compounds has the potential to convert to nitrate. This is likely not the case, but provides a conservative upper limit of possible nitrate accumulation in the groundwater basin. Also, for this evaluation, it was assumed that for certain land uses (e.g., commercial, agriculture), professional landscapers will reduce the volume of applied fertilizer to account for the nitrogen in the source water. For this study, the N Lost in Soil includes losses due to evapotranspiration, denitrification, soil absorption, and plant uptake, and is assumed to be 87% of the total nitrogen applied (Horsley Witten Group, 2009, Executive Summary included in Figure A-8). 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 41 July 2015 3.3 Nitrogen Loading Calculations 3.3.1 Current Nitrogen Loading To calculate current nitrogen loading, Zone 7 applied the methodology described in Section 3.2.2 using the following data sets:  Daily precipitation for an average year  Daily evaporation for an average year  2013 Land-Use (shown in Figure 3-7)  2013 Source Water Distribution (shown in Figure 3-8) Figure 3-7: 2013 Land Use 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 42 July 2015 Figure 3-8: 2013 Source Water Distribution 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 43 July 2015 The resulting total current nitrogen loading from all sources is shown on the map in Figure 3-9 below. Figure 3-9: Total Nitrate Loading (in lbs N/acre) The net nitrogen loading from each component (loading and removal) is shown by basin area in Figure 3-10 and is summarized in Figure 3-11 below: FIGURE 3-10NET NITROGEN LOADING BY BASINCURRENT LAND USE WITH AVERAGE RAINFALLCOMPONENTSN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrLOADING 18,795 AF 7 mg/L 81,520 3,300 AF 14 mg/L28,426 3,105 AF 6 mg/L 12,249 517 AF 24 mg/L 7,723Stream Recharge 10,895 AF 1 mg/L 8,398 150 AF 4 mg/L 326 1,049 AF 1 mg/L 668 100 AF 1 mg/L 62Nat Stream Recharge 5,700AF 0.94 mg/L 3,315 150AF3.50mg/L326999AF1.00mg/L619 100AF1.00mg/L62AV Prior Rights 900AF 1.58 mg/L881Art Stream Recharge 4,295AF 1.58 mg/L 4,202501.58 mg/L49Rainfall Recharge 4,300 AF 0.50 mg/L 1,333 1,486 AF 0.50 mg/L 461 960 AF 0.50 mg/L 298 276 AF 0.50 mg/L 86Leakage 1,000 AF 21 mg/L 13,020 485 AF 21 mg/L 6,309 50 AF 21 mg/L 651 10 AF 21 mg/L 130Applied Water 1,600 AF 46 mg/L 45,735 1,180 AF 29 mg/L 21,331 1,046 AF 16 mg/L 10,632 130 AF 92 mg/L 7,445Irrigation (fertilizer)30,75720,7927,8341,109Horse Boarding 52 acre 75 lbs/acre 3,9140acre 75 lbs/acre00acre 75 lbs/acre040acre 75 lbs/acre 2,978Rural Septic/Manure 186properties 49 lbs/prop 9,114 11properties 49 lbs/prop539 56properties 49 lbs/prop 2,744 63properties 49 lbs/prop 3,087Winery Large 3 wineries 355 lbs/winery 1,0650wineries 355 lbs/winery00wineries 355 lbs/winery00wineries 355 lbs/winery0Winery Medium 2 wineries 200lbs/winery4000wineries 200lbs/winery00wineries 200lbs/winery00wineries 200lbs/winery0Winery Small 9 wineries 54 lbs/winery 4860wineries 54 lbs/winery01 wineries 54 lbs/winery54 5 wineries 54 lbs/winery270Subsurface Inflow 1,000 AF 21.02 mg/L 13,034 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0REMOVAL‐18,795 AF 10 mg/L‐122,235‐3,300 AF 8 mg/L‐17,236‐3,105 AF 14 mg/L‐26,777‐517 AF 15 mg/L‐4,804Zone 7 Pumping‐5,940 AF 18.30 mg/L‐67,390Retailer Pumping‐6,570 AF 10.78 mg/L‐43,921Ag Pumping‐400 AF 9.32 mg/L‐2,310‐133 AF 0.44 mg/L‐36‐53 AF 15.00 mg/L‐493‐21 AF 15.00 mg/L‐195Other Pumping‐1,185 AF 11.17 mg/L‐8,205Mining Losses‐4,600 AF 0.13 mg/L‐382Subsurface Outflow‐100 AF 0.44 mg/L‐27‐3,166 AF 8.76 mg/L‐17,200‐3,052 AF 13.89 mg/L‐26,284‐496 AF 15.00 mg/L‐4,608Subsurface to Streams‐2,166AF3.10mg/L‐4,166‐3,052AF 13.89 mg/L‐26,284‐496AF 15.00mg/L‐4,608Subsurface to MB‐1,000AF 21.02 mg/L‐13,034NET NITROGEN LOADING‐40,715 11,190‐14,528 2,919UnitsConcentration or RateMAIN BASIN FRINGE BASIN (NORTH) FRINGE BASIN (NORTHEAST) FRINGE BASIN (EAST)UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or Rate5/6/2015E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig3-10-2013NLdgCalcsLch13.xlsxFigure 3-10 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 45 July 2015 Figure 3-11: Summary of Current Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal BASIN AREA N LOADING lbs N/yr N REMOVAL lbs N/yr NET N LOADING lbs N/yr Main Basin 81,520 - 122,235 -40,715 Fringe Basin North 20,426 -17,236 11,190 Fringe Basin Northeast 12,249 - 26,777 -14,528 Fringe Basin East 7,723 - 4,804 2,919 The percentage of loading from each source in each basin area is shown in Figure 3-12 below: Figure 3-12: Percentage Loading by Source - Current Conditions Nitrogen Source Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East Recharge 12% 3% 8% 2% Leakage 16% 22% 5% 2% Irrigation/Fertilizer 38% 73% 64% 14% Animal Boarding 5% 0% 0% 39% OWTS 11% 2% 22% 40% Winery 2% 0% 0% 3% Subsurface Inflow 16% 0% 0% 0% The largest source of nitrogen for the basin areas is irrigation (38% to 73% of total loading), with the exception of the Fringe Basin East, where nitrogen loading from irrigation is only 14% of total loading. In the Fringe Basin East, nitrogen loading is predominantly from horse boarding facilities (39%) and OWTS (40%). OWTS also contribute a significant source of nitrogen (22%) in the Fringe Basin Northeast. The largest removal of nitrogen in the Main Basin is from groundwater pumping (99.7%). In the Fringe Basin areas, where there is little groundwater pumping, the majority of nitrogen removal is from subsurface outflow (95% to 99.8%). However, because there are no wells down-gradient of the Fringe Basin East, the nitrate concentration of the subsurface outflow is unknown. For the calculations presented in Figure 3-10, Zone 7 used the average concentration of the basin. In the Main Basin the net nitrogen loading is negative because of nitrogen removal by groundwater pumping. In the Fringe Basin Northeast the net nitrogen loading is also negative primarily because of high nitrate concentrations in the subsurface outflow into the Arroyo Las Positas. However, the net annual 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 46 July 2015 nitrogen loading is increasing in the Fringe Basin North and Fringe Basin East because there is little groundwater pumping or subsurface outflow and no other major nitrogen removal mechanisms. 3.3.2 Future Nitrate Loading The planning horizon for this study is 2050, which is close to when “buildout” of the cities is currently projected. At buildout, the following land use changes are expected to be completed:  Aggregate mining activities, converting to other uses.  Urban development per Municipal General Plans  South Livermore Plan development  Recycled water project expansions currently planned by the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. To calculate nitrogen loading at buildout, Zone 7 applied the methodology described in Section 3.2.2 using the following datasets:  Daily precipitation for an average year  Daily evaporation for an average year  Land-Use at buildout (shown in Figure 3-13 below)  Source Water Distribution at buildout (shown in Figure 3-14 below) 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 47 July 2015 Figure 3-13: Land Use at Buildout 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 48 July 2015 Figure 3-14: Source Water Distribution at Buildout The net nitrogen loading estimated for each component (loading and removal) at build out for each basin area is shown in Figure 3-15, and summarized in Figure 3-16 below. FIGURE 3-15NET NITROGEN LOADING BY BASINLAND USE AT BUILDOUT WITH AVERAGE RAINFALLCOMPONENTSN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrN Loadinglbs N/yrLOADING 17,395 AF 8 mg/L 87,642 3,300 AF 16 mg/L 32,283 3,105 AF 7 mg/L 13,789 517 AF 28 mg/L 8,905Stream Recharge 9,495 AF 1 mg/L 7,028 150 AF 4 mg/L 326 1,049 AF 1 mg/L 668 100 AF 1 mg/L 62Nat Stream Recharge 5,700AF0.94 mg/L 3,315 150AF3.50 mg/L 326 999AF1.00 mg/L 619 100AF1.00 mg/L62AV Prior Rights 900AF1.58 mg/L881Art Stream Recharge 2,895AF1.58 mg/L 2,833501.58 mg/L49Rainfall Recharge 4,300 AF 0.50 mg/L 1,333 1,486 AF 0.50 mg/L 461 960 AF 0.50 mg/L 298 276 AF 0.50 mg/L 86Leakage 1,000 AF 21 mg/L 13,020 485 AF 21 mg/L 6,309 50 AF 21 mg/L 651 10 AF 21 mg/L 130Applied Water 1,600 AF 54 mg/L 53,227 1,180 AF 34 mg/L25,187 1,046 AF 19 mg/L 12,172 130 AF 107 mg/L 8,627Irrigation (fertilizer)38,24824,6488,3441,262Horse Boarding 52 acre 75 lbs/acre 3,914 0 acre 75 lbs/acre 0 0 acre 75 lbs/acre0 40 acre 75 lbs/acre 2,978Rural Septic/Manure 186properties 49 lbs/prop 9,114 11properties 49 lbs/prop 539 66properties 49 lbs/prop 3,234 73properties 49 lbs/prop 3,577Winery Large 3 wineries 355 lbs/winery1,065 0 wineries 355 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 355 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 355 lbs/winery0Winery Medium 2 wineries 200 lbs/winery400 0 wineries 200 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 200 lbs/winery0 0 wineries 200 lbs/winery0Winery Small 9 wineries 54 lbs/winery486 0 wineries 54 lbs/winery0 11 wineries 54 lbs/winery594 15 wineries 54 lbs/winery810Subsurface Inflow 1,000 AF 21.02 mg/L 13,034 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0 0 AF 0.44 mg/L 0REMOVAL‐17,395 AF 10 mg/L‐112,763‐3,300 AF 15 mg/L‐30,599‐3,105 AF 12 mg/L‐23,293‐517 AF 16 mg/L‐5,181Zone 7 Pumping‐5,940 AF 16.93 mg/L‐62,359Retailer Pumping‐6,570 AF 9.98 mg/L‐40,642Ag Calculated‐400 AF 8.62 mg/L‐2,138‐133 AF 0.78 mg/L‐65‐53 AF 13.05 mg/L‐429‐21 AF 16.18 mg/L‐211Other Pumping‐1,185 AF 10.34 mg/L‐7,597Mining Losses‐3,200 AF 0.00 mg/L 0Subsurface Outflow‐100 AF 0.44 mg/L‐27‐3,166 AF 15.55 mg/L‐30,535‐3,052 AF 12.08 mg/L‐22,865‐496 AF 16.18 mg/L‐4,971Subsurface to Streams‐2,166AF5.51 mg/L‐7,396‐3,052AF12.08 mg/L‐22,865‐496AF16.18 mg/L‐4,971Subsurface to MB‐1,000AF37.32 mg/L‐23,139NET NITROGEN LOADING‐25,121 1,683‐9,504 3,724UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or RateMAIN BASIN FRINGE BASIN (NORTH) FRINGE BASIN (NORTHEAST) FRINGE BASIN (EAST)UnitsConcentration or Rate UnitsConcentration or Rate5/6/2015E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig3-10-2013NLdgCalcsLch13.xlsxFigure 3-15 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 50 July 2015 Figure 3-16: Summary of Total Nitrogen Loading and Removal at Buildout BASIN N LOADING (lbs N/yr) N REMOVAL (lbs N/yr) NET N LOADING (lbs N/yr) Main Basin 87,642 -112,763 -25,121 Fringe Basin North 32,283 -30,599 1, 83 Fringe Basin Northeast 13,789 -22,293 9,504 Fringe Basin East 8,905 -5,181 3,724 The percentage of loading from each source in each basin area is shown in Figure 3-17 below. At “buildout,” the largest components of loading and removal of nitrogen are about the same as those estimated for current conditions; only slight percentage changes. The largest source of nitrogen loading for three of the basin areas is irrigation/fertilizer application (i.e., Main Basin, Fringe Basin North, and Fringe Basin Northeast). The 44% to 76% of total loading for this component is a slight increase over the 38% to 73% estimated for the same component under current conditions. For the Fringe Basin East, nitrogen loading is projected to be predominantly from horse boarding facilities (33%) and OWTS use (40%) as compared to 39% and 40%, respectively for the same two components currently. OWTS also are projected to contribute a significant source of nitrogen (23%) at buildout in the Fringe Basin Northeast, as compared to 22% currently. Figure 3-17: Percentage Loading by Source at Buildout Nitrogen Source Main Basin Fringe Basin North Fringe Basin Northeast Fringe Basin East Recharge 10% 2% 7% 2% Leakage 15% 20% 5% 1% Irrigation/Fertilizer 44% 76% 61% 14% Animal Boarding 4% 0% 0% 33% OWTS 10% 2% 23% 40% Winery 2% 0% 4% 9% Subsurface Inflow 15% 0% 0% 0% The largest removal of nitrogen in the Main Basin is predicted to be from groundwater pumping (99.9% versus 99.7% currently). In the Fringe Basin areas, where there is little groundwater pumping, the majority of nitrogen removal will be from subsurface outflow (95% to 99.8%, approximately the same as 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 51 July 2015 current). However, because there are no monitoring wells down-gradient of the Fringe Basin East, the nitrate concentration of the subsurface outflow had to be estimated. For the calculations presented in Figure 3-15, the average nitrate concentration of the basin was used as the nitrate concentration of the outflow. At buildout, the net nitrogen loading in the Main Basin will continue to be negative because of nitrogen removal by groundwater pumping. In the Fringe Basin Northeast the net nitrogen loading will continue to be negative primarily because of high nitrate concentrations in the subsurface outflow. However, the net annual nitrogen loading will continue to be positive in the Fringe Basin North and Fringe Basin East because there is little groundwater pumping or subsurface outflow, and no other major nitrogen removal mechanisms are apparent. 3.4 Projected Nitrate Concentrations Zone 7 created a spreadsheet model to estimate future nitrogen concentrations for the four basin areas. These are presented and discussed by basin area below. Also shown on the graphs for the Main Basin and Fringe Basin North, where the recycled water irrigation projects are planned, are the predicted concentrations if there were no additional recycled water irrigation projects. According to the Recycled Water Policy, a recycled water irrigation project must use less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity or multiple projects must use less than 20% of available assimilative capacity. Since there are three planned recycled water projects in the Valley (by DSRSD, Livermore, and Pleasanton), the results are assessed relative to 20% of the available assimilative capacity. Nitrate concentrations in the Main Basin are expected to drop (see Figure 3-18 below) primarily because of the removal of nitrates by groundwater pumping. The graph below also shows that there is only a minor expected increase in concentrations (<1 mg/L) from future planned recycled water, primarily because it is assumed that for the majority of land uses, nitrogen loading from the recycled water irrigation projects will be offset by reduced fertilizer application (Section 3.2.2). Figure 3-18: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Main Basin 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Main Basin Predicted Nitrate Concentration Concentration With No Additional Recycled Water 20% of Assimilative Capacity 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 52 July 2015 While net nitrate loading is positive in the Fringe Basin North, the total nitrogen loading increase is small relative to the overall volume of water in the basin. Therefore concentrations are only expected to rise slightly (about 2 mg/L) and are not expected to approach the limit of 20% of the assimilative capacity (see Figure 3-19 below). Also, there is only a minor expected increase in concentrations (<1 mg/L) from future planned recycled water, primarily because the nitrogen loading from the recycled water irrigation projects will be offset by reduced fertilizer application. Figure 3-19: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin North Nitrate concentrations in the Fringe Basin Northeast are expected to drop (see Figure 3-20 below) because of the net negative nitrogen loading, primarily because of nitrate losses due to subsurface overflow from the basin. No recycled water irrigation projects are planned over this basin. Figure 3-20: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin Northeast Due to the positive net nitrogen loading primarily from anticipated increases in rural residential and agri- commercial land uses (livestock manure and OWTS leachate), nitrate concentrations are expected to rise 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin North Predicted Nitrate Concentration Concentration With No Additional Recycled Water 20% of Assimilative Capacity 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin Northeast Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 3- Nutrient Loading Evaluation Nutrient Management Plan 53 July 2015 only slightly (about 1 mg/L) in the Fringe Basin East (see Figure 3-21 below), and are anticipated to remain below the 20% of the assimilative capacity limit. No recycled water irrigation projects are planned over this basin. Figure 3-21: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations in Fringe Basin East Zone 7 performed an analysis to assess the sensitivity of the nitrogen leaching rates in soil for fertilizer application and irrigation. The results of this parameter sensitivity analysis are presented in Appendix A. For this analysis, Zone 7 used the same method and spreadsheet model that gave the results above, but changed the leachable nitrogen factor for irrigated lands from an average of 13% (Horsley Witten Group, 2009, see Figure A-8) to approximately 25% (RMC, 2012, see Figure A-9). The resulting predicted nitrate concentration graphs (Figure A-10) were then compared to those above to assess whether the higher nitrogen leaching rates would significantly change the results. The results indicated that raising the leaching rate (i.e., more nitrogen leaches through the soil) had only a minimal effect on future nitrate concentrations for all basins except for the Fringe Basin North. In the Fringe Basin North, the predicted nitrate concentration increased to approximately 18 mg/L by 2050 and exceeded the 20% assimilative capacity limit sometime in the early 2040s. This is because the net nitrogen loading is positive in this fringe basin and the majority of the nitrogen loading is from fertilizer/irrigation. However, the predicted trend in nitrate concentration from the estimate using the higher leaching factor is not consistent with the historical trend of nitrogen concentrations in monitoring wells in this basin (see Figure A-11). Historical nitrate concentrations appear to be generally stable or even decreasing since 1974, which is more consistent with the trend resulting from the lower leaching factor shown in Figure 3-19. Zone 7 will continue to monitor nitrate concentrations as part of its annual GWMP reports, and will reassess the nitrogen leaching rates as more research and concentration data becomes available. Zone 7 will update the predicted nitrate concentration graphs in Figure 3-18 to Figure 3-21 if the reassessed leaching rate is determined to be significantly higher, or if there are other significant changes to the parameters used in the calculations (e.g., those presented in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5) or to future plans (e.g., future land use, recycled water). 0 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin East Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity Nutrient Management Plan 55 July 2015 4 Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis 4.1 Recycled Water Projects The Recycled Water Policy and other state-wide planning documents recognize the tremendous need for and benefits of increased recycled water use in California. As stated in the Recycled Water Policy “The collapse of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, climate change, and continuing population growth have combined with a severe drought on the Colorado River and failing levees in the Delta to create a new reality that challenges California’s ability to provide the clean water needed for a healthy environment, a healthy population and a healthy economy, both now and in the future. …….We strongly encourage local and regional water agencies to move toward clean, abundant, local water for California by emphasizing appropriate water recycling, water conservation, and maintenance of supply infrastructure and the use of stormwater (including dry-weather urban runoff) in these plans; these sources of supply are drought- proof, reliable, and minimize our carbon footprint and can be sustained over the long-term.” Clearly, the benefits in terms of sustainability and reliability of recycled water use cannot be overstated (quoted from RMC, 2013). Recycled water represents a significant potential resource for the Valley. Livermore, Pleasanton, and DSRSD plan to expand the use of recycled water for turf and landscape irrigation projects over the next few years. The cities supplied Zone 7 with the location of existing and future recycled water use as compiled in Figure 3-14. The estimated volumes of future planned recycled water use are shown in the figure below: Figure 4-1: Existing and Future Recycled Water Use Volume Inside Main Basin Location AF % Existing Livermore 1,700 59% DSRSD 2,800 0% Future East Pleasanton Plan 300 100% Pleasanton Phase 1 1,700 41% Staples Ranch 200 50% DSRSD – planned 300 0% Livermore - planned 300 100% Mitigation of the water quality concerns related to salt loading from recycled water use is addressed in Zone 7’s SMP (Zone 7, 2004, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1.1) and in Zone 7 Annual Reports for the GWMP (most recent is Zone 7, 2014 for the 2013 Water Year, October 2012 to September 2013). Zone 7 4- Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis Nutrient Management Plan 56 July 2015 continues to collaborate with Livermore, DSRSD, and Pleasanton to incorporate future planned recycled water use expansions, and to plan for future groundwater demineralization facilities to mitigate for the potential impact to groundwater and delivered water quality. 4.2 Stormwater Capture Projects Zone 7 supports low impact development (LID) projects with pervious surfaces that allow for improved management of stormwater and enhanced groundwater recharge, particularly in developed areas (Zone 7, 2011). As stated in the Recycled Water Policy, it is also the intent of the State Water Board that because stormwater is typically lower in nutrients and salts and can augment local water supplies, the inclusion of a significant stormwater use and recharge component within the salt/nutrient management plans is critical to the long-term sustainable use of water in California. While there are currently no proposed large-scale plans for stormwater capture and recharge in the Valley, the County and Cities have required stormwater capture and recharge for various small-scale projects. Zone 7 encourages the continuation of this concept into future land development as a means to help dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater (Sections 5.4 and 6.3.1). Zone 7 does include stormwater recharge as part of its areal recharge and stream flow recharge calculations, however the effect of individual, small-scale stormwater capture and recharge projects is not included at this time due to the uncertainties in the projected quantity and volume. The current calculations represent a conservative approach since stormwater capture and recharge would likely decrease nitrate concentrations in the groundwater basin. Future updates to this plan may re-evaluate this approach as future projects are proposed. 4.3 State Water Board Recycled Water Policy Criteria Section 9 Anti-Degradation of the State Water Board Recycled Water Policy states, in part: a. The State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 68-16 as a policy statement to implement the Legislature’s intent that waters of the state shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. b. Activities involving the disposal of waste that could impact high quality waters are required to implement best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to ensure that pollution or nuisance will not occur, and the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained….. d. Landscape irrigation with recycled water in accordance with this Policy is to the benefit of the people of the State of California. Nonetheless, the State Water Board finds that the use of water for irrigation may, regardless of its source, collectively affect groundwater quality over time. The 4- Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis Nutrient Management Plan 57 July 2015 State Water Board intends to address these impacts in part through the development of salt/nutrient management plans described in paragraph 6. (1) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is in place may be approved without further antidegradation analysis, provided that the project is consistent with that plan. (2) A project that meets the criteria for a streamlined irrigation permit and is within a basin where a salt/nutrient management plan satisfying the provisions of paragraph 6(b) is being prepared may be approved by the Regional Water Board by demonstrating through a salt/nutrient mass balance or similar analysis that the project uses less than 10 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub-basin (or multiple projects using less than 20 percent of the available assimilative capacity as estimated by the project proponent in a basin/sub-basin). 4.4 Antidegradation Assessment Section 3.4 includes graphs of future average nitrate concentrations for scenarios with and without the proposed recycled water irrigation projects in the Main Basin and Fringe Basin North. The graphs show that irrigation with recycled water contributes very minor nutrient loading in the basins (<1%), and that the recycled water projects do not use more than 20% of the available assimilative capacity. Nitrogen loading from recycled water can be minimized even further by employing recycled water irrigation BMPs (Section 5.3.3), and fertilizer BMPs (Section 5.3.2) when turf or landscape fertilizers (or fertigation) are applied along with recycled water. The NMP analysis finds that recycled water use can be increased while still protecting and improving groundwater quality for beneficial uses. Figure 4-2 addresses how the proposed recycled water irrigation projects comply with each of the components of State Water Board’s Anti Degradation Policy (Resolution No. 68-16). 4- Proposed Projects and Antidegradation Analysis Nutrient Management Plan 58 July 2015 Figure 4-2: Antidegradation Assessment State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 Component Antidegradation Assessment Water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) are consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State. The irrigation projects will  contribute only a minimal increase (<1 mg/L) in groundwater nitrate concentrations at urban buildout.  will not use more than 20% of the available Assimilative Capacity  will not cause groundwater quality to exceed Basin Plan Objectives The water quality changes associated with proposed recycled water project(s) will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses. The water quality changes will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the Basin Plan. The projects are consistent with the use of best practicable treatment or control to avoid pollution or nuisance and maintain the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. Because all planned recycled water projects over the groundwater basin are landscape irrigation projects, most of the nitrogen from these projects will be removed by plant uptake and volatilization (and some by bacterial denitrification under certain conditions). Additional nitrogen loading will be avoided with the use of recycled water and fertilizer use BMPs (see Section 6.1) The proposed project(s) is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. The recycled water projects are crucial for continued sustainability of the Valley’s water supply and are part of the urban growth plans for Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Implementation measures are being or will be implemented to help achieve Basin Plan Objectives in the future. Both, the SMP and the NMP contain measures that have been or will be implemented to address current and future salt and nutrient loading of the Groundwater Basin. Nutrient Management Plan 59 July 2015 5 Nutrient Management Goals and Strategies 5.1 Introduction As shown in Section 3.4 above, basin-wide nitrogen concentrations are expected to drop or stay relatively constant over the long-term; however, there are some existing high nitrate concentrations in local areas of concern (Section 2.4). Zone 7’s general goal is to further assess and reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations near these “Areas of Concern” using strategies that have a nominal impact on future development and the environment while reducing the nitrogen loading to levels that can be assimilated by natural processes (e.g., denitrification, dilution and diffusion). The strategies presented in this chapter are designed to delineate the extent and boundaries of the Areas of Concern (Section 5.2), and to simultaneously minimize nitrogen loading from existing sources (Section 5.3). 5.2 Investigate Areas of Concern In general, the Areas of Concern in the Main Basin are relatively well delineated because of the basin’s significance for groundwater production. In contrast, the geology and extent of nitrate concentration in the Fringe Basins Northeast and East have not been well delineated because of their relative role for groundwater production in the Valley and limited development. Zone 7 plans to focus future investigation on Areas of Concern where:  Concentrations appear to be rising significantly (i.e., May School, Greenville),  Future development is planned in unsewered areas (i.e., Greenville), and/or  Significant data gaps exist (i.e., May School, Greenville, and Mines Road). Goal 1: Obtain additional information in shallow aquifer zones of the Areas of Concern. Strategy 1a: Identify and sample additional existing domestic wells with pertinent well screen intervals. Strategy 1b: Encourage additional hydrogeology studies in Areas of Concern as part of new commercial developments. Such studies could include the installation of new monitoring wells or direct-push type borings (e.g., Geoprobe, Hydropunch). 5.3 Minimize Nitrogen Loading 5.3.1 Introduction The primary sources of nitrogen loading over the groundwater basin are from fertilizer application, recycled water irrigation, leaching of livestock manure, and onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the best tools for minimizing nitrogen loading from irrigation (fertigation), turf and crop fertilization practices, and penned livestock facilities such as horse 5- Nutrient Management Goals And Strategies Nutrient Management Plan 60 July 2015 boarding facilities. And while the additional nitrogen loading from future recycled water project expansions is expected to be small (Section 3.4), it would be prudent to employ the fertilizer application BMPs as well as the recycled water irrigation BMPs for all recycled water irrigation projects. OWTS use in the Valley involves domestic and commercial systems to treat and dispose of winery process wastewater. OWTS management, especially in the Areas of Concern, requires long-term goals and strategies for ensuring impacts from new onsite wastewater disposal systems are not going to create a new nitrate problem or exacerbate an existing one. Eventually, the conventional OWTS in the Areas of Concern should be converted to alternative systems having nitrogen reduction treatment, or the affected homes and businesses should be connected to a municipal or community sewer system. Management of onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater from wine making and bottling processes is under the Water Board’s jurisdiction, and is currently provided for through the Water Board’s waste discharge requirement (WDR) permit program. Although WDRs are an effective means for managing nutrient loading from this land use, improvements are needed in stakeholder guidance and permit compliance. 5.3.2 Fertilizer Application Goal 2: Minimize nitrogen loading from fertilizer application Strategy 2a: Promote the use of fertilizer BMPs (Section 6.2.2) to avoid over-application of fertilizers. Using results of soil and irrigation water chemical testing to determine the appropriate amount of additional fertilizer to apply is a good way to lessen excess leachable nitrogen in the soil. Strategy 2b: Limiting irrigation water application to the crop and landscape plants’ agronomic rate will reduce the amount of nutrient-rich leachate that migrates below the vegetation root zone and into the underlying aquifer(s). 5.3.3 Recycled Water Irrigation Goal 3: Minimize nitrogen loading from recycled water irrigation projects Strategy 3a: Follow Recycled Water Policy guidance for landscape irrigation projects. Minimize recharge of nitrogen by irrigating landscapes to the prescribed agronomic rates. Account for the nitrogen content of the recycled water when determining how much fertilizer to apply. Strategy 3b: Maintain low levels of nitrogen in the produced recycled water by keeping the nitrogen concentrations in the source water low and/or optimize low nitrogen levels in recycled water production. 5.3.4 Livestock Manure Management Goal 4: Minimize nitrogen loading from concentrated livestock facilities such as horse boarding, training, and breeding facilities 5- Nutrient Management Goals And Strategies Nutrient Management Plan 61 July 2015 Strategy 4: Promote the use of BMPs (Section 6.2.4) such as manure management and controlling site drainage to prevent nutrient contamination of rainfall runoff and irrigation return flows that may percolate to groundwater and/or flow into surface water bodies. 5.3.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems 5.3.5.1 Winery Process Wastewater Goal 5: Minimize nitrogen loading from onsite disposal practices of winery process wastewater. Strategy 5a: Require local wine producers and bottlers to apply for and comply with Water Board WDRs for the proper treatment and disposal of winery process waste streams. Strategy 5b: Develop guidance document(s) to assist both project proponents and Water Board staff with Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and WDR development and evaluations. 5.3.5.2 General OWTS Management Goal 6: Minimize nitrogen loading from new onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), e.g., septic tank systems. Strategy 6a: Continue applying Zone 7 policies and County Ordinance and Regulation provisions, e.g., 1 Rural Residential Equivalence (RRE)/5 Ac max. Strategy 6b: Continue to work with ACEH to ensure that: 1) they are aware of groundwater nitrate issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin; 2) variance requests are given the appropriate scrutiny; and 3) their OWTS approvals are consistent with adopted NMP goals and objectives. 5- Nutrient Management Goals And Strategies Nutrient Management Plan 62 July 2015 5.3.5.3 OWTS Management in Areas of Concern Goal 7: Reduce nitrogen loading from OWTS in Areas of Concern. Strategy 7a: Increase understanding of existing conditions and causes, and set realistic management goals and apply adaptive management as necessary. Strategy 7b: Require new development projects utilizing OWTS in the Areas of Concern to reduce and/or minimize the overall nitrogen loading to the property. Strategy 7c: On at least an annual basis, assess performance of wastewater treatment systems, estimate area-wide nitrogen loading and monitor groundwater quality beneath the Areas of Concern. 5.4 Enhanced Attenuation Goal 8: Increase capture and infiltration of stormwater recharge to dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Strategy 8: Promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to capture and infiltrate rainfall runoff and irrigation return flow (i.e., applied water). Nutrient Management Plan 63 July 2015 6 Plan Implementation 6.1 Investigate Boundaries of Areas of Concern Zone 7 intends to obtain additional information regarding the extent of high nitrate concentrations near Areas of Concern that have significant data gaps, proposed development with OWTS, and/or increasing nitrate concentrations. To this end, Zone 7 plans on pursuing the following options to further investigate the extent of nitrate concentrations:  Zone 7 will work with well owners to sample existing shallow wells for nitrate. This process could include public outreach to homeowners to identify domestic wells with ideal characteristics (e.g., location, screened intervals, well depth) for further delineating the extent of nitrate concentrations in Areas of Concern. These wells could then be sampled and analyzed by Zone 7 at no cost to the well owner.  Zone 7 will assess the data available, identify data gaps, and prepare maps showing preferred locations for future monitoring wells potentially to be installed by developers for each Area of Concern. It is anticipated that the studies will be conducted in the following priority: Greenville, Buena Vista, Mines Road, May School, Happy Valley, Staples Ranch, Jack London, Constitution, Charlotte Way, and Bernal.  Zone 7 will work with Alameda County planning and health agencies to encourage or require hydrogeologic studies as part of new commercial developments. These studies could include installing new monitoring wells in locations identified on the preferred well location maps, sampling of existing wells, or drilling direct-push type borings.  Zone 7 may require that new wells and borings near Areas of Concern include the running of electronic logs (elogs) and/or collecting and analyzing groundwater samples. The results of these elogs and groundwater samples can be used to better understand the geology and assess the extent of contamination in the Areas of Concern.  The data results and work products generated from the tasks above (e.g., preferred well location maps, well sampling results) will be presented in the GWMP Annual Reports or as a separate report, as appropriate, based on the size and extent of the study and/or timing of its completion. 6.2 Implementation Measures to Minimize Nitrogen Loading 6.2.1 Introduction Nitrate concentrations are expected to remain well below 20% of the assimilative capacity limit for all four groundwater areas in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin; however there are local Areas of 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 64 July 2015 Concern where nitrate concentrations are above the Basin Objective (BO, 45 mg/L as NO3). The main sources of nitrogen loading throughout the groundwater basin include fertilizer application, recycled water irrigation, livestock facilities, and onsite wastewater treatment systems. The implementation measures presented below are designed to minimize loading from these main sources, particularly in the Areas of Concern shown on Figure 2-15 and described in Section 2.4. Many of these implementation measures include continuing with existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are monitored and administered by other agencies. 6.2.2 Fertilizer BMPs Fertilizer application should be adjusted to the needs of the plants/crops to which it is being applied and take into account the nutrients already present in soil and irrigation water to avoid over-fertilization. The implementation plan promotes the continued use of the following fertilizer BMPs by agriculturists, park districts, school districts and other landscape and turf managers and practitioners.  Targeted application of fertilizer and soil amendments – limit the application of salts and nutrients to the area at the point of the irrigation drip emitter, rather than broadcast across a large area.  Adjust fertilizer amounts to account for nutrients already present in irrigation water and soil. Nutrient levels can be assessed by testing soil and water.  Apply irrigation at agronomic rates to prevent nutrients in fertilizer from leaching into the groundwater.  Effective vineyard management includes regular soil and petiole testing to help understand what, and volume of, nutrients that need to be added to the soil to produce the desired grape production and flavor. When the soil and petiole testing includes nitrogen as a test parameter, the results can be used to ensure that the amount of additional nitrogen applied is limited to that amount needed by the vines. 6.2.3 Recycled Water Irrigation BMPs The use of recycled water for irrigation is controlled by water recycling criteria in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, and by discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Board. In addition to adhering to these regulations related to recycled water, the implementation plan recommends the continued use of the following BMPs by those who irrigate with recycled water:  Reduce application of fertilizer to account for nitrogen in the recycled water.  Irrigate during evening and early morning hours to reduce evaporation and human exposure. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 65 July 2015  An effective irrigation system should be used that applies recycled water at agronomic rates. Infiltration of recycled water past the active root zone should be limited to only what is needed to remove salts from the root zone. 6.2.4 Livestock Manure Management Livestock and Equestrian Facilities are another source of nitrates due to concentrated amounts of manure where animals are kept. Equestrian Facilities include horse boarding, training, and breeding facilities. The NMP endorses the County’s requirement for concentrated and confined livestock facilities to implement design measures and BMPs for livestock manure management, such as:  Manure management – remove manure regularly. If manure can’t be removed daily then it should be covered and stockpiled on an impervious surface. Surface water should be prevented from reaching the storage area.  Building and site design – should keep animal areas, such as paddocks and corrals, as dry as possible during the rainy season.  Wash rack design – should not allow water to flow into storm drains, creeks, or recharge areas. Wash racks should be connected to the sanitary sewer or lined evaporation ponds, if possible.  Facility and BMP inspections are performed by Alameda County Public Works as part of their Clean Water Program. Additional guidance for manure management can be found in existing documents such as Horse Manure Management – A Guide for Bay Area Horse Keepers (Buchanan et al., 2003). The existing City and County proposed development review and referral process is another opportunity to educate facility managers and architects on the design and operation considerations for limiting nutrient impacts to surface waters and groundwater. 6.2.5 Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Limitations for the expansion of municipal sewer coverage in the Livermore-Amador Valley associated with the establishment of urban growth boundaries have resulted in the continued reliance of OWTS for development in the unincorporated areas. In particular, the continued growth of winery-related commercial development in or near the south Livermore high nitrate areas is a concern for maintaining or improving groundwater quality. OWTS that may have been allowed in the past may not be appropriate in the future as conditions and circumstances surrounding particular locations change or become known. As provided for in the Water Board Basin Plan, ACEH has committed to developing a Local Agency Management Program (LAMP) for Water Board approval that will address their management of OWTS in unincorporated Alameda County. A LAMP is a management program that allows local agencies to establish minimum standards that are different from those specified in the State OWTS Policy, but are 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 66 July 2015 necessary to protect water quality and public health. Requirements for different minimum lot size for new development using OWTS and the addition of nitrogen-removing treatment equipment on OWTS for certain conditions are examples of special provisions that ACEH will likely include in its LAMP. 6.2.5.1 Winery Process Wastewater There are currently over 50 wineries located over the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, however, many of them do not produce or bottle wine onsite. The ones that do produce or bottle wine, also produce a wastewater stream during the wine production and bottling operations. This winery process water, which contains nutrients, is often disposed of in evaporation ponds, on the surface as irrigation or dust control water, or in the subsurface using OWTS and leachfields. Regardless of which of these disposal methods is used, the Water Board has authority to regulate the discharge; thus a Report of Waste Discharge is required to be submitted to the Water Board for the discharge of wastewater to the surface or subsurface. The Water Board will then approve the discharge by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements, waive the need of a WDR, or deny approval of the discharge.  To assist applicants with their ROWD preparation and the Water Board with their evaluation of ROWDs and WDR decisions, Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to provide relevant information on groundwater occurrence, use, quality and vulnerability to the Water Board and applicants.  The preparation of a guidance document on the proper treatment and disposal of wastewater and organic wastes generated from the wine making and wine bottling processes would be beneficial for the development of plans that are effective at minimizing nutrient loading to the groundwater basin. 6.2.5.2 General OWTS Program One of the purposes of the Alameda County Onsite Wastewater and Individual/Small Water Systems Ordinance and Regulations is to prevent environmental degradation of surface water and groundwater from onsite disposal of private sewage to the greatest extent possible. Included in the regulations are special provisions for the Upper Alameda Creek Watershed, above Niles; namely: a. a minimum parcel size requirement of 5 acres for new single-family OWTS; and b. a maximum discharge of 320 gallons per day per 5 acres for commercial OWTS. Continued application of the general provisions of the County OWTS Ordinance and Regulation and these special provisions are expected to minimize the groundwater nitrate impact from OWTS use in the majority of the unincorporated areas of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin except in the Areas of Concern. Additionally, the following measures are planned:  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue working together to ensure that both agencies are aware of groundwater issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and that any OWTS approvals are consistent with the adopted NMP goals and objectives. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 67 July 2015  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to collaborate on the decisions surrounding approval of new OWTS for commercial facilities’ domestic wastewater disposal on a case-by-case basis and to evaluate the potential risks and make proper decisions as additional information becomes available.  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to collaborate on assessing the potential risks and impact(s) associated with granting OWTS regulation variances and on developing any special requirements necessary to ensure groundwater quality protection.  Zone 7 and ACEH will collaborate to determine the applicable time periods of any new OWTS permits, and continued compliance monitoring and renewal requirements to ensure long-term successful performance. 6.2.5.3 OWTS Management in Areas of Concern Zone 7 has identified ten Areas of Concern with elevated nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Current and past onsite wastewater disposal practices are thought to be an important contributor to the high nitrate concentrations found in these areas. As such, ongoing and future wastewater disposal projects in the Areas of Concern should be managed with a bias towards reduction of the current loading. It is also important to increase the understanding of the extent of the nitrate impacts in many of these areas and to monitor the concentration trends as projects add and subtract wastewater loading in these areas. Towards these goals the following measures are expected to be performed:  Zone 7 will coordinate further characterization and monitoring of the local nitrate plumes by working with ACEH, the Water Board and various property owners and consultants on the development of plans for the construction and operation of additional monitoring wells.  Zone 7 will continue its effort to inform ACEH and Alameda CDA of the nitrate issues in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and to collaborate on development plans, permit reviews, and CEQA analyses for projects involving onsite wastewater disposal in Areas of Concern to assure approvals are consistent with adopted NMP goals and objectives.  Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), developers and County and City planning agencies are expected to continue to work together to create opportunities for discontinuing onsite disposal of nutrient-rich wastewater within the Areas of Concern, such as connecting dwellings and businesses to municipal or community sewage treatment works when feasible.  ACEH, Zone 7, and the Water Board will work together on the development, approval, and implementation of the LAMP to identify the special need areas, contributing local groundwater and geologic expertise, and providing ongoing regional groundwater monitoring. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 68 July 2015 In five of the ten Areas of Concern, OWTS are the predominant method of wastewater disposal, but unlike the other Areas of Concern, there are no current plans for extending the municipal sewer service to these five areas. The five areas are:  Happy Valley (Figure 6-2)  Buena Vista (Figure 6-4)  Mines Road (Figure 6-5)  May School (Figure 6-3)  Greenville (Figure 6-4) Accordingly, special OWTS permit requirements have been developed for new OWTS applications received for these five Areas of Concern. These five special OWTS permit requirement areas are shown in Figure 6-1 to Figure 6-5, and the recommended permit requirements are summarized below and presented in a table in Figure 6-6. These requirements are intended to minimize the impact to existing homeowners and future development while still being protective of the environment and groundwater quality. These special permit provisions are designed to limit or reduce the amount of nitrogen loading from OWTS in the five Areas of Concern over time by requiring parcels planned for new or replacement OWTS to meet a lower nitrogen loading standard than what exists for parcels located outside of the Special OWTS Permit Areas. These proposed requirements do not apply to existing, properly-working and properly-sized OWTS. As is the case for properties outside Special OWTS Permit Areas, the requirements are based on the total size of the property parcel (see graph on Figure 6-7), and assume that the nitrogen loading from one Rural Residential Equivalent (RRE), i.e., a typical, single-family home served by a conventional OWTS is 34 lbs N/year. For new or remodel development on parcels of less than seven acres in the special OWTS permit requirement areas, the project must achieve a total nitrogen loading from all OWTS on the property of less than 0.7 RRE (23.8 lbs N/year) per parcel. This is the equivalent to the loading from two advanced single-family OWTS, each capable of 65% nitrogen reduction. For example, in order to add an additional single-family dwelling with a new OWTS to a parcel that already has an existing single-family dwelling with a conventional OWTS, the project must include installation of pre-treatment equipment, capable of removing 65% of the nitrogen content from the wastewater stream, on both OWTS (new and existing systems). As a consequence, the net result would be an onsite loading reduction from a pre- project total of one RRE to a post- project total of 0.7 RRE. (0.35 + 0.35 RRE). For parcels equal to or greater than 7 acres, the total nitrogen loading from all OWTS must not exceed 0.5 RRE per 5 acres (3.4 lbs N/parcel acre/year). For example, the total nitrogen loading limit for a ten acre parcel is calculated as follows: 10 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑟 x 0.5 𝑅𝑅𝐸 5 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑟= 1 𝑅𝑅𝐸=34 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑁/𝑦𝑟 Alternatively, if the property owner performs a hydrogeologic study demonstrating that the proposed project will not cause nitrate concentrations to rise, then the total nitrogen loading limit is 1 RRE/5 acres (6.8 lbs N/parcel acre). The study must show that total on-site recharge does not exceed 36 mg/L (80% of 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 69 July 2015 the MCL) or the maximum concentration at the site, whichever is lower. The 80% MCL limit is based on Zone 7 Water Quality Policy and provides a standard buffer for not exceeding the MCL. This alternative is intended to encourage additional hydrogeologic studies that can further define the boundaries and nitrate concentrations of Areas of Concern. Because wastewater generated by commercial operations can result in higher loading rates than residential flows, the permitting of OWTS for new commercial projects within the special permit requirement areas require a higher level of scrutiny. At a minimum, projects must include a nitrogen- removing system, but also must demonstrate by analysis that the project will result in an improved nitrate condition beneath the site and not cause the offsite condition to worsen. Many of the commercial use OWTS will fall under the Water Board’s jurisdiction and thus be subject to their Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) requirements. These same permit criteria are anticipated to be incorporated into the County’s LAMP and used by the Water Board while developing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for commercial projects within their purview if they prove to be effective at improving or halting groundwater quality degradation in these Areas of Concern. The following are measures specific to the special permit requirement areas:  Until ACEH’s LAMP has been finalized and approved by the Water Board, ACEH should incorporate and implement an interim permit approval policy such as the one recommended in Figure 6-6.  Zone 7 will continue to refine the special permit area boundaries as more groundwater quality data becomes available in the future.  Zone 7 and ACEH will continue to support the Water Board in its WDR decisions and specific requirements.  Zone 7 will work with ACEH to assess the effectiveness of the County’s OWTS moratorium in Happy Valley and whether this regulation should be continued in the County’s LAMP. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 70 July 2015 Figure 6-1: Special OWTS Permit Areas 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 71 July 2015 Figure 6-2: Happy Valley Area of Concern 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 72 July 2015 Figure 6-3: May School Area of Concern 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 73 July 2015 Figure 6-4: Buena Vista/Greenville Areas of Concern 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 74 July 2015 Figure 6-5: Mines Road Area of Concern FIGURE 6‐6PROPOSED OWTS PERMIT REQUIREMENTSFOR SPECIAL OWTS REQUIREMENT AREASNUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANOWTS ScenarioParcel Size New RequirementMax NitrogenLoading Rate2≤ 7 acresMust install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s).23.8 lbs/yearPer ParcelTotal nitrogen loading on the parcel must not exceed the Maximum Nitrogen Loading Rate. Commercial uses must also install/upgrade/replace with code-compliant nitrogen-reducing system(s).3.4 lbs/yearPer Parcel AcreORPrepare hydrogeologic study that assesses current groundwater nitrate conditions beneath the site and demonstrates that nitrate concentration of total onsite recharge3 does not exceed 36 mg/L (80% of MCL) or the maximum concentration at the site, whichever is lower.6.8 lbs/yearPer Parcel Acre1  Does not apply to existing, properly‐working and properly‐sized OWTS.ACEH = Alameda County of Environmental Health2  Loading rates calculated based on 1 RRE = 34 lbs/yr.OWTS = Onsite Wastewater Treatment System3  Assume that 18% of rainfall naturally recharges to groundwater unless study demonstrates otherwise.RRE = Rural Residential EquivalenceMCL = Maximum Conaminant Level (NO3= 45 mg/L)> 7 acresNew, upgraded, or replacement OWTS required by County OWTS Ordinance17/24/2015E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig6‐06‐SepticRequirement.xlsxFigure 6‐6 FIGURE 6‐7Graphs of OWTS LimitsE:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFig6‐07‐SepticRequirementGraph.xlsx6/8/2015Figure 6‐70204060801001201401 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920Total Onstie Loading (lbs N/yr)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Limit Outside AOCsNew Limit Inside AOCs1 RRE/parcel0.7 RRE/parcel 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 77 July 2015 6.3 Implementation Measures to Enhance Nitrate Attenuation 6.3.1 Low Impact Development BMPs Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs promote the use of small‐scale, natural drainage features to slow, clean, capture, and infiltrate rainfall in an effort to replenish local aquifers, reduce pollution, and increase the reuse of water. This NMP encourages development approval agencies to require LID BMPs such as those listed below to help dilute and attenuate nitrate concentrations in groundwater:  Bioretention cells and swales,  Permeable pavement blocks, and  Soil amendments to improve soil permeability 6.4 Basin Monitoring Programs 6.4.1 Introduction Zone 7 currently monitors the following as part of its GWMP:  groundwater (levels and quality),  climatological (precipitation and evaporation),  surface water (streamflow and quality),  mining area (mining activities and water export volumes),  land use (area),  groundwater production (volume and quality),  land surface subsidence (inelastic and elastic), and  wastewater/recycled water (use and quality). The monitoring programs focus on the Main Basin where groundwater is pumped for municipal uses, but monitoring stations are located throughout the groundwater basin to assess conditions in the fringe and upland basins. The programs are designed to assess the sustainability and quality of the groundwater basin, and the results are used in water resources management planning and decision making. Complete descriptions of the monitoring programs are provided in Zone 7’s GWMP and SMP. The components of the programs that address nutrient monitoring are outlined below. These programs are evaluated annually and revised as necessary as part of Zone 7’s Annual Reports for the GWMP. Zone 7’s existing monitoring programs already address nutrient monitoring, and no changes are proposed at this time. Zone 7 will identify data gaps and suggested locations and depths for new monitoring wells 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 78 July 2015 and/or soil borings for expedited groundwater sampling in the Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will provide this information to property owners, developers, and regulatory agencies to assist in developing efficient strategies for fully characterizing nitrate concentrations and nitrogen loading for projects inside Areas of Concern. Zone 7 will also work with ACEH to develop OWTS monitoring plans that may require the installation and monitoring of additional regional monitoring wells, up-gradient and down-gradient of high nitrate concentration areas, by the owners and developers. State policy does not require monitoring for Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) for basins where recycled water use is limited to irrigation projects. Since the recycled water use in the Valley is currently limited to irrigation projects, Zone 7 does not monitor for CECs at this time; however, Zone 7 will continue to review the regulations and Valley conditions to assess whether future CEC monitoring is appropriate. 6.4.2 Nutrient Specific Monitoring Programs Climatological Monitoring – Zone 7’s network of seven rainfall stations, two pan evaporation stations, and one California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) station provide daily rainfall and evaporation data for basin recharge calculations. This information is used to calculate the volume of recharge, evaporation, and nitrogen loading from rainfall. Surface Water Monitoring – This program focuses on the four main gaining and losing streams that impact the groundwater basin (i.e., Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas, and Arroyo De La Laguna), and the diversions and accretions that affect the flows into or from each of them. Zone 7 measures the inflow and outflow from the streams to quantify the volume of water recharging or discharging from the groundwater basin’s aquifers. Zone 7 also samples and analyzes water from the streams to provide a record of water quality for the basin’s recharge and discharge waters from which the groundwater basin’s annual nitrate loading is calculated. Zone 7’s Water Level Monitoring – Zone 7 measures groundwater levels in over 230 monitoring and production wells (see Figure 6-8 below and Figure A-7) twice per year during seasonal extremes (i.e., spring highs and fall lows) for storage tracking. Water level measurements are also measured monthly in some wells to monitor subsidence, adjust recharge operations, and identify when semi-annual water level measurements should be scheduled. Zone 7’s Water Quality Sampling –Zone 7 samples groundwater at least annually from all accessible groundwater wells in the program. Samples are analyzed by Zone 7’s laboratory for metals and general minerals (including Nitrate as NO3 and Phosphate as PO4). 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 79 July 2015 Figure 6-8: Map of Program Wells Land Use Monitoring – Zone 7 maps and quantifies Valley land use (see Figure 3-7 for the 2013 land use map) for areal recharge calculations (e.g., rainfall recharge, applied water recharge, and unmetered groundwater pumping for agriculture) and salt/nutrient loading (e.g., from irrigation, horse boarding facilities, and properties with OWTS). The program identifies changes in land use with an emphasis on changes in impervious areas and the volume and quality of irrigation water that could impact the volum e or quality of water recharging the Main Basin. Land use data are derived from aerial photography, permit applications, field observations, and City and County planning documents. Wastewater and Recycled Water Monitoring - Zone 7 compiles and reviews data on the volume and quality of wastewater collected and recycled water used within the watershed from the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (LWRP), DSRSD Water Reclamation plant, and the Veterans Hospital sewage treatment plant. Zone 7 also reviews new OWTS applications located within the Valley for compliance with Zone 7’s Wastewater Management Plan. Zone 7 must approve all onsite disposal systems for new commercial developments or any residential OWTS that will potentially exceed the loading allowed for the site. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 80 July 2015 6.5 Implementation Schedule  The investigation of the Areas of Concern is ongoing. Zone 7 is currently soliciting permission to sample existing wells from homeowners near the Areas of Concern. Zone 7 is also currently working with several commercial developers to perform hydrogeologic studies in the Greenville special permit area.  The Implementation Measure BMPs for Fertilizers, Irrigation, Livestock Manure Management, and Low Impact Development are already in place throughout the Valley.  Zone 7 will assess the available data, identify data gaps, and prepare preferred well location maps for each of the Areas of Concern as identified in Section 6.1. These monitoring wells will potentially be installed by the developers. These will be prepared with the following schedule: Figure 6-9: Proposed Schedule for Areas of Concern Area of Concern Calendar Year of Completion Greenville 2016 Buena Vista 2016 Mines Road 2016 May School 2017 Happy Valley 2017 Staples Ranch 2018 Jack London 2018 Constitution 2018 Charlotte Way 2018 Bernal 2018 The results of the data and work products generated from the tasks above (e.g., preferred well location maps, well sampling results) will be presented in the GWMP Annual Reports or as a separate report, as appropriate, based on the size and extent of the study and/or timing of its completion.  Zone 7’s groundwater monitoring programs are also already in place, the results of which are presented in Zone 7’s Annual Reports for the GWMP. New monitoring wells constructed as part of new developments (Section 6.1.5.3) will be added to the existing programs.  The NMP recommends that the special OWTS permit requirements discussed in Section 6.2.5.3 and described in Figure 6.6 be incorporated into the LAMP, which ACEH anticipates completing a draft in 2016, and finalizing it by 2018. Nutrient Management Plan 81 July 2015 7 References Buchanan, Marc et al. 2003, Horse Manure Management: A Guide for Bay Area Horse Keepers. California Department of Public Health. 2014. Titles 22 and 17 California Code of Regulations, California Department of Public Health’s Recycled Water Regulations. California Department of Water Resources.1974. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118-2, Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Livermore and Sunol Valleys. _____. 2003. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118—Update 2003. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 2013, San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. 1982. Wastewater Management Plan for the Unsewered, Unincorporated area of Alameda Creek Watershed above Niles. Prepared for Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Horsley Witten Group, 2009, Evaluation of Turfgrass Nitrogen Fertilizer Leaching Rates in soils on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, June 29, 2009. Moran, Jean; Esser, Bradley; Hillegonds, Darren; Holtz, Marianne; Roberts, Sarah; Singleton, Michael; and Visser, Ate. 2011, California GAMA Special Study: Nitrate Fate and Transport in the Salinas Valley. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), 2007, Hydrology Model Conversion and Update of Present Impervious, memorandum for Zone 7 Water Agency, August 3, 2007. RMC, 2002, Groundwater Nitrate Sources in the Buena Vista Area, May 2002. ———. 2012, Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, Draft Report prepared for the City of Santa Rosa, July 13, 2012. ———. 2013, Sonoma Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, Prepared for the Sonoma Valley county Sanitation District, September 2013. Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce, H. A. Perlman (USGS). 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. US Geological Survey circular; 1200. Denver, CO: US Geological Survey. Report nr 06079007X. ix, 71p. 6- Plan Implementation Nutrient Management Plan 82 July 2015 USGS, 1983, Land Application of Wastewater and Its Effect on Ground-water Quality in the Livermore- Amador Valley, Alameda County, California, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 82-4100, March 1983. Zone 7 (Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7). 1987. Statement on Zone 7 Groundwater Management. August. Prepared by Zone 7 Board Committee. ———. 1992. Main Groundwater Basin Natural Safe Yield, Internal Memo prepared by Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2003. Draft Report, Well Master Plan, Prepared by CH2MHill for Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2004. Salt Management Plan. Prepared by Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2005a. Groundwater Management Plan. Prepared by Jones & Stokes and Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2005b. Well Master Plan Conformed EIR, Prepared by ESA for Zone 7 Water Agency. ———. 2007. Annual Report for the Groundwater Management Program—2006 Water Year. Prepared by Zone 7, June 2007. ———. 2011. 2011 Water Supply Evaluation. Prepared by Zone 7, July 2011. ———. 2012. Toxic Sites Surveillance Annual Report 2011. Prepared by Zone 7, April 2012. ———. 2014. Annual Report for the Groundwater Management Program—2013 Water Year. Prepared by Zone 7, August 2014. Nutrient Management Plan 83 July 2015 Appendix A Supporting Figures Figure A-1: Groundwater Gradient Map, Upper Aquifer, Fall 2013 Figure A-2: Groundwater Gradient Map, Lower Aquifer, Fall 2013 Figure A-3: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2013 Water Year Figure A-4: Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations, Lower Aquifer, 2013 Water Year Figure A-5: Nodal Constants for Storage Calculations Figure A-6: Nitrate Concentrations, Upper Aquifer, 2008 Water Year Figure A-7: Map of Wells in Groundwater Quality Program Figure A-8: Horsley Witten Group, 2009 Executive Summary Figure A-9: Land Use Related Loading Factors, from RMC, 2012 Figure A-10: Predicted Nitrate Concentrations; 25% Nitrogen Leaching Rate Figure A-11: Historical Nitrate Concentrations in Wells Outside Areas of Concern, Fringe Basin North A A A A A A A A A ( A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (? ? A A? ? AA ? A A ? A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A ? A( ?A ?A A A A A 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3S/1W 2S/2E 3S/2E3S/1E 2S/1E2S/1W 3S/3EAmador Dublin Mocho II Spring May Camp Bernal Bishop Mocho I Altamont Mocho I Vasco C a s t l e Cayetano 32E1354.2 32N1341.18 32Q1339.63 33L1335.25 33P2335.15 33R1335.99 15F1428.67 26C2379.99 36E3341.82 27C2524.89 27P2501.81 28D2524.4 28Q1504.67 32K2497.36 34E1493.63 34Q2504.44 1F2409.34 1H3394.35 1P2363.89 2J2364.152J3380.27 2K2368.792M3345.25 2N6334.38 2Q1347.48 2R1355.54 3G2340.6 4A1330.74 4J5327.12 4Q2282.34 5K6331.055L3326.49 5P6324.57 6F3324.3 6N2320.65 7B12313.96 7G7311.37 7J5309.87 7M2306.16 7R8280.4 8B1301.68 8G4277.67 8K1263.31 8N1265.19 9G1276.96 9H10278.18 9J7277.249P5273.9 10A2305.7910D7279.81 10N2278.37 11B1334.5611C3332.1511G1297.26 12A2360.08 12G1340.96 13P5288.62 16E4271.97 P4266.53 16P5297.15 18E4269.86 18J2268.8 19C4269.26 19K1265.56 20C7268.24 20J4273.0820M11271.38 20Q2303.19 22D2308.81 23J1338.7 25C3362.96 29M4270.27 29P2272.65 2A2342.2 12B2320.87 12J1305.31 13J1314.24 1F2549.47 2B2529.06 3A1512.74 3K3509.08 7C2392.92 7H2411.43 8H2432.78 8K2427.68 9Q4481.75 10F3521.44 10Q1531.29 11C1529.18 15R17580.74 16E4489.8517E2449.36 19D7323.73 22B1571.24 23E1596.55 24A1694.23 26J2677.28 29F4449.1 30D2410.52 33G1502.91 ShCliffs332.58 K18351.2 LkH282.92LkI279.67 P10366.55 P12351.28 P27281.39 P28404.79 P41410.93 P42284.78 P44317.87 R3339.92 R4313.5 R22362.74 R23359.83 4 4 0 500 4 3 0 340 4 2 03504 1 0 500430 300335520520 530340 540750740730720710700690680670660650640630620610600590580570560550540530520510500490480470460450440430420410400 390 38 0 410 400390380 350420410400390380370360350340330320310280300 490460450440430420290 34 0 3 6 0 550370510 360 350340 31035 0 300290 690680670660270262500 300 31032 0 470480Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA FILE: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-01-GradientUpper13.mxd REVIEWED: MK Figure A-1Groundwater Gradient MapUpper Aquifer; Fall 2013 (September)Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 6,000 12,000 Feet LEGEND2013 Program Wells10K2 Well Number (abbreviated)284.7 Groundwater Elevation (NM = Not Measured) (Supply 6 Mining A Monitoring; piezometer %Municipal ?NestedGroundwater Contours (NAVD88, Interval = 10')2013 ContoursHatch pattern towards lower elevationRiversMain BasinSubbasin BoundaryMining Area PondsStatic (= groundwater elevation)Pumped FromPumped IntoClay-linedTownship-Range Line SCALE: DATE:Apr 24, 2015 1 in = 6,000 ft ? ( ( ( ( A ( A ?@A @A ? ?@A @A ? ?? ? A @A ? ? A@A ( ? ? ? (A ( ( (A A? @A@A ( ( ?AA@A @A @A ( @A ( (? ( ? ( A @A @A @A @A ? @A @A @A @A @A ( ( ( ? ( @A@A@A ? ( ? ( 3S/1W 2S/2E 3S/2E 2S/1E 3S/1E 2S/1W36F2316.47 28J2513.27 1J3392.61 1P3256.32 2P3252.51 5K7322.93 6G5319.71 7B2315.65 8H9256.23 M4251.96 St1251.98 9H11270.42 9J8263.59 M2NM M3251.01 9P10261.73 10B9265.5210D3263.0510D8270.81 10K2264.27 10K3256.38 10N3271.32 11G2253.86 11M2264.47 11M3252.46 11P6259.34 12H4255.47 12K2244.71 13P6261.42 14B1255.78 14D2261.82 14K2265.55 15F3233.87 15J3255.7 15M3245.88 16A4246.9116C2259.71 P5266.38 P6258.3 16R1256.16 17B4265.7417D4264.79 H7265.58 17D11221.54 H9263.76 P7262.38 H6263.44 18N1263.47 SF-ANM 20B2NM 20C3NM 20C8263.44 24Q1289.39 1B10313.37 5N1405.52 7N2299.56 7P3189.46 7R3400.81 8F1NM 8G1416.93 8H3417.8 8N2410.25 8P1424.5 9L1NM 9P1419.9 9Q1441.03 14B1528.53 15E2513.51 15Q6512.12 15R18577.93 16A3491.9916B1433.79 16C1379.9418B1226.12 19D9247.38 20M1421.68 23E2598.58 30G1NM 210 400 380 390 23 0 590580570560550540530520510500490480470460450440430370360350340330260250 240 320 310290 300280270420410220 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, OrdnanceSurvey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA FILE: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-02-GradientLower13.mxd REVIEWED: MK Figure A-2Groundwater Gradient MapLower Aquifer; Fall 2013 (October)Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 4,000 8,000 Feet LEGEND2013 Program Wells (Lower Aquifer) ! 10K2 Well Number (abbreviated)284.7 Groundwater Elevation (NM = Not Measured) (Supply 6 Mining A Monitor @A Municipal ?NestedGroundwater Contours (NAVD88, Interval = 10')2013 ContoursHatch pattern towards lower elevationMain BasinSubbasin BoundaryMining Area Ponds 2012Static (= groundwater elevation)Pumped FromPumped IntoClay-linedRiversTownship-Range Line SCALE: DATE:Apr 24, 2015 1 in = 4,000 ft A A A A A A A A AAA A A A AA A A A A A A A ( ? A A A ? A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A ? A( A ?A ?A A A A A A A ? 3S/1W 2S/2E 3S/2E3S/1E 2S/1E 2S/1W 3S/3EAmador Dublin Mocho II Spring May Camp Bernal Bishop Mocho I Altamont Mocho I Vasco C a s t l e Cayetano?? ?? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 32E113.24 32Q112.31 33L118.64 33P228.08 33R119.22 15F1<0.44 1P27.002J227.01 2J326.622K215.502M366.43 2N60.80 2Q121.88 2R125.38 3G24.124A18.77 7G7<0.44 7J5<0.44 7M2<0.44 8B1<0.44 8G44.218K111.38 8N122.05 9G10.44 9J7<0.449P52.75 10A229.27 11C327.50 11G145.61 23J128.17 12J11.95 13J118.42 18J2<0.44 29P2<0.44 1J1<0.44 2A27.35 1F243.58 8H226.35 8K236.71 20M1121.61 20Q2<0.44 10F338.26 10Q147.39 11C119.35 12C415.72 26C225.46 36E324.00 27P2<0.44 28D2181.57 28Q13.90 32K210.36 34E1<0.44 34Q24.96 4J537.16 4Q212.67 5K643.805L30.49 5P621.35 6F3<0.44 7B12<0.44 18E4<0.44 16E423.87 16P53.2819C412.36 19K1<0.44 20C74.92 20J416.87 22D248.27 25C317.49 29M4<0.44 12B219.66 1F219.18 2B229.10 3A127.19 3K339.86 7H258.01 9Q432.99 14A338.31 15R1758.01 16E44.4717E22.26 18E15.14 19D720.90 22B161.56 23E17.75 24A1153.67 26J22.39 29F41.95 30D21.77 33G11.02 7D225.86 32N111.16 13P50.97 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA REVIEWED: CW Figure A-3Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)Upper Aquifer, 2013 Water YearLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 6,000 12,000 Feet LEGENDWells with 2013 Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)11C3 Well Number (abbreviated)27.06 Nitrate Concentration in mg/L (NS = Not Sampled) (Supply 6 Mining A Monitoring %Municipal ?Nested2013 Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)15-3030-4545-60>60Historical Wastewater DisposalHistorical Septic AreasRecycled Water UseSubbasin BoundaryRiversTownship-Range LineMining Area Pond SCALE: DATE: 1 in = 6,000 ft Apr 17, 2015 File: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-03-NitrateUpper13.mxd HappyValley ? ( ( A A ?@A @A ? @A @A @A ? ?? A @A ? A@A ( ? ? ? (A (A @AA? @A@A ( ?@A@A ( (? ? ( ? A A ( ( ? ( ? ( ? @A @A @A @A @A @A @A@A@A ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 36F2<0.44 28J2<0.44 2P318.78 5K71.51 7B2<0.44 8H926.44 St131.04 9J88.64M113.73 M216.43 M318.11 9P1010.32 10B933.2110D332.28 10K27.75 10K317.54 11G231.18 11M212.89 11M316.47 11P63.54 12H414.08 12K27.93 13P63.41 14B14.47 14D214.44 15J33.50 15M39.34 P89.1716A47.7516C215.06 P518.69 P615.28 17B435.03 17D4<0.44 H917.67 H614.08 20B217.94 20C322.63 20C824.49 1B10<0.44 5N145.17 8H355.80 10Q224.89 14B141.27 15E239.68 15R184.74 16A347.39 19D955.36 20M117.27 23E21.46 7P315 7R320 8N215 8P116 9P144 9Q131 16B113 16C18.818B132 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: CW/TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA REVIEWED: TR Figure A-4Detailed Map of Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)Lower Aquifer, 2013 Water YearLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 4,000 8,000 Feet LegendWells with 2013 Nitrate Concentrations11P6 Well Number (abbreviated)3.37 Nitrate Concentration in mg/L (Supply 6 Mining A Monitoring @A Municipal ?Nested well Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)15-3030-4545-60>60Subbasin Boundary SCALE: DATE: Path: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-04-NitrateLower13.mxd 1 in = 4,000 ft May 6, 2015 FIGURE A-5GROUNDWATER STORAGE PROGRAMNODAL CONSTANTS FOR STORAGE CALCULATIONSMAINBASINNODEArea(ft2)Surface(ft MSL)Bot Conf Lyr (ft MSL)Bottom(ft MSL)Thick(ft) SY SSTop(ft MSL)Bottom(ft MSL)Thick(ft) SY SSNODE 15200 329 290 243 47 0.07 0.0024 205 33 172 0.20 0.0012NODE 16320 325 281 235 46 0.05 0.0024 195 33 162 0.20 0.0002NODE 17301 336 283 222 61 0.09 0.0024 179 63 116 0.20 0.00005NODE 18679 334 283 228 55 0.11 0.0024 196 33 163 0.20 0.0012NODE 19703 328 268 222 46 0.11 0.0024 199 53 146 0.20 0.0002NODE 20534 332 265 229 36 0.05 0.0024 215 73 142 0.20 0.00001NODE 23414 340 297 243 54 0.13 0.0024 191 63 128 0.20 0.0018NODE 24503 343 300 230 70 0.14 0.0024 196 73 123 0.20 0.0003NODE 25883 360 330 242 88 0.17 0.0024 222 73 149 0.20 0.0007NODE 26953 353 303 226 77 0.17 0.0024 182 3 179 0.20 0.0003NODE 29388 363 333 278 55 0.23 0.0024 229 229 0 0.20 0.0001NODE 30718 369 none 259 110 0.15 0.0024 230 83 147 0.20 0.0002NODE 311213 372 none 259 113 0.12 0.0024 239 3 236 0.20 0.0003NODE 33165 397 374 327 47 0.09 0.0024 307 253 54 0.20 0.0008NODE 34683 402 none 299 103 0.08 0.0024 283 123 160 0.20 0.0003NODE 352357 422 none 310 112 0.11 0.0024 297 113 184 0.20 0.0002NODE 361753 493 none 387 106 0.09 0.0024 381 381 0 0.20 0.00001NODE 38867 429 none 352 77 0.13 0.0024 339 303 36 0.20 0.0008NODE 391839 484 none 395 89 0.10 0.0024 378 333 45 0.20 0.0003NODE 40913 566 none 487 79 0.23 0.0024 473 423 50 0.20 0.00004NODE 411624 732 none 620 112 0.10 0.0024 607 607 0 0.20 0.00003NODE 42686 551 none 464 87 0.18 0.0024 450 403 47 0.20 0.0001SurfaceGround surfaceft MSLTop and bottom elevations are in feet above Mean Sea Level (NAVD88)Bot Conf LyrBottom elevation of upper aquifer confining layerSYSpecific Yield - used for unconfined conditionsSSSpecific Storage - used for confined conditionsUpper Aquifer Lower AquiferE:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-05NodalConstants.xlsx5/6/2015 AAAAAAAAA(((A(AA((AAAAAAAAA(AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA(?AAA?AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA(AAAAAAAAAAA?AAA?AAAAAA6666666666666666666666(((((((3S/1W2S/2E3S/2E3S/1E2S/1E2S/1W3S/3ER41.73R8<0.44R3<0.44P451.11P421.55P270.71LkH1.28C1<0.447N14.072A22.979J71.028G48.558B12.265L32.524Q25.494A10.623G23.412N60.531P25.45R28<0.44R24<0.44R23<0.44R22<0.44P44<0.44P41<0.44P40<0.44P28<0.44P12<0.44P11<0.44P10<0.44LkI<0.44K18<0.447D214.7933G14.8718E15.2316E45.149Q442.788K238.938H246.067H258.016P136.233K337.783A125.242B220.501F217.6712J14.169P542.749G1<0.448N111.698K126.487R8<0.447M2<0.447J5<0.447G7<0.446F3<0.445P618.515K638.174J574.842Q120.772N232.112M356.242K210.102J326.442J215.411F215.3734Q24.6532K29.2630D2<0.4429F4<0.4426J254.4723E112.0022B126.4814A349.1611C154.0310Q140.8310F335.478Q1522.768Q1424.8413J117.2312B222.6329P2<0.4429M4<0.4425C335.0723J134.6822D246.0620Q2<0.4420J419.0920C713.4619K1<0.4419C412.2718J2<0.4418E4<0.4416P5<0.4416E415.7711G151.3711C323.0310A230.207B12<0.4434E1<0.4427P2<0.4436E326.7526C226.7015F1<0.4433R120.7333P238.4433L121.0832Q124.0032N115.9032E119.4924A1107.6115R1755.8020M1110.10ShCliffs<0.44AmadorDublinMocho IISpringMayCampBernalBishopMocho IAltamontMocho IVascoC astleCayetano29A321.3028J2<0.4428D124.1421P169.0921N147.3921R 3<0.4428Q1<0.4429A 425.9128D2179.8030456060304560304530303045303045601530456045451515151545603030156015304515153 030 453030451515ZONE 7 WATER AGENCYDRAWN: TR/CW100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CAFILE: E:\MONITOR\GM\2008wy\Annual\Fig3.2-10-NitrateUpper.mxdREVIEWED: TRFigure 3.2-10Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)Upper Aquifer; 2008 Water YearLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin.0 6,000 12,000FeetLEGENDWells with 2008 Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L)(Supply6MiningAMonitoring%Municipal?NestedNitrate Concentrations (mg/L)15-3030-4545-60>602008 Nitrate Contours (15, 30, 45, 60 mg/L)2007 Nitrate Contours (30, 45, 60 mg/L)Mining Area PondMining Area Backfilled ExcavationRecycled Water UseHistorical Septic AreasHistorical Wastewater DisposalAlluvium (Subbasin boundaries dashed)RiversRoads/StreetsTownship-Range LineSCALE: 1 in = 6,000 ftDATE:May 7, 2009 ! !! ! ! ! ! ! A A A A A A A A A AAAA A ( A A A A A A A A( A AAA A ( A A AA AA A AA A A A A A A A AAA A A A A A A AAAA@ A A @ (AAA@@ @ AAAA AAAAAAAAA A@ AA AAAAA@ ( AA A AAAAAAAAAAA(A (A @A AAAA A A@@ A (AAAAAA@ @ @ A A @ @ A A ( (AAA A A A @ A( @A AAAA( A AAA A A A AAA A A A A A AAAAA A A A A A A AA A ( A A @ @ @ @ A AAA @ @ @ @ A A A A A A A A( ( (AA( @ A AA 2S/2E 3S/2E 2S/1W 2S/1E 3S/1W 3S/1E 2S/3E 3S/3E 17D11 1P3 2P3 P5 H7H9 28J2 10K3 11M3 11P6 14B1 14D2 15J315M3 16A4 17B4 SF-B SF-A 20B2 20C3 10Q2 14B1 15E2 15Q6 16A3 20M1 5K7 7B2 St1 5N1 7P3 7R3 8F1 8G1 8N2 9P1 16C118B1 M4 M1 M2M3 P8P6P7H6 9Q1 16B1 12J310K211M2 20C920C8 8H48H3 36F136F236F3 1B91B101B11 17D317D417D517D6 8H108H9 10D210D310D4 10B810B910B10 12H412H512H6 11G211G3 12K212K312K4 19D1019D919D819D7 9J89J99P99P109P1116C216C316C4 15R18 23E2 7N2 15M2 36E3 26C2 15F1 32E1 32N1 32Q1 33L1 33P2 33R1 4A1 4J54J6 4Q25P6 5K6 5L3 6F3 1J1 12B2 2A2 6N2 6N3 7B127G7 8B1 8G4 8K1 8N17R87J512J1 7M2 18E4 13J1 19C4 18J2 19K1 29M4 29P2 20Q2 20J4 16P5 16E4 16L2 22D2 20M11 20C7 10A211C3 2N62N2 2M3 2K2 2J3 2J22R12Q1 11B1 12D2 1P2 1L1 1F2 1H3 12A2 7C2 12G1 23J1 25C3 30D2 29F4 33G1 26J2 22B1 10Q1 24A1 14A3 10F3 11C1 3K3 3A1 2B2 1F2 7D2 32K2 28Q1 27P2 28D2 18E1 8P1 7H2 8K2 9Q4 8H2 9G1 9P5 16E417E2 34E1 34Q2 3G2 12C4 7D1 7D3 12A9 6N6 11G1 9J7 15R17 23E1 33L1 15L1 33K1 16B1 8H13 10D5 10B11 12H7 11G4 8H11 17D7 Amador Dublin Mocho II Spring May Camp Bernal Bishop Mocho I Altamont Mocho I Vasco Cayetano Castle Arroy o V a l l eAlamo CreekTassaja ra CreekSo u t h T r i b u t a r y Altamont C r e e k A r r o y o d e L a L a g u n a Arroyo Las Positas A r r o y o M o c h o 13P813P713P613P5 ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY DRAWN: TR 100 North Canyons ParkwayLivermore, CA FILE: E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA-07-GQWells.mxd REVIEWED: MK Figure A-7Map of Wells in Groundwater Quality ProgramLivermore Valley Groundwater Basin . 0 6,000 12,000 Feet LEGENDWell Colors !(Upper Aquifer !(Lower Aquifer !(Deep AquiferWell Symbols (Supply A Monitor @ Municipal ANested Monitoring ?Test !KeyWellsMining Area PondsStatic (= groundwater elevation)Pumped FromPumped IntoClay-linedGroundwater BasinSubbasin BoundaryRiversTownship-Range Line SCALE: DATE:Apr 27, 2015 ABBREVIATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL WELLS M = Mocho (Zone 7)H = Hopyard (Zone 7)St = Stoneridge (Zone 7)P = PleasantonSF = San Francisco Water District 1 in = 6,000 ft Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 90 Route 6A • Sandwich, MA • 02563 Phone - 508-833-6600 • Fax - 508-833-3150 • www.horsleywitten.com Sustainable Environmental Solutions Horsley Witten Group Prepared for: Brian Dudley Department of Environmental Protection Cape Cod Office 973 Iyannough Road Hyannis, MA 02601 Submitted by: Horsley Witten Group 90 Route 6A Sandwich, MA 02563 Evaluation of Turfgrass Nitrogen Fertilizer Leaching Rates in Soils on Cape Cod, Massachusetts June 29, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was conducted by the Horsley Witten Group, Inc. (HW) on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to review existing information on nitrogen leaching rates from fertilizer applied to turfgrasss, and make a recommendation on an appropriate rate to be applied to water quality assessments conducted by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) on 89 Cape Cod and southeastern Massachusetts embayments (the MEP embayments). The MEP Model assumes a 20% nitrogen leaching rate within the embayments, based on research conducted by Dr. Brian Howes (MEP Reports). A recent study conducted by Dr. A. Martin Petrovic, on behalf of the Pleasant Bay Alliance (Petrovic, 2008), determined that a 10% nitrogen leaching rate would be appropriate for the embayments. HW reviewed the MEP Reports and Dr. Petrovic’s study, and interviewed Dr. Howes to discuss his calculation method used in deriving the MEP Model leaching rate. HW also conducted a literature search and review of publications cited by both researchers, and of relevant articles published in related peer-reviewed journals. Finally, HW obtained and analyzed 20 years of water quality monitoring data and fertilizer use on greens and fairways from a Cape Cod golf course, the Bayberry Hills golf course in Harwich, MA. This analysis showed a leaching rate under greens of approximately 14% in the first ten years of the golf course, and 26% in the subsequent ten years. Nitrogen leaching rates reported in the literature ranged from 0% (Mancino et al., 1990) to 95% (Mancino et al., 1991), and were affected by a number of factors. Based on the information available, HW identified factors affecting nitrogen leaching, including grass type, establishment method, and maturity; soil type, content, and slope; nitrogen fertilization type, rate, and timing; and climate and water application. HW described the impacts of each of these factors on nitrogen leaching, as quantified by research documented in the reviewed publications. After summarizing the impacts from grass, soil, fertilization, and climate conditions, HW compared the factors to conditions typical of the MEP embayments. Exact Cape Cod conditions were not replicated in the literature reviewed, and based on the importance of climate to leaching rates, HW narrowed the literature search to studies conducted in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. HW analyzed the leaching rate results for each relevant study to obtain one leaching rate representative of the study. The resulting average leaching rate across all studies is 13%. Studies representative of New England weather conditions span a variety of soil types. When considering leaching rate results from studies conducted only on sand, or loamy sand, as are likely to exist on Cape Cod and southeastern coast, the average leaching rate increases to 19%. The results from the literature review, MEP Model assumptions, and Bayberry Hills golf course water quality data analysis suggest that the MEP leaching rate estimate of 20% is reasonable. Evaluation of Turfgrass Nitrogen Leaching Rates Horsley Witten Group MA Department of Environmental Protection 2 June 29, 2009 Santa Rosa Plain Salt and Nutrient Management Plan Source, Linkage, and Loading Analysis DRAFT July 2012 6-4 Table 6-1: Land Use Related Loading Factors Land Use Group Applied Water2 (in/yr) Percent Irrigated Applied Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Used Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Leachable Nitrogen (lbs/acre- year) Applied TDS (lbs/acre- year) Urban Commercial and Industrial 46.8 5% 91 59 23 717 Farmsteads 46.8 10% 83 54 21 717 Vines 9.4 75% 29 23 3 956 Urban Residential 49.2 25% 91 59 23 478 Pasture 49.2 75% 60 39 15 637 Grasslands/ Herbaceous 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Dairy Production Areas1 0 0% 83 0 75 717 Urban Landscape 46.8 5% 91 59 23 637 Water 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Perennial Forages 49.2 0% 21 15 4 398 Non-irrigated vines 0 0% 17 16 0 478 Shrub/Scrub 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Non-irrigated Orchard 0 0% 75 60 7 319 Barren Land 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Urban C&I, Low Impervious Surface 46.8 10% 91 59 23 478 Flowers and Nursery 38 50% 124 81 31 956 Other CAFOs 0 10% 83 0 75 797 Paved Areas 0 0% 0 0 0 0 Other Row Crops 20.4 75% 100 65 25 558 Orchard 29.6 75% 133 100 20 1,195 Warm Season Cereals and Forages 23.2 75% 124 87 25 558 Footnotes: 1 See discussion on dairy parcels below. 2 Base applied water values and other climatic data are taken from DWR land and water use data (http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/anlwuest.cfm). On this website, four years of data are available. Climatic data averages, based on these four years of data, was compared to the 21-year average of available CIMIS climatic data for the Santa Rosa area. As the two data sets correspond well, the average DWR applied water values were used, with some adjustment using crop coefficients for the Santa Rosa area to fit the study land use classes. FIGURE A‐10 PREDICTED NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS 25% NITROGEN LEACHING RATE (RMC, 2012) 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Main Basin Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin North Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin Northeast Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity 0 5 10 15 20 25 20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Fringe Basin East Predicted Nitrate Concentration 20% of Assimilative Capacity E:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA‐10‐NLoadingCalcsCheckLch25Graphs.xlsx 6/12/2015 Figure A‐10 FIGURE A‐11HISTORICAL NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN WELLS OUTSIDE AREAS OF CONCERNFRINGE BASIN NORTHE:\PROJECTS\SNMP Update\Report\Figures\NMPFigA‐11‐FBN‐Graphs.xlsx5/5/2015Figure A‐1101020304050607080Dec 75Dec 76Dec 77Dec 78Dec 79Dec 80Dec 81Dec 82Dec 83Dec 84Dec 85Dec 86Dec 87Dec 88Dec 89Dec 90Dec 91Dec 92Dec 93Dec 94Dec 95Dec 96Dec 97Dec 98Dec 99Dec 00Dec 01Dec 02Dec 03Dec 04Dec 05Dec 06Dec 07Dec 08Dec 09Dec 10Dec 11Dec 12Dec 13Dec 14Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)Date2S-1E_32E012S-1E_32N012S-1W_15F012S-1W_26C022S-1W_36E032S-1W_36F012S-1W_36F022S-1W_36F033S-1E_05L033S-1E_06F033S-1E_06N023S-1E_07B023S-1E_07B123S-1E_07M023S-1W_01B093S-1W_01B103S-1W_01B113S-1W_02A023S-1W_12B023S-1W_12J01 This page intentionally left blank. TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS PPRREEFFAACCEE ............................................................................................................. 1 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11..00 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN ....................................................................... 6 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Stakeholder Interest and Plan Format ............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Objectives of GMP ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 GMP Timeline and Development Process ..................................................................................... 9 1.5 Elements of the SEBP Basin GMP .................................................................................................. 9 1.6 Document Development ................................................................................................................... 9 1.7 Authority To Prepare and Implement A GMP ............................................................................ 11 1.8 Groundwater Management Plan Components ............................................................................. 11 1.9 SEBP Groundwater Management Plan Structure ........................................................................ 12 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG .......................................................................................... 1144 2.1 Overview of SEBP Groundwater Basin ........................................................................................ 14 2.2 Historical Groundwater Use in the East Bay Area ...................................................................... 14 2.3 Groundwater Basin Delineation ..................................................................................................... 15 2.4 Topography and Geomorphic Features ........................................................................................ 17 2.5 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.1 Type A Soils ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.2 Type B Soils ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.3 Type C Soils ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.5.4 Type D Soils ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.6 Surface Water Features .................................................................................................................... 19 2.6.1 San Leandro Creek ................................................................................................................ 19 2.6.2 San Lorenzo Creek ................................................................................................................ 19 2.7 Precipitation ....................................................................................................................................... 19 2.8 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 20 2.9 Flood Plain Delineation ................................................................................................................... 22 2.10 Hydrogeologic Setting .................................................................................................................... 24 2.10.1 Geologic History ................................................................................................................. 25 2.10.2 Mesozoic Through Early Cenozoic Basement Rocks Formed During Subduction of the Farallon Plate ........................................................................................................... 25 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan TOC - 1 March 2013 TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS 2.10.3 Mid-Cenozoic Rocks Formed Prior to the Existence of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands ......................................................................................................................... 29 2.10.4 Plio-Pleistocene Fluvial Deposits Formed After Creation of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands ......................................................................................................................... 29 2.10.5 Late Pleistocene Through Holocene Alluvial, Estuarine and Eolian Deposits ......... 29 2.11 Geologic Structure .......................................................................................................................... 33 2.12 Hydrogeologic Units ...................................................................................................................... 40 2.12.1 Development of Updated Hydrogeologic Cross Sections ............................................ 42 2.12.2 Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Properties .................................................................................. 45 2.13 Groundwater Elevations and Flow .............................................................................................. 47 2.14 Groundwater Quality ..................................................................................................................... 50 2.14.1 General Chemistry .............................................................................................................. 50 2.14.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Investigation, South East Bay Plain (CH2MHill, 2000) ..... 50 2.14.3 Threats to Water Quality .................................................................................................... 56 2.15 Groundwater Recharge .................................................................................................................. 56 2.16 Groundwater Rights in California ................................................................................................ 61 SECTION 33..00 GGRROOUUNNDDWWAATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS ... 63 3.1 Groundwater Management Goals .................................................................................................. 63 3.2 Basin Management Objectives ........................................................................................................ 63 3.3 GMP Components ........................................................................................................................... 64 3.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................................................. 64 3.3.2 Monitoring Programs ....................................................................................................... 66 3.3.3 Groundwater Basin Management Tools ........................................................................ 73 3.3.4 Groundwater Resource Protection ................................................................................. 74 3.3.5 Groundwater Sustainability ............................................................................................. 79 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44..00 PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN ........................ 8888 4.1 Periodic GMP Implementation Meetings ..................................................................................... 88 4.2 Future Review of the SEBP Basin GMP ...................................................................................... 91 4.3 Financing ............................................................................................................................................ 91 4.4 Integrated Water Resources Management..................................................................................... 92 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan TOC - 2 March 2013 TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS APPENDICES − Appendix A: Resolution of Intent − Appendix B: San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Map and Stream Flow Summaries − Appendix C: Flood Delineation Map Inserts − Appendix D: Updated Cross Sections and Documentation of Methodology − Appendix E: Water Quality Tables − Appendix F: Monitoring Guidelines − Appendix G: Water Quality Sampling Plan − Appendix H: Well Standards REFERENCES South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan TOC - 3 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. AACCRROONNYYMMSS AACCRROONNYYMMSS ACWD Alameda County Water District ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments AFY acre-ft per year AHGW Arc Hydro Groundwater ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery CSM Conceptual Site Model DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DWR Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ftp File Transfer Protocol GIS Geographic Information System gpd/ft gallons per day per foot GMP Groundwater Management Plan IGSM Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model LSCE Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers msl mean sea level NWIS National Water Information System NCGB Niles Cone Groundwater Basin NEBIGSM Niles Cone and South East Bay Plain Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model OLSD Oro Loma Sanitary District SB Senate Bill SEBP Basin South East Bay Plain Basin SSM Soil Survey Manual SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS total dissolved solids USGS U.S. Geological Survey West Yost West Yost Associates WRIME Water Resources & Information Management Engineering Inc. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. PPRREEFFAACCEE PPRREEFFAACCEE What Is The Intent of Preparing A Groundwater Management Plan (GMP)? Water is a finite resource with increasing demand for water exploration and reliance on local groundwater supplies has increased. Preserving this valuable natural resource is essential. Various state and local stakeholders recognize that proper management of groundwater resources is necessary. Recognizing the importance of managing groundwater resources, in 1992, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 3030 (AB 3030) which provided local public agencies increased management authority via the development of GMPs. In September 2002, Senate Bill 1938 expanded AB 3030 by requiring GMPs to include specific components in order to be eligible for grant funding for various types of groundwater related projects. A GMP provides the framework for coordinating groundwater management activities among stakeholders. In general, GMP documents are prepared to identify basin management goals and objectives. They also are used to guide future efforts that could be undertaken to effectively monitor and manage a groundwater basin. With that understanding, the Board of Directors of East Bay Municipal Utility District unanimously adopted a resolution of intent to prepare a GMP for the South East Bay Plain Basin on May 24, 2011. EBMUD, together with other basin stakeholders, has prepared this GMP as a means to assure basin sustainability for generations to come. The South East Bay Plain Basin’s Groundwater Management Plan Satisfies Multiple Stakeholder Needs and Objectives What Is A GMP? A Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) is a planning tool that assists overlying water providers in maintaining a safe, sustainable and high quality groundwater resource within a given groundwater basin. GMPs are intended to be “living documents” that can be readily updated and refined over time to reflect progress made in achieving the GMP’s objectives. Because many agencies are new to groundwater planning, state law (SB 1938) outlines a series of actions that will promote ongoing GMP development. In addition, GMPs have become a required “baseline” document for agencies seeking grant funds available from the State of California. Like other planning documents required by the State, an approved GMP is a minimum requirement for agencies seeking competitively awarded grant funds. What Is Required In A GMP? SB 1938 describes the preparation of GMPs and contains numerous requirements and provisions which are briefly summarized as follows: A GMP contains an inventory of water supplies and describes water uses within a given region. A GMP establishes groundwater Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) that are designed to protect and enhance the groundwater basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 1 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE A GMP identifies monitoring and management programs that ensure the BMOs are being met. A GMP outlines a stakeholder involvement and public information plan for the ground water basin. Why Was The SEBP GMP Prepared? The South East Bay Plain (SEBP) Basin GMP has been prepared primarily to document ongoing groundwater management activities, coordinate among basin stakeholders, and prepare for future activities: A GMP is a prerequisite for state grant funding opportunities. The GMP develops a framework or baseline on which to build future planning efforts. Preparing a GMP is good planning procedure. The SEBP Basin GMP satisfies multiple stakeholder needs and objectives. Stakeholder Involvement To address the needs of all affected stakeholders, several meetings and workshops were held that included a discussion of the means of achieving broader involvement in the management of the Basin. Activities have included: Stakeholder planning meetings Coordinating with other local agencies and interests adjacent to the SEBP basin area Soliciting input from stakeholders during the development and public comment process for approving the GMP Developing and fostering relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies Incorporating comments received from stakeholders into the GMP Future Action Items and Recommendations The intended approval date of the SEBP Basin GMP is March 26, 2013. Following approval, Stakeholders will meet periodically to share basin information and to consider potential refinements to the GMP, adding the next increment of details as and when appropriate. In addition, the following recommendations will move forward: Encourage local stakeholder agencies to adopt the GMP Encourage Alameda County Board of Supervisors to adopt more stringent policies regarding well standards Future grant funding should be used when available to: − Better understand the connectivity between the SEBP Basin and the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin − Establish survey control within the Basin − Expand the groundwater model (to include water quality data evaluation, additional geologic data as collected, etc.) − Improve basin understanding South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 2 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE DWR Bulletin 118 delineates the boundaries of the East Bay Plain Basin ranging from the Carquinez strait in the north to the City of Hayward area in the south. It is bound by the Hayward fault zone in the east and San Francisco Bay in the west. Only the southern portion of East Bay Plain Basin has significant storage capacity and has seen significant municipal, industrial, and irrigation well production. As such, for all practical purposes, the management of groundwater resources focuses the southern portion of the Basin. − Coordinate among stakeholders; and − Support beneficial uses of the SEBP basin South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 3 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE Figure P-1: San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 4 March 2013 PPRREEFFAACCEE South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 5 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN SSEECCTTIIOONN 11..00 IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.1 BACKGROUND In 1992, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 3030 which provided local public agencies increased management authority over their groundwater resources by enabling them to develop Groundwater Management Plans (GMPs). In September 2002, Senate Bill 1938 expanded AB 3030 by requiring GMPs to include specific components in order for Basin agencies to be eligible for grant funding for various types of groundwater related projects. A GMP provides the framework for coordinating groundwater management activities among stakeholders. In general, the documents are fashioned to identify basin management goals and objectives, along with guiding further efforts that will be undertaken to effectively monitor and manage a groundwater basin. In recent years, due primarily to local interest in the southern portion of the East Bay Plain Groundwater Basin (the South East Bay Plain Basin or SEBP Basin), the interest in crafting a GMP for the SEBP Basin has grown. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), as the largest water provider overlying the East Bay Plain Basin, has taken the lead to guide the GMP development process. 1.2 STAKEHOLDER INTEREST AND PLAN FORMAT With the completion of Bayside Groundwater Project Bayside Phase 1 in March of 2010 and the potential future development of Bayside Phase 2, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) recognized that local groundwater resources were now a key component of the District’s future supplemental supply. Other stakeholder agencies, such as the City of Hayward, have reached similar conclusions. A list of stakeholders is provided in the Table below. Table 1-1: List of Key Stakeholders PARTICIPATING KEY STAKEHOLDERS AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE Alameda County Environmental Health Donna Drogos Alameda County Public Works James Yoo Alameda County Water District (ACWD) Steven Inn City of Alameda Laurie Kozisek City of Hayward Marilyn Mosher City of Oakland Craig Pon City of San Leandro Keith Cooke Hayward Area Recreation District Edwin Little Port of Oakland Liem Nguyen San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Barbara Baginska San Lorenzo Unified School District Prachi Amin All of the above stakeholders have an interest in protecting or managing the SEBP basin (see Figure P-2 for a graphical depiction of the Basin boundary). Preparation of a GMP is an effective step to assure basin sustainability. For EBMUD, preparation of a GMP is consistent with commitments made in the Phase 1 EIR for the Bayside Groundwater Project. A GMP provides a mechanism for EBMUD to monitor, manage, and protect water quality and quantity in the SEBP Basin for potable South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 6 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN uses. For the Alameda County Public Works Department, the GMP discusses their interest in modifying existing well installation and decommissioning standards. The City of Hayward, like EBMUD, has an interest in exploring the potential for the Basin to address a portion of their water supply. All stakeholders understand that working together through the GMP process safeguards their interests and provides a mechanism for a collaborative basin management approach. Emergency Water Supply Wells (City of Hayward): The City of Hayward (City) provides water services for residential, commercial, industrial, governmental, and fire suppression uses. Originally, groundwater wells were used as the primary source of water supply. During the 1940s and 1950s, the well water was supplemented by water purchased from San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy system, owned and operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). In 1962, Hayward entered into an agreement with SFPUC to purchase water from SFPUC and ceased providing well water in 1963. However, to secure a reliable source of potable water for use in the event of an interruption in delivery from the regional Hetch Hetchy Water System, the City designed and constructed five emergency wells, beginning in the mid-1990s and completed in 2001. Although the City does not currently operate these groundwater wells to meet any portion of its day-to-day normal water demand, these emergency wells, which are located within the City and use the local groundwater basins, can theoretically provide up to a total of 13.6 million gallons per day of potable water. These wells are currently certified by the California Department of Health Services for short duration emergency use only. Emergency Well Capacities Well Identification Capacity Well A 1.7 mgd Well B 2.9 mgd Well C 4.6 mgd Well D 1.4 mgd Well E 3.0 mgd South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 7 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF GMP The overarching goal of the South East Bay Plain Basin GMP is to preserve the local groundwater basin as a reliable and sustainable water supply for current and future beneficial uses. To accomplish this goal, the objectives of the GMP together with accompanying plan elements are listed below. The SEBP Basin GMP Objectives are to: Preserve basin storage by maintaining groundwater elevations in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the basin; Maintain or improve groundwater quality in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the basin; and Manage potential inelastic land surface subsidence from groundwater pumping The following plan components are structured to achieve these objectives: Stakeholder and Public Involvement Monitoring Program Data Management and Analysis Groundwater Resource Protection Groundwater Sustainability Each component includes specific management actions. Figure 1-1 graphically depicts the means by which objectives are folded into plan components that in turn address goals for basin management. Preserve groundwater storage by maintaining groundwater elevations in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin. Maintain or improve groundwater quality in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin. Manage potential inelastic land surface subsidence from groundwater pumping. Manage the SEBP basin through coordination collaboration. Stakeholders and Public Involvement Monitoring Program Data Management and Analysis Groundwater Resource Protection Groundwater Sustainability GGOOAALL Preserve local groundwater resource as a reliable and sustainable water supply for current and future beneficial uses BBAASSIINN MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS PPLLAANN CCOOMMPPOONNEENNTTSS MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Figure 1-1: Basin Management Objectives South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 8 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN The SEBP Basin GMP accomplishes the following objectives: Provides statutory authority for stakeholders to manage the groundwater basin; Supports basin sustainability; Maintains local control of groundwater; Supports the rights and beneficial uses of groundwater for basin users; Fosters collaboration and prevents legal disputes among stakeholders; and Increases opportunities for future grant funding. 1.4 GMP TIMELINE AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Preparation of the SEBP Basin GMP has taken approximately two years. The effort began with EBMUD’s Board adoption of a resolution of intent on May 9, 2010. Significant milestones in the GMP development process since that date are summarized in Table 1-3 below. Table 1-3: Significant Milestones/Development Process Milestones Date Public Notice to adopt the Resolution of Intent 5/7/2011 EBMUD Board Adoption of the Resolution of Intent 5/24/2011 Stakeholder Liaison Group Meeting 8/9/2011 Technical Consultant Contract Award 11/8/2011 Stakeholder Liaison Group Meeting 3/29/2012 Stakeholder Well Standard Development Subgroup Meeting 10/16/2012 Stakeholder Salts and Nutrients Management Subgroup Meeting 10/16/2012 Stakeholder Land Subsidence Management Subgroup Meeting 10/23/2012 Completion of Draft Technical Study Report 1/23/2013 Completion of Draft GMP document 1/31/2013 Completion of Final Technical Study Report 2/28/2013 Completion of Final GMP document 3/21/2013 Planned Public Notice to Adopt the GMP 3/12/2013 Planned EBMUD Board Adoption of the GMP 3/26/2013 1.5 ELEMENTS OF THE SEBP BASIN GMP Elements of the SEBP Basin GMP include basin delineation and characterization, the establishment of basin objectives, a description of monitoring activities, and identification of management activities. Stakeholder participation is also detailed. 1.6 DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT The GMP was prepared by EBMUD staff with significant assistance provided by stakeholder organizations. The engineering firm of West Yost, Inc. was contracted to prepare a hydrologic study as well as develop a new groundwater model of the basin. EBMUD staff supervised their efforts. Table 1-4 denotes participation in document development by stakeholder/consultant support. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 9 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Table 1-4 : GMP Document Development Contributors GMP Development Lead Agency EBMUD Board Technical Consultant for the SEBP Basin Characterization Study West Yost Associates Public Outreach EBMUD staff Well Standard Development Subgroup Lead: James Yoo (ACPWA) Members: •Marilyn Mosher (COH) •Prachi Amin (SLUSD) •Ken Minn (EBMUD) Salts and Nutrients Management Subgroup Lead: Alec Naugle (SFRWQCB) Members: •Donna Drogos (ACEH) •James Yoo (ACPWA) •Laurie Kozisek (COA) •Marilyn Mosher (COH) •Prachi Amin (SLUSD) •Ken Minn (EBMUD) Land Subsidence Management Subgroup Lead: Tom Francis (EBMUD) Members: •James Yoo (ACPWA) •Laurie Kozisek (COA) •Marilyn Mosher (COH) •Ken Minn (EBM UD) •Steve Martin (EBMUD) Technical Data and Research Contributors Mike Halliwell (ACWD) John Izbicki (USGS) Ken Minn (EBMUD) Technical Reviewers Mike Halliwell (ACWD) Marilyn Mosher (COH) Ken Minn (EBMUD) DWR Liaison Mark Nordberg South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 10 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.7 AUTHORITY TO PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A GMP The authority to manage the groundwater basin is provided through the Act and Water Code Division 6, part 2.75 (§ 10750 et seq.). The state groundwater management law (Water Code Division 6, part 2.75, commencing with section 10750) prohibits the District from managing groundwater within the service area of another local water district, public utility or mutual water company, without the agreement of that other entity. (Section 10750.9 (b)). State law also encourages local water agencies to coordinate on groundwater management plans. (See Water Code §§ 10755.2-10755.4.) This GMP is prepared to cover the southern portion of East Bay Plain basin as per DWR Bulletin 118. In accordance with Water Code section 10750, EBMUD will be authorized to manage the basin within its service area. Similarly, City of Hayward will be authorized to manage the portion the basin under its groundwater service area. This GMP does not cover areas currently under the management of ACWD. This plan and implementation of the plan shall comply with these and other applicable limitations of state law. On May 24, 2011, EBMUD Board of Directors formally adopted the Resolution of Intent to prepare the GMP for the South East Bay Plain Basin. The Resolution is included in Appendix A. 1.8 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS The South East Bay Plain Basin GMP includes the required and recommended components and applicable voluntary components per CWC § 10750 et seq. as described in DWR’s Bulletin 118, California Groundwater – Update 2003 (DWR, 2003). Seven mandatory components of CWC § 10750 et seq. CWC § 10750 et seq. requires GWMPs to include seven mandatory components and twelve voluntary components to be eligible for award of funding administered by DWR for the construction of groundwater projects or groundwater quality projects. These amendments to the CWC were included in Senate Bill 1938, effective January 1, 2003. The amendments apply to funding authorized or appropriated after September 1, 2003. CWC § 10750 et seq., Mandatory Components: Documentation of public involvement statement 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, and 3.3.1 Establish basin management objectives 1.3 Monitor and manage groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, inelastic land surface subsidence, and changes in surface water flows and quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by pumping 3.3 Plan to involve other agencies located within groundwater basin 1.7 Adoption of monitoring protocols by basin stakeholders 3.3.2 Map of groundwater basin showing area of agency subject to GMP, other local agency boundaries, and groundwater basin boundary as defined in DWR Bulletin 118 (Figure 2-1) For agencies not overlying groundwater basins, prepare GMP using appropriate geologic and hydrogeologic principles. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 11 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Twelve voluntary components of CWC § 10750 et seq. includes twelve specific technical issues that could be addressed in GMPs to manage the basin optimally and protect against adverse conditions. In addition, DWR Bulletin 118-223 recommends seven components to include in a GMP. The mandatory, voluntary and recommended components are listed below: Control of saline water intrusion. 3.3.5.1 Identification and management of wellhead protection areas and recharge areas. 3.3.5.1 and 3.3.4.3 Regulation of the migration of contaminated groundwater. 3.3.5.1 Administration of well abandonment and well destruction program. 3.3.5.1 Mitigation of conditions of overdraft. 3.3.5.1 Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers. 3.3.5.1 Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage. 3.3.2 Facilitating conjunctive use operations. Identification of well construction policies. 3.3.4.1 Construction and operation by local agency of groundwater contamination clean up, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects. 3.3.4.4 and 3.3.5.2 Development of relationships with state and federal regulatory agencies. 3.3.1.3 Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create reasonable risk of groundwater contamination. DWR Bulletin 118 Suggested Components: Manage with guidance of advisory committee. Describe area to be managed under GWMP Create link between BMOs and goals and actions of GWMP 1.3 Describe GWMP monitoring program 3.3.2 Describe integrated water management planning efforts 3.3.5.1 and 4.4 Report on implementation of GWMP 4.1 Evaluate GWMP periodically 4.2 1.9 SEBP GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURE This GMP is structured as follows: Section 1.0 - Introduction: Provides the executive summary and introductory information. Section 2.0 - Water Resources Setting: Provides an overview of existing physical conditions that should be understood and considered when developing and implementing groundwater management activities. This section includes information on topics such as precipitation, hydrology, geology, groundwater levels, groundwater quality, existing well infrastructure, and water demand and supply. The understanding of existing physical conditions helps define groundwater management needs, objectives, and actions. Section 3.0 - Plan Implementation: Discusses the major plan components. The five groundwater management components included in the plan are stakeholders and public involvement, monitoring program, data management and analysis, groundwater protection and groundwater sustainability. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 12 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 11 -- IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN Section 4.0 - Plan Implementation and Integration: Successful management of the basin directly correlates with successful implementation of plan components and associated actions. As the basin is the local resource for multiple stakeholders with various stakes, successful implementation is, in turn, contingent upon effective collaboration and available resources. Also, the basin management is a perpetual task concerning all stakeholders. Leading a group of stakeholders with common interest, EBMUD will foster collaborative efforts in seeking state and federal funding as well as developing mutually beneficial projects in the basin. Bayside Groundwater Project (EBMUD): The Bayside Groundwater Project is one of several future water supply projects that will help protect EBMUD's 1.3 million customers against severe water rationing in the event of a prolonged drought. In wet years, water would be stored in a deep aquifer; then extracted, treated and distributed to customers during drought. The aquifers far beneath San Leandro and San Lorenzo were chosen as project sites after much exploration. The Bayside Groundwater Project’s planning began in 2001, the Environmental Impact Report was approved by the EBMUD Board of Directors in November 2005 and the project's construction was completed in 2009. After successfully operating the project for some time, EBMUD will consider a larger project in the area that would have a storage capacity of 2 to 10 mgd, providing even greater drought protection. The larger project would first be subjected to the same environmental and public review as the first project, and EBMUD will review results of the groundwater monitoring system and extensometer, which measures minute changes in ground surface elevation. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 13 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.1 OVERVIEW OF SEBP GROUNDWATER BASIN The study area covers a large area of the East Bay Plain underlying a portion of the City of Oakland, Alameda, San Lorenzo, and the City of Hayward (see Figure 2-1). The study area is approximately four miles wide and twelve miles long. It extends from the San Francisco Bay on the west to the edge of the alluvial basin at the base of the Oakland hills on the east, and runs from 35th Avenue in Oakland on the north near the City of Hayward’s southern boundary. The area is densely populated and highly urbanized and is characterized by industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. Although agriculture was important in the past, there is little agricultural land use in the study area at the present time. More information on the hydrology and hydrogeology of the study area is provided in later sections of this report. 2.2 HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER USE IN THE EAST BAY AREA Groundwater was a major part of water supply to the East Bay area from the 1860s to 1930. During that time there was a continuous struggle to locate and develop both ground and surface waters to serve the growing population. By the early 1920s, it was recognized that local groundwater and surface water supplies had reached their limits, and water would have to be brought in from outside the Bay Area. After years of planning and construction, Sierran water entered the area in the spring of 1930. However, instead of continuing to be part of the water supply, municipal well fields were shut down and forgotten. In their 1998 study of groundwater and water supply history of the East Bay Plain, Norfleet Consultants estimated that in the range of 15,000 wells were drilled in the Basin between 1860 and 1950. The majority of these were shallow (less than 100 feet deep), but some were up to 1,000 feet deep. Few of these wells were properly destroyed. EBMUD’s historical review indicates that there were only three sites in the East Bay Plain that historically supported municipal well fields: the Alvarado, San Pablo, and southern Oakland areas. The Alvarado Well Field was located south of the SEBP Basin in the Niles Cone. This site had the most prolific wells and supplied about one half of the groundwater to the East Bay Area. There were 8 to 10 individual well fields in the southern Oakland trend. The first well field in the SEBP area was drilled on Alameda Island (the High Street Field) in the 1880s. Within 10 years, the field was shut down because of water quality problems and casing failures. Additional well fields were drilled to the west (Fitchburg, 98th Street, etc.), following the trend of the aquifer. In 1916, the East Bay Water Company, predecessor of EBMUD, drew about 10 million gallons a day from 117 wells including Robert’s Landing well filed located in San Lorenzo area. These fields were an integral part of the water supply system until they were shut down in 1930. There were three well fields in San Pablo. They were drilled in the late 1900s to supply water to the rapidly growing Richmond area. Overpumping and intrusion of brackish water caused those fields to be shut down by 1920. There is little specific information about historic groundwater quality, but the existing information indicates that groundwater had a relatively similar quality throughout the East Bay Plain. Total dissolved solids (TDS) varied between 500 and 1,000 ppm. Salt/brackish water intrusion occurred along the eastern end of Alameda Island (early 1890s), in the Fitchburg Well Field (late 1920s), and in San Pablo (late 1910s). Existing information indicates that the intrusion was restricted to the upper aquifer (above the Yerba Buena Mud) and was caused by overpumping. All of these fields South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 14 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG were shut down by 1930. Overpumping continued to occur in the Niles Cone for the next 30 years. This resulted in intrusion of the deeper aquifers by the 1950s. 2.3 GROUNDWATER BASIN DELINEATION California Water Code Section 10750 et seq., commonly referred to as AB 3030, stipulates certain procedures that must be followed in adopting a GMP under this section. Amendments to Section 10750 et seq. added the requirement that new GMPs being prepared under Section 10750 et seq. must include additional components in order to be eligible for state grants administered through DWR (SB1938 (Stats 2002, Ch 603)). One of the required components is a map showing the area of the groundwater basin, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118, with the area of the local agency subject to the plan as well as the boundaries of other local agencies that overlie the basin. The SEBP Basin GMP study area is located within the East Bay Plain Subbasin 1 (Figure P-2). DWR describes the East Bay Plain Subbasin as a northwest trending alluvial plain bounded on the north by San Pablo Bay, on the east by the contact with Franciscan Basement rock, and on the south by the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin (NCGB). The East Bay Plain Basin extends beneath San Francisco Bay to the west (DWR, 2003). The study area (shown in light green in Figure 2-1) is bounded on the east, west and south by the groundwater basin boundary as delineated by the DWR in Bulletin 118 (2003) and shown in Figure P-1. The SEBP basin deep aquifer thins to the north and becomes an insignificant source of groundwater near Berkeley (CH2MHill, 2000). For the purpose of this study, the northern boundary of the SEBP Basin GMP area was drawn in Oakland at a location where the depth to basement is relatively shallow and the deep aquifer is relatively thin (CH2MHill, 2004). The southern boundary extends near the southern boundary of the City of Hayward in the transition zone with the Niles Cone Subbasin to the south. 1 The southern boundary of the basin in DWR Bulletin 118 may be subject to modification in a future edition of the Bulletin 118 as per ongoing discussions between DWR and ACWD. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 15 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 16 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.4 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOMORPHIC FEATURES The GMP study area includes Oakland, Alameda, San Leandro, San Lorenzo and Hayward, covering an area of about 115 square miles. The study area consists primarily of flat alleviated lowlands and bay tidal marshes. The topography generally slopes downward toward the San Francisco Bay to the west, ranging in elevation from about 400 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the east to 0 feet msl to the west where the plain meets the San Francisco Bay. This information is relevant to this groundwater study, because groundwater direction and gradient typically correlate well with surface topography on a regional level. Local variations result from groundwater pumping patterns, and geomorphic and structural features such as fault zones. 2.5 SOILS Soils information was compiled and evaluated from field data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service as well as data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This information is key to developing an understanding of groundwater recharge within the GMP study area. These studies utilized soil information for the East Bay Plain obtained by ACWD during the development of the Niles Cone and South East Bay Plain Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model (NEBIGSM) (WRIME, 2005), which included the entire East Bay Plain. The model subregions used for depicting soil information extend beyond the boundaries of the GMP study area. Soils types for the entire East Bay Plain are shown on Figure 2-2. The Soil Survey Manual (SSM) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993), prepared by the USDA Soil Survey Division was used as a guideline for soil classification. The soil data for the study area were categorized into four classifications established from the Natural Drainage Classes and Hydrologic Soil Groups published in the SSM. The categories are briefly described below. 2.5.1 Type A Soils Type A soils, defined as excessively drained to somewhat excessively drained soils, are so termed because water moves rapidly through them. Soils are typically coarse-textured and have high hydraulic conductivity in the upper half of the horizon. Examples of type A soils include coarse sands, tailings, and alluvial deposits, which typically occur along major stream channels. 2.5.2 Type B Soils Type B soils are well drained soils, meaning that water is removed from the soil readily, not rapidly. Soils in the upper one meter of this horizon typically have higher conductivity in the lower half and moderately high hydraulic conductivity in the upper half of the one-meter interval. A representative type B soil is sandy loam. 2.5.3 Type C Soils Type C soils are moderately well drained soils, meaning that water is removed from the soil slowly during portions of the year. Soils typically have moderately high hydraulic conductivity in the upper half of the horizon and moderately low hydraulic conductivity in the lower half. Examples of type C soils include silty sands, silty loam, and clayey sands. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 17 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 18 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.5.4 Type D Soils Type D soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained soils, meaning that water is removed very slowly and free water typically is present at shallow depths or at the surface. These soils typically have low hydraulic conductivity. Examples of type D soils include clays, hardpan, and floodplain deposits. 2.6 SURFACE WATER FEATURES San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks are the principal streams in the study area. These streams originate in the Diablo Range and flow westward into San Francisco Bay. The upland area drained by these streams (43 and 44 square miles, respectively) contains two large reservoirs. With the exception of the Castro Valley area, the drainage basins are not extensively developed. These streams may have been important sources of pre-development groundwater recharge. Muir (1996) estimated that annual recharge from infiltration of stream-flow and direct infiltration of precipitation in the San Leandro and San Lorenzo areas was about 3,500 and 800 acre-ft, respectively. Channeling of these streams due to urbanization has reduced the amount of surface water available for groundwater recharge along the mountain front (Izbicki, 2003). The results of a USGS study completed in 2003 show that recharge of San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks occurs as infiltration of stream flow during winter months. Most recent recharge is restricted to the upper aquifer system in areas near the mountain front. Recently recharged water was not present in the lower aquifer system, probably because of the presence of clay layers that separate the upper and lower aquifer systems. The time to recharge based on Carbon-14 dating of deep groundwater ranged from 500 to greater than 20,000 years. Older groundwater ages suggest that the lower aquifer system is isolated from surface sources or recharge (Izbicki, 2003). 2.6.1 San Leandro Creek San Leandro Creek stream flow data were not available. Because it is a lined channel having little or no interaction with groundwater, no effort was made to estimate the missing data for San Leandro Creek during construction and calibration of the NEBIGSM (WRIME, 2005). 2.6.2 San Lorenzo Creek San Lorenzo Creek stream flow data, compiled by WRIME in preparation of the NEBIGSM, covers the period 1964 to 2000 and more recent (2008 to 2012) data retrieved from the USGS for the Hayward Gage (see Appendix B). The steam flows year round with highest flows in the winter months. Flows rarely exceed 2,000 cubic feet per second. 2.7 PRECIPITATION Although the area is heavily urbanized, precipitation does contribute to recharge in the study area. Rainfall data were compiled and analyzed from two rainfall gages in the study area during development of the NEBIGSM for the period 1922 to 1998. During this period, average rainfall was 19.36 inches per year at the Oakland Museum Station (northern study area) and 17.87 inches per year at the Niles Station (southern study area). Recent precipitation data at the Oakland Museum Station is plotted on Figure 2-3 and shows that average annual precipitation for the period 1971 to 2011 was 22 inches. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 19 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Figure 2-3 2.8 LAND USE Land use information is another factor considered in developing a recharge area/net percolation map for the study area. Figure 2-4 shows the mix of land uses across the SEBP Basin, including the study area. Principal land uses within the study area include residential, industrial, parks and open space. The land use classification information was developed from the 2006 Planned Land Use GIS data file available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) GIS Data Catalog. The 2006 Planned Land Use data file contains geospatial information relating to land uses found in the general plans of the cities and counties of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 20 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 21 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.9 FLOOD PLAIN DELINEATION Figure 2-5 shows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain delineation mapping for the study area dated April 2012. The flood plain delineation was derived from 100-year flood maps available directly from FEMA and digitized into GIS Data. The total area included in FEMA’s 100-year flood plains is approximately 8,400 acres, or 21 percent of the 39,900-acre GMP area. Because Figure 2-5 is scaled to show the entire GMP area, inset maps were created at ten times the size to show better detail. Inset maps are included in Appendix C showing more detail along creeks and streams within the study area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 22 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 23 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.10 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING The purpose of this chapter is to provide sufficient detail on the geologic history and setting to improve understanding of the geologic framework that defines the groundwater basin, including freshwater aquifers. This also includes understanding of the bedrock geometry which defines the boundaries of the basin, aspects of the bedrock geology that could influence groundwater quantity and quality, and the sequence of sedimentation within the bedrock basin that resulted in the SEBP Basin aquifers. The description of the sedimentary sequence is intended to provide a framework for interpreting site-specific geologic information obtained from drilling and logging and to plan future investigative efforts within the SEBP Basin. The sediments comprising the aquifers of the SEBP Basin, as delineated in this report, are primarily composed of relatively young alluvial deposits formed in approximately the last few hundred thousand years by streams, such as San Leandro, San Lorenzo and Alameda Creeks, emanating from the East Bay Hills. Productive groundwater zones, likely former stream channels, are found in discontinuous sand and gravel deposits. These sand and gravel zones are enclosed in fine grained deposits formed in alluvial systems during flood events that overtopped stream channels. Near San Francisco Bay, the alluvial deposits interfinger with estuarine deposits and localized wind-blown sand deposits of approximately the same age. The fine grained alluvial and estuarine deposits have low permeability and create confined (pressurized) conditions for most of the SEBP Basin groundwater production zones. The characteristics of the SEBP Basin aquifers are significantly affected by fault motion. Earth movements not only created the groundwater basin and the depositional environments resulting in the aquifer sediments, but also displaced the aquifer sediments once deposited. Even the youngest deposits forming the SEBP Basin aquifer system are affected, because fault motion is ongoing. However, the somewhat older alluvial deposits, possibly including the productive zones in the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer, have undergone greater northwesterly translation from their original sites of deposition. Also, Alameda Creek is the only antecedent stream in the region, suggesting that it predates the geologically recent deformation and uplift of the East Bay Hills. The geomorphic characteristics of San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks suggest that they are young relative to geologically recent deformation and uplift, introducing the possibility that some deeper alluvial deposits may have been formed by Alameda Creek or other local streams that no longer exist. The alluvial sediments comprising the main freshwater-bearing zones and underlying the SEBP Basin, probably rest upon and are juxtaposed across faults with older fluvial deposits formed in the early stages of the San Francisco Bay lowland’s development. Although the permeability of the coarse-grained fluvial sediments is probably less than the permeability of the coarse-grained alluvial sediments due to greater compaction and cementation, the fluvial sediments are significant to the freshwater aquifer system because they are relatively widespread in the southern San Francisco Bay region. The alluvial, fluvial and estuarine sediments comprising the freshwater aquifer system in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin are underlain by bedrock consisting of very old Franciscan Complex rocks and deformed marine sedimentary rocks, predating the most geologically recent Coast Range uplift. These older rocks are significant because their structural configuration defines the geometry of the groundwater basin and aspects of their mineralogy may influence groundwater quality in the SEBP Basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 24 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The following sections of this chapter provide summaries of the geologic history and structural features that make up the geologic framework of the SEBP Basin. 2.10.1 Geologic History A conceptual geologic column shown in Figure 2-6, illustrates the geologic history of the SEBP Basin within the oldest geologic formation at the base and youngest formation at the top. The geologic column is a graphical representation of the geometrical and temporal relationships between the geologic units that define the SEBP Basin’s geometry and hydraulic properties and influence its water quality. Figure 2-7 is a surficial geologic map of the area. The thickness and extent of the SEBP Basin freshwater aquifer system is delimited by the extent and depth to the top of basement rocks comprised of the Franciscan Complex and the overlying marine sedimentary rocks shown near the bottom of Figure 2-6. Fluvial sediments located at, or near the base of, the freshwater aquifer system may extend the depth and extent of the system beyond the limits indicated by mapped alluvial deposits in the SEBP Basin. The primary aquifers of the SEBP Basin are comprised of the Late Pleistocene through Holocene alluvial and estuarine deposits (shown on the upper part of the geologic column). 2.10.2 Mesozoic Through Early Cenozoic Basement Rocks Formed During Subduction of the Farallon Plate The oldest rocks in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin are late Jurassic through early Tertiary age rocks of the Franciscan Complex and Great Valley Sequence. These rocks provide a record of approximately 140 million years of compressive tectonics, oceanic plate subduction and continental accretion, which ended approximately 28 million years ago when the Farallon Plate was subducted beneath the North American Plate, and right-lateral strike-slip motion was initiated along the San Andreas Fault system (Wakabayashi, 1992). Rocks of the Franciscan Complex are dominated by detrital sediments (greywacke and shale), with lesser amounts of pillow basalts, chert and minor limestone. As originally formed, these rock units present a record of the formation of new oceanic crust (pillow basalts) at oceanic ridges. Chert deposits formed in deep water over the pillow basalts as the oceanic crust moved away from spreading centers and toward the subduction zone on the western margin of North America. Limestone formed in shallow water over oceanic crust at equatorial latitudes. Greywacke and shale were formed by deposition of continentally-derived sediments by turbidity currents at the subduction zone. The entire assemblage was extensively disrupted by folding and faulting in the oceanic trench near the western margin of North America during subduction of the oceanic Farallon Plate. Tectonic disruptions in the subduction zone resulted in metamorphosis of some Franciscan rocks, which are often identified based on metamorphic petrology resulting from high pressure-low temperature conditions brought about by rapid burial and exhumation in the subduction zone. Serpentinite is a characteristic metamorphic rock type of the Franciscan Complex resulting from the metamorphosis of mantle rocks underlying oceanic crust. Intense shearing resulted in mélange, another characteristic part of the Franciscan Complex. Mélange consists of crushed soft rocks, such South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 25 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 26 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG as shale or serpentinite, containing floating blocks of other more resistant rock types ranging in size from a few square feet to a few square miles (Sloan, 2006). Up to nine different Franciscan Complex terrains have been identified in the San Francisco Bay area (Wahrhaftig and Sloan, 1989; Wakabayashi, 1992). The Great Valley Sequence formed contemporaneously with the Franciscan Complex in a marine sedimentary basin, known as a forearc basin, located between the Franciscan Complex subduction zone and the Sierran volcanic arc forming the western edge of the continent. The Sierra volcanic arc was the result of melting of the subducted oceanic plate. Buoyant forces drove the melts upwards into the continental crust and to the land surface creating the predominant rock types of the Sierra Nevada. The Great Valley Sequence consists mostly of shale, sandstone and conglomerate. The Coast Range ophiolite is located at the base of the Great Valley Sequence. The ophiolite is a sequence of dense, igneous rocks of the upper mantle and overlying oceanic crust, which was accreted to the North American continent at the subduction zone. The Mesozoic Coast Range fault system separates the Coast Range ophiolite and overlying Coast Range Sequence on the east from the Franciscan Complex on the west. The Coast Range fault may have been the original demarcation between the Mesozoic rocks undergoing subduction (Franciscan Complex) and those accumulating on the North American continent (Great Valley Sequence). Figure 2-7 shows the extent of the Franciscan Complex and Great Valley Sequence outcrops mapped in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin. The Hayward fault separates the two units, with virtually all mapped occurrences of the Franciscan Complex occurring west of the Hayward fault. These outcrops consist of marine sedimentary rocks of the central terrain east of Oakland, and mélange and chert of the Marin Headlands terrain at Coyote Hills (Wahrhaftig and Sloan, 1989). Likewise, all mapped occurrences of the Great Valley Sequence are east of the Hayward fault. In the areas nearest the SEBP Basin, the Panoche Formation, a sequence of marine sandstones and shales, is the predominant rock type representing the Great Valley Sequence. The watersheds of San Leandro Creek and San Lorenzo Creek, the two main streams entering the SEBP Basin, are underlain by the Panoche Formation. Runoff characteristics of the streams may be influenced to some degree by the geochemical and hydraulic characteristics of the Panoche Formation. The Hayward fault is closely associated with the Coast Range ophiolite near the SEBP Basin, which in this area includes the San Leandro Gabbro and other serpentinized rocks (Figure 2-7). Geophysical data show that the Hayward fault in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin is located on the west edge of a 75 to 80 degree easterly dipping mass of San Leandro Gabbro extending to a depth of approximately four to five miles. This indicates that the location of the Hayward fault in this area is controlled by the Mesozoic Coast Range fault because the Coast Range fault separates the Franciscan Complex from the Coast Range ophiolite and the overlying Great Valley Sequence (Ponce, et. al., 2003). This association may be significant to the SEBP Basin groundwater basin, because the mineral chromite is concentrated in ophiolite sequences, including serpentinized derivatives. Sediments eroded from these rocks, including chromite and other chromium compounds, could be present in the SEBP Basin aquifer sediments, because streams such as San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks cross the ophiolite belt. These streams contribute alluvial deposits that comprise the SEBP Basin groundwater basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 27 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 28 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.10.3 Mid-Cenozoic Rocks Formed Prior to the Existence of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands Transverse movement on the San Andreas fault system began in Southern California approximately 28 million years ago (Wakabayashi, 1992). Transverse movement progressed northwestward over time, and the Hayward fault began to develop approximately 5 to 12 million years ago. Prior to development of the Hayward fault and extending to about 11 to 12 million years ago, marine conditions prevailed in the vicinity of the SEBP, resulting in the marine sedimentary rocks deposited on Mesozoic basement rocks. These mid-Cenozoic rocks are mapped in the East Bay hills (Figure 2-7). The oldest rocks of this period, typified by the Claremont Formation, were formed in deep water environments while younger rocks, typified by the Briones Formation, were formed in shallow marine environments, demonstrating a general progression from deep to shallow marine conditions. No rocks of this age are mapped near the SEBP Basin, but they are present in the subsurface beneath South San Francisco Bay adjacent to the SEBP Basin (Marlow et al, 1999). Approximately 10 million years ago, continued uplift resulted in deposition of non-marine sedimentary rocks. Rocks of this age in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin are represented by the Orinda Formation, which outcrops to the northeast near the Caldecott Tunnel. Sediments in the Orinda Formation indicate deposition on an alluvial plain sloping to the east away from the present day San Francisco Bay Peninsula. 2.10.4 Plio-Pleistocene Fluvial Deposits Formed After Creation of the San Francisco Bay Lowlands Formation of the San Francisco Bay lowlands began approximately four million years ago with uplift of the Coast Range. Fluvial deposits accumulated in localized depositional basins during this time are represented by the Livermore Gravels, the Santa Clara Formation, and in the vicinity of the SEBP Basin, the Irvington gravels (Figures 2-6 and 2-7). The Irvington gravels outcrop intermittently in a narrow band near the Hayward fault extending from the Irvington District of Fremont south towards Coyote Valley. These formations consist predominately of poorly consolidated conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and clay. They range from approximately 0.5 to 4 million years in age (Page, 1992). They are folded and faulted, consistent with their genetic association with uplift of the Coast Ranges during the same period. 2.10.5 Late Pleistocene Through Holocene Alluvial, Estuarine and Eolian Deposits Approximately 0.6 million years ago, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River flowed through the San Francisco Bay lowlands to the Pacific Ocean, and the first known estuarine deposits were formed (Trask and Rolston, 1951; Hall, 1966; Sarna-Wojcicki, 1976; Atwater, 1977; Sarna-Wojcicki et al., 1985; Lanphere, et al., 1999)2. 2 Data supporting these statements were first reported in an engineering geology study conducted to assess alternative crossings near the San Francisco Bay - Oakland Bay Bridge (Trask and Rolston, 1951). Trask and Rolston, page 1083 (1951) reported encountering a volcanic ash deposit at a depth of 280 feet in the deepest of the five members of the Alameda formation defined in their report. The boring was located on the west side of the Bay Bridge near San Francisco (Figure 4-3). Hall (1966) concluded, based on mineralogical analysis, that Great Valley drainage had been established by the time a similar tuff had been deposited in marine sandstone of the Merced Formation outcropping slightly south of San Francisco (Figure 4-2). Sarna-Wojcicki (1976) correlated the ash documented in Trask and Rolston (1951), and equivalent ashes in the Merced and Santa Clara Formations, with the Rockland Ash of the southern Cascade Range and documented an age of approximately one million years, based on the available radiometric age dating of the time. Atwater (1977) apparently interpreted the deepest member of Trask and Rolston’s (1951) Alameda Formation, a stiff greenish gray clay, as an estuarine deposit, and concluded that it was the oldest identified estuarine deposit. Sarna-Wojcicki et al. (1985) documented a revised age of approximately 0.4 million years for the Rockland Ash based on fission track methods. Lanphere, et al. (1999) revised the age upwards to approximately 0.6 million years using radiometric methods. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 29 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Sediments deposited during this period consist of estuarine deposits within the footprint of the current San Francisco Bay, alluvial deposits on the flanks of the East Bay Hills extending into the area currently occupied by San Francisco Bay, and eolian (wind-born) sands (Figure 2-6). The detailed stratigraphy of the deposits underlying the San Francisco Bay was developed by Trask and Rolston (1951). Figure 2-8 shows the five stratigraphic units identified by Trask and Rolston (1951) based on drilling near the Bay Bridge. These stratigraphic units from shallowest to deepest are: Bay Mud Merritt Sand Posey Formation San Antonio Formation Alameda Formation As described in footnote 1, the lower part of the Alameda Formation contains the oldest known estuarine deposits identified in the bay. The Alameda Formation rests directly on Franciscan bedrock on the west edge of the bay, but the full thickness of the Alameda Formation was not penetrated by borings elsewhere (Figure 2-7). Researchers concluded that the Alameda Formation may overlay the Santa Clara Formation or the marine Merced Formation in other areas (see footnote 1). This conclusion is reasonable based on the geologic setting described above, noting especially that the ages of the Santa Clara Formation and other similar fluvial deposits, including the Irvington Gravels, predate and overlap the age of the lowest Alameda Formation estuarine deposits (Figure 2-6). South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 30 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 31 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The stratigraphic relationship between the age equivalents of the lower Alameda Formation and adjacent strata is unclear farther south, including adjacent to the SEBP Basin. It is possible that estuarine deposits of lower Alameda Formation age extend as far south as the SEBP Basin, or interfinger with fluvial sediments, because the Santa Clara Formation contains a volcanic ash of the same age as the volcanic ash found in the lower Alameda Formation (Atwater, 1977). Mid-Cenozoic marine rocks formed prior to the existence of the San Francisco Bay lowlands underlie lower Alameda age sediments west of San Leandro (Marlow, 1999). Atwater (1977) reinterpreted the stratigraphic sequence used by Trask and Rolston (1951) based on microfossil and other evidence collected in the south bay. Atwater (1977) concluded, based on the lack of marine microfossils and estuarine mollusks and other evidence, that the Posey Formation in the south bay is alluvial rather than estuarine. Atwater (1977) also identified the San Antonio Formation as the youngest Pleistocene age estuarine deposit in the south bay, with an age of 60,000 to 100,000 years. The late-Pleistocene estuarine sequence has approximately the same lateral extent as the recent estuarine deposits (Atwater 1977). Based on this information, the depositional sequence in the south bay is from youngest to oldest (Figure 2-6): Estuarine deposits (Bay Mud, Holocene) Isolated eolian sand deposits (late-Pleistocene-Holocene) Alluvium (late-Pleistocene, <60,000 years) Estuarine deposits equivalent to the San Antonio Formation (late Pleistocene, approximately 60,000-100,000 years) Alluvium (late-Pleistocene, >100,000 years) Fluvial and estuarine deposits with undefined stratigraphic relationships. Plio-Pleistocene, 4 million to 500,000 years; oldest identified estuarine deposit (600,000 years) identified near Bay Bridge In summary, the significance of this stratigraphic sequence is that thick alluvial and fluvial sequences capped by two major estuarine sequences underlie the bay to the west of the SEBP Basin. If sufficiently permeable, these alluvial and fluvial sequences should have hydraulic continuity with the alluvial and fluvial sediments underlying the SEBP Basin and form a continuous confined aquifer system extending to the west beneath the bay. Holocene to late-Pleistocene alluvial deposits formed by streams emanating from the East Bay hills are the youngest deposits in the SEBP Basin (Figure 2-6 and 2-7). The SEBP Basin is underlain by the coalesced alluvial fans of San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek and Alameda Creek. Although Alameda Creek is located south of the SEBP Basin, it has significance to the SEBP Basin geology, because of its size and age. San Leandro Creek and San Lorenzo Creek have small drainages in comparison to Alameda Creek, and, of the three streams, only Alameda Creek is an antecedent stream, predating the most recent Coast Range uplift. Assuming a long-term slip rate of approximately one centimeter per year on the Hayward Fault over 500,000 years, sediments deposited by Alameda Creek west of the Hayward fault could have been displaced approximately three miles to the northwest. Coincidently, this is approximately the distance to the dissected older alluvial deposits mapped on the west side of the Hayward fault in the SEBP Basin (Figure 2-7). Extensive older alluvial deposit are also mapped in the SEBP Basin farther north in the Oakland South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 32 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG area. Older alluvial deposits may have been formed by ancestral streams not associated with existing drainages, because the most recent episode of Coast Range uplift has been underway for approximately the past four million years. This uplift has significantly modified the topography of the area. Regardless of the origin of the oldest late-Pleistocene alluvial deposits in the SEBP Basin, they are likely to be widespread in the subsurface based on the depositional environment. However, estimation of the spatial distribution of coarse versus fine textures in these deposits based on geologic principles is hindered by the unknown nature of ancestral streams forming the deposits and the unknown displacement history of the Hayward fault and possibly other faults hidden in the subsurface. 2.11 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The San Francisco Bay lowlands occupy a down-dropped fault block between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the East Bay hills of the Diablo Range. The block is bounded by major, active strands of the San Andreas fault on the west and the Hayward fault on the east (Figure 2-7). The block is disrupted by other active and inactive faults as evidenced by the seismicity away from the active strands of the San Andreas and Hayward faults, and the bedrock relief, which locally brings Franciscan Complex rocks above the elevation of basin filling sediments. A map of isostatic residual gravity contours of the SEBP Basin and vicinity is represented in Figure 2-9. Gravity data was evaluated to understand the shape of the bedrock surface underlying the more recent sedimentary deposits, including the freshwater aquifer. Isostatic residual gravity measurements have been corrected to compensate for lateral variation in the density or thickness of large crustal blocks. The SEBP Basin is situated on the eastern edge of one of two major areas of anomalously low gravity measurements (Roberts and Jachens, 1993). The other anomaly is located in eastern San Pablo Bay and is caused by a young pull-apart basin where the Hayward fault steps over to the east to the Rodgers Creek fault (Ponce et. al, 2003). The geologic structure causing the gravity anomaly at the SEBP Basin is an older structure known as the San Leandro synform (Marlow, et. al., 1995). This downward fold predates the most recent Coast Range uplift beginning about four million years ago and affects the Franciscan Complex and the overlying mid-Cenozoic marine rocks (Marlow, et. al., 1999). A seismic cross section through the San Leandro synform from Marlow, et. al. (1999), is shown in Figure 2-10. The figure shows a basement of Franciscan Complex bounded by an upper erosional surface, which is overlain by dipping layers of mid-Cenozoic marine sediments on the eastern side of the section. The synform was probably formed when the originally flat-lying marine sediments were folded by the same forces that reinitiated Coast Range uplift beginning approximately four million years ago (Figure 2-6). The upper surface of the marine sediments is truncated by an erosional surface that extends across the Franciscan Complex on the western side of the section. The deposits above this surface are relatively undisturbed and consist of late Pliocene through recent fluvial, alluvial, estuarine and eolian deposits. Based on drill hole data presented in Figuers (1998), these sediments extend to depths below sea level of at least 665 feet. The two-way travel time to the base of the sediments is approximately 0.3 seconds. Assuming a seismic velocity of 5,000 feet per second, the depth to the base of the flat-lying sediments is approximately 750 feet. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 33 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The gravity anomaly associated with the San Leandro synform extends to the north beneath the SEBP Basin in the San Leandro/Oakland area, suggesting a lower density in, or greater depth to, the Franciscan Complex basement in this area. A map of the earth’s magnetic-field intensity contours based on aerial surveys (USGS, 1996) is represented in Figure 2-12. The map helps to delineate basement features with contrasting magnetic susceptibility, which may not be reflected in density contrasts. The map clearly shows the location of the Hayward fault and another northwest trending feature extending across the bay in the same area as the San Leandro synform. Based on additional processing and analysis of the magnetic data, Ponce et. al. (2003) concluded that the northwesterly trending feature is a serpentinite with a high magnetic susceptibility. The work of Ponce, et. al. (2003) also shows small magnetic anomalies in the northern SEBP Basin, but the significance of these anomalies has not been assessed. Figure 2-12 shows the location of a seismic reflection transect across the SEBP prepared by the USGS (Catchings, et. al., 2006). Seismic reflection methods detect sonic velocity differences in the subsurface, which are indicative of contrasting rock types. Seismic reflection data can also be used to differentiate aquifer and aquitard material in some depositional environments. Figure 2-13 is a southwest-northeast cross section based on the seismic reflection results, borehole data, and gravity measurements. Based on the results, depth to the Franciscan Complex ranges from approximately 1,000 feet near the northeastern end of the transect to approximately 3,000 feet on the southwestern end, where the transect crosses into the San Leandro synform (Figures 2-9 and 2-10). The USGS identified three aquifer zones along the transect based on the seismic reflection data and available borehole data. The approximate depths of the bottoms of these zones are as follows: Shallow Zone: 70 to 230 feet Intermediate Zone: 330 to 460 feet Deep Zone: 530 to 660 feet The depth of each zone increases from northeast to southwest. The USGS identified five zones in which the reflection data indicated faulting extending through the near surface sediments (Figure 2-13). The most significant of these zones is located approximately 7,000 feet east of the bay shore in the vicinity of Arroyo High School. These faults may be related to the Silver Creek fault, which is mapped at the surface in the Morgan Hill area and inferred to exist in the subsurface as far north as Fremont (Wagner, et. al., 1990). Groundwater flow may be impeded across the fault zones. Also, aquifer thickness and permeability (hydraulic conductivity) may be different on either side of a fault zone, because faulting could juxtapose geologic materials formed in different depositional settings. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 34 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 35 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 36 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 37 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 38 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 39 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.12 HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS This section describes the hydrogeologic units that comprise the freshwater aquifer system within the SEBP Basin. The discussion provides: Rationale for defining the SEBP Basin hydrogeologic units and their relationship to hydrogeologic units in the NCGB Summary of the hydraulic properties of the Deep Aquifer Zone, as estimated during previous aquifer testing Documentation of groundwater levels, quality and groundwater recharge and discharge areas Numerous groundwater studies have described the hydrogeology of the SEBP Basin. The objective of this study is to build on previous work and to integrate additional information to better characterize the Deep Aquifer Zone. Information in this section describes the methodology used to incorporate new subsurface information into existing geologic cross sections developed through a joint effort by Alameda County Water District, the City of Hayward, and EBMUD (LSCE, 2003). This updated subsurface information was used along with long-term aquifer tests performed on wells screened in the Deep Aquifer Zone (LSCE, 2003 and Fugro, 2011) to develop updated conceptual and numerical groundwater models. As introduced in the previous chapter, Holocene to late-Pleistocene alluvial sediments comprise the important groundwater producing zones in the aquifer system of the SEBP Basin. Fine grained sections of the alluvial sequences create confining conditions between the more permeable groundwater producing zones. Near the bay, fine grained estuarine deposits also create confined conditions. It is likely that groundwater producing zones have continuity with similar alluvial and fluvial zones beneath the bay, which are likewise confined by fine-grained estuarine sequences. Franciscan Complex rocks form the base of the aquifer system and limit its easterly extent. As shown in the figure below, in many areas the permeable zones are most likely to be discontinuous, and it is difficult to correlate sand and gravel layers over great distances between wells. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 40 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG The available geophysical logs, borehole data, and cross sections show that the depth intervals typically containing relatively high percentages of permeable sediments can be grouped into three hydrogeologic units as follows: Shallow Aquifer Zone: approximately 30 to 200 feet Intermediate Aquifer Zone: approximately 200 to 500 feet Deep Aquifer Zone: approximately 400 to 660+ feet The Shallow Aquifer Zone is present throughout the study area, with permeable zones typically occurring at depths between 30 and 130 feet below land surface (CH2MHill Inc., 2000). The SEBP Basin Shallow Aquifer Zone exists in approximately the same range of depths as the NCGB’s Newark and Centerville Aquifers. Groundwater in the Shallow Aquifer Zone is generally confined except near recharge areas along the mountain front. The Intermediate Aquifer Zone generally has discontinuous sand and gravel deposits that are difficult to correlate between wells. It occurs in approximately the same depth range as the NCGB’s Fremont Aquifer. The Deep Aquifer Zone contains a significant permeable zone that appears to be continuous throughout the SEBP Basin, but at a greater depth than the NCGB Deep Aquifer. This permeable zone appears to be thickest and most continuous south of San Leandro (Maslonkowski, 1988) and thins, eventually disappearing, to the north (CH2MHill, Inc., 2000). In this area, aquifers are underlain by partly consolidated deposits (Marlow et. al., 1999) having low porosity and low permeability (Izbicki, 2003). Distribution and Occurrence of Permeable Material Comprising the SEBP Aquifers (Modified from CH2MHill, 2000) South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 41 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.12.1 Development of Updated Hydrogeologic Cross Sections The cross section analysis and update involved integrating and comparing information obtained from numerous sources using ArcHydro Groundwater 3 and other related GIS tools. The information evaluated included published geologic and geophysical cross sections, model surfaces, and hydrogeological and geophysical data. Published cross sections from four sources were reviewed and analyzed. Figure 2-14 shows the locations and sources of the cross sections evaluated for this study. The first two groups of cross sections were developed by consulting firms Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE, 2003) and CH2MHill (CH2MHill. 2000). The third and fourth sets of cross sections reviewed include those prepared by the USGS (Izbicki,2003; Catchings, 2006). Figure 2-15 shows the locations of the three updated cross sections developed using Arc Hydro Groundwater and other related GIS tools. To fully utilize this existing work, all available cross sections were spatially referenced and new subsurface information was added using GIS tools. This allowed enhanced visual analysis of multiple sets of information in one common environment. The LSCE Cross Sections 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 4-9 coincide with the primary north-south cross section updated for this study and designated as Transect A-A’ (Figure 2-15). Two east-west sections were developed. The location for B-B’ coincides with the A-A’ cross section transect provided in Izbicki, 2003. The location for C-C’ is midway between Izbicki’s B-B’ transect (Izbicki, 2003) and the USGS cross section transects in their seismic refraction report (Catchings, 2006). 3Arc Hydro Groundwater is a geodatabase design for representing groundwater datasets within ArcGIS. The data models helps archive, display, and analyze multidimensional groundwater data, and includes several components to represent different types of datasets including representations of aquifers and wells/boreholes, 3D hydrogeologic models, temporal information, and data from simulation models (http://www.archydrogw.com/ahgw/Main_Page). South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 42 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 43 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 44 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Subsurface Analyst was the primary tool used for cross section analysis. Each transect was georeferenced and digitized so the information was projected in real-world coordinates, within the Arc Hydro Groundwater geodatabase. The benefit of projecting the published literature in real- world coordinates is that it provided a mechanism to overlay external data, enhancing the ability to review existing model input parameters with the most updated hydrogeological information. A complete set of updated cross sections and detailed description of the Arc Hydro approach utilized for the updates is provided in Appendix D. For this study, the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer and the NCGB Deep Aquifer are depicted as separate hydrogeologic units. The distinction between the two hydrogeologic units is based largely on work conducted by LSCE (2003). LSCE (2003) documented ten permeable stratigraphic units within the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer and transition zone based on geophysical and lithologic logs. These were labeled in increasing numerical sequence from deepest to shallowest. With notable exception, units 1 through 6.5 are all located in the SEBP Basin, based on hydraulic responses measured during aquifer testing (LSCE, 2003). Units 7 and 8 are located in the transition zone [LSCE (2003), Figures 2 through 5]. The exception to the previous statement is identified on LSCE (2003) Figure 4, which shows City of Hayward Well B penetrating, from shallowest to deepest, stratigraphic units 8, 7 and 4.5. Units 7 and 8 extend southward to at least City of Hayward Well C, but pinch out to the north in the SEBP Basin. On initial inspection, unit 4.5 appears to be a continuation of stratigraphic unit 4 of the SEBP Basin; however, LSCE (2003) appears to conceptualize units 4 and 4.5 as separate, with unit 4 falling in the SEBP Basin and unit 4.5 falling in the transition zone. This conceptualization is supported by the hydraulic responses to pumping in City of Hayward Wells C and E (LSCE, 2003). Pumping in City of Hayward Well C, which produces water from units 7 and 8 of the Niles Cone Basin, caused a response in City of Hayward Well B that matched the response for a single idealized confined aquifer as represented by the Theis (1935) equation, whereas wells, such as the Mount Eden well, in the SEBP Basin, exhibited hydraulic responses that did not match the idealized response. Conversely, pumping in City of Hayward Well E, which produces water from units 4 and 6 of the SEBP Basin, caused a response in City of Hayward Well B that proved a hydraulic connection but did not match the response for a single idealized confined aquifer. Other Deep Aquifer wells clearly in the SEBP Basin, such as the Mount Eden well, exhibited hydraulic responses that matched the response for a single idealized confined aquifer. 2.12.2 Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Properties Hydraulic properties have been estimated from a variety of aquifer tests conducted in the Deep Aquifer Zone as documented in LSCE (2003) and Fugro (2011). Based on review of these results, transmissivity of the Deep Aquifer Zone of the SEBP Basin ranges from approximately 33,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft) to 141,000 gpd/ft and storativity ranges from 0.00005 to 0.005. Figure 2-16 shows the locations of the pumping and observations wells included in aquifer tests conducted by LSCE (2003) and Fugro (2011). South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 45 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 46 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Generally, the highest transmissivity values were measured in the vicinity of the EBMUD Bayside Project Phase 1 well. In this area, transmissivity ranged from approximately 96,000 gpd/ft to 141,000 gpd/ft. Wells farther to the east tended to have lower transmissivity. For example, transmissivity measured during testing of the Farmhouse well ranged from 33,000 gpd/ft to 52,000 gpd/ft, and testing of City of Hayward Well D resulted in an estimated transmissivity of 30,000 gpd/ft. The lower values cited in these examples may be further evidence for a north-trending fault extending between the EBMUD Oro Loma ASR demonstration well and the Farmhouse well. Offset along the fault may have caused differences in the depositional setting between the east and west sides of the fault, resulting in lower permeability or reduced aquifer thickness to the east. Changes in permeability (hydraulic conductivity) and thickness were evaluated during model development. The LSCE (2003) and Fugro (2011) transmissivity estimates for City of Hayward Well E differ significantly. The LSCE (2003) estimate of 12,000 gpd/ft was based on limited spatial information gained over a shorter duration of testing than the Fugro (2011) test, and, therefore, is considered to be subject to greater uncertainty. The LSCE (2003) estimate is based on pump testing and water level measurements in Well E. The test was conducted for a period of 14 days. Because the estimate was not based on any other observation wells, any uncertainties related to the site-specific conditions at Well E affected the estimate. These uncertainties include geologic variability, and the adequacy of the well design, construction and development for the site-specific conditions. The Fugro (2011) estimate was based on pumping in the Bayside well while using Well E as an observation well. The aquifer test was conducted for a much longer period of time (approximately 56 days), and included multiple observation wells. The Fugro (2011) transmissivity estimates for Well E ranged from 93,000 gpd/ft to 98,000 gpd/ft. These estimates were consistent with the estimates based on other observation wells in the area. Therefore, the Fugro (2011) transmissivity estimates appear to be characteristic of the SEBP Basin Deep Aquifer near City of Hayward Well E, and these values were used to develop the initial hydraulic property estimates in the updated numerical model. 2.13 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS AND FLOW Figure 2-17 shows the groundwater elevation contours for the Shallow/Newark aquifer (EBMUD, 2006) and changes in groundwater levels over time for key wells throughout the study area (DWR Water Data Library). Groundwater generally flows from east to west across the study area from a high of 30 to 40 ft. msl to at or slightly below sea level in the western portion of the study area. Fewer data points are available to generate groundwater contour maps for wells screened entirely in the deep aquifer, but a review of available data suggests a pattern in the orientation of the potentiometric surface, again indicating that groundwater flows from east to west. However, groundwater elevation in the deep aquifer ranges from a high of 10 to 20 feet above msl in the east to a low of -20 feet above msl on the west (CH2MHill, 2000). Because the deeper aquifer zone has lower head than the shallow aquifer(s), the potential exists for downward movement of water through non-pumped wells, if hydraulic cross connectivity exists. The upper and lower systems may also be connected through corroded and failed casings of abandoned wells (Izbicki, 2003). Changes in groundwater elevation data for key wells in the study are available online at DWR’s water data library, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. Changes in groundwater levels over time are shown for eight wells throughout the study area. Many of these hydrographs show a recovery in groundwater levels from a low of -120 to -60 ft. sml in the South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 47 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 1960s to very near sea level in the 1990s.Wells in the east central portion of the study area (0302W008, 0302W29F, 0302W36L) have had more stable groundwater levels ranging generally between 5 to 40 ft. msl over the period of record. DWR discontinued monitoring water levels in these wells 10 to 15 years ago, and more recent data were not available for this study. Also, DWR does not specify well depths for these key wells, so much of the variability seen between hydrographs may be the result of wells screened in different aquifer zones. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 48 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 49 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.14 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 2.14.1 General Chemistry Four key sources of information were utilized in the documentation of general groundwater quality provided in this section. These sources are listed and key findings summarized below. 2.14.2 Regional Hydrogeologic Investigation, South East Bay Plain (CH2MHill, 2000) This report evaluated the distribution of water quality parameters as a function of depth within the SEBP Basin and makes the following observations: Compared to deeper levels, groundwater less than 200 ft below ground surface (ft. bgs) is characterized by relatively high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, nitrate, and sulfate. Shallow wells exceed the MCL for nitrate (45 mg/L as NO3), and the secondary MCL for TDS (1,000 mg/L), chloride (250 mg/L), sulfate (250 mg/L), iron (0.30 mg/L) and manganese (0.05 mg/l). Nitrate is elevated in large parts of the San Leandro/San Lorenzo area, probably due to septic tank effluent and past farming activities in these areas. Wells with total depths greater than 500 ft. bgs are located primarily in the southern portion of the study area. These wells have high iron and manganese levels that commonly exceed their secondary MCLs. Elevated TDS and chloride concentrations are probably related to the presence of shallow well screens in the deeper wells. 2.14.2.1 Hydrogeology and Geochemistry of Aquifer Underlying the San Lorenzo and San Leandro Areas of the East Bay Plain, USGS Water-Resource Investigation Report 02-4259 (Izbicki, 2003) The purpose of this report was to evaluate hydrogeologic, and geochemical conditions in aquifers underlying the SEBP. Key findings relevant to the current study include the following: Water level measurements in observation wells and downward flow measured in selected wells during non-pumped conditions suggest that water may flow through wells from the upper aquifer system into the lower aquifer system during non-pumped conditions. Even given the potentially large number of abandoned wells in the study area, the total quantity of flow through abandoned wells and subsequent recharge to the lower/deep aquifer system is still considered small on a regional basis. However, where this water contains contaminants from overlying land uses, flow through abandoned wells may be a potential source of low- level contamination. Oxygen-18 and deuterium data do not indicate that leaking water supply pipes are a significant source of recharge. Rather, noble-gas data indicate recharge results from highly focused recharge processes from infiltration of winter stream flow and more diffuse recharge from infiltration of precipitation within the study area. Groundwater in the deep aquifer tends to be higher in sodium and potassium relative to calcium and magnesium, likely the result of precipitation of calicite and ion exchange reaction occurring as groundwater passes through the aquifer from recharge areas to the deeper aquifer system. Arsenic concentrations ranged from non-detect to 37 ppb, and the USEPA MCL for arsenic is 10 ppb. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 50 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Carbon-14 ages (time since recharge) of deep groundwater ranged from 500 years before present (in water from wells near recharge areas along the mountain front) to 20,000 years before present (in partly consolidated deposits underlying the Oakport injection site).These data suggest that the lower aquifer system is isolated from surface sources of recharge. The presence of poor quality water at depth may limit extended pumping of deeper aquifer in excess of injection, especially near faults where partly consolidated deposits may have been uplifted and are adjacent to freshwater aquifers. 2.14.2.2 Characterization of Existing Groundwater Quality for Bayside Groundwater Project, (Fugro, 2007) This report documents the sampling and analysis of groundwater collected from two deep monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Bayside Phase I well. In July of 2007, Fugro West Inc. collected samples from MW-5d and MW-6, both screened in the deep aquifer, and performed full Title 22 analysis. Table 2-1 is modified from this report, includes well construction information, and summarizes the analytical results. Both samples include a water quality that is sodium chloride to sodium bicarbonate in chemical character. The TDS concentrations in MW-5d and MW-6 were 460 and 420 mg/l. Selenium was present in only MW-5d at 0.39 ug/l.Arsenic was detected in MW-5d and MW-6 at very low concentrations of, 0.45 and 0.77 ug/l, respectively. 2.14.2.3 USGS National Water System Information Database West Yost obtained water quality data maintained by the USGS and available at the National Water Information System (NWIS) Database, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. NWIS is a comprehensive database of historic and recent water quality data obtained from public agencies including local water purveyors, DWR, and federal agencies, such as the USGS. West Yost prepared summary tables of TDS, chloride, and nitrate included in Appendix E which presents analytical results sorted by well depth. These data are visually displayed on maps showing the aerial distribution of TDS (Figure 2- 18), chloride (Figure 2-19), and nitrate (Figure 2-20). The highest concentrations of TDS and chloride occur in two shallow wells adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. Appendix E also provides a summary of median concentrations of TDS, Cl-, and NO3- with depth in SEBP Basin Study Area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 51 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Table 2-1. Summary of Deep Aquifer Water Quality Data near the Bayside Project – South East Bay Plain Basin South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 52 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 53 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 54 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 55 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.14.3 Threats to Water Quality Locations of contaminant sites were obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Sites were downloaded from SWRCB’s Geotracker website on March 15, 2012 and represent all open-status contaminant sites determined by the SWRCB to potentially impact groundwater in the East Bay Plain and Niles Cone Basins. Within the SEBP Basin GMP area, there are 672 sites. Of those 672 sites, only 212 are still open cases in varying stages of remediation. Figure 2-21 shows the locations of these open cases in the SEBP Basin. Thirty-five have a status of “Verification Monitoring;” 138 have a status of “Site Assessment;” 18 have a status of “Remediation;” 14 have a status of “Inactive;” and 7 have a status of “Assessment & Interim Remedial Action.” Figure 2-22 shows the locations of local and regional groundwater contaminant plumes in the SEBP Basin. This information was prepared in 1999 by the Bay Area RWQCB (RWQCB, 1999) and represents the most current published information on the nature and extent of these contaminant plumes based on verbal communications with RWQCB and DTSC staff during the course of this study. This map should be updated using more recent groundwater quality information. 2.15 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks were important areas of recharge to the SEBP Basin before development occurred in the area. The predevelopment estimate of stream recharge was about 3,500 acre-ft per year (afy) and infiltration of precipitation was about 800 afy (Muir 1996). As the result of urbanization, natural recharge may have decreased because of the channelization of streams and an increase in pavement covering permeable soil surfaces. Figure 2-23 shows the amount of recharge used for the groundwater model. The source of information for the estimated recharge amounts, by model subregions, was ACWD’s NEBIGSM (WRIME, 2005). Factors considered in assigning recharge or net deep percolation as shown on Figure 2-23 include: Surface geology/soil type Land use Applied Water Precipitation Steamflow Average annual recharge for the SEBP Basin study area is the sum of Hayward North, San Leandro and Oakland subregions, approximately 5,446 afy, which is about 33 percent of the 16,452-afy total for the entire IGSM model area. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 56 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 57 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 58 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 59 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22..00 –– WW AATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG Cross Section Update SEBP Shallow Aquifer SEBP Intermediate Aquifer SEBP Deep Aquifer South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 60 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG 2.16 GROUNDWATER RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA4 Water is protected for the use and benefit of all Californians. Article 10, Section 2 of the California Constitution, enacted in 1928, prohibits the waste of water and requires reasonable use, reasonable method of use and reasonable method of diversion for all surface and groundwater rights. The doctrine of reasonable and beneficial use is the basic principle defining California water rights. Surface Water Rights: The chronological order of surface water rights starts from pre-1848 “Pueblo Rights”, to “federally reserved right”, the common law “riparian rights”, and “appropriated rights”. Prior to 1914, appropriative rights could be acquired simply by posting or filing a notice, and then diverting and using the water for reasonable, beneficial purposes (referred to as “pre-1914 water rights”). Since 1914, California statutory law has required that an application be filed and a permit obtained from a State agency, currently from the State Water Resources Control Board. Groundwater Rights: Like surface water, use of groundwater is not only dependent upon water rights but is also subject to environmental and water quality consideration. In 1903, the “Correlative Rights” doctrine was introduced by a well-known California water rights case (Katz v. Walkinshaw). It established a “sharing” rule similar to that achieved under the torts doctrine. Under the correlative rights doctrine, the right to groundwater is a usufructuary right that is appurtenant to the overlying land. The right to use groundwater is shared by all overlying owners of a groundwater basin. Unlike prior appropriation, correlative rights do not allow a precise definition of an individual’s water rights. In the event of conflict, parties are forced to seek an optimal solution that allows all competing uses to continue with as little conflict as possible. A groundwater shortage is likely shared among all users. Solutions to conflicts between rights: In the history of California groundwater management, legal and regulatory solutions to the conflict between the correlative rights of landowners overlying a groundwater basin and the long-held prior appropriation rights of users both outside and inside the groundwater basin have had a major impact on the distribution of groundwater but also on the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water. Unlike surface water rights, groundwater rights in California are not governed by a permit system, except in the case of basin adjudication. Through the adjudication process, courts have rendered decisions establishing precedents including doctrine of “mutual prescription” in key cases – City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra by Supreme Court of California in 1949; City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, the Supreme Court of California in 1975; Alameda County Water District v. Niles Sand and Gravel by California Court of Appeal, 1st District in 1974; High Desert County Water District v. Blue Skies Country Club, Inc. by California Appellate Court in 1994, City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency by the California Supreme Court in 2000. If contending water users in the same groundwater basin cannot resolve their issues, and one or more individuals pursue resolution through a lawsuit, the result may be adjudication. Under 4 Reference: Watersheds, Groundwater and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide by Thomas Harter and Larry Rollins, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3497 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 61 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 22 –– WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS SSEETTTTIINNGG adjudication, courts establish the safe yield of the basin and decide how much each individual water user can extract annually. The process can take a long time (years to multiple decades), because of the number of parties involved, general lack of judicial experience in water law and science, and California’s lack of special water courts. These are costly legal battles involving hired experts, attorneys, and multiple studies. By all accounts, it is preferable to manage groundwater basins by basin users through collaboration. This GMP process enacted by AB3030 and SB 1938 is now the common practice to manage groundwater basin for sustainable use of all basin users. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 62 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS 33..00 GGRROOUUNNDDWWAATTEERR MMAANN AAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS The elements of the plan include the overarching goal, management objectives and components that identify and discuss relevant actions to meet these goal and objectives of the plan. 3.1 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GOALS The overarching goal of the plan is to – preserve the local groundwater resource as a reliable and sustainable water supply for current and future beneficial uses. 3.2 BASIN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES To achieve the goal, the plan outlines four basin management objectives (BMOs): 1.Preserve groundwater storage by maintaining long-term groundwater elevations in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin: Groundwater elevation is a direct indicator of the volume of groundwater stored in the basin as well as the groundwater gradient. The historical record of groundwater elevations show that the basin experienced the lowest storage in the early 1960s. Since then, groundwater elevations have recovered significantly. Under this management objective, is basin users will work collaboratively to manage groundwater extraction and recharge in the basin to maintain the basin’s long-term groundwater elevations. 2.Maintain or improve groundwater quality in the GMP area to ensure sustainable use of the groundwater basin: The groundwater quality of the basin in the GMP area is pristine in the deep aquifer of the basin. However, some locations within the basin area present water quality concerns, especially in shallow and intermediate aquifers. This management objective is to preserve the existing water quality condition and prevent it from degradation. 3.Manage potential inelastic land surface subsidence from groundwater pumping: If groundwater level declines occur, land subsidence is possible from compaction of underlying formations. Subsidence can be either recoverable elastic subsidence or irrecoverable inelastic subsidence. The risk of irrecoverable subsidence from the operation of groundwater extraction depends on basin hydrogeology and, the extent of groundwater pumping and recharge. Groundwater usage therefore can result in changes to the internal water pressure (groundwater levels). This management objective is to avoid irrecoverable land surface changes caused by excessive groundwater extraction by monitoring and managing groundwater levels. 4.Manage the SEBP basin through coordination and collaboration: The success of basin management activities depends upon the involvement of key stakeholders including basin users, municipalities, regulatory agencies and the public. This management objective is to foster collaboration and coordination through information sharing and cooperation. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 63 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS 3.3 GMP COMPONENTS 3.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement The sustainability of the groundwater basin concerns a broad range of stakeholders in both the private and public sectors. Water suppliers consider the basin as a source of emergency and supplemental water supply. Private well owners rely upon the basin for their irrigation water supply. Local entities view it as a future source of water. State and local regulatory agencies are tasked to enforce the water quality standards for the basin. Municipalities like to protect the basin as a local resource for their constituents. As such, the development and implementation of basin management goals and associated management actions must take into account stakeholder interest in achieving the overarching objective of maintaining the basin’s sustainability. For that reason, as a lead agency, EBMUD has taken a set of actions to ensure stakeholder involvement to develop the GMP in accordance with statutory requirements. These actions include: Promoting public participation. Involving other local agencies and groundwater suppliers within the SEBP basin and neighboring basin in GMP development. Forming a stakeholder liaison group to guide the GMP process. Developing relationships with state and local agencies. Pursuing a variety of key partnerships to achieve a sustainable local water supply. 3.3.1.1 Public Involvement and Outreach In accordance with CWC § 10753.2, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a GMP was published in local newspapers. The notice discussed the fact that EBMUD’s governing board would meet to pass the NOI, and that the public was invited to said meeting. EBMUD Board of Directors meeting inviting the public to attend. In addition, EBMUD staff reached out to private well owners, state and local agencies, local government entities, local utilities, communities and businesses informing them of the plan to craft a GMP and inviting them to participate in the process. The following entities agreed to participate: City of Hayward City of Oakland Port of Oakland City of San Leandro City of Alameda Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Environmental Health Department San Lorenzo Unified School District Hayward Area Park District Alameda County Water District San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 64 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS On August 16, 2012, EBMUD launched a dedicated web portal for GMP development to provide information to the public on GMP activities. Following GMP certification, the website will be used to disseminate plan implementation activities to the stakeholders and public. On behalf of stakeholders, EBMUD will: Continue efforts to encourage public participation as opportunities arise. Reach out to local and business communities via EBMUD’s Bayside Groundwater Project Community liaison group Assist stakeholders in disseminating information through other various meetings and public forums. 3.3.1.2 Collaboration Among Basin Stakeholders and Adjacent Basins DWR’s bulletin 118 delineates the boundary of the East Bay Plain and adjacent basins. Multiple stakeholders such as local communities, overlying water rights holders, regulatory agencies, existing basin users, business entities, municipalities and local governments have various interests and jurisdiction over the basins. Although currently the SEBP Basin is not a primary source of drinking water supply for most of overlying stakeholders, it is considered as an important source for water supply reliability, future water supply planning and irrigation. EBMUD reached out to current and future stakeholders with various interests and formed the Stakeholders Liaison Group. Among these adjacent basins, Alameda County Water District (ACWD) manages and uses the Niles Cone basin for its public water supply. On average ACWD obtains about 40% of its water supplies from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. In fiscal year 2010-2011, about 25,400 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin. Recognizing the importance of the Niles Cone Basin and the connective relationship between the SEBP Basin and Niles Cone Basin, EBMUD included ACWD in the Stakeholder Liaison Group. The main purpose of the group is to share information among the stakeholders, solicit input and foster collaboration in developing the GMP and implementing the basin management activities driven by the GMP. 3.3.1.3 Coordination with State and Federal Agencies State agencies including the California Department of Water Resources all are interested parties in protecting the basin water quality and preserving water quantity (supply). For example, the State Water Resources Control Board develops and enforces statewide water quality policies. Their regional office, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, prepares and implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for the basin, covering both surface water and groundwater. It also includes programs of implementation to achieve water quality objectives. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees and regulates the water quality standards, and California Department of Water Resources assists in developing local water resources. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 65 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS As a part of the stakeholder outreach process, EBMUD sought State agencies’ participation. As the lead agency, EBMUD plans to constantly coordinate with these entities during the GMP implementation. EBMUD plans to take the following actions: Continue to develop working relationships with local, state and as necessary, federal agencies. Coordinate GMP implementation activities with the local, state and federal agencies as appropriate. 3.3.1.4 Pursuing Partnership Opportunities As the lead agency, EBMUD is committed to facilitating partnership arrangements at the local, state, and federal levels in seeking grant funding opportunities for the preservation and sustainable development of local water resources. To date, EBMUD has fostered partnership opportunities with a number of interested parties. For example, EBMUD has worked with the USGS to construct a subsidence monitoring station in the basin. Under the objectives of the GMP, EBMUD will continue to facilitate and participate in partnership opportunities among stakeholders. EBMUD plans to take the following actions: Continue to seek grant opportunities to fund local projects that can improve groundwater management 3.3.2 Monitoring Programs A key component of the GMP is a monitoring program designed to assess the status of the basin and trigger actions to preserve the basin. The program includes monitoring groundwater elevations, groundwater quality, and land surface referenced elevations for tracking elastic and inelastic land surface subsidence, and salt and nutrients concentrations. The monitoring tasks are to be implemented under the following programs: Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program Subsidence Monitoring Program 3.3.2.1 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program Groundwater level monitoring is an important component to manage basin storage, groundwater gradients, detect pumping or recharge activities, and develop a replenishment strategy. Currently EBMUD operates a network of 17 monitoring wells covering a part of the basin. Additional monitoring wells are needed to cover the remaining parts of the SEBP basin. A number of stakeholders - such as Port of Oakland, City of Alameda, City of Hayward and Hayward Area Park District - either own or operate wells within the basin. As such, individual monitoring activities can be coordinated to collect comprehensive data for the basin. Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Protocols: Without standard monitoring protocols, potential differences in data collection techniques, reference datum, monitoring frequencies and documentation methods in groundwater level measurement as well as groundwater quality sampling could lead to incomparable data sets and discrepancies. Although individual groundwater data South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 66 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS collection protocol may be adequate to meet a stakeholder’s needs, the lack of standardizing protocols could result in misrepresentation of basin-wide groundwater conditions. EBMUD plans to work with the local stakeholders in developing the groundwater elevation monitoring program for this GMP. Over time, establishing a regional monitoring network, comprising monitoring and production wells to integrate existing monitoring wells with additional wells owned by stakeholders and private owners, would benefit the basin. Although dedicated monitoring wells yield more accurate data, idle production wells can be used as an alternative for data collection. In accordance with provisions of SBX7 6, State Department of Water Resources (DWR) is implementing the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program for the DWR Bulleting 118 basins including SEBP basin. EBMUD is one of the monitoring agencies which volunteers to report groundwater elevation data to DWR under the CASGEM program. DWR has developed the groundwater elevation monitoring guideline for the CASGEM program. Hence for the SEBP basin integrated monitoring well network, DWR’s monitoring guidelines (Appendix F) are to be used as recommended monitoring protocols. Monitoring Frequency: A consistent measurement frequency would help identify seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater levels. Semi-annual monitoring of the designated wells could be planned to coincide with the high and low seasonal water-levels of the year for the basin. Ideally, as the SEBP Basin is influenced by daily tidal activities, continual measurement at predetermined frequencies (such as hourly or every four hours using programmable pressure transducers) is recommended for future improved data collection. Currently, EBMUD deploys pressure transducers in its monitoring wells to measure and record groundwater level changes. Integrated SEBP Basin Monitoring Well Network: Currently EBMUD monitors a portion of SEBP basin by using 17 monitoring wells for its Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1. As a part of groundwater management effort, EBMUD is working with City of Hayward and City of Alameda to expand the monitoring network coverage by integrating additional wells. The following Table 3-1 summarizes the EBMUD’s Bayside Project monitoring wells designated for the SEBP groundwater elevation monitoring well network. Figure 3-1 shows the location of these existing wells along with potential wells being considered for the proposed integrated regional monitoring well network. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 67 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 68 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33..00 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Table 3-1: Bayside Project Groundwater Monitoring Wells South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 69 March 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Actions: The following actions are planned to monitor and manage groundwater elevation: Use CASGEM Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines for water level data collection. Provide stakeholder agencies with guidelines on the collection of water quality data as per USEPA sampling standards. Assist stakeholders in developing and implementing monitoring programs. Coordinate with stakeholder agencies to develop standardized reference elevations for monitoring well. Coordinate with stakeholders and request that the timing of water level data collection occurs on or about April 15 and October 15 of each year. Provide a periodic assessment of groundwater elevation trends and conditions to stakeholders. Assess the adequacy of the groundwater elevation monitoring well network periodically. 3.3.2.2 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program For basin management, managing water quality is as important as managing basin groundwater quantity. Significant use of the SEBP Basin for drinking water supply ceased in the early 20th century, therefore historic water quality data is not available. While regulatory agencies and various entities have collected water quality data in specific locations and various purposes, comprehensive and historical water quality data sets are not available. In the last decade, the USGS has completed research and analysis of the East Bay Plain Basin water quality in collaboration with EBMUD also as a part of State’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The USGS study shows that the water quality of deep aquifer in the SEBP Basin remains pristine and the age of groundwater is dated at 9,200 years since it was recharged. This is attributed to the basin hydrogeology consisting of protective thick clay layers shielding contaminants. However, multiple perforated wells and improperly constructed or abandoned wells could act as artificial conduits by allowing contaminants from shallow zones to penetrate deeper aquifers, which is a potential threat to basin water quality. Accordingly, this GMP proposes well standards for existing wells and future wells to preserve basin water quality from threats of contaminants including salts and nutrients. It is a future goal of this GMP to eventually develop and maintain an integrated groundwater database using a GIS platform. For that purpose, annual water quality sampling would be planned and groundwater quality data from stakeholder and public sources would be integrated into a water quality database. Appendix G contains a possible groundwater quality sampling plan listing the water quality constituents to be analyzed when resources are available. The water quality monitoring well network would continue to be modified to cover greater basin area as resources available. Actions: The following actions are planned to monitor and manage groundwater quality: Coordinate with stakeholders to assist in using standardized water quality sampling protocols South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 70 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Maintain stakeholder’s existing monitoring well network for purposes of groundwater quality monitoring Collaborate with local, state, and federal agencies such as USGS to identify opportunities to continue conducting water quality analysis in less known areas of the basin Review and assess the effectiveness of the groundwater quality monitoring program periodically and recommend improvements as necessary Secure grant funding to initiate a GIS based groundwater quality database, and To collect, compile and integrate groundwater quality data 3.3.2.3 Subsidence Monitoring Program Land subsidence can result from compaction of underlying formations caused by groundwater level decline. Subsidence can be categorized as recoverable elastic subsidence or irrecoverable inelastic subsidence. Subsidence concerns, within the SEBP basin, while certainly not as serious as in other areas of California are nevertheless present. The risk of irrecoverable subsidence from operation of groundwater extraction depends on basin hydrogeology, the extent of groundwater pumping and the resulting change in the internal water pressure (groundwater levels). Groundwater contained within aquifers and aquitards helps support the weight of the overlying sediments because the water contained in the pore spaces in the sediments creates an internal water pressure. Land subsidence can occur if groundwater pumping reduces the water pressure within the pore space of the saturated sediments over a period of time, thereby causing the sediments to compress. Elastic Subsidence: Subsidence in the coarser-grained materials of the aquifers is elastic. A small amount of elastic subsidence is expected to occur over a broad area of the SEBP Basin in response to pumping, which is what happens when any well in a confined aquifer produces water. Under conditions of elastic subsidence, the compaction is relatively small and is reversed when pore pressures increase due to rising water levels, including during injection of groundwater. The amount of this elastic subsidence is a function of the amount of drawdown. As occurs in nearly any basin with groundwater pumping, elastic subsidence will completely reverse following each groundwater pumping cycle as water levels recover. Inelastic Subsidence: Under certain conditions, groundwater pumping can result in a permanent change in the structure of the sediments, known as inelastic subsidence. These conditions may result in a non-recoverable compaction of the aquifer system. Inelastic subsidence occurs when the water pressure in finer-grained sediments is reduced beyond their historic low water levels. The result is a permanent change to the intergranular structure of the sediments that cannot be reversed when water levels recover. The compressibility of sediments under inelastic conditions is much greater than it is under elastic conditions, and may require decades to millennia to complete. The potential for inelastic subsidence depends on both the magnitude and duration of drawdown. Inelastic subsidence is highly unlikely to occur if water levels are maintained above historical lows. Subsidence Monitoring in the SEBP basin: In coarser-grained materials, such as the sands and gravels that comprise the East Bay Plain Deep Aquifer, the change in pore pressure is roughly uniform throughout the thickness of the sediments and can be monitored by measuring changes in water levels in observation wells. As a part of the EBMUD’s Bayside Project, direct measurement of South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 71 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS ground elevation changes for Bayside Phase 1 are being accomplished using high-resolution extensometers, as shown in Figure 3-2. These instruments which were constructed and calibrated by the USGS detect compression in the deep and shallow aquifer sediments. The accuracy of well- constructed extensometers is on the order of 0.001 millimeters. Extensometer data is being reviewed continuously by EBMUD to assess whether subsidence is occurring and whether it is elastic or inelastic. If any inelastic subsidence is detected the accuracy of the extensometers is such that it will be a very small amount measurable near the Bayside Well No. 1. Figure 3-2 Bayside Groundwater Project Extensometer South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 72 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Along with measurement of land surface movement using the above mentioned extensometer, contingent upon availability of funding, a periodic survey of reference elevations for the monitoring network would enable stakeholders to better track land surface movements including subsidence of the SEBP Basin. Actions: The following actions are identified to monitor and manage potential subsidence. The program will continue to monitor land subsidence and pursue additional actions as necessary if resources are available. These will include: Periodically re-survey the established reference elevations at groundwater monitoring locations. Collaborate with State and federal agencies, particularly USGS, to collect and analyze land surface movement data for potential land subsidence using various methodologies including InSAR remote sensing. 3.3.2.4 Data Management and Data Sharing Groundwater data management requires data compilation and database maintenance. As the lead agency, EBMUD will continue to collect data required for the operation of the Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1 and maintain a database of well information, well logs, groundwater quality and elevation data, and, when readily available, known groundwater contamination sites. These databases support water resources development, basin management, and groundwater model calibration. 3.3.3 Groundwater Basin Management Tools 3.3.3.1 SEBP Groundwater Model As a part of GMP development, a groundwater model of the SEBP Basin and the NCGWB using the USGS finite difference flow model, MODFLOW was created to simulate groundwater management strategies. Further refinements and/or verification of the model will become necessary to accurately define basin sustainability and interbasin relationships to better manage the SEBP basin under increased levels of groundwater use. Hydrologic Model of the SEBP Basin: The new model was constructed utilizing two existing models. One model was developed by CH2M Hill in 2001. It was developed on behalf of EBMUD as part of the planning for their Bayside Groundwater Project. The model was constructed using the USGS’s MODFLOW groundwater modeling code. That MODFLOW model consisted of seven layers. The other model was developed also in the early 2000s by Wrime, Inc. on behalf of the Alameda County Water District, EBMUD and the City of Hayward. Titled the NCGB-SEBPB model (NEBIGSM), it uses the finite element IGSM model code. The NEBIGSM model consists of four layers. The NEBIGSM model has been used extensively by ACWD as a basin management tool. Since its development, significant updates/contributions have been made to the model. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 73 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Code Selection: The USGS MODFLOW code was selected as the primary platform to develop the new groundwater flow model (NEB MODFLOW Model), as it provided the option to support both immediate and future modeling needs for basin stakeholders. Specifically, it is the most widely used groundwater modeling code publically available. MODFLOW has an ability to simulate three- dimensional problems involving recharge and evapotranspiration, wells, drains, and stream-aquifer interactions. It also has a suite of technically sound companion modules that have been reviewed and validated throughout the groundwater community that provide options (at some future date) to simulate the basin’s response to groundwater contamination (predicting contaminant transport). It also allows one to identify and predict the risk of saltwater intrusion and basin subsidence. In addition, MODFLOW is integrated into the Arc Hydro Groundwater (AHGW) suite of tools that were used to support the data management, data analysis and visualization work completed for the technical study prepared as part of the GMP development effort. For the new model development, the NEBIGSM model was selected as the primary data source for the new MODFLOW model. Model Description: The NEB MODFLOW model, prepared for this GMP, is a seven-layer, finite difference groundwater flow model developed using the USGS MODFLOW code. The new model establishes/calculates a water balance for the GMP area. It also provides baseline estimates of key parameters (e.g., water levels, boundary flow conditions, etc.) for basin management purposes. The simulation period of the NEB MODFLOW model starts from October 1, 1964 and runs through October 1, 2012. The model simulation period is monthly, except for the duration from August 2010 through September 2010. Additional stress periods were added during this time period to match the actual pumping that occurred during 2010 from EBMUD’s pump test at the Bayside Well (Fugro, 2011). The models ability to replicate water level changes in observation wells was then assessed. 3.3.4 Groundwater Resource Protection In this GMP, resource protection entails both prevention of contamination from entering the groundwater basin and remediation of existing contamination. Prevention measures include adoption and enforcement of relevant well standards including proper well construction and destruction practices, development of wellhead protection measures, protection of recharge areas, controlling groundwater contamination, and managing salts and nutrients. 3.3.4.1 Well Standards As per authority provided by County General Ordinance Code, Chapter 6.88, the Alameda County Public Works Agency (ACPWA), administers the well permitting program for Alameda County. The code authorizes ACPWA to regulate groundwater wells and exploratory holes as required by the California Water Code. The provisions of these laws are administered and enforced through ACPWA’s Well Standards Program. ACPWA’s Water Resources Section is responsible for all well permitting activities for nine cities and unincorporated western Alameda County including the SEBP Basin area. The Water Resources Section manages all drilling permit applications within its jurisdiction, and oversees compliance via guidelines for well construction and destruction, geotechnical and well contamination investigations, well data searches that meet specific criteria, and other activities. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 74 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS To better protect the SEBP basin from water quality degradation, pollution or contamination caused by improper construction, use, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction, improvement, inactivation, decommissioning, or destruction of wells, exploratory holes, other excavations, and appurtenances, the current well standards were reviewed and updated to meet current well standard enforcement needs. The updated standards are included in the Appendix H. These standards are derived from water well industry procedures and processes deemed most effective at meeting local groundwater protection needs and are based on the standards developed by ACWD and the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Note that following GMP adoption, stakeholders will work to see that these updated standards are considered for adoption by Alameda County. Actions: The GMP will implement the following tasks: Ensure that all stakeholders are provided a copy of the County well ordinance and understand the proper well construction procedures. Support ACPWA in adopting the updated well standards. Support stakeholders in educating public about the updated well standards and in adopting local ordinances to implement the well standards. 3.3.4.2 Wellhead Protection EBMUD and City of Hayward serve the SEBP Basin area primarily from surface water sources. Both these water suppliers have developed supplemental drought supply and/or emergency sources using groundwater. These sources are subject to permitting requirements of California Department of Public Health (DPH). DPH requires water suppliers to identify wellhead protection areas under the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) Program administered by the DPH in order to issue a drinking water supply permit. EBMUD has completed a DWSAP assessment in 2012 by completing the following three major components required by DPH: A delineation of capture zones around sources (wells); an inventory of Potential Contaminating Activities (PCAs) within protection areas. A vulnerability analysis to identify the PCAs to which the source is most vulnerable. A delineation of capture zones using groundwater gradient and hydraulic conductivity data to calculate the surface area overlying the portion of the aquifer that contributes water to a well within specified time-of-travel periods. Areas are delineated representing 2, 5, and 10 year time-of-travel periods. Protection areas are managed to protect the drinking water supply from viral, microbial, and direct chemical contamination. Inventories of PCAs include identifying potential origins of contamination to the drinking water source and protection areas. PCAs may consist of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential sites, or infrastructure sources such as utilities and roads. Depending on the type of source, each PCA is assigned a risk ranking, ranging from “very high” for such sources such as gas stations, dry cleaners, and landfills, to “low” for such sources such as schools, lakes, and non-irrigated cropland. Vulnerability analysis includes determining the most significant threats to the quality of the water supply by evaluating PCAs in terms of risk rankings, proximity to wells, and Physical Barrier Effectiveness (PBE). PBE takes into account factors that could limit infiltration of South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 75 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS contaminants including type of aquifer, aquifer material (for unconfined aquifers), pathways of contamination, static water conditions, hydraulic head (for confined aquifers), well operation, and well construction. The vulnerability analysis scoring system assigns point values for PCA risk rankings, PCA locations within wellhead protection areas, and well area PBE; the PCAs to which drinking water wells are most vulnerable are apparent once vulnerability scoring is complete. Actions: The GMP will recommend the following actions: Obtain an updated coverage of potentially contaminating activities and provide that information to stakeholders. Share current wellhead protection measures and provide a summary of actions taken by others as a tool in managing their individual wellhead protection programs. 3.3.4.3 Protection of Recharge Areas Although the productive aquifers in most parts of the SEBP Basin are confined by thick clay layers and the surface water does not directly contribute to aquifer recharge, it is important to recognize the link between activities that take place on the surface and the potential impact of these activities on the long-term quality and quantity of groundwater recharge. As such, the GMP includes delineation of recharge areas to be protected and recognized for planning purposes. It is recommended that land use authorities recognize the need to protect groundwater recharge areas and pay special attention to overlying land use practices that either impede (e.g., large pavement areas) or could pollute (e.g., proper oil disposal) water as it makes its way from the surface to the aquifer. Actions: The GMP recommends the following action: Inform and assist groundwater authorities and the land-use planners to consider the need to protect prominent groundwater recharge areas in land use planning processes. 3.3.4.4 Groundwater Contamination The known contaminated sites in the SEBP basin area are in the shallow zone. The shallow zone in the Basin area is not considered to be a water source for industrial and municipal water supply but traditionally has been used for irrigation purposes. However, there is a concern that the contaminants in the shallow zone could be transmitted through multiple-perforated wells into productive intermediate and deep aquifer units. As the Basin area has industrial and manufacturing activities, sources of contaminants known are recorded in environmental databases such as GeoTracker. Thus far, there is no significant adverse impact to the deeper production zones of the groundwater basin. However, the concern of potential contaminations from various sources does exist. Although the GMP stakeholders do not have authority or the direct responsibility for taking action against responsible parties, they are committed to coordinating with responsible parties and regulatory agencies to foster appropriate actions and remediation. For example, should any South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 76 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS contaminants exceeding water quality standards be detected or a spill event is observed, the GMP stakeholders will inform and coordinate with SFRWQCB and DTSC. Actions: The GMP stakeholders will take the following actions: If contaminants exceeding water quality standards are detected in monitoring wells, contact appropriate regulatory agencies Coordinate with SFRWQCB and DTSC to encourage these agencies to take necessary actions 3.3.4.5 Salt and Nutrient Management (SNM) 3.3.4.5.1 Background The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Recycled Water Policy on February 3, 2009. The purpose of the Policy is to increase the use of recycled water in a manner that implements state and federal water quality laws. The policy encourages water recycling with the stated goals of: Increasing recycled water use by at least one million acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2020 and by at least two million AFY by 2030. Substituting as much recycled water for potable water as possible by 2030. The SWRCB is also encouraging every region in California to develop a salt/nutrient management plan by 2014. Because each groundwater basin or watershed is unique, the plan detail and complexity will depend on the extent of local salt and nutrient problems. Plan components include: Basin-wide water quality monitoring Water recycling goals and objectives Salt and nutrient source identification Basin loading - assimilative capacity estimates Salt mitigation strategies Anti-degradation analysis Emerging constituents consideration (e.g., PPCPs, EDs) Currently, only limited recycled water supply is available within the SEBP Basin area. However, in the future, recycled water supply could become a significant source. In addition, because of the proximity to the San Francisco Bay, high concentrations of TDS are observed in shallow zones of the Basin. 3.3.4.5.2 Objectives The primary goal of SNM is to facilitate basin-wide management of salts and nutrients from all sources in a manner that optimizes recycled water use while ensuring protection of groundwater supply and beneficial uses, agricultural beneficial uses, and human health. In addition, SNM is required for seawater intrusion related salt loading. Considering that limited to no recycled water use South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 77 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS is taking place within the most productive area of the SEBP Basin, and as based on existing hydrogeology, the following are the objectives of the SNM plan for the SEBP Basin: To recognize the importance of monitoring salt and nutrient compounds. To evaluate the need for SNM. To establish a base line water quality condition for the basin. To evaluate existing and potential future sources. To integrate additional constituents in water quality monitoring for salt and nutrients management. To collect water quality data. 3.3.4.5.3 Salt & Nutrient Source Analysis Existing Salt and Nutrient Composition of the SEBP basin: The SEBP Basin interfaces with San Francisco Bay. The shallow aquifer unit of the Basin is exposed to seawater and higher concentrations of TDS are detected in the shallow zone. Section 2.13 of the GMP details the current water quality condition in the Basin area. As discussed in that section, previous studies evaluate the distribution of water quality parameters as a function of depth within the SEBP Basin and make the following observations: Compared to deeper levels, groundwater less than 200 ft bgs is characterized by relatively high concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, nitrate, and sulfate. Shallow wells exceed the MCL for nitrate (45 mg/L as NO3), and the secondary MCL for TDS (1,000 mg/L), chloride (250 mg/L), sulfate (250 mg/L), iron (0.30 mg/L) and manganese (0.05 mg/l).Nitrate is elevated in large parts of the San Leandro/San Lorenzo area, probably due to septic tank effluent and past farming activities in these areas. Wells with total depths greater than 500 ft bgs are located primarily in the southern portion of the study area. These wells have high iron and manganese levels that commonly exceed their secondary MCLs. Elevated TDS and chloride concentrations are probably related to the presence of shallow well screens in the deeper wells. Potential Source of Salt and Nutrient: Depending upon the quality of recycled water, recycled water use could become an additional source of salt and nutrients for the basin. Currently, all existing recycled water uses are in the least productive area of the basin portion that is not used for public water supply). As a part of the basin management activities, recycled water use within the basin will be periodically observed and the monitoring plan will be modified as needed to manage the basin water quality. 3.3.4.5.4 Salt & Nutrient Plan and Implementation Options: As a part of the water quality monitoring program, the water quality sampling and analysis is to be done periodically to monitor the basin water quality. In addition, the water supply wells are to be sampled and analyzed for permit compliance purposes. Strategies: Although the water quality monitoring network is sufficient to track water quality objectives, the network can be improved by adding dedicated monitoring wells and sampling events. To improve water quality monitoring capabilities, under the implementation of this GMP, available state and federal grants will be pursued. In addition, periodic bi-lateral South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 78 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS meetings with San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQB) will be planned to review and discuss the water quality data and plan actions. The stakeholders will seek collaboration and support in obtaining grant funding and in developing any necessary actions. Implementation: A key component of the GMP is monitoring basin water quality. Section 3.3.2.2 of this document details the groundwater quality monitoring program including aater quality monitoring constituents and sampling protocols. Salt and nutrient constituents will be included as a part of monitoring program. Details of the monitoring plan are discussed in these sections. 3.3.5 Groundwater Sustainability 3.3.5.1 Coordinated Management Activities Following GMP adoption, basin stakeholders recognize the need to perform various activities on a routine basis that when combined serve as the means to manage the basin thereby insuring its conjunctive capabilities (Conjunctive Management Activities). Activities are grouped into the following categories: Stakeholder Efforts; Basin Monitoring; Groundwater Protection Measures (& Enforcement); Other Sustainability Measures; and Integration with Other Agency & Organization Planning Efforts. Stakeholder Efforts (Public Outreach & Coordinated Stakeholder Activities): Maintaining and strengthening stakeholder involvement in the groundwater management effort will be a key conjunctive management activity moving forward. The process of encouraging broad involvement will be successful if the public is engaged. Public Outreach and Involvement: The stakeholder committee formed for the GMP preparation will spearhead outreach efforts. Initially, those efforts will focus on informing key elected officials and the public about the GMP. Communication activities could be within or outside the SEBP basin boundary, depending on the audience and their interest(s). However, the focus of public outreach will be to reach residents and business owners that overlie the basin. The following actions may be used to encourage public involvement: Hold an annual stakeholders workshop with public involvement as a standing agenda item. Agency leads for GMP implementation shall work with stakeholders to assure continued communication following GMP adoption (including participation in discussion with stakeholders, electeds and staff) Make available printed copies of the GMP at public libraries within the basin footprint Make available an electronic version of the GMP Maintain the EBMUD-hosted website for the SEBP basin GMP South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 79 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Through the stakeholder group, coordinate outreach to inform the public and key elected officials Present GMP details at community forums, in conjunction with existing neighborhood outreach efforts Maintain a mailing list of those interested in participating on any GMP-related committees Meet with representatives from business groups and other interested organizations as appropriate Coordinated Stakeholder Activities: Stakeholders are committed to advancing the knowledge of the Basin to promote Basin sustainability. The following activities are future means to meet that commitment: Working together to seek grant funding for key projects and planned actions beneficial for the Basin Working proactively to address potential conflicts of groundwater interests Basin Monitoring: Comprehensive, long-term monitoring provides data needed to evaluate changes in the Basin over time. GMP implementation will call for continued groundwater monitoring coupled with updated groundwater modeling when appropriate in order to assist in decision making as it pertains to basin management. Monitoring of the groundwater basin shall include the following elements: Groundwater elevation monitoring Groundwater quality monitoring Land subsidence monitoring Data management/storage Groundwater Elevation Monitoring: While agencies such as EBMUD have been performing groundwater elevation monitoring for a number of years, there is an interest to continue and perhaps expand that effort over time. As funding is available, the following activities could be performed on a periodic basis: Surveys of existing monitoring wells: The City of Hayward and EBMUD have wells that are routinely monitored as part of their ongoing operations. Additional known wells can be added to monitoring program assignments based on whether such information is necessary and additional resources are available Expansion of monitoring activities: If additional resources become available, monitoring could be expanded beyond those wells which have been instrumented by the City of Hayward and EBMUD Data Sharing: Data would be shared with a stakeholder team (likely led by EBMUD) and can be made available to the public and interested parties to track basin sustainability over time South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 80 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS The following actions are planned regarding groundwater elevation monitoring: Assess groundwater elevations collected as part of ongoing agency activities for network adequacy Work with private well owners who wish to continue to operate their groundwater wells to 1) comply with well standards and 2) collect and share groundwater data. Seek grant funding to expand the monitoring program. Groundwater Quality Monitoring: Water quality information has been collected over the years by several of the basin stakeholders. The following actions are proposed moving forward: Stakeholders will review groundwater quality data collected as part of on-going activities associated with agency operations to determine trends, conditions and adequacy of the groundwater quality monitoring network. If there appears to be an acute need for additional modeling, the stakeholders will work to identify funding mechanisms. Land Subsidence Monitoring: EBMUD has a program in place, in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, to monitor Land Subsidence adjacent to its Bayside Groundwater Project facilities in San Lorenzo, CA. Plans are to continue to use that facility to monitor land subsidence in that general portion of the SEBP Basin. Additional subsidence monitoring performed by stakeholders such as the City of Alameda will be periodically reviewed to assess the behavior of the SEBP Basin. Monitoring Protocols: Stakeholders are to adhere to water quality data collection procedures developed by the State of California Department of Public Health. Data Management: Assuming a source of funding can be secured, EBMUD could serve as a centralized agency for the purpose of data management as it pertains to the SEBP basin. Specifically, EBMUD could: Maintain and update a data management system to store information collected by the various stakeholders in regards to groundwater elevations and groundwater quality. Use the data collected to prepare periodic evaluations of the groundwater condition in the SEBP basin, which in turn can be shared with other stakeholders and the general public. Groundwater Protection Measures: Groundwater quality protection is a key factor to ensuring the sustainability of a groundwater resource. As part of this GMP, groundwater quality protection includes both the prevention and minimization of groundwater quality degradation, as well as measures for the minimization of contamination. Prevention measures include proper well construction and deconstruction practices, development of wellhead protection measures, and source control of potential contaminants. Well Construction, Abandonment and Deconstruction: Alameda County Public Works Department, a GMP stakeholder, is responsible for rules and procedures associated with well construction, abandonment and deconstruction. Those rules and procedures are detailed in Appendix H. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 81 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Wellhead Protection: Identification of wellhead protection areas is a component of the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Projection (DWSAP) Program administered by DPH. EBMUD, as part of its Bayside Groundwater Project, has provided DPH with the following information: A delineation of the capture zone around the Bayside Groundwater Project’s extraction well. An inventory of potential contaminating activities (PCAs) within the project’s protection areas. A vulnerability analysis to identify the PCAs to which the project is most vulnerable. The following are potential future/further actions regarding this topic: Continue to identify source areas and protection zones as needed when and if the SEBP Basin is used as part of any future activity (such as the expansion of the Bayside Groundwater Project by EBMUD). Update management approaches that can be used to provide better protection to the water supply from PCAs including voluntary control measures and expanded public education. Controlling Migration and Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater: The known groundwater contamination plumes within the SEBP Basin are discussed in Section 2.13. To address contamination, the stakeholders will coordinate with responsible parties and regulatory agencies to keep those interested informed on the status of potential contamination in the SEBP Basin. The actions listed below are to be considered as a means to improve protection of groundwater quality from contamination: Provide well owners with information regarding DPH and ACPWD well requirements. Incorporate any new known high risk PCAs into the data management system(s) created for the SEBP Basin. Make contaminant plume information available to well owners through various informational avenues (the SEBP Basin GMP webpage, etc). Control of Saline Water Intrusion: Seawater intrusion from San Francisco Bay is a challenge, particularly for the upper most aquifers in the SEBP Basin. Section 3.3.4.5 addresses salt and nutrient management efforts proposed, however, aside from those efforts, this GMP proposes that the following additional actions could be implemented over time, particularly if and when seawater intrusion issues become problematic for the lower-most aquifer: Track saline water movement from San Francisco Bay through on-going groundwater monitoring efforts. Examine TDS, chloride and sulfate concentrations collected for the Bayside Groundwater Project monitoring to identify any trends over time. Perform studies (when and if funding can be secured) to review salinity sources and their distribution; to identify mitigation alternatives. Develop projects (when and if funding can be secured and assuming mitigation is needed) to address saline water intrusion. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 82 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Other Sustainability Measures: Various water management options are available to address groundwater supply sustainability. The primary method in play for the deep aquifer of the SEBP Basin is direct aquifer recharge/groundwater banking, managed as a strategy to replenish the Basin and serve as a secure storage means for water that could be sourced during times of drought. As EBMUD and others (such as the City of Hayward) utilize the basin for water supply, there are no plans at this point in time to consider alternatives such as storm water recharge and/or recycled water recharge. However, the use of other supplies (such as recycled water) for irrigation, etc. can be promoted as a means to limit the use of groundwater supplies. Similarly, conservation and demand reduction measures can be employed that will reduce the reliance on the SEBP Basin. Direct Aquifer Recharge/Groundwater Banking: The deep aquifer in the SEBP Basin is being utilized by EBMUD to store treated water for later use during droughts. The project, the Bayside Groundwater Project is an Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, and demonstrates how direct aquifer recharge can be utilized to assure the long term sustainability of the basin. The following planned actions are possible to build upon this concept: Possible expansion studies to assess the feasibility of a larger, Phase 2 of the Bayside Groundwater Project (moving from an existing 1 mgd operation to as large as a 10 mgd operations) Full scale Phase 2 project development (based on the results of feasibility studies and the ensuing planning efforts) If or when other parties are shown to have depleted storage within the lower aquifer, there is the possibility that direct aquifer recharge could be utilized to counter or correct for the depletion. Integration with Other Agency and Organization Planning Efforts: There are various planning efforts underway within basin stakeholder organizations where integration is possible, however the three that are most-likely to benefit from integration include: Urban Water Management Plans General Plans/Land Use Plans Integrated Regional Water Management Plans Urban Water Management Plans: Two Basin stakeholders (EBMUD and the City of Hayward) have developed Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP). These UWMPs, are required by the State of California for all retail water purveyors who have more than 3,000 customers. UWMPs are designed to encourage efficient water use and identify ways to meet future customer demands and issues such as the sustainability of groundwater resources, should such resources play a factor. General Plans/Land Use Plans: Stakeholder agencies are committed to providing GMP information to those entities responsible for the preparation and update of land use plans and general plans for cities and counties. The goal of such interaction will be to enable all land use agencies to have access to information regarding activities taking place for the protection and availability of groundwater resources within the SEBP basin. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 83 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS 3.3.5.2 Water Conservation and Recycling EBMUD and the City of Hayward are the two water suppliers within the SEBP Basin. Each has water conservation programs in place to reduce the demand for water. The following section briefly discusses the programs of the two agencies. EBMUD’s Water Conservation Program: EBMUD provides technical and financial assistance to encourage customers to help assure an adequate water supply by using water efficiently. Their water conservation staff advises customers on selecting water-efficient products, implementing best management practices, and designing/maintaining WaterSmart landscaping and efficient irrigation methods. Water conservation services include water use surveys, incentives for high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, appliances, process equipment and irrigation systems, and free distribution of conservation self-survey kits and water efficient devices (i.e., showerhead, faucet aerators) that reduce water use. EBMUD is also very active in new water conservation technology research and the development of education and demonstration projects. In 2011, EBMUD updated its Water Conservation Master Plan (“WCMP”) to help meet long-term water supply needs through the year 2020. The WCMP serves as a blueprint for implementation strategies, goals and objectives for achieving additional water savings consistent with the targets identified in EBMUD’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan as well in their recently adopted Water Supply Management Program 2040 (WSMP 2040). The WCMP incorporates elements of the State of California’s Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB7) which calls for achieving a statewide goal of a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020. City of Hayward’s Water Conservation Program: The City of Hayward has one of the lowest per capita water usage among agencies that purchase water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This is perhaps partially due to the fact that, as one of the original signatories to the California Urban Water Council (CUWC) Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU), Hayward has long been committed to effective water conservation. The CUWC was created to increase water use efficiency through partnerships among urban water agencies, public interest organizations and private entities that provide services and equipment to promote water conservation. Hayward has and will continue to actively participate in regional demand management efforts, including development and implementation of the regional Water Conservation Implementation Plan as developed by Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) in 2009. Hayward evaluates each regional conservation program individually to assess the benefits to Hayward customers. To date, Hayward has participated in regional programs such as: High efficiency clothes washing machine rebates High efficiency toilet rebates Indoor water efficiency standards for new development Residential water efficient landscape classes School education programs (in-class and assembly) Distribution of pre-rinse spray valves Adoption of bay friendly landscape ordinances and standards Hayward intends to continue to implement cost effective water conservation programs. Moving forward, the City will continue to assess and implement additional cost effective water conservation South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 84 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS measures in order to achieve SB7 targets and to carry Hayward City Council’s mission of efficient and sustainable use of resources. Potential future programs may include: Rebates for weather-based irrigation controllers and efficient irrigation systems Water use surveys for commercial/industrial sites, including hotels and motels Incentives to replace inefficient commercial and industrial equipment 3.3.5.3 Periodic Basin Assessment and Reporting Contingent upon available funding, the basin management actions will be reviewed and analyzed to evaluate effectiveness of the actions. Necessary modification may be considered to achieve the GMP objectives. These analyses and findings are to be reported to the basin stakeholders. 3.3.5.4 Basin Replenishment Using the GMP as a guide, all stakeholders led by EBMUD are to collaboratively manage the Basin. EBMUD has not committed to exclusively taking on basin management authority, although the agency will continue to provide guidance and coordination for other stakeholders. When basin storage conditions warrant the need to address replenishment matters, EBMUD will work with GMP stakeholders to undertake necessary actions. 3.3.5.5 Basin Water Budget The new groundwater flow model (NEB MODFLOW) for the SEBP Basin area as well as the water budget prepared for the Basin are primarily intended for groundwater planning purposes to assist in managing ground water resources. As a numerical analysis tool, a groundwater model assists water managers and basin stakeholders in understanding the general dynamics of the groundwater flow system within the SEBP Basin. During the GMP preparation, upon completion of model calibration, the model was used to generate a water balance and baseline estimates for the GMP area. In addition, major components of the groundwater budget were developed using the model. From model results, groundwater elevations within the SEBP Basin appear to be reaching an equilibrium. Groundwater levels have been increasing since the 1960s, primarily as a result of the decrease in volume of groundwater extraction throughout the area since that time. Based on a technical review of current information, the primary inflow into the GMP area can be categorized as recharge to the aquifers as a result of deep percolation of precipitation and applied water, subsurface inflow, and inflow from ungauged watersheds. The source of groundwater flow in the shallow zone is percolation primarily from the foothill region that lies to the east. That water move from east to west in the shallow aquifer, flowing towards San Francisco Bay. It is believed that the flow entering the intermediate and deep aquifers systems consists of contributions from beneath the San Francisco Bay. If there are modifications to the volume and/or rate of groundwater extraction in the SEBP Basin, it would likely influence the overall flow balance and distribution of inflow into the GMP area. The overall water balance for the GMP area is provided in the Figure 3-3. Table 3-2 provides a summary of the simulated water budget for the GMP area for a 20-year period from 1993 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 85 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS through 2012. On average, inflows and outflows were in balance across the period, resulting in relatively small changes in storage in the aquifer. The average annual change in storage for the period was 152 acre-feet, a small annual increase. This is consistent with the relatively stable groundwater elevation trends over the same period as detailed in previous basin studies. Those studies indicated that the basin was refilling at a rate of 1,300 acre-feet per year in the mid-1990s (CH2MHILL, 2000). The results from the hydrologic study performed as part of this GMP preparation indicates that the basin has nearly stabilized, and the rate of increase in storage is decreasing as a consequence. These estimates and findings are influenced by the assumptions necessary to create an “initial condition” for the Basin (as well as by how the model conceptualized various operational details of the Basin). Modifications to either of these components could be called for when and if additional Basin data becomes available in the years ahead. In turn, the water balance as prepared for the SEBP Basin should be updated. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 86 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 33 –– GGRROOUUNNDDWW AATTEERR MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN EELLEEMMEENNTTSS Future Governance Plans: It is anticipated that at some point in time, there may be a need to enter into a more formal governance structure. Such a structure would enable the following: Collective management of a well protection program, well destruction program/policies, well installation policies, etc. Integration of Basin objectives into the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Collective means to apply for grant monies. Development of means and procedures whereby Basin replenishment is managed (should one or more entities be deemed responsible for extracting groundwater from the Basin to cause overdraft). Collective preparation of updates to the GMP as well as of periodic State-of-the-Basin reports. While undertaking all the sustainability measures, if the Basin becomes overdrafted, EBMUD will collaborate with stakeholders to develop a replenishment plan. Table 3-2: Simulated Annual Water Budget for the SEBP Groundwater Basin, 1993 through 2002 South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 87 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN SSEECCTTIIOONN 44..00 PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN 4.1 PERIODIC GMP IMPLEMENTATION MEETINGS Working with other Basin stakeholders, EBMUD will review the progress made implementing the GMP. Stakeholders will hold meetings to facilitate the review process, tentatively assumed to be annual State of the Basin meetings. Those meetings will discuss the groundwater conditions in the SEBP Basin area and document groundwater management activities from the previous year. Much of the data reviewed as part of preparing annual State of the Basin summaries will come from the monitoring and successful implementation of the action items as developed and detailed in Section 3.0 of this GMP. During periods where significant changes have occurred within the Basin, the stakeholders (as an action item following the State of the Basin meeting) may elect to craft a summary report. That summary will document conditions that have occurred since last State of the Basin meeting. The report may include:  A summary of monitoring results that includes a discussion of historical trends and an interpretation of water quality and groundwater elevation data.  A summary of management actions during the period covered by the report.  A discussion of the need (if any) to collected additional groundwater basin data to aid in the analysis of conditions observed.  A discussion, supported by monitoring results, of whether management actions are achieving progress in meeting Basin management objectives.  A discussion of the need to modify any GMP component, including the Basin management objectives. Description of Action Implementation Schedule (approximate time for commencing activity following GMP adoption) I. Stakeholder Involvement Involving the Public  Continue efforts to encourage public participation as opportunities arise.  Reach out to local and business communities via EBMUD’s Bayside Groundwater Project’s Community Liaison Group.  Assist stakeholders in disseminating the information through other various public forums. On-going 6 months 6 months Coordinate with State and Federal Agencies  Continue to develop working relationships with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies.  Coordinate GMP implementation activities with local, state and federal agencies as appropriate. On-going On-going South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 88 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN Pursuing Partnership Opportunities  Continue to foster partnership opportunities to achieve both local supply reliability and broader regional and statewide benefits.  Continue to seek grant opportunities to fund local projects that can improve groundwater management and improve local water infrastructure. On-going On-going II. Monitoring Programs Groundwater Elevation Monitoring  Use CASGEM groundwater elevation monitoring guidelines for water level data collection.  Provide stakeholder agencies with guidelines on the collection of water quality data as per USEPA sampling standards.  Assist stakeholders in developing and implementing monitoring programs.  Coordinate with stakeholder agencies to develop standardized reference elevations for monitoring wells.  Coordinate with stakeholders and request that the timing of water level data collection occur on or about April 15 and October 15 of each year.  Provide a period assessment of groundwater elevation trends and conditions to stakeholders.  Assess the adequacy of the groundwater elevation monitoring network periodically. On-going On-going and as needed On-going and as needed On-going and as needed On-going On-going 12 months Groundwater Quality Monitoring Programs  Coordinate with stakeholders in using standardized water quality sampling protocols.  Monitor stakeholder’s existing monitoring well network for purposes of groundwater quality monitoring.  Collaborate with local, state, and federal agencies such as USGS to identify opportunities to continue conducting water quality analyses in less known areas of the basin.  Review and assess the effectiveness of the groundwater quality monitoring program periodically and recommend improvements as necessary.  Develop a GIS based groundwater quality database.  Apply for state and federal grants to collect, compile and integrate groundwater quality data. On-going and as necessary On-going On-going 12 months 12 months (if grant funding is available) 12 months (depending on grant program opportunities) South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 89 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN Subsidence Monitoring Program  Periodically re-survey the established reference elevations at groundwater monitoring stations.  Collaborate with state and federal agencies, particularly the USGS, to collect and analyze land surface movement data for potential land surface subsidence using various methodologies including InSAR remote sensing. 36 months (if grant funding is available) 36 months (if grant funding is available) III. Groundwater Management Tools Groundwater Resources Protection  Ensure that all stakeholders are provided a copy of the county well ordinance and understand the proper well construction procedures.  Support ACPWA in adopting the updated well ordinance.  Support stakeholders in educating the public about the updated well standards and in adopting local ordinances to implement those well standards. 6 months+ (assumes county passes new well ordinance) 3 months 6-12 months Wellhead Protection  Obtain an updated coverage of potentially contaminating activities and provide that information to stakeholders.  Share current wellhead protection measures and provide a summary of actions taken by others as a tool in managing their individual wellhead protection programs. 24 months 24 months Protecting Recharge Areas  Inform and assist groundwater authorities and land use planners to consider the need to protect prominent groundwater recharge areas in the land use planning process. 24 months Groundwater Contamination  If contaminants exceeding water quality standards are detected in monitoring wells, initiate facilitation between the responsible parties and the potentially impacted stakeholders to manage the contamination.  Inform and coordinate with SFRWQCB and DTSC to encourage these agencies to take necessary actions. On-going and as needed On-going and as needed South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 90 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN IV. Groundwater Sustainability Public Outreach and Involvement  Hold an annual stakeholders workshop whereby the matter of public involvement is a standing agenda item.  Agency leads for GMP implementation shall work with other stakeholders to assure continued communication following GMP adoption (including participation in discussions with stakeholders, electeds and staff).  Make available printed copies of the GMP at select public libraries within the basin footprint.  Alert the public as to the availability of an electronic version of the GMP (by mentioning it in existing newsletters, newspaper articles, etc.).  Maintain the EBMUD-hosted website for the SEBP basin GMP.  Through the stakeholders group, develop a coordinated outreach plan to inform the public and key electeds.  Present GMP details at community forums, in conjunction with existing neighborhood outreach efforts. 12 months 3 months 3 months 1 month – 12 months On-going 3 months 3-12 months 4.2 FUTURE REVIEW OF THE SEBP BASIN GMP This GMP is intended to be a framework for future coordinated management efforts in the South East Bay Plain area. As such, many of the identified actions will likely evolve as the stakeholder agencies begin to work together to cooperatively manage and learn more about the basin. Over time, and in the event that the basin usage grows such that it becomes an even greater relied-upon resource to the various stakeholders, the potential need for a more formal groundwater management entity may be considered. There is the potential, as described in section 4.1, that additional actions could also be identified as part of the GMP implementation periodic review process. The GMP is therefore intended to be a living document, and it will be important to evaluate all of the actions and objectives over time to determine how well they are meeting the overall goal of the plan. 4.3 FINANCING Implementation of the GMP, as well as many other groundwater management-related activities could be funded from a variety of sources including in-kind services by agencies; state or federal grant programs; and local, state, and federal partnerships. Some of the items that would require additional resources include:  Monitoring for groundwater quality or elevations in non-purveyor wells  Preparation of GMP annual reports South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 91 March 2013 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 –– PPLLAANN IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN AANNDD IINNTTEEGGRRAATTIIOONN  Updates of the overall GMP  Updates of data sets and recalibration/improvement of the groundwater model produced for the SEBP Basin  Collection of additional subsidence data (beyond what EBMUD is required to collect as part of its operation of their Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 1)  Construction of monitoring wells where critical data gaps exist  Stream-aquifer interaction studies  Implementation of the GMP including: − Committee coordination − Project management 4.4 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Integration of various water management programs that are underway in the Bay Area is a complex activity, as part of the update of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP). The Bay Area IRWMP will reference the GMP effort and document moving forward as part of the periodic updates of the Bay Area IRWMP. South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Management Plan 92 March 2013 1 2 3 Subregion (check all that apply)North Bay East Bay South Bay West Bay 4 County(ies) 5 Watershed Tributary 6 Public or private land?Public Private Both 7 Other Participating or Partnering Agencies/Organizations (separate with commas) This form need not be completed in its entirety in order to propose a project for inclusion in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). Items denoted with an asterisk (*) are required. Sponsoring Agency/Organization* Complete “Part 1: Project Concept” as much as possible to identify and describe the project. The second section of this part, “Collaboration Information,” will help provide sponsors of other projects with sufficient information so they know whether or not there may be value in working with you to develop a more integrated and multipurpose project. Complete “Part 2: Detailed Project Information” so that a project may be thoroughly described and prioritized in the IRWMP. Projects cannot be scored without information provided in Part 2. Review “Part 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis” which enables the Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee to better score projects for inclusion in a grant proposal. The information is also is used by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in scoring grant proposals. This section does not need to be completed at this stage but will be required as the project review and selection process moves forward. Please review this section to become familiar with information requirements typical for grant applications and use it to complete Table A in Section 3. PART 1: PROJECT CONCEPT Complete “Table A in Part 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis” to enable the Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee to understand to what degree projects have cost:benefit information and what additional support is needed to gather this information, which is required by DWR to score the grant proposals. See Tables 1 through 14 prior to completing Table A for detail on the information required Name of Project* BAY AREA IRWMP Project Form March 2012 Basic Project Information 8 Contact Person Name* 9 Email* 10 Phone* (###) ###-### 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project deadline and/or expiration date 1 Water Quality Improvement Water Reuse/Recycling Related to a Native American Tribe Project Type (Check al that apply. Please provide a brief explanation, in a few words, below each of the checked project types) Drinking Water Supply Basic Project Description (1-2 Sentences) Project Website (if any) Estimated Project Cost What percentage of project costs does the agency/organization have in matching funds? (does not apply to non- governmental organizations and disadvantaged communities) Estimated time to complete all phases of the project once funding is secured Infiltration Stormwater Improvements Groundwater Benefits Habitat Protection and Restoration Flood Protection Related to a Disadvantaged Community Collaboration Information (Please complete this portion of the template as much as possible at this time in order to help others determine if this project might be combined with one or more other projects in order to create a more integrated and multipurpose project and share project development costs. Further information can be added at a later date as appropriate.) 2 3 4 5 6 Projects cannot be scored without information provided in Part 2. 1 2 Is the project an element or phase of a regional or larger program? Yes No 3 4 5 Project element Status (e.g., pending, in process, complete) Conceptual plans Land acquisition/easements Preliminary plans CEQA/NEPA Construction drawings Funding Readiness to proceed How does this project effectively integrate water management with land use planning? Detailed Project Description (Please complete/answer all questions even if it repeats information provided in the Part 1: Project Concept.) Provide a detailed description (1-2 paragraphs) of the project including the general project concept, what will be constructed and/or implemented, how the project will function, treatment methods employed, how a conservation program would function, water savings achieved, etc.* If so, what is the regional or larger program and how does this project relate to it? PART 2: DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION Please indicate the status of the following: Does this project incorporate and implement low impact development (LID) design features, techniques, and practices to reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff? Percent completion Proposed project start date (Initiation of project activities) (mm/dd/yyyy) Proposed project completion date (mm/dd/yyyy) What additional partnerships or project activities could make this a multi-benefit project? (see Project Type, above) Is the sponsor of this project in a position to financially assist a project partner that may have limited financial resources to help develop a collaborative project? If this is a conservation effort, does it address long-term drought preparedness by contributing to sustainable water supply and reliability? 6     7 Project Latitude Project Longitude Location Description     8 Project Need a. b. 9 Project Benefits a. b. iv. Resource Stewardship (watershed management, habitat protection and restoration, recreation, open space, etc.) Does the project reduce water supply demands on the Bay/Delta Estuary? List documents that contain information specific to the proposed project description and provide links to those that may be found online. i. Water Supply (conservation, recycled water, groundwater recharge, surface storage, etc.) iii. Flood and Stormwater Management Project Location Please provide either Latitude/Longitude or Location Description. To determine the latitude/longitude, use the closest address or intersection. If the project is linear, use the furthest upstream latitude/longitude. It is important to understand the need(s) or issue(s) that the proposed project will address and the benefits that it will provide. Information provided in this section defines the need(s) or issue(s) that the proposed project will address and will help to catalog existing need(s) or issue(s) in the Bay Area. ii. Water Quality Discuss critical impacts that will occur if the proposal is not implemented. Provide a 1-2 paragraph description of the need(s) or problem(s) that the project will address. As applicable, discuss the water supply need, operational efficiency need, water quality need, ability to reduce water demand and/or water supply, or resource stewardship need (e.g. ecosystem restoration, floodplain management). List any applicable surface water bodies and groundwater basins associated with the proposed project. Provide a detailed description (1-5 paragraphs) of the benefit(s) that the project will provide. To the extent possible, this description should quantify changes and benefits that will result from implementation of the project. Where not possible, qualitative descriptions may be used. These should include benefits to any of the following that may apply: c. Yes No Yes No 10 a. b. 11 Is the project located within or adjacent to a disadvantaged community? Project Costs Promotes Use of Renewable Energy Sources Does the project include disadvantaged community participation? Improves Water System Energy Efficiency Advances/Expands Water Recycling Promotes Urban Runoff Reuse Source of funding match for capital cost If there is no disadvantage community, please identify and provide the number of low income areas with census tracts, blocks and/or sectors, low income population/total population). Climate Change (check all those that indicate to what extent the project contributes to climate change response actions) Land/easement cost Addresses other Anticipated Climate Change Impact (e.g. through water management system modifications) Improves Flood Control (e.g. through wetlands restoration, management, protection) Other (Please Describe): Upper estimated total capital cost Increases Water Supply Reliability Advances/ Expands Conjunctive Management of Multiple Water Supply Sources Lower estimated total capital cost Other (Please Describe): Mitigation by Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and/or Energy Consumption Increases Water Use Efficiency or Promotes Energy-Efficient Water Demand Reduction Contributes to Carbon Sequestration (e.g. through vegetation growth) Other (Please Describe): Does the project address any known environmental justice issues? Please describe: Provides Additional Water Supply Promotes Water Quality Protection Advances/Expands Water Recycling Promotes Urban Runoff Reuse Addresses Sea Level Rise Promotes Habitat Protection Reduces Water Demand Establishes Migration Corridors Re-establishes River-Floodplain Hydrologic Continuity Re-introduces Anadromous Fish Populations to Upper Watersheds Enhances and Protects Upper Watershed Forests and Meadow Systems Adaptation to Climate Change Increases Water Use and/or Reuse Efficiency Life of the project (years) Annual operations and maintenance cost Funding source for annual operations and maintenance 12 13 14 15 Climate Change Response Actions (Adaptation to Climate Change, Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Reduce Energy Consumption) Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently Expand Environmental Stewardship Protect Surface and Groundwater Quality Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits Reduce Reliance on the Bay-Delta Practice Integrated Flood Management Statewide Priorities (check all that the project addresses) Drought Preparedness Water Meter Requirements Eligibility Criteria. (Please see pages 15 and 16 of Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010.) Groundwater Management Plan Improve Flood Management Improved Operational Efficiency and Transfers Increase Water Supply Improve Water Quality California Water Plan Resource Management Strategies (check all that apply). (Please see page 45 of Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010.) Reduce Water Demand Practice Resources Stewardship Other Strategies (Please Describe): Urban Water Management Plan Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users CEQA Compliance Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands Watershed protection and management Groundwater Monitoring Requirements AB 1420 Compliance Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring Groundwater recharge and management projects Drinking water treatment and distribution Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs BMP Compliance Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management Multiple Benefits – for Proposition 84 grants (check all that apply – at least one must be checked) Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection Reduced Reliance on the Bay-Delta Projects that directly address a critical water quality or supply issue in a DAC Urban water suppliers implementing certain BMPs as on page 17 of Guidelines Exceptions to above (if none are checked): 16 17 a. b. c. Be designed to manage stormwater runoff to reduce flood damage (PRC §5096.827) Be consistent with the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) (PRC §5096.827) Not be a part of the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) (PRC §5096.827) Bay Area IRWM Plan Goals and Objectives (check all that apply) Minimizing solid waste generation/maximize reuse Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating net impacts to environment Maintaining and promoting economic and environmental sustainability through sound water resources management practices Promotion of economic, social, and environmental sustainability For Proposition 1E Stormwater Flood Management (check all that apply – Note that to be eligible for funding, the project must address all) Securing funds to implement solutions Improved supply reliability Meeting future and dry year demands Maximizing water use efficiency Preserving highest quality supplies for highest use Minimizing vulnerability of infrastructure to catastrophes and security breaches Maximizing control within the Bay Area region Increasing opportunities for recycled water use consistent with health and safety Maintaining a diverse portfolio of water supplies to maximize flexibility Securing funds to implement solutions Protection and improvement of hydrologic function Achieving community awareness of local flood risks, including potential risks in areas protected by existing projects Maximizing external support and partnerships Maximizing ability to get outside funding Considering and addressing disproportionate community impacts Balancing needs for all beneficial uses of water Protecting cultural resources Increasing community outreach and education for watershed health Engaging public agencies, businesses, and the public in stormwater pollution prevention and watershed management, including decision -making Maximizing economies of scale and governmental efficiencies Providing trails and recreation opportunities Maximizing community involvement and stewardship Reducing energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate Securing funds to implement solutions Protecting, restoring, and rehabilitating natural watershed processes Protecting against overdraft Providing for groundwater recharge while maintaining groundwater resources Controlling excessive erosion and managing sedimentation Maintaining or improving in-stream flow conditions Improving floodplain connectivity Preserving land perviousness and infiltration capacity d. e. f. g.     Securing funds to implement solutions Providing clean, safe, reliable drinking water Minimizing taste and odor problems Periodically evaluating beneficial uses Maintaining health of whole watershed, upland vegetation and land cover to reduce runoff quantity and improve runoff quality Reducing pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable Protection of public health, safety, and property Eliminating non-stormwater pollutant discharges to storm drains Protection and improvement of the quality of water resources Minimizing point and non-point source pollution Preserving natural stream buffers and floodplains to improve filtration of point and non-point source pollutants Protecting surface and groundwater resources from pollution and degradation Anticipating emerging contaminants Providing lifecycle support (shelter, reproduction, feeding) Reducing mass loading of pollutants to surface waters Reducing salinity-related problems Minimizing variability for treatment Meeting promulgated and expected drinking water quality standards Managing floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation Protecting and recovering fisheries (natural habitat and harvesting) Protecting wildlife movement/wildlife corridors Advancing technology through feasibility studies/demonstrations Continuously improving stormwater pollution prevention methods Securing funds to implement solutions Creation, protection, enhancement, and maintenance of environmental resources and habitats Providing net benefits to environment Conserving and restoring habitat for species protection Managing pests and invasive species Minimizing health impacts associated with polluted waterways Achieving effective floodplain management by encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas Maintaining performance of flood protection and stormwater facilities Partnering with municipalities to prepare mitigation action plans that reduce flood risks to the community Coordinating resources and mutual aid between agencies to enhance agency effectiveness Acquiring, protecting and/or restoring wetlands, streams, and riparian areas Enhancing wildlife populations and biodiversity (species richness) Designing and constructing natural flood protection and stormwater facilities Improving structural complexity (riparian and channel) Securing funds to implement solutions List any other project information that merits consideration. Recovering at-risk native and special status species 18 Water Management Strategy Ecosystem Restoration Expected project benefits and impacts. Quantify as much as possible the benefits and impacts of the project for each water management strategy (see the list in #13 above). The following is an example of the format without the benefits and impacts quantified: Changes in local species composition and diversity (ex., 2 species potentially impacted) Reduced flooding (ex., reduce probability of sever flooding by 30%) Improved Water Quality (ex., reduce nitrate concentrations to < 10 mg/L) Increased critical habitat (ex., 5 additional acres of habitat) Protection and enhancement of physical and biological processes (ex., increasse average streamflow from 70 cu ft/s to 150 cu ft/s) Temporary construction impacts (ex., 5 acres impacted over 6 months) Typical Benefits Typical Impacts PART 3: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS Please access the Section 3 Tab below for Part 3: Benefit-Cost Analysis Benefit Category Is this benefit addressed by the proposed project? (Yes/No) Can you provide this C:B information now? (Yes/No) Will you be able to provide this C:B information for a grant application? (Yes/No) If you answered "No" in column "C", do you need extra assistance to be able to provide this information? Additional Comments Water Supply Water Quality Ecosystem Restoration Recreation and Public Access Power Cost Savings and Production Flood Avoided Cost of Future Projects Other (please specify): BAY AREA IRWMP Project Template March 2012 The following is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of the Handbook that explains in more detail the purpose of the analysis: Benefit-cost analysis is the procedure where the different benefits and costs of proposed projects are identified and measured (usually in monetary terms) and then compared with each other to determine if the benefits of the project exceed its costs. Benefit-cost analysis is the primary method used to determine if a project is economically justified. A project is justified when: • estimated total benefits exceed total estimated economic costs; • each separable purpose (for example, water supply, hydropower, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, etc.) provides benefits at least equal to its costs; • the scale of development provides maximum net benefits (in other words, there are no smaller or larger projects which provide greater net benefits); and • there are no more-economical means of accomplishing the same purpose. PART 3: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS This portion of the project template asks for information that will be critical in determining which projects will be included in a Proposition 84 grant proposal. DWR uses the cost benefit analysis as a major scoring factor for both Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E grant proposals. After reviewing the ENTIRE Section, (Tables 1 through 14) please complete Table A. The DWR Economic Analysis Handbook (http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/planning/economic_analysis_guidebook/econguidebook.pdf) is referred to in the Proposition 84 & Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010 as guidance for determining if project benefits justify project costs. Table A* - Cost:Benefit Information Availability Please review this section to become familiar with information requirements typical for grant applications. After reviewing the ENTIRE Section, please complete Table A below. (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Non-State Share* (Funding Match) Requested Grant Funding Other State Funds Being Used Total % Funding Match (a)Direct Project Administration Costs $0 #DIV/0! (b)Land Purchase/Easement $0 #DIV/0! (c)Planning/Design/Engineering/ Environmental Documentation $0 #DIV/0! (d)Construction/Implementation $0 #DIV/0! (e)Environmental Compliance/ Mitigation/Enhancement $0 #DIV/0! (f)Construction Administration $0 #DIV/0! (g)Other Costs $0 #DIV/0! (h)Construction/Implementation Contingency $0 #DIV/0! (i)Grand Total (Sum rows (a) through (h) for each column) $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Benefit Category Benefit Detail Measure of Benefit (Units) Level of Benefit Without Project Level of Benefit With Project Benefit Start Year Benefit End Year Water Supply(1)AFY Water Quality AFY Ecosystem Restoration Acres Recreation and Public Access Acres Power cost savings and production kWh Other Avoided cost of future projects Please refer to next tab. Flood Please contact K/J if your project has flood damage reduction benefits. *List sources of funding: Use as much space as required. Table 2 - Project Benefits Project Title: Water Supply Benefits Water Quality and Other Expected Benefits Budget Category Avoided cost of future projects Flood Damage Reduction Comments: Enter any sources and references, including page numbers, supporting the numbers used above. Table 1 - Project Budget Project Title: Integrated Regional Water Management Projects (Proposition 84) For integrated regional water management projects that may qualify for grants under Proposition 84 for grant funding, please refer to the Handbook and tables and also complete as much as possible the following Project Budget and Project Benefits forms that were used by consultants to gather project information that was included in the Round 1 proposal and that DWR then evaluated to determine the benefit-cost ratio. Benefit Category Power cost savings and production Avoided cost of future projects (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Non-State Share* (Funding Match) Requested Grant Funding Other State Funds Being Used Total % Funding Match (a)Direct Project Administration Costs $0 #DIV/0! (b)Land Purchase/Easement $0 #DIV/0! (c)Planning/Design/Engineering/ Environmental Documentation $0 #DIV/0! (d)Construction/Implementation $0 #DIV/0! (e)Environmental Compliance/ Mitigation/Enhancement $0 #DIV/0! (f)Construction Administration $0 #DIV/0! (g)Other Costs $0 #DIV/0! (h)Construction/Implementation Contingency $0 #DIV/0! (i)Grand Total (Sum rows (a) through (h) for each column) $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Quantity of power saved or produced Flood Avoided physical damage (buildings, contents, infrastructure, landscaping, vehicles, equipment, crops, ecosystems) Ecosystem Restoration Habitat restoration Ecosystem improvements and preservation Fish and wildlife enhancements Recreation and Public Access Types and quality of recreational activities Visitor days Water Quality Improvements related to protecting, restoring or enhancing beneficial uses Water quality improvements for impaired water bodies and sensitive habitats Avoided water quality projects Avoided water treatment Avoided wastewater treatment Water quality improvements related to providing water supplies (if not already captured as a water supply benefit) (1) At a minimum, each water supply benefit must be described. If possible, each benefit should be quantified in physical terms. For each water supply benefit, the applicant should determine if a monetary value could be placed on the unit of benefit. Below is a sample list of project benefits. If you choose to enter a benefit not listed below, please provide a detailed description. Benefit Detail Water Supply Groundwater Basin Storage Conservation program Table 3 - Project Budget Project Title: Budget Category *List sources of funding: Use as much space as required. Avoided loss of functions (NET loss of business income, NET loss of rental income, NET loss of wages, NET loss of public services, NET loss of utility services, displacement costs of Avoided emergency response costs (Evacuation and rescue costs, security costs, dewatering flood management system repairs, humanitarian assistance) Avoided public safety and health impacts (population at risk, casualties, displacement/shelter needs, critical facilities) See Table 11 below for details For benefits that could not be quantified in physical terms, please provide a description below. The description should include a description of economic factors that may affect or qualify the amount of economic benefits to be realized. The description should also include any uncertainty about the future that might affect the level of benefits received. Description of Qualitative Benefits : Stormwater and Flood Management Projects (Proposition 1E) For Round 1 of Proposition 1E Stormwater and Flood Management grants the Department of Water Resources (DWR) required the following tables to be completed. It is expected that the same will be the case for Round 2. If the proposed project is for stormwater and flood management please complete the tables with as much detail as possible. Initial Costs (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Total Costs Discounted Costs (b) +…+ (g)(h) x (i) 2012 $0 1 $0 2013 $0 0.943 $0 2014 $0 0.89 $0 2015 $0 0.84 $0 …… …… Project Life … Hydrologic Event Event Benefit (Million $) With With Project Project (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h) (c) x (d)(c) x (e)(f) – (g) 10-Year $0 $0 $0 15-Year $0 $0 $0 20-Year $0 $0 $0 25-Year $0 $0 $0 50-Year $0 $0 $0 (a) (b) (c)$0 (d) With Project (2) 6% discount rate; 50-year analysis period (could vary depending upon life cycle of project). Expected Annual Damage Benefit (a) – (b) Present Value Coefficient (2) (c) x (d) Total Present Value of Future Benefits (e) (1) This program assumes no population growth thus EAD will be constant over analysis period. $0 Water Supply Projects Table 6 - Present Value of Expected Annual Damage Benefits Table 4 - Annual Cost of Flood Damage Reduction Project (All costs should be in 2009 Dollars) Project Title: Transfer to column (e) Table 15: Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries. $0 OtherReplacement Discount Factor Transfer to Table 15, column (c): Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries Expected Annual Damage Without Project (1) Expected Annual Damage With Project (1) Without Project Event Probability Event DamageDamage if Flood Structures Fail Without Project Comments to Table 4: Table 5 - Event Damage Operations and Maintenance Costs Discounting Calculations Year Grand Total Cost From Table 3 (row (i), column(d)) Admin Operation Maintenance Total Present Value of Discounted Costs (Sum of Column (j)) Probability Structural Failure Table 7 - Minimum Seismic Failure Economics Data Project Title: Variables Earthquake magnitude which causes structural failure Estimated probability of seismic event causing structural failure (%) Potential inundation damage ($) Without Project Initial Costs (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Total Costs Discounted Costs (b) +…+ (g)(h) x (i) 2012 $0 1 $0 2013 $0 0.943 $0 2014 $0 0.89 $0 2015 $0 0.84 $0 …… …… Project Life … (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Change Resulting from Project(1)Annual $ Value(1) Discounted Benefits(1) (e) – (d)(f) x (g)(h) x (i) 2012 a $0 $0 1 $0 b $0 $0 1 $0 c $0 $0 1 $0 d $0 $0 1 $0 ..$0 $0 $0 2013 a $0 $0 0.943 $0 b $0 $0 0.943 $0 c $0 $0 0.943 $0 d $0 $0 0.943 $0 ..$0 $0 $0 2014 a $0 $0 0.89 $0 b $0 $0 0.89 $0 c $0 $0 0.89 $0 d $0 $0 0.89 $0 …..$0 $0 … Project Life $0 $0 … Table 8- Annual Cost of Water Supply Project (All costs should be in 2009 Dollars) Project Title: Operations and Maintenance Costs Discounting Calculations Other Discount Factor Year Capital and Other initial Costs from Table 6 Admin Operation Maintenance Replacement With Project Unit $ Value(1)Discount Factor(1) Total Present Value of Discounted Costs (Sum of Column (j))$0 Transfer to Table 14, column (c): Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries Comments to Table 8: Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits Based on Unit Value Measure of Benefit (Units) Table 9- Annual Water Supply Benefits (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Project Title: Year Type of Benefit Without Project $0 (Sum of the values in Column (j) for all Benefits shown in table) (1) Complete these columns if dollar value is being claimed for the benefit. Comments to Table 9: (a)(b)(1)(c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Total Cost Avoided for Individual Alternatives (b) + (c) + (d) (e) x (f) 2012 $0 1 $0 2013 $0 0.943 $0 2014 $0 0.899 $0 2015 $0 0.839 $0 …… Project Life … (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) Discounted Benefits(1) (d) x (e) 2012 a 1 $0 b 1 $0 c 1 $0 ..1 $0 2013 a 0.943 $0 b 0.943 $0 c 0.943 $0 ..0.943 $0 2014 a 0.89 $0 b 0.89 $0 c 0.89 $0 ..0.89 $0 …… Project Life … Discounted Costs Avoided Project Description: (All avoided costs should be in 2009 dollars) Table 10 - Annual Costs of Avoided Projects Comments to Table 10: Avoided Capital Costs Avoided Replacement Costs Avoided Operations and Maintenance Costs Table 11 - Annual Other Water Supply Benefits (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Total Present Value of Discounted Costs $0 (Sum of Column (g)) (%) Avoided Cost Claimed by Project Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits Based on Unit Value $0 (Sum of the values in Column (f) for all Benefits shown in table) Project Title: Year Type of Benefit Description of Benefit Total Present Value of Discounted Avoided Project Costs Claimed by alternative Project $0 (Total Present Value of Discounted Costs x % Avoided Cost Claimed by Project) Project Title: Costs (1) Complete these columns if dollar value is being claimed for the benefit. Comments to Table 11: Annual Benefits ($)(1)Discount Factor(1) Discounting Calculations Year Alternative (Avoided Project Name): __________________ Discount Factor (1) For green infrastructure projects, calculate the avoided capital costs by multiplying each acre treated by $32,526 to get the expected benefit Total Discounted Water Supply Benefits Total Discounted Avoided Project Costs Other Discounted Water Supply Benefits (a) (b) (c) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) Measure of Benefit Unit $Annual $ (Units)Value(1)Value(1) (e) – (d)(f) x (g)(h) x (i) 2012 a $0 $0 1 $0 b $0 $0 1 $0 c $0 $0 1 $0 ..$0 $0 1 $0 2013 a $0 $0 0.943 $0 b $0 $0 0.943 $0 c $0 $0 0.943 $0 ..$0 $0 0.943 $0 2014 a $0 $0 0.89 $0 b $0 $0 0.89 $0 c $0 $0 0.89 $0 ..$0 $0 0.89 $0 Project Life … Water Supply(2)Flood Damage Reduction(3)Other(4)Total (g)(h) (d) + (e) + (f)(g) / (c) $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! $0 #DIV/0! TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Summary Comments to Table 12: (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Manually enter (a) + (c) or (b) + (c) Table 12 - Total Water Supply Benefits (All benefits should be in 2009 dollars) Project Title: Table 13 - Water Quality and Other Expected Benefits Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits (d) (a) + (c) or (b) + (c) Comments to Table 13: Project Title: Year Type of Benefit Without Project Total Present Value of Discounted Benefits Based on Unit Value $0 (Sum of the values in Column (j) for all Benefits shown in table) Transfer to Table 14, column (f): Proposal Costs and Benefits Summaries (1) Complete these columns if dollar value is being claimed for the benefit. With Project Change Resulting from Project Discount Factor(1) Discounted Benefits(1) Total Present Value Project Benefits B/C Ratio (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (1) From Table 4, column (j). Or from Table 9, column (j). If project is a multi-purpose project, avoid double-counting costs. (2) From Table 12, column (d) (3) From Table 6, row (e) (4) From Table 13, column (j) Table 14 - Proposal Project Costs and Benefits Summary for Proposition 1E Proposal Title: Agency: Project Agency Total Present Value Project Costs(1) Project Information Form (PIF) A.PROJECT INFORMATION 1.Project Title: 2.Project Sponsor(s): 3.Eligible Applicant Type: 4.IRWM Project Region(s): 5. Yes No If yes, please complete D.8 and/or D.9. Show on map if applicable. 6. Yes No If yes, please complete D.10. Show on map if applicable. 7. 8. Funding Category: DAC Implementation Project General Implementation Project 9. Project Type:Other: B.SELECTED ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 1. Yes No 2. Yes No If yes, complete part a: a.What IRWM Plan goal(s)/objective(s) does the project address? Identify and explain. Select most applicable project type. See Section II.C. of the 2019 Guidelines for full description of eligible project types. If "Other" is selected, please write in the space provided the proposed project type. Does the project provide benefits directly to a Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) and/or Economically Distressed Areas (EDA) (minimum 75% by population or geography)? Is the Project Sponsor a Tribe, or does the project provide benefits to a Tribe (minimum 75% by population or geography) as defined by Proposition 1? Provide project map. Include location of project, project benefit and/or service area, and other applicable information. Will the project be included in the IRWM Plan, that will be adopted prior to anticipated Agreement Execution? Does the project address a critical need(s) and/or priority(ies) of the IRWM Region as identified in the IRWM Plan? 5/23/2019 Page 1 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3. 4. Yes No If yes, please explain below. 5.Does the project contribute to regional water self-reliance? Yes No If yes, please explain below. Does the project have an expected useful life consistent with Government Code §16727 (generally 15 years)? If not, explain why this requirement is not applicable. Does the project address and/or adapt to the effects of climate change? Does the project address the climate change vulnerabilities assessed in the IRWM Plan? 5/23/2019 Page 2 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 6. Yes No If yes, please identify below. 7.Will CEQA be completed within 12 months of Final Award? Yes No 8.Will all permits necessary to begin construction be acquired within 12 months of Final Award? Yes No NA, not a project under CEQA NA, project benefits DAC/EDA/Tribe (minimum 75%), or a Tribe is a local project sponsor NA, project benefits DAC/EDA/Tribe (minimum 75%), or a Tribe is a local project sponsor Does the project provide a benefit that meets at least one of the Statewide Priorities as defined in the 2019 IRWM Grant Program Guidelines? NA, project is exempt under CEQA 5/23/2019 Page 3 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) C.WORK PLAN, BUDGET, and SCHEDULE SUMMARY 1. 2. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Project Description: Provide a brief project description summarizing major components, objectives, goals, and intended outcomes/benefits (quantitative and qualitative). (d)(a)(b) Budget: Provide cost estimates for each Budget Category listed in the table below. (Required for Pre-Application Material Submittal; not required for Final Application Submittal) Note: Provide information or other documentation to support the cost estimate in a separate attachment. Identify the source of all cost share and other funds. If other funds are not used, describe efforts to obtain other funding and/or why other funding sources were not used. Category Table 1 - Project Budget Cost Share: Non‐ State Fund Source Requested Grant Amount Other Cost Share (including other State Sources) Total Cost Project Administration Land Purchase/ Easement Planning/Design /Engineering /Environmental Documentation Construction/ Implementation Grand Total (Sum rows (a) through (d) for each column) (c) 5/23/2019 Page 4 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3.Cost Share Waiver Requested (DAC or EDA)?Yes No If yes, continue below: 4. (a) (b) (c) (d) <Approximately 250 words> Schedule: Include reasonable estimates of the start and end dates for each Budget Category listed in Table 1 - Project Budget. (Required for Pre-Application Material Submittal; not required for Final Application Submittal) Table 2 - Project Schedule Cost Share Waiver Justification: Describe what percentage of the proposed project area encompasses a DAC/EDA, how the community meets the definition of a DAC/EDA, and the need of the DAC/EDA that the project addresses. In order to receive a cost share waiver, the applicant must demonstrate that the project will provide benefits (minimum 25% by population or geography) that address a need of a DAC and/or EDA. (b) End Date (a) Start DateCategory Construction/ Implementation Planning/Design/Engineering/Environmental Documentation Land Purchase/ Easement Direct Project Administration 5/23/2019 Page 5 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) D.OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION 1.Provide a narrative for project justification. If applicable, include references to supporting documentation such as models, studies, engineering reports, etc. Include any other information that supports the justification for this project, including how the project can achieve the claimed level of benefits. <Approximately 750 words> 5/23/2019 Page 6 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 2.Project Benefits Table: Type of Benefit Claimed:Benefit Units*: Type of Benefit Claimed:Benefit Units*: * Secondary <15 words maximum> Primary <15 words maximum> Table 3 - Project Benefits Benefit Anticipated Useful Life of Project (years): Primary (Required) Secondary (Optional) Physical Benefits (At project completion or lifetime, as appropriate) (b)(c)(a) Added Physical Benefit Description Quantitative Benefit DWR may require applicant to convert or modify Benefit Claimed and/or Benefit Units. Where applicable, select one of the following units that corresponds to the benefit claimed: • For water supply produced, saved, or recycled, enter acre-feet per year (AFY) • For water quality, enter constituent concentration reduced in mg/L • For flood damage reduction, enter inundated acres reduced in acres • For habitat improved, restored or protected, enter habitat restored in acres • For fishery benefits, enter increased fishery flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) • For species protection, enter number of species benefited Qualitative Benefits (For Decision Support Tools, please describe non-physical benefits.) Comments: [Include narrative on additional benefits, as warranted.] 5/23/2019 Page 7 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3. Yes No If yes, provide a description of the benefits to the various regions. 4. 5. Yes No If yes, complete parts b and c: Yes No b. Describe how the project helps address the contamination. c. Does the project provide safe drinking water to a small disadvantaged community? If yes, provide an explanation on how the project benefits a small disadvantaged community as defined in the 2019 IRWM Guidelines. Provide a narrative on cost considerations. For example, were other alternatives to achieve the same types and amounts of physical benefits as the proposed project evaluated? Provide a justification as to why the project was selected (e.g., if the proposed project is not the lowest cost alternative, why is it the preferred alternative? Are there any other advantages that the proposed project provides from a cost perspective?) a. Does the project address a contaminant listed in AB 1249? Does the proposed project provide benefits to multiple IRWM regions [or funding areas]? If the project is located in another funding area, please provide the information requested in the 2019 Guidelines, Section 1.A. 5/23/2019 Page 8 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 6. Yes No If yes, please describe. 7. Yes No If yes, please describe. 8. Does the project provide safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes (consistent with AB 685) to meet a specific need(s) of a community? Does the project employ new or innovative technologies or practices, including decision support tools that support the integration of multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, water supply, flood control, land use, and sanitation? If the project provides benefits (75% by population or geography) to a DAC, explain the need of the DAC and how the project will address the described need. Explain how the area/community meets the definition of a DAC. 5/23/2019 Page 9 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 9. 10. 11. Yes If yes, please describe. NA If NA, please describe why physical access to a property is not needed. No If no, please provide a clear and concise narrative with a schedule to obtain necessary access. Does the project sponsor have legal access rights, easements, or other access capabilities to the property to implement the project? If the project provides benefits (75% by population or geography) to an EDA, explain the need of the EDA and how the project will address the described need. Explain how the area/community meets the definition of an EDA. If the project provides benefits (75% by population or geography) to a Tribe or a Tribe is the sponsor of the project, explain the need of the Tribe and how the project will address the described need. 5/23/2019 Page 10 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) E.ENVIRONMENTAL 1.Please fill out the CEQA Timeline Table below, if applicable: a. If additional explanation or justification of the timeline is needed, please describe below (optional). 2.Permit Acquisition Plan: For each permit not yet acquired, describe the following: Table 4 - CEQA Timeline List all permits needed to complete the project. If the project does not provide benefits to a DAC, EDA, or Tribe (min 75%), all permits needed to begin construction must be acquired within 12 months of Final Award. CEQA STEP COMPLETE? (y/n)ESTIMATED DATE TO COMPLETE Initial Study Notice of Preparation Draft EIR/MND/ND Public Review Final EIR/MND/ND Adoption of Final EIR/MND/ND Notice of Determination Permitting Agency Date Acquired or AnticipatedType of PermitNo. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. n. 4. 5. n. 1. 2. 3. a. Actions taken to date (include dates of any key meetings, consultations, submittals, etc.)b. Any issues or obstacles that may delay acquisition of permitNo. 5/23/2019 Page 11 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) 3. a. Yes No If yes, please explain: b. Yes No If yes, please explain: c. Yes No If yes, please explain: d. Yes No If yes, please explain: Permitting Checklist: This checklist is provided as a courtesy for documentation purposes. Not all permits which may apply are listed. (Required for Pre-Application Material Submittal; not required for Final Application Submittal) Will the proposed project have the potential to affect historical, archaeological, or cultural resources? (i.e. National Historic Preservation Act and/or State Historic Preservation Officer Consultation) Does the project involve any activities that may affect federally or state listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? (i.e. Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation and Incidental Take Authorization and Section 10 Incidental Take Permit, California Endangered Species Act Permit, and/or ESA & CESA Consistency Determination) Would the proposed project work in, over, or under navigable waters of the US or discharge dredged or fill material in waters of the US? (i.e. Rivers & Harbors Act Section 10 Permit and/or Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit) Will the proposed project discharge into a water of the US? (i.e. Clean Water Act Section 401 and/or 404 Permit) 5/23/2019 Page 12 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) e. Yes No If yes, please explain: f. Yes No If yes, please explain: g. Yes No If yes, please explain: h. Yes No If yes, please explain: i. Yes No If yes, please explain: For water supply projects, do you need to obtain a water right? (Water Rights Permit) Will the proposed project divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement) Will the proposed project change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement) Will the proposed project use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement) Will the proposed project deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake? (i.e. Lake or Streambed Alteration 5/23/2019 Page 13 of 14 Project Information Form (PIF) j. Yes No If yes, please explain: Is the proposed project within the defined coastal zone? (Coastal Development Permit) 5/23/2019 Page 14 of 14 2019 Projects updated August 2019 Project Title Subregion Sponsoring Agency RD1 System Fish Passage Improvements East Alameda County Water District Lower Walnut Creek Restoration East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District River Oaks Stormwater Capture Project South City of San Jose NBWRP Phase 2 North North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) Calistoga Water and Habitat Project North City of Calistoga and Napa County Resource Conservation District San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, Upstream of Highway 101 West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Bay Area Regional Water Conservation Multiple East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) San Francisco Zoo Recycled Water Pipeline Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission McCosker Creek Restoration East East Bay Regional Park District Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gates Improvements South-West Santa Clara Valley Water District OLSD Sewer Pipeline Replacement Project South Oro Loma Sanitary District Sutter Urban Flood Reduction East City of San Pablo Implementing BMPs on Rural Lands North Sonoma Resource Conservation District San Mateo Water Resources Program West San Mateo Resource Conservation District BART Hayward Maintenance Complex Rainwater Catchment, Bio-Retention Basin, and Solar Thermal project East BART Bayfront/Atherton Flood Protection Project South County of San Mateo Belmont Creek Watershed Restoration Project West County of San Mateo Hayward Recycled Water Project Phase-2 East City of Hayward Bayfront Recycled Water and SLR Protection West West Bay Sanitary District Graywater Direct Installation Program for Underserved Communities Multiple Ecology Action Athlone Terrace Pump Station Upgrade West County of San Mateo Department of Public Works Walnut/Angus pump stations upgrades West San Mateo County Flood Control District Aging Concrete-Lined Channels East Zone 7 Water Agency Bluff Erosion Protection Preservation Esplanade West City of Pacifica Beach Boulevard South Seawall Replacement West City of Pacifica Chain of Lakes Pipeline East Zone 7 Water Agency Retional Upstream Detention Improvements East Zone 7 Water Agency 2015 Projects updated May 26, 2015 Bay Area Regional Shoreline Resilience Program East State Coastal Conservancy Coastal San Mateo County Drought Relief Phase II West San Mateo Resource Conservation District 2020 Turf Replacement Project 2014 Projects updated May 28, 2014 Bay Area Regional Water Supply and Conservation Project Bay Area Regional Recycled Water Project North City of Calistoga Drought Response & Water Supply Reliability on the Central Coast Enhancing and Balancing- Beneficial Uses of Water Resources in the Pescadero-Butano Watershed Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission MMWD WaterSMART Irrigation with AMI/AMR North Marin Municipal Water District Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Treatment for Drought Water Quality Conflicts Zone 7 Water Supply Drought Preparedness Project East Zone 7 Water Agency 2013 Project List updated October 29, 2012 350 Home and Garden Challenge Bay Area East North South West Daily Acts ACPWA Low Impact Development Implementation and Demonstration Project: Parking Lot Stormwater Treatment Improvements East Alameda County Public Works Agency Agricultural Riparian Buffer and Habitat Enhancement East Alameda County RCD Airway Improvement Project (R5-2 ) East Zone 7 Water Agency Alameda County Adopt-A-Creek-Spot East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Foothill Blvd. Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Habitat Easements East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Healthy Watershed Program East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Norbridge/Strobridge Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Patterson Pass Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Riparian Invasive Mapping and Removal East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Tesla Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda County Vasco Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County Alameda Creek Flood Protection, Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Alamo Canal Flood Control Program (R9-7) East Zone 7 Water Agency Alamo Canal/South San Ramon Creek Erosion Control (R9-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project East East Bay Regional Park District Alhambra Valley Creek Coalition - Erosion Control and Riparian Restoration Project East Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. Alkali Sink Management (R1-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Almaden Dam Improvements South Santa Clara Valley Water District Altamont and Las Positas Creeks/Springtown Alkali Sink Restoration East Natural Resources Conservation Service, Alameda County Altamont Creek Improvement (R1-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit South Santa Clara Valley Water District Ardenwood Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 1 (R10-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 2 (R10-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 3 (R10-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 4 (R10-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 5 (R10-5) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo las Positas Diversion Project (R5-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo las Positas Habitat Enhancement and Recreation Project (R1-5) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo las Positas Multi-Purpose Project (R1- 6) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo Mocho Bypass and Regional Storage at Chain of Lakes (R6-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo Mocho Management Plan (R6-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Arroyo Seco Improvements (R2-2) East Zone 7 Ash Creek Stormwater Management and Wildlife Enhancement Project North Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Assessment of an urban watershed and implementation of urban stormwater retrofit projects East Friends of Sausal Creek Bay Area Green Infrastructure Initiative: Scientific support related to planning and implementation of water infrastructure upgrades toward green alternatives East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute Bay Area Regional Desalination Project (BARDP) - Alternative Analysis Report East South West EBMUD, CCWD, Zone 7, SCVWD, SFPUC Bay Area Regional Reliability Interties - EBMUD/CCWD East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC Bay Area Regional Water Conservation and Education Program East North South West Zone 7 Water Agency, San Francisco PUC and Contra Costa Water District Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) – East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Short-Term Water Transfer Pilot Project (Pilot Project) East South West Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Brackish Groundwater Field Investigation Project (Brackish Groundwater Project) East South West BAWSCA (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency) Bay Point Regional Shoreline Wetland Restoration East East Bay Regional Park District Bay-Friendly Landscape Standards for Green Infrastructure Projects: Maximizing Watershed Benefits East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition Bay-Friendly Outreach Campaign for Home Gardeners and Nurseries East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition Bay-Friendly Qualified Landscape Professionals Training East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project West City of Redwood City Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 2 East EBMUD Beach Watch Program North South West Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association Bel Marin Keys Phase of the Hamilton Wetlands Restoration North Coastal Conservancy Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District Bockman Canal Area Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Bolinas Avenue Stormwater Quality Improvements and Fernhill Creek Restoration North Town of Ross Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration Project North Marin County Open Space District Breuner Marsh Restoration, Richmond East East Bay Regional Park District Building Climate Change Resiliency Along the Bay with Green Infrastructure & Treated Wastewater East North South San Francisco Estuary Partnership Butano Creek Stream Course Restoration West California State Parks Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 East Contra Costa Water District Capacity Improvement at Arroyo las Positas (R1-7) East Zone 7 Water Agency Castro Valley Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CCCSD Refinery Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CCCSD-Concord Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Central Dublin RW Distribution and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District Central/Eastshore Pump Station Improvement Project East City of Alameda Cesar Chavez Street Flood and Stormwater Managment Sewer Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Chabot Canal Improvement Project (R8-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Charcot Storm Pump Station South City San Jose Chelsea Wetlands Restoration Project East Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and City of Hercules City of Berkeley Watershed Management Plan East City of Berkeley City of Hayward Recycled Water Project East City of Hayward City of San Jose Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan South City of San Jose City Watersheds of Sonoma Valley North Sonoma County Water Agency Cleaning up trash in the Bay Area's stormwater East North South West Association of Bay Area Governments/SF Estuary Partnership Collaborative Aquatic Resource Protection in the Watershed Context: Science and Technology to Visualize Alternative Landscape Futures North San Francisco Estuary Institute Conserving Our Watersheds North Marin Resource Conservation District Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network East Contra Costa County Contra Costa County LID School Program East The Watershed Project Contra Costa County Low Impact Development Rebate Program East The Watershed Project Corte Madera Bayfront Flood Protection and Wetlands Restoration Project North Marin Audubon Society/Marin Bayland Advocates Corte Madera Creek Headwaters Restoration Plan North Marin County Parks Corte Madera Creek Tidal Marsh Restoration North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed; Marin County Water Conservation and Flood Control District; Marin County Parks Dept. Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Broadmoor Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Fairfax Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Lefty Gomez Field Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Loma Alta Tributary Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Memorial Park Detention Basin, San Anselmo North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Merwin Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Nokomis- Madrone Neighborhood Flood Protection North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - San Anselmo Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Sleepy Hollow Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed Infiltration and Storage Assessment North Ross Valley Watershed Program, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed Corte Madera Creek Watershed Sediment Control and Drinking Water Reliability Project North Marin Municipal Water District Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Barriers to Fish Passage in Sleepy Hollow Creek North Town of San Anselmo, Marin County Department of Public Works Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Saunders Fish Barrier Removal North Town of San Anselmo, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Ross Valley Sanitary District Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Sedimentation Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Smolt Trapping North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed Creek Signage East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Cull Canyon Dam and Reservoir Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District DA 48B Storm Drain Line A at Port Chicago Highway, Bay Point (#201) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District DA 48C Storm Drain Line at Marina Road, Bay Point (#_) East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Daly City Expansion Recycled Water Project West SFPUC, City of Daly City DDSD Advanced Wastewater Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DDSD Advanced Water Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Decoto District Green Streets Phase 3 East City of Union City DERWA Pump Station 1 - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District DERWA Recycled Water Plant - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District Developing a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Proposal (CREP) to improve water quality and protect rangeland habitats in the Bay Area East North South West Defenders of Wildlife Diablo Country Club Satellite Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Alameda East EBMUD East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Oakland-Alameda Estuary Crossing East EBMUD East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Palo Alto Groundwater Supply Conjunctive Use Project South West City of East Palo Alto East Palo Alto Storm Water Conveyance, Tidal Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreational Enhancement Project West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority EBMUD - Pretreatment Facilities East EBMUD EBMUD/ZONE 7 Regional Reliability Intertie East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 3 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Exterior Painting of Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District Fish Barrier Removal at Railroad Overcrossing (R3-5b) East Zone 7 Water Agency Fish Passage Improvements at Memorial County Park, San Mateo County West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Goat Island Marsh Tidal Marsh Restoration & Interpretive Nature Trail North Solano Land Trust Grant Avenue Green Street Water Quality/Flood Protection Demonstration Site East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Grayson and Murderer's Creek Subregional Improvements, Pleasant Hill (#106) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Grayson Creek Levee Raising and Rehabilitation, Pacheco (#_) East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Grayson Creek Levee Rehabilitation at CCCSD Treatment Plant, Pacheco (#107) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Grayson Creek Sediment Removal, Pacheco (unincorp.)(#109) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Grimmer Greenbelt Gateway (Line G Channel Enhancement) East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hayward Marsh Restoration and Enhancement Project East East Bay Regional Park District Headquarters Facility - Landscaping East Alameda County Water District Hillman Area Improvements Project West City of Belmont Holmes Street Sedimentation Basin and Granada/Murrieta Protection and Enhancement Project (R3-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Implementation of High Priority Projects Identified in the Pilarcitos Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) Implementation of Pond Management Plan West Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Implementation of the Napa River Watershed Assessment Framework North Napa County Resource Conservation District Implementing "Slow It, Spread It, Sink It!" in Sonoma and Napa Counties North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District Implementing LandSmart Plans to Improve Water Quality North Napa County Resource Conservation District Implementing TMDLs in the Napa River, Sonoma and Suisun Creek watersheds with the Fish Friendly Farming/Fish Friendly Ranching programs North California Land Stewardship Institute Improving Quantitative Precipitation Information for the San Francisco Bay Area East North South West Zone 7 Water Agencies for Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) Installation of a New Seismic Valve at Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District Laguna Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Lagunitas Booster Station North Marin Municipal Water District Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project North Marin Municipal Water District Lagunitas Creek Winter Habitat Enhancement Implementation North Marin Municipal Water District Lake Chabot Raw Water Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) LID and Stormwater Management - Lagunitas Watershed North The Watershed Project Line G-1-1 Maintenance Plan (R9-6 ) East Zone 7 Water Agency Line T Crossing Retrofit (R9-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Lower Arroyo del Valle Restoration and Enhancement Project (R7-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Lower Arroyo Mocho Improvement Project (R8-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez (#110) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Lynch Canyon Watershed Improvements North Solano Land Trust Mapping Marin County's Flood Control Levees North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Marin County Flood Control Asset Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Marin County Sea Level Rise Land Use Adaptation North Marin County CDA Martinez Adult School Flood Protection & Creek Enhancement East Martinez Unified School District Martinez Water Quality and Supply Reliability Improvement Project East City of Martinez / Contra Costa Water District McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration Project North Marin County Parks Memorial Park Waste Water Treatment West San Mateo County Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County Miller Avenue Green Street Plan North City of Mill Valley Milliken Creek Flood Reduction, Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration North Napa County Milliken Diversion Dam Flow Control North City of Napa Water Division Mission Boulevard to Meek Estate Creekside Trail and Habitat Improvements East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mission Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Montalvin Manor Stormwater Harvest and Use, Bioretention, and Flood Risk Reduction Project East Contra Costa County Montezuma Creek Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Project North Marin County Parks Department Mountain View/ Sunnyvale Recycled Water Intertie Alignment Study South City of Mountain View Napa County Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Wells North Napa County Napa River Arundo Removal Lodi Lane to Zinfandel Lane North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Napa River Restoration, Bioassessment & Education Project North Napa County Resource Conservation District Napa River Restoration: Oakville to Oak Knoll Reach North Napa County Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project North Napa County New Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Station West Westborough Water District New Tank Mixer for Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Construction Project East Alameda County Water District NMWD Gallagher Well and Pipeline Project North North Marin Water District North Bay Water Reuse Program North North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) North Marin Water District Marin Country Club Recycled Water Expansion North North Marin Water District North Richmond Pump Station - Retrofit and Replumb East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Pacheco Marsh Restoration, Martinez (#111) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District / Muir Heritage Land Trust / East Bay Regional Park District Palo Alto Golf Course Redesign Wetlands Enhancement and Restoration Project South City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Recycled Water Project South West City of Palo Alto Parks Floodplain Dedication and Levee Construction (R3-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Peacock Gap Recycled Water Extension Project North Marin Municipal Water District Permanente Creek Flood Protection South Santa Clara Valley Water District Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project West County of San Mateo Department of Public Works and Parks Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV North City of Petaluma, Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Pilarcitos Creek Equestrian Bridge West California State Parks Pine Creek Dam Seismic Assessment, Walnut Creek (#122) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Pine Creek Reservoir Sediment Removal and Capacity Restoration, Walnut Creek (#124) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Pinole Creek Fish Passage Improvements project at I-80 Culverts East Contra Costa RCD Pinole Creek Habitat Restoration (1135 Project), Pinole (#12) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Portola Redwood State Park Wastewater System West (unknown) Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit for County and Federal Facilities East Dublin San Ramon Services District Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Redwood City Recycled Water Project Phase 2 – Central Redwood City West City of Redwood City Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 North Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Refugio Creek and North Channel Restoration East City of Hercules Regional Green Infrastructure Capacity Building Program East North South West SFEP Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project West SFPUC, Cities of Daly City and San Bruno and California Water Service Company Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy East North South West Bay Area Joint Policy Committee Reliez Valley Recycled Water Project East EBMUD Removing Fish Passage Barriers in the Napa River Watershed North Napa County Resource Conservation District Resilient Landscapes Climate Adaptation Strategy: Tools for Designing Sustainable Bay Area Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute - Aquatic Science Center Rheem Creek Conservation Project (Shortcut Pipeline Improvement Project) East Contra Costa Water District Richardson Bay Erosional Shoreline Adaptation to Sea Level Rise: Draft Conceptual Designs and Opportunity/Constraints Assessment North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project - Future Expansion East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Rindler Creek: Habitat Restoration and Erosion Control North Solano Resource Conservation District Robertson Park Enhancement Project and Levee Construction (R3-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Rodeo Creek Sediment Removal, Rodeo (#14) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Rodeo Creek Stabilization near Christie Road, Rodeo (#16) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Rodeo Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main upgrades South Roseview Heights Mutual Water Company Rossmoor Well Replacement Project East City of Pittsburg Rubber Dam No. 1 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District Rubber Dam No. 3 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District Rush Ranch HQ Storm Water Management, Public Access & Rangeland Improvements North Solano Land Trust Salvador Creek Intregrated Flood and Watershed Improvements North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Catanio Creek culvert repair and enhancement East City of San Ramon San Francisco Bay Livestock and Land Program East North South West Ecology Action San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh-Upland Transition Zone Decision Support System (DSS) East North South West San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory San Francisco Eastside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility West City and County of San Francisco, Airport Commission San Francisco Westside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation Project, Highway 101 to El Camino Real South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority San Francisquito Watershed Plan South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority San Geronimo Landowner Assistance Program- Habitat Restoration Projects North Marin County Department of Public Works/SG Planning Group San Gregorio Creek Tributary Water Quality and Flow Monitoring West San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center San José Green Alleys Demonstration Project South City of San Jose San José Green Streets Demonstration Project South City of San Jose San Leandro Creek Environmental Education Center, Alameda County East Alameda Count Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Leandro Creek Hazard Tree Management and Riparian Habitat Restoration East ACFCWCD San Leandro Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Tidal Wetlands Restoration East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Major Fish Passage Barrier Removal (MB-10) Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Stewardship Program East Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District San Pablo Bay South Watershed Awareness and Action Plan East The Watershed Project San Pablo Bay South Watershed Community Stewardship Program East The Watershed Project San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 2A (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 3 - 4 (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 5-6 (DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority Santa Clara Valley Water District Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility Expansion Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant Project East EBMUD Sausal Creek Restoration Project East City of Oakland SCADA System Major Upgrades East Alameda County Water District School District Green Infrastructure Capacity Building/Pilot Projects East West San Francisco Estuary Partnership Sears Point Restoration Project North Sonoma Land Trust SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAVEL CREEK WATERSHED North Vedanta Society of San Francisco SFPUC Eastside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West SFPUC SFPUC Westside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Shinn Pond Fish Screen East Alameda County Water District Sinbad Creek Project (R11-2) East Zone 7 Water Agency Solano Project Terminal Reservoir Seismic Mitigation North Solano County Water Agency Sonoma Valley Groundwater Banking Program North Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma Valley Integrated Water Management Program North Sonoma County Water Agency Soulajule Mercury Remediation North Marin Municipal Water District South Bay Aqueduct Turnout Construction and Low-Flow Crossings (R3-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project & South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study: Early Implementation Activities South California State Coastal Conservancy South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Model Enhancements East EBMUD South East Bay Plain Basin Subsidence Monitoring Network East EBMUD South San Francisco Recycled Water Facility West South San Francisco/SFPUC Southwestern Solano County Open Space Acquisition and Watershed Assessment North Solano Land Trust Spring Branch Creek Tidal Marsh & Seasonal Creek Restoration North Solano Land Trust Springtown Golf Course Improvements (R1-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Springtown Improvements (R1-3) East Zone 7 Water Agency Stanley Enhancement and Restoration Project (R3-5a) East Zone 7 Water Agency Stinson Beach flood protection and habitat enhancement project North Marin County Department of Public Works Stivers Lagoon Marsh Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Streambank and Habitat Restoration Projects East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Study of Mercury methylation in South San Francisco Bay in Relation to Nutrient Sources South San Francisco Estuary Institute Suisun City Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project North City of Suisun City Suisun Valley Flood Management North Solano County Water Agency Sulphur Creek/Hayward Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Sycamore Grove Recharge Bypass Project (R4- 1 ) East Zone 7 Water Agency Tassajara Creek Improvement Project (R8-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency The Bay Area Creek Mouth Assessment Tool East North South West San Francisco Estuary Partnership The Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW) Project East North West PRBO Conservation Science Tice Creek Bypass (Drainage Area 67), Walnut Creek, CA (#117) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Tomales Bay Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Improvement Program North Tomales Bay Watershed Council Foundation Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Project East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Tule Ponds Education Center Rehabilitation East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Upland Transition Zone Mapping for Southern San Pablo Bay (West): North Gallinas Watershed Council/Marin County DPW/marin County Parks and Openspace Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery Project East SFPUC Upper Arroyo de la Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project (R8-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency Upper Napa River Water Quality Improvement and Habitat Enhancement Project North California Land Stewardship Institute Upper York Creek Dam Removal -- St. Helena, Napa River Watershed North City of St. Helena/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Velocity Control Project (R2-1) East Zone 7 Water Agency Veterans' Court Seawall Reconstruction East City of Alameda Vista Grande Drainage Basin Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Walnut Creek Levee Rehabilitation at Buchanan Field Airport, Concord (#119) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Walnut Creek Sediment Removal - Clayton Valley Drain to Drop Structure 1 , Concord (#118) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement East Delta Diablo Sanitation District Water Conservation and Mobile Water Lab Program North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District Water Dog Lake Sediment Removal West City of Belmont Water Supply and Instream Habitat Improvements in Suisun Creek North Ca. Land Stewardship Institute Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project East City of Pittsburg Watershed Information Center & Conservancy of Napa County North County of Napa Westborough Main Pump Station Generator West Westborough Water District Western Dublin Recycled Water Distribution Expansion and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District White Slough Flood Control and Improvement Project North Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Restoration and Management Plan East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Wildcat Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration (1135)(#7) East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Wildcat Creek Watershed Erosion and Sediment Control Project East East Bay Regional Park District Wildcat Sediment Basin Desilt, North Richmond (#5) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District Wildcat/San Pablo Creeks Phase II Channel Improvements, San Pablo (#9) East City of San Pablo Zone 1 Recycled Water- Pleasant Hill Build Out East Contra Costa Sanitary District Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission All San Francisco Bay Plan Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay Amended periodically http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/laws_pl ans/plans/sfbay_plan.shtml San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission All Living With a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. 2011 Multiple activities within the Baylands San Francisco Bay No http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/Livi ngWithRisingBay.pdf San Francisco Bay Joint Venture All Restoring the Estuary: A Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Wetlands and Wildlife in the San Francisco Bay Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay http://www.sfbayjv.org/strategy. php#implementation_strategy San Francisco Estuary Project All Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 2007 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay Yes http://www.sfestuary.org/pages/i ndex.php?ID=7 San Franscisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board All Watershed Management Intiative Integrated Plan 2004 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Bay Area Region No San Franscisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board All San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). 2011 Water Quality Bay Area Region Yes (periodically) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/r wqcb2/basin_planning.shtml SFBA Wetland Ecosystem Goals Project All Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals 1999 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay No State Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service and Restoration Center, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and San Francisco Estuary Partnership All San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report, Conservation Planning for the Submerged Areas of the Bay 2010 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Francisco Bay No USFWS All Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California 2009 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ es/Recovery-Planning/Tidal- Marsh/es_recovery_tidal-marsh- recovery.htm Bay Area Open Space Council All The Conservation Lands Network, San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project Report 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Bay Area Region http://www.bayarealands.org/ Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association All Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection 1999 Stormwater Management Bay Area Region No California Coastal Commission All California's Critical Coastal Areas, San Francisco Bay Region 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Bay Area Region Yes (periodically) Bay Area Regional Reliability All Drought Contingency Plan 2018 Multiple activities within the Baylands Bay Area Region http://www.bayareareliability.co m/top-menu/documents/ Alameda County E Clean Water Program, Stormwater Management Plan no date Stormwater management Alameda County Yes ( every 5 years) www.acgov.org/sustain/what/wa ter/cwpc.htm 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-1 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Alameda County Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency E South Bay Aqueduct Watershed Protection Program Plan 2008 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Alameda County Water District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Zone 7 service areas Yes (as needed) http://www.acwd.org/?nid=161 Alameda County Water District E 2015-2020 Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Alameda County Water District service area. Yes (every 5 years) https://www.acwd.org/Document Center/View/1264/ACWDs-2015- --2020-UWMP?bidId= City of Berkeley E Watershed Management Plan 2011 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management, Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration City of Berkeley http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/upl oadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _City_Council/2011/10Oct/Wate rshed%20Management%20Plan .pdf City of Hayward E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Hayward Yes (every 5 years) https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/docum ents/City%20of%20Hayward%2 0Final%202015%20UWMP.pdf City of Livermore E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Livermore Yes (every 5 years) City of Pittsburg E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Pittsburg Yes (every 5 years) http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/Mo dules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc umentid=8283 City of Pleasanton E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Pleasanton Yes (every 5 years) http://admin.cityofpleasantonca. gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.a spx?BlobID=33966 Contra Costa County E Stormwater Management Plan, 1999 2004 Stormwater management Contra Costa County http://www.cccleanwater.org/_p dfs/CCCWPSWMP99-04.pdf Contra Costa Clean Water Program E Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan 2019 Stormwater management Contra Costa County https://www.cccleanwater.org/re sources/stormwater-resource- plan Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District E The 50 Year Plan 2009 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District service area http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/DocumentView.asp x?DID=6853 Contra Costa Water District E Historical Freshwater and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay 2010 Salt and Salinity Management Contra Costa Water District service area http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterri ghts/water_issues/programs/ba y_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhibits/s wrcb/swrcb_ccwd2010.pdf Contra Costa Water District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Contra Costa Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ccwater.com/Docu mentCenter/View/2216/2015- Urban-Water-Management-Plan- PDF 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-2 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Contra Costa Water District E Water Management Plan 2017 Urban Water Management Contra Costa Water District service area https://www.ccwater.com/Docu mentCenter/View/3881/2017- Water-Management-Plan-Draft- PDF Contra Costa Water District E Treated Water Master Plan 2015 Urban Water Management Contra Costa Water District service area https://www.ccwater.com/Docu mentCenter/View/545/2015- Treated-Water-Master-Plan- Update-PDF Delta Diablo Sanitation District E Sewer System Management Plan 2008 Wastewater and Recycled Water Delta Diablo Sanitation District service area not accessible online Diablo Water District E Groundwater Management Plan for AB 3030 2007 Groundwater Management Diablo Water District service area. http://www.diablowater.org/docu ments/pdfs/DiabloWDGWMP5- 23-07.pdf Diablo Water District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Diablo Water District service area.Yes (every 5 years) http://diablowater.org/doc/194/ Dublin San Ramon Services District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Dublin San Ramon Services District service area Yes (every 5 years)https://www.dsrsd.com/home/sh owdocument?id=2890 Dublin San Ramon Services District E Water Master Plan Update 2016 Water Supply Dublin San Ramon Services District service area https://www.dsrsd.com/home/sh owdocument?id=2816 East Bay Municipal Utility District E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management East Bay Municipal Utility District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ebmud.com/water/a bout-your-water/water- supply/urban-water- management-plan/ East Bay Municipal Utility District E Main Wastewater Treatment Plant Land Use Master Plan EIR 2011 Wastewater and Recycled Water East Bay Municipal Utility District service area No East Bay Municipal Utility District E Water Supply Management Program 2040 2012 Water Supply East Bay Municipal Utility District service area http://www.ebmud.com/sites/def ault/files/pdfs/wsmp-2040- revised-final-plan.pdf Zone 7 E Stream Management Master Plan 2006 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Zone 7 service area Yes (update underway) http://www.zone7water.com/final- smmp Zone 7 E Groundwater Management Plan for Livermore Amador Valley Groundwater Basin 2005 Groundwater Management Zone 7 service area Yes (as needed) http://www.zone7water.com/ima ges/pdf_docs/water_supply/gmp- covertablecontents.pdf Zone 7 E Salt/Nutrient Management Plan 2004 Salt and Salinity Zone 7 service area Yes (update underway) http://www.zone7water.com/publ ications-reports/water- reportsplanning-documents/158- salt-management-plan-2004 Zone 7 E Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Zone 7 service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.zone7water.com/im ages/pdf_docs/water_supply/ur ban_water_mgmt_plan_2015.pd f 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-3 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Zone 7 E Water Supply Evaluation 2019 Water Supply/Urban Water Management Zone 7 service area Yes (as needed) https://www.dropbox.com/s/fzhd f6olhcvnmyc/2019%20WSE%2 0Update.pdf?dl=0 Zone 7 E Sustainable Water Supply Annual Review 2011 Water Supply/Urban Water Management Zone 7 service area Yes (annually) http://www.zone7water.com/sust ainable-water-supply-annual- review-invisible-menu- 553?task=view Zone 7 E Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2010 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Zone 7 service area Yes, database updated as needed http://ww.eastalco- conservation.org/ Zone 7 E Lake Del Valle Reservoir Water Supply Storage Expansion Concept 2018 Water Supply Zone 7 service area https://www.zone7water.com/im ages/pdf_docs/water_supply/lak e_del_valle_firo_report_1-31- 18.pdf Tri Valley Agencies E Joint Tri-Valley Potable Reuse Technical Feasibility Study 2018 Water Supply Tri Valley area (Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton) https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxcy ajryga5j61s/potable_reuse_feas ibility_study_May-2018.pdf?dl=0 Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program E, S, W Regional Recycled Water Master Plan 1999 Wastewater and Recycled Water Bay Area Region Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency E, S, W Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Long Term Water Supply Strategy Phase IIA Final Report 2012 Water Supply Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency service area http://bawsca.org/docs/BAWSC A%20PH%20II%20A%20Final% 20Report_2012_07_03%20Revi sed%20073012.pdf South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project E, S, W South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Final EIR/EIR 2007 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Eden Landing, Alviso and Ravenswood salt pond complexes, south San Francisco Bay No http://www.southbayrestoration. org/EIR/ City of Benicia N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Benicia Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/vert ical/sites/%7BF991A639-AAED- 4E1A-9735- 86EA195E2C8D%7D/uploads/B enicia_2015_UWMP_Final_7.2 0.16.pdf City of Fairfield N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Fairfield Yes (every 5 years) https://fairfield.ca.gov/civicax/fil ebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=1 3707 City of Napa N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Napa Yes (every 5 years) https://www.cityofnapa.org/Docu mentCenter/View/1376/Urban- Water-Management-Program- 2015-Update-PDF?bidId= City of Petaluma N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Petaluma Yes (every 5 years) https://cityofpetaluma.net/wrcd/ pdf/temp/2015UWMPFinal.pdf City of Sonoma N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Sonoma Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sonomacity.org/doc uments/2015-urban-water- management-plan/ 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-4 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link City of Vallejo N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Vallejo Yes (every 5 years) http://www.cityofvallejo.net/com mon/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?ite mId=5570055 Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District N Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Urban Water Management Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District service area Yes (every 5 years) ESA library Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District N Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Action Plan 2010 Water Quality Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District service area http://www.mcstoppp.org/acroba t/AP2010_20050520%20.pdf Marin County Parks N Marin County Parks Road Assessment Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin County Marin County Parks N Marin County Parks Road and Trail Management Plan Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin County http://www.marincounty.org/Dep ts/PK/Our-Work/OS-Main- Projects/RTMP Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program N Action Plan Fiscal Years 2005-2006 through 2009-2010 2012 Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Marin County Yes (annually) http://www.mcstoppp.org/acroba t/AP2010_20050520%20.pdf Marin Municipal Water District N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Water Supply Marin Municipal Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) http://www.marinwater.org/Docu mentCenter/View/4016/MMWD- 2015-UWMP-Final- Report?bidId= Marin Municipal Water District N Vegetation Management Plan 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area Marin Municipal Water District N Mt. Tamalpais Watershed Road and Trail Management Plan and EIR Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area Marin Municipal Water District N Lagunitas Creek Stewardship Plan 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area http://www.marinwater.org/docu ments/Lagunitas_Creek_Stewar dship_Plan_MMWD_Final_June _2011.pdf Marin Municipal Water District N Lagunitas Creek Unpaved Roads Sediment Source Site Assessment 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin Municipal Water District service area http://marinwater.org/Document Center/View/182/Lagunitas- Creek-Review-and-Evaluation- June-2011?bidId= Marin Municipal Water District N Water Resources Plan 2040 2016 Urban Water Management Marin Municipal Water District service area www.marinwater.org/Document Center/View/5095 Napa County Resource Conservation District N Napa River Watershed Owners Manual: An Integrated Resource Management Plan no date Water Supply Napa County Resource Conservation District service area No http://www.napawatersheds.org/ docManager/ Napa County Resource Conservation District N 2005-06 Strategic Plan 2005 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Napa County Resource Conservation District service area http://www.napawatersheds.org/ files/managed/Document/3900/ FinalWICCStratPlan05-06.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-5 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Napa County Resource Conservation District N Carneros Creek Watershed Management Plan 2005 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Napa County Resource Conservation District service area http://www.napawatersheds.org/ docs.php?ogid=10423 Napa Sanitation District N Wastewater Treatment Plan Master Plan 2011 Wastewater and Recycled Water Napa Sanitation District service area No http://www.napasanitationdistrict .com/treatment/wtpmp.html North Bay Water Reuse Authority N North Bay Water Reuse Program 2010 Wastewater and Recycled Water North Bay Water Reuse Authority service area No http://www.nbwra.org/docs/index .html North Bay Watershed Association N North Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan 2003 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration North Bay Watershed Association membership area No http://www.nbwatershed.org/SW P/ph1/Ph1_ExecSummary.pdf North Marin Water District N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management North Marin Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.nmwd.com/pdf/FIN AL%20North%20Marin%20UW MP%20Master%202015.pdf Novato Sanitary District N Sewer System Management Plan 2010 Wastewater and Recycled Water Novato Sanitary District service area No http://www.novatosan.com/asse ts/files/documents/Final_SSMP _2010_revJune2011.pdf Solano County Water Agency N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Solano County Water Agency Yes (every 5 years)http://www.scwa2.com/home/sh owdocument?id=2798 Sonoma County Water Agency N Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Plan 2007 Groundwater Management Sonoma County Water Agency service area No http://sonomavalleygroundwater .org/wp- content/uploads/Sonoma-Valley- Groundwater-Management-Plan- 2007.pdf Sonoma County Water Agency N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Sonoma County Water Agency service area Yes (every 5 years) https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.c om/media/185/media/164720.P DF Sonoma County Water Agency N Sewer System Management Plans (All Service Areas)2006 Wastewater and Recycled Water Sonoma County Water Agency service area No http://www.scwa.ca.gov/sewer- system-management-plans/ Sonoma County Water Agency N Water Supply Strategies Action Plan 2013 Water Supply, Groundwater Management Sonoma County Water Agency service area https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.c om/185/media/164687.pdf Sonoma County Water Agency N Sonoma County Stream Maintenance Program Manual and EIR 2011 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Sonoma County Water Agency service area http: www.scwa.ca.gov/lower.php?ur s=environmenal-impact reportss#smp Suisun Solano Water Authority N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Suisun Solano Water Authority service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sidwater.org/Docum entCenter/View/1151/SSWA_20 15-UWMP-FINAL_8-15- 16?bidId= The Marin County Community Development Agency, Planning Division N Watershed Management Plan 2004 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Marin County No http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts /CD/main/comdev/Watershed/ WMP_Pt1.pdf 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-6 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Tomales Watershed Council N Tomales Bay Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan 2007 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Tomales Bay watershed http://www.tomalesbaywatershe d.org/informationreports.html Valley of the Moon Water District N Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Valley of the Moon Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f 7204b_0b944a237b264fb29463 0cc4b82619ba.pdf Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District N Sewer System Management Plan no date Wastewater and Recycled Water Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District service area not accessible online City of Milpitas S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Milpitas Yes (every 5 years) http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/Adopt ed-2015-Milpitas-UWMP- Revised-6-27-16.pdf City of Morgan Hill S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Morgan Hill Yes (every 5 years) https://www.morgan- hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/Vie w/22998/MorganHill_2015UWM P_FinalWithErrata_051018 City of Mountain View S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Mountain View Yes (every 5 years) https://www.mountainview.gov/c ivicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx? BlobID=19444 City of San Jose S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of San Jose Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Doc umentCenter/View/57483 City of San Jose S San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan 2011 Wastewater and Recycled Water, Flood Protection, Habitat Restoration San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant lands No http://www.rebuildtheplant.org/g o/site/1823/ City of Santa Clara S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Santa Clara Yes (every 5 years) http://santaclaraca.gov/home/sh owdocument?id=48088 Santa Clara Basin WatershedManagement Initiative S Watershed Action Plan 2003 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Santa Clara Basin Watershed http://cf.valleywater.org/_wmi/P articipates_login/Participates/W AP/draft/Actiondraft0803.cfm Santa Clara Valley Urban Run-off Program S Santa Clara Valley Urban Run-off Pollution Prevention Program 2004 Stormwater and Groundwater Management Santa Clara Valley Water District service area http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/urmp_2004/2004_UR MP_Final.pdf Santa Clara Valley Water District S One Water Plan Flood Protection and Stormwater Management; Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration; Water Supply Santa Clara County https://onewaterplan.wordpress. com/ Santa Clara Valley Water District S Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2012 Groundwater Management Santa Clara Valley Water District service area http://www.valleywater.org/Servi ces/Groundwater.aspx 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-7 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Santa Clara Valley Water District S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Santa Clara County Yes (every 5 years) https://www.valleywater.org/site s/default/files/SCVWD%202015 %20UWMP-Report%20Only.pdf Santa Clara Valley Water District S Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan 2012 Water Supply Santa Clara County Yes (every 5 years) http://www.valleywater.org/Servi ces/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx Santa Clara Valley Water District S Water Supply Master Plan In Proce ss Water Supply Santa Clara Valley Water District service area https://www.valleywater.org/site s/default/files/Draft%20WSMP %202040%20Complete_v2.pdf South Bay Water Recycling and Santa Clara Valley Water District S South Bay Water Recycling Strategic and Master Plan 2014 Wastewater and Recycled Water Santa Clara County https://www.valleywater.org/site s/default/files/335%20P3%20Re lated%20Reports%20SBWR%2 0Stratigic%20and%20Master% 20Plan%20- %20Report%20%28Vol.1%29% 20%281%29.pdf City of Palo Alto S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Palo Alto Yes (every 5 years) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ci vicax/filebank/documents/51985 Great Oaks Water Company S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Southern San Jose Yes (every 5 years) https://www.greatoakswater.co m/OtherPDFs/2015UrbanWater ManagementPlan.pdf City of Sunnyvale S Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Sunnyvale Yes (every 5 years) https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com /LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=276 1621&GUID=A221A3CC-14F2- 49A9-B9DE- 54ECC6359DC9&Options=&Se arch= California Water Service Company S Urban Water Management Plan 2011 Urban Water Management The majority of the incorporated city of Los Altos, fringe sections of the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and adjacent unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Yes (every 5 years) https://www.calwater.com/docs/ uwmp2015/las/2015_Urban_Wa ter_Management_Plan_Final_(L AS).pdf San Jose Water Company S Urban Water Management Plan 2011 Urban Water Management Most of San Jose, most of Cupertino, Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated Santa Clara County Yes (every 5 years) http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanw atermanagement/2010uwmps/S an%20Jose%20Water%20Com pany/SJWC'S%202010%20UW MP%20with%20Appendicies.pd f 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-8 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Santa Clara Valley Water District S Santa Clara Subbasin Salt and Nutrient Management Plan 2014 Stormwater and Groundwater Management; Wastewater and Recycled Water Northern Santa Clara County Santa Clara Valley Water District S Infrastructure Reliability Plan 2005 Water Supply Santa Clara County Yes (in process) Santa Clara Valley Water District S Three Creeks Habitat Conservation Plan 2015 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Coyote Creek, Guadalupe River, and Stevens Creek Watersheds in Santa Clara County No City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District S Valley Habitat Plan 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration Most of Santa Clara County http://scv- habitatplan.org/www/site/alias__ default/1/home.aspx City of Mountain View S Recycled Water Master Plan In Proce ss Wastewater and Recycled Water City of Mountain View San Jose Water Company S Recycled Water Master Plan 2008 Wastewater and Recycled Water City of Sunnyvale S Recycled Water Master Plan Wastewater and Recycled Water City of Sunnyvale City of Burlingame W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Burlingame Yes (every 5 years) https://www.burlingame.org/doc ument_center/Water/2015%20U rban%20Water%20Managemen t%20Plan.pdf City of Daly City W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Daly City Yes (every 5 years) http://www.dalycity.org/Assets/D epartments/Water+and+Waste water/pdf/City+of+Daly+City+20 15+UWMP_Public+Review+Dra ft_Full+Report.pdf City of East Palo Alto W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of East Palo Alto Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ci.east-palo- alto.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Vie w/2714 City of Menlo Park W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Menlo Park Yes (every 5 years) https://www.menlopark.org/Doc umentCenter/View/10111/2015- Urban-Water-Managment- Plan?bidId= City of Millbrae W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Millbrae Yes (every 5 years) https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/ho me/showdocument?id=7918 City of Redwood City W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of Redwood City Yes (every 5 years) http://www.redwoodcity.org/hom e/showdocument?id=8091 City of San Bruno W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City of San Bruno Yes (every 5 years) https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civ icax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?bl obid=27012 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-9 Appendix D: Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Agency IRWM Subregion Title of Plan Year Water Management Activity Addressed in Plan Jurisdiction or Area Is Plan Updated Periodically (Y/N)? (Update Interval in Years) Link Estero Municipal Improvement District W Urban Water Management Plan 2011 Urban Water Management Estero Municipal Improvement District service area Yes (every 5 years) http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanw atermanagement/2010uwmps/E stero%20Municipal- Foster%20City/ Mid-Peninsula Water District W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Mid-Peninsula Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://storage.googleapis.com/ midpeninsulawater- org/uploads/MPWD_2015%20U WMP_Final.pdf National Heritage Institute W San Gregorio Creek Watershed Management Plan 2012 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Gregorio Creek Watershed No North Coast County Water District W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management North Coast County Water District service area Yes (every 5 years) https://www.nccwd.com/images/ PDFs/North_Coast_County_Wa ter_District_2015_UWMP_June _15_2016.pdf San Francisco Public Utilities Commission W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management City and County of San Francisco Yes (every 5 years) https://sfwater.org/modules/sho wdocument.aspx?documentid= 9300 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission W Sewer System Improvement Program Report 2010 Wastewater, watershed management City and County of San Francisco http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?pa ge=117 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission W Sources and Supply Planning 2012 Water Supply City and County of San Francisco www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?pa ge=75 San Mateo County W Sewer System Management Plan 2009 Wastewater and Recycled Water San Mateo County http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/p ublicworks/Divisions/Flood%20 Control,%20Lighting,%20Sewer %20and%20Water/Sewer%20S ervices/San%20Mateo%20Co% 20SSMP_1.pdf San Mateo County Resource Conservation District W Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plan 2008 Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration San Mateo County No www.sanmateorcd.org/Pilarcitos IntWtrshdMgmPlan_TxtFigs.pdf Town of Hillsborough W Urban Water Management Plan 2016 Urban Water Management Town of Hillsborough Yes (every 5 years) https://www.hillsborough.net/Do cumentCenter/View/2988/Final- 2015-UWMP-with- Attachments?bidId= California Department of Fish and Game Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration California National Marine Fisheries Service Recovery Plan for Central California Coastal Coho Salmon Watershed Management and Habitat Restoration California 2019 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Local and Regional Water Resource Plan Inventory Page D-10 Appendix E-1 BAIRWMP Master Stakeholder List and Sample Messages Sent to List (note: email addresses have been removed from stakeholder list. For entries that only have an organization, only the email address is known.) First Name Last Name Organization Jeff Aalfs Town of Portola Valley Margaret Abe-Koga City of Mountain View Janet Abelson City of El Cerrito Myrna Abramowicz Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Kristi Abrams City of Gilroy Michael Abramson Napa Sanitation District Ruben Abrica City of East Palo Alto Derek Acomb California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Teresa Acuna Califiornia Special Districts Association Marissa Adams Jones & Stokes Susan Adams County of Marin Susan Adams County of Marin Mark Addiego City of South San Francisco Gary S.Agopian City of Antioch Alicia C.Aguirre City of Redwood City Amy O.Ahanotu City of Rohnert Park Chris Albertson Pat Alexander Napa Valley Museum Pete Alexander East Bay Regional Park District Susan Alfelp Napa County Park and Open Space District Allan Alifano City of Half Moon Bay Emily Allen The Bay Institute Emily Allen PRBO/STRAW James Allen City of Palo Alto Katy Allen City of San Jose Steven Allen Town of Windsor Dean Allison City of Pinole Alex Ameri City of Hayward Candace Andersen Town of Danville Craig Anderson LandPaths Dave Anderson City of Saratoga John Anderson Hedgerow Farms Kellie Anderson Max Anderson City of Berkeley Mike Anderson City of Lafayette Pat Anderson City of Oakley Scott Anderson Town of Tiburon Tim Anderson Sonoma County Water Agency Brandt Andersson City of Lafayette Susan Andrade-Wax City of Pleasanton Greg Andrew Marin Municipal Water District Betty Andrews ESA Carl Anduri City of Lafayette Rick Angrisani City of Clayton Rick Angrisani City of Clayton Marshall Anstandig City of Monte Sereno Ana M.Apodaca City of Newark Alyson Aquino Natural Resources Conservation Service Eddie Arango Corix Peter Arellano City of Gilroy Kurt Arends Zone 7 Water Agency Greg Armendariz City of Milpitas Jennifer Armer City of Rio Vista Newell Arnerich Town of Danville First Name Last Name Organization Carol Arnold Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Judy Arnold County of Marin Jesse Arreguin City of Berkeley Jac Asher City of Emeryville Darcy Aston Napa Sanitation District Ruth Atkin City of Emeryville Kwablah Attiogbe Alameda County Public Works Mitch Avalon Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District John Avalos City and County of San Francisco Steve Babb City of Healdsburg Rachel Babcock Sandy Baily Town of Los Gatos Ian Bain City of Redwood City Mike Bakaldin City of San Leandro Mike Bakaldin City of San Leandro Jason Baker City of Campbell Edward Ballman Balance Hydrologics Michael Ban Marin Municipal Water District Subrata Bandy HDR Curtis Banks City of Foster City Tim Banuelos City of Pinole Sheryl Barbic The Bay Institute Janet Barbieri Jones & Stokes Steve Barbose Vom.com Siavash Barmand City of Belvedere Jill Barnes City of Mill Valley Valerie Barone City of Concord Morris Barr City of Dixon Steve Barr City of Brentwood Erika Barraza Carollo Engineers Teresa Barrett David Barron Butters Canyon Conservancy David Barth California Depatment of Water Resources Scott Bartley City of Santa Rosa Stephanie Bastianon Friends of the Petaluma River Phil Batchelor City of Vallejo Helen Bates Milenka Bates City of Sonoma Nathaniel Bates City of Richmond Tom Bates City of Berkeley Rajeev Batra City of Santa Clara Rajeev Batra, P. E.City of Santa Clara Robert Bauman City of Hayward Victoria Baxter City of San Jose Cathy Baylock City of Burlingame Chris Bazar County of Alameda John Beall Coyote Guadalupe RDC Michele Beasly Greenbelt Alliance Robert Beaumont County of Marin Erin Beavers City of Fairfield Gordon Becker Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR) John Becker City of Newark First Name Last Name Organization Jovanka Beckles City of Richmond Christie Beeman ESA PWA Gina Belforte City of Rohnert Park Doug Bell City of Burlingame Robert B.Bell City of Redwood City Rebecca Benassini City of El Cerrito Ron Bendorff City of Healdsburg Diana Benner The Watershed Nursery Belia R.Bennett City of American Canyon Joan Bennett City of American Canyon Michelle Benvenuto Winegrowers of Napa County Don Berger Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Jim Bergman Town of Windsor Katie Bergmann Natural Resources Conservation Service Allan Berkwitz Environmental Volunteers Andrew Berman City of Mill Valley Yader Bermudez City of Richmond Daniel Bernie Town of Moraga Kevin Berryhill Napa County Public Works Pam Bertani City of Fairfield Martha Berthelsen The Watershed Project Toni Bertolero GHD Dane Besneatte City of Dixon Jack Betoune Napa County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Jack Betourne Betourne Environmental Consulting Robert Beyer City of Fremont Dipti Bhatnagar Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Rhodora Biagtan Dublin San Ramon Services District Jill Bicknell Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Don Biddle City of Dublin Betsy Bikle Wellesley Mandi Billingo Kids for the Bay Victor Bjelajac California Department of Parks and Recreation Kate Black City of Piedmont Jim Blanke RMC Water and Environment Terry Blount City of Martinez Natalya Blumenfeld Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Jill Bluso Demers San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory Phil Bobel City of Palo Alto Astrid Bock-Foster Napa Sustainable Winegrowing Group David Boesch County of San Mateo Rob Bonta City of Alameda Kevin Booker Sonoma County Water Agency Courtland (Corky)Booze City of Richmond Steve Borchard Rios Farming Company Timm Borden City of Cupertino Brian Bordona Napa County CDPD Ann Borgonovo ESA/PWA Susan Boswell Watershed Information Center and Conservancy of Napa County; Sustainable Napa County Mark Boucher Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Gerard Boulanger City of Hercules First Name Last Name Organization Mike Boulland Friends of Los Alamitos Creek Watershed (FOLAW) Constance Boulware City of Rio Vista Josephine Bower San Francisco International Airport Dennis Bowker Private Consultant Pam Boyle Dion Bracco City of Gilroy Dave Bracken Town of Corte Madera David Bracken Town of Corte Madera Jerry Bradshaw City of El Cerrito Josh Bradt Urban Creeks Council Suzanne Bragdon City of Suisun City Larry Bragman Town of Fairfax Susie Brain Friends of Stevens Creek Trail David Braunstein City of Belmont Shawna Brekke-Read Town of Moraga David Briggs Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership Kurt Brinkman City of Emeryville Mike Britten Carollo Engineers Del Britton City of St. Helena Gary Broad City of St. Helena Robert Brockman City of Brentwood Charlie Bronitsky City of Foster City Desley Brooks City of Oakland John Brosnan Sonoma Land Trust Amy Brown City of Campbell John C.Brown City of Petaluma Ken Brown Bear Flag Social Club Marti Brown City of Vallejo Valerie Brown County of Sonoma Michael Brownrigg City of Burlingame Jane Brunner City of Oakland Charles Bryant City of Emeryville Joel Bryant City of Brentwood Kevin Bryant Town of Woodside Ronit Bryant City of Mountain View Julia Bueren Contra Costa County Howard Bunce County of Marin Bob Bundy Corte Madera Flood Board Brad Burkholder California Dept of Fish and Wildlife David Burow Town of Woodside Patrick Burt City of Palo Alto Richard Burtt Town of Windsor Lisa Bush Gerald Butler City of Belvedere Shannon Butler Pacific Watershed Associates Thomas K.Butt City of Richmond Brenda Buxton California State Coastal Conservancy Nicole Byrd Solano Land Trust Ted Cabral Carl Cahill Town of Los Altos Hills Joseph A.Calabrigo Town of Danville Keith Caldwell County of Napa Josept T.Callinan City of Rohnert Park Tom Campbell City of Benicia First Name Last Name Organization David Campos City and County of San Francisco Xavier Campos City of San Jose Chris Canning City of Calistoga Stacey Dolan Capitani Napa Valley Vintners Laurie Capitelli City of Berkeley Manny Cappello City of Saratoga Todd Capurso Town of Los Gatos Janice Carey City of Orinda Michael Carlin San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Ed Carlson Jerry Carlson Town of Atherton Mike Carlson Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stephanie Carlson University of California Berkeley Bill Carmen Larry Carr City of Morgan Hill Efren Carrillo County of Sonoma Keith Carson County of Alameda Maureen Carson City of Vacaville Emmett D.Carson, Ph.D.Silicon Valley Community Foundation Emmett D.Carson, Ph.D.Silicon Valley Community Foundation Eric Cartwright Alameda County Water District Bob Caruso Always Angels David Casas City of Los Altos Will Casey City of Pittsburg Stephen H.Cassidy City of San Leandro L Castilla New Leaf June Catalano City of Pleasant Hill Kristen Cayce San Francisco Estuary Institute Jarnail Chahal Zone 7 Water Agency Tom Chambers City of Healdsburg Wilma Chan County of Alameda Ann Chaney City of Albany Barry Chang City of Cupertino Michael Chang Asian Pacific American Leadership Institute Andre Chapman Unity Care Group Steve Chappel Suisun Resource Conservation District Erin Chappell Department of Water Resources Laura Chariton Daniel Chase WRA, Inc. Kathleen Chasey Martha Walker Garden California Native Habitat Garden Steve Chatham Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Aparna Chatterjee City of Hayward Larry Cheeves City of Union City Jen Chen City of Hillsborough Judy Chen Chinese American Political Association Ann Cheng City of El Cerrito Mintze Cheng City of Union City John Cherbone City of Saratoga Ken Chew Town of Moraga John Chiang City of Piedmont Lewis Chilton Town of Yountville David Chiu City and County of San Francisco Richard Chiu Town of Los Altos Hills First Name Last Name Organization Richard Chiu, Jr., P.E.Town of Los Altos HIlls Paul Choisser Friends of Mount Diablo Creek Chris Choo County of Marin, Department of Public Works Mark Chow San Mateo County Carmen Chu City and County of San Francisco Kansen Chu City of San Jose Lawrence Chu City of Larkspur Rich Cimino Audubon Society Peggy Claassen City of Newark Susannah Clark County of Marin Bill Clarkson City of San Ramon Jennifer Clary Tracy Clay County of Marin Meredith Clement Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Richard Cline City of Menlo Park Brian Cluer National Marine Fisheries Service Alexandra Cock Town of Corte Madera Suzanne Coffee Selby Creek Watershed Partnership Cindy Coffey City of American Canyon Andrew Cohen City of Menlo Park Ellie Cohen PRBO Conservation Science Malia Cohen City and County of San Francisco Walter Cohen City of Oakland Marge Colapietro City of Millbrae John Coleman Bay Planning Coalition Kay Coleman Town of San Anselmo Laurel Collins Richard Collins Town of Tiburon Ron Collins City of San Carlos Andrew Collison ESA Diana Colvin Town of Colma Neal Conatser County of Marin Carla Condon Town of Corte Madera Sean Condry Town of San Anselmo Patrick Congdon Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Craig Conner Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Damon Connolly City of San Rafael Mike Connor San Francisco Estuary Institute Pete Constant City of San Jose Rich Constantine City of Morgan Hill Anthony Constantouros Town of Hillsborough Clarke Conway City of Brisbane Valorie Cook Carpenter City of Los Altos Cheryl Cook-Kallio City of Pleasanton Brent Cooper City of American Canyon Caitlin Cornwall Sonoma Ecology Center Leslie Corp Birgitta E.Corsello County of Solano David D.Cortese County of Santa Clara Gene Cortright City of Fairfield Pat Costello City of Napa Water Division Mark Cowin Department of Water Resources Bob Cox City of Cloverdale Burton Craig City of Monte Sereno First Name Last Name Organization Dave Craig City of San Anselmo Jim Craig City of Sunnyvale Brian Crawford County of Marin Anne Crealock Sonoma County Water Agency Pamela C.Creedon Central Valley RWQCB Jeffrey R.Cristina City of Campbell Thomas H.Cromwell City of Belvedere Sharon Crull City of St. Helena Arturo Cruz City of San Pablo Paul Curfman ESA Paul Curfman Jack Curley County of Marin Peggy Curran Town of Tiburon Richard Currie Union Sanitary District Bene Da Silva County of Marin Cynthia D'Agosta Committee for Green Foothills Linda Dahl County of Marin Tom Dalziel Steve Danehy City of Mill Valley Christine Daniel City of Berkeley Brad Daniels Trout Unlimited Kate Dargan State Fire Marshall, Retired Doug Darling Maeve Daugharty Winzler and Kelly Fran David City of Hayward Debbie Davis Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Debbie Davis Hugh Davis County of Marin James (Jim)Davis City of Antioch Nora Davis City of Emeryville Osby Davis City of Vallejo Ronald Davis City of East Palo Alto Sheila Davis Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Jane Day City of Suisun City Ignacio De La Fuente City of Oakland Hector De La Rosa City of Rio Vista Jerry Deal City of Burlingame Emily Dean Diane Decicio City of San Rafael Chris DeGabriele North Marin Water District Chris DeGroot City of Santa Clara Doug deHaan City of Alameda Peter DeJarnatt City of Pacifica Joanne F.del Rosario Town of Colma Lara DeLaney City of Martinez John Delgado City of Hercules Theresa Della Santa Town of Atherton John Dell'Osso City of Cotati Sonya DeLuca Grape Growers Sonya DeLuca Napa Valley Grape Growers Phillip Demery County of Sonoma Priscillia deMuizon Melanie Denninger California Coastal Conservancy Scott Derdenger City of Belvedere First Name Last Name Organization Sam Derting City of Suisun City Maryann Derwin Town of Portola Valley Greg Desmond City of St. Helena Paul Detjens Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Myrna deVera City of Hercules Carlos Diaz Winzler and Kelly Fred Diaz City of Fremont Sue Digre City of Pacifica Diane Dillon Napa County Robert Dillon City of Gilroy Deanne DiPietro Sonoma Ecology Center Rod Diridon, Sr.Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters Jim Dobbie Town of Atherton Bill Dodd County of Napa Tim Dodson California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Brian Dolan City of Pleasanton Brad Donahue Town of Colma Sandra Donnell City of Belvedere Morgan Doran University of California Agricultural Extension Marita Dorenbecher Town of Yountville John Doughty City of East Palo Alto Jim Downey Lowell Downey ICARE Gary Downing Town of Corte Madera HR Downs Owl Foundation David Dowswell City of Dixon Frank Doyle Town of Tiburon Michael (Mike)Doyle Town of Danville Robert E.Doyle East Bay Regional Parks District Will Drayton Treasury Wine Estates Will Drayton Edward C. (Ted)Driscoll Town of Portola Valley Phong Du City of Redwood City Sara Duckler Santa Clara Valley Water District John Dunbar Town of Yountville Emily Duncan City of Union City Elizabeth Dunn City of Novato Michael Dunsford City of Calistoga Steve Duran City of Richmond Steven Duran City of Hercules David Durant City of Pleasant Hill Scott Dusterhoff Stillwater Sciences Patti Dustman Alameda County Water District Dominic Dutra City of Fremont Anona Dutton Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Beth Dyer Santa Clara Valley Water District Lynn E. Johnson, Phd, Pe National Marine Fisheries Service Teresa Eade Alameda County Waste Management Authority/StopWaste.org Suzanne Easton Blue Ridge Berryessa Natural Area Dean Eckerson Delta Diablo Sanitary District Kathleen Edson Napa County Resource Conservation District First Name Last Name Organization Bill Ekern City of Redwood City Jon Elam Paul R.Eldredge City of Brentwood Wendy Eliot Sonoma Land Trust Sandy Elles Napa County Farm Bureau Claire Elliot Acterra - Stewardship Program Deborah Elliott Napa County Bud Ellis City of Napa Public Works Department Lorrin Ellis City of Union City Ellen Ellsworth City of Novato Sean Elsbernd City and County of San Francisco Richard Emig City of Sebastopol William F.Emlen County of Solano Kristin Ep Belinda B.Espinosa City of Pinole Sid Espinosa City of Palo Alto Tonya Espinoza City of Napa Water Division Jose Esteves City of Milpitas Eric Ettlinger Marin Municipal Water District Linus Eukel Muir Heritage Land Trust A. Peter Evans City of East Palo Alto Amy Evans Alameda County Resource Conservation District Salvatore Evola City of Pittsburg Matt Fabry City of Brisbane Aaron Fairbrook Turtle Island Restoration Network Rina Faletti Univerisity of Texas Steven B.Falk City of Lafayette Anthony Falzone NewFields Erin Farnand City of Napa Public Works Department Erin Farnand City of Napa Public Works Department Mark Farrell City and County of San Francisco Terri Fashing BASMAA Terri Fashing County of Marin Abby Fateman Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Stephanie Faulkner Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Carol Federighi City of Lafayette Coralin Feierbach City of Belmont Bill Feil Friends of Pleasant Hills Creeks Arthur Feinstein Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Leslie Fergson State Water Resources Control Board Veronica A.Ferguson County of Sonoma Kelly Fergusson City of Menlo Park John Ferons City of St. Helena Frederick Ferrer Health Trust Nelson Fialho City of Pleasanton Debra Figone City of San Jose Frank Figone Marin Municipal Water District Jarrett Fishpaw City of Los Altos Helen Fisicaro Town of Colma John Fitzgerald R Warren Flint Five E's Unlimited Steve Flint City of Half Moon Bay Darren Fong National Park Service First Name Last Name Organization Carolyn Ford City of Sausalito Claudette Ford City of Berkeley Will Forney Jones & Stokes Paul Forsberg California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Jim Forsythe City of San Rafael Rosanne Foust City of Redwood City Amy Fowler Santa Clara Valley Water District Rick Fraites County of Marin Charissa Frank Swinerton Incorporated Michael Frank City of Napa Michael Frank City of Novato Paul Frank NewFields Jim Fraser Town of Tiburon Marina Fraser City of Half Moon Bay John Frawley The Bay Institute of San Francisco Jim Frazier City of Oakley Alice Fredericks Town of Tiburon Robin Freeman Peralta Community College Matt Freiberg Matthew Freiberg The Watershed Project Sandra Freitas Santa Clara Basin WMI Maureen Freschet City of San Mateo Nick Frey Pam Frisella City of Foster City Roger Fry Debora Fudge Town of Windsor Margaret Fujioka City of Piedmont Brian Fulfrost San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory Michael Fuller City of Mountain View Michael A.Fuller City of Mountain View Stephen Fuller-Rowell Diane Furst Town of Corte Madera Greg Fuz City of Pleasant Hill Karen Gaan Pat Gacoscos City of Union City Karen Gaffney County of Sonoma Kevin Gailey Town of Danville Tina Gallegos City of San Pablo Laurie Gallian Charlene Gallina City of Calistoga Tom Gandesbery California Coastal Conservancy Richard Garbarino City of South San Francisco Herman Garcia Coastal Habitat Education & Environmental Restoration Leon Garcia City of American Canyon Genoveva Garcia Calloway City of San Pablo Patricia Gardner Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits Shari Gardner Friends of the Napa River Elizabeth Gargay GHD Frances Garland Contra Costa Water District Susan Garner City of Monte Sereno Stewart Gary City of Livermore Victor Garza La Raza Roundtable Dr. Lori Gaskin West Valley College Don Gasser Napa Communities Firewise Foundation First Name Last Name Organization Jeffrey Gee City of Redwood City Debbie Gehret City of Pacifica Howard Geller City of Clayton Andy Gere San Jose Water Company Matt Gerhart California Coastal Conservancy Vince Geronimo AECOM Lorrie Gervin City of Sunnyvale Ben Gettleman Kearns & West, Inc. Geoff Geupel PRBO Conservation Science Sami Ghossain Union Sanitary District Leia Giambastiani PRBO Conservation Science Patricia S.Gilardi City of Cotati Paul Gilbert-Snyder East Bay Municipal Utility District Crisand Giles Building Industry of the Bay Area Jeri Gill Sustainable Napa County Peter Gilli City of Mountain View Marie Gilmore City of Alameda Kelly Gin Natural Resources Conservation Service Jack Gingles City of Calistoga John Gioia County of Contra Costa Debbie Giordano City of Milpitas Hillary Gitelman County of Napa David Gittleson City of Morgan Hill Mayor David Glass Steve Glazer City of Orinda Federal D.Glover County of Contra Costa Fred Glover Blackwell City of Oakland Robin Goble Town of Windsor Brenda Goeden Bay Conservation and Development Commission Glenn Goepfert City of Cupertino Dev Goetschius Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County Steve Goldbeck SF Bay Conservation & Development Commission Jonathon Goldman City of Sausalito Jonathon Goldman City of St. Helena Stephanie Gomes City of Vallejo Armando Gomez City of Milpitas Gabriel A.Gonzalez City of Rohnert Park Ignacio Gonzalez County of Santa Clara Javier Gonzalez Silicon Valley Latino Democratic Forum Juliana Gonzalez The Watershed Project Pedro Gonzalez City of South San Francisco Raquel (Rae)Gonzalez Town of Colma David Goodison City of Sonoma Barry Gordon City of Walnut Creek Deborah C.Gordon Town of Woodside Malila Gordon Bioengineering Institute Susan Gorin City of Santa Rosa Robert G.Gottschalk City of Millbrae Zeke Grader Institute for Fisheries Resources Sue Graham League of Women Voters Robert Grassilli City of San Carlos Matt Graul East Bay Regional Park District David Graves Saintsbury Vineyard and Winery Jeremy Graves City of Sausalito First Name Last Name Organization Allen Grayson Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Mark Green City of Union City Phil Green City of Pinole Ford Greene Town of San Anselmo Russ Greenfield Darren Greenwood City of Livermore Michael J.Gregory City of San Leandro Bailey Grewal City of Brentwood Bailey Grewal City of Brentwood Jack Griffin City of Sebastopol Thomasin Grim Marin Municipal Water Distric Terrence Grindall City of Newark Matt Grocott City of San Carlos Carole Groom County of San Mateo Jan Gross Heritage Landscapes Kara Gross Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network Robin Grossinger San Francisco Estuary Institute Geoffrey L.Grote City of Piedmont Brandt Grotte City of San Mateo Phoebe Grow RMC Water and Environment John Guardino Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Pat Guasco City of Sausalito Sandy Guldman Andy Gunther Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR) Jim Gustafson City of Los Altos Kent Gylfe Sonoma County Water Agency Laurie H. Suda United States Army Corps of Engineers Linda H.Hu East Bay Municipal Utility District Dana Haasz Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Scott Haggerty County of Alameda Tom Haglund City of Gilroy Brad Hall Richard Hall Town of Yountville Richard Hall Yountville Town Council Barbara Halliday City of Hayward Whit Halvorsen The Bay Institute of San Francisco Keith Halvorson City of Pittsburg Leslee Hamilton Friends of Guadalupe River Park and Gardens Lauren Hammack Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Matt Hammer People Acting in Community Together (PACT) Doug Hanford Hanford ARC Scott Hanin City of El Cerrito Erin Hannigan City of Vallejo Eric Hansen South Bay Water Recycling Jeri Hansen-Gill Sustainable Napa County Marilyn Harang City of Redwood City Bree Hardcastle California Department of Parks and Recreation James C.Hardy City of Foster City Steve Hardy City of Vacaville Wade Harper City of Antioch Howard Harpham Town of Moraga Mike Harris Cheryl Harris Napa Solano Audubon First Name Last Name Organization Dilenna Harris City of Vacaville Kelly Harris Bioengineering Institute Richard Harris East Bay Municipal Utility District Bill Harrison City of Fremont Kevin Hart City of Dublin Marshall Hart City of Napa Water Division Roger Hartwell Pam Hartwell-Herrero Town of Fairfax Susan Harvey City of Cotati Ben Harwood Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Daphne Hatch National Park Service Erik Hawk Susan Haydon Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Gretchen Hayes Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project Kathy Hayes Mike Healy Barry Hecht Balance Hydrologics Kara Heckert Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Trathen Heckona Daily Acts Erica Heimberg Turtle Island Restoration Network Kirk Heinrichs City of Campbell Daniel C.Helix City of Concord Barbara Heller City of San Rafael Paul Helliker Marin Municipal Water District Bob Hemati Town of Ross Diane Henderson Town of San Anselmo Olden Henson City of Hayward Iris Herrera Califiornia Special Districts Association Rose Herrera City of San Jose George R.Hicks City of Fairfield Kasie Hildenbrand City of Dublin Daniel Hillmer City of Larkspur Adele Ho City of San Pablo Tan Hoang Rainer Hoenicke San Francisco Estuary Institute John Hoffnagle Land Trust of Napa County Dana Hoggatt City of Pittsburg Barry Hogue Town of Corte Madera Barry Hogue Town of Corte Madera Dwight Holford Upper Putah Creek Stewardship Elise Holland County of Marin Karen Holman City of Palo Alto Marc Holmes Nadia V.Holober City of Millbrae Clayton Holstine City of Brisbane Hanson Hom City of Sunnyvale Parastou Hooshialsadat Winzler and Kelly Dale Hopkins Regional Water Quality Control Board Kathy Hopkins Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Doug Horner City of Livermore Don Horsley County of San Mateo Joseph Horwedel City of San Jose Gregg Hosfeldt City of Mountain View Saeid Hosseini Santa Clara Valley Water District First Name Last Name Organization Jennifer Hosterman City of Pleasanton Vivian Housen Rod Houser Kennedy/Jenks Consultants David Houts Zone 7 Water Agency Angela Howard Town of Portola Valley Joey Howard Dan Hubacher Dave Hudson City of San Ramon Michael J.Hudson City of Suisun City Terry Huff Alameda County Resource Conservation District Mark Hughes City of Benicia Erika Hughes Reis Marin Resource Conservation District Gary Huisingh City of Dublin Gary Huisingh City of Dublin Joan Hultberg Sonoma County Water Agency Beth Huning San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Curtis Hunt City of Vacaville Jill Hunter City of Saratoga Linda Hunter The Watershed Project Linda Hunter The Watershed Project R. Scot Hunter Town of Ross Eliot Hurwitz Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency Larry Husted City of Napa Public Works Department Amy Hutzel California Coastal Conservancy Matthew Hymel County of Marin Ken Ibarra City of San Bruno Jim Inglis Stanford University Jay Ingram Town of Moraga John Inks City of Mountain View Juliana Inman City of Napa Jeff Ira City of Redwood City Joseph J. Dillon National Marine Fisheries Service Jennifer J. Walker Watearth, Inc. Connie Jackson City of San Bruno Janeen Jackson Greenbelt Alliance Rose Jacobs Gibson County of San Mateo Craig Jacobsen Jim Jakel City of Antioch Beverly James Novato Sanitary District Dave Jaramillo California Conservation Corps Jay Jaspers Sonoma County Water Agency Paul Jensen City of San Rafael Tim Jensen Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mick Jessop City of Suisun City Ben Johnson City of Pittsburg Beverly J.Johnson City of Alameda Corbin Johnson County of Sonoma Doug Johnson California Invasive Plant Council Ralph Johnson Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District Margaret Johnston Tomales Bay Watershed Council Carolyn Jones Natural Resources Conservation Service Pam Jones Kearns & West, Inc. First Name Last Name Organization Susan Jones City of Healdsburg Tim Jones US EPA, Headquarters William C.Jones City of El Cerrito Mark Joseph City of American Canyon Shicha K Chander California Department of Water Resources Jennifer Kaiser Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Brian Kalinowski City of Antioch Ash Kalra City of San Jose Matt Kamkar San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Rachel Kamman Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Jon Kanagy Nord Vineyard Services Rebecca Kaplan City of Oakland Sandeep Karkal Novato Sanitary District Mike Kashiwagi Town of Atherton Daniel Kasperson City of Suisun City R. Michael Kasperzak City of Mountain View Anne Kasten Town of Woodside Thom Kato Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Maurice Kaufman City of Emeryville Guy Kay Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Sandra Kaya Livermore area Recreation and Park District Gabe Kearney Garrett Keating City of Piedmont Daniel E.Keen City of Concord Bill Keene County of Sonoma James Keene City of Palo Alto William Keene Sonoma County Water Agency Janet Keeter City of Orinda Megan Keever Stillwater Sciences Paula Kehoe San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Ann Keighran City of Burlingame Jill Keimach Town of Moraga Kirsten Keith City of Menlo Park David Keller Judy Kelly San Francisco Estuary Partnership Ken Kelly United Neighborhoods of Santa Clara County Linda Kelly City of Sonoma Michael Kelly City of Sausalito Naomi Kelly City and County of San Francisco Barbara Kelsey Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Thomas R.Kendall, PE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, SF District, Chief, Planning Branch Janet Kennedy City of Martinez Paul Kermoyan City of Campbell Patricia Kernighan City of Oakland Brannon Ketcham National Park Service Sapna Khandwala Stillwater Sciences Art Kiesel City of Foster City Brad Kilger City of Benicia Jane Kim City and County of San Francisco Jay Kim City of Palo Alto Mary Kimball Center for Land Based Learning Sally Kimsey Putah Creek Watershed Group Sally Kimsey First Name Last Name Organization Mary Ann King Trout Unlimited Neysa King Tomales Bay Watershed Council Stephen Kinsey County of Marin Susan Kirks Mike Kirn City of Healdsburg Andy Klein City of San Carlos Janet Klein Marin Municipal Water District Larry Klein City of Palo Alto Shani Kleinhaus Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society David Kleinschmidt City of Vallejo Shane Klingbeil John Klochak U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ernest Klock County of Marin Mitchell Klug Napa County RCD/WICC David Knapp City of Cupertino Liz Kniss County of Santa Clara Charlie Knox City of Benicia Jonathan Koehler Napa County Resource Conservation District Leslie Koenig Alameda County Resource Conservation District Fred Kogler City of Rio Vista Carl Kohnert Friends of Sausal Creek Steve Kokotas MIG, Inc. Larry P.Kolb Friends of the San Francisco Estuary Stan Kolodzie Dublin San Ramon Services District Stan Koludzie DSRSD Steve Konakis California Native Plant Society - Napa Chapter Richard Konda Asian Law Alliance Barbara Kondylis County of Solano, Supervisor Barbara R.Kondylis County of Solano Jaime Kooser SF NERR, SFSU / Romberg Tiburon Center John Kopchik Contra Costa County John Kopchik Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Max Korten Conervation Corps North Bay Michael F.Kotowski City of Campbell Rick Kowalczyk City of Half Moon Bay Kevin Kramer Town of Corte Madera Gary Kraus City of Calistoga Jack Krebs City of Rio Vista Jennifer Krebs San Francisco Estuary Project Bernhard Krevet Friends of the Napa River Bernhard Krevet Friends of the Napa River James Krider City of Napa Christine M.Krolik Town of Hillsborough Jeff Kroot Town of San Anselmo Andrea Krout County of Sonoma Laura C.Kuhn City of Vacaville Kallie Kull County of Marin Krishna Kumar Carol Kunze Berryessa Trails and Conservation Carol Kunze Berryessa Trails and Conservation Alan Kurotori City of Santa Clara Catherine Kutsuris Contra Costa County Florence La Riviere Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Melody Labella Central Contra Costa Sanitary District First Name Last Name Organization Peter LaCivita United States Army Corps of Engineers Jon LaHaye Marin Municipal Water District Thomas Lai County of Marin Steve Lake Town of Danville Mark Landman City of Cotati Brooke Langston BRBNA Conservation Partnership/ Audubon CA Landowner Stewardship Program Stephanie Lapine Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Margaret Laporte Stanford University Michael Lappert Town of Corte Madera Mondy Lariz Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition Mondy Lariz Stevens & Permanente Creeks Watershed M Larizadeh City of Novato Jack LaRochelle City of Napa Rich Larsen Town of Los Altos Hills Greg Larson Town of Los Gatos Sue Lattanzio Michael Laughlin Town of Colma Michael Lauher Environmental Education Coalition of Napa County Jane Lavelle Water Enterprise, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Kristina Lawson City of Walnut Creek Becca Lawton Sonoma Ecology Center Cathy Lazarus City of Mountain View Steve Lederer Napa County Department of Environmental Management Brad Ledesma Zone 7 Water Agency Chris Lee Sonoma County Water Agency Edwin Lee City and County of San Francisco Hannah Lee County of Marin Wayne J.Lee City of Millbrae Daisy Lee Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Suzanne Lee Chan City of Fremont Lou Leet City of American Canyon Ron Lefler City of Lafayette Michael Lennox University of California Davis Cliff Lentz City of Brisbane Steve Leonardis Town of Los Gatos Jonathan Leone City of Sausalito Peter Leroe-Munoz City of Gilroy Roger Leventhal County of Marin Ellen Levin SFPUC Marc Levine City of San Rafael Michele Lew Asian Americans for Community Involvement David Lewis Save the Bay David Lewis University of California Davis Elizabeth Lewis Town of Atherton Liz Lewis County of Marin Liliana Li Vision New America Marilyn Librers City of Morgan Hill Sam Liccardo City of San Jose Warren Lieberman City of Belmont Jack Liebster County of Marin David Lim City of San Mateo First Name Last Name Organization Khee Lim City of Millbrae Karin Lin NPS RTCA Jim Lincoln Napa County Farm Bureau/Putah Creek Watershed Group Jim Lindley City of Dixon Bill Lindsay City of Richmond James Lindsay City of Milpitas James Lindsay City of Saratoga Helen Ling City of Livermore Garry Lion City of Mill Valley Katherine Lira Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Ally Little Assm. Nancy Skinner Leslie Little City of Morgan Hill Jim Livingstone City of San Ramon John Livingstone City of Saratoga Emily Lo City of Saratoga Mark Lockaby Town of Fairfax Nadia Lockyer County of Alameda Susan Loftus City of San Mateo Dan Logan National Marine Fisheries Service Brian Long City of Napa Public Works Department Debbie Long City of Pinole Pete Longmire City of Pittsburg Albert Lopez County of Alameda Lori Lopin Town of San Anselmo Mary Lou Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Andria Loutsch CDM Smith Michael Love Michael Love and Associates, Inc. Brian Loventhal City of Monte Sereno Evan Low City of Campbell Diane Lowart City of Dublin Jeremy Lowe ESA/PWA Patrick Lowe Watershed Information Center and Conservancy of Napa County Eric Lucan City of Novato Darcie Luce California Land Stewardship Institute Mark Luce County of Napa Gary Luebbers City of Sunnyvale Pamela Lung City of Livermore Greg Lyman City of El Cerrito Robert Lynch Mike Maacks City of Cloverdale Rob Maccario Town of Ross Pierce Macdonald City of Belvedere Sue Mace Michael Machado Delta Protection Commission Laura Macias City of Mountain View Ilene Macintire Alameda County Flood Control Jake Mackenzie City of Rohnert Park Nancy Mackle City of San Rafael Nancy Mackle City of San Rafael Jeremy Madsen Greenbelt Alliance Carol Mahoney Zone 7 Water Agency Orrin Mahoney City of Cupertino First Name Last Name Organization Homer Maiel Town of Atherton Linda Maio City of Berkeley Vivien Maisonneuve California Department of Water Resources Karen Majors City of Martinez Chris Malan ICARE Chris Malan Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Josh Malan Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Joshua Malan ICARE Joan Malloy City of Union City Lana Malloy City of Monte Sereno Jeff Maltbie City of San Carlos Frank Mandola City of South San Francisco Jon Mann HDR David Mansfield Nader Mansourian City of San Rafael Eric Mar City and County of San Francisco John Marchand City of Livermore Laurel Marcus California Land Stewardship Institute Laurel Marcus California Land Stewardship Institute Dan Marks City of Berkeley Darlene Marler Pope Valley Watershed Council Brad Marsh City of Larkspur Shawn E.Marshall City of Mill Valley Patricia E.Martel City of Daly City Bob Martin Christopher Martin Town of Ross Mischon Martin County of Marin Laura Martinez City of East Palo Alto Jessica Martini-Lamb Sonoma County Water Agency Mitch Mashburn City of Vacaville Abbas Masjedi City of Pleasanton Peter Mason Town of Woodside Karen Massey City of Cloverdale Len Materman San Francisquito Creek JPA Karyl Matsumoto City of South San Francisco Jack Matthews City of San Mateo Carol Mattson California Native Plant Society Michael May San Francisco Estuary Institute John McArthur City of Rohnert Park Robert (Bob)McBain City of Piedmont Scott McBain Casey McCann City of Brentwood Casey McCann City of Brentwood James McCann City of Mill Valley James C.McCann City of Mill Valley Julie McClure City of Mill Valley Robert H.McConnell City of Vallejo Lex McCorvey County of Sonoma Farm Bureau Paul McCreary City of Dublin Andrew McCullough City of San Rafael Lori McDonald Larkspur City Hall Lisa McEvilly Kliman Sales First Name Last Name Organization Cindy McGovern City of Pleasanton Kevin McGowan City of San Rafael Mike McGraw Bureau of Reclamation John McGuire City of Hercules Mike McGuire County of Sonoma Susan Mcguire Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Pete McHugh City of Milpitas Tom McInerney Town of San Anselmo Alex McIntyre City of Menlo Park Dan McIntyre City of Livermore Drew McIntyre North Marin Water District Kathy McKeithen Town of Atherton Chris McLam Institute for Conservation Advocacy, Research and Education Eileen McLaughlin Wildlife Stewards Gayle McLaughlin City of Richmond Clysta McLemore Ulistac Outreach Center/ Natural Area Jamie McLeod City of Santa Clara Richard McMurtry Environmental Coalition for Living Streams Karen McNamara City of San Ramon Leonard R.McNeil City of San Pablo Tom McNicholas Diane McNutt Town of Los Gatos Tom Means City of Mountain View Rico E.Medina City of San Bruno Joe Medrano City of Clayton Julian Meisler Sonoma Land Trust David Melilli City of Rio Vista Gerardo Mendez City of Napa Public Works Department Karen Mendonca Town of Moraga Michael Menesini City of Martinez Ariel Mercado City of Hercules Jill Mercurio Town of Moraga Ann Merideth City of Lafayette Michael Metcalf Town of Moraga Sandra Meyer City of Walnut Creek Lisa Micheli Pepper Wood Preserve John C.Michels Caltrans Alrieq Middlebrook California Native Garden Foundation Mike Mielke Silicon Valley Leadership Group Nathan Miley County of Alameda Brian Millar City of Daly City Howard Miller City of Saratoga Jeff Miller Alameda Creek Alliance Phil Miller County of Napa Ray Miller City of Brisbane Roger Miller Federation of Fly Fishers - Nothern California Council Kathy Millison City of Santa Rosa Rick Misuraca City of Mill Valley Pat Mitchell Silicon Valley Faces Richard Mitchell City of Richmond Karen Mitchoff County of Contra Costa Glenn Moeller California Department of Water Resources Marjorie Mohler Town of Yountville First Name Last Name Organization Bryan Montgomery City of Oakley Anne Moore City of Larkspur Darryl Moore City of Berkeley Doug Moore Gerald Moore Jeffery Moore Silicon Valley NAACP Jim Moore Town of Fairfax Mike Moore City of Mill Valley Steve Moore Nute Engineers Jean Mordo Town of Los Altos Hills Rod Moresco City of Vacaville Morgan Morgan Lamoreaux Vineyards/Oak Knoll Ranch Mike Morris Domaine Chandon Paul V.Morris City of San Pablo Ann Morrison City of Larkspur Carl Morrison Morrison & Associates, Inc. Gus Morrison City of Fremont Marilyn Mosher City of Hayward Rick Moshier City of Santa Rosa Peter Mott City of Napa Leslie Moulton ESA Stephanie Moulton-Peters City of Mill Valley Catherine Moy City of Fairfield Christopher Moylan City of Sunnyvale John Mraz City of Fairfield Bert Mulchaey East Bay Municipal Utility District Cicely Muldoon National Park Service J. Matthew Mullan Town of Windsor John Muller City of Half Moon Bay Kevin Mullin City of South San Francisco Trish Mulvey CLEAN South Bay Thomas Mumley SF Bay Water Board Pete Munoa Cal Fire Pete Munoa Cal Fire Susan S.Muranishi County of Alameda Peter Murray City of Pinole Mike Myers Larkspur City Hall Matthew Naclerio City of Alameda Nancy J.Nadel City of Oakland Barry M.Nagel City of South San Francisco Terry Nagel City of Burlingame Chester Nakahara City of Piedmont Reza Namvar RMC Water and Environment James Nantell City of Burlingame Napa Chamber of Commerce Napa Chamber of Commerce Green and Sustainable Practices Committee Mike Napolitano San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Gary Napper City of Clayton Roger Narsim Santa Clara Valley Water District Mansour Nasser City of Sunnyvale Anu Natarajan City of Fremont Jim Navarro City of Union City Charles Neal Peralta Colleges District Bob Neale Sonoma Land Trust First Name Last Name Organization Mary Nejedly Piepho County of Contra Costa Playalina Nelson Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Ann Nevero City of St. Helena Jon Newby City of San Jose Mark Newhouser Sonoma Ecology Center Anne Ng Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Madison P.Nguyen City of San Jose Nick Nguyen Town of Tiburon Joyce Nichols Carolyn Parr Nature Center Marilyn Nickel City of Milpitas Richard Niemann Friends of the Napa River Richard Niemann Friends of the Napa River Thomas Niesar Alameda County Water District Mary Ann Nihart City of Pacifica Ron Noble Ken Nordhoff City of Walnut Creek Janith Norman City of Rio Vista Tony Norris Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Karin North City of Palo Alto Mohammed Nuru City and County of San Francisco Ed Nute Nute Engineers Jason Nutt City of Novato Jason Nutt City of Novato Damien O'Bid City of Cotati Irene O'Connell City of San Bruno Terry O'Connell City of Brisbane Matt O'Conner O’Connor Environmental, Inc. Matt O'Connor Town of Hillsborough Emmett O'Donnell Town of Tiburon Rolf Ohlemutz Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Peter Ohtaki City of Menlo Park Lorraine Okabe League of California Cities Steve Okamoto City of Foster City Patrick O'Keeffe City of Emeryville Christina Olague City and County of San Francisco Mark Olbert City of San Carlos Ernesto Olivares City of Santa Rosa Pierluigi Oliverio City of San Jose Phil O'Loane City of San Ramon Peggy Olofson San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Daniel Olstein The Nature Conservancy Suzanne Olyarnik University of California Davis Stephen Omdorf Wildlife Conservation Commission Ryan O'Neil Town of Fairfax Janet Orchard City of Cotati Ned Orett Bruce Orr Stillwater Sciences Dean Orr City of Orinda Nate Ortiz California Conservation Corps Afshin Oskoui City of Belmont Jake Ours City of Santa Rosa Ron Packard City of Los Altos Chuck Page City of Saratoga Joe Palla City of Cloverdale First Name Last Name Organization Bob Pallas Connolly Ranch Michael Palmer Town of Corte Madera Marc Pandone WICC Board of Directors Gina Papan City of Millbrae Nancy Parent City of Pittsburg Vicki Parker City of Cotati Peter Parkins County of Sonoma Mike Parness City of Napa John Parodi PRBO Conservation Science Dean Parson County of Sonoma Naomi Patridge City of Half Moon Bay Elizabeth Patterson City of Benicia Joni Pattillo City of Dublin Mary Pearsall Walter Pease City of Pittsburg Joe Pecharich National Marine Fisheries Service Debbie Pedro, AICP Town of Los Altos HIlls Marvin Peixoto City of Hayward Onita Pelligrini City of Petaluma Rodrigo Pena San Jose Conservation Corp Michael Perani Herb Perez City of Foster City Scott Perkins City of San Ramon Michel Perret Michel Perret Vineyard MIchael Perrone CA Dept.of Water Resources, Div of Environ Services Leslie Perry Regional Water Quality Control Board Jeff Peters Questa Engineering Paula Peterson Robert Peterson Napa County Marjie Pettus City of Healdsburg Linda Pfeifer City of Sausalito Kathleen Phalen City of Milpitas Gary O.Phillips City of San Rafael Barbara Pierce City of Redwood City Julie Pierce City of Clayton Jim Pierson City of Fremont Patrick Pike Napa County Public Works Dave Pine County of San Mateo Al Pinheiro City of Gilroy Joe Pirzynski Town of Los Gatos Ina Pisani National Marine Fisheries Service/Ocean Associates, Inc. Michele Pla Gary Plass City of Healdsburg Althea Polanski City of Milpitas Adam Politzer City of Sausalito Carrie Pollard Sonoma County Water Agency Kathy Pons James Ponton San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Jim Ponton Regional Water Quality Control Board Randy Pope City of Oakley Chris Potter CA Resources Agency Bob Power Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Myke Praul Town of Yountville Andy Preston City of San Rafael First Name Last Name Organization Gail A.Price City of Palo Alto Harry T.Price City of Fairfield Nico Procos City of Palo Alto Jim Prola City of San Leandro Jeffery Provenzano City of San Jose Liza Prunuske Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Gina Purin County of Marin Nancy Pyle City of San Jose Ralph Qualls City of Cupertino Jean Quan City of Oakland Caroline Quinn Delta Diablo Sanitary District Sean Quinn City of Fairfield Michelle Quinney City of Campbell Bill Quirk City of Hayward Jeff Quiter Hedgerow Farms David Rabbitt County of Sonoma Dan Rademacher The Bay Nature Institute John Radford Town of Los Altos Hills Marcia L.Raines City of Millbrae James Raives County of Marin Kish Rajan City of Walnut Creek Jeri Ram City of Dublin Jeri Ram City of Dublin Brent Randol Napa County Wildlife Conservation Commission Elke Rank Zone 7 Water Agency Matt Raschke City of Palo Alto Jeff Rasmussen East Bay Regional Park District Yvonne Rasmussen University of California Master Gardners Jane Ratchyre City of Palo Alto Robert Ravasio Town of Corte Madera Michael J.Reagan County of Solano Chuck Reed City of San Jose John Reed Town of Fairfax Ursula Reed City of San Leandro Nina D.Regor City of Cloverdale David Reid Friends of Five Creeks Larry E.Reid City of Oakland Robert R.Reid West Valley Sanitation District James Reilly Stetson Engineers Anthony Rendon California League of Conservation Voters Tiffany Renee Dave Requa Dublin San Ramon Services District Stephen A.Rhodes City of Pacifica Winston Rhodes City of Pinole Heidi Rhymes Katie Rice County of Marin Steve Rice Town of Los Gatos Dan Rich City of Mountain View C Richard Oakland Museum Allan Richards Stetson Engineers John Richards Town of Portola Valley A. Sepi Richardson City of Brisbane Dave Richardson RMC Water and Environment Ron Richardson California Water Service Company First Name Last Name Organization Don Ridenhour Napa County Eric Riedner Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Len Rifkind City of Larkspur Ann Riley State Water Resources Control Board Kevin Riley City of Santa Clara Kevin L.Riley City of Santa Clara Carol Rios City of Oakley Jeff Ritterman City of Richmond David Rizk City of Hayward Diana Roberts Jones & Stokes Glenn Roberts City of Palo Alto Jennifer Roberts Jennifer Roberts StopWaste.org Marc Roberts City of Livermore Donald Rocha City of San Jose Mary Helen Rocha City of Antioch Michael Rock Town of Fairfax George Rodericks City of Belvedere Matt Rodriguez City of San Pablo John Roeder Greak Oaks Water Company Cindy Roessler Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Authority Curtis Rogers City of Monte Sereno Greg Rogers City of San Ramon Jim Rogers City of Richmond Laurette Rogers PRBO Conservation Science Steve Rogers Town of Yountville Kevin Rohani Town of Los Gatos Carlos Romero City of East Palo Alto Dan Romero City of Hercules Kevin Romick City of Oakley Ron Romines Town of Woodside Wendie Rooney Town of Los Gatos Manny Rosas City of Redwood City Chris Rose Solano Land Trust Marvin Rose City of Sunnyvale Mark Ross City of Martinez Roanna Ross WHITLEY BURCHETT & Associates Robert Ross City of San Mateo Lynne Rosselli Sonoma County Water Agency Tom Rouse City of Sonoma Tom Rouse Ron Rowlett City of Vacaville Cynthia Royer City of Daly City Jim Ruane City of San Bruno Kelseay Rugani Kearns & West, Inc. Carol Russell City of Cloverdale Eric Russell Green Mountain College P. Rupert Russell Town of Ross Vance Russell BRBNA Conservation Partnership/ Audubon CA Landowner Stewardship Program John Russo City of Alameda Pauline Russo Cutter City of San Leandro Trudi Ryan City of Sunnyvale Wayne Ryan Napa River Steelhead First Name Last Name Organization Matt Sagues County of Marin Michael Salazar City of San Bruno Mark Salinas City of Hayward Sam Salmon Town of Windsor Samantha Salvia RMC Water & Environment Barbara Salzman Marin Audubon Society Bob Sampayan City of Vallejo Bryn Samuel City of Oakland Catarina Sanchez City of St. Helena Pedro M. (Pete)Sanchez City of Suisun City Joanne Sanders City of Sonoma Deanna J.Santana City of Oakland Mark Santoro City of Cupertino Jeremy Sarrow Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Mike Sartor City of Palo Alto Tito Sasaki Megan Satterlee City of Los Altos Chris Sauer Napa County Weed Management Area Chris Sauer WICC Board of Directors John Sawyer City of Santa Rosa Joe Sbranti City of Pittsburg Tim Sbranti City of Dublin Jim Scanlin Alameda County Public Works Libby Schaaf City of Oakland Nancy Schaefer Tom Schaefer Friends of Calabazas Creek Korie Schaeffer National Marine Fisheries Service Lisa Schaffner County of Sonoma Alliance Greg Scharff City of Palo Alto Rem Scherzinger City of Piedmont Dan Schiada City of Benicia Greg Schmid City of Palo Alto Edward Schmidt Douglas J.Schmitz City of Los Altos Scott Schneider County of Marin Cheryl Scholar Town of Windsor Judy Schriebman Leap Frog Productions Robert S.Schroder City of Martinez Bruce Schultz Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Irv Schwartz ILS ASSOCIATES, INC. Susan Schwartz Friends of Five Creeks Alan Schwartzman City of Benicia Dan Schwarz City of Larkspur Daniel Schwarz Larkspur City Hall Ken Schwarz Horizon Water & Environmental M.Schweickert DOW Chemical Wetlands Team Jeff Schwob City of Fremont Sandra Scoggin San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Dave Scola City of Martinez Nancy Scolari Marin Resource Conservation District Greg Scoles City of Belmont Kathrin Sears County of Marin First Name Last Name Organization Mark Seedall Contra Costa Water District Michael A.Segala City of Suisun City Linda J.Seifert County of Solano Mary Selkirk Martin Sellers Cece Sellgren Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Maria Sena Contra Costa Special Districts Association Carrie Sendak Harry Seraydarian Joe Seto Zone 7 Water Agency Sue Severson City of Orinda John D.Seybert City of Redwood City Gail Seymour California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Sally Seymour Sustainable Napa County Cyndy Shafer California Department of Parks and Recreation Kathleen Shaffer City of Sebastopol Hamid Shamsapour City of Larkspur Hamid Shamsapour Larkspur City Hall Thomas Shanahan Town of Woodside Sheela Shankar Kids for the Bay Lisa Woo Shanks USDA, National Resource Cons. Service Mo Sharma City of Monte Sereno Jeff Sharp Napa County Jeff Sharp Napa County CDPD Leigh Sharp Napa County Resource Conservation District Andrea Shelton Latina Coalition Silicon Valley Nancy Sheperd City of Palo Alto Brad Sherwood Sonoma County Water Agency Dana Shigley City of American Canyon Fraser Shilling Department of Environmental Science and Policy, UC Davis Chuck Shinnamon Friends of the Napa River George M.Shirakawa County of Santa Clara Chris Shirley San Mateo County Parks Bill Shoe County of Santa Clara Carolyn Shoulders National Park Service Aarti Shrivastava City of Cupertino David Shuey City of Clayton Gordon Siebert City of Morgan Hill David Siebo David Siedband David Siedband Jac Siegel City of Mountain View Joanne Siew RMC Water and Environment Cindy Silva City of Walnut Creek Joseph Silva Town of Colma Bob Simmons City of Walnut Creek Luke Sims City of San Leandro Luke Sims City of San Leandro Daniele Sinclair NCTPA Maia Singer Stillwater Sciences Rod Sinks City of Cupertino Gary Skrel City of Walnut Creek First Name Last Name Organization Christina Sloop San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Karen Slusser City of Calistoga Carla Small Town of Ross Richard Smelser City of Gilroy Matt Smeltzer Geomorph Design Jeffrey V.Smith County of Santa Clara Victoria Smith City of Orinda Laura Snideman City of Half Moon Bay Solano RCD Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership Chris Sommers EOA, Inc. Ray Soper Integra Ricardo Sousa The Watershed Project Diana M.Souza City of San Leandro Janet Sowers Fugro Consultants Jennifer Sparacino City of Santa Clara Barbara Spector Town of Los Gatos Mark Spencer Alameda County Waste Management Authority/StopWaste.org James P.Spering County of Solano Marley Spilman Friends of Coyote Creek Richard Spitler City of Calistoga Niroop Srivatsa City of Lafayette Pam Stafford City of Rohnert Park Jim Stallman Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Daisy Stark City of Palo Alto Joyce Starosciak City of San Leandro Danielle Staude City of Mill Valley Carolyne Stayton Tomales Bay Watershed Council Kent Steffens City of Sunnyvale Eric Steger County of Marin Rita Steiner Natural Resources Conservation Service Todd Steiner Turtle Island Restoration Network Anne Steinhauer Napa Valley Vintners Karen Stepper Town of Danville Gary Stern National Marine Fisheries Service Phil Stevens Urban Creeks Council Michael Stevenson Horizon Water & Environmental Mendel Stewart U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rosalyn Stewart Jones & Stokes Ann Stillman San Mateo County Susan Stompe Len Stone City of Pacifica Erick Stonebarger City of Brentwood Robert Storer Town of Danville Ross (Hank)Stratford City of Clayton Richard Strauss Town of Ross Nancy Strausser William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Christina Strawbridge City of Benicia Pam Strayer Aaron Stressman CSS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC Dietrich Stroeh Kirsten Struve City of San Jose Debbie Stutsman City of San Anselmo First Name Last Name Organization Debra Stutsman Town of San Anselmo Matt Sullivan City of Pleasanton Ginger Summit Town of Los Altos Hills Jill Sunahara Horizon Water and Environment Jill Sunahara Jones & Stokes Karen Sundback League of Women Voters Herminio Sunga City of Vallejo Matt Swalberg Town of Tiburon Eric Swalwell City of Dublin Charles Swanson City of Orinda Christina Swanson The Bay Institute of San Francisco David Swartz Contra Costa County Watershed Program Roy Swearingen City of Pinole Caitlin Sweeney San Francisco Estuary Partnership Michael Sweeney City of Hayward Leandra Swent Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Mike Swezy Marin Municipal Water District John Swiecki City of Brisbane David Sykes City of San Jose Fari Tabatabai United States Army Corps of Engineers Dawn Taffler Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Dan Takasugi City of Calistoga Dan Takasugi City of Calistoga Lena Tam City of Alameda Nancy Tamarisk Napa Sierra Club Jeff Tangen Napa County CDPD David Tanner Town of Woodside Steve Tate City of Morgan Hill Donald L. (Don)Tatzin City of Lafayette Lori Taylor City of Alameda Robert (Bob)Taylor City of Brentwood Todd Teachout City of Sausalito KJ Team DOW Chemical Wetlands Team Jill Techel City of Napa Claire Teel Friends of Los Alamitos Watershed John C.Telischak City of Belvedere Sue Teneyck San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society J. Edward Tewes City of Morgan Hill Eric Thaut U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Renee Theriault Webber Sonoma County Water Agency Ann Thomas Madeline Thomas Reena Thomas Brezak and Associates Rick Thomasser Napa County Rick Thomasser Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Arnie Thompson San Francisquito Watershed Council Brendan Thompson State Water Resources Control Board Dianne Thompson City of Cotati Holly Thompson Mike Thompson Sonoma County Water Agency Pat Thompson Town of Ross Rick Thornberry Jerry Thorne City of Pleasanton First Name Last Name Organization Claire Thorp National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Peggy Thorpe Renteria Vineyard Management Michael Throne City of American Canyon Bob Tiernan Town of Yountville Adrienne Tissier County of San Mateo Mike Tognolini East Bay Municipal Utility District Mark R.Tompkins NewFields Ken Torke City of Palo Alto Helen Torres Hispanas Organized for Political Equality Cristina Torresan County of Marin Melody Tovar City of San Jose Jon Tracy County of Sonoma Joel Tranmer The Land Trust of Napa County Will Travis Bay Area Joint Policy Committee c/o Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter Marcus Trotta Sonoma County Water Agency Dave Trotter Town of Moraga Vitaly Troyan City of Oakland Lynne Trulio Silicon Valley Environmental Partnership Moses Tsang Alameda County Public Works Randy Tsuda City of Mountain View Cat Tucker City of Gilroy David Tucker South Bay Water Recycling Rebecca Tuden City of Oakland Pamela Tuft City of Petaluma Luann Tung Friends of the Arroyos Laureen Turner City of Livermore David J.Twa County of Contra Costa Scott Tye Elizabeth Tyree County of Sonoma Uchenna Udemezue City of San Leandro Uchenna Udemezue City of San Leandro Josh Uecker RMC Water and Environment Josh Ueker RMC Water and Environment Gayle B.Uilkema County of Contra Costa Emmanuel Ursu City of Orinda Junice Uy Rick Vaccaro City of Fairfield Cecilia Valdez City of San Pablo Luisa Valiela EPA Marie Valmores Contra Costa Water District Mark van Gorder City of Napa Kathleen Van Velsor Association of Bay Area Governments Bill Vandivere Clearwater Hydrology Marsha Vas Dupre City of Santa Rosa John M.Vasquez County of Solano Sam Veloz PRBO Conservation Science Andria Ventura Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund Erin Ventura City of Monte Sereno Lori Vereker City of Concord Jan Vick City of Rio Vista Phillip Vince City of Martinez Pat Von Behren Friends of Pleasant Hills Creeks Peter Vorster The Bay Institute of San Francisco First Name Last Name Organization James M.Vreeland City of Pacifica Mike Vukman Urban Creeks Council Ken Wachtel City of Mill Valley Phiroze Wadia Larkspur City Hall Graham Wadsworth Town of Yountville Brad Wagenknecht County of Napa Gary Waldeck Town of Los Altos Hills James Walgren City of Los Altos Cassandra Walker City of Napa Public Works Department Victoria Walker City of Concord Ben Wallace Solano Land Trust Mike Wallace Zone 7 Water Agency Carolyn Walsh County of Santa Clara Patrick Walter Purissima Hills Water District Chien Wang Alameda County Public Works Dave Warden City of Belmont Rachael Wark RMC Water and Environment Mike Wasserman County of Santa Clara Ryan Watanabe California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Rich Waterman City of Campbell Alyson Watson RMC Water and Environment Kristina Watson Save The Bay Nancy Watt County of Napa D. Kenyon Webster City of Sebastopol Tina Wehrmeister City of Antioch Tina Wehrmeister City of Antioch Robert Weil City of American Canyon Herb Weiner City of Sausalito David Weinsoff Town of Fairfax Ann Wengert Town of Portola Valley Susan Wengraf City of Berkeley Jennifer West City of Emeryville Alex Westhoff Delta Protection Commission Nelia White California Land Stewardship Institute Peter White City of St Helena Peter White City of St. Helena Dave Whitmer Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Sue Wickham Solano Land Trust Bill Widmer Town of Atherton Jeff Wieler City of Piedmont Scott Wiener City and County of San Francisco Carl Wilcox CA Department of Fish & Game William Wilkins City of Hercules Curtis Williams City of Palo Alto Jennifer Williams Santa Clara County Farm Bureau Laurie Williams County of Marin Mark Williams Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Meredith Williams San Francisco Estuary Institute Roland Williams Casto Valley Sanitary District Stan Williams Santa Clara Valley Water District Tom Williams City of Milpitas Paul Willis Town of Hillsborough Russell Wilsey Mt Veeder Stewardship Council Betsy Wilson Napa-Sonoma Marsh Restoration Group First Name Last Name Organization Dan Wilson California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Leo Winternitz The Nature Conservancy Bob Woerner City of Livermore Daniel Woldesenbet County of Alameda Bruce Wolfe State Water Resources Control Board Christy Wolter Town of Los Gatos Gus Wolter City of Cloverdale David Woltering City of Clayton Gilbert Wong City of Cupertino Phil Wong City of San Ramon Vince Wong Zone 7 Water Agency Jim Wood City of Healdsburg Julian Wood PRBO Conservation Science John Woodbury Napa County Regional Parks and Open Space District John Woodbury Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District April Wooden City of Suisun City Bethtina Woodridge Public Allies Silicon Valley David E.Woods City of East Palo Alto Jesse Woodside City of Napa Public Works Department Perry Woodward City of Gilroy Amy Worth City of Orinda Kriss Worthington City of Berkeley Christine Wozniak City of Belmont Gordon Wozniak City of Berkeley Ken Wright City of Napa Public Works Department Susan Wright San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley Vanessa Wyant PRBO Conservation Science Aimee Wyrick Pacific Union College Gary Wysocky City of Santa Rosa David Yam Caltrans Gilbert Yan City of Belmont Michael Yankovich County of Solano Ken Yeager County of Santa Clara Yiaway Yeh City of Palo Alto Erica Yelensky US EPA Region 9 CC Yin Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association Chino Yip Napa County Regional Park & Open Space District Andrea Youngdahl City of Oakland Jessica Zadeh South Bay Water Recycling Dan Zador Napa County CDPD Shirlee Zane County of Sonoma Chris Zapata City of San Leandro John Zentner Friends of Orinda Creeks Francisco Zermeno City of Hayward Sam Ziegler US Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Water Division Tom Zigterman Stanford University Linda Zimmerman Contra Costa County Greg Zlotnick Santa Clara Valley Water District John Chevron, Inc. John Mark California Department of Water Resources Ned First Name Last Name Organization Ned Norman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Rochelle Acterra Acterra - Stewardship Program Acterra - Stewardship Program Alameda County Public Works Alameda County Public Works Agency Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Water District Alameda County Water District Alnus Ecological American Water Enterprises ARUP ARUP Assm. Nancy Skinner Assm. Nancy Skinner BACWA Balance Hydro Balance Hydrologics Balance Hydrologics Balance Hydrologics Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Bay Conservation and Development Commission Bay Conservation and Development Commission Bay Friendly Coalition Bay Friendly Coalition California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Coastal Conservancy California Conservation Corps California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources California Department of Water Resources First Name Last Name Organization California Department of Water Resources California Dept of Fish and Wildlife California Dept of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Resources Agency California Water Service Company California Water Service Company California Water Service Company Caltrans CDM Smith Center for Biological Diversity Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR) City of Albany City of Belmont City of Belmont City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Benicia City of Brisbane City of Brisbane City of Burlingame City of Burlingame City of Burlingame City of Campbell City of Daly City City of Dixon City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of East Palo Alto City of Foster City City of Foster City City of Foster City City of Half Moon Bay City of Half Moon Bay City of Hayward City of Lafayette City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Menlo Park City of Mill Valley City of Millbrae City of Millbrae City of Millbrae First Name Last Name Organization City of Milpitas City of Napa City of Oakland City of Oakland City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Pacifica City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of Redwood City City of San Bruno City of San Bruno City of San Bruno (Water Department) City of San Carlos City of San Carlos City of San Jose City of San Jose City of San Jose City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San José City of San Jose, Watershed Protection Division City of San Mateo City of San Mateo City of San Mateo City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Clean Water Action Clean Water Action Clearwater Hydrology Coastside County Water District Coastside County Water District Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District First Name Last Name Organization Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa Water District Corix County of Alameda County of Marin County of Marin County of Napa County of Sonoma County of Sonoma Creekcats Daly City Delta Diablo Sanitary District Delta Diablo Sanitary District Delta Diablo Sanitary District Dublin San Ramon Services District Dublin San Ramon Services District Ducks Unlimited DWR DWR Earth Island Institute East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Regional Park District East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Water Caucus EOA, Inc. EOA, Inc. EPA EPA EPA ESA ESA ESA ESA ESA/PWA ESA/PWA ESA/PWA ESA/PWA Far West Engineering First Name Last Name Organization Friends of Alhambra Creek Friends of Orinda Creeks Friends of the Napa River Friends of the Petaluma River Golden Gate Audubon Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Green Foothills Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Hydroikos Associates ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes ICF Jones & Stokes Interbill Jones & Stokes Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. Kearns & West, Inc. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kids for the Bay Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LMi.net Los Medanos College Marin County Marin County Marin County Marin County Planning (and OSD) Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Marin Municipal Water District Marin Open Space Trust Metropolitan Transporation Commission Mid Peninsula Open Space District Montara Water and Sanitary District Morrison & Associates, Inc. Morrison & Associates, Inc. Mt. View Sanitary District First Name Last Name Organization Muir Heritage Land Trust MWH Global Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Napa County Resource Conservation District Napa Open Space District National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service National Park Service Natural Resource Conservation District NewFields North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) North Bay Watershed Association North Coast County Water District North Marin Water District OneWorld Communications Peninsula Open Space Trust Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council PRBO Conservation Science PRBO Conservation Science PRBO Conservation Science PRBO Conservation Science Presido Trust Prunuske Chatham Inc. Environmental Consulting Puente de la Costa Sur Questa Engineering Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment RMC Water and Environment Rural Community Assistance Corporation San Francisco Bay Joint Venture San Francisco Bay Joint Venture San Francisco Bay RWQCB San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute First Name Last Name Organization San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project San Francisco International Airport San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisquito Creek JPA San Francisquito Creek JPA San Francisquito Creek JPA San Francisquito Creek JPA San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County C/CAG SW Runoff Program San Mateo County Farm Bureau San Mateo County Parks San Mateo County Parks San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Public Works San Mateo County Resource Conservation District San Mateo County Resource Conservation District San Mateo County Road Maintenance San Mateo County Supervisor Carole Groom San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley San Mateo County Supervisor, 3rd District Santa Clara Regional OSA Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District First Name Last Name Organization Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside SF Bayland Goals Update SF Port SF Port SF Regional Water Quality Control Board SFPUC SFPUC SFPUC Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Solano County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma County Water Agency Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Land Trust Sonoma Valley CAC Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Sound Watershed Consulting Sound Watershed Consulting SRT Consultants for MWSD State Coastal Conservancy State Coastal Conservancy State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board Stevens & Permanente Creeks Watershed Stillwater Sciences Stillwater Sciences, Inc. StopWaste.org First Name Last Name Organization StopWaste.org StopWaste.org Surfrider Foundation - San Mateo County Surfrider Foundation - San Mateo County Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology TeleScience Networks The Bay Institute of San Francisco The Bay Institute of San Francisco The Bay Institute of San Francisco The Watershed Project The Watershed Project The Watershed Project Tomales Bay Watershed Council Tomales Bay Watershed Council Tomales Bay Watershed Council Town of Atherton Town of Atherton Town of Atherton Town of Colma Town of Hills Borough Town of Hillsborough Town of Hillsborough Town of Portola Valley Town of Portola Valley Town of Ross Town of Woodside Turtle Island Restoration Network U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Army Corps of Engineers Urban Creeks Council Urban Creeks Council Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Wetlands and Water Resources WHITLEY BURCHETT & Associates Wolf & Associates Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 Water Agency From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:July 23 Workshop, Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Date:Monday, July 02, 2012 10:08:49 AM Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. July 23, 2012 Public Workshop for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Dear Bay Area Water and Land Use Community, The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. On behalf of the coalition of water, flood, watershed, and planning agencies and organizations in the Bay Area that is updating the Bay Area IRWMP, I invite you, or someone from your agency or organization, to participate in the first of three public workshops that will provide information and gather input to develop the 2013 update to the Bay Area IRWMP. Importantly, understanding the Plan and its objectives will also help prepare your agency or organization to submit water project concepts by SEPTEMBER 1, 2012 for inclusion in the Plan, thereby qualifying your project for Prop. 84 and other competitive state grant funding. Public Workshop The first public workshop will be held on MONDAY, JULY 23, 2012 from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. at the Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 (Lake Merritt BART Station). The purpose of the workshop is to inform you about the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP, how it affects your agency or organization, how you can provide input into the Plan, and how you can propose water resource projects to be included in the Plan. Projects serving disadvantaged communities will get special consideration. The workshop is intended for public agency representatives (particularly water, land use, and sustainable development), policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests and individuals interested in water supply, water quality, flood protection/stormwater management, wastewater/recycled water, and watershed and habitat protection. A draft agenda will be posted on the website, www.bairwmp.org. Speakers from regional and local water and flood organizations, as well as from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), will explain the objectives of the Bay Area IRWMP which are to promote integrated water management planning at the city, county and regional level, how new state guidelines are modifying integrated regional water management planning, how to collaborate with partners on project development, and potentially to get state assistance for addressing water challenges in your community. The second workshop will be held Monday, August 27, 2012 and will provide a more in-depth look at how projects will be prioritized in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP. The date of the third workshop is not yet set. We hope to see you or a representative of your agency or organization on July 23 in Oakland. Sincerely, Paul Helliker Marin Municipal Water District Chair, Coordinating Committee Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan P.S. Participation in the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee is open to anyone interested in regional water projects, programs and policies. Please join us at our monthly meetings, check the website, www.bairwmp.org, for the contact person in your subregion, or contact us at BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. We are partnering with stakeholder engagement specialists Kearns & West on this project. forward to a friend Our mailing address is: bairwmp@kearnswest.com unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Reminder, July 23 Public Workshop-- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Date:Friday, July 20, 2012 2:48:23 PM Reminder, July 23 Public Workshop --Bay Area Integrated Regional Water ManagementPlan Dear Water, Land Use and Community Stakeholder: This is a reminder of Public Workshop #1 for the 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional WaterManagement Plan on Monday, July 23, 2012, 4-6 p.m., at the Association of Bay AreaGovernments Auditorium, 101 Eighth St., Oakland, CA. (Lake Merritt BART Station.) The workshop will provide an overview of the process to update the Plan, the Plan objectives,and the submittal and evaluation of water –related project proposals. Projects included inthe Plan can qualify for competitive state grant funding, and there will be a regional processto prioritize projects. The deadline to submit a water project proposal is September 1, 2012. Visitwww.bairwmp.org to submit a proposal online. Workshop #2 will be held August 27, 2012, 4-6 p.m., Oakland venue to be determined. Themain topic of the meeting will be project prioritization for the Bay Area IRWMP. Public agencies and non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit projects and tocollaborate on projects. Projects serving water challenges in disadvantaged, low-incomecommunities will get special consideration. Native American tribes are also encouraged toconsider projects that will serve their needs. For information, please visit the website or email BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. Forward this email to a friend. Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Today’s Bay Area IRWMP Workshop in Oakland should not be affected by Presidential street closures Date:Monday, July 23, 2012 9:58:06 AM Today's Bay Area IRWMP Workshop in Oakland should not be affected by Presidential street closures Dear Bay Area Water, Land Use and Community Stakeholders: Today’s visit to Oakland by President Obama coincides with our 4-6 p.m. Bay Area IRWMPWorkshop, but access to the meeting should not directly be affected by street closures. The President will be at the Scottish Rite Temple across from Lake Merritt at about 18th Streetand Lakeside Blvd. The Bay Area IRWMP Workshop is being held about eight blocks away at 101 8 th St. between Oak St. and Madison St. at the Association of Bay Area Governments. FYI, the following streets are currently scheduled for closure today by the Oakland PoliceDepartment. Telegraph Avenue between 17th Street and Thomas L. Berkley Way 17th Street between Broadway and San Pablo Avenue 18th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues 19th Street between Broadway and San Pablo Avenue William Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues Rashida Muhammad Street between 19th and 20th streets San Pablo Avenue from 17th Street to Thomas L. Berkley Way While there are protests scheduled for the BART station at 12th and Broadway, the BARTstation closest to the workshop is the Lake Merritt station. Presentations from the meeting will be posted on July 24, 2012. And please remember,Project Proposals are due September 1, 2012. Please visit www.bairwmp.org for the onlinesubmittal template. Sincerely, The Coordinating Committee of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Forward this email to a friend Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:BAIRWMP: Follow-up from 7/23 workshop, reminder of 9/1 project submittal deadline Date:Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:08:17 PM BAIRWMP: Follow-up from 7/23 workshop, reminder of9/1 project submittal deadline Thank you to those who attended the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan(Bay Area IRWMP) Public Workshop on July 23 in Oakland. We had a great turnout! For thosewho were unable to attend the workshop, electronic copies of the workshop’s presentationsand question-and-answer session are posted on the project website (http://bairwmp.org/). Future workshopsIn order to allow agencies and non-governmental organizations to submit project proposals bythe September 1 deadline, we will hold Workshops #2 and #3 further along in the Plandevelopment process, likely in early 2013. This will allow stakeholders to learn about andprovide input on chapters dealing with topics such Bay Area IRWM Plan performance andmonitoring, financing integrated projects, and the relationship of integrated watermanagement to land use planning and climate change. Please visit the project website(www.bairwmp.org) where information will be posted as it becomes available. We will alsosend a notice of the workshops, so please make sure to include our email address in your“approved” list. Reminder – September 1 project submittal deadline The deadline for submitting projects to be included in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP is September1, 2012. Please visit the following link for more information on how to submit a project onthe project website: http://bairwmp.org/projects/submitting-a-project-to-the-bay-area-irwmp If you have any questions regarding your project proposal or how to submit on the website,please contact your subregional outreach lead:· North (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano counties) – Harry Seraydarian: harryser@comcast.net· East (Contra Costa, Alameda counties) – Mark Boucher: mbouc@pw.cccounty.us· South (Santa Clara County) – Brian Mendenhall: BMendenhall@valleywater.org)· West (San Francisco, San Mateo counties) – Cheryl Muñoz: cmunoz@sfwater.org Disadvantaged community (DAC) maps availableIf you are considering submitting a project proposal that serves a disadvantaged community,maps that incorporate 2010 Census data are now available on the project website athttp://bairwmp.org/dac/dac-info . For assistance with developing DAC project proposals,please contact Caitlin Sweeney: CSweeney@waterboards.ca.gov. Thank you for your continued interest in the development of the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP! Forward this email to a friend From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:IRWMP Projects – New deadline….Sept. 7 Date:Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:54:15 PM IRWMP Projects – New deadline...Sept. 7 Dear project proponents: As you may know, the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan is currently beingupdated. As part of this process, the Plan will include proposed projects for water resourcesmanagement in the Bay Area. These proposed projects are due September 7 and can eitherbe new projects, or can be updated versions of projects already in the Plan. In either case,information about the projects must be included in the online database housed at the BayArea IRWMP website. A complete new or updated project description is required to be eligible for inclusion in the2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and to be eligible for future grantfunding. New ProjectsIf you are proposing a new project, please visit the Bay Area IRWMP website atwww.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project" andfollow the instructions. You may click the blue "Submit a project" button at the bottom ofthat page. Updating Existing ProjectsIf your project has already been submitted and included in the Plan, you will need to confirmthat you want to continue to include it in the Plan. Please visit the IRWMP website atwww.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project,"and then click on the link "Click here for instructions on how to update existing projects." Ifyou do not update the project information, the project will be put in an inactive file and notincluded in the Active Project List. Reviewing and Scoring ProjectsAll projects submitted or updated by the deadline of September 7 will be reviewed inaccordance with a Project Review Process and scoring methodology authorized by theCoordinating Committee. The original deadline was set for September 1. Drafts ofthese materials are now available on the IRWMP website, "Submitting a Project" page. DRAFT Project Review Process: http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/2013 Projreview processDRAFT Review Process Schedule: http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/2013 ProjRev Process ScheduleDRAFT Project Scoring and Ranking Methodology: http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/Project Scoring & Ranking Method/ DeadlinePlease note that the deadline for submitting a new project or updating an existingproject has been extended to September 7, 2012. This date has been selected to allowadequate time to review, score and prioritize projects included in the Plan, and to considerprojects for further analysis and inclusion in a proposal for implementation grant funding. Website Bulletin BoardIn order to provide an opportunity for further collaboration, the Bay Area IRWMP website nowincludes a bulletin board for project proponents: http://bairwmp.org/projects/needs-board/ Please note that you will need to register with the Bay Area IRWMP website in order to editproject information. If you need assistance or have questions, you may seek technical supportby contacting projects@bairwmp.org . Thank you, Paul HellikerChair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Important NEW information - DAC projects http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=9a3e9618a6b3b97bca774ec79&id=f5a45acb85[3/14/2013 3:51:25 PM] Important NEW information - DACprojects Dear project proponents: The purpose of this message is to provide NEW information regarding IRWM projectsbenefitting disadvantaged communities. The Department of Water Resources has confirmed that IRWM projects benefitting adisadvantaged community (DAC) and included in a future IRWM Implementation Grantproposal may be eligible for special treatment, as summarized below. Match waiverA cost match waiver (minimum 25% match) can be requested for any IRWM DAC project thatspecifically addresses a need of a DAC. This means that matching funds requirements couldbe waived for any IRWMP project specifically benefitting a disadvantaged community. Funding appropriationThe IRWM program requires that 10% of statewide funding for Implementation Grants mustaddress critical water supply/water quality needs of a DAC. DWR has confirmed ourunderstanding that flood control projects in a DAC are eligible for this DAC-dedicated funding(in addition to the match funding waiver), if they meet a critical water supply or waterquality need. For a flood control project, the project sponsor must present the argument forhow the flood control project addresses a critical water supply/water quality need. Forexample, if a flood control project is located in a DAC and is designed to prevent publichealth risks associated with exposure to bacterial or chemical pollutants that could resultfrom flooding (such as happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina), the project couldbe considered by DWR to meet a critical water quality need. The deadline for submitting new or updated project descriptions to be eligible for inclusion inthe 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and future IRWMImplementation Grant proposals, is September 7, 2012. New or updated project descriptions received after 12:00 midnight on September 7 willnot be considered during the Project Review Process for inclusion in the 2013 IRWM Plan. Please note that you will need to register with the Bay Area IRWMP website in order to editproject information. If you need assistance or have questions, you may seek technical supportby contacting projects@bairwmp.org . Thank you,Paul HellikerChair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Forward this email to a friend From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop #2 - January 28, 2013 Date:Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:10:18 PM January 28, 2013 Public Workshop #2 for the Bay Area Integrated Water Management Plan You are invited to the second public workshop for the development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop will be held on Monday, January 28, 2013 from 4-6 p.m. at StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA. (12 th St. BART) The purpose of the workshop is to provide water, flood and watershed agencies and organizations with information about water-related projects and funding sources related to integrated water resource management projects in the Bay Area. The topics for the workshop will include: ·2013 Bay Area IRWMP Projects – Scoring and Ranking Projects for Inclusion in the Plan – Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association and Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee, and ·Financing and Collaboration – Opportunities, Challenges, Successes: Current and Emerging Opportunities for Funding Water Resource Projects 1) Water and wastewater public-private partnerships – Grant Schlereth, ARUP 2) Flood management projects – Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency 3) Non-governmental organization projects – Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership The topics will provide ample opportunity for discussion by participants. The workshop is intended for public agency representatives (particularly water, land use, and sustainable development), policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests and individuals interested in water supply, water quality, flood protection/stormwater management, wastewater/recycled water, and watershed and habitat protection. For further information, please visit the website, www.bairwmp.org. The Bay Area IRWMP is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. P.S. Participation in the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee is open to anyone interested in regional water projects, programs and policies. Please join us at our monthly meetings, check the website, www.bairwmp.org , for the contact person in your subregion, or contact us at BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:January 28 Water Workshop - Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Date:Monday, January 14, 2013 1:46:30 PM Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here willshow in the preview area of some email clients.Is this email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser . January 28, 2013 Public Workshop #2 for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan “Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration” You are invited to the second public workshop for the development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop will be held on Monday, January 28, 2013 from 4-6 p.m. at StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA. (12th St. BART) Topics for the workshop include: Scoring, ranking and selecting projects for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Funding sources and collaborations for water project implementation, including public-private and public-non-profit partnerships Speakers include: Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency Grant Schlereth, ARUP Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership Steve Ritchie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission There will also be a discussion with participants about removing barriers to collaboration between public agencies and non-profit organizations as well as with for-profit organizations. Please visit www.bairwmp.org for an agenda and further information about the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop is intended for public agency representatives (particularly water, land use, and sustainable development), policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests and individuals interested in water supply, water quality, flood protection/stormwater management, wastewater/recycled water, and watershed and habitat protection. The Bay Area IRWMP is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. P.S. Participation in the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee is open to anyone interested in regional water projects, programs and policies. Please join us at our monthly meetings, check the website, www.bairwmp.org , for the contact person in your subregion, or contact us at BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com . follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Reminder: Bay Area IRWMP January 28th Workshop Date:Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:37:10 PM Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here willshow in the preview area of some email clients.Is this email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser . January 28, 2013 Public Workshop #2 for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan “Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration” As a reminder, you are invited to the second public workshop for the development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The workshop will be held on Monday, January 28, 2013 from 4-6 p.m. at StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA. (12 th St. BART) Topics for the workshop include: · Scoring, ranking and selecting the 300+ projects for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP · Funding sources and collaborations for water project implementation, including public-private and public-non- profit partnerships Please visit the website , www.bairwmp.org, for an agenda and further information about the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 From:Bay Area IRWMP To:Ben Gettleman Subject:Bay Area IRWMP Draft Chapters Available for Public Review Date:Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:41:47 PM Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here willshow in the preview area of some email clients.Is this email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser . Three draft chapters are now available for public review as part of the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update process: Chapter 2: Region Description Chapter 3: Objectives Chapter 6: Regional Priorities (includes Appendix 6-2: Project Template) Please visit the BAIRWMP website at http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan- update/public-drafts/drafts to access the draft chapters. How to provide comments Please submit your substantive comments on Chapters 2, 3 and 6 using a Chapter Review Form (available at the link above) and send to Dana Haasz (DanaHaasz@KennedyJenks.com ) by March 28, 2013. Please use a separate form for each chapter reviewed. Review of additional Plan Update chapters Each of the Bay Area IRWM Plan Update’s chapters will be available for public review prior to being combined into one document (note: this combined Plan Update will also be available for review in June 2013). The draft chapters will be available on the BAIRWMP website (http://bairwmp.org/bairwm-2013-plan-update/public- drafts/drafts ), and a message will be sent to this distribution list at the beginning of each chapter’s 30-day review period. Below is the list of BAIRWM Plan Update chapters: Chapter : Title Chapter 1: Governance Chapter 2: Region Description Chapter 3: Objectives Chapter 4: Resource Management Strategies Chapter 6: Project Review Chapter 7: Impacts & benefits Chapter 8: Performance & Monitoring Chapter 9: Data Management Chapter 10: Financing Chapter 11: Technical analysis Chapter 12: Relation to Water planning Chapter 13: Relation to land use planning Chapter 14: Stakeholder Engagement Chapter 15: Coordination Chapter 16: Climate change forward to a friend unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Sent to bgettleman@kearnswest.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences Kearns & West · 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570 · San Francisco, CA 94111 Appendix E-2 Stakeholder Assessment Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 1 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update Summary of Interviews with Coordinating Committee Members February 2012 Members Interviewed: • Thomasin Grim, Marin MWD • Paul Helliker, Marin MWD (CC Chair) • Jennifer Krebs, ABAG/SFEP • Brian Mendenhall, Santa Clara Valley Water District • Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates • Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association • Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Association I. 2006 Plan Development Stakeholder Efforts A. Adequate to very good stakeholder: engagement of “the usual suspects” Local water agencies/special districts/ local government Water-specific state agencies Regional NGOs And, particularly for Plan development B. Minimal/not successful engagement of: Disadvantaged and Environmental Justice Communities (DACs/EJ). except for some outreach done by Carl Morrison on behalf of his clients/the effort Environmental groups Tribal organizations AND ALSO Research institutions Consulting firms Stormwater agencies County/city planning directors/agencies Resource Conservation Districts Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 2 Some state agencies (e.g. Fish & Game) Federal agencies And, engagement after Plan adoption was minimal C. Legacy of 2006 BAIRWMP collaboration efforts Flood agencies are now working together (Bay Area Flood Protection Association -- BASFPA) Also a water agency coalition, a clean water agency, a stormwater group (BAWAC, BASWA, BAWN) Subregional efforts may take it to the next step (e.g. NBWA sea-level-rise planning BUT, everyone is busy doing their own jobs and is likely to have less time to contribute to the CC or to “mentoring” DACs or other community-based organizations D. Stakeholder engagement goals were not clearly defined General notions range from “it’s the right thing to do” to “we need to get the most complete set of products we can so we need to hear from people in addition to agencies” Some local water agencies thought the state funds were for them and didn’t consider “integration” a priority Much of the engagement was actually “outreach,” i.e. informing stakeholders, but if you weren’t a local water agency you might not have really gotten a sense of how decisions were made and how your interests/group could influence decisions or benefit by them. After the plan was adopted in 2006, the attention shifted to identifying projects for submission to DWR for funding. There was very little if any ongoing stakeholder outreach other than public Coordinating Committee meetings and the more recent subregional groups E. Hurdles to Disadvantaged Communities and tribal engagement Need to develop a consolidated list of DACs and tribal groups, including relationships that subregional groups have DACs often don’t have the staff or volunteer time to participate in engagement activities, let alone submit a project proposal Their interests/priorities may not relate to the four functional areas (supply, quality, wastewater, flood protection); further, DAC projects must address water supply and/or water quality Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 3 Even if they have a water problem, it may be local and not obviously solved by a regional or integrated project Lack of knowledge of how to identify a project, find a partner, provide input to the application. Potential partner agencies may not see it in their interest to partner. Tribes are a challenge. They don’t seem to have specific water needs, unless the gaming industry generates demand that can’t be met. We’ll need to work with some agency resources to identify tribal representatives to talk to. DACs may underestimate the amount of resources and money a project will take and, consequently, they may never propose to do the work. II. 2013 Plan Update: More explicit stakeholder engagement goals should be part of an overall stakeholder engagement plan A. A successful stakeholder engagement plan would look like: Generate a sizeable number of projects, with both geographic and functional diversity There are projects that span the cross functional areas. For example, a habitat restoration project that includes flood management and groundwater recharge and maybe some recycled water. We go to the DACs and tribes to talk! Don’t make them come to our meetings! Ask them what their water problems are and what they want done about them. Manage expectations. Boil down the IRWMP to the types of projects that would make sense for DACs and also qualify for DWR’s criteria. Determine quickly whether their needs would be met by qualified projects. If not, tell them it’s not going to work but we’ll keep you on the mailing list and keep the BAIRWMP process in mind for the future. Empower NGOs to go to the DACs and tribes to raise awareness, interest and participation. Make some of the time at CC meeting specific so we can do a “deep dive” on more limited topics of interest to stakeholders rather than just do reviews and updates. Make the groups aware of state funding. You can lead a horse to water…. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 4 B. DWR should provide appropriate, region-specific criteria for what constitutes a disadvantaged community (DAC) 80% of median household income of state? Or region? And, more broadly, who IS the public? Does it include the likes of the Tea Party? C. DWR should provide guidance on tribal-related projects Few distinct tribal communities of a significant size in Bay Area Don’t tend to have region- or culture-specific water deficiencies DWR’s focus on water quality and water supply often does not relate to the challenges and concerns of Bay Area DACs and tribal communities. Their access to adequate quantities of clean water is not different from other residents. DAC and tribal water needs may not be the type that is easily integrated in geography or functional areas D. Foster a culture of collaboration that extends beyond the plan Clearly define “collaboration” and “integrated” so they can be considered from the start of project identification/development Beyond projects, convey necessity and benefit of region-wide water planning Provide a compelling reason for stakeholders, particularly DACs/EJ/tribes, to participate Provide opportunities in addition to CC meetings for DACs/tribes to participate E. Of the stakeholder engagement, how much should be geared toward DACs and tribes? Ranges from “Top priority!” to “Less than half our engagement efforts.” It’s in the work plan. A third should go to the DACs. But that might be too much given the potential for meeting state criteria. Need to clarify criteria with DWR! Given current understanding of DWR’s criteria that 10% of proposed project dollars should go to DACs and tribes, some felt it may be unreasonable because of the low numbers of communities that meet state requirements for income and for discrete water problems that qualify. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 5 We might be tempted to try to find problems that aren’t there. Why should we expend the effort on projects with a low likelihood of qualifying for state funds? If DACs don’t have the interest or bandwidth to participate, we can’t force them and we shouldn’t spend our time trying to create problems to solve. Not realistic to think a small community organization is going to put together an IRWMP organization F. Flood control and sea-level rise may be most promising DAC projects Find a map of flood-prone communities and target them Potential for climate change to create flooding in Low-lying communities would be more subject to flooding and to the effects of sea-level rise could meet state criteria for funding Flood management AND riparian or wetlands management together. With sea level rise, we’d want more wetlands in which to disperse the water Consider solutions: sea walls, evacuation plans (would these qualify as inter- regional and multi-benefit?) G. Other projects of interest to DACs may be: Conservation Rate reductions Watershed management Reduction of mercury pollution via stormwater drainage into Bay Impact of habitats on water quality Wastewater treatment plants H. The subregional approach has the best likelihood for engagement success. Subregional leads know the organizations and the territory. “Map” their relationships. Consolidate their lists of organizations. Regional watershed groups have good potential to cross multiple geographic and functional boundaries Recruit additional subregion stakeholder “co-captains” Compensate NGOs to engage community representatives who can identify potential problems that could be addresses by state bond money Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Coordinating Committee Interview Summary DRAFT – Not for distribution (last updated 2/27/12) Page 6 I. Outreach techniques might include: An outreach and engagement plan that has the buy-in from key players in the update Develop a simple, consistent message about why people/organizations should care about the IRWMP, how they can benefit, and how they can get help to get state money Deliver the messages: o In person by going to the groups o In simple text and graphics using project examples and photos o Via a more user-friendly website, including an online sign-up for announcements and e-newsletters o Via a quarterly e-newsletter Summary of Interviews Focusing on Disadvantaged Communities Page 1 Prepared by Kearns & West Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update Summary of Interviews Focusing on Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) April 2012 Stakeholders Interviewed: • Jennifer Clary – Clean Water Action • Debbie Davis – former member of Environmental Justice Coalition for Water • Melanie Denninger – State Coastal Conservancy • Karen Gaffney – North Coast IRWMP • Carol Mahoney – Zone 7 Water Agency • Karen Pierce – SF Department of Public Health, Bayview-Hunters Point environmental justice advocate • Chuck Striplen – SFEI, member of Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Reflections on 2006 IRWMP DAC Engagement • Process was frustrating for organizations serving DACs. • Proposed edits to the draft Plan from DAC perspectives/interests were largely not incorporated into the final Plan. • Organizations serving DACs were unable to involve DACs and integrate their projects because outreach to DACs occurred too late in the process and grantee funding was limited. • There were resources allocated and staff assigned to “fill the gaps” – identify DAC needs, vet ideas, develop project proposals, etc. This was essential. Challenges/Obstacles to Effective DAC Engagement in 2012-2013 DAC Criteria • There are a limited number of DACs in the Bay Area. • Water quality/water supply is not a significant concern in the Bay Area. Resources • DACs are often represented by people with limited bandwidth (full-time jobs and other responsibilities). Water issues are usually not high on their list of priorities and participating in meetings/workshops and developing proposals requires a significant time investment. • DACs have limited resources/experience to identify projects and develop project proposals, and there are no guarantees that projects will be funded. • BAIRWM participating agency staff have limited resources to target DAC communities. Structure/Process • CC meetings take place during the day, and DAC representatives are not typically able or willing to attend. • BAIRWM leadership is comprised of water resource agency staff, without direct connections to residents. Many other IRWM regions have elected officials involved, and there is a built-in mechanism/incentive to conduct outreach. • BAIRWM outreach efforts are not centralized, making it challenging to be strategic with time and resources. Relationships • Water resource agencies often do not have strong working relationships with DACs and the organizations that serve them. Summary of Interviews Focusing on Disadvantaged Communities Page 2 Prepared by Kearns & West • Some DACs have lingering distrust from the 2006 BAIRWMP development process, including skepticism that DAC input will be incorporated if they participate and contribute feedback. Initial Recommendations for Engaging DACs Resources • Determine how best to use limited resources to engage DACs in the review of draft chapters, project identification, and other Plan Update activities. • Inventory resources (staff and funding) available to engage and provide technical assistance to DACs. Determine what additional resources will be needed and make plan for acquiring/allocating them. Structure/Process • Leverage existing BAIRWM structure to conduct outreach and identify potential projects o Functional Areas (FA), particularly the Water quality/Water supply FA, can coordinate internally and provide guidance/information to help identify DAC projects. Encourage more direct interaction and information sharing between water resource agencies and DACs. o Consistent with broader outreach, DAC outreach should be implemented and coordinated on the sub-regional level. o Identify ways of involving DACs in existing activities. o Be very clear about how DAC input will be incorporated; ensure that commitments are upheld. Be clear about the decision-making process and how they will be assisted in preparing proposals. Outreach and Engagement • Develop DAC-specific outreach messages and materials. • Structure DAC outreach to reflect the criteria for selecting projects. Be clear about what kinds of projects are being sought. • Educate DACs to better make the connection between water and other environmental priorities. • Inventory existing relationships with DACs and the organizations that serve them. Use a spider-webbing approach to reach additional organizations. • Go to the DACs – provide presentations during their standing meetings. DACs want to see/hear from the water agencies directly. • Conduct community visits to better understand issues, build relationships and establish trust. Project Identification • Engage environmental/public health officers, who often know about water quality issues and the needs of DACs. • Identify Bay Area communities that do not have access to safe water/sewer. Consider beginning with county department of public health or local governments, who can identify places with poor housing stock. The Water Board can provide information on violations. Tribal-Specific Issues and Recommendations • Some tribes have professional environmental staff; most do not. • Most Bay Area tribes are diffused, making it difficult to address geographic needs. • Tribal engagement is unique, and tribes themselves are unique. Direct government-to- government consultation is often expected. • The EPA Regional Tribal Operations Committee and DWR’s Tribal Liaison will be helpful resources. Appendix E-3 Agenda for April 17, 2012 Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop Bay Area IRWMP Stakeholder Engagement Planning Meeting Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) 375 11th St., Oakland, CA Large Training Room – 2nd Floor Meeting Objectives • Identify objectives for stakeholder engagement (both for IRWMP development and for implementation moving forward) • Confirm current and anticipated engagement activities (in all sub-regions and across all functional areas) and identify gaps • Discuss strategies to engage and identify projects in DACs and tribal communities Agenda Time Item 9:00 – 9:20 Agenda review and introductions • Introduce meeting participants • Review agenda topics and objectives • Framing the discussion – where we’ve been and where we’re going 9:20 – 10:30 Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) to support BAIRWMP development and project identification/selection • Discuss proposed BAIRWMP engagement objectives • Review current and anticipated outreach and engagement activities and roles/responsibilities • Discuss gaps and overlaps 10:30 – 11:40 DAC/tribal engagement planning • Review findings from Kearns & West DAC interviews • Discuss DAC/tribal participation challenges and potential recommendations • Discuss proposed DAC/tribal engagement objectives 11:40 – 11:55 Wrap-up discussion • Additional challenges, recommendations, and guidance for development of SEP and DAC/tribal engagement 11:55 – 12:00 Next steps Meeting Materials 1. Draft timeline of BAIRWMP development and public engagement/outreach milestones 2. Proposed BAIRWMP engagement objectives 3. Compiled results from Outreach and Engagement Activity Survey 4. Summary of findings from DAC interviews 5. Proposed DAC/tribal engagement objectives Appendix E-4 Stakeholder Engagement Plan Stakeholder Engagement Plan Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Project Overview .................................................................................................. 1 III. Stakeholder and Public Engagement Goals and Objectives ............................................................. 1 IV. Stakeholder Identification ............................................................................................................. 4 V. Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Activities ........................................................................... 7 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW The regional water management group for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is preparing the 2013 Plan Update to guide water management efforts in the Bay Area. Using the 2006 Plan as a basis, the new version will update existing information, add a new chapter on climate change, and update portions of the Plan to be current with the California Department of Water Resources’ guidelines and criteria for integrated regional water management plans. This Stakeholder Engagement Plan is a guide for the Coordinating Committee and its consultants to inform and engage stakeholders in learning about and contributing to the development of the Plan and for identification of water-related projects to include in the Plan for potential state grant funding. It was developed with input from interviews with seven members of the Coordinating Committee, six interviews with external stakeholders, a half-day Stakeholder Engagement Workshop held April 17, 2012, discussions with DWR staff, additional conversations with stakeholders, and discussion at the April and May 2012 Coordinating Committee meetings. II. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The development of the Bay Area IRWMP will only be possible with the participation of a range of stakeholders including water professionals, non-profit organizations, and community members. These stakeholders are most able to identify Bay Area water-related challenges and opportunities to address Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 1 of 9 Updated September 2012 them. In order to secure this type of input, efforts must be made to educate the public about integrated water project s and what constitutes an integrated regional water management plan. In addition, opportunities to share information about problems and solutions must be provided. With this understanding and these opportunities in place, interested stakeholders and broader members of the public can be involved in the development of the Bay Area IRWMP, including identifying potential projects to be included. This Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) identifies how stakeholder and public input will help shape the Bay Area IRWMP and how stakeholders can identify projects to be included in the Bay Area IRWMP. The SEP is intended to direct stakeholder engagement during the plan update process through August 2013, and it will also be used to guide stakeholder engagement subsequent to adoption of the Bay Area IRWMP. Kearns & West organized a Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Workshop in April 2012 to confirm Coordinating Committee Goals, Objectives and Priorities for stakeholder outreach and engagement. Fourteen persons attended. Based on that input the following goals and objectives were developed and brought to the Coordinating Committee. Subsequent to the workshop, some of the participants are serving on the Stakeholder Engagement Subcommittee to provide ongoing input and outreach. GOALS: Key stakeholder engagement goals for the Bay Area IRWMP include: 1. Develop a broader understanding of the water needs of the Bay Area 2. Increase broad public awareness of regional water management planning 3. Expand the scope of the Bay Area IRWMP to include planning for climate change impacts and to provide for greater collaboration with land use agencies 4. Further engage non-governmental organizations in the IRWMP planning process 5. Further engage disadvantaged communities in the IRWMP planning process 6. Identify and address the needs of disadvantaged communities 7. Develop more multi-benefit projects than previously submitted OBJECTIVES: The stakeholder engagement objectives that will support the goals of stakeholder engagement include: 1. Plan Update Awareness o BAIRWMP stakeholders know the Plan is being updated and understand why it is important for their respective groups. o Stakeholders understand the opportunities for public participation in content development and review. o Stakeholders understand the decision-making processes associated with the Plan Update, including:  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding Plan Update content  How, when and by whom decisions are made regarding potential water projects and their prioritization Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 2 of 9 Updated September 2012 2. Stakeholder Inclusion and Identification o The CC listserv is easy to join, open to anyone, and the list of participants is well maintained and expanding in number. o As identified, people are invited to join the CC listserv and participate as stakeholders. The expansion includes:  Individuals who are on the contact lists of the four BAIRWMP subregional groups  Members of Bay Area regional water- and flood-related coalitions, organizations, and listservs  Members of public policy organizations interested in regional planning  Representatives of organizations in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) who have an interest in water issues addressed by the BAIRWMP  City and County government representatives, particularly those involved in land use planning, flood protection, habitat management, and public health  Experts , individuals and organizations responsible for/interested in impacts of climate change/sea level rise relative to water management  Organizations and individuals involved in watershed protection/habitat restoration  Businesses and associations which impact and/or are impacted by water-related decisions  Native American tribal representatives  Organizations and individuals interested in specific BAIRWMP issues  Other self-identified individuals and organizations o Stakeholders representing DACs and tribes have been identified for targeted outreach/engagement. 3. BAIRWMP Stakeholder Input and Review o Stakeholders impact content development by providing information and data to the Plan Update Team and/or the technical consultants, including at CC meetings, at subregional meetings, at workshops, and in person. Stakeholders can help frame issues, identify challenges and recommend solutions, including recommendations for policies and programs that involve collaboration and integration among organizations and agencies. o Stakeholders are able to review and provide feedback on the Plan Update during public review of draft chapters, which is publicized online, and in CC listserv notices. Stakeholders will also be able to make comments at Public Workshops. o Stakeholders see their input reflected in the Plan Update and/or are informed why their comments are not reflected. 4. Project Identification o The 2013 BAIRWMP includes projects that meet the needs of the Bay Area region and conform to Proposition 84 requirements. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 3 of 9 Updated September 2012 o Stakeholder involvement in the 2013 BAIRWMP produces projects that reflect integration among water management functions, agencies, and organizations to provide multiple benefits to communities. o Stakeholder involvement produces projects that feature greater collaboration among public agencies, non-governmental organizations, and communities. o Stakeholder involvement will identify projects that will disadvantaged commuities 5. Coordination and collaboration o The BAIRWMP process and its participants foster coordination, collaboration, and creative thinking among public agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses and individuals to identify and address the region’s water resource challenges and opportunities. o Agencies, organizations and individuals involved in the Plan Update are informed of the stakeholder engagement activities of other participants, which allows for the effective and efficient use of resources and relationships. III. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION Since the development of the 2006 Bay Area IRWMP, a core group of water agencies and non-profit organizations has continued to operate as the Coordinating Committee (CC), whose membership is open to any interested person. The CC holds monthly meetings and makes decisions on a consensus basis. The region is divided into four subregions to facilitate interaction on a more localized basis. There is a lead or co-leads for each subregion. An effort will be made to enlist water/flood agency representatives in San Mateo County, which is not currently represented. The CC participants and the stakeholder engagement consultant, Kearns & West, will identify potential additional stakeholders for engagement, including regional planning organizations and non-profit groups, land use and planning agencies and organizations, elected officials, disadvantaged communities and Native American tribal representatives, expanding the existing 200-person CC listserv as well as increasing the numbers of people on subregional contact lists. The goal of stakeholder identification is to capture all organizations, agencies and communities that may have an interest in the four functional areas of the Bay Area IRWMP – water supply/water quality, wastewater/stormwater, flood control, and watershed and habitat protection. Bay Area IRWMP stakeholders will include: 1. Wholesale and retail water purveyors 2. Wastewater agencies 3. Flood control agencies 4. Municipal and county governments and special districts 5. Elected officials 6. Regional planning organizations 7. County and local land use planners 8. Utilities 9. Climate change experts 10. Self-supplied water users Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 4 of 9 Updated September 2012 11. Environmental stewardship organizations 12. Community organizations 13. Industry organizations 14. State, federal, and regional agencies or universities 15. Disadvantaged community representatives 16. Native American tribal representatives 17. Any other interested group appropriate to the region Disadvantaged Communities Kearns & West will seek to identify representatives of disadvantaged communities as determined by the California Department of Water Resources’ criteria of less than 80% of the statewide median household income (MHI). Using 2010 U.S. Census data, Kearns & West will update a regional map to clearly indicate disadvantaged communities. Working with water agencies and county and local planning departments, as well as non-profit organizations that represent such communities, Kearns & West will identify a select number of organizations/individuals who are interested in water-related issues and willing to participate in plan development and/or project identification. These representatives will be invited to Bay Area IRWMP public workshops and will also be advised of other ways to collaborate with partner agencies and organizations to submit projects for consideration. Goals and Objectives for Disadvantaged Communities outreach and engagement include: 1. Plan Update Awareness and Participation o Water agencies and non-government organizations that serve Disadvantaged Communities understand the purpose of the Bay Area IRWMP and the participation and decision-making processes supporting the Plan Update so that they can be involved. 2. DAC Projects Included o The Plan Update includes three to five projects that benefit DACs, particularly in the areas of water quality and water supply. These DAC projects have a water agency co-sponsor to provide technical and administrative assistance and support. 3. Internal Coordination o Internal coordination among the water agencies and other organizations involved in the Plan Update allows for the effective and efficient use of resources for engaging DACs and engagement activities are informed by a clear understanding of priorities for DAC engagement. 4. Ongoing/Future DAC Engagement o Outreach and engagement activities build awareness of integrated, regional water management opportunities and result in enhanced trust and long-lasting positive relationships between water agencies and DACs. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 5 of 9 Updated September 2012 Native American Tribes Kearns & West will consult with individuals and organizations familiar with Bay Area tribes and tribal communities to identify appropriate tribal representatives. Kearns & West will also consult with neighboring IRWMPs to determine Bay Area tribes participating on other regional IRWMPs. We will also consult with the California Native American Heritage Commissions to confirm tribes and their contacts as well as strategies for contact. We will then contact, inform and seek involvement from tribes in the development of the Bay Area IRWMP in order to serve the water needs and interests of these populations to the extent possible. The CC participants acknowledge that tribal members are dispersed into existing communities in the Bay Area rather than concentrated in location-specific communities. These initial efforts will provide a foundation for future tribal outreach. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 6 of 9 Updated September 2012 IV. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Key components of the stakeholder outreach and engagement methods are outlined below. They are also included in a process timeline at the end of this document. A. Informational Materials 1. Flyer -- Kearns & West will develop a basic descriptive flyer to be posted to the project website and to be distributed by CC participants at meetings. 2. FAQs -- Kearns & West will revise the Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section of the project website. 3. Website and CC Listserv -- The project website, www.bairwmp.org, will provide information about the Bay Area IRWMP, including notices about public workshops and comment opportunities. The website will include links to presentations and handouts from public workshops. Visitors will also be able to sign up for the CC listserv in order to be notified of upcoming CC meetings. http://bairwmp.org/contact-info B. Consolidated Email List -- Kearns & West will compile a master stakeholder email list to be used for disseminating information, noticing public workshops, and identifying opportunities for stakeholders to review documents. The email list will include the representatives from the organizations and agencies identified in Section III. Kearns & West will select an email contact management system for distributing notices to the list, which is expected to include approximately 2,000 stakeholders. C. Coordinating Committee Meetings The Coordinating Committee (CC) is the regional water management organization developing the Bay Area IRWMP. The CC meets monthly, and these meetings will be used to inform stakeholders on the development of the Plan Update and solicit input on the Plan and potential water projects. Participation in the CC meetings is open to the public; anyone interested in water issues and planning is invited to attend and participate. Kearns & West will work with the CC and the consultant team to organize and facilitate these meetings to ensure that they are open, inclusive, efficient and effective. Summary notes of the meetings are available to the public via the project website. D. Subregional Meetings, Participation in Local Workshops, Email Communications A significant and effective stakeholder outreach strategy since the 2006 Plan was the voluntary appointment of four subregional leads who coordinate and communicate with water interests in their areas. This has been an effective way to break down such a large region as the Bay Area into smaller regions where the subregional leads have knowledge and contacts. Each lead and/or co-lead initiates communication with subregional water interests and hosts and/or participates in subregional meetings. Additionally, each lead maintains a separate email list of local meetings and contact. Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 7 of 9 Updated September 2012 E. Public Workshops Kearns & West will work with the CC and its subregional leads to design and implement up to four public workshops to inform stakeholders about the Bay Area IRWMP process and content, how they can provide input into the plan, and how to submit water projects to be included in the plan. Since the majority of contacts on the stakeholder email list, and those who visit the project website, will likely have prior understanding of water issues, the workshops will be aimed primarily at those audiences. Secondarily, the workshops will be aimed at those who may not have a professional role in water issues but who have specific water needs or interests. Representatives of disadvantaged communities will also be invited to public workshops and to subregional public meetings. The public workshops will be two hours in length and will be located at central locations within the Bay Area with access to public transportation. They will include presentations and interactive discussions, and may be held in conjunction with the monthly meeting of the Coordinating Committee. Additionally, subregional leads may use the materials developed for the workshops to hold local, subregional meetings that are specific to their stakeholders. Public Workshop #1 – Bay Area IRWMP Overview and Objectives Overview: This workshop will provide an orientation to the Plan Update process. Date: July 23, 2012 Objectives: To help attendees understand: • IRWM Plan Update goals, objectives, process, requirements and how they can participate • General criteria and requirements for projects to be included in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP as well as the process for submitting projects on the website in order to meet the September 1, 2012 deadline. • Criteria for prioritization of projects for the Plan Public Workshop #2 – Topic-specific Elements of the Bay Area IRWMP (Revised 10/12) Overview: This workshop will provide an overview of the 380+ projects submitted by September 7, 2012 and will discuss measuring progress and financing IRWM efforts and projects Date: January 22, 2013 (dependent on CC meeting date) Objectives: To help attendees understand and provide input on: o Projects to be included in Plan Update o Measuring progress toward achieving Bay Area IRWM goals o Finance Public Workshop #3 – Project Identification and Orientation (To be developed and approved in Q4 2012) Overview: Tentative; This workshop will provide an in-depth look at the impacts of and Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 8 of 9 Updated September 2012 opportunities for inclusion of land use and climate change considerations in planning for the Bay Area's water future. Date: Early 2013 depending on chapter development Objectives: To help attendees understand and provide input on: • The overlapping and related elements of land use and water use planning and how to integrate these elements in general and in the development of projects for inclusion in the Bay Area IRWMP • The new California Department of Water Resources requirements for identifying and planning for the impacts of climate change on water management in general and in the development of projects for inclusion in the Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop #4 – Review of Draft Bay Area IRWMP (Optional and TBD) The CC may sponsor a fourth workshop once the draft plan has been developed in order to review the elements, including the prioritized list of projects. This workshop would be held in the first quarter of 2013. F. Outreach and Publicity for Public Workshops Kearns & West will employ the following outreach and publicity strategies to ensure awareness about the workshops: • Project website workshop notice/invitation, including specific invitations to representatives of disadvantaged communities • E-mail notice/invitation to the project’s master stakeholder email list (estimated at 2,200) • Media release and distribution o Kearns & West will utilize an electronic media release service or a custom-designed Bay Area media distribution list to inform the public about the workshops. This media release would go to major Bay Area newspapers and community newspapers. (Note: The project budget does not allow for paid advertising in metropolitan newspapers.) • Partnering with CC participants to distribute information via their channels • Posting on the DWR eNews email blast, received by people with an interests in California water news Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan, Bay Area IRWMP Page 9 of 9 Updated September 2012 Appendix E-5 Summary of Subregional Outreach Activities Bay Area IRWMP Subregional Stakeholder Outreach Activities North, South, West, East -- As reported by Subregional Leads January 2011 - September 2012 (Additional meetings and communications occurred in the subregions between plan adoption and the beginning of the Plan Update process.) Subregion , lead Dates 2011 -2012 Type/purpose of meeting/activity/communication #/Types of attendees Outcomes NORTH: Lead, Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association 11/21/11 First meeting with County leads on Plan Update Initial organizing and awareness 1/24/12 NBWA Watershed Council 42 stakeholders Common understanding of Plan Update 2/6/12 MCSTOPPP (Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program) Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting 5 committee members Announcement of IRWMP program and Marin meeting 2/9/12 Marin County meeting San Rafael ~30 stakeholders Dialogue on “integrated” projects 2/21/12 Napa County meeting Yountville ~30 stakeholders Dialogue on “integrated” projects 3/1/12 Sonoma County meeting Petaluma ~20stakehol ders Dialogue on “integrated” projects 3/20/12 North Bay county leads conference call 5 county leads Multiple County e- mails announcing template to stakeholders and updates as needed. 4/11/12 Marin County Flood Control staff meeting update ~20 county staff Update on the IRWMP process and timeline 4/13/12 NBWA Conference "Climate Change: How Can We Be Ready?" 200 stakeholders , elected officials Table and handouts on BAIRWMP update 4/18/12 City of Sonoma meeting 10 stakeholders Sonoma watershed project integration 5/7/12 Sonoma County Water Agency Water Advisory Committee BAIRWMP Update 6/13/12 NBWA Watershed Council 15 stakeholders BAIRWMP Plan update-focus on projects 7/6/12 NBWA Board 30 elected officials and stakeholders BAIRWMP update 7/17/12 City of Petaluma meeting 5 stakeholders Petaluma watershed project integration 7/19/12 North Bay county leads conference call 5 county leads County e-mails to stakeholders with plan update information 8/6/12 Sonoma County Water Agency Water Advisory Committee BAIRWMP Update 8/2/12 Marin Municipal Water District, Marin County Parks, Marin County Flood Control project collaboration meeting 8 staff Planning and coordination for several projects in the County. SOUTH: Lead, Brian Mendenhall, SCVWD 8/20/12 IRWM Workshop 26 internal and external stakeholders Provided information on IRWM, the project review process, and project solicitation WEST: Lead, Mark Boucher, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7/21/2011 East Subregion Meeting 15 stakeholders Coordination, Announcements, Collection of potential projects on maps 8/18/2011 East Subregion Meeting 16 9/15/2011 East Subregion Meeting 16 11/3/2011 East Subregion Meeting 10 2/16/2012 East Subregion Conf Call 11 4/19/2012 East Subregion Conf Call 10 6/21/2012 East Subregion Conf Call ? 8/16/2012 East Subregion Conf Call 13 10/11/11 Emails to gather East Subregion Projects Database coordinator for SF Bay Joint Venture Received habitat projects in GIS format to plot on map. Prior to 7/21/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Coordination, Announcements, Collection of potential projects on maps Prior to 8/18/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Prior to 9/15/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Prior to 11/3/11 Email Agenda and info 150+ Prior to 2/16/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ Prior to 4/19/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ Prior to 6/21/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ Prior to 8/16/12 Email Agenda and info 160+ 11/17/12 2011 Contra Costa County Creek and Watershed Symposium 200-300 Manned a table with fliers and map of Subregion asking people to pinpoint their project on the 3'x4' map. 7/2011- 6/2012 Webpages: http://bairwmp.org/subregions/e ast/home - Setup and maintained information on East Subregion web pages to keep information about meetings and deadlines visible to the public and subregion. 7/2011- 8/2012 Emails several dozen coordinate web accounts, projects, answer questions WEST: Co- lead, Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek JPA 8/9/11 10/5/11 11/14/12 Meetings in San Mateo County to provide update on Bay Area IRWMP varied Kellyx Nelson, SMC RCD 7/26/2012- 9/4/2012 Three emails sent to RCD distribution list to notify potential Coastside San Mateo County project proponents to propose projects for BA IRWMP and offering assistance to propose projects About 100 recipients Kellyx Nelson July- September 2012 Regular communication with the office of Supervisor Don Horsley about IRWMP Two projects for coastal San Mateo County submitted for consideration Appendix E-6 General Outreach Materials www.bairwmp.org info@bairwmp.org Time to update the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan! The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a multi- stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. The Bay Area IRWMP was developed in 2006 by a coalition of water and wastewater agencies, flood protection agencies, cities, non-governmental organizations, watershed groups, and regional planning associations. Acceptance of the 2006 Plan by the California Department of Water Resources has made approximately $107 million in Propositions 50, 84 and 1E state grant money available to implement Bay Area projects to improve the health of our water and flood protection systems. It’s time to update the plan to guide future resource planning for:  Water supply and water quality  Wastewater and recycled water  Flood protection and stormwater management  Watershed management, habitat protection and restoration New to the updated plan is a section on the impacts of climate change on water resources planning. This will be of particular interest to those interested in water and land resources in the low-elevation areas surrounding the San Francisco Bay. Additionally, the 2013 IRWMP will emphasize the integration of water management strategies across the Bay Area achieved by collaboration among agencies and jurisdictions. The update of the IRWMP is being guided by a Coordinating Committee composed of the Bay Area’s water, wastewater, flood protection and ecosystem and restoration agencies, as well as resources and regulatory agencies and non-governmental organizations. Grant-funded flood protection project, Lower Silver Creek, Santa Clara Co. Why you should care about the 2013 IRWMP Update Water resources cross jurisdictional boundaries. A systems approach is needed to manage water effectively, and the IRWMP guides that approach. The development and implementation of an effective, multi-interest IRWMP requires the attention of all jurisdictions and interest groups to ensure that key challenges are identified and effective solutions are funded. In addition to your input into the Plan Update itself, that means that if your organization can identify a water-related need, you may be able to get a project funded, in part, by state grants. Projects selected for inclusion in the 2013 Plan Update may be eligible for future funding. Qualified organizations and collaborations may include Bay Area water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater, flood management, watershed and habitat protection and restoration agencies, as well as local governments, environmental groups, business groups and other interested parties. How to Get Involved The Bay Area IRWMP Update process will begin in spring 2012 and continue through 2013. You are invited to participate in a number of ways. By accessing the project website, www.bairwmp.org, you will be able to:  Read the most current Plan Update information and schedule. We’ll be adding to it regularly.  Sign up to receive email updates  See announcements about IRWMP-specific public workshops around the Bay Area  Track the work of the Coordinating Committee  See the date and location of the monthly Coordinating Committee meetings as well as sub-regional meetings, all open to the public Bay Area Region Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 1 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Frequently Asked Questions Introduction to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP 1. What is the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP)? The San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is a planning process and document that identifies Bay Area water challenges and opportunities and how water resources management agencies and communities can work together to plan for and manage the whole lifecycle of this essential resource for the benefit of the region’s seven million residents, its ecosystem and its wildlife. The region qualifies and can compete for specific state funding when the state approves its Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The region also becomes part of a statewide network of integrated regional water management planning regions. 2. What geographic region does the Bay Area IRWMP include? The IRWM Regions and Funding Areas are based on hydrological watersheds rather than city/county boundaries. In the Bay Area, the Funding Area described in Proposition 84 and the San Francisco Bay Area IRWM Region is coterminous, including all or part of nine counties and 110 cities. The counties include San Francisco, and parts of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin. The region is further divided into four subregions to address local issues and projects. (See Question 21 for subregion contact information.) The specific geographic extent of the Bay Area IRWMP is based on the boundary of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Region 2. Hydrologically, the Region 2 boundary generally represents the watershed interfluve for Bay-draining surface flows and runoff. Although some coastal Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo County lands are included within the Region 2 boundary, a majority of lands drain to the Bay. For the purposes of developing a plan to manage integrated water resources, using a physically based watershed boundary that drains (a majority of) lands to a common receiving water body (the Bay) is advantageous. Additionally, Region 2 is a historically defined jurisdictional boundary. Using a well-understood and existing jurisdictional boundary reduces confusion for participating agencies who are already familiar with its geography. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 2 Boundaries of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 3 3. What is the status of the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Update? The Bay Area IRWMP was adopted in 2006. The plan is being updated in 2012 and 2013 to meet revised IRWM Plan Standards set forth in California’s Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management Program Guidelines published by the Department of Water Resources in August of 2010. The Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) is using a Proposition 84 IRWM Planning Grant to develop the updated Bay Area IRWMP. The CC has hired a team of technical, planning, and stakeholder engagement consultants (Kennedy/Jenks, ESA and Kearns & West) to develop the updated Bay Area IRWMP with input from partner agencies, associations, non-profit organizations and the public. First- time participation by new agencies, organizations and individuals is encouraged. Public workshops will be held in the summer of 2012 to explain the 2013 Plan and seek comment and feedback. The project team will update the website to provide information as well as announcements of workshops and public participation opportunities. (www.bairwmp.org). See also Question 20 about how you can get involved.. 4. Who is involved in the Bay Area IRWMP? San Francisco Bay Area water, wastewater, flood protection and stormwater management agencies; cities and counties; watershed management interests, planning agencies and organizations, and non- governmental organizations are involved in the Bay Area IRWMP. They voluntarily participate in the Coordinating Committee (CC), which is the Regional Water Management Group for the Bay Area IRWMP. Additional agencies and organizations are encouraged to learn about the process, provide feedback on the 2013 Plan’s chapters as they are released in 2012 and 2013, and to identify and submit projects to be included in the Bay Area IRWMP so that the projects can compete for state IRWM grants. Agencies and organizations dealing with land use and climate change are particularly encouraged to participate as water resource management is increasingly related to these topics. 5. What is integrated water planning? Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries and involves multiple agencies, communities, groups and individuals. It attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. For instance, water supply, water quality, and habitat projects might be combined with a flood control project in a way that benefits a much larger area than the original jurisdiction. The result is a multi-objective approach that multiplies the benefits of any individual agency’s or organization’s single project. 6. What water resource management challenges will the Bay Area IRWMP address? The Bay Area IRWMP will inform future water resource management planning, including the relationship between water and land use planning, by creating a roadmap that will help enhance water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, improve habitat conditions and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. New to the 2013 Plan will be a chapter that identifies how Bay Area water resources are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Awareness of potential climate change impacts can help communities plan for and mitigate expected water changes and threats. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 4 7. Why is the Bay Area IRWMP important? The Bay Area IRWMP is the regional plan for managing and leveraging our water resource systems, an effort no individual water or flood agency could do on its own. Collaboration strengthens regional clout, reduces resource management conflict, increases benefits across the region, and may reduce costs for individual agencies. On the practical side, water-related agencies that participate in an IRWMP and submit projects qualify to compete for state grant money to fund projects that will help their communities. Non-profit organizations, neighborhood groups, interest groups and Native American tribes can also benefit by collaborating with the public agencies to propose projects to the state that help solve their water resources challenges. 8. What is the impetus behind regional and integrated water management planning? The California Department of Water Resources encourages and –provides funds to communities to collaborate on managing their water resources. In 2002, and again in 2006, California voters recognized the importance of forward-thinking water planning when they approved Propositions 50, 84 and 1E. People and natural resources in the almost 50 California IRWM regions benefit from this bond money designated for Integrated Regional Water Management planning and implementation. 9. What topics, services, and functions does an IRWMP address? IRWMPs include a physical and demographic description of the region and its populations, regional water resources management objectives and priorities, water resources management strategies, implementation impacts and benefits, impacts of climate change (an addition for the 2013 Plan), data management, financing, relationship to local planning, and coordination with state and federal agencies whose jurisdictions and service topics overlap with the IRWMP. It also includes projects that agencies and collaborations of agencies and non-profit organizations and communities have submitted for consideration. The plan serves as a guide to enhance water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, improve habitat conditions, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. 10. Why will climate change be included in the 2013 Plan Update? This new chapter is intended to make water resources management and land use planners, as well as policy makers, throughout the Bay Area aware of climate change impacts on water resources so they can evaluate, prioritize and incorporate policies and strategies that anticipate, plan for, and mitigate climate change. Preliminary evidence suggests that sea level rise may have its greatest impact in low- lying, flood-prone areas that ring the Bay. The 2013 Plan will identify the most vulnerable areas. It will also suggest mitigation measures to address climate change impacts. 11. What types of projects are eligible for state grant funding? IRWM Implementation Grant funding provided under Propositions 50, 84 and 1E seeks to fund water resources projects with a multiplier effect -- multiple strategies for improving water systems that result in multiple benefits to multiple communities. Projects that might qualify for funding include, among others, improved water supply reliability, long-term attainment and maintenance of water quality standards, eliminated or reduced pollution in impaired water and sensitive habitat areas, planning and implementation of multipurpose flood control programs, and drinking water and water quality projects Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 5 that serve disadvantaged communities. The IRWM funds are also -available identify and address water needs specific to Native American communities. Organizational Structure, Governance and Funding 12. Who is updating the Bay Area IRWMP? The Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC) is the Regional Water Management Group for the Bay Area IRWMP and its 2013 update. Participation in the CC and its monthly meetings is open to anyone and the group operates on a consensus basis. 13. Who is administering the Planning and Implementation Grants? The Marin Municipal Water District holds the contract with the California Department of Water Resources to administer the Proposition 84 Planning Grant which is funding the 2013 Plan. Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) is administering the two Implementation Grants received to date by the Bay Area IRWMP -- one under Proposition 50 and one under Proposition 84. Future planning and implementation grants may be administered by other participating Bay Area agencies. 14. Who adopts the Bay Area IRWMP? In 2006, the Bay Area IRWMP was adopted by participating Bay Area agencies and organizations. The 2013 Bay Area IRWMP will be adopted by participating Bay Area agencies and organizations, including any additional agencies and organizations interested in participating. The projects that are funded by competitive state grants are implemented by the individual project proponents. 15. Where does California IRWM funding come from? IRWM funding comes from California taxpayers as a result of approval of three important ballot propositions. Key IRWM grant funding milestones include: 2002 - Senate Bill 1672 created the Integrated Regional Water Management Act to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage local and imported water supplies to improve the quality, quantity, and reliability. November 2002 - California voters passed Proposition 50, the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002, which provides $500,000,000 (CWC §79560-79565) to fund competitive grants for projects consistent with an adopted IRWM plan. November 2006 - California voters passed Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality, and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act, which provides $1,000,000,000 (PRC §75001-75130) for IRWM Planning and Implementation. November 2006 - California voters passed Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act, which provides $300,000,000 (PRC §5096.800-5096.967) for IRWM Stormwater Flood Management. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 6 16. What happens to projects not initially funded under Prop 50 or Prop 84? It will not be possible to fund all projects through the funding sources identified above. Funding for projects identified in the IRWMP may come from a variety of other sources as those funding sources are identified over time. Inclusion of a project in the IRWMP does not guarantee that funding is (or will be), available. 17. How will projects be prioritized in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP? The 2013 Plan will include a list of projects, some of which are carryovers from the 2006 Plan and some of which are being identified during 2012. The consultant team, with input from the Coordinating Committee, is drafting criteria for prioritization. Public workshops in the summer and fall of 2012 will present proposed criteria for prioritization and will seek public input on the criteria. The workshops, as well as information on the website, will also provide details about project applications. Based on the proposed criteria, the consulting team will develop a draft, prioritized list of projects for discussion at the September 2012 Coordinating Committee meeting. (Open to the public, check website for details.) Subsequent public workshops will present the prioritized list for public discussion. A final list of prioritized projects will be completed in December 2012 and will be included in the 2013 Plan. 18. How can the Bay Area IRWMP be used for other grant funding sources? Depending on the grant requirements of other funding sources, particularly those seeking integrated approaches, it is conceivable that there may be other related funding opportunities. The Bay Area IRWMP provides a foundation for pursuing such opportunities. How to Get Involved and to Submit Projects for the Plan 19. Who can and should be involved in regional water resources management and the Bay Area IRWMP process? Anyone interested in water resources management and decisions is encouraged to learn and to share his or her knowledge, ideas and questions. Participants include people representing water providers, flood agencies, utility districts, cities and counties, regional governments and coordinating bodies, non- profit and community organizations, educational institutions, and individuals. 20. How can I and my organization participate in the development of the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP? There are a number of avenues for participation in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP: Subregion Activities: The Bay Area is divided into four subregions to allow more specific discussions of topics pertinent to the area. Each subregion has a coordinator(s) and holds meetings and conference calls that are open to all. For information about issues and activities in any of the subregions, and/or to be added to a subregion-specific email listserv, please contact a subregion coordinator listed in Question 22 Who can I contact? Coordinating Committee: Participation in the broad-based, regional water resources management group known as the Coordinating Committee (CC) of the San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 7 Water Management Plan is open to all, whether or not one has an official capacity related to water resources management. Those interested are invited to participate in discussions at monthly meetings, receive email updates, submit comments on chapters as they are released for public review, attend any of the public workshops to be held in 2012 and 2013, and may seek to collaborate with agencies and organizations to submit water resources project proposals. (Check website www.bairwmp.org to sign up for the master email listserv to receive updates, to view meeting details, and submit project ideas.) Please join us at our monthly meetings on the last Monday of the month. See website for details. Working within your organization: Agencies and organizations can consider sponsoring forums to discuss the Bay Area IRWMP and can also distribute information about the Bay Area IRWMP to their constituencies or membership to encourage them to provide information and ideas that might be valuable to the development of the plan. Additionally, individuals in organizations can help by working to build support for the concept of a regional approach to water resource management as well as for adoption of the Bay Area IRWMP in 2013. See the website for a one-page flyer that can be downloaded. Website: Please visit the Bay Area IRWMP website www.bairwmp.org to get information about plan content and 2013 IRWMP update process. Regional email master list: Periodic updates and notices will be issued to the master email listserv for the entire Bay Area. To sign up to receive information via email, please visit the website or go directly to http://lists.bairwmp.org/mailman/listinfo/updates. Subregion email lists: Please contact the subregion leads listed under Question 21 Who can I contact? to be notified of local information and meetings. Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshops: Public workshops are scheduled at key milestones in the summer and fall of 2012 to share information on the elements of the Plan update and to solicit feedback on the draft chapters and important topics, such as project identification and prioritization. The meetings are intended to involve a broad audience, including organizations and individuals who have not been involved in the Bay Area IRWMP previously. Workshop details and information are posted on the website. 21. How can my agency or organization have its water project(s) included in the Bay Area IRWMP? In order to be considered for state IRWM grant funding, a proposed water resources project must be included in the Bay Area IRWMP. If your agency or organization is aware of a water-related problem that can be addressed by a resources project that solves a water-related problem and may meet state grant funding criteria, please complete a project template, or submit project information via the web- based project submittal tool available on the project website, www.bairwmp.org on the left panel. The information does not have to constitute a full proposal during the initial stages. 22. Who can I contact if I want to discuss a water project idea or get added to a subregional email list? If you want to be added to a subregional email list for updates and/or If you have a project idea, please contact any of the leads in the Bay Area’s four subregions. Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 8 North: portions of Sonoma, Napa, Solano Counties and the majority of Marin County -- Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association,(415) 389-8237717, harryser@comcast.net West: San Francisco, San Mateo Counties – Cheryl Munoz, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, cmunoz@sfwater.org; Molly Petrick, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 415- 934-5767, MPetrick@sfwater.org; Kellyx Nelson, San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, 650.712.7765, kellyx@sanmateorcd.org; Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, 650-324-1972, kmurray@sfcjpa.org South: Santa Clara County -- Brian Mendenhall, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 408-265-2607, ext 3093, BMendenhall@valleywater.org; Tracy Hemmeter, 408-265-2600, themmeter@valleywater.org East: Alameda, Contra Costa Counties -- Mark Boucher, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 925-313-2274, mbouch@pw.cccounty.us; Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency, (925) 454-5064, cmahoney@zone7water.com Additionally, you can email a general question to Projects@bairwmp.org. 23. When are the project proposals due and how should they be submitted? Project proposal for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP are due September 1, 21012. This will allow the consultant team to review them to determine if modifications, such as collaborations and/or better integration, would make them more competitive for state grant funds. It will also allow the consultant team to apply ranking criteria to the projects that are submitted so that a draft prioritized list of projects can approved by the Coordinating Committee. The final, prioritized list will be part of the Bay Area IRWMP submittal to the Calif0ornia Department of Water resources in 2013. Projects should be submitted via the project website, www.bairwmp.org , where a web-based template is available. 24. What is the objective of the Bay Area IRWMP public involvement process? Ensuring an open, transparent process of plan development and project prioritization is essential to developing a Bay Area IRWMP that is sustainable and implementable. Ongoing public participation during 2013 Plan process, as well as project identification and project prioritization, will help ensure all the key issues identified in the Plan are addressed and will build the foundation for broad-based support of the Bay Area IRWMP. 25. How will the Bay Area IRWMP address disadvantaged communities and Native American tribes? The Coordinating Committee and the public and stakeholder engagement consultants are seeking to determine what water resources-related problems face disadvantaged communities in particular. California considers a “disadvantaged community” one whose median household incomes less than 80% of the statewide median household income (MHI is about $48,500 per year per household). Applying 2010 U.S. Census data to graphical information system (GIS) maps, the team is mapping Bay Area disadvantaged communities. Working with organizations that represent people in vulnerable, Bay Area IRWMP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Last Edited 6/14/12 Page 9 disadvantaged communities, the team will seek to identify significant current and potential water resources problems. The California Department of Water Resources has indicated that in order to qualify for a state IRWM grant, a project serving a disadvantaged community must address a critical water supply or water quality need. The CC and the consultants will seek to involve disadvantaged communities in partnering with water resources management agencies to propose water resources projects that will qualify for IRWM grant funding. If you are aware of water-related problems facing low-income, disadvantaged communities or populations in the Bay Area, please contact stakeholder engagement consultant, Ben Gettleman, Kearns & West, bgettleman@kearnswest.com. The stakeholder engagement team has identified Bay Area Native American tribal representatives and will seek to identify water resources needs and concerns as well as water resources projects that might address them. If you are aware of water-related problems facing tribal communities in the Bay Area, please stakeholder engagement consultant, Ben Gettleman, Kearns & West, bgettleman@kearnswest.com. Appendix E-7 Materials from Public Workshops Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop: Regional Water Planning and Projects Monday, July 23, 2012 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA (Lake Merritt BART Station) _____________________ 2013 BAY AREA INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN This workshop is for people in public agencies, policy and planning organizations, environmental and health organizations, community groups, Tribal interests, and individuals interested in: Water Supply/Water Quality Flood Protection/Stormwater Wastewater/Recycled Water Watershed/Habitat Protection Your projects can qualify for funding. This is first of a series of public workshops to get input into the 2013 Plan and to identify Bay Area water projects that can be included in the Plan to qualify for competitive state grant funding. Brief project idea proposals are due September 1, 2012 and can be submitted via the project website: www.bairwmp.org Contact: Pam Jones 415-430-1208 pjones@kearnswest.com Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan For Immediate Release Public Workshop -– Regional Water/Flood/Watershed Planning The first public workshop for development of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan will be held on Monday, July 23, 2012 from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. at the Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA (Lake Merritt BART Station). The purpose of the workshop is to inform water professionals, land-use planners, environmental planners, non-profit organizations and community members about the 2013 update to the Bay Area IRWMP, how it affects communities, how public agencies and non-profit organizations can have input into the plan, and how to submit a water project to be included in the Plan, thereby qualifying agencies and non-profit organizations to compete for state water bond grants. Organizations representing disadvantaged, low-income communities are encouraged to submit project ideas. The Bay Area IRWMP is a multi-stakeholder, nine-county roadmap to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. A second workshop will be held August 27, 2012, 4 – 6 p.m., location to be determined. For more information, visit www.bairwmp.org. ### Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Public Workshop #1 Monday, July 23, 2012 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. Association of Bay Area Governments Auditorium 101 Eighth St. Oakland CA (Lake Merritt BART Station) AGENDA 3:45 – 4:00 p.m. Registration 4:00 – 4:10 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Paul Helliker, Marin Municipal Water District Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee 4:10 – 4:30 p.m. 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Overview Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency, Alameda County 4:30 – 5:00 p.m. Plan Objectives: How They Guide Successful Project Proposals (with discussion and input) Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association 5:00 – 5:30 p.m. Project Submittals: How to Submit and How it Will be Evaluated (with Q&A) Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates 5:30 – 5:35 p.m. Wrap-up and Next Steps Ann Draper, Santa Clara Valley Water District Vice Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee 5:35 – 6:00 p.m. Subregional and Regional Breakout Groups: Informal Discussion/Q&A with Subregional and Regional Leads North Subregion: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association (harryser@comcast.net) West Subregion: San Francisco, San Mateo Cheryl Munoz, SFPUC (cmunoz@sfwater.org) South Subregion: Santa Clara Brian Mendenhall, Santa Clara Valley Water District (BMendenhall@valleywater.org) East Subregion: Alameda, Contra Costa Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water District (cmahoney@zone7water.com) Regional Projects Caitlyn Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership (CSweeney@waterboards.ca.gov) If you have thoughts on BAIRWMP “Objectives,” please fill out a Comment Card today or send an email to: BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com Also, visit www.bairwmp.org Área de la Bahía Integrada Regional del Agua el Plan de Gestión Taller Público # 1 Lunes, 23 de julio 2012 4:00-6:00 p.m. Asociación de Área de la Bahía gobiernos Auditorio 101 Octava St. Oakland, en California (la estación de BART de Lake Merritt) ORDEN DEL DÍA 3:45-4:00 pm Registro 4:00-4:10 pm Bienvenidos y presentaciones Paul Helliker, Marín Distrito de Agua Municipal Presidencia, Área de la Bahía IRWMP Comité de Coordinación 4:10-4:30 pm 2013 Área de la Bahía IRWMP Información general Carol Mahoney, Zona 7 Agencia del Agua, del Condado de Alameda 4:30 - 5:00 pm Objetivos del Plan: La forma en que las propuestas exitosas Guía de proyectos (con la discusión y la entrada) Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Asociación de Cuencas 5:00 - 5:30 pm Presentaciones del proyecto: ¿Cómo enviar y cómo será evaluado (con Q & A) Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates 5:30-17:35 Resumen y próximos pasos Ann Draper Valle de Santa Clara del Distrito de Agua Vicepresidente, Área de la Bahía IRWMP Comité de Coordinación 5:35 - 6:00 pm subregionales y regionales Trabajo en grupos informales de discusión: / Q & A con cables subregionales y regionales: • Norte Subregión: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association (harryser@comcast.net) • Subregión Occidental: San Francisco, San Mateo Cheryl Muñoz, SFPUC (cmunoz@sfwater.org) • Subregión Sur: Santa Clara Brian Mendenhall, Valle de Santa Clara del Distrito de Agua (BMendenhall@valleywater.org) • Este Subregión: Alameda, Contra Costa Carol Mahoney, la zona 7 del Distrito de Agua (cmahoney@zone7water.com) • Proyectos Regionales Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco, Asociación Estuario (CSweeney@waterboards.ca.gov) Si usted tiene pensamientos sobre BAIRWMP "Objetivos" por favor llene una tarjeta de comentarios de hoy, o envíe un correo electrónico a: BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com ; También, visite www.bairwmp.org 23 de julio 2012 Taller Público para el 2013 Área del Plan Integrado de la Bahía Regional de Administración del Agua Estimado Agua Área de la Bahía y de la Comunidad Uso de la Tierra, El Área de la Bahía de Agua Integrada Plan Regional de Gestión (Área de la Bahía IRWMP) es una de múltiples partes interesadas, los nueve condados del plan de trabajo para coordinar y mejorar la confiabilidad del suministro de agua, proteger la calidad del agua, gestión de la protección contra inundaciones, mantener los estándares de salud pública, proteger el hábitat y los recursos de las cuencas hidrográficas, y mejorar la salud general de la Bahía de San Francisco. El primer taller público sobre el desarrollo de la actualización de 2013 del Área de la Bahía IRMWP se celebrará el Lunes, 23 de julio 2012 de 4:00 - 6:00 pm en la Asociación de Área de la Bahía Gobiernos Auditorio, 101 8th St. Oakland, CA 94,607 (estación de BART de Lake Merritt). Entender los objetivos del Plan aumentará las probabilidades de éxito de su proyecto ya que no todos los proyectos presentados se financiarán. Las propuestas preliminares de proyectos se deben 01 de septiembre 2012 y pueden enviarse a través de la página web del proyecto www.bairwmp.org. El proyecto de temario de la reunión también se ha publicado, como son las preguntas más frecuentes. Los oradores de las agencias de agua locales y regionales se explican los objetivos de la IRWMP Área de la Bahía para promover la planificación integrada de la gestión del agua en la ciudad, el condado ya nivel regional, ¿cómo las nuevas directrices estatales están modificando la planificación regional integrada de la gestión del agua, y cómo puede presentar proyectos que aborden los retos del agua en su comunidad que le permiten competir con los fondos estatales de subvención. Proyectos destinados a los desfavorecidos, en comunidades de bajos ingresos obtener una consideración especial. El segundo taller se llevará a cabo Lunes, 27 de agosto 2012 y proporcionará una mayor profundidad vistazo a cómo los proyectos se dará prioridad en el Plan 2013. Para obtener más información acerca de la IRWMP Área de la Bahía, por favor visite nuestro sitio web, www.bairwmp.org o enviar un correo electrónico a BAIRWMP@kearnswest.com. Pre- inscripción para el taller no es necesario. Esperamos que usted o un representante de su agencia u organización el 23 de julio en Oakland. Atentamente, Paul Helliker Marin Municipal Water District Presidente, Comité de Coordinación Área de la Bahía Integrada Regional del Agua el Plan de Gestión PD -- Participación en el Comité de Coordinación está abierta a cualquier persona interesada en los proyectos regionales de agua, programas y políticas. Por favor, únase a nosotros en nuestras reuniones mensuales. Para más información, visite nuestro sitio web, www.bairwmp.org. IRWMP Goals Comments 1 Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability 2 Improve water supply reliability and quality 3 Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 4 Improve Regional Flood Management 5 Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats Objectives Potential Measures Comments/Suggestions Goal 1: Promote Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability 1.1 Increase water resources related recreational opportunities Miles of trails, acres of parklands, access, amenities, visitor days 1.2 Encourage implementation of integrated, multi-benefit projects Collaboration between government and regulatory agencies, project proponents and stakeholders. 1.3 Secure adequate support, funding and partnerships to effectively implement plan. Process to successfully respond to funding opportunities; dollars of outside funding; long-term project viability 1.4 Avoid disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities Community support for local projects 1.5 Protect cultural resources Acres of culturally valuable area and/or resource acquired or preserved through conservation easements 1.6 Promote community education, involvement and stewardship Number of informational brochures, workshops, educational and technical assistance events that address water reliability, watershed health, flood risks, flood protection and other IRWM goals; educational curricula for K-12 1.7 Reduce energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate Megawatts reduction in energy use; megawatts of renewable power sources. 1.8 Plan for and adapt to sea level rise Keep important infrastructure out of hazard zone; consider range of sea level projections when evaluating proposed water management projects practice and promote integrated flood management ; AF water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater resources; water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services; avoid significant new development in areas that cannot be adequately protected from flooding or erosion 1.9 Plan for and adapt to more frequent extreme climate events 1.10 Support data gathering for climate change vulnerabilities Number of monitoring stations 1.11 Enhance monitoring network and information sharing to support proper management of watersheds 1.12 Minimize health impacts associated with polluted water. Compliance with all applicable water quality standards; number of customer complaints 1.13 Work with local land, water, wastewater and stormwater agencies, project proponents and other stakeholders to develop policies, ordinances and programs that promote IRWM goals, and to determine areas of integration among projects Number of local policies, ordinances, incentives and other programs that promote integrated planning and development of LID projects; number of integrated projects Goal 2: Improve water supply reliability and quality Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan DRAFT Objectives - Worksheet Objectives Potential Measures Comments/Suggestions 2.1 Provide adequate water supplies to meet demands. Reliability of supplies of appropriate quality 2.2 Implement water use efficiency to meet or exceed state and federal requirements. Progress towards SBX7-7 goals, number of water conservation measures adopted 2.3 Minimize vulnerability of infrastructure to catastrophes and security breaches. Number of vulnerability assessments 2.4 Expand water storage and conjunctive management of surface and groundwater AF of water storage; number of conjunctive management projects developed 2.5 Provide for groundwater recharge while protecting groundwater resources from overdraft. AFY artificial groundwater recharge 2.6 Increase opportunities for recycled water use. AFY of potable water use replaced by non-potable supply; AFY recycled water production 2.7 Provide clean, safe, reliable drinking water. Compliance with drinking water standards; constituents of concern in drinking water at point of delivery 2.8 Protection of groundwater resources from contamination. Migration of contaminant plumes; recharge area protection Goal 3: Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality 3.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate watershed processes. Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; acres of wetlands protected and/or restored; acres of conservation easements 3.2 Control excessive erosion and manage sedimentation. Established sediment TMDL requirements 3.3 Minimize point-source and non-point-source pollution. Nutrient and pesticide application (in Pounds?); implementation of delivery reduction practices; number LID projects that store and infiltrate stormwater runoff; AFY stormwater capture; compliance with TMDLs and NPDES. 3.4 Improve floodplain connectivity. Acres of private property purchased and preserved in 100-year floodplains 3.5 Improve infiltration capacity Miles of natural streams restored and/or rehabilitated; miles of streams de-channelized; LID projects implemented that include bioswales to increase perviousness; AFY stormwater capture 3.6 Maintain health of watershed vegetation, land cover, natural stream buffers and floodplains, to improve filtration of point and nonpoint source pollutants. 3.7 Control pollutants of concern Compliance with existing and future TMDLs Goal 4: Improve Regional Flood Management 4.1 Manage floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation. Annual flood damages ($); frequency and extent of flooding; number of innovative flood management projects; annual flood flows 4.2 Achieve effective floodplain management that incorporates land use planning and minimizes risks to health, safety and property by encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas Policies and programs that encourage LID in new and rehabilitated development 4.3 Identify and promote integrated flood management projects to protect vulnerable areas Number of integrated flood management projects Goal 5: Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats 5.1 Protect, restore, and rehabilitate habitat for species protection Acres of critical habitat protected and/or acquired; number of at-risk species; miles of wildlife corridors; acres of riparian habitat restored and/or protected 5.2 Enhance wildlife populations and biodiversity (species richness). Number of species; population numbers 5.3 Protect and recover fisheries (natural habitat and harvesting). Number of listed species; access to spawning habitat for imperiled fish 5.4 Reduce geographic extent and spread of pests and invasive species. Invasive species cover; invasive species numbers Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan DRAFT Objectives - Worksheet Stakeholder-based Approach to Developing the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Phase I Informational Gathering January – April 2012 Phase 2 Internal Preparation April– June 2012 RAP and Prop 84 Guidelines Internal/External Interviews/Assessment Stakeholder Engagement Planning Workshop Stakeholder Engagement Objectives Confirmation by CC Develop Stakeholder Engagement/ DAC Plan Materials Development IRWMP Objectives Solicit input into Plan Update Identify/prioritize projects qualified for funding Foster projects that feature integration and address DAC needs Products Website updates Flyer Q&A update Master stakeholder list (2,2000+) Update/publicity for Workshops o eNewsletter o Media release Support materials for workshops Phase 3 Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Targeted Partners: LOMUs, Local Water Agencies, Local Flood Agencies, Regional Associations, Land Use and Planning Agencies/Local Government, Environmental Groups, Permitting Agencies, other targeted partners Identified with assistance of BAIRWMP subregional leads and key regional implementing agencies Workshop 1 July 2012 Topic/Objectives Objectives of 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Project Requirements Criteria for Project Prioritization Workshop 2 August 2012 Topic/Objectives Prioritizing Projects Resource Management Strategies Land Use and Water Planning Climate Change Workshop 3 Sept/Oct. 2012 Topic/Objectives Project Rankings Project Wrap- up Workshop 4 January 2013 optional (optiona l) Topic/Objectives Review Draft Bay Area IRWMP Disadvantaged Community identification of issues and consultation on partnerships for project-based solutions. Individual Tribal outreach. Subregional workshops/meetings at the discretion of the subregional leads Coordinating Committee Meetings (public) Coordinating Committee Meetings (public) Coordinating Committee Meetings (public) Bay Area IRWMP Project Submittal Guidance The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is currently being updated. As part of this process, the Plan will include proposed projects for water resources management in the Bay Area. These proposed projects can either be new projects, or can be updated versions of projects already in the Plan. In either case, information about the projects must be included in the online database housed at the Bay Area IRWMP website. A complete new or updated project description is required to be eligible for inclusion in the 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and to be eligible for future grant funding. New Projects If you are proposing a new project, please visit the Bay Area IRWMP website at www.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project" and follow the instructions. You may click the blue "Submit a project" button at the bottom of that page. Updating Existing Projects If your project has already been submitted and included in the plan, you will need to confirm that you want to continue to include it in the plan. Please visit the IRWMP website at www.bairwmp.org and click on the link in the left column entitled "Submitting a Project," and then click on the link "Click here for instructions on how to update existing projects." If you do not update the project information, the project will be put in an inactive file and not included in the active project list. Deadline Please note that the deadline for submitting a new project or updating an existing project is September 1, 2012. This date has been selected to meet the deadline required by the Department of Water Resources for the Plan update, to allow adequate time to review, score and prioritize projects included in the Plan, and to consider projects for further analysis and inclusion in a proposal for implementation grant funding, expected to be due to DWR by March, 2013. Please note that you will need to register with the Bay Area IRWMP website in order to edit project information. If you need assistance or have questions, you may seek technical support by contacting projects@bairwmp.org. Summary of Question and Answer session Page 1 July 23, 2012 Bay Area IRWMP public workshop Prepared by Kearns & West Summary of Question and Answer Session Bay Area IRWMP Public Workshop July 23, 2012, 4:00 – 6:00 PM Association of Bay Area Governments 1515 Clay St., Oakland, CA Overview What follows is a summary of the question and answer session that took place during the Bay Area Integrated Regional W ater Management Plan (IRWMP) public workshop held on July 23, 2012. Answers were provided by several different members of the Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee. Question (Q): What is the definition of a disadvantaged community (DAC) in the context of the Bay Area IRWMP? Answer (A): The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines a disadvantaged community as a community or neighborhood with an annual median household income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average ($48,706). DWR allows some flexibility in defining the geographic area that meets the 80 percent threshold. In addition, DWR initially emphasized that DAC projects should meet a critical water supply or water quality need, but in the latest guidelines it seems they are allowing more flexibility. Q: How can more than one person populate the online submittal form for the same project? A: When viewing the project profile on the Bay Area IRWMP website (http://bairwmp.org), the lead submitter can share and delegate access to the project submittal form to others. Q: When will the matrix of project ranking criteria be available? A: The ranking criteria will be prepared by mid-August 2012. The Coordinating Committee (CC) will not act on the criteria, however, until the August 27, 2012 CC meeting. The current thinking with respect to the project ranking criteria can be viewed on the website, located in the materials for the July 23 CC meeting. Prior to that, project proponents will be able to predict how well their projects will fair by reviewing the DWR guidelines. In general, the more resources management strategies and goals that a project covers, the higher it will rank. Q: For the goal of enhancing environmental resources, are there any subcomponents that will be used for evaluation? A: Yes, there are four to five objectives that correspond to the goal of enhancing environmental resources. Q: If I am submitting an update to an existing project, can I modify the Excel file that was originally developed? A: If you are making changes to the project, it would be best to create a new project template online to make sure it is included in the Plan Update. Summary of Question and Answer session Page 2 July 23, 2012 Bay Area IRWMP public workshop Prepared by Kearns & West Q: What is the best way to get smaller projects integrated into other projects so they rank well in the Plan Update? A: You can review the projects that have already been submitted on the project website and look for overlap. The better you are able to increase the scale of collaboration, the stronger the project will be. In addition, habitat projects, for example, should be integrated with other functions like stormwater run-off or working with a flood control agency on groundwater recharge. If the project is just focused on habitat projects it will not likely be scored well. Look for other water resource efforts and try to integrate with them. Q: Do project applicants need to find partners for project integration prior to the September 1, 2012 project submittal deadline, or will there be opportunities to identify partners after that? A: Identifying partners for project integration can take place after the September 1, 2012 deadline. It will also be beneficial to participate in subregional meetings to get a better sense of what other projects are being submitted. Q: If my city has a shovel-ready project that is already partially funded, can we apply for additional funds for a disadvantaged (DAC)-specific project for the remainder of the funding? A: If it is a local project, it can still be integrated with other projects. It could be integrated with projects that address different functional areas, for example. There is dedicated funding for DACs, and the Bay Area IRMWP is actively looking for DAC projects to include in the Plan Update. Q: Can IRWMP funds be used to acquire land for habitat? A: Yes, the project does need to be related to water resources, however. Q: What is the schedule for prioritizing projects in the Plan Update? A: Projects will be submitted by September 1, 2012. There is a more detailed project schedule, including project prioritization, in the meeting packet for the July 23 CC meeting, which is on the project website. Q: How important is it for projects to meet sustainable water objectives to receive funding? A: It depends on the grant round. DWR’s criteria have been identified and this will influence how they are ranked in the Plan Update. Project proponents should aim to meet DWR’s criteria when developing proposals – in the grant funding stage, a work plan will need to be developed that responds to the objectives. Q: If there is a project that is scale-able (i.e., can be made larger), would it be advantageous to keep the project small if that would make it an eligible DAC project? A: If your community is structured to serve a DAC, it will meet that criterion and will be prioritized by DWR since it is important to them. Expanding that project beyond the DAC will take away that advantage, so there will be a trade-off. AGENDA 3:45 – 4:00 p.m. Registration 4:00 – 4:10 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Steve Ritchie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee 4:10 – 4:40 p.m. 2013 Bay Area IRWMP Projects Harry Seraydarian, North Bay Watershed Association and Bay Area IRWMP Project Selection Committee • Scoring and ranking projects for inclusion in the 2013 BAIRWMP • Project criteria for DWR Grant Applications • Future, new projects for rounds 2 and 3 of grant funding 4:40 – 5:50 p.m. Financing Sources and Collaboration Strategies • Funding Sources – Opportunities, Successes, Challenges 1) Flood management projects – Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency 2) Non-governmental organization projects – Caitlin Sweeney, San Francisco Estuary Partnership 3) Public-Private water and wastewater projects – Grant Schlereth, ARUP • Promoting Agency/Non-governmental Collaborations and Addressing Barriers (Facilitated group discussion of panelists and attendees) • Summary 5:50 – 6:00 p.m. Wrap-up and Next Steps Steve Ritchie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Chair, Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Public Workshop #2 “Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration” Monday, January 28, 2013, 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. StopWaste.org, 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D Project Name Subregion Sponsoring Agency Contact Person Email 350 Home and Garden Challenge Bay Area East North South West Daily Acts trathen@dailyacts.org ACPWA Low Impact Development Implementation and Demonstration Project: Parking Lot Stormwater Treatment Improvements East Alameda County Public Works Agency chien@acpwa.org Agricultural Riparian Buffer and Habitat Enhancement East Alameda County RCD amy.evans@acrcd.org Airway Improvement Project (R5-2 )East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Alameda County Adopt-A-Creek-Spot East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Foothill Blvd. Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Habitat Easements East Alameda County Resource Conservation District leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Healthy Watershed Program East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Norbridge/Strobridge Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Patterson Pass Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Riparian Invasive Mapping and Removal East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Leslie.koenig@acrcd.org Alameda County Tesla Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda County Vasco Road Transportation Stormwater Quality Improvement East Alameda County paulk@acpwa.org Alameda Creek Flood Protection, Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 A B C D Alamo Canal Flood Control Program (R9-7)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Alamo Canal/South San Ramon Creek Erosion Control (R9-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project East East Bay Regional Park District cbarton@ebparks.org Alhambra Valley Creek Coalition - Erosion Control and Riparian Restoration Project East Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. csell@pw.cccounty.us Alkali Sink Management (R1-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Almaden Dam Improvements South Santa Clara Valley Water District vgutierrez@valleywater.org Altamont and Las Positas Creeks/Springtown Alkali Sink Restoration East Natural Resources Conservation Service, Alameda County sjbainbridge@berkeley.edu Altamont Creek Improvement (R1-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit South Santa Clara Valley Water District fmaitski@valleywater.org Ardenwood Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 1 (R10-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 2 (R10-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 3 (R10-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 4 (R10-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo De La Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project 5 (R10-5)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo las Positas Diversion Project (R5-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 3 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 A B C D Arroyo las Positas Habitat Enhancement and Recreation Project (R1-5)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo las Positas Multi-Purpose Project (R1-6)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo Mocho Bypass and Regional Storage at Chain of Lakes (R6-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo Mocho Management Plan (R6-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Arroyo Seco Improvements (R2-2)East Zone 7 cmahoney@zone7water.com Ash Creek Stormwater Management and Wildlife Enhancement Project North Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Assessment of an urban watershed and implementation of urban stormwater retrofit projects East Friends of Sausal Creek coordinator@sausalcreek.org Bay Area Green Infrastructure Initiative: Scientific support related to planning and implementation of water infrastructure upgrades toward green alternatives East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute davids@sfei.org Bay Area Regional Desalination Project (BARDP) - Alternative Analysis Report East South West EBMUD, CCWD, Zone 7, SCVWD, SFPUC habdulla@ebmud.com Bay Area Regional Reliability Interties - EBMUD/CCWD East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC ecorwin@ccwater.com Bay Area Regional Water Conservation and Education Program East North South West Zone 7 Water Agency, San Francisco PUC and Contra Costa Water District rnavarra@zone7water.com Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) – East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Short-Term Water Transfer Pilot Project (Pilot Project) East South West Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) NSandkulla@bawsca.org, ADutton@bawsca.org Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Brackish Groundwater Field Investigation Project (Brackish Groundwater Project) East South West BAWSCA (Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency) ADutton@bawsca.org, NSandkulla@BAWSCA.org 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 A B C D Bay Point Regional Shoreline Wetland Restoration East East Bay Regional Park District jrasmussen@ebparks.org Bay-Friendly Landscape Standards for Green Infrastructure Projects: Maximizing Watershed Benefits East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition gretchen@bayfriendlycoalition.o rg Bay-Friendly Outreach Campaign for Home Gardeners and Nurseries East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition gretchen@bayfriendlycoalition.o rg Bay-Friendly Qualified Landscape Professionals Training East North South West Bay-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Coalition gretchen@bayfriendlycoalition.o rg Bayfront Canal Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project West City of Redwood City gle@redwoodcity.org Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 2 East EBMUD tfrancis@ebmud.com Beach Watch Program North South West Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association sbeck@farallones.org Bel Marin Keys Phase of the Hamilton Wetlands Restoration North Coastal Conservancy tgandesbery@scc.ca.gov Berryessa Creek Flood Protection Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District DCheong@valleywater.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 5 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 A B C D Bockman Canal Area Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Bolinas Avenue Stormwater Quality Improvements and Fernhill Creek Restoration North Town of Ross randell@harrison- engineering.com Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration Project North Marin County Open Space District JRaives@marincounty.org Breuner Marsh Restoration, Richmond East East Bay Regional Park District bolson@ebparks.org Building Climate Change Resiliency Along the Bay with Green Infrastructure & Treated Wastewater East North South San Francisco Estuary Partnership jkrebs@waterboards.ca.gov Butano Creek Stream Course Restoration West California State Parks jkerb@parks.ca.gov Canal Liner Rehabilitation and Slope Stability at Milepost 23.03 East Contra Costa Water District mvalmores@ccwater.com Capacity Improvement at Arroyo las Positas (R1-7)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Castro Valley Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org CCCSD Refinery Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District dberger@centralsan.org CCCSD-Concord Recycled Water Project East Central Contra Costa Sanitary District dberger@centralsan.org Central Dublin RW Distribution and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com Central/Eastshore Pump Station Improvement Project East City of Alameda lkozisek@ci.alameda.ca.us Cesar Chavez Street Flood and Stormwater Managment Sewer Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission aroche@sfwater.org Chabot Canal Improvement Project (R8-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Charcot Storm Pump Station South City San Jose elaine.marshall@sanjoseca.gov Chelsea Wetlands Restoration Project East Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and City of Hercules amercado@ci.hercules.ca.us 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 A B C D City of Berkeley Watershed Management Plan East City of Berkeley pharrington@cityofberkeley.info City of Hayward Recycled Water Project East City of Hayward Alex.Ameri@hayward-ca.gov City of San Jose Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan South City of San Jose shelley.guo@sanjoseca.gov City Watersheds of Sonoma Valley North Sonoma County Water Agency joan@scwa.ca.gov Cleaning up trash in the Bay Area's stormwater East North South West Association of Bay Area Governments/SF Estuary Partnership jwcox@waterboards.ca.gov Collaborative Aquatic Resource Protection in the Watershed Context: Science and Technology to Visualize Alternative Landscape Futures North San Francisco Estuary Institute rainer@sfei.org Conserving Our Watersheds North Marin Resource Conservation District nancy@marinrcd.org Contra Costa County Green Street Retrofit Network East Contra Costa County csell@pw.cccounty.us Contra Costa County LID School Program East The Watershed Project ricardo@thewatershedproject.o rg Contra Costa County Low Impact Development Rebate Program East The Watershed Project ricardo@thewatershedproject.o rg Corte Madera Bayfront Flood Protection and Wetlands Restoration Project North Marin Audubon Society/Marin Bayland Advocates BSalzman@att.net Corte Madera Creek Headwaters Restoration Plan North Marin County Parks msagues@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Tidal Marsh Restoration North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed; Marin County Water Conservation and Flood Control District; Marin County Parks Dept. sandra.guldman@gmail.com 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 7 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 A B C D Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Broadmoor Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Fairfax Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Lefty Gomez Field Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Loma Alta Tributary Detention Basin North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Memorial Park Detention Basin, San Anselmo North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Merwin Avenue Bridge Replacement and Creek Bank Restorations North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Nokomis-Madrone Neighborhood Flood Protection North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - San Anselmo Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed - Sleepy Hollow Creek Improvements North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed Infiltration and Storage Assessment North Ross Valley Watershed Program, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed sandra.guldman@gmail.com Corte Madera Creek Watershed Sediment Control and Drinking Water Reliability Project North Marin Municipal Water District mswezy@marinwater.org 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 A B C D Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Barriers to Fish Passage in Sleepy Hollow Creek North Town of San Anselmo, Marin County Department of Public Works sandra.guldman@gmail.com Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Saunders Fish Barrier Removal North Town of San Anselmo, Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Ross Valley Sanitary District sandra.guldman@gmail.com Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Sedimentation Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District jcurley@marincounty.org Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Smolt Trapping North Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed sandra.guldman@gmail.com Creek Signage East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Amy.evans@acrcd.org Cull Canyon Dam and Reservoir Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org DA 48B Storm Drain Line A at Port Chicago Highway, Bay Point (#201)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us DA 48C Storm Drain Line at Marina Road, Bay Point (#_)East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Daly City Expansion Recycled Water Project West SFPUC, City of Daly City cmunoz@sfwater.org DDSD Advanced Wastewater Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org DDSD Advanced Water Treatment East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org DDSD Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org Decoto District Green Streets Phase 3 East City of Union City thomasr@ unioncity.org DERWA Pump Station 1 - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 9 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 A B C D DERWA Recycled Water Plant - Phase 2 East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com Developing a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Proposal (CREP) to improve water quality and protect rangeland habitats in the Bay Area East North South West Defenders of Wildlife palvarez@defenders.org Diablo Country Club Satellite Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, fwedingt@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Alameda East EBMUD lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1B - Oakland-Alameda Estuary Crossing East EBMUD lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com East Palo Alto Groundwater Supply Conjunctive Use Project South West City of East Palo Alto BSwain@CityofEPA.org East Palo Alto Storm Water Conveyance, Tidal Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreational Enhancement Project West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority kmurray@sfcjpa.org EBMUD - Pretreatment Facilities East EBMUD dbruzzon@ebmud.com EBMUD/ZONE 7 Regional Reliability Intertie East South West EBMUD / Zone 7 / CCWD / SCVWD / SFPUC cmahoney@zone7water.com Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Estudillo Canal Area/San Leandro Flood Control Improvement Project - Phase 3 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Exterior Painting of Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 A B C D Fish Barrier Removal at Railroad Overcrossing (R3-5b)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Fish Passage Improvements at Memorial County Park, San Mateo County West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Kellyx@sanmateorcd.org Goat Island Marsh Tidal Marsh Restoration & Interpretive Nature Trail North Solano Land Trust Ben@Solanolandtrust.org Grant Avenue Green Street Water Quality/Flood Protection Demonstration Site East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Grayson and Murderer's Creek Subregional Improvements, Pleasant Hill (#106) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grayson Creek Levee Raising and Rehabilitation, Pacheco (#_)East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grayson Creek Levee Rehabilitation at CCCSD Treatment Plant, Pacheco (#107) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grayson Creek Sediment Removal, Pacheco (unincorp.)(#109)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Grimmer Greenbelt Gateway (Line G Channel Enhancement)East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Hayward Marsh Restoration and Enhancement Project East East Bay Regional Park District mgraul@ebparks.org Headquarters Facility - Landscaping East Alameda County Water District patricia.dustman@acwd.com Hillman Area Improvements Project West City of Belmont gyau@belmont.gov Holmes Street Sedimentation Basin and Granada/Murrieta Protection and Enhancement Project (R3-4) East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Implementation of High Priority Projects Identified in the Pilarcitos Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan West San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) Kellyx@sanmateorcd.org Implementation of Pond Management Plan West Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District jandersen@openspace.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 11 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 A B C D Implementation of the Napa River Watershed Assessment Framework North Napa County Resource Conservation District rwflint@eeeee.net Implementing "Slow It, Spread It, Sink It!" in Sonoma and Napa Counties North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Implementing LandSmart Plans to Improve Water Quality North Napa County Resource Conservation District leigh@naparcd.org Implementing TMDLs in the Napa River, Sonoma and Suisun Creek watersheds with the Fish Friendly Farming/Fish Friendly Ranching programs North California Land Stewardship Institute laurelm@fishfriendlyfarming.org Improving Quantitative Precipitation Information for the San Francisco Bay Area East North South West Zone 7 Water Agencies for Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association (BAFPAA) cmorrison@zone7water.com Installation of a New Seismic Valve at Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m Laguna Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org Lagunitas Booster Station North Marin Municipal Water District gandrew@marinwater.org Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project North Marin Municipal Water District gandrew@marinwater.org Lagunitas Creek Winter Habitat Enhancement Implementation North Marin Municipal Water District gandrew@marinwater.org Lake Chabot Raw Water Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com LID and Stormwater Management - Lagunitas Watershed North The Watershed Project harold@thewatershedproject.or g Line G-1-1 Maintenance Plan (R9-6 )East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Line T Crossing Retrofit (R9-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 A B C D Lower Arroyo del Valle Restoration and Enhancement Project (R7-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Lower Arroyo Mocho Improvement Project (R8-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez (#110)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Lynch Canyon Watershed Improvements North Solano Land Trust sue@solanolandtrust.org Mapping Marin County's Flood Control Levees North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District lwilliams@marincounty.org Marin County Flood Control Asset Management North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District lwilliams@marincounty.org Marin County Sea Level Rise Land Use Adaptation North Marin County CDA jliebster@marincounty.org Martinez Adult School Flood Protection & Creek Enhancement East Martinez Unified School District scasey@martinez.k12.ca.us Martinez Water Quality and Supply Reliability Improvement Project East City of Martinez / Contra Costa Water District jquimby@ccwater.com McInnis Marsh Habitat Restoration Project North Marin County Parks eholland@marincounty.org Memorial Park Waste Water Treatment West San Mateo County charris@co.sanmateo.ca.us Mercury Reduction Benefits of Low Impact Development East Contra Costa County csell@pw.cccounty.us Miller Avenue Green Street Plan North City of Mill Valley jbarnes@cityofmillvalley.org Milliken Creek Flood Reduction, Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration North Napa County richard.thomasser@countyofna pa.org Milliken Diversion Dam Flow Control North City of Napa Water Division jeldredge@cityofnapa.org Mission Boulevard to Meek Estate Creekside Trail and Habitat Improvements East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Mission Creek Flood Protection and Restoration Project East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District chien@acpwa.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 13 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 A B C D Montalvin Manor Stormwater Harvest and Use, Bioretention, and Flood Risk Reduction Project East Contra Costa County csell@pw.cccounty.us Montezuma Creek Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Project North Marin County Parks Department kkull@marincounty.org Mountain View/ Sunnyvale Recycled Water Intertie Alignment Study South City of Mountain View alison.turner@mountainview.go v Napa County Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Wells North Napa County deborah.elliott@countyofnapa.o rg Napa River Arundo Removal Lodi Lane to Zinfandel Lane North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District christopher.sauer@countyofnap a.org Napa River Restoration, Bioassessment & Education Project North Napa County Resource Conservation District cmalan@myoneearth.com Napa River Restoration: Oakville to Oak Knoll Reach North Napa County richard.thomasser@countyofna pa.org Napa River Rutherford Reach Restoration Project North Napa County Richard.Thomasser@countyofna pa.org New Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) Station West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m New Tank Mixer for Skyline Tanks West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m Niles Cone Groundwater Basin Monitoring Well Construction Project East Alameda County Water District douglas.young@acwd.com NMWD Gallagher Well and Pipeline Project North North Marin Water District cdegabriele@nmwd.com North Bay Water Reuse Program North North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA) Kevin.Booker@scwa.ca.gov 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 A B C D North Marin Water District Marin Country Club Recycled Water Expansion North North Marin Water District cdegabriele@nmwd.com North Richmond Pump Station - Retrofit and Replumb East Contra Costa County Flood Control District csell@pw.cccounty.us Pacheco Marsh Restoration, Martinez (#111)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District / Muir Heritage Land Trust / East Bay Regional Park District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Palo Alto Golf Course Redesign Wetlands Enhancement and Restoration Project South City of Palo Alto brad.eggleston@cityofpaloalto.o rg Palo Alto Recycled Water Project South West City of Palo Alto nicolas.procos@cityofpaloalto.o rg Parks Floodplain Dedication and Levee Construction (R3-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Peacock Gap Recycled Water Extension Project North Marin Municipal Water District mban@marinwater.org Permanente Creek Flood Protection South Santa Clara Valley Water District arouhani@valleywater.org Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability Project West County of San Mateo Department of Public Works and Parks mchow@smcgov.org Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV North City of Petaluma, Southern Sonoma County Resource Conservation District Kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Pilarcitos Creek Equestrian Bridge West California State Parks jkerb@parks.ca.gov Pine Creek Dam Seismic Assessment, Walnut Creek (#122)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Pine Creek Reservoir Sediment Removal and Capacity Restoration, Walnut Creek (#124) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Pinole Creek Fish Passage Improvements project at I-80 Culverts East Contra Costa RCD carol.arnold@ca.nacdnet.net 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 15 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 A B C D Pinole Creek Habitat Restoration (1135 Project), Pinole (#12)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Portola Redwood State Park Wastewater System West (unknown)rarias@parks.ca.gov Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit for County and Federal Facilities East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com Recycled Water Facility Renewable Energy System East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org Redwood City Recycled Water Project Phase 2 – Central Redwood City West City of Redwood City crubin@redwoodcity.org Redwood Creek Restoration at Muir Beach, Phase 5 North Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy SFarrell@parksconservancy.org Refugio Creek and North Channel Restoration East City of Hercules sduran@ci.hercules.ca.us Regional Green Infrastructure Capacity Building Program East North South West SFEP jkrebs@waterboards.ca.gov Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project West SFPUC, Cities of Daly City and San Bruno and California Water Service Company gbartow@sfwater.org Regional Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy East North South West Bay Area Joint Policy Committee travis@bayareajpc.net Reliez Valley Recycled Water Project East EBMUD Lhu@ebmud.com Removing Fish Passage Barriers in the Napa River Watershed North Napa County Resource Conservation District leigh@naparcd.org Resilient Landscapes Climate Adaptation Strategy: Tools for Designing Sustainable Bay Area Stream, Wetland, and Riparian Habitats East North South West San Francisco Estuary Institute - Aquatic Science Center robin@sfei.org Rheem Creek Conservation Project (Shortcut Pipeline Improvement Project) East Contra Costa Water District mseedall@ccwater.com Richardson Bay Erosional Shoreline Adaptation to Sea Level Rise: Draft Conceptual Designs and Opportunity/Constraints Assessment North Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District rleventhal@marincounty.org Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project - Future Expansion East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 A B C D Richmond Advanced Recycled Expansion (RARE) Water Project Phase 2 East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com Rindler Creek: Habitat Restoration and Erosion Control North Solano Resource Conservation District Chris.Rose@solanorcd.org Robertson Park Enhancement Project and Levee Construction (R3-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Rodeo Creek Sediment Removal, Rodeo (#14)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Rodeo Creek Stabilization near Christie Road, Rodeo (#16)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Rodeo Recycled Water Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main upgrades South Roseview Heights Mutual Water Company tim.rvhmwc@gmail.com Rossmoor Well Replacement Project East City of Pittsburg wpease@ci.pittsburg.ca.us Rubber Dam No. 1 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District anna.lloyd@acwd.com Rubber Dam No. 3 Fish Ladder East Alameda County Water District anna.lloyd@acwd.com Rush Ranch HQ Storm Water Management, Public Access & Rangeland Improvements North Solano Land Trust ben@solanolandtrust.org Salvador Creek Intregrated Flood and Watershed Improvements North Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District richard.thomasser@countyofna pa.org San Catanio Creek culvert repair and enhancement East City of San Ramon rbartlett@sanramon.ca.gov San Francisco Bay Livestock and Land Program East North South West Ecology Action kliske@ecoact.org San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh-Upland Transition Zone Decision Support System (DSS) East North South West San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory dthomson@sfbbo.org San Francisco Eastside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission cmunoz@sfwater.org San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission jgilman@sfwater.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 17 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 A B C D San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility West City and County of San Francisco, Airport Commission Jonathan.Kocher@flysfo.com San Francisco Westside Recycled Water Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission cmunoz@sfwater.org San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation Project, Highway 101 to El Camino Real South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority kmurray@sfcjpa.org San Francisquito Watershed Plan South West San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority kmurray@sfcjpa.org San Geronimo Landowner Assistance Program- Habitat Restoration Projects North Marin County Department of Public Works/SG Planning Group kkull@marincounty.org San Gregorio Creek Tributary Water Quality and Flow Monitoring West San Gregorio Environmental Resource Center amychaas@gmail.com San José Green Alleys Demonstration Project South City of San Jose elaine.marshall@sanjoseca.gov San José Green Streets Demonstration Project South City of San Jose elaine.marshall@sanjoseca.gov San Leandro Creek Environmental Education Center, Alameda County East Alameda Count Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Leandro Creek Hazard Tree Management and Riparian Habitat Restoration East ACFCWCD Chien@acpwa.org San Leandro Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Project East East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) lhu@ebmud.com, abartlet@ebmud.com San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Flood Control Project - Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 A B C D San Lorenzo Creek Tidal Wetlands Restoration East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Major Fish Passage Barrier Removal (MB-10) Phase 2 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Fisheries Restoration Project - Phase 1 East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Lorenzo Creek Watershed Stewardship Program East Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org San Pablo Bay South Watershed Awareness and Action Plan East The Watershed Project harold@thewatershedproject.or g San Pablo Bay South Watershed Community Stewardship Program East The Watershed Project juliana@thewatershedproject.or g San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 2A (DSRSD- EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority lhu@ebmud.com, fwedingt@ebmud.com San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 3 - 4 (DSRSD- EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority lhu@ebmud.com, fwedingt@ebmud.com San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program - Phase 5-6 (DSRSD- EBMUD Recycled Water Authority) #N/A DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority fwedingt@ebmud.com Santa Clara Valley Water District Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility Expansion Project South Santa Clara Valley Water District tligon@valleywater.org Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant Project East EBMUD Lhu@ebmud.com Sausal Creek Restoration Project East City of Oakland khathaway@oaklandnet.com SCADA System Major Upgrades East Alameda County Water District patricia.dustman@acwd.com School District Green Infrastructure Capacity Building/Pilot Projects East West San Francisco Estuary Partnership jbradt@waterboards.ca.gov Sears Point Restoration Project North Sonoma Land Trust julian@sonomalandtrust.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 19 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 A B C D SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAVEL CREEK WATERSHED North Vedanta Society of San Francisco fanshen@clearwater- hydrology.com SFPUC Eastside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West SFPUC aroche@sfwater.org SFPUC Westside Watershed Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Projects West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission aroche@sfwater.org Shinn Pond Fish Screen East Alameda County Water District anna.lloyd@acwd.com Sinbad Creek Project (R11-2)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Solano Project Terminal Reservoir Seismic Mitigation North Solano County Water Agency tpate@scwa2.com Sonoma Valley Groundwater Banking Program North Sonoma County Water Agency joan@scwa.ca.gov Sonoma Valley Integrated Water Management Program North Sonoma County Water Agency joan@scwa.ca.gov Soulajule Mercury Remediation North Marin Municipal Water District psellier@marinwater.org South Bay Aqueduct Turnout Construction and Low-Flow Crossings (R3- 1) East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project & South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study: Early Implementation Activities South California State Coastal Conservancy bbuxton@scc.ca.gov South East Bay Plain Basin Groundwater Model Enhancements East EBMUD tfrancis@ebmud.com South East Bay Plain Basin Subsidence Monitoring Network East EBMUD tfrancis@ebmud.com South San Francisco Recycled Water Facility West South San Francisco/SFPUC terry.white@ssf.net Southwestern Solano County Open Space Acquisition and Watershed Assessment North Solano Land Trust sue@solanolandtrust.org 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 A B C D Spring Branch Creek Tidal Marsh & Seasonal Creek Restoration North Solano Land Trust Ben@Solanolandtrust.org Springtown Golf Course Improvements (R1-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Springtown Improvements (R1-3)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Stanley Enhancement and Restoration Project (R3-5a)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Stinson Beach flood protection and habitat enhancement project North Marin County Department of Public Works cchoo@marincounty.org Stivers Lagoon Marsh Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Streambank and Habitat Restoration Projects East Alameda County Resource Conservation District Katie.bergmann@ca.usda.gov Study of Mercury methylation in South San Francisco Bay in Relation to Nutrient Sources South San Francisco Estuary Institute jay@sfei.org Suisun City Flood Management and Habitat Restoration Project North City of Suisun City adum@suisun.com Suisun Valley Flood Management North Solano County Water Agency tpate@scwa2.com Sulphur Creek/Hayward Flood Control Improvement Project East Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Sycamore Grove Recharge Bypass Project (R4-1 )East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Tassajara Creek Improvement Project (R8-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com The Bay Area Creek Mouth Assessment Tool East North South West San Francisco Estuary Partnership adbaudrimont@watersheds.ca.g ov The Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed (STRAW) Project East North West PRBO Conservation Science jparodi@prbo.org 2013 Active Project List -- Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 29, 2012 Page 21 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 A B C D Tice Creek Bypass (Drainage Area 67), Walnut Creek, CA (#117)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Tomales Bay Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Improvement Program North Tomales Bay Watershed Council Foundation robcarson@tomalesbaywatersh ed.org Total Dissolved Solids Reduction/Salinity Management Project East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org Tule Ponds Education Center Rehabilitation East Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Chien@acpwa.org Upland Transition Zone Mapping for Southern San Pablo Bay (West):North Gallinas Watershed Council/Marin County DPW/marin County Parks and Openspace Rachel@KHE-Inc.com Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery Project East SFPUC msargent@sfwater.org Upper Arroyo de la Laguna (ADLL) Improvement Project (R8-4)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Upper Napa River Water Quality Improvement and Habitat Enhancement Project North California Land Stewardship Institute laurelm@fishfriendlyfarming.org Upper York Creek Dam Removal -- St. Helena, Napa River Watershed North City of St. Helena/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers JohnF@cityofsthelena.org Velocity Control Project (R2-1)East Zone 7 Water Agency cmahoney@zone7water.com Veterans' Court Seawall Reconstruction East City of Alameda cclark@ci.alameda.ca.us Vista Grande Drainage Basin Improvement Project West San Francisco Public Utilities Commission onzewi@sfwater.org Walnut Creek Levee Rehabilitation at Buchanan Field Airport, Concord (#119) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Walnut Creek Sediment Removal - Clayton Valley Drain to Drop Structure 1 , Concord (#118) East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Wastewater Renewable Energy Enhancement East Delta Diablo Sanitation District DeanE@ddsd.org 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 A B C D Water Conservation and Mobile Water Lab Program North Southern Sonoma Resource Conservation District kheckert@sotoyomercd.org Water Dog Lake Sediment Removal West City of Belmont gyau@belmont.gov Water Supply and Instream Habitat Improvements in Suisun Creek North Ca. Land Stewardship Institute laurelm@fishfriendlyfarming.org Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project East City of Pittsburg wpease@ci.pittsburg.ca.us Watershed Information Center & Conservancy of Napa County North County of Napa jeff.sharp@countyofnapa.org Westborough Main Pump Station Generator West Westborough Water District dbarrow@westboroughwater.co m Western Dublin Recycled Water Distribution Expansion and Retrofit Project East Dublin San Ramon Services District Biagtan@dsrsd.com White Slough Flood Control and Improvement Project North Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District rohlemutz@vsfcd.com Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Restoration and Management Plan East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Cece Sellgren Wildcat Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration (1135)(#7)East Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Wildcat Creek Watershed Erosion and Sediment Control Project East East Bay Regional Park District palexander@ebparks.org Wildcat Sediment Basin Desilt, North Richmond (#5)East Contra Costa County Flood Control District pdetj@pw.cccounty.us Wildcat/San Pablo Creeks Phase II Channel Improvements, San Pablo (#9) East City of San Pablo adeleh@SanPabloCA.gov Zone 1 Recycled Water- Pleasant Hill Build Out East Contra Costa Sanitary District dberger@centralsan.org Coordinating Committee San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan c/o San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 December 21, 2012 Dear Project Proponents, As you are aware, the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) group has been soliciting and evaluating proposals for an upcoming Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Round 2 grant submittal, for which projects have been developed in accordance with the 2013 update of the Bay Area Plan. Approximately $20 million is available to the region in this round. For this process, 67 projects totaling approximately $110 million were submitted for consideration by the BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC), which designated a Project Selection Committee (PSC) to develop and score various conceptual options for packaging together a successful proposal. The CC unanimously decided on December 17, 2012 to pursue the following projects for submission in a Round 2 application based on the analysis and recommendations of the PSC. Project (alphabetical) Amount Bayfront Canal Flood Management & Habitat Project $1,135,000 Breuner Marsh Restoration and Access Project $750,000 Building Climate Change Resiliency Along the Bay with Green Infrastructure and Treated Wastewater $2,000,000 Conserving Our Watersheds $600,000 East Bay Municipal Utility District East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A $1,000,000 Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project $630,000 Milliken Creek Flood Damage Reduction $500,000 North Bay Water Reuse Program - Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Project - Phase 2 $1,020,000 Pescadero Water Supply Project $700,000 Petaluma Flood Impact Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, Recreation, Phase IV $825,000 Regional Groundwater Project (San Bruno-Daly City-San Francisco) $500,000 Regional Water Conservation ($500,000 to Santa Clara Valley Water District) $2,700,000 Rheem Creek Restoration Project * $750,000 Roseview Heights Mutual Water Tanks & Main Upgrades $500,000 San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility $750,000 San Jose Green Infrastructure $2,000,000 Sausal Creek Restoration Project $500,000 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Green Infrastructure $900,000 Students and Teachers Restoring a Watershed (STRAW) $500,000 Upper York Dam Removal - St. Helena $800,000 TOTAL (20 Projects) ** $19,060,000 * Rheem Creek will not be included unless collaboration confirmed with East Contra Costa County Region. If the Rheem Creek Project is not included, another project from the East Subregion will take its place. ** The total is less than $20 M to provide for administration and performance monitoring Page 2 of 3 Decision Process The PSC pursued a process to evaluate seven options and select the combination of projects that would total less than $20 million and best meet the following factors identified by the PSC: Factors  Must meet DWR criteria for grants to assure a successful grant proposal: o Benefit/ Cost analysis (ability to provide detail for analysis) o Match (25% match or Dis-Advantaged Community waiver) o Readiness to proceed  Fair and equitable allocation of funds throughout the Region, Sub-regions, and Functional Areas  Maintain stakeholder engagement throughout the Sub-regions and Functional Areas  Efficient use of resources ( related to total number of projects) Options The PSC anticipated the need to develop different options that could be evaluated against the factors above. The options included the following with the results noted in italics. A. Most Integrated/ DWR Criteria Projects were rated based on level of integration (benefits to multiple IRWMP functional areas1) as well as DWR criteria for Technical Justification and Benefit/ Cost Analysis (included consideration of Regional projects). Issues - top ranked projects did not include any South Sub-region projects and only 1 Regional project B. Sub-regional Prioritization Four sub-regions prioritized projects within their geographic areas based on long-term sub-regional targets. Issues - too many projects to include in grant application and no regional projects C. Functional Area Emphasis Four functional areas prioritized projects based on $5 million allocations for each functional area Issues – Sub-regional targets not met. D. Climate Change Emphasis 8 projects were identified and ranked that specifically focused on Climate Change Issues - Functional Area and Sub-region allocations were unbalanced –not pursued further. In evaluating the options above, the PSC developed the following screening rules: Rules 1) Cap- No project or entity to receive more than $2 million (Regional Conservation excepted since this is a program with multiple agencies involved) due to breadth and depth of submittals 2) Floor- No project less than $500,000 included (original floor in project request) 3) Planning Limit- No more than 5% ($1 million total) of full submittal 4) Proponent Ranking- Proponents with multiple submittals were asked to rank them and this information was considered in project selection 5) Combined Projects- If projects are separate under CEQA, or are not all within an option’s priority funding range, they cannot be combined 1 Bay Area IRWMP Functional Areas include: Water Supply and Quality; Wastewater and Recycling; Flood Protection and Stormwater; Habitat and Watersheds Page 3 of 3 E. Hybrid Options E-1: Modified Option B (Sub-region Priorities) to include regional projects (STRAW and Regional Conservation) and incorporate some results of Option A. E-2: Variation of E-1 that would allocate $1 million for Planning/Assessment projects. Dropped given number of implementation projects and DWR focus on capital outlay. E-3: Modified Option A (Integration Option) to add funding for South and Regional projects and adjust amounts to stay below limit. The PSC recommended Option E-1 to the Coordinating Committee as the option best meeting identified factors after reviewing common projects in all options. A copy of the Options document prepared for the CC is attached. If you have questions about particular options or projects, please contact the appropriate IRWMP leads at: http://bairwmp.org/subregions/contacts We sincerely appreciate your participation in this process and regret that we could not accommodate more requests for funding. We value hearing about your experience in submitting and will look to incorporate feedback into future grant rounds. Please do not hesitate to contact us with comments and suggestions at Projects@bairwmp.org. Sincerely, Steven R. Ritchie Assistant General Manager, Water San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Chair Finance Chapter Table of Contents Section 10: Financing 10.1 Funding Opportunities 10.1.1 Local Funding 10.1.2 Capital Improvements Program Funding (Revenue Bonds, Certificates of Participation) 10.1.3 Property Tax Assessment (Assessed Valuation) 10.1.4 User Fees 10.1.5 Innovative Local Funding Mechanisms 10.1.5.1 Friends of the Mt. Tamalpais Watershed 10.1.5.2 Napa County, Measure A 10.1.5.3 Ross Valley Storm Drainage Fee 10.1.5.4 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Measure B 10.1.5.5 Zone 7 Water Agency, Stanley Reach Project 10.1.5.6 Potential Spending Offset Projects 10.2 State Funding 10.2.1 Proposition 84 10.2.1.1 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning 10.2.1.2 Department of Water Resources – Local Groundwater Assistance Program 10.2.1.3 Department of Public Health - Emergency and Urgent Water Protection 10.2.1.4 State Water Resources Control Board – Storm Water Grant Program 10.2.1.5 Local Levee Assistance Program 10.2.1.6 Flood Protection Corridor Program 10.2.1.7 Flood Control Subventions Program 10.2.1.8 Urban Streams Restoration Program 10.2.2 Proposition 1E 10.2.2.1 Stormwater Flood Management Program 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 10.2.2.2 Early Implementation Program 10.2.3 Proposition 50 10.2.3.1 Department of Water Resources – Water Use Efficiency Grants 10.2.3.2 Department of Water Resources – Contaminant Removal 10.2.3.3 Department of Water Resources – UV and Ozone Disinfection 10.2.4 Other State Funding 10.2.4.1 State Revolving Fund 10.2.4.2 Safe Drinking Water SRF 10.2.4.3 Infrastructure SRF 10.2.4.4 Clean Water SRF 10.2.4.5 State Water Resources Control Board – Federal 319 Program 10.2.4.6 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Recycling Funding Program 10.2.4.7 Department of Water Resources – New Local Water Supply Construction Loans 10.2.4.8 Department of Housing and Community Development – Community Development Block Grant 10.2.4.9 California Energy Commission (CEC) – Energy Financing Program 10.3 Federal Funding 10.3.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Source Reduction Assistance 10.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency, Wetlands Program Development Grants 10.3.3 National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program 10.3.4 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Grant 10.3.5 US Department of Agriculture – Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Program 10.3.6 US Bureau of Reclamation, WaterSMART Grant Programs 10.3.7 US Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant 10.4 IRWM Project Funding Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Public Workshop #2 Project Selection, Financing and Collaboration Monday, January 28, 2013 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. StopWaste.org 1537 Webster Street, Oakland, CA Summary of Workshop Participant Input Communication challenges • A workshop participant who is also a BAIRMWP project proponent commented that communication regarding submitting projects for the Proposition 84 Round 2 grant application was poor and that he was not receiving updates and information in a timely manner. Steve Ritchie, Chair of the BAIRWMP Coordination Committee (CC), indicated that the CC would follow up on this concern. Funding Sources and Mechanisms Following presentations provided by Carol Mahoney (Zone 7), Caitlin Sweeney (San Francisco Estuary Partnership), and Grant Schlereth (Arup) on financing sources and collaboration strategies (see BAIRWMP website for workshop presentations: www.bairwmp.org), workshop participants provided their own examples of funding mechanisms they have used and/or have found to be effective to fund water resource projects. These sources include: • The California Financing Coordinating Committee hosts regular Funding Fairs that are open to the public and very helpful. The fairs provide opportunities for project proponents to obtain information about currently available infrastructure grant, loan and bond financing programs and options. o For more information, visit: http://www.cfcc.ca.gov/funding_fairs.htm. • Small non-profit organizations are able to work with the Sonoma County Water Agency, which provides small grants for stakeholder engagement and localized involvement in making improvements to the water system. This has led to a number of successful habitat restoration projects. • Participation in carbon markets for mitigation credits can potentially provide funding for water resource projects. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is exploring this approach and the Point Reyes Bird Observatory is performing work in this area for grasslands and watersheds. In addition, smaller community based watershed groups are beginning to get involved in the carbon credit market. The Bay Area Watershed Network (BAWN) will be hosting a panel on carbon credits in February 2013 to discuss carbon credits and their potential applications. Page 1 of 2 o For more information about the BAWN panel, visit: http://www.sfestuary.org/watershed-network. • SFPUC provides funding for Alameda County Resource Conservation District staff to work on watershed restoration projects. This support provides the RCD with the resources it needs to implement projects; this has proved to be a very successful partnership. • Estate planning for land trusts has allowed a number of conservation projects to take place. This is a strategy that should be considered, and it may be applicable for other types of projects as well. • Santa Clara Valley Water District has a grant program that allows local non-profit organizations to participate in water resource projects. This funding source allows smaller organizations to implement smaller projects, as opposed to the larger infrastructure projects the BAIRMWP prioritizes. BAIRWMP should consider prioritizing funding the larger water resource agencies with funding programs similar to SCVWD because they allow smaller organizations to participate. • The City of Livermore uses development fees to fund flood improvement projects. Developers also sometimes pay drainage fees to mitigate for stormwater runoff. • Several local foundations, including the Lucile and David Packard Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, fund watershed, wetlands and riparian projects. • The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture funding database is a helpful resource. The database includes federal, state and local agency funding sources as well as private sources such as foundations and educational institutions. o For more information, visit: http://www.sfbayjv.org/funding-list.php. • Non-profit organizations are very creative in identifying resources and finding ways of implementing projects. Some use large teams of volunteers for watershed projects, including Acterra in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Partnership and Participation in BAIRMWP • It would be helpful to make available a “cost-benefit consultant” to help project proponents, particularly non-profit organizations that often don’t have the resources to do this, in this important aspect of the project applications • To facilitate partnerships between larger public agencies and smaller organizations, it would be helpful if both sides could clearly articulate what they are looking for in a partner and what they aim to achieve. For example, if larger agencies could to clarify what kinds of projects they are prioritizing, the smaller organizations can then develop some ideas on how to create a mutually beneficial partnership. They might consider articulating/sharing this on a central website that is easily accessible. • A relatively small number of projects included the 2013 BAIRWMP are being led by local cities. The Coordinating Committee should better understand the barriers to participation. • DWR’s requirements for disadvantaged community (DAC) projects to participate in the BAIRWMP, and the DAC boundaries, make it very challenging to participate. The process is complex and DACs have limited staff to work on applications and the intensive reporting and paperwork required. Page 2 of 2 Appendix E-8 Disadvantaged Community Outreach Materials Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Projects Serving Disadvantaged Communities Focus on Disadvantaged Communities The San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Bay Area IRWMP) is a planning process and document that identifies Bay Area water challenges and opportunities. It also encourages and describes how water resources management agencies and communities can work together to improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of San Francisco Bay. Serving the water needs of low-income, disadvantaged communities (DACs) is a high priority for the people in the water agencies and non-profit organizations who are developing the Bay Area IRWMP. Water projects serving these communities are able to leverage the following advantages: The normally required 25% cost share may be waived for DAC projects. Eligible projects include both construction projects and studies to identify specific water needs that may lead to a construction project. Eligible DAC Projects An eligible DAC project needs to serve a DAC community’s ““critical water supply or water quality need.” Example projects may include (but are not limited to): Management of flood flows that threaten the habitability of dwellings Wastewater treatment necessary to abate or prevent surface or groundwater contamination Replacement of failing septic systems with a system that provides for the long-term wastewater treatment needs of the community. Projects included in the Bay Area IRWMP become eligible for competitive state grants, but grants are not guaranteed. Where are DACs in the Bay Area? The California Department of Water Resources defines DACs as communities and neighborhoods with an annual median household income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average (or incomes less than $48,706). To understand where DACs are located in the Bay Area, visit the Bay Area IRWMP website (www.bairwmp.org) which hosts a series of DAC-specific maps. How to Learn More To learn more about the Bay Area IRWMP process, including how to submit a DAC project, please visit the project website at www.bairwmp.org. You can also contact one of the following subregional leads who can help guide you through the DAC eligibility determination and project submittal processes. North (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano counties) – Harry Seraydarian: harryser@comcast.net East (Contra Costa, Alameda counties) – Mark Boucher: mbouc@pw.cccounty.us South (Santa Clara county) – Brian Mendenhall: BMendenhall@valleywater.org) West (San Francisco, San Mateo counties) – Cheryl Muñoz: cmunoz@sfwater.org Project Submittal Deadline – September 1, 2012 To be included in the Bay Area IRWMP, proposals must be submitted on the project website by September 1. www.bairwmp.org §¨¦580 §¨¦80 §¨¦80 §¨¦680 ∙þ4 ∙þ24 ∙þ1 £¤101 ∙þ92 ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA MARI N SAN FRANCISCO SOLANO Martinez San PabloRichmond Pittsburg Con co rd El Cerrito Antioch Alban y Berkeley Oak land Alam eda San Leandro Hayward Shore Acres Saranap Castro Valley CCCSD MVSD DDSDPINOLE RSD SSD WCA DSRSD EBMUD EBDA LIV LAVWMA USD San Rafael San Francisco W A St E Leland Rd 23rd StDa n ville Blvd S A ir p o rt B lv d Franklin Canyon Rd E 14th St Park St 8 7 t h S t L StOtis Dr M arina Blvd13th AvePaul Ave Walnut Ave C larem ont A ve7 Hills RdAirport DrMission StBeach RdCamino TassajaraJackson StO a k S t Vallecitos RdE 8th St Rivers St Reliez Valley RdMoraga RdM ain StT a ylo r B lvd T u r k S t N Parkside Dr Snake RdFoothill Rd66th AveBroadwayPort Chicago HwyMain StAppian WayPomona Ave 13th StMarket StBoyd Rd Bancroft Ave Center Ave Fleetwood Dr Ful t o n S t S 39th StLomita AveCastro Ranch RdDeer Valley RdGarfield St Skyline Blv d Camino Pablo Broadway TerAlcosta Blvd Moraga W a y W inston D r G rant AveC ourt St Berry StO a k G ro v e R d Miranda AvePleasant Hill RdHegenberger Rd7th St G e a ry B lv d Pacheco Blvd Tiburon Blvd 14th St R o s e S t1st StFassler Ave Cummings Skwy Hickey BlvdBaker StA StTaylor StSaint Marys Rd1 6 t h S t Adeline StE a st S t Mt Ave F St Marsh Creek Rd Rudgear Rd B a y S t Skyl i ne DrB u s h S t Evans Ave S 2nd St6t h St Bunker R d Holmes StA shby A ve51st St G ear y Rd Clayton Rd S L StCrisp Rd Morello Ave Vienna StR edw ood Rd W K StE H St Sunset BlvdN San Pedro Rd 28th AveLone Tree Way 2nd St34th StY g n a c io V a lle y R d Harder Rd8t h St Fairmont DrPacific Ave Alhambra Val l e y R dMission Rd S a n R a mo n V a lle y B lv d W 10th St Bla c k h a w k R d Industrial BlvdMaitla n d D r Pier 4 1 Vineyard AveKirker Pass RdBuchanan Rd S t a n l e y B l v d Highland RdGre at HwyBailey RdS h a w R d Arroyo Valle Colma Creek Grizzly Cree k K aiser CreekAlhambra CreekT ic e C reek Galindo CreekPin e CreekTassajara CreekAlamo CreekSulphur Springs Creek Mills Creek Arroyo Seco Hastings S lough Garrity CreekGrayson CreekCoyote CreekSan Catanio CreekTemescal Creek G reen Valley CreekSouth San Ramon Creek San R amon CreekLauterwasser C r e e k San Rafael Creek Palomares Creek San Leandro CreekShephard Creek Cayetano C reek Gold Creek A rroyo Vall eMiller CreekGlen Echo Creek Buckhorn C r e e k Alamo CreekArroy o La s P o s i tas Ar r oyo de la Lagun a Wildcat C reek San L eand ro C re ek Strawberry CreekPinol e Creek W i l d c a t Creek Galindo Creek Mount Eden Creek Arroyo Cerro Del Mount D i ablo C reek Lion Creek P eaco c k CreekWalnut CreekBolinas Creek San Pedro Creek Claremont C r e e k Seal C reekDeer Flat Creek Rodeo Creek Mar s h C r eekWest Fork Sycamore Creek Norris CreekLafayette C r e e k A r r o y o MochoBear CreekRifle Range Bra nchBear Creek Dry C reekLas Trampas Cre e k East Fork Sycamore Creek Sinbad Creek Alameda Creek Arroyo d el Hambre Bollinger Canyon Creek San Lo r e n z o Cr e ek Donner Cre e k Pine Creek Codornices Creek Deer Creek West Branch Al a mo CreekDry CreekWildcat Creek Country Club Branch Walnut CreekSan Leandro Creek H ollis CreekCrow CreekKirk e r Cre ekDeer C re e k East Branch Green Valley CreekPalo Seco CreekLobos Creek Rod e o C reek Rodeo Creek W a rd C re e k Dry Creek Pine CreekRussellmann Creek Dry CreekR efugio Creek Redwood Creek S u lp h u r C re e k Cayetano CreekPeralta CreekVallecitos Creek Little Pine C r e e k T e h a n C r e e k Sycamore CreekWard Cree k A rroyo V iejoA rroy o Viejo Sand Creek Mountain Springs CreekBack CreekOil Cree kDublin C ree k Sausa l Creek Sycamore Cre ekFrankli n Creek Deer Creek Indian Creek Cottonwoo d CreekC e r r i t o C r e e k Cul l Cr eekSan Pablo Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (East) Source s: U S C ensus Bu reau, 2010 Cens usU.S. Federal Emergen cy Man age ment Administration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Ins titute MARIN NAPA SOLANO SONOMA VAC FSSD BENICIA NSD VSFCD SASM MCSD SVCSD PET LGVSD NSD SMCSD CMSA §¨¦580 §¨¦80 §¨¦680£¤101 ∙þ37 ∙þ12 ∙þ113 ∙þ4 ∙þ24 ∙þ116 San Rafae l Richmond Ro hnert Park Napa Fairfield Vallejo Marin City San Quentin Vacaville Agua Caliente 23rd StMcClay RdEly Rd N Franklin Canyon Rd C o r d e lia R dW Texas St N Texas StBroadwayLopes RdSunset AveAlha m bra A ve Travis Ave Walnut Ave Benicia Rd Ar li ngt on Av eBeach RdSan Marin Dr Gr e e n V a ll e y Rd Rivers St Mt StNave Dr Reliez Valley RdPeabody RdS uis u n Valley RdC e d a r S t L u c k y D r Verne Ave 5th St WLupine Rd W a te rfro n t R d Port Chicago Hwy Borges Ln Pomona Ave C anal S tBolinas RdG StEly Blvd S Boyd Rd Center Ave Olivera Rd E 3rd StE 10th St Camino Pablo E 5th StW estern A ve1st StLaurel St O a k G ro v e R dE 2nd StAtherton Ave Pacheco Blvd Tiburon Blvd Cummings Skwy W 10th StMarin StD S tM a r i n A v e I S t A StE a st S t Military W Main StOld Adobe Rd H St2nd StSan P a b lo A v e Travis Blvd S a n A n t o n i o R d S 2nd St6t h StPotrero AveAscot PkyWalters RdGeary Rd Clayton Rd J e ff e r s o n S t Vi c hy Av eA r n o l d Dr 3rd St B i g Ra n c h Rd N San Pedro Rd 34th St5 t h S t L a s A m i g a s R d Alhambra Valley Rd Marsh Creek Rd Alamo Dr Rose Dr Elmira Rd N Castro StShiloh RdBurndale RdHilborn RdSears Point Rd Lucas Valley Rd 1st AveMi n i Dr Kirker Pass RdBuchanan Rd Fry Rd Lakeville Hwy Airport RdFrates RdBailey RdAbernathy RdFremont Dr G r a h a m CreekS an Pablo C reek Laurel Creek San Antoni o C reek White Slough Novato Creek Austin Cr eekAlhambra CreekTice Creek Encino sa Cre e k Phoenix Creek Mud Slough Bon Tempe Creek Spring Branch Pine C reekWild Horse Creek East Fork Swede George Creek Barker Slo ugh A la mo Cree kCrane C r e e k North Branch Wilson Creek Hill SloughGoodyear Slough Unio n Creek Hastings Slough Green Valley Creek Corte Madera Creek Haraszthy Creek Schell Cree k Napa River Union C reekWill ow BrookGarrity CreekG rayson CreekBasalt Creek Tulucay C r e ek Rattlesnake Creek H o o k e r C reekWoloki Slough Barths Creek Bush Slough McCoy CreekAl amo C re ekNovato C r e e k Fa g a n CreekHuichic a Cr eekDenverton CreekT a m a l p a i s C r e e k Alamo Creek Lauterwasse r C r e e k A m erica n Canyon Creek Felder Creek North Graham Creek S p rin g B ra n c h Miller Cree k Sheehy Cr e ekRedwood CreekNovato C reek Sui su n CreekN o v a t o C re e k Fagan C reek N icasio Cre ekFern Creek Tol a y C r eekSwede George Creek Schultz Slough Wi ldcat Creek Strawberry Creek Pinole Cr e e k Union Creek E ast Bran c h China Slough Galindo Creek Marsh Creek Arroyo Cerro DelMount Diablo Cre ekLas T r ampas C re e k Laguna C r e ekBlue Rock Springs Creek South Fork Matanzas Creek Arroyo SecoWillo w Brook Peltier SloughWalnut CreekSulphur S p ri n g s C r e e k Claremont C r e e k Rodeo Creek Sulph u r S pr i ngs CreekRoss Creek Seal CreekGallinas Creek Webb CreekDe e r Flat Creek Ro deo Creek S a n R a m o n C reekSuscol Creek Nathanson Creek Petaluma River Lafayette Cr e e k Ledgewood CreekBear CreekFowler Creek Rack Cr e e k B e ar Creek Cascade Creek Arroyo Corte Madera Del PresidioCh amplin CreekHarvey Slough First Mallard Branch Milliken Creek Fagan SloughNapa Ri verSpencer Creek Bill Williams Creek East Fork Cataract Creek Middle Fork Lagunitas Creek Arroyo d el HambreWhite Creek Ulatis Cr eekDo nner Cr eekSleepy H o llow C reekN orth Sloug h Kirker CreekPine CreekLynch CreekDowdall Creek Soda CreekSoda Springs Creek Dry Cr eekL a rkspur CreekOld Mill Creek San A nselm o Creek White Creek A r r o y o J a n J o s e Carey Camp Creek Second Mallard Branch Fairfax Creek Wildcat Creek Carneros C reek Laurel CreekRush CreekVan Wyc k Creek Walnut CreekWooden Valley Creek Donahue SloughCoyote Creek West Fork Fern CreekEast Fork Fern Creek Rodgers Creek Sonoma CreekGarrity Creek Sand Creek Browns Cre ek Kirker CreekLaguna CreekBark e r Sloug h South Graham Creek Kent Creek Bothin Creek Adobe CreekRodeo Creek H a l l eck C reek B ig C arson Creek Lagu nitas Creek Pine CreekSarco C re e kWest Fork Lagunitas Creek Cold StreamRussellmann Creek West Fork Swede George Creek Mi l l C r e ekBootjack CreekLichau C re e k Grizzly Creek Mountain Springs Creek Galena Creek Mud Hen Slough Refugio Creek Mira Slough Tule Slough Cataract Creek Kreuse C reek Oil Cree kP e a c o c k C r e e k Little Pine C r e e k Spike Buck Creek Murphy Creek R in d le r C reekGordon Valley CreekCopeland Cr e ek San Rafael Creek Lewis Creek Codornices CreekLone Tree CreekBack CreekDeer Park Creek East Fork Lagunitas Creek Tolay Creek Dug Road Creek Frankli n Creek Napa CreekCarriger CreekAgua Caliente CreekArroyo SecoAsbury C reekArroyo AvichiC e r r i t o C r e e k San Pablo Creek Redw o od C reek Sources: U S C ens us Bure au, 201 0 CensusU.S. Fed eral Emergency Management Adminis tration (FEMA)Wastew ater Treatment Facility, Pacific Institute Wastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities InfrastructureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (North) §¨¦580 §¨¦80 §¨¦80 §¨¦680 ∙þ4 ∙þ24 ∙þ1 £¤101 ∙þ92 ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA MARI N SAN FRANCISCO SOLANO Martinez San PabloRichmond Pittsburg Con co rd El Cerrito Antioch Alban y Berkeley Oak land Alam eda San Leandro Hayward Shore Acres Saranap Castro Valley CCCSD MVSD DDSDPINOLE RSD SSD WCA DSRSD EBMUD EBDA LIV LAVWMA USD San Rafael San Francisco W A St E Leland Rd 23rd StDa n ville Blvd S A ir p o rt B lv d Franklin Canyon Rd E 14th St Park St 8 7 t h S t L StOtis Dr M arina Blvd13th AvePaul Ave Walnut Ave C larem ont A ve7 Hills RdAirport DrMission StBeach RdCamino TassajaraJackson StO a k S t Vallecitos RdE 8th St Rivers St Reliez Valley RdMoraga RdM ain StT a ylo r B lvd T u r k S t N Parkside Dr Snake RdFoothill Rd66th AveBroadwayPort Chicago HwyMain StAppian WayPomona Ave 13th StMarket StBoyd Rd Bancroft Ave Center Ave Fleetwood Dr Ful t o n S t S 39th StLomita AveCastro Ranch RdDeer Valley RdGarfield St Skyline Blv d Camino Pablo Broadway TerAlcosta Blvd Moraga W a y W inston D r G rant AveC ourt St Berry StO a k G ro v e R d Miranda AvePleasant Hill RdHegenberger Rd7th St G e a ry B lv d Pacheco Blvd Tiburon Blvd 14th St R o s e S t1st StFassler Ave Cummings Skwy Hickey BlvdBaker StA StTaylor StSaint Marys Rd1 6 t h S t Adeline StE a st S t Mt Ave F St Marsh Creek Rd Rudgear Rd B a y S t Skyl i ne DrB u s h S t Evans Ave S 2nd St6t h St Bunker R d Holmes StA shby A ve51st St G ear y Rd Clayton Rd S L StCrisp Rd Morello Ave Vienna StR edw ood Rd W K StE H St Sunset BlvdN San Pedro Rd 28th AveLone Tree Way 2nd St34th StY g n a c io V a lle y R d Harder Rd8t h St Fairmont DrPacific Ave Alhambra Val l e y R dMission Rd S a n R a mo n V a lle y B lv d W 10th St Bla c k h a w k R d Industrial BlvdMaitla n d D r Pier 4 1 Vineyard AveKirker Pass RdBuchanan Rd S t a n l e y B l v d Highland RdGre at HwyBailey RdS h a w R d Arroyo Valle Colma Creek Grizzly Cree k K aiser CreekAlhambra CreekT ic e C reek Galindo CreekPin e CreekTassajara CreekAlamo CreekSulphur Springs Creek Mills Creek Arroyo Seco Hastings S lough Garrity CreekGrayson CreekCoyote CreekSan Catanio CreekTemescal Creek G reen Valley CreekSouth San Ramon Creek San R amon CreekLauterwasser C r e e k San Rafael Creek Palomares Creek San Leandro CreekShephard Creek Cayetano C reek Gold Creek A rroyo Vall eMiller CreekGlen Echo Creek Buckhorn C r e e k Alamo CreekArroy o La s P o s i tas Ar r oyo de la Lagun a Wildcat C reek San L eand ro C re ek Strawberry CreekPinol e Creek W i l d c a t Creek Galindo Creek Mount Eden Creek Arroyo Cerro Del Mount D i ablo C reek Lion Creek P eaco c k CreekWalnut CreekBolinas Creek San Pedro Creek Claremont C r e e k Seal C reekDeer Flat Creek Rodeo Creek Mar s h C r eekWest Fork Sycamore Creek Norris CreekLafayette C r e e k A r r o y o MochoBear CreekRifle Range Bra nchBear Creek Dry C reekLas Trampas Cre e k East Fork Sycamore Creek Sinbad Creek Alameda Creek Arroyo d el Hambre Bollinger Canyon Creek San Lo r e n z o Cr e ek Donner Cre e k Pine Creek Codornices Creek Deer Creek West Branch Al a mo CreekDry CreekWildcat Creek Country Club Branch Walnut CreekSan Leandro Creek H ollis CreekCrow CreekKirk e r Cre ekDeer C re e k East Branch Green Valley CreekPalo Seco CreekLobos Creek Rod e o C reek Rodeo Creek W a rd C re e k Dry Creek Pine CreekRussellmann Creek Dry CreekR efugio Creek Redwood Creek S u lp h u r C re e k Cayetano CreekPeralta CreekVallecitos Creek Little Pine C r e e k T e h a n C r e e k Sycamore CreekWard Cree k A rroyo V iejoA rroy o Viejo Sand Creek Mountain Springs CreekBack CreekOil Cree kDublin C ree k Sausa l Creek Sycamore Cre ekFrankli n Creek Deer Creek Indian Creek Cottonwoo d CreekC e r r i t o C r e e k Cul l Cr eekSan Pablo Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (East) Source s: U S C ensus Bu reau, 2010 Cens usU.S. Federal Emergen cy Man age ment Administration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Ins titute ∙þ9 MenloPark Sta nford Portola Va lley Los Altos Mil pitas Sunnyva le Sa nta Cla ra Cuper tino Sa n Jose Cam pbell Sa ra toga Los Ga tos Morgan Hill Scot ts Va lley Sa nta Cruz Live Oak Capitola Opal Cliffs Twin La kes Gilroy SAN MATEO SANTA CLAR A SANTA CRUZ SVA LE SJSCWPCP §¨¦880 §¨¦280 §¨¦680 £¤101 £¤101 ∙þ35 ∙þ1 ∙þ84 ∙þ82 ∙þ1 ∙þ9 ∙þ87 ∙þ130 ∙þ152 ∙þ17 ∙þ237 ∙þ85 ∙þ17 ∙þ85 ∙þ82 ∙þ82 ∙þ35 Felter Rd Alpine RdLundy A veLandess AveBl ossom Hil l Rd S enter R dGreat America PkyRd G J a v a Dr Alma St Race StRedmond Ave S an T eresa BlvdS Springer RdRu b y Av e Hale Ave S i e r r a R d E Zayante RdA b o r n R dPage Mill RdCottle RdF l a t S t Llagas RdSnell Rider RdPierce RdMi n e s Rd Day RdPine AveBi rd AveE Gish RdScott BlvdGold StF o x w o r t h y A v e Doyle Rd Sobey RdWilliams Rd Graham Hi l l RdL ouis R d Story RdT ully R dM c K e a n RdCurie Dr 1st S t D a v e s A v e B r a n h a m L n Highland Way S Wh it e Rd E Middlefield Rd Miller AveHecker Pass Rd M arket S tM e tc a lf R d Colem an RdMonterey HwyBernal RdL a u r el G le n R d L af a y e tte S tPalm DrS Mary AveS King R d W estridge DrGrant RdM t H a m ilt o n R d Oak Dr Snell AveHazel Dell RdBuzzard Lago o n RdKooser RdBig Basin Way Mt Eden Rd M onterey R d Bear Creek RdN 1 7th S t N 1 st S t S Mai n St S 7th St Uvas RdAlba Rd Laurel RdCasa Loma RdSummit Rd Isabel Cr e e k Sobey CreekMartin CreekSan Felipe Cr e ekWest Fork Adobe Creek Miguelita CreekBoulder Brook H e nd r ys Creek Hughes Creek Arastradero Creek Slate CreekMayfield Slough Sausal Creek Isabel C reek M iller Slo u g h Si lv er Creek Isab el Cree k Arroyo H ondo Uvas Cree k South Fork Butano Creek Aptos CreekBear C r e e k Hoove r C r e e kBarron CreekSaratoga CreekLos G atos Creek Coyot e Cre e kLos Gatos CreekBlack Creek Fall Creek P ie d m o n t C r e e k Matadero CreekLlagas Cre e k Arro y o Ho n d o Laguna CreekUvas Creek B r i g gs Creek Packwood Cree kCalabazas CreekRincon CreekAldercroft Creek L o n g B r a nchButano Creek Jones Creek J u mpoff Cree k Bear Creek Co y ote C reek Uvas Cre ek C a lera C reekK ings CreekBonjetti C r e e k Guadalupe CreekCoyote Creek Quail Hollow Creek Llagas CreekSkillet CreekArroyo ValleRhododendron CreekMindego Creek Little Llagas Creek B o u lder Creek Grizzly Creek Alamitos CreekDeer CreekWest Waddell Creek Jam i s on Creek Coyote C r e e k Middle Fork Coyote Creek Her b e r t Creek Twin F all CreekMill CreekBe r r y e ssa Cree k F l i n t C r e e k San Lorenzo RiverZayante CreekO il Creek Bear CreekLittle Coyote Creek Sw iss C re ek Logan CreekEvans CreekBerry CreekBeauregard Creek Las Anim as C re ekSoque l Creek Arroyo Bayo Weeks Creek Lla g as Creek C oyote Cree kKeyston Creek Arroyo CaleroDry CreekS a n Antonio Creek Colorado Cre e k We s t B ranch L l a g a s Cr e e k Alambique Creek Upper Penitencia Cre e k Canoas Creek Los Capitancillos Creek Woodhams Creek A lpine C r e e k Lam bert Creek Winter Creek Al amed a C reek Valencia C r e ekHog Slough Tarwater CreekCoyot e Cr eekL a n g le y C ree k Thompson Creek Scott CreekA dob e C reekBabb CreekMill CreekRoss C re e k San Tomas Aquinas Creek Ferndell CreekPeters C reek Sempervirens Creek Arroyo MochoWilde r CreekBooker CreekPeters Creek Little Arthur Cree kSouth Panther Creek Tularcitos Creek Hale CreekYerba Buena Cre e kStevens Creek Penitencia Creek Wildcat CreekAlameda C r e e k North Branch Piedmont Creek Flint Cree k Bear Creek Calaveras C reek B o nita C reek Pheasant CreekBlooms Creek Coy o t e Creek Uvas Creek G u a d alupe R i v e r Woodruff C reekT im m s C r e e k Babb Creek Arroyo Bayo San Fra ncisquito CreekStapling Creek S ulp h u r S p rin g s C reek B ea n C r ee k Lit t l e Uvas C r e ek Little Boulder Creek Los Gatos Cre e kIndian CreekSan Martin CreekVasona CreekPesc a dero Creek Hare Creek Amaya Creek Sulphur C re e k Newell CreekShear CreekMarsha ll Creek Opal Creek E a st F o r k Coyote Cr e e k Q uim by C reekSmith Creek Mackenzie CreekSilver CreekSpring Creek Agua Puera CreekLiddell Creek Cow Creek Bridge CreekTrout Creek P r o s p ect Creek G old M ine C reekTrout CreekA rr o y o AguagueSouth Branch Tularcitos Creek Llagas CreekMa chado CreekBodfish C reek Todd Creek Hinckley CreekIverson CreekMajors Creek Hayes CreekM ill CreekUnion CreekI s a b e l Cr e e kPermanente CreekN e w CreekMcElroy Creek Indian Cabin Creek Foreman CreekA rroyo D e Los Coc h e s Corte M adera Creek Ruins CreekBay CreekWest Liddell CreekEast Branch Liddell Creek Last Chance Creek Cro y C reekBaldwin CreekSweetw ate r CreekMaddocks Creek Bracken Brae Creek N o rw ood Cre e k Waterman CreekCasserly Creek Bennett Creek Soup Bowl C re e k Rogers CreekDamiani CreekAlamias Cre ekHale CreekGazos CreekArroyo Bayo Crystal CreekSweigert Creek Browns CreekTwo Bar CreekCoal CreekMoore CreekFo w ler Creek Kelly Creek Malosky Creek Arroyo Ag uague Deans Creek Sycamore CreekM o l i n o C re e k Stevens C re ekCrosley Creek Granite CreekIs a bel Cr e ek Lompico CreekLompico CreekParadise CreekBranciforte CreekRegnart CreekBorregas CreekBig C reekRucker CreekFritch CreekLove CreekManson Creek San Felipe CreekPeavine CreekLos Tra n c o s Creek Dexter Creek C or ralito s CreekBull Creek Eagle Creek Dutard Creek Bull Run CreekSierra CreekP u r i s i m a C r e e k Alb a C re e k Live Oak CreekClear Cre ekCenter Creek North F o r k Grizzly Creek G o ld G u lc h C r e e k Bates CreekPanther CreekSan Ysidro CreekS hi ngl e M ill C re e k Gaffey C reekPermanente CreekRe ggi ar d o Cr e e k A r c h ib a ld C r e e k Matadero CreekL ittle CreekPowder Mill CreekMoffett ChannelEast W addell CreekRider Creek S m i t h C r e e k Carbonera CreekBarron Creek Meder CreekPino C reek S outh Babb Creek Hester C ree kBurns Cree k Church CreekYellow Bank CreekSan Ysidro CreekNewell CreekBoyer CreekLa g u n a C r eekSan Vicente CreekLau r e l Creek Mill CreekWastewater Treatment Facility Disadvantaged Communities 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Bay Area IRWMP Boundary Environmental Justice Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional Water Management PlanBay Area (S outh) Sources: U S C ens us Bure au, 201 0 CensusU.S. Fed eral Emergency Management Adminis tration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Ins titute SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO Mar inCity Ti bu ron Sa usa lito Be rke le y Oa k lan d Alameda Daly City Bri sba ne Sa n Le andro Foste r City Redwood City East Pa lo Alto Menlo Pa rk Woo d sid e SF PA SM SF BURL SF SBSA PAC NSMCSD SAMC SSF MILL §¨¦80 §¨¦280 §¨¦880 §¨¦580 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 ∙þ92 ∙þ82 ∙þ35 ∙þ1 ∙þ92 ∙þ35 ∙þ1 ∙þ1 ∙þ84 ∙þ82 ∙þ82 ∙þ82 S kyline Blvd Shell Pky Atlantic Ave 1 6 t h S t 4th St D a v is S tP alm Ave L o m b a r d S t Otis St3 0 th S t Avy AveW illow Otis Dr Sunnydale Ave Vicen t e S t S G r a n t S t N o r ie g a S t Louis Rd M arina BlvdM ission StHil l D r T a ra v a l S t Claremont AveSel va St 40th St E dgew ood R dPeralta StHillside Blvd Island Dr3rd Ave14th AveHigh Rd San Leandro St C a n a d a R d Alma St AlamedaHigh StSloat Blvd P a rk B lv d H ic k e y B lv d San Bruno Ave W Market StE m b a rca d e ro R dJenevein AveValparaiso AveJefferson AveFleetwood Dr 1 8 t h S t E 8th St Helen Dr M a n s e ll S t Black Mt RdFarm Hill BlvdMorag a Wa y W in s to n D r School St College AveG rant AveF e lto n S t2 2 n d A v e G e ar y B l v d Moraga Ave 1st AveKeller Ave Hegenberger RdJohn M uir Dr P o w e ll S tC a l i f o r n i a S t E 14th St3rd StFoothill Blvd 1st St P arrott D rPark BlvdAtherton AveHallmark Dr Loyola Dr Middle Harbor Rd2nd StArroyo DrWillow RdAirport Dr 7th St Southgate Ave23rd AveCrespi Dr 14th St Bockman RdAdeline StPacific AveEncinal Ave Mt Ave F St C a ld e c o tt L n 15th AveMaritime StBroadwayB rittan A veF e l l S t Etheldore St Harrison StG e a r y S t Skyline DrM a r i n a B l v d Evans Ave B u s h S t B u nker RdPalm Dr73rd AveHudson St Spring St A shby A veAlta A ve Nimitz Ave51st St D wight Rd Isabella AveJerrold AvePalou Ave E Grand Ave 10th St Vienna StE 3rd Ave A r m y S t Redwood Rd H ayne R dS D ela w a r e S t Ruth Ave2 0 t h S t Lux Ave 8t h St Chateau Dr5th AveSneath LnBridge Pky T u r k S t Pier 4 1 Pinehurst RdHolly StKings Mt Rd Doolittle DrGreat HwyS h a w R d Colma Creek San M ateo C reekCo r d illeras CreekH et ch Hetchy Aqueduct San Ma t e o C re e k Temescal Creek Pulgas CreekSan Pablo Creek Arroyo Ojo D e Agua Sheph ard Creek Denniston CreekGl en Echo Creek San Mateo Creek Be a r Creek M ills C r eek Canada Verde Creek San L eandro C r e ek M ount Eden CreekLion CreekP i l a r c i t o s Creek Corinda Lo s Trancos Creek San Franc isqui to Creek Arroyo De En M edio P u lg a s C r e e k Arroyo Leon Rifle Ran ge Bran ch Madonna Cr e e kSan Vicente CreekMatadero Creek U nion C reek Brooks Creek Locks Creek Purisima Creek B e l m o n t C reekClaremont Creek Easton CreekCountry Club Branch Arroy o Leo n San Leandro Creek Nuff Cre e kApanolio CreekM artini CreekEaston C reekPalo Seco Creek South Fork San Pedro Creek Lobos Creek Middle Fork San Ped ro Creek T u n i t a s C r e e k Barron CreekF renchmans CreekRedwood Creek S u lp h u r C reek San Pedro Creek Peralta CreekPilarcitos Creek Deer CreekLobitos Creek A rroyo V iejoArro y o Viejo La u rel CreekPolhe m us C reek Sausal CreekSanchez CreekApano li o Cr e e k Indian C re e kSan Lorenzo C r e e k Wastewater Treatment Facil ity Disadvantage d C ommuni ti es 100-year Floodp lain 500-year Floodp lain Bay Are a IRWMP Boun dary Envi ronmental Justi ce Communities Infrastruct ureIntegrated Regional W ater Management PlanBay Area (West) Source s: U S C ens us Bu re au, 201 0 CensusU.S. Fed eral Emergen cy Man age ment Adminis tration (FEMA)Wastew ater Trea tme nt Facility, Pa cific Institute BAIRWMP Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Outreach Log Date Type Contact Description 2/14/2012 Email Rosina Roibal, Bay Area Environmental Health Coalition Email to Rosina re: outreach to EJ groups in Bay Area; Rosina sent notice to her listserv 2/17/2012 Phone call Jesse Mills, SFEP Phone call with Jesse to develop first generation DAC map 2/18/2012 Maps Jesse Mills, SFEP Developed first generation DAC map 2/21/2012 Phone call/criteria Bruce Shaffer, DWR Phone call with Bruce re: DAC eligibility criteria; provided list of questions for Bruce to vet internally 2/21/2012 Phone call Maria Elena Kennedy, Greater LA IRWMP Interview with Maria Elena re: DAC outreach strategies 2/21/2012 Email Emily Alejandrino, DWR Email to Emily (tribal liaison) re: IRWMP tribal outreach 3/23/2012 Phone call Maria Elena Kennedy, Greater LA IRWMP DAC outreach strategies 3/23/2012 Phone call Tim Nelson, DWR tribal liaison Phone call re: Bay Area tribal communities 3/28/2012 Email Various Sent emails/email exchange with various DAC contacts requesting interviews, including Peter Vorster (Bay Institute), Chuck Striplen (SFEI), Jennifer Clary (Clean Water Action), Meena Palaniappan (Pacific Institute), Marisa Raya (ABAG), Connie Galambos Malloy (Urban Habitat), Torri Estrada (EJCW), Debbie Davis (EJWC) 4/3/2012 Interview Jennifer Clary, Clean Water Action Interview with Jennifer to inform DAC findings assessment 4/4/2012 Email Jennifer Clary, Clear Water Action; Karen Pierce, SF DPH Email exchange with introduction to Karen 4/3/2012 Interview Debbie Davis, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (formerly)Interview with Debbie to inform DAC findings assessment 4/9/2012 Interview Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP Interview with Karen re: IRWMP DAC outreach strategies 4/10/2012 Interview Melanie Denninger, State Coastal Conservancy Interview with Melanie to inform DAC findings assessment 4/10/2012 Interview Karen Pierce, SF Dept of Public Health Interview with Karen to inform DAC findings assessment 4/16/2012 Engagement objectives n/a Developed DAC-specific engagement objectives for Plan Updarte 4/15/2012 Assessment n/a Developed summary of findings from DAC interviews 4/17/2012 Planning meeting CC members Convened and facilitated stakeholder engagement planning meeting; presented assessment findings and discussed DAC engagement strategy with group 4/24/2012 Email Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Email with Caitlin re: following up with current DAC project sponsors to gauge their interest in submitting next phase projects for the Plan 4/27/2012 Phone call Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Planning call with Caitlin re: coordinating with current DAC project sponsors 6/7/2012 Phone call Marisa Raya, ABAG Conversation with Marisa re: DAC projects and outreach to DACs 6/7/2012 Developed communication text Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Drafted email text for Caitlin Sweeney to send to current DAC project sponsors re: idenitying projects for the 2013 Plan Update 6/7/2012 Email Various Caitlin Sweeney emailed current current DAC project sponsors re: identifying projects for the 2013 Plan Update 6/8/2012 Email Harry Seraydarian Email exchange with Harry re: a potential DAC contact - Kristen Schwind, Bay Localize 6/11/2012 Email/review Caitlin Sweeney, others Email exchange with Caitlin re: project proposal from the Watershed Project on Richmond Greenway 6/11/2012 Email/process design Mark Boucher, Carol Mahoney Email to Mark and Carol re: vetting DAC projects and establishing a process for guiding DAC project applicants through the submittal 6/12/2012 Email/process design Mark Boucher, Carol Mahoney, Caitlin Sweeney Email exchange re: vetting DAC projects and establishing a process for guiding DAC project applicants through the submittal process 6/12/2012 Phone call Mark Shorett, ABAG Phone call with Mark re: potential DAC projects 6/12/2012 Phone call Ken MacNab, City of Calistoga Phone conversation with Ken re: potential DAC projects in the City of Calistoga 6/12/2012 Phone call Ted Daum, DWR Phone conversation with Ted Daum re: establishing a process for vetting DAC projects with DWR 6/13/2012 Conversation Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP, Kara Reyes, La Luz Center In-person conversation re: Springs communities in Sonoma Valley and potential DAC project 6/27/2012 Email Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Email to Kevin re: a potential DAC project on San Francisquito Creek 6/27/2012 Phone call Kristen Schwind, Bay Localize Phone conversation with Kristen re: potential DAC projects and ngo's that serve DACs 6/27/2012 Email Brent Butler, City of East Palo Alto Email exchange with Brent re: the City of EPA submitting a DAC projects for the Plan Update 6/27/2012 Email William Gibson, San Mateo County Sent email to William re: potential DAC project 6/27/2012 Email Matthew Snyder, City of San Francisco Sent email to Matthrew re: potential DAC project 6/28/2012 Email Various Email sent to Frank Lopez (Urban Habitat), Amy Vanderwarker (CA Environmental Justice Alliance), Nile Malloy (Communities for a Better Environment), Ericka Erickson (Marin Grassroots) re: potential DAC 6/29/2012 Process n/a Developed process document (including roles) for providing DAC projects sponsors with guidance/assistance and vetting project ideas 6/29/2012 Planning Outreach subcommittee Held conference call with Outreach Subcommittee where K&W presented DAC project guidance/vetting process (process was 7/2/2012 Phone call/email Cynthia D'Agosta, Committee for Green Foothills Phone call and email exchange with Cynthia re: the Committee submitting a project for the Plan Update (they had a project in the 2006 Plan) 7/2/2012 Email/defining DAC requirements Carl Morrison Email exchange with Carl re: match waiver for DACs 7/3/2012 DAC maps n/a Finalized second generation DAC maps (total of 5), including region- wide map and 4 subregion maps 7/6/2012 Email Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Email exchange with Caitlin outlining next steps in identifying DAC projects 7/13/2012 Website n/a Translate and post Workshop #1 Spanish-language notice and agenda 7/13/2012 Email Master contact list including DAC-serving organizations Workshop #1 notice (three emails prior to workshop and one follow-up) 7/13/2012 News release Bay Area media Media release for Workshop #1 sent to Spanish-, Vietnamese, and Chinese-language newspapers 7/20/2012 Email/website Mark Boucher, David Siedband Email to Mark and David re: making the DAC maps available on the BAIRWMP website and creating a dedicated DAC page 7/23/2012 Public workshop Various BAIRWMP public workshop, where project submittal advice was provided (total of 11 DAC representatives attended workshop) 7/24/2012 Email/phone Harry Seraydarian Phone call and email exchage with Harry re: a potential DAC project in 7/24/2012 Email Marie Valmores, CC Water, Alyson Watson, City of Pittsburg Email exchange with Marie and Alyson re: potential DAC project in Pittsburg 7/25/2012 Outreach materials Various Developed draft DAC-specific outreach flyer, sent to various PUT members for review 7/26/2012 Email Walter Pease, City of Pittsburg, Alyson Watson, RMC Email exchange with Walter and Alyson re: potential DAC project in Pittsburg 7/27/2012 Email/maps Rebecca Tuden, City of Oakland Sent Becky DAC map 7/27/2012 Outreach materials n/a Finalized DAC-specific outreach flyer 7/27/2012 Phone call Phil Harrington, City of Berkeley Phone call with Phil re: potential DAC project for City of Berkeley 7/27/2012 Email Various Email to FA leads, Outreach subcommittee members, and attendees of the July 23 CC meeting re: next steps in DAC project identification, including materials for them to conduct DAC outreach and process 7/30/2012 Website n/a DAC maps uploaded to website; DAC-specific page on website created; reviewed website and suggested edits to make material easier to find 7/30/2012 Email FA leads Sent emails to each FA lead requesting that they send notice to their membership groups re: DAC projects 7/30/2012 Email Various DAC contacts Sent email to DAC contacts who attended July 23 workshops (total of 7/31/2012 Email/data analysis Carlos Martinez, City of East Palo Alto Email to Carlos re: DAC census tracts in EPA. Analyzed data using DWR GIS tool to identify DAC census tracts for potential project 8/1/2012 Email Kevin Murray, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Email exchange with Kevin re: potential DAC project for San Francisquito Creek 8/14/2012 Phone call Harold Hedelman, Watershed Project Phone call with Harold re: potential DAC project the Watershed Project is considering submitting 8/14/2012 Phone call Chien Wong, Alameda County Flood Phone call with Chien Wong re: potential DAC project 8/17/2012 Email/project concept Ted Daum, DWR Shared Watershed Project DAC project concept with Ted for comments/review 8/23/2012 Phone call Caitlin Sweeney, SFEP Phone call with Caitlin to clarify DAC eligibility requirements and discuss Watershed Project DAC project concept 8/23/2012 Phone call Ted Daum, DWR Phone call with Ted to clarify DAC eligibility requirements 8/27/2012 Phone call Phil Harrington, City of Berkeley Questions about DAC project eligibility and submitting DAC-benefitting Berkeley public works project on the website. Also referred to Caitlin Sweeney. 8/30/2012 Email blast IRWMP listserv Email to entire listserv re: clarification of DAC eligibility requirements 9/5/2012 Emails Karen McBride, Rural Community Assistance Corporation (City of Pescadero) Emails/phone calls re: eligibility of Pescadero DAC project, included Carole Foster (San Mateo County) 9/7/2012 Phone/emails Kimra McAfee, Friends of Sausal Creek Assistance re: DAC project, making sure it was submitted online successfully Appendix E-9 Materials for Outreach to Bay Area Native American Tribes Native American Tribes of the Bay Area The following represents the Native American Tribes of the San Francisco Bay Area. Because of the boundaries of the Bay Area IRWMP jurisdiction, the tribes fall outside of the boundaries, with one significant exception – the Casino San Pablo in the East Bay, whose land and operations are owned and managed by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. Sources: Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute; Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brian Campbell, EBMUD; tribal websites; DWR Water Plan Location/population, contacts, IRWMP jurisdiction, issues, potential for IRWMP projects Tribe Tribal Lands/ Population Contact Info Jurisdiction Issues/Capacity Project Potential/ Partner Lytton Band of Pomo Indians Healdsburg. About 200-300 enrollees. Casino San Pablo in San Pablo is their reservation. They own 50 acres in Windsor and have wanted to develop it against local opposition. Marjorie Mejia, Chairperson Lisa Miller, Tribal Administrator 1300 North Dutton Avenue Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95401-7108 Primarily North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney except for Casino San Pablo in Bay Area IRWMP Casino San Pablo in San Pablo adjacent to a creek near the Bay. Muwekma Ohlone Tribe Alan Leventhal - Tribal Anthropologist aleventh@email.sjsu.edu 408-761-4516 Primary focus of most of their activity is in pursuing federal recognition and casino development Mishwal Wappo Tribe Napa Valley/Alexander Valley. 340 living members. Scott Gabaldon - Chairman scottg@MishewalWappoTrib e.com 707-494-9159 Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley Not in BAIRWMP jurisdiction Primary focus of most of their activity is in pursuing federal recognition and casino development. Tribe Tribal Lands/ Population Contact Info Jurisdiction Issues/Capacity Project Potential/ Partner P.O. Box 1086 Santa Rosa, CA 95402; Fax: 1 (707) 843-5006 http://www.mishewalwapp otribe.com/ Chuck Striplen, SFEI, trying to work with them on environmental issues. Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria The Kashia Band's reservation is the Stewarts Point Rancheria. It occupies 40 acres in Sonoma County and 86 tribal members reside there. It conducts business from Santa Rosa. 3535 Industrial Drive, Suite B- 2,, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Nina Hapner - Environmental Director nina@stewartspoint.org 707-591-0580 x107 http://www.kashiapomo.blog spot.com/ North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney Construction potential – yes. Sonoma Co Water Agency (Grant Davis) Dry Creek Rancheria (Pomo) 75 acres along Russian River between Healdsburg and Cloverdale. Operates River Rock Casino. Dry Creek Rancheria Tom Keegan - Environmental Director TomK@drycreekrancheria.co m 707-857-1810 x117 www.drycreekrancheria.com North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney The Tribe's waste water facility treats water to the highest standard, and the Rancheria recycles its treated water. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was formed to protect the Dry Creek Rancheria's air, land and water from pollution and Construction potential – yes. Sonoma Co Water Agency (Grant Davis) --River Rock Casino (creek restoration?) Tribe Tribal Lands/ Population Contact Info Jurisdiction Issues/Capacity Project Potential/ Partner to provide a healthy and safe environment for visitors, residents and future generations. Dry Creek Rancheria environmental work done by ESA. Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Graton consists of Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo – 1 acre/1 house in Graton in private ownership. Also, new casino complex on Laguna de Santa Rosa. Devin Chatoian - Environmental Director Lorelle Ross - Vice Chair dchatoian@gratonrancheria. com 707-566-2288; Greg Sarris, Chairperson M Joann Adams, Tribal Administrator Gene Buvelot; 6400 Redwood Drive Suite 300 Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2341 North Coast IRWMP per Karen Gaffney Construction potential – yes. Sonoma Co Water Agency (Grant Davis) New casino complex on Laguna de Santa Rosa. Amah Mutsun Tribal Band South Bay – Jim Keller - Director of Conservation, or Chuck Striplen - Science Advisor way_institute@sbcglobal.net (831) 212-5912 Pajaro IRWMP per Chuck Striplen Last updated: 8/12/12 Bay Area Native American Tribe Outreach Log Date Type Contact Description 3/23/2012 Email Tim Nelson, DWR tribal liaison Received list and maps of tribes in Bay Area 3/23/2012 Phone call Tim Nelson, DWR tribal liaison Phone call re: Bay Area tribal communities 4/2/2012 Interview Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute and Aman Matsun tribe member One hour interview with Mr. Striplen by Pam Jones regarding Bay Area tribes/contacts, IRWMP jurisdictions, water interests/needs, tribal technical capacities 6/28/2012 Email Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute Received email from Mr. Striplen re: additional list of tribe contacts 6/28/2012 Email Chuck Striplen, Aman Matsun tribe member Email from Pam Jones to Mr. Striplen regarding follow-up on tribal contact list and development of plan 7/6/2012 Email Chuck Striplen, San Francisco Estuary Institute Email from Mr. Striplen regarding comments on the plan approach 7/18/2012 Email Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency Lettter for review of Tribal outreach approach and to determine SCWA potential to contact tribes 7/26/2012 Letter California Native American Heritage Commission Letter requesting assistance in developing outreach to Bay Area tribes for the BAIRWMP 8/6/2012 Email Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency Received response from Karen Gaffney regarding input on BAIRWMP tribal efforts 8/20/2012 Voice Mail California Native American Heritage Commission Message requesting input on tribal identification/contacts 8/6/2012 Email Karen Gaffney, North Coast IRWMP; Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency Responded to Karen Gaffney's email of 8/6/2012 discussing BAIRWMP tribal efforts Appendix F-1 Projects Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on May 28, 2014 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-1 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan In anticipation of a third round of Proposition 84 funding, the Coordinating Committee in early 2014 solicited regional and subregional project concept proposals. The solicitation resulted in a total of 54 projects submitted, with the total amount sought for funding exceeding $420 million. These projects were then scored using 10 factors that had been developed for this concept proposal solicitation. Table F-1-1 lists the scoring factors and potential score for each factor. In some cases just a yes or no answer was all that was required. Subsequent to the scoring, statewide drought legislation was passed and DWR essentially divided the third round in two parts with the first specifically addressing the drought. The Coordinating Committee then evaluated and rescored the submitted regional and subregional concept proposals as to how they would respond to the drought. The Bay Area regional factors in Table F-1-1 as well as scoring criteria developed after review of the DWR’s Drought Solicitation Guidelines and Draft Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) were key in selecting projects to include in the Drought Solicitation Proposal. The eight projects listed in Table F-1-2 were ranked highly both because of Plan priorities and drought specific needs and are hereby added to the Plan. Submitted project concept proposals not evaluated for the Drought Round are being carried forward for evaluation under DWR’s anticipated final Prop 84 IRWM round in 2015. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-2 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 Table F-1-1: Project Scoring Factors Factor Criteria Scoring (or yes or no) 1 In the Plan? (Y/N) Goals/Objectives 1 to 3 points (Total of 200 points allocated among the 5 goals; 10 points per objective until 40 points maximum per goal [for flood goal, 40 points if all objectives addressed]) Tier into 3 categories: 1 – 1-66 of 200 2 – 67-123 of 200 3 – 124-200 of 200 2 Readiness to proceed 1 to 3 points 1 – Conceptual or early planning 2 – In CEQA or final design phase 3 – CEQA and all permitting complete – can start construct before April 2015 3 Provides 25% match? (Y/N) 4 Provides at least two physical benefits? (Y/N) Physical benefits 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss benefits or evidence of minor benefits for project type 2 - Evidence of moderate benefits for project type 3 - Evidence of high level of benefit for project type 5 Benefit-Cost 1 to 3 points 1 - Not discussed or B/C below 1 2 - B/C between 1-3 3 - B/C above 3 6 Cash for consultant to prepare proposal? (Y/N) 7 Collaboration with other entities 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or only narrow collaboration 2 - Moderate level of partners, some limitations to partnership 3 - Broad collaboration appropriate to project type 8 Degree of integrated benefits 1 to 4 points 1 - Benefits in only one FA or resource area 2 - Benefits 2 FAs or resource areas 3 - Benefits in 3 FAs or resource areas 4 - Benefits in 4 FAs or resource areas 9 Proposal indicates scalability? (Y/N) 10 Regionality (for regional proposals only) 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or constrained to approx 1/3 of relevant part of region or less 2 - Brings benefits to a significant proportion of relevant region (up to 2/3) 3 - Benefits large portions in nearly all of relevant regions 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-3 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 Table F-1-2: Projects Added and Project IRWMP Factors Score Project Total IRWMP Factors Score 1 Bay Area Regional Water Supply and Conservation Project 16.8 / 21 2 Bay Area Regional Recycled Water Project: • Calistoga Recycled Water Storage Facility • Continuous Recycled Water Production Facilities and Wolfe Road Recycled Water Pipeline Extension 16.7 / 21 3 Drought Response & Water Supply Reliability on the Central Coast 13.2 / 18 4 Enhancing and Balancing Beneficial Uses of Water Resources in the Pescadero-Butano Watershed 13.1 / 18 5 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation Project 12.3 / 21 6 MMWD WaterSMART Irrigation with AMI/AMR 11.5 / 18 7 Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) Treatment for Drought Water Quality Conflicts 9.6 / 18 8 Zone 7 Water Supply Drought Preparedness Project 12.6 / 18 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-1-4 Appendix F-1: Projects Added to the Plan on May 28, 2014 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-1 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Appendix F-2 Projects Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on May 26, 2015 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-2 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) issued a Draft Implementation Grant Project Solicitation Package on March 12, 2015 which identified eligible projects and presented a draft scoring system for a fourth round of Proposition 84 funding, the 2015 IRWM Implementation Grant Solicitation. The Bay Area Coordinating Committee solicited regional and subregional project concept proposals via a spring solicitation. The solicitation resulted in a total of 45 project concepts submitted. These 45 submitted project concepts were then reviewed and ranked by the Project Screening Committee (PSC), using the scoring matrix identified in the project solicitation. The matrix, presented in Table F-2-1, lists the scoring factors and potential score for each factor. In some cases just a yes or no answer was all that was required. Numerous conceptual, hybrid, and feasible options for proposal composition were developed by the PSC in order to utilize the project scoring and ranking, and to adhere to established project selection principles, including: 1) Fair and equitable allocation of funds throughout the Region, Sub-regions, and Functional Areas; 2) Maintaining stakeholder engagement throughout the Sub-regions and Functional Areas; 3) Meeting DWR grant criteria are met, assuring a successful proposal; 4) Efficient use of resources (related to total number of projects in proposal). The three projects listed in Table F-2-2 were ranked highly under the Bay Area Coordinating Committee’s 2015 project solicitation and PSC review process, support Plan priorities and Bay Area project selection principles, and are hereby added to the Plan. 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-3 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Table F-2-1: Project Scoring Factors Factor Criteria Scoring (or yes or no) 1 In the Plan? (Y/N) Goals/Objectives 1 to 3 points (Total of 200 points allocated among the 5 goals; 10 points per objective until 40 points maximum per goal [for flood goal, 40 points if all objectives addressed]) Tier into 3 categories: 1 – 1-66 of 200 2 – 67-123 of 200 3 – 124-200 of 200 2 Readiness to proceed 1 to 3 points 1 – Conceptual or early planning 2 – In CEQA or final design phase 3 – CEQA and all permitting complete – ready to proceed. 3 Provides 25% match? (Y/N) 4 Provides two physical benefits? (Y/N) Physical Benefits 1 to 6 points 1 - Does not discuss benefits or evidence of minor benefits for project type 3 - Evidence of moderate benefits for project type 6 - Evidence of high level of benefit for project type 5 Benefit-Cost 1 to 3 points 1 - Not discussed or B/C below 1 2 - B/C between 1-3 3 - B/C above 3 6 Cash for consultant to prepare proposal? (Y/N) 7 Collaboration 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or only narrow collaboration 2 - Moderate level of partners, some limitations to partnership 3 - Broad collaboration appropriate to project type 8 Degree of integrated benefits 1 to 4 points 1 - Benefits in only one FA or resource area 2 - Benefits 2 FAs or resource areas 3 - Benefits in 3 FAs or resource areas 4 - Benefits in 4 FAs or resource areas 9 Proposal indicates scalability? (Y/N) 10 Impact/Effect 1 to 3 points 1 - Does not discuss or impact constrained to approx 1/3 of relevant part of region or less; no relevance to regional priorities 2 - Brings benefits to a significant proportion of relevant region (up to 2/3); somewhat relevant to regional priorities 3 - Benefits large portions in nearly all of relevant region; highly relevant to regional priorities 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan F-2-4 Appendix F-2: Projects Added to the Plan on May 26, 2015 Table F-2-2: Projects Added and Project IRWMP Factors Score Project Total IRWMP Factors Score 1 Bay Area Regional Shoreline Resilience Program 22.86 2 Coastal San Mateo County Drought Relief Phase II 17.40 3 2020 Turf Replacement Project 16.00 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-1-1 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on April 25, 2016 Appendix G-1 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on April 25, 2016 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-1-2 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on April 25, 2016 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • City of San Pablo Wildcat Creek Restoration Plan The following plans are under development and the Coordinating Committee anticipates accepting them into the BAIRWMP upon completion: • Contra Costa Watersheds Storm Water Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-2- 1 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 27, 2017 Appendix G-2 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on February 27, 2017 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-2- 2 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 27, 2017 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP:  San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-3- 1 Appendix G-3: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on March 27, 2017 Appendix G-3 Storm W ater Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on March 27, 2017 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-3- 2 Appendix G-3: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on March 27, 2017 Appendix G-3: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • San Francisco Public Utilities Commission functional equivalent Stormwater Management Plan • Daly City Vista Grande Drainage Basin functional equivalent Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-4- 1 Appendix G-4: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on May 21, 2018 Appendix G-4 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on May 21, 2018 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-4- 2 Appendix G-4: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on May 21, 2018 Appendix G-4: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Marin County functional equivalent Storm Water Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-5- 1 Appendix G-5: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on October 22, 2018 Appendix G-5 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on October 22, 2018 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-5- 2 Appendix G-5: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on October 22, 2018 Appendix G-5: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Southern Sonoma County Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-6- 1 Appendix G-6: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 25, 2019 Appendix G-6 Storm W ater Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on February 25, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-6- 2 Appendix G-6: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on February 25, 2019 Appendix G-6: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan • Contra Costa Watersheds Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-7- 1 Appendix G-7: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on July 22, 2019 Appendix G-7 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on July 22, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-7- 2 Appendix G-7: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on July 22, 2019 Appendix G-7: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-8-1 Appendix G-8: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on August 26, 2019 Appendix G-8 Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on August 26, 2019 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-8-2 Appendix G-8: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on August 26, 2019 Appendix G-8: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP: • Santa Clara Basin Stormwater Resource Plan arb.ca.gov November 2017 The strategy for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Contents Executive Summary ES1 Decades of Leadership ES1 The Climate Imperative – We Must Act ES2 California is on Track – But There is More to Do ES3 California’s Path to 2030 ES4 California’s Climate Vision ES5 Enhance Industrial Efficiency & Competitiveness ES7 Prioritize Transportation Sustainability ES8 Continue Leading on Clean Energy ES10 Put Waste Resources to Beneficial Use ES12 Support Resilient Agricultural and Rural Economies and Natural and Working Lands ES13 Secure California’s Water Supplies ES14 Cleaning the Air and Public Health ES15 Successful Example of Carbon Pricing and Investment ES16 Fostering Global Action ES17 Unleashing the California Spirit ES18 Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Background 1 Climate Legislation and Directives 1 Initial Scoping Plan and First Update to the Scoping Plan 5 Building on California’s Environmental Legacy 5 Purpose of the 2017 Scoping Plan 5 Process for Developing the 2017 Scoping Plan 6 Updated Climate Science Supports the Need for More Action 6 California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 2030 Target 9 Progress Toward Achieving the 2020 Limit 9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking 12 California’s Approach to Addressing Climate Change 12 Integrated Systems 12 Promoting Resilient Economic Growth 13 Increasing Carbon Sequestration in Natural and Working Lands 13 Improving Public Health 14 Environmental Justice 14 Setting the Path to 2050 18 Intergovernmental Collaboration 19 International Efforts 19 Chapter 2: The Scoping Plan Scenario 22 Scoping Plan Scenario 23 Scenario Modeling 31 Policy Analysis of Scoping Plan Scenario 33 Chapter 3: Evaluations 35 Programs for Air Quality Improvement in California 35 AB 197 Measure Analyses 37 Estimated Emissions Reductions for Evaluated Measures 37 Estimated Social Costs of Evaluated Measures 39 Estimated Cost Per Metric Ton by Measure 44 Health Analyses 47 Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Particulate Matter Air Pollution 47 Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Toxic Air Pollution 48 Potential Health Impacts of Active Transportation 48 Future Health Activities 50 Economic Analyses 50 Public Health 57 Environmental Analysis 60 Chapter 4: Key Sectors 62 Low Carbon Energy 65 Industry 69 Transportation Sustainability 73 Natural and Working Lands Including Agricultural Lands 81 Waste Management 88 Water 92 Chapter 5: Achieving Success 96 Ongoing Engagement with Environmental Justice Communities 96 Enabling Local Action 97 Climate Action through Local Planning and Permitting 99 Implementing the Scoping Plan 103 A Comprehensive Approach to Support Climate Action 104 Conclusion 106 Abbreviations 107 ES1 Decades of Leadership From the first law to protect rivers from the impact of gold mining in 1884, to decades of work to fight smog, the Golden State has set the national – and international – standard for environmental protection. California pushes old boundaries, encounters new ones, and figures out ways to break through those as well. This is part of the reason why California has grown to become both the 6th largest economy in the world, and home to some of the world’s strongest environmental protections. And, we have seen our programs and policies adopted by others as they seek to protect public health and the environment. California’s approach to climate change channels and continues this spirit of innovation, inclusion, and success. The 2030 target of 40 percent emissions reductions below 1990 levels guides this Scoping Plan, as the economy evolves to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in every sector. It also demonstrates that we are doing our part in the global effort under the Paris Agreement to reduce GHGs and limit global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius in this century. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (Plan) builds on the state’s successes to date, proposing to strengthen major programs that have been a hallmark of success, while further integrating efforts to reduce both GHGs and air pollution. California’s climate efforts will: • Lower GHG emissions on a trajectory to avoid the worst impacts of climate change; • Support a clean energy economy which provides more opportunities for all Californians; • Provide a more equitable future with good jobs and less pollution for all communities;• Improve the health of all Californians by reducing air and water pollution and making it easier to bike and walk; and• Make California an even better place to live, work, and play by improving our natural and working lands. 2% Recycling & Waste California Carbon Emissions 2015 Total Emissions 440.4 MMTCO2e 11% Electricity Generation 21% Industrial 8% Agriculture 37% Transportation In State8% Electricity Generation Imports 9% Commercial & Residential 4% High-GWP Governor Brown signs SB 32 recommitting California’s efforts to curb climate change. C alifornia Carbon Emissions by sCoping plan sEC tor ES2 The Climate Imperative – We Must Act The evidence that the climate is changing is undeniable. As evidence mounts, the scientific record only becomes more definitive – and makes clear the need to take additional action now. In California, as in the rest of the world, climate change is contributing to an escalation of serious problems, including raging wildfires, coastal erosion, disruption of water supply, threats to agriculture, spread of insect-borne diseases, and continuing health threats from air pollution. The drought that plagued California for years devastated the state’s agricultural and rural communities, leaving some of them with no drinking water at all. In 2015 alone, the drought cost agriculture in the Central Valley an estimated $2.7 billion, and more than 20,000 jobs. Last winter, the drought was broken by record-breaking rains, which led to flooding that tore through freeways, threatened rural communities, and isolated coastal areas. This year, California experienced the deadliest wildfires in its history. Climate change is making events like these more frequent, more catastrophic and more costly. Climate change impacts all Californians, and the impacts are often disproportionately borne by the state’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. is already experiencing CLIMATE CHANGE the impacts of CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES HEAT WAVES RISING SEA LEVELS DROUGHT REDUCED SNOWPACK IN 2015 THE DROUGHT COST THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY AN ESTIMATED $2.7 BILLION & 20,000 JOBS ES3 California is on Track – But There is More to Do Although the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 – also known as AB 32 – marked the beginning of an integrated climate change program, California has had programs to reduce GHG emissions for decades. The state’s energy efficiency requirements, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and clean car standards have reduced air pollution and saved consumers money, while also lowering GHG emissions. AB 32 set California’s first GHG target called on the state to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. California is on track to exceed its 2020 climate target, while the economy continues to grow. Since the launch of many of the state’s major climate programs, including Cap-and-Trade, economic growth in California has consistently outpaced economic growth in the rest of the country. The state’s average annual growth rate has been double the national average – and ranks second in the country since Cap-and-Trade took effect in 2012. In short, California has succeeded in reducing GHG emissions while also developing a cleaner, resilient economy that uses less energy and generates less pollution. Importantly, the State’s 2020 and 2030 targets have not been set in isolation. They represent benchmarks, consistent with prevailing climate science, charting an appropriate trajectory forward that is in line with California’s role in stabilizing global warming below dangerous thresholds. As we consider efforts to reduce emissions to meet the State’s near-term requirements, we must do so with an eye toward reductions needed beyond 2030. The Paris Agreement – which calls for limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius – frames our path forward.Trillion (2009 $)tonnes CO2e/million $ GDP0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2000 20022001 2004 200620052003 2010200920072008 2014201320122011 2015 Emissions per unit GDP GDP EnvironmEntal progrEss and a rEsiliEnt EConomy The California economy has grown while becoming less carbon intensive. 2020 Target 2030 Target 0 100 200 300 400 500 2000 2010 2020 2030Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)2020 Target 2030 Target 2010 2020 2030 C alifornia’s path forward ES4 California’s Path to 2030 Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 extended the goals of AB 32 and set a 2030 goal of reducing emissions 40 percent from 2020 levels. This action keeps California on target to achieve the level of reductions scientists say is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals. This is an ambitious goal – calling on the State to double the rate of emissions reductions. Nevertheless, it is an achievable goal. This Plan establishes a path that will get California to its 2030 target. Given our ambitious goals, this Plan is built on unprecedented outreach and coordination. Over 20 state agencies collaborated to produce the Plan, informed by 15 state agency-sponsored workshops and more than 500 public comments. The broad range of state agencies involved reflects the complex nature of addressing climate change, and the need to work across institutional boundaries and traditional economic sectors to effectively reduce GHG emissions. As part of the Plan development, alternative strategies were considered and evaluated, ranging from carbon taxes to individual facility caps to relying solely on sector-specific regulations. In addition, efforts were made to ensure that the Plan would benefit all Californians. To this end, the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC), a Legislatively created advisory body, convened almost 20 community meetings throughout California to discuss the climate strategy, and held 19 meetings of its own to provide recommendations on the Plan. This Plan draws from the experiences in developing and implementing previous plans to present a path to reaching California’s 2030 GHG reduction target. The Plan is a package of economically viable and technologically feasible actions to not just keep California on track to achieve its 2030 target, but stay on track for a low- to zero-carbon economy by involving every part of the state. Every sector, every local government, every region, every resident is part of the solution. The Plan underscores that there is no single solution but rather a balanced mix of strategies to achieve the GHG target. This Plan highlights the fact that a balanced mix of strategies provides California with the greatest level of certainty in meeting the target at a low cost while also improving public health, investing in disadvantaged and low-income communities, protecting consumers, and supporting economic growth, jobs and energy diversity. Successful implementation of this Plan relies, in part, on long-term funding plans to inform future appropriations necessary to achieve California’s long-term targets. SOURCE: ADVANCED ENERGY ECONOMY employing 500,000 Californians MORE THAN THE MOTION PICTURE& AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES COMBINED CREATING31,000 DIRECT JOBS &57,000 INDIRECT JOBS +#1 IN CLEAN ENERGY JOBSCalifornia is GENERATED renewable energy projects FROM 2002-2015 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY $11.6 BILLION in economic activity Double building efficiency 50% renewable power More clean, renewable fuels Cleaner zero or near-zero emission cars, trucks, and buses Walkable/Bikeable communities with transit Cleaner freight and goods movement Slash potent “super-pollutants” from dairies, landfills and refrigerants Cap emissions from transportation, industry, natural gas, and electricity Invest in communities to reduce emissions C alifornia’s ClimatE poliCy portfolio ES5 California’s Climate Vision Create Inclusive Policies and Broad Support for Clean Technologies Remarkable progress over the past 10 years has put the global energy and transportation sector on a transformative path to cleaner energy. Far outpacing previous predictions, today solar and wind power are often less expensive than coal or natural gas, and they now comprise the majority of global investment in the power sector. Electric vehicle battery costs have tumbled even more quickly than solar costs, while performance has improved dramatically, and the auto industry is committed to an electric future. California’s policies have created markets for energy efficiency, energy storage, low carbon fuels, renewable power – including utility-scale and residential-scale solar – and zero-emission vehicles. Our companies are thriving, making those markets grow. California is home to nearly half of the zero-emission vehicles in the U.S., 40 percent of North American clean fuels investments, the world’s best known electric car manufacturer, and the world’s leading ride-sharing services. California is further advancing efficient land use policies that reduce auto dependency. Altogether, we’re unleashing nonlinear transitions to clean energy and clean transportation technologies that will put California on the path to meeting our 2030 target and the goals of the Paris Agreement. California policymaking has succeeded through thoughtful planning, bolstered by an open public process that solicits the best ideas from a wide array of sources, and by integrating effective regulation with targeted investments to provide broad market support for clean technologies. A key element of California’s approach continues to be careful monitoring and reporting on the results of our programs and a willingness to make mid-course adjustments. As the State looks to 2030 and beyond, all sectors of the economy must benefit from these ideas to create a new and better future. OF TOTAL U.S. INVESTMENT IN CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 50% OF THE ZEVs IN THE U.S. California is home to OF NORTH AMERICAN 40% INVESTMENTS CLEAN FUEL &&90%NEARLYPROJECTIONS 20132011 2015 2019 20212017 20252023 0 500,000 1 M 1.5 M 2 M 2.5 M 3 M 3.5 M Navigant Research Bloomberg New Energy Finance U.S. Energy Information Administration Minimum Compliance Scenario Historical Data Edison Electric Institute Experience has shown clean technology and markets continue to outpace expectations. CumulativE California ZEv salEs projEC tions ES6 The benefits of innovative technologies need to reach all residents and businesses. Air pollution reductions and the associated health benefits should be targeted to communities where they are needed most. All Californians need access to clean transportation options that enable healthy communities to develop and thrive, including walking, cycling, transit, rail, and clean vehicle options. Although GHG reductions can help to reduce harmful air pollution, California must concurrently employ other strategies to accelerate reductions of pollutants from large industrial sources that adversely impact communities. Newly passed AB 617 strengthens existing criteria and toxic air pollutant programs and our partnerships with local air districts to further reduce harmful air pollutants and protect communities. More fundamentally, AB 617 establishes a comprehensive statewide program – the first of its kind – to address air pollution where it matters most: in neighborhoods with the most heavily polluted air. C alifornia’s goals California’s environmental justice and equity movement is establishing a blueprint for the nation and world. The State is pioneering targeted environmental and economic development programs to help those most in need. So far, half of all California Climate Investments, stemming from the State’s Cap-and-Trade-Program, have been used to provide benefits in the 25 percent of California communities that are most disadvantaged by environmental and socio-economic burdens. By increasingly engaging with, and investing in, these communities – investing in technical assistance resources, holding listening sessions, improving our programs, and accelerating our efforts to bring the cleanest technologies to mass market – all California residents can have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and opportunities to participate in the cleaner economy. SAVE WATERMAKE CALIFORNIA MORE RESILIENT CREATE JOBSSUPPORT VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES TRANSFORM TO A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY GIVE CONSUMERS CLEAN ENERGY CHOICES Principles DRAFT aChiEving suCCEss in Equity and aCCEss • Continue to engage local organizations and invest in disadvantaged communities to ensure broad access to clean technologies; • Ensure air pollution reductions happen where they are needed the most; • Integrate across programs and agencies to ensure complementary policies provide maximum benefits to disadvantaged communities; • Implement California Energy Commission and CARB recommendations to overcome barriers to clean energy and clean transportation options for low-income residents; • Provide energy-efficient affordable housing near job centers and transit; and • Implement AB 617 to dramatically improve air quality in local communities through targeted action plans. lEgislativE lEadErship on ClimatE The California Legislature has shaped the State’s climate change program, setting out clear policy objectives over the next decade: • 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030; • 50% renewable electricity; • Double energy efficiency savings; • Support for clean cars; • Integrate land use, transit, and affordable housing to curb auto trips; • Prioritize direct reductions; • Identify air pollution, health, and social benefits of climate policies; • Slash “super pollutants”; • Protect and manage natural and working lands; • Invest in disadvantaged communities; and • Strong support for Cap-and-Trade. ES7 Enhance Industrial Efficiency & Competitiveness California leads the country in manufacturing and industrial efficiency. For every dollar spent on electricity, our manufacturers produce 55 percent more value than the national average. And the efficiency of California industry continues to grow at rates faster than the national average. High efficiency rates, coupled with the Cap-and-Trade Program’s firm emission cap, allow economic activity to increase without corresponding increases in GHG emissions. In other words, the more California produces, the better it is for the planet. Maintaining and extending our successful programs – from the Cap-and-Trade Program and Low Carbon Fuel Standard to zero-emission, renewable energy and energy efficiency programs – will reduce GHGs, increase energy cost savings, offer businesses flexibility to reduce emissions at low cost and provide clear policy and market direction, and certainty, for business planning and investment. This will encourage continued research, evaluation, and deployment of innovative strategies and technology to further reduce emissions in the industrial sector through advances in energy efficiency and productivity, increased access to cleaner fuels, and carbon capture, utilization and storage. aCtion on hfCs Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) represent one of the biggest opportunities to reduce GHGs in the State through 2030 due to their high climate impacts, and in many cases, offer energy efficiency and financial savings, as well. The world recently agreed to phase down their use, but California has committed to move more quickly, in line with the scope of the opportunity for cost-effective emissions reductions in the State. aChiEving suCCEss in industrial EffiCiEnCy and CompEtitivEnEss • Evaluate and implement policies and measures to continue reducing GHG, criteria, and toxic air contaminant emissions from sources such as refineries; • Improve productivity and strengthen economic competitiveness by further improving energy efficiency and diversifying fuel supplies with low carbon alternatives; • Prioritize procurement of goods that have lower carbon footprints • Support and attract industry that produces goods needed to reduce GHGs; and • Cut energy costs and GHG emissions by quickly transitioning to efficient HFC alternatives. ES8 Prioritize Transportation Sustainability California’s transportation system underpins our economy. The extensive freight system moves trillions of dollars of goods each year and supports nearly one-third of the state economy and more than 5 million jobs. The way we plan our communities impacts everything from household budgets to infrastructure needs, productivity lost to congestion, protection of natural and working landscapes, and our overall health and well-being. And transportation is the largest source of GHG, criteria, and toxic diesel particulate matter emissions in the state. California’s ability to remain an economic powerhouse and environmental leader requires additional efforts to improve transportation sustainability with a comprehensive approach that includes regulation, incentives, and investment. This approach addresses a full range of transportation system improvements relating to efficient land use, affordable housing, infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians, public transit, new vehicle technologies, fuels and freight. One example is the deployment of the nation’s first high-speed rail system, which will include seamless connections to local transit. The approach is working: California is home to nearly half of the country’s zero-emission vehicles. Innovative alternative fuel producers and oil companies are bringing more low carbon fuels to market than required by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. And, the State has committed to investing billions in zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure, land use planning, and active transportation options such as walking and biking. In fact, renewable fuels in the heavy-duty vehicle sector are displacing diesel fossil fuel as quickly as renewable power is replacing fossil fuels on the electricity grid. California’s climate policies will also reduce fossil fuel use and decouple the state from volatile global oil prices. CARB’s analyses show fossil fuel demand will decrease by more than 45 percent by 2030, which means Californians will be using less gasoline and diesel resulting in healthier air and cost-savings on transportation fuels. These benefits will be further amplified as we move away from light-duty combustion vehicles. By re-doubling our efforts, California can make sure that markets tip quickly and definitively in the favor of electric cars, trucks, buses, and equipment, while increasing the use of clean, low carbon fuels where zero-emissions options are not yet available. Local transportation planning can make communities become healthier and more vibrant and connected – encouraging housing, walking, biking and transit policies that reduce GHGs and promote good quality of life. And, we can work to ensure that an efficient sustainable freight system continues to power our ever-growing economy. DRAFT RENEWABLE DIESEL USE Source: CARB has increased 7000% since 2011 ES9 Achieving SucceSS in TrAnSporTATion SuSTAinAbiliT y • Connect California’s communities with a state-of-the-art high-speed rail system; • Promote vibrant communities and landscapes through better planning efforts to curb vehicle-miles-traveled and increase walking, biking and transit; • Build on the State’s successful regulatory and incentive-based policies to quickly make clean cars, trucks, buses, and fuels definitive market winners; • Coordinate agency activities to ensure that emerging automated and connected vehicle technologies reduce emissions; and • Improve freight and goods movement efficiency and sustainability to enable California’s continued economic growth. ES10 Continue Leading on Clean Energy California is well ahead of schedule in meeting its renewable energy targets. Wind and solar generation have grown exponentially in recent years, while hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass have consistently contributed renewable power to our energy supply. Californians are the ones who will take action to meet energy efficiency targets, integrate renewable power through demand response, and drive demand for net zero energy buildings. This includes self-generation which also grew exponentially in recent years with installed solar totaling 2,000 megawatts (MW) in 2014 and 5,100 MW of the total statewide self-generation installed solar in 2015. By June 2017, solar installed in California was about 5,800 MW, far exceeding the State’s goals. 1983 1990 2000 2010 2016GWh 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 SOLAR WIND GEOTHERMAL SMALL HYDRO BIOMASS Increasing Renewable Electricity Generation (In-State and Out-of State)inCrEasing rEnEwablE ElECtriCity gEnEration (in & out of state) The Renewable Portfolio Standard, Carbon Pricing, and lower costs for renewable technology are delivering real environmental benefits. ES11 While at this time natural gas is an important energy source, we must move toward cleaner heating fuels and replicate the progress underway for electricity. As with electricity, this starts with efficiency and demand reduction, including building and appliance electrification where these advancements make sense. It calls for minimizing fugitive methane leaks throughout the system, including beyond California’s borders where 90 percent of the natural gas used here originates. And, it includes using more renewable gas – a valuable in-state resource made from waste products – especially in the transportation sector. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable gas can reduce potent short- lived climate pollutants, and state policies should support this effort. Reducing demand for natural gas, and moving toward renewable natural gas, will help California achieve its 2030 climate target. However, switching from natural gas to electricity – where feasible and demonstrated to reduce GHGs – is needed to stay on track to achieve our long-term goals. 50% GOAL33% GOAL 20302020 Reaching California’s Clean Electricity Goals 29% PROGRESS 2016 aChiEving suCCEss in ClEan EnErgy • Effectively integrate at least 50 percent renewables as the primary source of power in the State through coordinated planning, additional deployments of energy storage, and grid regionalization; • Utilize distributed resources and engage customers by making net zero energy buildings standard, implement Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan to double existing building efficiency, and increase access to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy use data; and • Reduce the use of heating fuels while concurrently making what is used cleaner by minimizing fugitive methane leaks, prioritizing natural gas efficiency and demand reduction, and enabling cost-effective access to renewable gas. The State’s 3 largest investor-owned utilities are on track to achieve a 50% RPS by 2020. ES12 aChiEving suCCEss in putting wastE rEsourCEs to bEnEfiCial usE • Develop and implement programs, including edible food waste recovery, to divert organics from landfills and reduce methane emissions; • Develop and implement a packaging reduction program; and • Identify a sustainable funding mechanism to support waste management programs, including infrastructure development to support organics diversion. Put Waste Resources to Beneficial Use Effectively managing waste streams is perhaps the most basic of environmental tenets. “Reduce, re-use, and recycle” is a mantra known even to elementary school students. For decades California law has reduced waste reaching landfills and recaptured value from waste streams through recycling and composting. California law requires reducing, recycling, or composting 75 percent of solid waste generated by 2020. The State also has specific goals for diverting organic waste, which decomposes in landfills to produce the super pollutant methane. State law also directs edible food to hungry families rather than having it discarded. Capturing value from waste makes sense. As described in the Healthy Soils Initiative, compost from organic matter provides soil amendments to revitalize farmland, reduces irrigation and landscaping water demand, and potentially increases long-term carbon storage in rangelands. Organic matter can also provide a clean, renewable energy source in the form of bioenergy, biofuels, or renewable natural gas. California should take ownership of its waste and adhere to a waste “loading order” that prioritizes waste reduction, re-use, and material recovery over landfilling. The State can take steps to reduce waste from packaging, which constitutes about one-quarter of California’s waste stream. It can invest in and streamline in-state infrastructure development to support recycling, remanufacturing, composting, anaerobic digestion, and other beneficial uses of organic waste. And, it can help communities in their efforts to recover food for those in need. ES13 Support Resilient Agricultural and Rural Economies and Natural and Working Lands California’s natural and working landscapes, like forests and farms, are home to the most diverse sources of food, fiber, and renewable energy in the country. They underpin the state’s water supply and support clean air, wildlife habitat, and local and regional economies. They are also the frontiers of climate change. They are often the first to experience the impacts of climate change, and they hold the ultimate solution to addressing climate change and its impacts. In order to stabilize the climate, natural and working lands must play a key role. Work to better quantify the carbon stored in natural and working lands is continuing, but given the long timelines to change landscapes, action must begin now to restore and conserve these lands. We should aim to manage our natural and working lands in California to reduce GHG emissions from business-as-usual by at least 15-20 million metric tons in 2030, to complement the measures described in this Plan. Natural and working lands can be better incorporated into California’s climate change mitigation efforts by encouraging collaboration with local and regional organizations and increasing investment to protect, enhance, and innovate in our rural landscapes and communities. The State is partnering with tribes to preserve carbon, protect tribal forest lands and increase their land base. Transportation and land use planning should minimize the footprint of the built environment, while supporting and investing in efforts to restore, conserve and strengthen natural and working lands. California’s forests should be healthy carbon sinks that minimize black carbon emissions where appropriate, supply new markets for woody waste and non- merchantable timber, and provide multiple ecosystem benefits. Rehabilitating and strengthening wetlands and tidal environments, and incorporating natural landscapes into urban environments will also help make natural and working lands part of the state’s climate solution. Finally, California farmers can be a powerful force in the fight against climate change, in how they manage their lands, tend their crops, and husband their livestock. aChiEving suCCEss in supporting rEsiliEnt agriCultural and rural EConomiEs and natural and working l ands • Protect, enhance and innovate on California’s natural and working lands to ensure natural and working lands become a net carbon sink over the long-term; • Develop and implement the Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to maintain these lands as a net carbon sink and avoid at least 15-20 metric tons of GHG emissions by 2030; • Measure and monitor progress by completing CARB’s Natural and Working Lands Inventory and implementing tracking and performance monitoring systems; and • Unleash opportunity in the agricultural sector by improving manure management, boosting soil health, generating renewable power, electrifying operations, utilizing waste biomass, and increasing water, fertilizer, and energy use efficiency to reduce super pollutants. Improved forest management on tribal lands has preserved almost 3 million metric tons of carbon in California and the revenues from the carbon offsets have been used to secure ownership of ancestral lands. ES14 thE watEr-EnErgy nExus • About 12% of the total energy used in the state is related to water, with 2% for conveyance, treatment and distribution, and 10% for end-customer uses like heating and cooling. • The water-energy nexus provides opportunities for conservation of these natural resources as well as reduction of GHGs. aChiEving suCCEss in sECuring California’s watEr suppliEs • Increase water savings by certifying innovative technologies for water conservation and developing and implementing new conservation targets, updated agricultural water management plans, and long term conservation regulations; • Develop a voluntary registry for GHG emissions from energy use associated with water; and • Continue to increase the use of renewable energy to operate the State Water Project. Secure California’s Water Supplies Water is California’s lifeblood. It sustains communities and drives the economy. An elaborate network of storage and delivery systems has enabled the state to prosper and grow. But this aging system was built for a previous time and is increasingly challenged by the realities of climate change and population growth. Producing, moving, heating and treating water demands significant energy and produces commensurately significant emissions. As California looks to the future, meeting new demands and sustaining prosperity requires increased water conservation and efficiency, improved coordination and management of various water supplies, greater understanding of the water-energy nexus, and deployment of new technologies in drinking water treatment, groundwater remediation and recharge, and potentially brackish and seawater desalination. State efforts must support systemic shifts toward conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy in the water sector. ES15 Climate Plan Provides Health Benefits in 2030 $1.2-1.8 billion VALUE OF AVOIDED HEALTH IMPACTS $1.9-11.2 billion VALUE OF AVOIDED DAMAGES USING SOCIAL COST OF CARBON 3,300~ AVOIDED PREMATURE DEATHS Cleaning the Air and Public Health The benefits of this Plan are broader than just climate change – implementation of the Plan will also help improve public health. The Plan incorporates freight and mobile source strategies which will deliver reductions in criteria and toxic air pollutants to improve air quality. California continues to seek ways to improve implementation of its climate program and its ability to address the unique set of impacts facing the state’s most pollution burdened communities. In addition, CARB’s environmental justice efforts are intended to reach far beyond climate change. While this Plan provides a path for reducing GHG emissions in disadvantaged communities, it also includes new tools that will complement the Plan and lead to further air quality improvements. In particular, implementation of AB 617 will improve air quality in local communities, in partnership with local air districts, using targeted investments in neighborhood-level air monitoring and the development of air pollution reduction action plans with strong enforcement programs. These plans will require pollution reductions from both mobile and stationary sources. Through these efforts, CARB anticipates, and will work for, increased data transparency and the adoption of new statewide air pollutant emission controls that will not only confer short-term benefits to those most in need of improvement, but which will ultimately benefit all Californians. Under the leadership of CARB’s first executive-level environmental justice liaison, the agency is also laying a roadmap to better serve California’s environmental justice communities in the design and implementation across its broader programs. ES16 Successful Example of Carbon Pricing and Investment The Cap-and-Trade Program is fundamental to meeting California’s long-range climate targets at low cost. The Cap-and-Trade Program includes GHG emissions from transportation, electricity, industrial, agricultural, waste, residential and commercial sources, and caps them while complementing the other measures needed to meet the 2030 GHG target. Altogether, the emissions covered by the Cap-and-Trade program total 80 percent of all GHG emissions in California. California’s response to climate change has led to many innovative programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, including the Renewable Portfolio and Low Carbon Transportation Standards, but the Cap-and-Trade Program guarantees GHG emissions reductions through a strict overall emissions limit that decreases each year, while trading provides businesses with flexibility in their approach to reducing emissions. The Cap-and-Trade Program also generates revenue when the allowances to emit pollution are auctioned. Some of the revenue is returned directly to electricity ratepayers, and the rest is dedicated to reducing GHG emissions by making Legislatively directed investments in California with an emphasis on programs or projects that benefit disadvantaged and low-income communities. Including the latest budget, approximately $5 billion has been appropriated to reduce GHG emissions, reduce air pollutant emissions where reductions are needed most, grow markets for clean technologies, and spur emissions reductions in sectors not covered by Cap-and-Trade. These investments are strengthening the economy and improving public health – especially in the areas of the state most burdened by pollution. So far, half of the $1.2 billion spent provides benefits to disadvantaged communities, and one-third of those investments were made directly in those communities. Cap-and -tradE program • Firm, declining cap provides highest certainty to achieve 2030 target. • Low cost GHG emission reductions minimize impact on consumers and economy. • Flexibility for businesses • Can be linked with similar programs worldwide. PROCEEDS INVESTMENTS FIRM LIMIT ON 80% OF EMISSIONS California’s C arbon priCing & invEstmEnts ovErviEw ES17 California’s Cap-and-Trade Program is the most comprehensive, effective, and well-designed carbon market on the planet. Today, the Program is linked with a similar program in Quebec and will link with a similar program in Ontario beginning in 2018. Nearly 40 countries and over 20 subnational entities – altogether representing nearly a quarter of global emissions – have developed, or are developing, emissions trading programs. Each of them looks to California and our linked Western Climate Initiative Partners as they design, implement, and refine their own programs. Fostering Global Action Through the State’s leadership in the Cap-and-Trade Program, innovative sector-specific policies that are reducing technology costs and GHG emissions, and community-scale engagement and investments to reduce GHGs and promote equity, California is playing a significant role in addressing global climate change. Governor Brown has stated that climate change is the most important issue of our lifetime, and has promoted scientifically sound approaches to address climate change in California and beyond. He has participated in international climate discussions at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, the Vatican, and the Climate Summit of the Americas in Canada – calling on other subnational and national leaders to join California in the fight against climate change. He has signed climate change agreements with leaders from Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, other North American states and provinces, and Peru. He has joined an unprecedented alliance of heads of state, city and state leaders – convened by the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund – to urge countries and companies around the globe to put a price on carbon. And California is a founding member of the International Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Alliance, a coalition of national and subnational governments working to accelerate the adoption of ZEVs and make all new Nearly 30,000 projects installing efficiency measures in homes 105,000+ rebates issued for zero-emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles 16,000+ acres of land preserved or restored 6,200+ trees planted in urban areas 200+ transit agency projects funded, adding or expanding transit options 1,100+ new affordable housing units under contract 140,000+ total projects implemented 50% of projects benefiting Disadvantaged Communities ($614M) REGIONS REPRESENT 1.20 That’s 39 % of the global economy BILLIONPEOPLE AND$28.8 IN GDPTRILLION To nd out more visit: Under2MOU.org C ap-and -tradE dollars at work (2017) ES18 cars zero emissions. Delegations from around the world travel to Sacramento to meet with the architects and implementers of California’s climate policies to learn how to successfully combine strong greenhouse gas policies with a strong economy. Perhaps most significant is the Under2Coalition. It is a global climate pact – spearheaded by Governor Brown – among states, provinces, countries, and cities all committing to do their part to limit the increase in global average temperatures below the dangerous levels. Signatories commit to either reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 or achieving a per capita annual emission target of less than 2 metric tons by 2050. More than 200 jurisdictions from 38 countries and six continents have now signed or endorsed the agreement. Together, members of the Under2Coalition represent more than 1.2 billion people and $28.8 trillion in GDP, equivalent to 39 percent of the global economy. Unleashing the California Spirit This Plan is a declaration of California’s path forward. It builds on the State’s successful approach to addressing climate change and harnesses the California spirit to propel a cleaner economy, while serving as an example for others. But this Plan will not be successful on its own. Our collective, and individual, efforts must reach every sector of California’s economy, and every community in the state. As California faces the challenge of climate change, it will succeed as it always has – through open, inclusive processes, through support of clean technology markets, and through a relentless pursuit of a healthy California for all. There should be no doubt that California is united in understanding the need to act, and in the will to act. Investments in clean, low-carbon options will pay off – for the environment and the economy. Investments and training in education and workforce development for a lower carbon economy are a critical part of this transition. This Plan is only the beginning. All of the measures in the Plan will be developed in their own public process, shaped not just by the vision of this Plan, but also by the best understanding of the technology, costs and impacts on communities – and by input from a broad range of stakeholders and perspectives with the recognition that achieving the 2030 target is a milestone on our way to the deeper GHG reductions needed to protect the environment and our way of life. The Plan also proposes developing a long-term funding plan to inform future appropriations necessary to achieve our long-term targets, which will send clear market and workforce development signals. Climate change presents unprecedented challenges, but just as we have always done, Californians will tackle them with innovation, inclusion and ultimately, success. 1 Chapter 1 Background In November 2016, California Governor Edmund G. Brown affirmed California’s role in the fight against climate change in the United States, noting, “We will protect the precious rights of our people and continue to confront the existential threat of our time–devastating climate change.” By working to reduce the threat facing the State and setting an example, California continues to lead in the climate arena. This Scoping Plan for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (Scoping Plan or 2017 Scoping Plan) identifies how the State can reach our 2030 climate target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels, and substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goal to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels. By selecting and pursuing a sustainable and clean economy path for 2030, the State will continue to successfully execute existing programs, demonstrate the coupling of economic growth and environmental progress, and enhance new opportunities for engagement within the State to address and prepare for climate change. This Scoping Plan builds on and integrates efforts already underway to reduce the State’s GHG, criteria pollutant, and toxic air contaminant emissions. Successful implementation of existing programs has put California on track to achieve the 2020 target. Programs such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Renewables Portfolio Standard are delivering cleaner fuels and energy, the Advanced Clean Cars Program has put more than a quarter million clean vehicles on the road, and the Sustainable Freight Action Plan will result in efficient and cleaner systems to move goods throughout the State. Enhancing and implementing these ongoing efforts puts California on the path to achieving the 2030 target. This Scoping Plan relies on these, and other, foundational programs paired with an extended, more stringent Cap-and-Trade Program, to deliver climate, air quality, and other benefits. In developing this Scoping Plan, it is paramount that we continue to build on California’s success by taking effective actions. We must rapidly produce real results to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. The Scoping Plan identifies policies based on solid science and identifies additional research needs, while also recognizing the need for flexibility in the face of a changing climate. Ongoing research to better understand systems where our knowledge is weaker will allow for additional opportunities to set targets and identify actionable policies. Further, a long-term funding plan to inform future appropriations is critical to achieve our long-term targets, which will send clear market and workforce development signals. Climate Legislation and Directives California has made progress on addressing climate change during periods of both Republican and Democratic national and State administrations. California’s governors and legislature prioritize public health and the environment. A series of executive orders and laws have generated policies and actions across State government, among local and regional governments, and within industry. These policies also have encouraged collaboration with federal agencies and spurred partnerships with many jurisdictions beyond California’s borders. Moving forward, California will continue its pursuit of collaborations and advocacy for action to address climate change. The following list provides a summary of major climate legislation and executive orders that have shaped California’s climate programs. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (Nuñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. • Cut the State’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 with maintained and continued reductions post 2020. • First comprehensive climate bill in California, a defining moment in the State’s long history of environmental stewardship. I ntroduct I on 2 • Secured the State’s role as a national and global leader in reducing GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) prepared and adopted the initial Scoping Plan to “identify and make recommendations on direct emissions reductions measures, alternative compliance mechanisms, market-based compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and non-monetary incentives” in order to achieve the 2020 goal, and to achieve “the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions” by 2020 and maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020. AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least every five years. Executive Order B-30-15 In his January 2015 inaugural address, Governor Brown identified actions in five key climate change strategy “pillars” necessary to meet California’s ambitious climate change goals. These five pillars are: • Reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent. • Increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources. • Doubling the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner. • Reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants. • Managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon. Consistent with these goals, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-30-15 in April 2015: • Establishing a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. • Calling on CARB, in coordination with sister agencies, to update the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 target. • Building out the “sixth pillar” of the Governor’s strategy–to safeguard California in the face of a changing climate–highlighting the need to prioritize actions to reduce GHG emissions and build resilience in the face of a changing climate. Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (De Leon, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), Golden State Standards • Required the State to set GHG reduction planning targets through Integrated Resource Planning in the electricity sector as a whole and among individual utilities and other electricity providers (collectively known as load serving entities).• Codified an increase in the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent by 20301 and doubled the energy savings required in electricity and natural gas end uses as discussed in the Governor’s inaugural address. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016), California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2016: emissions limit and Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (E. Garcia, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016), State Air Resources Board: greenhouse gases: regulations. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-30-15. The 2030 target reflects the same science that informs the agreement reached in Paris by the 2015 Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at keeping the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius (°C). The California 2030 target represents the most ambitious GHG reduction goal for North America. Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB on the following areas related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. • Requires annual posting of GHG, criteria, and toxic air contaminant data throughout the State, organized by local and sub-county level for stationary sources and by at least a county level for mobile sources.• Requires CARB, when adopting rules and regulations to achieve emissions reductions 1 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/renewables/ 3 and to protect the State’s most affected and disadvantaged communities, to consider the social costs of GHG emissions and prioritize both of the following: • Emissions reductions rules and regulations that result in direct GHG emissions reductions at large stationary sources of GHG emissions and direct emissions reductions from mobile sources. • Emissions reductions rules and regulations that result in direct GHG emissions reductions from sources other than those listed above. • Directs CARB, in the development of each scoping plan, to identify for each emissions reduction measure: • The range of projected GHG emissions reductions that result from the measure.• The range of projected air pollution reductions that result from the measure.• The cost-effectiveness, including avoided social costs, of the measure. CARB has begun the process to implement the provisions of AB 197. For instance, CARB is already posting GHG, criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant data. CARB also incorporated air emissions data into a visualization tool in December 2016 in response to direction in AB 197 to provide easier access to this data.2 Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016), Short-lived climate pollutants: methane emissions: dairy and livestock: organic waste: landfills • Requires the development, adoption, and implementation of a Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy.3, 4 • Includes the following specific goals for 2030 from 2013 levels: • 40 percent reduction in methane. • 40 percent reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases. • 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon.5 Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), such as black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane, are powerful climate forcers that have a dramatic and detrimental effect on air quality, public health, and climate change. These pollutants create a warming influence on the climate that is many times more potent than that of carbon dioxide. In March 2017, the Board adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SLCP Strategy) establishing a path to decrease GHG emissions and displace fossil-based natural gas use. Strategies include avoiding landfill methane emissions by reducing the disposal of organics through edible food recovery, composting, in-vessel digestion, and other processes; and recovering methane from wastewater treatment facilities, and manure methane at dairies, and using the methane as a renewable source of natural gas to fuel vehicles or generate electricity. The SLCP Strategy also identifies steps to reduce natural gas leaks from oil and gas wells, pipelines, valves, and pumps to improve safety, avoid energy losses, and reduce methane emissions associated with natural gas use. Lastly, the SLCP Strategy also identifies measures that can reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions at national and international levels, in addition to State-level action that includes an incentive program to encourage the use of low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerants, and limitations on the use of high-GWP refrigerants in new refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Assembly Bill 1504 (AB 1504) (Skinner, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2010): Forest resources: carbon sequestration • Requires the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to adopt district forest practice rules and regulations in accordance with specified policies to, among other things, assure the continuous growing and harvesting of commercial forest tree species.• Requires the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to ensure that its rules and regulations that govern the harvesting of commercial forest tree species consider the capacity of forest resources to sequester carbon dioxide emissions sufficient to meet or exceed the sequestration target of 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, as established in the first AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2 CARB. 2016. CARB’s Emission Inventory Activities. www.arb.ca.gov/ei/ei.htm3 CARB. Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in California. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm4 Senate Bill No. 605. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB6055 Senate Bill No.1383. leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383 4 Senate Bill 1386 (SB 1386) (Wolk, Chapter 545, Statutes of 2016): Resource conservation, natural and working lands • Declares it the policy of the State that protection and management of natural and working lands, as defined, is an important strategy in meeting the State’s GHG reduction goals. • Requires State agencies to consider protection and management of natural and working lands in establishing policies and grant criteria, and in making expenditures, and “implement this requirement in conjunction with the State’s other strategies to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.” Assembly Bill 398 (AB 398) (E. Garcia, Chapter 135, Statutes of 2017): California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: market-based compliance mechanisms: fire prevention fees: sales and use tax manufacturing exemption • Clarifies the role of the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2030, continuing elements of the current program, but requiring CARB to make some post-2020 refinements. • Establishes a Compliance Offsets Protocol Task Force to provide guidance to CARB in approving new offset protocols that increase projects with direct, in-state environmental benefits. • Establishes the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee to report annually on the environmental and economic performance of the Cap-and-Trade Program and other climate policies. • Identifies legislative priorities for allocating auction revenue proceeds, to include but not be limited to: air toxic and criteria air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources; low- and zero- carbon transportation alternatives; sustainable agricultural practices that promote transition to clean technology, water efficiency, and improved air quality; healthy forests and urban greening; short- lived climate pollutants; climate adaptation and resiliency; and climate and clean energy research. In addition, AB 398 requires CARB to designate the Cap-and-Trade Program as the mechanism for reducing GHG emissions from petroleum refineries and oil and gas production facilities in this update to the Scoping Plan. With respect to local air districts, AB 398 states that it does not limit or expand the district’s existing authority, including the authority to regulate criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants, except that it prohibits an air district from adopting or implementing a rule for the specific purpose of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from stationary sources that are subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program. Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017): Nonvehicular air pollution: criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. This bill was passed as a companion to AB 398 (E. Garcia, 2017) to strengthen air quality monitoring and reduce air pollution at a community level, in communities affected by a high cumulative burden of exposure to pollution. CARB is required to prepare a monitoring plan by October 1, 2018, that assesses the State’s current air monitoring network with recommendations for a set of high-priority locations around the State to deploy community focused air monitoring systems. Local air districts must deploy air monitoring systems in the selected high priority locations by July 1, 2019. Thereafter, CARB will evaluate and select additional locations for community air monitoring on an annual basis. The air districts must also deploy air monitoring systems within one year of CARB’s selection of the high-priority locations. In addition to the monitoring plan, the bill requires CARB to develop a statewide strategy to reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs) in communities affected by high cumulative exposure burdens through approved community emissions reduction programs developed by local air districts, in partnership with residents in the affected communities; requires CARB to establish a uniform system of annual reporting of criteria pollutants and TACs for the existing statewide air monitoring network; and expedites implementation of best available retrofit control technology in non-attainment areas. Tables summarizing the legislation described in this section, along with other climate related legislation and programs are included in Appendix H and organized by sector. 5 Initial Scoping Plan and First Update to the Scoping Plan The Initial Scoping Plan6 in 2008 presented the first economy-wide approach to reducing emissions and highlighted the value of combining both carbon pricing with other complementary programs to meet California’s 2020 GHG emissions target while ensuring progress in all sectors. The coordinated set of policies in the Initial Scoping Plan employed strategies tailored to specific needs, including market-based compliance mechanisms, performance standards, technology requirements, and voluntary reductions. The Initial Scoping Plan also described a conceptual design for a cap-and-trade program that included eventual linkage to other cap-and-trade programs to form a larger regional trading program. AB 32 requires CARB to update the scoping plan at least every five years. The First Update to the Scoping Plan7 (First Update), approved in 2014, presented an update on the program and its progress toward meeting the 2020 limit. It also developed the first vision for long-term progress beyond 2020. In doing so, the First Update laid the groundwork for the goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-058 and B-16-2012 9. It also identified the need for a 2030 mid-term target to establish a continuum of actions to maintain and continue reductions, rather than only focusing on targets for 2020 or 2050. Building on California’s Environmental Legacy California’s successful climate policies and programs have already delivered emissions reductions resulting from cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), low carbon fuels, increased renewable energy, and greater waste diversion from landfills; water conservation; improved forest management; and improved energy efficiency of homes and businesses. Beyond GHG reductions, these policies and programs also provide an array of benefits including improved public health, green jobs, and more clean energy choices. The 2030 GHG emissions reduction target in SB 32 will ensure that the State maintains this momentum beyond 2020, mindful of the State’s population growth and needs. This Scoping Plan identifies a path to simultaneously make progress on the State’s climate goals as well as complement other efforts such as the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and community emissions reduction programs to help improve air quality in all parts of the State. California’s future climate strategy will require continued contributions from all sectors of the economy, including enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, such as solar roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement efforts of local air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to tighten criteria and toxics air pollution emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources, including in disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to large stationary sources. Finally, meeting the State’s climate, public health, and environmental goals will entail understanding, quantifying, and addressing emissions impacts from land use decisions at all governmental levels. Purpose of the 2017 Scoping Plan This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals. Chapter 2 of this document includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. In addition, Chapter 4 provides a broader description of the many actions and proposals being explored across the sectors, including the natural resources sector, to achieve the State’s mid and long-term climate goals. Guided by legislative direction, the actions identified in this Scoping Plan reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a low carbon 6 CARB. Initial AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf7 CARB. First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm8 www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18619 www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17472 6 economy. This Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and-Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources. Process for Developing the 2017 Scoping Plan This Scoping Plan was developed in coordination with State agencies, through engagement with the Legislature, and with open and transparent opportunities for stakeholders and the public to engage in workshops and other meetings. Development also included careful consideration of, and coordination with, other State agency plans and regulations, including the Cap-and-Trade Program, Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), State Implementation Plan, California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, California Transportation Plan 2040, Forest Carbon Plan, and the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, among others. To inform this Scoping Plan, CARB, in collaboration with the Governor’s Office and other State agencies, solicited comments and feedback from affected stakeholders, including the public, and the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC or Committee). The process to update the 2017 Scoping Plan began with the Governor’s Office Pillar Symposia, which included over a dozen public workshops, and featured a series of Committee and environmental justice community meetings.10 One key message conveyed to CARB during engagement with the legislature, EJAC, and environmental justice communities was the need to emphasize reductions at large stationary sources, with a particular focus on multi-pollutant strategies for these sources to reduce GHGs and harmful criteria and toxic air pollutants that result in localized health impacts, especially in disadvantaged communities. Other consistent feedback for CARB included the need for built and natural infrastructure improvements that enhance quality of life, increase access to safe and viable transportation options, and improve physical activity and related health outcomes. Updated Climate Science Supports the Need for More Action Climate scientists agree that global warming and other shifts in the climate system observed over the past century are caused by human activities. These recorded changes are occurring at an unprecedented rate.11 According to new research, unabated GHG emissions could allow sea levels to rise up to ten feet by the end of this century–an outcome that could devastate coastal communities in California and around the world.12 California is already feeling the effects of climate change, and projections show that these effects will continue and worsen over the coming centuries. The impacts of climate change have been documented by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in the Indicators of Climate Change Report, which details the following changes that are occurring already:13 • A recorded increase in annual average temperatures, as well as increases in daily minimum and maximum temperatures. • An increase in the occurrence of extreme events, including wildfire and heat waves. • A reduction in spring runoff volumes, as a result of declining snowpack. • A decrease in winter chill hours, necessary for the production of high-value fruit and nut crops. • Changes in the timing and location of species sightings, including migration upslope of flora and fauna, and earlier appearance of Central Valley butterflies. 10 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm11 Cook, J., et al. 2016. Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters 11:048002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.12 California Ocean Protection Council. 2017. Rising Seas in California: An Update On Sea-Level Rise Science. www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf13 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Indicators of Climate Change (website): oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/document/indicators-climate-change-california 7 In addition to these trends, the State’s current conditions point to a changing climate. California’s recent historic drought incited land subsidence, pest invasions that killed over 100 million trees, and water shortages throughout the State. Recent scientific studies show that such extreme drought conditions are more likely to occur under a changing climate.14,15 The total statewide economic cost of the 2013–2014 drought was estimated at $2.2 billion, with a total loss of 17,100 jobs.16 In the Central Valley, the drought cost California agriculture about $2.7 billion and more than 20,000 jobs in 2015, which highlights the critical need for developing drought resilience.17 Drought affects other sectors as well. An analysis of the amount of water consumed in meeting California’s energy needs between 1990 and 2012 shows that while California’s energy policies have supported climate mitigation efforts, the performance of these policies have increased vulnerability to climate impacts, especially greater hydrologic uncertainty.18 Several publications carefully examined the potential role of climate change in the recent California drought. One study examined both precipitation and runoff in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, and found that 10 of the past 14 years between 2000 and 2014 have been below normal, and recent years have been the driest and hottest in the full instrumental record from 1895 through November 2014.19 In another study, the authors show that the increasing co-occurrence of dry years with warm years raises the risk of drought, highlighting the critical role of elevated temperatures in altering water availability and increasing overall drought intensity and impact.20 Generally, there is growing risk of unprecedented drought in the western United States driven primarily by rising temperatures, regardless of whether or not there is a clear precipitation trend.21 According to the U.S. Forest Service report, National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment, 2013– 2027,22 California is at risk of losing 12 percent of the total area of forests and woodlands in the State due to insects and disease, or over 5.7 million acres. Some species are expected to lose significant amounts of their total basal area (e.g., whitebark pine is projected to lose 60 percent of its basal area; and lodgepole pine is projected to lose 40 percent). While future climate change is not modeled within the risk assessment, and current drought conditions are not accounted for in these estimates, the projected climate changes over a 15 year period (2013-2027) are expected to significantly increase the number of acres at risk, and will increase the risk from already highly destructive pests such as the mountain pine beetle. Extensive tree mortality is already prevalent in California. The western pine beetle and other bark beetles have killed a majority of the ponderosa pine in the foothills of the central and southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. A recent aerial survey by the U.S. Forest Service identified more than 100 million dead trees in California.23 As there is usually a lag time between drought years and tree mortality, we are now beginning to see a sharp rise in mortality from the past four years of drought. In response to the very high levels of tree mortality, Governor Brown issued an Emergency Proclamation on October 30, 2015, that directed state agencies to identify and take action to reduce wildfire risk through the removal and use of the dead trees. 14 Diffenbaugh, N., D. L. Swain, and D. Touma. 2015. Anthropogenic Warming has Increased Drought Risk in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(13): 3931–3936.15 Cayan, D., T. Das, D. W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, M. Tyree, and A. Gershunov. 2010. Future Dryness in the Southwest US and Hydrology of the Early 21st Century Drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(50): 21272–21276.16 Howitt, R., J. Medellin-Azuara, D. MacEwan, J. Lund, and D. Summer. 2014. Economic Impacts of 2014 Drought on California Agriculture. watershed.ucdavis.edu/files/biblio/DroughtReport_23July2014_0.pdf.17 Williams, A. P., et al. 2015. Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012– 2014. Geophysical Research Letters http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064924/abstract.18 Fulton, J., and H. Cooley. 2015. The water footprint of California’s energy system, 1990–2012 Environmental Science & Technology 49(6):3314–3321. pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es505034x.19 Mann, M. E., and P. H. Gleick. 2015. Climate change and California drought in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(13):3858–3859. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503667112 .20 Diffenbaugh, N. S., D. L. Swain, and D. Touma. 2015. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 10.1073/ pnas.1422385112. www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3931.full.pdf21 Cook, B. I., T. R. Ault, and J. E. Smerdon. 2015. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Science Advances 1(1), e1400082, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400082.22 Krist, F.J. Jr., J.R. Ellenwood, M.E. Woods, A.J. McMahan, J.P. Cowardin, D.E. Ryerson, F.J. Sapio, M.O. Zweifler, S.A. Romero. 2014. FHTET 2013 – 2027 National Insect & and Disease Forest Risk Assessment. FHTET-14-01 January 2014. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Report_web.pdf23 USDA. 2016. New Aerial Survey Identifies More Than 100 Million Dead Trees in California. www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/11/0246.xml&contentidonly=true 8 A warming climate also causes sea level to rise; first, by warming the oceans which causes the water to expand, and second, by melting land ice which transfers water to the ocean. Even if storms do not become more intense or frequent, sea level rise itself will magnify the adverse impact of any storm surge and high waves on the California coast. Some observational studies report that the largest waves are already getting higher and winds are getting stronger.24 Further, as temperatures warm and GHG concentrations increase more carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, making it more acidic. More acidic ocean water affects a wide variety of marine species, including species that people rely on for food. Recent projections indicate that if no significant GHG mitigation efforts are taken, the San Francisco Bay Area may experience sea level rise between 1.6 to 3.4 feet, and in an extreme scenario involving the rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, sea levels along California’s coastline could rise up to 10 feet by 2100.25 This change is likely to have substantial ecological and economic consequences in California and worldwide.26 While more intense dry periods are anticipated under warmer conditions, extremes on the wet end of the spectrum are also expected to increase due to more frequent warm, wet atmospheric river events and a higher proportion of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow. In recent years, atmospheric rivers have also been recognized as the cause of the large majority of major floods in rivers all along the U.S. West Coast and as the source of 30-50 percent of all precipitation in the same region.27 These extreme precipitation events, together with the rising snowline, often cause devastating floods in major river basins (e.g., California’s Russian River). It was estimated that the top 50 observed floods in the U.S. Pacific Northwest were due to atmospheric rivers.28 Looking ahead, the frequency and severity of atmospheric rivers on the U.S. West Coast will increase due to higher atmospheric water vapor that occurs with rising temperature, leading to more frequent flooding.29, 30 Climate change can drive extreme weather events such as coastal storm surges, drought, wildfires, floods, and heat waves, and disrupt environmental systems including our forests and oceans. As GHG emissions continue to accumulate and climate disruption grows, such destructive events will become more frequent. Several recent studies project increased precipitation within hurricanes over ocean regions.31, 32 The primary physical mechanism for this increase is higher water vapor in the warmer atmosphere, which enhances moisture convergence in a storm for a given circulation strength. Since hurricanes are responsible for many of the most extreme precipitation events, such events are likely to become more extreme. Anthropogenic warming by 24 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. National Academies Press.25 California Ocean Protection Council. 2017. Rising Seas in California: An Update On Sea-Level Rise Science. www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf26 Chan, F., et al. 2016. The West Coast Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Science Panel: Major Findings, Recommendations, and Actions. California Ocean Science Trust, Oakland, California, USA.27 Dettinger, M. D. 2013. Atmospheric rivers as drought busters on the U.S. West Coast. Journal of Hydrometeorology 14:1721 1732, doi:10.1175/JHM-D-13-02.1. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/ JHM-D-13-02.1.28 Warner, M. D., C. F. Mass, and E. P. Salath´e. 2012. Wintertime extreme precipitation events along the Pacific Northwest coast: Climatology and synoptic evolution. Monthly Weather Review 140:2021–43. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00197.1.29 Hagos, S. M., L. R. Leung, J.-H. Yoon, J. Lu, and Y. Gao, 2016: A projection of changes in landfalling atmospheric river frequency and extreme precipitation over western North America from the Large Ensemble CESM simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 43 (3), 357-1363, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067392/epdf.30 Payne, A. E., and G. Magnusdottir, 2015: An evaluation of atmospheric rivers over the North Pacific in CMIP5 and their response to warming under RCP 8.5. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120 (21), 11,173-111,190, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD023586/epdf.31 Easterling, D.R., K.E. Kunkel, M.F. Wehner, and L. Sun, 2016: Detection and attribution of climate extremes in the observed record. Weather and Climate Extremes, 11, 17-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2016.01.001.32 NAS, 2016: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 186 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/21852. Climate impaC ts at the Community level The California Energy Commission Cal-Adapt tool provides information about future climate conditions to help better understand how climate will impact local communities. cal-adapt.org 9 the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to become more intense on average. This change implies an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no changes in storm size.33,34 Thus, the historical record, which once set our expectations for the traditional range of weather and other natural events, is becoming an increasingly unreliable predictor of the conditions we will face in the future. Consequently, the best available science must drive effective climate policy. California is committed to further supporting new research on ways to mitigate climate change and how to understand its ongoing and projected impacts. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment and Indicators of Change Report will further update our understanding of the many impacts from climate change in a way that directly informs State agencies’ efforts to safeguard the State’s people, economy, and environment.35, 36 Together, historical data, current conditions, and future projections provide a picture of California’s changing climate, with two important messages: • Change is already being experienced and documented across California, and some of these changes have been directly linked to changing climatic conditions. • Even with the uncertainty in future climate conditions, every scenario estimates further change in future conditions. It is critical that California continue to take steps to reduce GHG emissions in order to avoid the worst of the projected impacts of climate change. At the same time, the State is taking steps to make the State more resilient to ongoing and projected climate impacts as laid out by the Safeguarding California Plan.37 The Safeguarding California Plan is being updated in 2017 to present new policy recommendations and provide a roadmap of all the actions and next steps that state government is taking to adapt to the ongoing and inevitable effects of climate change. The Draft Safeguarding California Plan38 is available and will be finalized after workshops and public comments. California’s continuing efforts are vital steps toward minimizing the impact of GHG emissions and a three-pronged approach of reducing emissions, preparing for impacts, and conducting cutting-edge research can serve as a model for action. California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 2030 Target Progress Toward Achieving the 2020 Limit AB 32 directs CARB to develop and track GHG emissions and progress toward the 2020 statewide GHG target. California is on track to achieve the target while also reducing criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants and supporting economic growth. As shown in Figure 1, in 2015, total GHG emissions decreased by 1.5 MMTCO2e compared to 2014, representing an overall decrease of 10 percent since peak levels in 2004. The 2015 GHG Emission Inventory and a description of the methodology updates can be accessed at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm. Per California Health and Safety Code section 38505, CARB monitors and regulates seven GHGs to reduce emissions: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The fluorinated gases are also referred to as “high global warming potential gases” (high-GWP gases). California’s annual statewide GHG emission inventory has historically been the primary tool for tracking GHG emissions trends. Figure 1 provides the GHG inventory trend. Additional information on the methodology for the GHG inventory can also be found at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 33 Sobel, A.H., S.J. Camargo, T.M. Hall, C.-Y. Lee, M.K. Tippett, and A.A. Wing, 2016: Human influence on tropical cyclone intensity. Science, 353, 242-246.34 Kossin, J. P., K. A. Emanuel, and S. J. Camargo, 2016: Past and projected changes in western North Pacific tropical cyclone exposure. Journal of Climate, 29 (16), 5725-5739, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0076.1 .35 California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/research/36 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Indicators of Climate Change (website): https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change/document/indicators-climate-change-california37 California Natural Resources Agency. 2017. Safeguarding California. http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/38 http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/ 10 Figure 1: CaliFornia ghg inventory trend Carbon dioxide is the primary GHG emitted in California, accounting for 84 percent of total GHG emissions in 2015, as shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 3 illustrates that transportation, primarily on-road travel, is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the State. Upstream transportation emissions from the refinery and oil and gas sectors are categorized as CO2 emissions from industrial sources and constitute about 50 percent of the industrial source emissions. When these emissions sources are attributed to the transportation sector, the emissions from that sector amount to approximately half of statewide GHG emissions. In addition to transportation, electricity production, and industrial and residential sources also are important contributors to CO2 emissions. Figures 2 and 3 show State GHG emission contributions by GHG and sector based on the 2015 GHG Emission Inventory. Emissions in Figure 3 are depicted by Scoping Plan sector, which includes separate categories for high-GWP and recycling/waste emissions that are otherwise typically included within other economic sectors. Figure 2: emissions by ghg 2000 2002 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 202020062004Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)200 300 400 500 2030 Limit 2020 Limit Total GHG Emissions 2.7% N2O 9.0% CH4 84.0% CO2 4.3% High-GWP 2015 Total Emissions 440.4 MMTCO2e 11 Figure 3: emissions by sCoping plan seCtor In addition, CARB has developed a statewide emission inventory for black carbon in support of the SLCP Strategy, which is reported in two categories: non-forestry (anthropogenic) sources and forestry sources.39 The black carbon inventory will help support implementation of the SLCP Strategy, but is not part of the State’s GHG Inventory that tracks progress towards the State’s climate targets. The State’s major anthropogenic sources of black carbon include off-road transportation, on-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion, and industrial processes (Figure 4). The forestry category includes non- agricultural prescribed burning and wildfire emissions. Figure 4: CaliFornia 2013 anthropogeniC blaCk Carbon emission sourCes* The exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and California’s natural and working lands sector is currently unquantified and therefore, excluded from the State’s GHG Inventory. A natural and working lands carbon inventory is essential for monitoring land-based activities that may increase or decrease carbon sequestration over time. CARB staff is working to develop a comprehensive inventory of GHG fluxes from all of California’s 39 Per SB 1383, the SLCP Strategy only addresses anthropogenic black carbon. 2% Recycling & Waste California Carbon Emissions 2015 Total Emissions 440.4 MMTCO2e 11% Electricity Generation 21% Industrial 8% Agriculture 37% Transportation In State8% Electricity Generation Imports 9% Commercial & Residential 4% High-GWP 2013 10.7 MMTCO2e 36% Off-Road Mobile 18% On-Road Diesel 15% Fireplaces & Woodstoves 14% Fuel Combustion/Industrial 6% Miscelaneous 4% Commercial Cooking 3% Agricultural Burning 2% On-Road Brake & Tire 4% On-Road Gasoline *Using 100-year GWP 12 natural and working lands using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) design principles. CARB released the Natural and Working Lands Inventory with the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Update Discussion Draft.40 This inventory provides an estimate of GHG emissions reductions and changes in carbon stock from some carbon pools in agricultural and natural and working lands. The CARB Natural and Working Lands Inventory includes an inventory of carbon stocks, stock-change (and by extension GHG flux associated with stock-change) with some attribution by disturbance process for the analysis period 2001-2010. Disturbance processes include activities such as conversion from one land category to a different category, fire, and harvest. The CARB Natural and Working Lands Inventory covers varieties of forests and woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands (biomass-stock-change only). The Inventory includes default carbon densities for croplands and urban/developed lands to facilitate stock-change estimation for natural lands that convert to cropland, natural lands that convert to developed lands, and for croplands that convert to developed lands. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tracking As described above, California maintains an economy-wide GHG inventory for the State that is consistent with IPCC practices to allow for comparison of statewide GHG emissions with those at the national level and with other international GHG inventories. Statewide GHG emissions calculations use many data sources, including data from other State and federal agencies. However, the primary source of data comes from reports submitted to CARB through the Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions (MRR). MRR requires facilities and entities with more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) of combustion and process emissions, all facilities belonging to certain industries, and all electric power entities to submit an annual GHG emissions data report directly to CARB. Reports from facilities and entities that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e are verified by a CARB-accredited third-party verification body. More information on MRR emissions reports can be found at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporti\ng/ghg-rep/reported- data/ghg-reports.htm. All data sources used to develop the GHG Emission Inventory are listed in inventory supporting documentation at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Other State agencies, nonprofit organizations, and research institutions are developing and testing methodologies and models to quantify GHG fluxes from California’s natural and working lands. CARB’s ongoing work on the Natural and Working Lands Inventory will serve as one source of data to gauge the scope of GHG reduction potential from California’s natural and working lands and monitor progress over time. CARB will evaluate other data sources and methodologies to validate or support the CARB inventory or project-scale tracking. Interagency work is also underway to integrate and account for the land use and management impacts of development, transportation, housing, and energy policies. Greenhouse gas mitigation action may cross geographic borders as part of international and subnational collaboration, or as a natural result of implementation of regional policies. In addition to the State’s existing GHG inventory, CARB has begun exploring how to build an accounting framework that also utilizes existing program data to better reflect the broader benefits of our policies that may be happening outside of the State. For GHG reductions outside of the State to be attributed to our programs, those reductions must be real and quantifiable, without any double counting, including claims to those reductions by other jurisdictions. CARB is collaborating with other jurisdictions to ensure GHG accounting rules are consistent with international best practices. Robust accounting rules will instill confidence in the reductions claimed and maintain support for joint action across jurisdictions. Consistency and transparency are critical as we work together with other jurisdictions on our parallel paths to achieve our GHG targets. California’s Approach to Addressing Climate Change Integrated Systems The State’s climate goals require a comprehensive approach that integrates and builds upon multiple ongoing State efforts. As we address future mobility, we identify how existing efforts – such as the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Mobile Source Strategy, California Transportation Plan 2040, High-Speed 40 CARB. 2016. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory - Forests and Other Lands. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/sectors/forest/forest.htm 13 Rail,41 urban planning, housing, and goals for enhancement of the natural environment – can complement each other while providing multiple environmental benefits, including air quality and climate benefits. The collective consideration of these efforts illuminates the synergies and conflicts between policies. For example, land disturbance due to increased renewables through utility scale wind and solar and transmission can release GHGs from soil and disturb grasslands and rangelands that have the potential to sequester carbon. Further, policies that support sustainable land use not only reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and its related emissions, but may also avoid land disturbance that could result in GHG emissions or loss of sequestration potential in the natural environment. Identifying these types of trade-offs, and designing policies and implementation strategies to support goals across all sectors, will require ongoing efforts at the local, regional, and State level to ensure that sustainable action across both the built and natural environments help to achieve the State’s long-term climate goals. Promoting Resilient Economic Growth California’s strategic vision for achieving at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 is based on the principle that economic prosperity and environmental sustainability can be achieved together. Policies, strategies, plans and regulations to reduce GHG emissions help California businesses compete in a global economy and spur new investments, business creation, and jobs to support a clean energy economy. California’s portfolio-based climate strategy can achieve great success when accompanied by consistent and rigorous GHG monitoring and reporting, a robust public process, and an effective enforcement program for the few that attempt to evade rules. The transition to a low-carbon future can strengthen California’s economy and infrastructure and produce other important environmental benefits such as reductions in criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants, especially in California’s most vulnerable communities. Actions that are presented in this Scoping Plan provide economic opportunities for the future, but progress toward our goals is already evident today. For example, in 2015, California added more than 20,000 new jobs in the solar sector. This was more than half of the new jobs in this industry across the nation. Employment in the clean economy grew by 20 percent between 2002 and 2012, which included the period of economic recession around 2008.42 Shifting to clean, local, and efficient uses of energy reinvests our energy expenditures in our local economies and reduces risks to our statewide economy associated with exposure to volatile global and national oil and gas commodity prices. Indeed, a clean economy is a resilient economy. Successfully driving economic transition will require cleaner and more efficient technologies, policies and incentives that recognize and reward innovation, and prioritizing low carbon investments. Enacting policies and incentives at multiple jurisdictional levels further ensures the advancement of land use and natural resource management objectives for GHG mitigation, climate adaptation, and other co-benefits. Intentional synergistic linkages between technological advances and resource stewardship can result in sustainable development. The development and implementation of Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs) pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375, which link transportation, housing, and climate policy, are designed to reduce per capita GHG emissions while improving air quality and expanding transportation and housing options. This Scoping Plan identifies additional ways, beyond SB 375, to promote the technologies and infrastructure required to meet our collective climate goals, while also presenting the vision for California’s continuing efforts to foster a sustainable, clean energy economy. Increasing Carbon Sequestration in Natural and Working Lands California’s natural and working lands make the State a global leader in agriculture, a U.S. leader in forest products, and a global biodiversity hotspot. These lands support clean air, wildlife and pollinator habitat, rural economies, and are critical components of California’s water infrastructure. Keeping these lands and waters intact and at high levels of ecological function (including resilient carbon sequestration) is necessary for the well-being and security of Californians in 2030, 2050, and beyond. Forests, rangelands, farms, 41 California’s High-Speed Rail is part of the International Union of Railways (UIC) and California signed the Railway Climate Responsibility Pledge, which was commended by the Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as part of achieving global 2050 targets.42 California Business Alliance for a Clean Economy. 2015. Clean Energy and Climate Change Summary of Recent Analyses for California. clean-economy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Clean-Energy-Climate- Change-Analyses_January2015.pdf 14 wetlands, riparian areas, deserts, coastal areas, and the ocean store substantial carbon in biomass and soils. Natural and working lands are a key sector in the State’s climate change strategy. Storing carbon in trees, other vegetation, soils, and aquatic sediment is an effective way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This Scoping Plan describes policies and programs that prioritize protection and enhancement of California’s landscapes, including urban landscapes, and identifies next steps to ensure management actions are taken to increase the sequestration potential of those resources. We cannot ignore the relationships between energy, transportation, and natural working lands sectors or the adverse impacts that climate change is having on the environment itself. We must consider important trade-offs in developing the State’s climate strategy by understanding the near and long-term impacts of various policy scenarios and actions on our State and local communities. Improving Public Health The State’s drive to improve air quality and promote community health and well-being as we address climate change remains a priority, as it has for almost 50 years. The State is committed to addressing public health issues, including addressing chronic and infectious diseases, promoting mental health, and protecting communities from exposure to harmful air pollutants and toxins. Several of the strategies included in this Plan were primarily developed to help California achieve federal and State ambient air quality standards for air pollutants with direct health impacts, but they will also deliver GHG reductions. Likewise, some climate strategies, such as GHG reduction measures that decrease diesel combustion from mobile sources, produce air quality co-benefits in the form of concurrent reductions in criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Climate change itself is already affecting the health of our communities and is exacerbating existing health inequities. Those facing the greatest health burdens include low-income individuals and households, the very young and the very old, communities of color, and those who have been marginalized or discriminated against based on gender or race/ethnicity.43 Economic factors, such as income, poverty, and wealth, are among the strongest determinants of health. Addressing climate change presents an important opportunity to improve public health for all of California’s residents and to further our work toward making our State the healthiest in the nation. The major provisions of AB 617 (C. Garcia, 2017), to be completed by 2020, will ensure that as the State seeks to advance climate policy to meet the 2030 target, we will also act locally to improve neighborhood air quality. AB 617 requires strengthening and expanding community level air monitoring; expediting equipment retrofits at large industrial sources that are located in areas that are in nonattainment for the federal and State ambient air quality standards; requiring development of a statewide strategy to further reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants in communities faced with high cumulative exposure levels; and local air district-developed community emissions reductions plans that identify emissions reductions targets, measures, implementation schedules, and enforcement plans for these affected communities. By identifying and addressing the disproportionate impacts felt today and by planning, designing, and implementing actions for a sustainable future that considers both climate and air quality objectives, we can be part of the solution to make public health inequities an issue of the past. Environmental Justice Fair and equitable climate action requires addressing the inequities that create and intensify community vulnerabilities. The capacity for resilience in the face of climate change is driven by living conditions and the forces that shape them. These include, but are not limited to, access to services such as health care, healthy foods, air and water, and safe spaces for physical activity; income; education; housing; transportation; environmental quality; and good health status. Strategies to alleviate poverty, increase access to economic opportunities, improve living conditions, and reduce health and social inequities will result in more climate- resilient communities. The transition to a low carbon California economy provides an opportunity to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxins, and to create a healthier environment for all of California’s residents, especially those living in the State’s most disadvantaged communities. Policies designed to facilitate this transition and state-wide, regional, and local reductions, 43 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2015. The Portrait of Promise: The California Statewide Draft Plan to Promote Health and Mental Health Equity. A Report to the Legislature and the People of California by the Office of Health Equity. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, Office of Health Equity. 15 must also be appropriately tailored to address the unique characteristics of economically distressed communities throughout the State’s diverse geographic regions, including both rural and highly-urbanized areas. Equity considerations must likewise be part of the deliberate and thoughtful process in the design and implementation of all policies and measures included in the Scoping Plan. And CARB must ensure that its ongoing engagement with environmental justice communities will continue beyond the development of the Scoping Plan and be included in all aspects of its various air pollution programs. Additional detail on CARB’s efforts to achieve these goals is provided in Chapter 5. It is critical that communities of color, low-income communities, or both, receive the benefits of the cleaner economy growing in California, including its environmental and economic benefits. Currently, low-income customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Program or the Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) Program are also eligible to receive a rebate under the California Climate Credit, or a credit on residential and small business electricity bills resulting from the sale of allowances received by investor-owned utilities as part of the Cap-and-Trade Program. SB 1018 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 39, Statutes of 2012) and other implementing legislation requires that Cap-and-Trade Program auction monies deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) be used to further the purposes of AB 32 and facilitate reduction of GHG emissions. Investments made with these funds not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide other environmental, health, and economic benefits including, fostering job creation by promoting in-state GHG emissions reduction projects carried out by California workers and businesses. Further, SB 535 (De Leon, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012) and AB 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016) direct State and local agencies to make significant investments using GGRF monies to assist California’s most vulnerable communities. Under SB 535 (de León, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012), a minimum of 25 percent of the total investments were required to benefit disadvantaged communities; of that, a minimum of 10 percent were required to be located within and provide benefits to those communities. Based on cumulative data reported by agencies as of March 2016, the State is exceeding these targets. Indeed, 50 percent of the $1.2 billion dollars spent on California Climate Investments projects provided benefits to disadvantaged communities; and 34 percent of this funding was used on projects located directly in disadvantaged communities.44 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee AB 32 calls for CARB to convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC), to advise the Board in developing the Scoping Plan, and any other pertinent matter in implementing AB 32. It requires that the Committee be comprised of representatives from communities in the State with the most significant exposure to air pollution, including, but not limited to, communities with minority populations or low-income 44 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/cci_annual_report_2017.pdf environmental JustiCe advisory Committee Martha Dina Argüello Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles Colin Bailey The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Sacramento Gisele Fong End Oil Los Angeles Tom Frantz Association of Irritated Residents Central Valley Katie Valenzuela Garcia (Served until May 2017) Oak Park Neighborhood Association Sacramento Sekita Grant (Served until June 2017) The Greenlining Institute Statewide Kevin Hamilton Central California Asthma Collaborative Central Valley Rey León Valley LEAP Central Valley Luis Olmedo Comité Civico Del Valle Salton Sea Region Kemba Shakur Urban Releaf Bay Area Mari Rose Taruc Asian Pacific Environmental Network Bay Area Eleanor Torres The Incredible Edible Community Garden Inland Empire Monica Wilson Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives Bay Area 16 populations, or both. CARB consulted 13 environmental justice and disadvantaged community representatives for the 2017 Scoping Plan process, starting with the first Committee meeting in December 2015. In February and April 2017, members of the California Air Resources Board held joint public meetings with the EJAC to discuss options for addressing environmental justice and disadvantaged community concerns in the Scoping Plan. The full schedule of Committee meetings and meeting materials is available on CARB’s website.45 Starting in July 2016, the Committee hosted a robust community engagement process, conducting 19 community meetings throughout the State. To enhance this community engagement, CARB staff coordinated with staff from local government agencies and sister State agencies. At the community meetings, staff from State and local agencies participated in extensive, topic-specific “world café” discussions with local groups and individuals. The extensive dialogue between the EJAC, State agencies, and local agencies provided community residents the opportunity to share concerns and provide input on ways California can meet its 2030 GHG target while addressing a number of environmental and equity issues. Environmental Justice Advisory Committee Recommendations The Committee’s recommendations for the Scoping Plan were informed by comments received at community meetings described above and Committee member expertise. Recommendations were provided for the sector focus areas, overarching environmental justice policy, and California Climate Investments. The Committee also sorted their recommendations into five themes: partnership with environmental justice communities, equity, economic opportunity, coordination, and long-term vision. Finally, the Committee provided direction that their recommendations are intended “to be read and implemented holistically and not independently of each other.” The EJAC’s recommendations, in their entirety, are included in Appendix A and available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ejac/meetings/04262017/ejac-sp-recommendations033017.pdf. The Committee’s overarching recommendations for partnership with environmental justice communities, equity, coordination, economic opportunity, and long-term vision include the following recommendations:• Encourage long-term community engagement, a culture shift in California, and neighborhood-level solutions to promote the implementation of the State’s climate plans, using strategies identified by the Committee. • Improve the balance of reducing GHGs and compliance costs with other AB 32 goals of improving air quality in environmental justice communities while maximizing benefits for all Californians. • Consider public health impacts and equity when examining issues in any sector and have CARB conduct an equity analysis on the Scoping Plan and each sector, with guidance from the Committee. • Develop metrics to ensure actions are meeting targets and develop contingency plans for mitigation and adjustment if emissions increases occur as programs are implemented. • Develop a statewide community-based air monitoring network to support regulatory efforts and monitor neighborhood scale pollution in disadvantaged communities.• Coordinate strategies between State, federal, and local agencies for strong, enforceable, evidence-based policies to prevent and address sprawl with equity at the center.• Maximize the accessibility of safe jobs, incentives, and economic benefits for Californians and the development of a just transition for workers and communities in and around polluting industries. • Prioritize improving air quality in environmental justice communities and analyze scenarios at a neighborhood scale for all California communities. • Ensure that AB 32 economic reviewers come from various areas around the State to represent insights on economic challenges and opportunities from those regions. • Do not limit the Scoping Plan to examining interventions and impacts until 2030, or even 2050. Plan and analyze on a longer-term scale to prevent short-sighted mistakes and reach the long- term vision, as actions today and for the next 30 years will have impacts for seven generations. • The Scoping Plan must prioritize GHG reductions and investments in California environmental justice communities first, before other California communities; and the innovation of new technologies or strategies to reach even deeper emissions cuts, whenever possible.• Convene the Committee beyond the Scoping Plan development process. The Committee’s key Energy sector recommendations include:• Developing aggressive energy goals toward 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, including a vision for a clean energy economy, and prioritizing actions in disadvantaged communities. 45 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ejac/ejac.htm 17 • Setting goals for green buildings. • Enforcing GHG reduction targets for existing buildings, and providing upgrades that enable buildings to use renewable energy technologies and water capture. • Prioritizing and supporting community-owned technologies, such as community-owned solar, for environmental justice communities. Key Water sector recommendations include: • Encouraging water conservation and recycling. • Prioritizing safe drinking water for all. The Committee’s key Industry sector recommendations include: • Prioritizing direct emissions reductions in environmental justice communities. • Replacing the Cap-and-Trade Program with a carbon tax or fee and dividend program. • Eliminating offsets and the allocation of free allowances if the Cap-and-Trade Program continues. • Analyze where GHG emissions are increasing and identify strategies to prevent and reduce such emissions in environmental justice communities. • Committing to reductions in petroleum use. The Committee’s key Transportation sector recommendations include: • Increasing access to affordable, reliable, clean, and safe mobility options in disadvantaged communities. • Community-engaged land use planning.• Maximizing electrification.• Restricting sprawl and examining transportation regionally.• Considering the development of green transportation hubs that integrate urban greening with transportation options and implement the recommendations of the SB 350 studies. The Committee’s key Natural and Working Lands, Agriculture, and Waste sector recommendations include:• Reducing waste and mandating that local jurisdictions manage the waste they create. • Returning carbon to the soil. • Not burning biomass or considering it a renewable resource. • Supporting healthy soils as a critical element to land and waste management. • Integrating urban forestry within local communities. • Exploring ways to allow and streamline the process for cultural and prescribed burning for land management and to prevent large-scale wildfires. • Including an annual reduction of 5 million metric tons of CO2e from natural and working lands. The Committee’s recommendations for California Climate Investments include: • Ensuring near-term technologies do not adversely impact communities and long-term investments move toward zero emissions. • Requiring GGRF projects to be transformative for disadvantaged communities as defined by each community.• Eliminating funding for AB 32 regulated entities.• Providing technical assistance to environmental justice communities so they can better access funding and resources. • Prioritizing projects identified by communities and ensuring all applicants have policies to protect against displacement or gentrification. In April 2017, EJAC members provided a refined list of priority changes for the Scoping Plan from the full list of EJAC recommendations. CARB staff responded to each priority recommendation, describing additions to the Scoping Plan or suggested next steps for recommendations beyond the level of detail in the Plan. Appendix A includes the Priority EJAC Recommendations with CARB Responses and full list of EJAC Recommendations. More information about the Committee and its recommendations on the previous Scoping Plans and this Scoping Plan is located at: www.arb.ca.gov/ejac. 18 Setting the Path to 2050 The State’s 2020 and 2030 targets have not been set in isolation. They represent benchmarks, consistent with prevailing climate science, charting an appropriate trajectory forward that is in-line with California’s role in stabilizing global warming below dangerous thresholds. As we consider efforts to reduce emissions to meet the State’s near-term requirements, we must do so with an eye toward reductions needed beyond 2030, as well. The Paris Agreement – which calls for limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and aiming to limit it below a 1.5 degrees Celsius – frames our path forward. While the Scoping Plan charts the path to achieving the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target, we also need momentum to propel us to the 2050 statewide GHG target (80 percent below 1990 levels). In developing this Scoping Plan, we considered what policies are needed to meet our mid-term and long-term goals. For example, though Zero Net Carbon Buildings are not feasible at this time and more work needs to be done in this area, they will be necessary to achieve the 2050 target. To that end, work must begin now to review and evaluate research in this area, establish a planning horizon for targets, and identify implementation mechanisms. Concurrently, we must consider and implement policies that not only deliver critical reductions in 2030 and continue to help support the State’s long-term climate objectives, but that also deliver other health, environmental and economic benefits. We should not just be planning to put 1.5 million ZEVs on the road by 2025 or 4.2 million on the road by 2030 – but rather, we should be comprehensively facilitating the market-wide transition to electric drive that we need to see materialize as soon as possible. This means that we need to be working towards making all fuels low carbon as quickly as possible, even as we incrementally ramp up volume requirements through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. And it means that we need to support the broad array of actions and strategies identified in Chapter 4, and new ones that may emerge – to keep us on track to achieve deeper GHG reductions to protect the environment and our way of life. As with all investments, the approach taken must balance risk, reward, longevity, and timing. Figure 5 illustrates the potential GHG reductions that are possible by making consistent progress between 2020 and 2050, versus an approach that begins with the 2030 target and then makes progress toward the 2050 level included in Executive Order S-3-05. Depending on our success in achieving the 2030 target, taking a consistent approach may be possible. It would achieve the 2050 target earlier, and together with similar actions globally, would have a greater chance of preventing global warming of 2°C. The strategy for achieving the 2050 target should leave open the possibility for both paths. Note that Figure 5 does not include emissions or sequestration potential from the natural and working lands sector or black carbon. Figure 5: plotting CaliFornia’s path Forward 2020 Target 0 100 200 300 400 500 2000 2010 2020 2030Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)2020 Target 2030 Target 2050 Target 2010 2040 2050 Executive OrderS-3-05 19 Intergovernmental Collaboration Federal, state, Tribal, and local action can be complementary. We have seen federal action through the Clean Air Act, regulations for GHG emissions from passenger cars and trucks, development of the Clean Power Plan to limit GHGs from power plants, and the advancement of methane rules for oil and gas production. We have also seen recent federal efforts to delay or reverse some of these actions. As we have done in the past, California, working with other climate leaders, can take steps to advance more ambitious federal action and protect the ability of states to move forward to address climate change. Both collaboration and advocacy will mark the road ahead. However, to the extent that California cannot implement policies or measures included in the Scoping Plan because of the lack of federal action, we will develop alternative measures to achieve the reductions from the same sectors to ensure we meet our GHG reduction targets. Regional, Tribal, and local governments and agencies are critical leaders in reducing emissions through actions that reduce demand for electricity, transportation fuels, and natural gas, and improved natural and working lands management. Many local governments already employ efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those required by the State. For example, many cities and counties improve their municipal operations by upgrading vehicle fleets, retrofitting government buildings and streetlights, purchasing greener products, and implementing waste-reduction policies. In addition, they may adopt more sustainable codes, standards, and general plan improvements to reduce their community’s footprints and emissions. Many Tribes within and outside of California have engaged in consultations with CARB to develop robust carbon offset projects under California’s Cap-and-Trade Program, in particular forest projects. In fact, Tribal forest projects represent a significant percentage of offset credits issued under the Program. These consultations and carbon sequestration projects are in addition to other Tribal climate-related efforts. The State will provide a supportive framework to advance these and other local efforts, while also recognizing the need to build on, and export, this success to other regional, Tribal, and local governments throughout California and beyond. Local actions are critical for implementation of California’s ambitious climate agenda. State policies, programs, and actions–such as many of those identified throughout this Scoping Plan–can help to support, incentivize, and accelerate local actions to achieve mutual goals for more sustainable and resilient communities. Local municipal code changes, zoning changes, or policy directions that apply broadly to the community within the general plan or climate action plan area can promote the deployment of renewable, zero emission, and low carbon technologies such as zero net energy buildings, renewable fuel production facilities, and zero emission charging stations. Local decision-making has an especially important role in achieving reductions of GHG emissions generated from transportation. Over the last 60 years, development patterns have led to sprawling suburban neighborhoods, a vast highway system, growth in automobile ownership, and under-prioritization of infrastructure for public transit and active transportation. Local decisions about these policies today can establish a more sustainable built environment for the future. International Efforts California is not alone in its efforts to address climate change at the international level to reduce global GHG emissions. The agreement reached in Paris by the 2015 Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at keeping the global temperature rise below 2°C, is spurring worldwide action to reduce GHGs and support decarbonization across the global economy. In recent years, subnational governments have emerged to take on a prominent role. With the establishment of the Under 2 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),46,47 the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force,48 and the Western Climate Initiative,49 among other partnership initiatives, subnational jurisdictions from the around the world are collaborating and leading on how best to address climate change. 46 Under 2 MOU website: under2mou.org/ 47 One of the Brown Administration’s priorities is to highlight California’s climate leadership on the subnational level, and to ensure that subnational activity is recognized at the international level. In the year preceding the Paris negotiations, the Governor’s Office recruited subnational jurisdictions to sign onto the Memorandum of Understanding on Subnational Global Climate Leadership (Under 2 MOU), which brings together states and regions willing to commit to reducing their GHG emissions by 80 to 95 percent, or to limit emissions to 2 metric tons CO2-equivalent per capita, by 2050. The governor led a California delegation to the Paris negotiations to highlight our successful climate programs and to champion subnational action and international cooperation on meeting the challenge of reducing GHG emissions. As of October 2017, 188 jurisdictions representing more than 1.2 billion people and more than one-third of the global economy had joined California in the Under 2 MOU.48 Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force website: www.gcftaskforce.org/49 Western Climate Initiative website: www.wci-inc.org/ 20 From its inception, AB 32 recognized the importance of California’s climate leadership and engagement with other jurisdictions, and directed CARB to consult with the federal government and other nations to identify the most effective strategies and methods to reduce GHGs, manage GHG control programs, and facilitate the development of integrated and cost-effective regional, national, and international GHG reduction programs. California undertook a two-pronged approach: first, we assessed our State-specific circumstances to develop measures that would apply specifically in California; and second, we assessed which measures might lend themselves, through careful design and collaboration with other interested jurisdictions, toward linked or collaborative GHG reduction programs. Under the Clean Air Act, California has a special role as an innovator and leader in the area of motor vehicle emission regulations, which allows our State to adopt motor vehicle emission standards that are stricter than federal requirements. Partners around the country and the world emulate these motor vehicle standards, leading to widespread health benefits. Similarly, by enacting a comprehensive climate strategy that appeals to national and international partners, California can help lead the world in tackling climate change. Today, the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program is linked with Québec’s program and scheduled to link with Ontario’s emissions trading system on January 1, 2018. Low carbon fuel mandates similar to California’s LCFS have been adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and by other jurisdictions including Oregon, British Columbia, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. Over two- dozen states have a renewables portfolio standard. California is a member of the Pacific Coast Collaborative with British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington, who collaborate on issues such as energy and sustainable resource management, among others.50 California continues to discuss carbon pricing through a cap-and- trade program with international delegations. We have seen design features of the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program incorporated into other emerging and existing programs, such as the European Union Emissions Trading System, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, China’s emerging national trading program, and Mexico’s emerging pilot emission trading program. Recognizing the need to address the substantial GHG emissions caused by the deforestation and degradation of tropical and other forests, California worked with a group of subnational governments to form the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF) in 2008.51 The GCF is currently comprised of 38 different subnational jurisdictions– including states and provinces in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Spain, and the United States–that are contemplating or enacting programs for low-emissions rural development and reduced emissions from deforestation and land use. GCF members continue to engage in discussions to share information and experiences about the design of such programs and how the programs could potentially interact with carbon markets. Ongoing engagement between California and its GCF partners, as well as ongoing discussions with other stakeholders, continues to provide lessons on how such programs could complement California’s climate programs.52 Further, California’s High-Speed Rail is part of the International Union of Railways (UIC), and California has signed the Railway Climate Responsibility Pledge, which was commended by the Secretary of the UNFCCC as part of achieving the global 2050 targets. This initiative is to demonstrate that rail transport is part of the solution for sustainable and carbon free mobility. California will continue to engage in multi-lateral forums that develop the policy foundation and technical infrastructure for GHG regulations in multiple jurisdictions through entities such as the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP), established by California and other partners in 2007. Members of the ICAP that have already implemented or are actively pursuing market-based GHG programs53 share experiences and knowledge. California also participates in the Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR), a multilateral World Bank initiative that brings together more than 30 developed and developing countries to share experiences and build capacity for climate change mitigation efforts, particularly those implemented using market instruments.54 In November 2014, CARB became a Technical Partner of the PMR, and CARB staff members have provided technical information on the design and implementation of the Cap-and-Trade Program at several PMR meetings. 50 Pacific Coast Collaborative website: pacificcoastcollaborative.org/51 Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force Website: www.gcftaskforce.org/ 52 Continued collaboration on efforts to reduce emissions from tropical deforestation and to evaluate sector-based offset programs, such as the jurisdictional program in Acre, Brazil, further demonstrates California’s ongoing climate leadership and fosters partnerships on mutually beneficial low emissions development initiatives, including measures to encourage sustainable supply chain efforts by public and private entities.53 International Carbon Action Partnership website: icapcarbonaction.com/ 54 Partnership for Market Readiness website: www.thepmr.org/ 21 Many foreign jurisdictions seek out California’s expertise because of our history of success in addressing air pollution and climate change. California also benefits from these interactions. Expanding global action to fight air pollution and climate change expands markets for clean technology. This can bolster business for companies in California developing clean energy products and services and help to bring down the cost of those products globally and in California. Additionally, innovative policies and lessons learned from our partners’ jurisdictions can help to inform future climate policies in California. Governor Brown’s focus on subnational collaborations on climate change and air quality has strengthened and deepened California’s existing international relationships and forged new ones. These relationships are a critical component of reducing emissions of GHGs and other pollutants worldwide. As we move forward, CARB and other State agencies will continue to communicate and collaborate with international partners to find the most cost-effective ways to improve air quality, fight climate change, and share California’s experience and expertise in reducing air pollution and GHGs while growing a strong economy. To highlight the State’s resolve and support of other governments committed to action and tackling the threat of the global warming, on July 6, 2017, Governor Brown announced a major initiative to host world leaders at a Global Climate Action Summit planned for September 2018 in San Francisco. 22 This chapter describes the State strategy for meeting the 2030 GHG target (also called the Scoping Plan Scenario), along with a short description of the four alternative scenarios, which were evaluated but ultimately rejected when compared against statutory and policy criteria and priorities that the State’s comprehensive climate action must deliver. All scenarios are set against the business-as-usual (BAU or Reference Scenario) scenario–what would GHG emissions look like if we did nothing beyond the existing policies that are required and already in place to achieve the 2020 limit. BAU includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the SB 375 program for sustainable communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that have been developed or put into statute over the past two years. The Reference Scenario (BAU) shows continuing, but modest, reductions followed by a later rise of GHG emissions as the economy and population grow. The comprehensive analysis of all five alternatives indicates that the Scoping Plan Scenario–continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program–is the best choice to achieve the State’s climate and clean air goals. It also protects public health, provides a solid foundation for continued economic growth, and supports California’s quality of life. All of the alternative scenarios briefly described in this chapter are the product of the Scoping Plan development process and were informed by public input, including that from EJAC, as well as Board and legislative direction over the course of two years. The scenarios all include a range of additional measures developed or required by legislation over the past two years with 2030 as their target date and include: extending the LCFS to an 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity beyond 2020, and the requirements of SB 350 to increase renewables to 50 percent and to double energy efficiency savings. They also all include the Mobile Source Strategy targets for more zero emission vehicles and much cleaner trucks and transit, the Sustainable Freight Action Plan to improve freight efficiency and transition to zero emission freight handling technologies, and the requirements under SB 1383 to reduce anthropogenic black carbon 50 percent and hydrofluorocarbon and methane emissions by 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The recent adoption of AB 398 into State law on July 25, 2017, clarifies the role of the Cap-and-Trade Program through December 31, 2030. Work is still underway on how to quantify the GHG emissions within the natural and working lands sector. As such, the analyses in this chapter do not include any estimates from this sector. Additional information on the current efforts to better understand GHG emissions fluxes and model the actions needed to support the goal of net carbon sequestration in natural and working lands can be found in Chapter 4. Even absent quantification data, the importance of this sector in achieving the State’s climate goals should be considered in conjunction with any efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the energy and industrial sectors. During the development of the Scoping Plan, stakeholders suggested alternative scenarios to achieve the 2030 target. While countless scenarios could potentially be developed and evaluated, the four below were considered, as they were most often included in comments by stakeholders and they bracket the range of potential scenarios. Several of these alternative scenarios were also evaluated in the Initial AB 32 Scoping Plan in 2008 (All Regulations, Carbon Tax).55 Since the adoption of the Initial AB 32 Scoping Plan, some of the alternative scenarios have been implemented or contemplated by other jurisdictions, which has helped in the analysis and the development of this Scoping Plan. This section provides a brief description of the alternatives. A full description of the alternatives and staff’s AB 197 and policy analyses are included in Appendix G. 55 CARB. 2009. Initial AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm Chapter 2 the S copI ng p lan S cenar I o 23 Scoping Plan Scenario: Ongoing and statutorily required programs and continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program. This scenario was modified from the January 2017 Proposed Scoping Plan to reflect AB 398, including removal of the 20 percent refinery measure. Alternative 1: No Cap-and-Trade. Includes additional activities in a wide variety of sectors, such as specific required reductions for all large GHG sources, and more extensive requirements for renewable energy. Industrial sources would be regulated through command and control strategies. Alternative 2: Carbon Tax. A carbon tax to put a price, but not limit, on carbon, instead of the Cap-and- Trade Program. Alternative 3: All Cap-and-Trade. This alternative is the same as the Scoping Plan Scenario, while maintaining the LCFS at a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity past 2020. Alternative 4: Cap-and-Tax. This would place a declining cap on individual industrial facilities, and individual natural gas and fuel suppliers, while also requiring them to pay a tax on each metric ton of GHGs emitted. Since the statutory direction on meeting a 2030 GHG target is clear, the issue of certainty of reductions is paramount. These alternatives vary greatly as to the certainty of meeting the target. The declining mass emissions cap under a cap-and-trade program provides certain and measurable reductions over time; a carbon tax, meanwhile, establishes some carbon price certainty, but does not provide an assurance on reductions and instead assumes that some degree of reductions will occur if costs are high enough to alter behavior. There are also other considerations: to what extent does an alternative meet the target, but also deliver clean air benefits, prioritize reductions at large stationary sources, and allow for continued investment in disadvantaged communities? What is the cost of an alternative and what will be the impact on California consumers? Does an alternative allow for California to link with other jurisdictions, and support the Clean Power Plan56 and other federal and international climate programs? Does an alternative provide for flexibility for regulated entities, and a cost-effective approach to reduce greenhouse gases? The Scoping Plan Scenario provides a portfolio of policies and measures that balances this combination of objectives, including the highest certainty to achieve the 2030 target, while protecting the California economy and consumers. A more detailed analyses of the alternatives is provided in Appendix G. Scoping Plan Scenario The development of the Scoping Plan began by first modeling a Reference Scenario (BAU). The Reference Scenario is the forecasted statewide GHG emissions through 2030 with existing policies and programs, but without any further action to reduce GHGs. Figure 6 provides the modeling results for a Reference Scenario for this Scoping Plan. The graph shows the State is expected to reduce emissions below the 2020 statewide GHG target, but additional effort will be needed to maintain and continue GHG reductions to meet the mid- (2030) and long-term (2050) targets. Figure 6 depicts a linear, straight-line path to the 2030 target. It should be noted that in any year, GHG emissions may be higher or lower than the straight line. That is to be expected as periods of economic recession or increased economic activity, annual variations in hydropower, and many other factors may influence a single or several years of GHG emissions in the State. CARB’s annual GHG reporting and inventory will provide data on progress towards achieving the 2030 target. More details about the modeling for the Reference Scenario can be found in Appendix D. 56 Although the Clean Power Plan is being challenged in legal and administrative processes, its requirements reflect U.S. EPA’s statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases from the power sector. Thus it, and other federal programs, are a key consideration for Scoping Plan development. 24 Figure 6: 2017 sCoping plan reFerenCe sCenario The Scoping Plan Scenario is summarized in Table 1. As shown in the table, most of the measures are identified as “known commitments” (marked with “*”), meaning that they are existing programs or required by statute. These commitments are not part of the Reference Scenario (BAU) in Figure 6 since their passage and implementation is related to meeting the Governor’s climate pillars, the 2030 climate target, or other long-term climate and air quality objectives. In addition to the known commitments, the Scoping Plan Scenario includes a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program.Annual GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)0 100 200 300 400 500 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 REFERENCE SCENARIO (BAU) 431 MMTCO2e 2020 Target 260 MMTCO2e 2030 Target 2050 Goal 25 table 1: sCoping plan sCenario Policy Primary Objective Highlights Implementation Time Frame SB 35057* Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the 50 percent RPS, doubling of energy savings, and other actions as appropriate to achieve GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process. • Load-serving entities file plans to achieve GHG emissions reductions planning targets while ensuring reliability and meeting the State’s other policy goals cost-effectively. • 50 percent RPS. • Doubling of energy efficiency savings in natural gas and electricity end uses statewide. 2030 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)* Transition to cleaner/less- polluting fuels that have a lower carbon footprint. • At least 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity, as included in the Mobile Source Strategy.2030 Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels [CTF] Scenario)58* Reduce GHGs and other pollutants from the transportation sector through transition to zero- emission and low-emission vehicles, cleaner transit systems and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. • 1.5 million zero emission vehicles (ZEV), including plug-in hybrid electric, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2025 and 4.2 million ZEVs by 2030. • Continue ramp up of GHG stringency for all light-duty vehicles beyond 2025. • Reductions in GHGs from medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles via the Phase 2 Medium and Heavy-Duty GHG Standards. • Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new bus sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. • Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025. • Reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to be achieved in part by continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Community Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy, but included in the document “Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion” in Appendix C.59 Various SB 1383* Approve and Implement Short-Lived Climate Pollutant strategy60 to reduce highly potent GHGs • 40 percent reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions below 2013 levels by 2030. • 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon emissions below 2013 levels by 2030. 2030 California Sustainable Freight Action Plan61* Improve freight efficiency, transition to zero emission technologies, and increase competitiveness of California’s freight system. • Improve freight system efficiency by 25 percent by 2030. • Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. 2030 Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program Reduce GHGs across largest GHG emissions sources • Continue the existing Cap-and-Trade Program with declining caps to ensure the State’s 2030 target is achieved. * These measures and policies are referred to as “known commitments.” 57 58 5960 61 57 SB 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015). leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/ billNavClient.xhtml?billid=201520160SB350 This policy also includes increased demand response and PV.58 CARB. 2016. 2016 Mobile Source Strategy. www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf59 CARB. Potential State-Level Strategies to Advance Sustainable, Equitable Communities and Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)-- for Discussion. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/091316/Potential%20VMT%20Measures%20For%20Discussion_9.13.16.pdf60 CARB. 2016. Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in California. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm61 State of California. California Sustainable Freight Action Plan website. www.casustainablefreight.org/ 26 Table 2 summarizes the results of the modeling for the Reference Scenario and known commitments. Per SB 32, the 2030 limit is 260 MMTCO2e. That is a limit on total GHG emissions in a single year. At approximately 389 MMTCO2e, the Reference Scenario is expected to exceed the 2030 limit by about 129 MMTCO2e. Table 2 also compares the Reference Scenario 2030 emissions estimate of 389 MMTCO2e to the 2030 target of 260 MMTCO2e and the level of 2030 emissions with the known commitments, estimated to be 320 MMTCO2e. And, in the context of a linear path to achieve the 2030 target, there is also a need to achieve cumulative emissions reductions of 621 MMTCO2e from 2021 to 2030 to reach the 2030 limit. While there is no statutory limit on cumulative emissions, the analysis considers and presents some results in cumulative form for several reasons. It should be recognized that policies and measures may perform differently over time. For example, in early years, a policy or measure may be slow to be deployed, but over time it has greater impact. If you were to look at its performance in 2021 versus 2030, you would see that it may not seem important and may not deliver significant reductions in the early years, but is critical for later years as it results in greater reductions over time. Further, once GHGs are emitted into the atmosphere, they can have long lifetimes that contribute to global warming for decades. Policies that reduce both cumulative GHG emissions and achieve the single-year 2030 target provide the most effective path to reducing climate change impacts. A cumulative construct provides a more complete way to evaluate the effectiveness of any measure over time, instead of just considering a snapshot for a single year. table 2: 2030 modeling ghg results For the reFerenCe sCenario and known Commitments Modeling Scenario 2030 GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e) Cumulative GHG Reductions 2021– 2030 (MMTCO2e) Cumulative Gap to 2030 Target (MMTCO2e) Reference Scenario (Business-as-Usual)389 n/a 621 Known Commitments 320 385 236 As noted above, the known commitments are expected to result in emissions that are 60 MMTCO2e above the target in 2030, and have a cumulative emissions reduction gap of about 236 MMTCO2e. This means the known commitments do not decline fast enough to achieve the 2030 target. The remaining 236 MMTCO2e of estimated GHG emissions reductions would not be achieved unless further action is taken to reduce GHGs. Consequently, for the Scoping Plan Scenario, the Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would need to deliver 236 MMTCO2e cumulative GHG emissions reductions from 2021 through 2030. If the estimated GHG reductions from the known commitments are not realized due to delays in implementation or technology deployment, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver the additional GHG reductions in the sectors it covers to ensure the 2030 target is achieved. Figure 7 illustrates the cumulative emissions reductions contributions of the known commitments and the Cap-and-Trade Program from 2021 to 2030. Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program with Declining Caps This measure would continue the Cap-and-Trade Program post-2020 pursuant to legislative direction in AB 398. The program is up and running and has a five-year-long record of auctions and successful compliance. In the face of a growing economy, dry winters, and the closing of a nuclear plant, it is delivering GHG reductions. This is not to say that California should continue on this road simply because the Cap-and-Trade Program is already in place. The analyses in this chapter, and the economic analysis in Chapter 3, clearly demonstrate that continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030 will provide the most secure, reliable, and feasible clean energy future for California–one that will continue to deliver crucial investments to improve the quality of life and the environment in disadvantaged communities. Under this measure, funds would also continue to be deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to support projects that fulfill the goals of AB 32, with AB 398 identifying a list of priorities for the Legislature to consider for future appropriations from GGRF. Investment of the Cap-and-Trade Program proceeds furthers the goals of AB 32 by reducing GHG emissions, providing net GHG sequestration, providing co-benefits, investing in disadvantaged communities and low-income communities, and supporting the long-term, transformative efforts needed to improve public and environmental health and 27 develop a clean energy economy. These investments support programs and projects that deliver major economic, environmental, and public health benefits for Californians. Importantly, prioritized investments in disadvantaged communities are providing a multitude of meaningful benefits to these communities some of which include increased affordable housing opportunities, reduced transit and transportation costs, access to cleaner vehicles, improved mobility options and air quality, job creation, energy cost savings, and greener and more vibrant communities. Further, the Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to protect electricity and natural gas residential ratepayers from higher energy prices. The program includes a mechanism for electricity and natural gas utilities to auction their freely allocated allowances, with the auction proceeds benefiting ratepayers. The Climate Credit is a twice-annual bill credit given to investor-owned utility electricity residential customers. The total value of the Climate Credit for vintage 2013 auction allowances alone was over $400 million. The first of these credits appeared on customer bills in April 2014.62 Currently, natural gas utilities are permitted to use a portion of their freely allocated allowances to meet their own compliance obligations; however, over time, they must consign a larger percentage of allowances and continue to provide the value back to customers. Additionally, under this measure, the State would preserve its current linkages with its Canadian partners and support future linkages with other jurisdictions, thus facilitating international action to address climate change. The high compliance rates with the Cap-and-Trade Program also demonstrate that the infrastructure and implementation features of the program are effective and understood by the regulated community. This measure also lends itself to integration with the Clean Power Plan requirements and is flexible to allow expansion to other sectors or regions. In late 2017, CARB began evaluating changes to program design features for post-2020 in accordance with AB 398.63 This includes changes to the offset usage limit, direction on allocation, two price containment points, and a price ceiling – which, if in the unlikely event were to be accessed, must result in GHG reductions by compensating for any GHG emissions above the cap, ensuring the environmental integrity of the program. Changes to conform to the requirements of AB 398 will be subject to a public process, coordinated with linked partners, and be part of a future rulemaking that would take effect by January 1, 2021. 62 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/allowanceallocation/edu-v2013-allowance-value-report.pdf63 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/meetings/20171012/ct_presentation_11oct2017.pdf 28 Figure 7: sCoping plan sCenario – estimated Cumulative ghg reduCtions by measure (2021–2030)64 The Scoping Plan Scenario in Figure 7 represents an expected case where current and proposed GHG reduction policies and measures begin as expected and perform as expected, and technology is readily available and deployed on schedule. An Uncertainty Analysis was performed to examine the range of outcomes that could occur under the Scoping Plan policies and measures. The uncertainty in the following factors was characterized and evaluated:• Economic growth through 2030;• Emission intensity of the California economy; • Cumulative emissions reductions (2021 to 2030) achieved by the prescriptive measures, including the known commitments; and • Cumulative emissions reductions (2021 to 2030) that can be motivated by emission prices under the Cap-and-Trade Program. The combined effects of these uncertainties are summarized in Figure 8. As shown in Figure 7, the Scoping Plan analysis estimates that the prescriptive measures will achieve cumulative emissions reductions of 385 MMTCO2e, the Cap-and-Trade Program will achieve 236 MMTCO2e, resulting in total cumulative emissions reductions of 621 MMTCO2e. These values are again reflected in the bar on the left of Figure 8. The results of the Uncertainty Analysis are summarized in the three bars on the right of the figure as follows: • The cumulative emissions reductions required to achieve the 2030 emission limit has the potential to be higher or lower than the Scoping Plan estimate. The uncertainty analysis simulates an average required emissions reductions of about 660 MMTCO2e with a range of +130 MMTCO2e.65 This estimate and the range are shown in Figure 8 as the bar on the right. Notably, the estimate of the average required emissions reductions is 40 MMTCO2e greater than the estimate in the Scoping Plan analysis. • The prescriptive measures have the potential to underperform relative to expectations. Based on CARB staff assessments of the potential risk of underperformance of each measure, the average emissions reductions simulated to be achieved was 335 MMTCO2e, or about 13 percent below the Scoping Plan estimate. The range for the performance of the measures was about +50 MMTCO2e. 64 The whole number values displayed in Figure 7 do not mathematically sum to 621 MMTCO2e, consistent with the modeling results summary in Table 2. This is a result of embedded significant figures and rounding for graphic display purposes. Please refer to the corresponding PATHWAYS modeling data spreadsheets for details.65 The ranges presented are the 5th and 95th percentile observations in the Uncertainty Analysis. See Appendix E for details. Scoping PlanGHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 64 Mobile Sources CFT & Freight 217 Short Lived Climate Pollutants High Global Warming Gases & Methane Reduction from LCFS and Direct Measures 236 Cap-and-Trade Program 64 Energy Efficiency (Res, Com, Ind Ag & TCU) 25 Biofuels (18% LCFS)16 50% RPS 29 These values for the potential reductions achieved by the measures are shown in the figure. • The Cap-and-Trade program is designed to fill the gap in the required emissions reductions over and above what is achieved by the prescriptive measures. Because the total required emissions reductions are uncertain, and the emissions reductions achieved by the prescriptive measures are uncertain, the required emissions reductions from the Cap-and-Trade Program are also uncertain. The Uncertainty Analysis simulated the average emissions reductions achieved by the Cap-and-Trade Program at about 305 MMTCO2e, or about 30 percent higher than the Scoping Plan estimate. The range was simulated to be about +120 MMTCO2e. These values for the potential reductions achieved by the Cap-and-Trade Program are shown in the figure. The Uncertainty Analysis provides insight into the range of potential emissions outcomes that may occur, and demonstrates that the Scoping Plan, with the Cap-and-Trade Program, is extremely effective in the face of uncertainty, assuring that the required emissions reductions are achieved (see Appendix E for more detail). The Uncertainty Analysis also indicates that the Cap-and-Trade Program could contribute a larger or smaller share of the total required cumulative emissions reductions than expected in the Scoping Plan analysis. Figure 8: unCertainty analysis While the modeling results provide estimates of the GHG reductions that could be achieved by the measures, the results also provide other insights and highlight the need to ensure successful implementation of each measure. The SLCP Strategy will provide significant reductions with a focus on methane and hydrofluorocarbon gases. To ensure the SLCP Strategy implementation is successful, it will be critical to ensure programs such as LCFS maintain incentives to finance the capture and use of methane as a transportation fuel–further reducing the State’s dependence on fossil fuels. The modeling also shows that actions on energy efficiency could provide the same magnitude of GHG emissions reductions as the mobile source measures, but each effort will provide different magnitudes of air quality improvements and cost- effectiveness as discussed in Chapter 3. Another way to look at this scenario is to understand the trajectory of GHG reductions over time, relative to the 2030 target. Figure 9 provides the trajectory of GHG emissions modeled for the Scoping Plan Scenario. Again, this depicts a straight-line path to the 2030 target for discussion purposes, but in reality GHG emissions may be above or below the line in any given year(s). Scoping Plan UNCERTAINTY PrescriptiveMeasuresCumulative GHG Emission Reductions2021 to 2030 (MMTCO2e)Cap-and-Trade TotalReductions 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Cap-and- Trade Measures 30 Figure 9: sCoping plan sCenario ghg reduC tions Figure 9 shows the Reference Scenario (yellow) and the version of the Scoping Plan Scenario that excludes the Cap-and-Trade Program (blue). Until 2023, the measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario constrain GHG emissions below the dotted straight line. After 2023, GHG emissions continue to fall, but at a slower rate than needed to meet the 2030 target. It is the Cap-and-Trade Program that will reduce emissions to the necessary levels to achieve the 2030 target. In this scenario, it is estimated that the known commitments will result in an emissions level of about 320 MMTCO2e in 2030. Thus, for the Scoping Plan Scenario, the Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver about 60 MMTCO2e in 2030 and ensure the 2030 target is achieved. To understand how the Scoping Plan affects the main economic sectors, Table 3 provides estimated GHG emissions by sector, compared to 1990 levels, and the range of GHG emissions for each sector estimated for 2030. This comparison helps to illustrate which sectors are reducing emissions more than others and where to focus additional actions to reduce GHGs across the entire economy. 20152010 2020 2025 2030 REFERENCE SCENARIO (BAU) Scoping Plan Scenario Gap closed by Cap-and-Trade 431 MMTCO2e 2020 Target 0 100 200 300 400 500 260 MMTCO2e 2030 Target 31 table 3: estimated Change in ghg emissions by seCtor (mmtCo2e) 1990 2030 Scoping Plan Ranges66 % change from 1990 Agriculture 26 24–25 -8 to -4 Residential and Commercial 44 38–40 -14 to -9 Electric Power 108 30–5367 -72 to -51 High GWP 3 8–1168 267 to 367 Industrial 98 83–9069 -15 to -8 Recycling and Waste 7 8–970 14 to 29** Transportation (Including TCU)152 103–111 -32 to -27 Natural Working Lands Net Sink*-7***TBD TBD Sub Total 431 294–339 -32 to -21 Cap-and-Trade Program n/a 34–79 n/a Total 431 260 -40 * Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector.** The SLCP will reduce emissions in this sector by 40 percent from 2013 levels. However, the 2030 levels are still higher than the 1990 levels as emissions in this sector have grown between 1990 and 2013.*** This number reflects net results and is different than the intervention targets discussed in Chapter 4. The sector ranges may change in response to how the sectors respond to the Cap-and-Trade Program. While the known commitments will deliver some reductions in each sector, the Cap-and-Trade Program will deliver additional reductions in the sectors it covers. Annual GHG reporting and the GHG inventory will track annual changes in emissions, and those will provide ongoing assessments of how each sector is reducing emissions due to the full complement of known commitments and the Cap-and-Trade Program, as applicable. Scenario Modeling There are a variety of models that can be used to model GHG emissions. For this Plan, the State is using the PATHWAYS model.70 PATHWAYS is structured to model GHG emissions while recognizing the integrated nature of the industrial economic and energy sectors. For example, if the transportation sector adds more electric vehicles, PATHWAYS responds to reflect an energy demand increase in the electricity sector. However, PATHWAYS does not reflect any change in transportation infrastructure and land use demand associated with additional ZEVs on the road. The ability to capture a subset of interactive effects of policies and measures helps to provide a representation of the interconnected nature of the system and impacts to GHGs. 66 Unless otherwise noted, the low end of the sector range is the estimated emissions from the Scoping Plan Scenario and the high end adjusts the expected emissions by a risk factor that represents sector underperformance.67 The high end of the electric power sector range is represented by the Scoping Plan Scenario, and the low end by enhancements and additional electricity sector measures such as deployment of additional renewable power, greater behind-the-meter solar PV, and additional energy efficiency. The electric power sector range provided in Table 3 will be used to help inform CARB’s setting of the SB 350 Integrated Resource Plan greenhouse gas emissions reduction planning targets for the sector. CARB, CPUC, and CEC will continue to coordinate on this effort before final IRP targets are established for the sector, load-serving entities, and publicly-owned utilities. State agencies will investigate the potential for and appropriateness of deeper electric sector reductions in light of the overall needs of the Scoping Plan to cost-effectively achieve the statewide GHG goals. Concurrently, CEC and CPUC are proceeding with their respective IRP processes using this range.68 The sector emissions are anticipated to increase by 2030. As such, the high end of the sector range is the estimated emissions from the Scoping Plan Scenario and the low end adjusts the expected emissions by a risk factor that represents sector over performance.69 This estimate does not account for the reductions expected in this sector from the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade line item includes reductions that will occur in the industrial sector.70 CARB. 2016. AB 32 Scoping Plan Public Workshops. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/meetings.htm 32 At this time, PATHWAYS does not include a module for natural and working lands. As such, PATHWAYS cannot be used to model the natural and working lands sector, the interactive effects of polices aimed at the economic and energy sectors and their effect on land use or conditions, or the interactive effects of polices aimed at the natural environment and their impact on the economic and energy sectors. For this Plan, external inputs had to be developed for PATHWAYS to supply biofuel volumes. The natural and working lands sector is also being modeled separately as described in Chapter 4. Moving forward, CARB and other State agencies will work to integrate all the sectors into one model to fully capture interactive effects across both the natural and built environments. Lastly, the PATHWAYS assumptions and results in this Plan show the significant action that the State must take to reach its GHG reduction goals. It is important to note that the modeling assumptions may differ from other models used by other State agencies. Modeling exercises undertaken in future regulatory proceedings may result in different measures, programs, and program results than those used in the modeling for this Scoping Plan. State agencies will engage on their specific policies and measure development processes separately from CARB Scoping Plan activities, in public forums to engage all stakeholders. Uncertainty Several types of uncertainty are important to understand in both forecasting future emissions and estimating the benefits of emissions reductions scenarios. In developing the Scoping Plan, we have forecast a Reference Scenario and estimated the GHG emissions outcome of the Scoping Plan using PATHWAYS. Inherent in the Reference Scenario modeling is the expectation that many of the existing programs will continue in their current form, and the expected drivers for GHG emissions such as energy demand, population growth, and economic growth will match our current projections. However, it is unlikely that the future will precisely match our projections, leading to uncertainty in the forecast. Thus, the single “reference” line should be understood to represent one possible future in a range of possible predictions. For the Scoping Plan Scenario, PATHWAYS utilized inputs that are assumptions external to the model. PATHWAYS was provided plausible inputs such as energy demand over time, the start years for specific policies, and the penetration rates of associated technologies. Each of the assumptions provided to PATHWAYS has some uncertainty, which is also reflected in the results. Thus, while the results presented in the Scoping Plan may seem precise due to the need for precision in model inputs, these results are estimates, and the use of ranges in some of the results is meant to capture that uncertainty. Further, as noted in the November 7, 2016, 2030 Target Scoping Plan Workshop, “All policies have a degree of uncertainty associated with them.”71 As this Scoping Plan is meant to chart a path to achieving the 2030 target, additional work will be required to fully design and implement any policies identified in this Scoping Plan. During the subsequent development of policies, CARB and other State agencies will learn more about technologies, cost, and how each industry works as a more comprehensive evaluation is conducted in coordination with stakeholders. Given the uncertainty around assumptions used in modeling, and in performance once specific policies are fully designed and implemented, estimates associated with the Scoping Plan Scenario are likely to differ from what actually occurs when the Scoping Plan is implemented. One way to mitigate for this risk is to develop policies that can adapt and increase certainty in GHG emissions reductions. Periodic reviews of progress toward achieving the 2030 target and the performance of specific policies will also provide opportunities for the State to consider any changes to ensure we remain on course to achieve the 2030 target. The need for this periodic review process was anticipated in AB 32, as it calls for updates to the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. Additional information on the uncertainty analyses conducted in the development of this Scoping Plan is located in Appendix E. 71 Bushnell, James. Economic Modeling and Environmental Policy Choice. PowerPoint. Department of Economics, University of California, Davis. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/110716/bushnellpresentation.pdf 33 Policy Analysis of Scoping Plan Scenario The following key criteria were considered while evaluating potential policies beyond the known commitments. The results of the economic analysis (presented in Chapter 3) were also important in the design of this Scoping Plan. • Ensure the State achieves the 2030 target. The strategy must ensure that GHG emissions reductions occur and are sufficient to achieve the 2030 target. • Provide air quality co-benefits. An important concern for environmental justice communities is for any Scoping Plan to provide air quality co-benefits. • Prioritize rules and regulations for direct GHG reductions. AB 197 requires CARB in developing this Scoping Plan to prioritize emissions reductions rules and regulations that result in direct emissions reductions at large stationary sources of GHG emissions sources and direct emissions reductions from mobile sources.• Provide protection against emissions leakage. Require any policies to achieve the statewide limits to minimize emissions leakage to the extent possible. Emissions leakage can occur when production moves out-of-state, so there appears to be a reduction in California’s emissions, but the production and emissions have just moved elsewhere. This loss in production may be associated with loss in jobs and decreases in the State’s gross domestic product (GDP) and could potentially increase global GHG emissions if the production moves to a less efficient facility outside of California. • Develop greenhouse gas reduction programs that can be readily exported to other jurisdictions. Currently, California’s Cap-and-Trade Program is linked with Québec’s program and is scheduled to link with Ontario’s cap-and-trade program beginning in 2018. At the same time, California’s ambitious policies such as the RPS, LCFS, and Advanced Clean Cars have resulted in other regions adopting similar programs. • Minimize costs and increase investment in disadvantaged and low-income communities, and low-income households. Currently, Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds from the sale of State- owned allowances are appropriated for a variety of programs to reduce GHGs, and provide other environmental, health and economic benefits including job creation and economic development. Under AB 1550, a minimum of 25 percent of the proceeds are to be invested in projects located in and benefiting disadvantaged communities, with an additional minimum 10 percent to projects in low-income communities, and low-income households. It is important to understand if the strategy will require or result in funding to support these GHG reductions and associated benefits. • Avoid or minimize the impacts of climate change on public health by continuing reductions in GHGs. Climate change has the potential to significantly impact public health, including increases in heat illness and death, air pollution-related exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, injury and loss of life due to severe storms and flooding, increased vector-borne and water-borne diseases, and stress and mental trauma due to extreme weather-related catastrophes.• Provide compliance flexibility. Flexibility is important as it allows each regulated entity the ability to pursue its own path toward compliance in a way that works best for its business model. Flexibility also acknowledges that regulatory agencies may not have a complete picture of all available low-cost compliance mechanisms or opportunities even across the same sector. In addition, under AB 32 and AB 197, the strategy to reduce GHGs requires consideration of cost-effectiveness, which compliance flexibility provides. • Support the Clean Power Plan and other federal climate programs. California will continue to support aggressive federal action, as well as to defend existing programs like the Clean Power Plan, which is the most prominent federal climate regulation applicable to stationary sources. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that federal greenhouse gas regulation must move forward under the federal Clean Air Act, so it is important to ensure that California’s programs can support federal compliance as well. Although continuing litigation has stayed certain Clean Power Plan deadlines in the near term, and U.S. EPA has proposed to reconsider aspects of the rule as issued, the Clean Power Plan remains the law of the land. California is vigorously defending this important program, and is continuing to support federal climate regulation as is required by law. U.S EPA also has a legal obligation to implement GHG controls for power plants, even if it proposes to alter the form of those controls in the future. Therefore, the Clean Power Plan and other federal efforts are important considerations for this Scoping Plan. With regard to the 34 Clean Power Plan, California power plants are expected to be within their limits as set forth by the State’s compliance plan, which was approved by CARB on July 27, 2017. However, the State still needs a mechanism to ensure the emissions for the covered electricity generating plants do not exceed the federal limits. This mechanism must be federally enforceable with regard to the affected power plants, and limit their emissions in accordance with the federal limit. Table 4 uses the criteria listed above to assess the Scoping Plan Scenario. This assessment is based on CARB staff evaluation as well as the analyses described in Chapter 3. table 4: poliCy assessment oF the sCoping plan Criteria Details Ensure the State Achieves the 2030 Target • Incorporates existing and new commitments to reduce emissions from all sectors • The Cap-and-Trade Program scales to ensure reductions are achieved, even if other policies do not achieve them. This is particularly critical given the uncertainty inherent in both CARB’s emission forecast and its estimate of future regulations. Provide Air Quality Co-Benefits • Reduced fossil fuel use and increased electrification (including plug-in hybrid electric, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) from policies such as the Mobile Source Strategy, enhanced LCFS and RPS, energy efficiency, and land conservation will likely reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. • The Cap-and-Trade Program will ensure GHG emissions reductions within California that may reduce criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Prioritize Rules and Regulations for Direct GHG Reductions • Advanced Clean Cars regulations require reduction in the light-duty vehicle sector. • Enhanced LCFS requires reductions in light-duty and heavy-duty transportation. • SB 350, RPS, and energy efficiency will reduce the need for fossil power generation. • The Cap-and-Trade Program constrains and reduces emissions across approximately 80 percent of California GHG emissions. • SB 1383 and the Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy require reductions in the agricultural, commercial, residential, industrial, and energy sectors. Protect Against Emissions Leakage • Free allowance allocation to minimize leakage, where supported by research. Develop GHG Reduction Programs that can be Readily Exported to Other Jurisdictions • Supports existing and future linkages, allows for larger GHG emissions reductions worldwide through collaborative regional efforts. • Provides leadership on how to integrate short-lived climate pollutants into the broader climate mitigation program. Minimize Costs and Invest in Disadvantaged and Low-Income Communities, and Low-Income Households • Continue to fund programs and projects that reduce GHGs and meaningfully benefit disadvantaged and low-income communities and low-income households through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Avoid or Minimize the Impacts of Climate Change on Public Health • Reduces GHGs and provides leadership nationally and internationally for climate action. • Provides funding for programs such as home weatherization focused on disadvantaged communities, to mitigate potential cost impacts. Compliance Flexibility • Regulated sources self-identify and implement some GHG emissions reductions actions, beyond those already required to comply with additional prescriptive measures. Support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal Climate Programs • Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program can be used to comply with the Clean Power Plan. 35 Programs for Air Quality Improvement in California For half a century, CARB has been a leader in measuring, evaluating, and reducing sources of air pollution that impact public health. Its air pollution programs have been adapted for national programs and emulated in other countries. Significant progress has been made in reducing diesel particulate matter (PM), which is a designated toxic air contaminant, and many other hazardous air pollutants. CARB partners with local air districts to address stationary source emissions and adopts and implements State-level regulations to address sources of criteria and toxic air pollution, including mobile sources. The key air quality strategies being implemented by CARB include the following: • State Implementation Plans (SIPs).72 These comprehensive plans describe how an area will attain national ambient air quality standards by deadlines established by the federal Clean Air Act. SIPs are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs, air district rules, State regulations, and federal controls designed to achieve the emissions reductions needed from mobile sources, fuels, stationary sources, and consumer products. On March 23, 2017, CARB adopted the Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the SIP, describing the commitments necessary to meet federal ozone and PM2.5 standards over the next 15 years. • Diesel Risk Reduction Plan.73 The plan, adopted by CARB in September 2000, outlined 14 recommended control measures to reduce the risks associated with diesel PM and achieve a goal of 75 percent PM reduction by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. Since 2000, CARB has adopted regulations to reduce smog-forming pollutants and diesel PM from mobile vehicles and equipment (e.g., trucks, buses, locomotives, tractors, cargo handling equipment, construction equipment, marine vessels, transport refrigeration units); stationary engines and portable equipment (e.g., emergency standby generators, prime generators, agricultural irrigation pumps, portable generators); and diesel fuels. Diesel PM accounts for approximately 60 percent of the current estimated inhalation cancer risk for background ambient air.74 CARB staff continues to work to improve implementation and enforcement efforts and examine needed amendments to increase the community health benefits of these control measures.• Sustainable Freight Action Plan.75 This joint agency strategy was developed in response to Governor’s Executive Order B-32-15 to improve freight efficiency, transition to zero emission technologies, and increase the competitiveness of California’s freight system. The transition of the freight transport system is essential to support the State’s economic development in the coming decades and reduce air pollution affecting many California communities. • AB 32 Scoping Plan.76 This comprehensive strategy is updated at least every five years and is designed to achieve the State’s climate goals, which includes measures that achieve air pollutant reduction co-benefits. • AB 1807.77 AB 1807 (Tanner, 1983) created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. CARB uses a comprehensive process to prioritize the identification of substances that pose the greatest health threat and to develop airborne toxic control measures to reduce those exposures. CARB has reduced public exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) through control of motor vehicles, fuels, consumer products, and stationary sources, including adopting control measures for 72 CARB. 2016. California State Implementation Plans. www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm73 CARB. 2000. Final Diesel Risk Reduction Plan with Appendices. www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm 74 CARB and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/rma/rmgssat.pdf 75 CARB. 2016. Sustainable Freight Transport. www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/sfti/sfti.htm 76 CARB. 2016. AB 32 Scoping Plan. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm 77 CARB. 2014. California Air Toxics Program – Background. www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/background.htm Chapter 3 e valuat Ion S 36 industrial sources (e.g., perchloroethylene in automotive products; hexavalent chromium from cooling towers, automotive coatings and plating; ethylene oxide from sterilizers and aerators; dioxins from medical waste incinerators; perchloroethylene from dry cleaners; cadmium from metal melting). • AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program.78 The Hot Spots Program supplements the AB 1807 program by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, identification of facilities having localized impacts, notification of nearby residents exposed to a significant health risk, and facility risk management plans to reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels. • AB 617 Community Air Protection Program. Together with the extension of the Cap-and-Trade Program and in recognition of ongoing air quality challenges, California has committed to expand its criteria and toxic emissions reductions efforts through the pursuit of a multipronged approach to reduce localized air pollution and address community exposure, framed by recently-signed new legislation, AB 617 (C. Garcia, 2017). AB 617 outlines actions in five core areas, to be completed in the 2018 to 2020 timeframe, to reduce criteria and toxic emissions in the most heavily impacted areas of the State: • Community-scale air monitoring. Ambient air monitoring is needed to evaluate the status of the atmosphere compared to clean air standards and historical data. Monitoring helps identify and profile air pollution sources, assess emerging measurement methods, characterize the degree and extent of air pollution, and track progress of emissions reductions activities. AB 617 requires a statewide assessment of the current air monitoring network and identification of priority locations where community-level air monitoring will be deployed. • Statewide Strategy to reduce air pollutants impacting communities. CARB will identify locations with high cumulative exposure to criteria and toxic pollutants, the sources contributing to those exposures, and select locations that will be required to develop a community action plan to reduce pollutants to acceptable levels.• Community Action Plans to reduce emissions in identified communities. High priority locations identified in the Statewide Strategy will need to prepare a community action plan that includes emissions reductions targets, measures, and an implementation timeline. The plan will be submitted to CARB for review and approval. • Accelerated retrofits and technology clearinghouse. This effort will focus on stationary source equipment at Cap-and-Trade facilities that, as of 2007, have not been retrofitted with BARCT-level emission controls for nonattainment pollutants. In addition, creation of a statewide clearinghouse that identifies BACT and BARCT technologies and emission levels for criteria pollutants and TACs will be developed to assist the air districts with the BARCT evaluation and identify available emission controls for the Statewide Strategy.• Direct reporting of facility emissions data to CARB. An improved, standardized emission inventory promotes a better understanding of actual emissions and helps identify major emission sources, priorities for emissions reduction, and data gaps requiring further work. AB 617 requires CARB to establish a uniform emission inventory system for stationary sources of criteria pollutants and TACs. Data integration and transparency-related efforts are already required by AB 197 (E. Garcia, 2016) and underway at CARB, so this new task will build on these efforts. Moreover, it is clear that better data reporting is necessary to identify localized exposure risk to harmful criteria and toxic pollutants and actions to address any localized impacts must be taken as quickly as possible. To support efforts to advance the State’s toxics program, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) finalized a new health risk assessment methodology, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, on March 6, 2015, which updates the previous version of the guidance manual and reflects advances in the field of risk assessment along with explicit consideration of infants and children.79 Subsequently, CARB, in collaboration with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), finalized a Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics for the air districts to use to incorporate OEHHA’s new health risk assessment methodology into their stationary source permitting and AB 2588 Air Toxics Hot Spots programs.80 Together, all of these efforts will reduce criteria and toxics emissions in the State, with a focus on the most burdened communities. In particular, AB 617 responds to environmental justice concerns that the Cap-and- 78 CARB. 2016. AB 2588 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. www.arb.ca.gov/ab2588/ab2588.htm 79 OEHHA. 2015. Notice of Adoption of Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments 2015. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0 80 www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/rma/rmgssat.pdf 37 Trade Program does not force large GHG emitters to reduce air pollution which results in localized health impacts. Prior to the passage of AB 617, in February 2017, OEHHA published the first in a series of reports tasked with evaluating the impacts of California’s climate change programs on disadvantaged communities. The initial report focused on the Cap-and-Trade Program.81 Future reports will focus on the impacts of other climate programs on disadvantaged communities. The report confirms disadvantaged communities are frequently located close to large stationary and mobile sources of emissions. It also notes there are complexities in trying to correlate GHGs with criteria and toxics emissions across industry and within sectors, although preliminary data review shows there may be some poor to moderate correlations in specific instances. Lastly, the report noted, “…the emissions data available at this time do not allow for a conclusive analysis.” Two additional reports were released during this same period of time: a California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) report focused on identifying equity issues for disadvantaged communities resulting from the implementation of the Cap-and-Trade Program82 and a research paper examining the question of whether the Cap-and-Trade Program is causing more GHG emissions in disadvantaged communities when compared to other regions.83 Both of these reports also confirmed that disadvantaged communities are disproportionately located close to large stationary and mobile sources of emissions. While the CEJA report noted, “Further research is needed before firm policy conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary analysis,” the research paper, in reference to GHGs, states, “By and large, the annual change in emissions across disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged communities look similar.” While the reports do not provide evidence that implementation of the Cap-and-Trade Program is contributing to increased local air pollution, they do underscore the need to use all of the tools (e.g., enhanced enforcement, new regulations, tighter permit limits) available to the State and local agencies to achieve further emissions reductions of toxic and criteria pollutants that are impacting community health. Importantly, AB 617 provides a new framework and tools for CARB, in collaboration with local air districts, to deploy focused monitoring and ensure criteria and toxics emissions reductions at the State’s largest GHG emitters. AB 197 Measure Analyses This section provides the required AB 197 estimates for the measures evaluated in this Scoping Plan. These estimates provide information on the relative impacts of the evaluated measures when compared to each other. To support the design of a suite of policies that result in GHG reductions, air quality co-benefits, and cost-effective measures, it is important to understand if a measure will increase or reduce criteria pollutants or toxic air contaminant emissions, or if increasing stringency at additional costs yields few additional GHG reductions. To this end, AB 197 (E. Garcia, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016) requires the following for each potential reduction measure evaluated in any Scoping Plan update: • The range of projected GHG emissions reductions that result from the measure. • The range of projected air pollution reductions that result from the measure. • The cost-effectiveness, including avoided social costs, of the measure. As the Scoping Plan was developed, it was important to understand if any of the proposed policies or measures would increase criteria pollutant or toxic air contaminant emissions. Note the important caveats around some of the estimates; they must be considered when using the information in the tables below for purposes other than as intended. Estimated Emissions Reductions for Evaluated Measures For many of the existing programs with known commitments, such as the Mobile Source Strategy, previous analyses provide emission factors or other methods for estimating the impacts required by AB 197. Where available, these values were used. In some cases, estimates are based on data from other sources, such as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Renewables Portfolio Standard Calculator. For newly proposed measures, assumptions were required to estimate the values. Consequently, the estimates for the newly proposed measures have substantial uncertainty. The uncertainty in the impacts of these measures would be reduced as the measures are defined in greater detail during the regulatory processes that are undertaken to 81 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/environmental-justice/report/oehhaab32report020217.pdf82 http://dornsife.usc.edu/PERE/enviro-equity-CA-cap-trade83 https://www.dropbox.com/s/se3ibxkv8t4at8g/Meng_CA_EJ.pdf?dl=1 38 define and adopt the programs. For example, as a measure is developed in detail, ways to obtain additional co-pollutant reductions or avoid co-pollutant increases may be identified and evaluated. Table 5 provides the estimates for the measures evaluated during the development of the Scoping Plan. Based on the estimates below, these measures are expected to provide air quality benefits. The table also provides important context, limitations, and caveats about the values. As shown, the table includes criteria pollutant and diesel PM estimates. As mentioned in the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, diesel PM accounts for 60 percent of the current estimated inhalation cancer risk for background ambient air. As we do not have direct modeling results for criteria and toxic pollutant estimates from PATHWAYS, we are estimating air quality benefits by using reductions in GHGs to assign similar reductions for criteria and toxic pollutants. By assigning an arbitrary 1:1 relationship in changes between GHGs and criteria and toxic pollutants, the air quality reductions likely overestimate the actual reductions from implementation of the measures. As noted in the OEHHA report, the exact relationship between GHGs and air pollutants is not clearly understood at this time. Moving forward, CARB will continue to assess the nature of the exact relationship between GHGs and criteria and toxics emissions. All estimates in Table 5 have some inherent uncertainty. The table allows for assessing measures against each other and should not be used for other purposes without understanding the limitations on the how the air quality values are derived. Table 6 provides a summary of the total estimated emissions reductions for the Scoping Plan Scenario as outlined in Table 1. Table 6 was developed by adding the estimated emissions reductions for all of the measures included within the Scoping Plan Scenario in Table 1. More detail on the estimates for the Scoping Plan Scenario, as well as the specific measures included in each of the other four alternative scenarios can be found in Appendix G. In 2030, the Scoping Plan scenario and alternatives will provide comparable GHG and air quality reductions. When there is a range, the measure or policy should be designed to maximize the benefit to the extent possible. table 5: ranges oF estimated air pollution reduCtions by poliCy or measure in 2030 Measure Range of NOX Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of VOC Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of PM2.5 Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of Diesel PM Reductions (Tons/Day) 50 percent RPS ~0.5 <0.1 ~0.4 < 0.01 Mobile Sources CTF and Freight 51–60 4.6–5.5 ~1.1 ~0.2 18 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS - Liquid Biofuels*3.5–4.4 0.5–0.6 0.4–0.6 ~0.5 Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy –––– 2x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)0.4–0.5 0.5–0.7 < 0.1 < 0.01 Cap-and-Trade Program A A A 4–9 * LCFS estimates include estimates of the NOX and PM2.5 tailpipe benefits limited to renewable diesel consumed in the off-road sector. – CARB is evaluating how to best estimate these values. Criteria and toxic values are shown in tons per day, as they are episodic emissions events with residence times of a few hours to days, unlike GHGs, which have atmospheric residence times of decades. A Due to the inherent flexibility of the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as the overlay of other complementary GHG reduction measures, the mix of compliance strategies that individual facilities may use is not known. However, based on current law and policies that control industrial and electricity generating sources of air pollution, and expected compliance responses, CARB believes that emissions increases at the statewide, regional, or local level due to the regulation are not likely. A more stringent post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program will provide an incentive for covered facilities to decrease GHG emissions and any related emissions of criteria and toxic pollutants. Please see CARB’s Co-Pollutant Emissions Assessment for a more detailed evaluation of a cap-and-trade program and associated air emissions impacts: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capv6appp.pdf NOX = nitrogen oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound Important: These estimates assume a 1:1 relationship between changes in GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminant emissions, and it is unclear whether that is ever the case. The values should not be considered estimates of absolute changes for other analytical purposes and only allow for comparison across measures in the table. The values are estimates that represent current assumptions of how programs may be implemented; actual impacts may vary depending on the design, implementation, and performance of the policies and measures. The table does not show interactions between measures, such as the relationship with increased transportation 39 electrification and associated increase in energy demand for the electricity sector. The measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario are shown in bold font in the table below. Additional details, including GHG reductions, are available in Appendix G. table 6: summary oF r anges oF estimated air pollution reduCtions For the sCoping plan sCenario in 2030 Scenario Range of NOX Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of VOC Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of PM2.5 Reductions (Tons/Day) Range of Diesel PM Reductions (Tons/Day) Scoping Plan Scenario 48–73 5.1–7.3 1.4–2.4 5–10 The total estimates for air pollution reductions provided in this table for the Scoping Plan Scenario are estimated by adding the air pollution benefits for the subset of individual measures examined in Table 5 and included in the Scoping Plan Scenario described in Table 1, and scaled by a risk adjustment factor to capture interactive effects and risks of under/over achieving on air pollution reductions. Appendix G includes details of the specific measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario and Alternatives. All caveats in Table 5 apply to air quality estimates in this table. Estimated Social Costs of Evaluated Measures Consideration of the social costs of GHG emissions is a requirement in AB 197, including evaluation of the avoided social costs for measures within this Scoping Plan.84 Social costs are generally defined as the cost of an action on people, the environment, or society and are widely used to evaluate the impact of regulatory actions. Social costs do not represent the cost of abatement or the cost of GHG reductions, rather social costs estimate the harm that is avoided by reducing GHGs. Since 2008, federal agencies have been incorporating the social costs of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the analysis of their regulatory actions. Agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Energy (DOE) are subject to Executive Order 12866, which directs agencies “to assess both the costs and benefits of the intended regulation…”.85 In 2007, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was directed by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to include the social cost of carbon in a regulatory impact analysis for a vehicle fuel economy rule. The Court stated that “[w]hile the record shows that there is a range of values, the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.”86 In 2009, the Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget convened the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases87 (IWG) to develop a methodology for estimating the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2). This methodology relied on a standardized range of assumptions and could be used consistently when estimating the benefits of regulations across agencies and around the world. The IWG, comprised of scientific and economic experts, recommended the use of SC-CO2 values based on three integrated assessment models (IAMs) developed over decades of global peer-reviewed research.88 In this Scoping Plan, CARB utilizes the current IWG supported SC-CO2 values to consider the social costs of actions to reduce GHG emissions. This approach is in line with Executive Orders including 12866 and the OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003, and reflects the best available science in the estimation of the socio-economic impacts of carbon.89 CARB is aware that the current federal administration has recently withdrawn certain social cost of carbon reports as no longer representative of federal governmental policy.90 However, this determination does not call into question the validity and scientific integrity of federal social 84 AB 197 text available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB197. 85 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf 86 Center for Biological Diversity v National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 06-71891 (9th Cir, November 15 2007)87 Originally titled the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, the IWG was renamed in 2016.88 Additional technical detail on the IWG process is available in the Technical Updates of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866. Iterations of the Updates are available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf, and https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/ scc_tsd_final_clean_8_26_16.pdf. 89 OMB circular A-4 is available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/OMB%20Circular%20No.%20A-4.pdf. 90 See Presidential Executive Order, March 28, 2017, sec. 5(b). 40 cost of carbon work, or the merit of independent scientific work. Indeed, the IWG’s work remains relevant, reliable, and appropriate for use for these purposes. The IWG describes the social costs of carbon as follows: The social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) for a given year is an estimate, in dollars, of the present discounted value of the future damage caused by a 1-metric ton increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere in that year, or equivalently, the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions by the same amount in that year. The SC-CO2 is intended to provide a comprehensive measure of the net damages – that is, the monetized value of the net impacts – from global climate change that result from an additional ton of CO2. These damages include, but are not limited to, changes in net agricultural productivity, energy use, human health, property damage from increased flood risk, as well as nonmarket damages, such as the services that natural ecosystems provide to society. Many of these damages from CO2 emissions today will affect economic outcomes throughout the next several centuries.91 Table 7. presents the range of IWG SC-CO2 values used in regulatory assessments including this Scoping Plan.92 table 7: sC-Co2, 2015-2030 (in 2007 $ per metriC ton) Year 5 Percent Discount Rate 3 Percent Discount Rate 2.5 Percent Discount Rate 2015 $11 $36 $56 2020 $12 $42 $62 2025 $14 $46 $68 2030 $16 $50 $73 The SC-CO2 is year specific, that is, the IAMs estimate the environmental damages from a given year in the future and discount the value of the damages back to the present. For example, the SC-CO2 for the year 2030 represents the value of climate change damages from a release of CO2 in 2030 discounted back to today. The SC-CO2 increases over time as systems become stressed from the aggregate impacts of climate change and future emissions cause incrementally larger damages. Table 7 presents the SC-CO2 across a range of discount rates – or the value today of preventing environmental damages in the future. A higher discount rate decreases the value placed on future environmental damages. This Scoping Plan utilizes the IWG standardized range of discount rates, from 2.5 to 5 percent to represent varying valuation of future damages. The SC-CO2 is highly sensitive to the discount rate. Higher discount rates decrease the value today of future environmental damages. This Scoping Plan utilizes the IWG standardized range of discount rates, from 2.5 to 5 percent to represent varying valuation of future damages. The value today of environmental damages in 2030 is higher under the 2.5 percent discount rate compared to the 3 or 5 percent discount rate, reflecting the trade-off of consumption today and future damages. The IWG estimates the SC-CO2 across a range of discount rates that encompass a variety of assumptions regarding the correlation between climate damages and consumption of goods and is consistent with OMB’s Circular A-4 guidance.93 There is an active discussion within government and academia about the role of SC-CO2 in assessing regulations, quantifying avoided climate damages, and the values themselves. In January 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) released a report examining potential approaches for a comprehensive update to the SC-CO2 methodology to ensure resulting cost estimates reflect the best available science. The NAS review did not modify the estimated values of the SC-CO2, but evaluated the models, assumptions, handling of uncertainty, and discounting used in the estimating of the SC-CO2. The report titled, “Valuating Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,” recommends near-term improvements to the existing IWG SC-CO2 as well as a long-term strategy to more comprehensive updates.94 The State will continue to follow updates to the IWG SC-CO2, including changes 91 From The National Academies, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, 2017, available at: http://www.nap.edu/24651 92 The SC-CO2 values as of July 2015 are available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd- final-july-2015.pdf 93 The National Academies, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, 2017, available at: http://www.nap.edu/24651. 94 The National Academies, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, 2017, available at: 41 outlined in the NAS report, and incorporate appropriate peer-reviewed modifications to estimates based on the latest available data and science. It is important to note that the SC-CO2, while intended to be a comprehensive estimate of the damages caused by carbon globally, does not represent the cumulative cost of climate change and air pollution to society. There are additional costs to society outside of the SC-CO2, including costs associated with changes in co-pollutants, the social cost of other GHGs including methane and nitrous oxide, and costs that cannot be included due to modeling and data limitations. The IPCC has stated that the IWG SC-CO2 estimates are likely underestimated due to the omission of significant impacts that cannot be accurately monetized, including important physical, ecological, and economic impacts.95 CARB will continue engaging with experts to evaluate the comprehensive California-specific impacts of climate change and air pollution. The Social Cost of GHG Emissions Social costs for methane (SC-CH4) and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) have also been developed using methodology consistent with that used in estimating the IWG SC-CO2. These social costs have also been endorsed by the IWG and have been used in federal regulatory analyses.96 Along with the SC-CO2, the State also supports the use of the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O in monetizing the impacts of GHG emissions. While the SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O provide metrics to account for the social costs of climate change, California will continue to analyze ways to more comprehensively identify the costs of climate change and air pollution to all Californians. This will include following updates to the IWG methodology and social costs of GHGs and incorporating the SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O into regulatory analyses. Table 9 presents the estimated social cost for each policy or measure considered in the development of the Scoping Plan in 2030. For each measure or policy, Table 9 includes the range of the IWG SC-CO2 values that result from the anticipated range of GHG reductions in 2030 presented in Appendix G. The SC-CO2 range is obtained using the IWG SC-CO2 values in 2030 at the 2.5, 3, and 5 percent discount rates. These values (of $16 using the 5 percent discount rate, $50 using the 3 percent discount rate, and $73 using the 2.5 percent discount rate) are translated into 2015 dollars and multiplied across the range of estimated reductions by measure in 2030 to estimate the value of avoided social costs from each measure in that year.97 Implementation of the SLCP Strategy will result in reduction of a variety of GHGs, including methane and HFCs, which reported in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). While there is no social cost of CO2e, the avoided damages associated with the methane reductions outlined in the SLCP Strategy are estimated in Table 9 using the IWG SC-CH4 as presented in Table 8.98 table 8: sC-Ch4, 2015-2030 (in 2007$ per metriC ton) Year 5 Percent Discount Rate 3 Percent Discount Rate 2.5 Percent Discount Rate 2015 $450 $1000 $1400 2020 $540 $1200 $1600 2025 $650 $1400 $1800 2030 $760 $1600 $2000 The range of SC-CH4 is obtained using the IWG SC-CH4 values in 2030 at the 2.5, 3, and 5 percent discount rates. The SC-CH4 values (e.g., $760 using the 5 percent discount rate, $1,600 using the 3 percent discount rate, and $2,000 using the 2.5 percent discount rate) are translated into 2015 dollars and multiplied across the range of estimated methane reductions in 2030 to estimate the value of climate benefits from the SLCP http://www.nap.edu/24651 95 https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-5-3-3.html96 More information is available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_ n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf 97 The IWG.SC-CO2 values are in 2007 dollars. In 2015 dollars, $16, $50, and $73 in 2007 translates to about $18, $57, and $83, respectively, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics GDP Series Table 1.1.4.98 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/august_2016_sc_ch4_sc_n2o_addendum_final_8_26_16.pdf 42 Strategy.99 As the social cost associated with the SLCP Strategy does not include the impact associated with non-methane reductions, Table 9 underestimates the avoided social costs of this Scoping Plan as calculated using the IWG valuations. As this Scoping Plan is a suite of policies developed to reduce GHGs to a specific level in 2030, any alternative scenario that also achieves the 2030 target (with the same proportion of carbon dioxide and methane reductions) will have the same avoided social cost, as estimated using the IWG social cost of GHGs, for the single year 2030. The social costs of alternatives could vary if the 2030 target is achieved with vastly different ratios of carbon dioxide to methane reductions. However, all alternatives in this Scoping Plan are anticipated to achieve the same proportion of carbon dioxide and methane reductions and will therefore all have the same estimated avoided social damage or social cost. This social cost, as estimated in 2030 using the IWG SC-CO2 and SC-CH4, ranges from $1.9 to $11.2 billion using the 2.5 to 5 percent discount rates, and is estimated at $5.0 to $7.8 billion using the 3 percent discount rate. For example, in Table 9 the CH4 reductions for the SCLP strategy are about 1 MMTCH4. That value is multiplied by the 2030 SC-CH4 values in Table 8 for the 2030 values at the 2.5 and 5 percent discount rates to get a range of $860 to $2,260 in 2015 dollars. 99 The IWG.SC-CH4 values are in 2007 dollars. In 2015 dollars, the range of SC-CH4 translates to about $858, $1,807, and $2,259, for the 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount rates, respectively. These values are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics GDP Series Table 1.1.4. 43 table 9: estimated soCial Cost (avoided eConomiC damages) oF poliCies or measures Considered in the 2017 sCoping plan development# Measure (Measures in bold are included in the Scoping Plan)Range of Social Cost of Carbon $ million USD (2015 dollars)** 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)$55–$250 Mobile Sources CTF and Freight $200–$1,080 18 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS -Liquid Biofuels $70–$330 Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy $860-$2,260 (SC-CH4) 2x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR $125–$750 Cap-and-Trade Program $610–$6,560 10 percent incremental RPS and additional 10 GW behind-the-meter solar PV*$250–$1,160 25 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS and a Low-Emission Diesel Standard - Liquid Biofuels*$90–$415 20 percent Refinery $55–$500 30 percent Refinery $20–$250 25 percent Industry $20–$415 25 percent Oil and Gas $35–$330 5 percent Increased Utilization of RNG (core and non-core)$35–$165 Mobile Source Strategy (CTF) with Increased ZEVs in South Coast and early retirement of LDVs with more efficient LDVs*$55–$500 2.5x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR, electrification of buildings (heat pumps and res. electric stoves) and early retirement of HVAC*$70–$580 Carbon Tax $775–$8,300 All Cap-and-Trade $700–$6,890 Cap-and-Tax $775–$8,300 Scoping Plan Scenario SC-CO2Scoping Plan Scenario SC-CH4Scoping Plan Scenario (Total) $1,060–$8,970 $860–$2,260 $1,920–$11,230 Note: All values are rounded. The values for SC-CO2 and SC-CH4 in 2030 are presented in Tables 7 and 8. * Where enhancements have been made to a measure or policy, the ranges in emissions reductions are incremental to the original measure. For example, the ranges for the 25 percent LCFS are incremental to the emissions ranges for the 18 percent LCFS. # Measures included in the Scoping Plan and the All Cap-and-Trade measure reflect emissions reductions from modeling changes after passage of AB 398. Emissions reductions from all other measures reflect modeling completed prior to passage of AB 398. See Appendix G for additional details. ** All values have been rounded to the nearest 0 or 5. ~ Some measures do not show a significant change in 2030 when there is an incremental increase in measure stringency or when modeling uncertainty was factored. 44 Social Costs of GHGs in Relation to Cost-Effectiveness AB 32 includes a requirement that “rules and regulations achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions.”100 Under AB 32, cost-effectiveness means the relative cost per metric ton of various GHG reduction strategies, which is the traditional cost metric associated with emission control. In contrast, the SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O are estimates of the economic benefits, and not the cost of reducing GHG emissions. There may be technologies or policies that do not appear to be cost-effective when compared to the SC- CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O associated with GHG reductions. However, these technologies or policies may result in other benefits that are not reflected in the IWG social costs. For instance, the evaluation of social costs might include health impacts due to changes in local air pollution that result from reductions in GHGs, diversification of the portfolio of transportation fuels (a goal outlined in the LCFS) and reductions in criteria pollutant emissions from power plants (as in the RPS). Estimated Cost Per Metric Ton by Measure AB 197 also requires an estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the potential measures evaluated for the Scoping Plan. The values provided in Table 10 are estimates of the cost per metric ton of estimated reductions for each measure in 2030. To capture the fuel and GHG impacts of investments made from 2021 through 2030 to meet the 2030 GHG goal, the table also includes an evaluation of the cost per metric ton based on the cumulative GHG emissions reductions and cumulative costs or savings for each potential measure from 2021 through 2030. While it is important to understand the relative cost effectiveness of measures, the economic analysis presented in Appendix E provides a more comprehensive analysis of how the Scoping Plan and alternative scenarios affect the State’s economy and jobs. The cost (or savings) per metric ton of CO2e reduced for each of the measures is one metric for comparing the performance of the measures. Additional factors beyond the cost per metric ton that could be considered include continuity with existing laws and policies, implementation feasibility, contribution to fuel diversity and technology transformation goals, as well as health and other benefits to California. These considerations are not reflected in the cost per ton metric below. Because many of the measures interact with each other, isolating the cost and GHG savings of an individual measures is analytically challenging. For example, the performance of the renewable electricity measure impacts the GHG savings and cost per ton associated with increasing the use of electric vehicles. Likewise, the increased use of electric vehicles may increase flexible loads on the electric system, enabling increased levels of renewable electricity to be achieved more cost effectively. Both the renewable electricity measure and the increased use of electric vehicles affect the cost of meeting the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. For most of the measures shown in Table 10, the 2030 cost per metric ton is isolated from the other measures by performing a series of sensitivity model runs in the California PATHWAYS model. This cost per metric ton is calculated as the difference in the 2030 annualized cost (or savings) with and without the measure. For the measures in the Scoping Plan Scenario, the analysis starts with the Scoping Plan Scenario PATHWAYS estimates, and then costs and emissions are recalculated with each measure removed individually. For measures included in the No Cap-and-Trade Scenario, the approach starts with the No Cap-and-Trade Scenario PATHWAYS estimates and then each measure is removed. Using this approach, the incremental impact on GHG emissions and costs for each measure is calculated. The incremental cost in 2030 is divided by the incremental GHG emission impact to calculate the cost per ton in 2030. The same approach of removing each measure individually is used to estimate the incremental cost and emission impacts of each measure for the period 2021 to 2030. For each measure, its annual incremental costs from 2021 to 2030 are calculated and then discounted to 2021 using the discount rate used in PATHWAYS to levelize capital costs over the life of equipment. As a result, the discounted incremental cost of each measure is the total investment required from 2021 to 2030 to achieve each measure’s emissions reductions from 2021 to 2030 (including both incremental capital costs and incremental fuel savings/ expenditures). This discounted cost for each measure was divided by its cumulative emissions reductions from 2021 to 2030 to calculate a cost per ton for the measure for the period. A second calculation was also made that divides each measure’s discounted cost by its discounted emissions reductions from 2021 to 2030. The 100 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.pdf 45 same discount rate is used to discount both incremental costs and emissions in this approach. The estimates are presented in the table below. Costs that represent transfers within the state, such as incentive payments for early retirement of equipment, are not included in this California total cost metric. The cost ranges shown below represent some of the uncertainty inherent in estimating this metric. The details of how the ranges for each measure were estimated are described in the footnotes below. All cost estimates have been rounded representing further uncertainty in individual values. It is important to note that this cost per metric ton does not represent an expected market price value for carbon mitigation associated with these measures. In addition, the single year (2030) values and the estimates that encompass 2021 to 2030 do not capture the fuel savings or GHG reductions associated with the full economic lifetime of measures that have been implemented by 2030, but whose impacts extend beyond 2030. The estimates also do not capture the climate or health benefits of the GHG mitigation measures. Table 10 also notes the measures for which sources other than the PATHWAYS model were used to develop estimates of the cost per metric ton. The estimates in the table indicate that the relative cost of the measures is reasonably consistent across the different measures of cost per metric ton. Measures that are relatively less costly using the 2030 cost per metric ton are also less costly using the cost per metric ton based on the period 2021 to 2030. However, for several measures the sign of the estimate differs, such that in 2030 the measure has a positive cost while there is a negative cost for the period 2021 to 2030. This difference in sign occurs because the measure includes increasingly costly investments toward the end of the period examined. By examining only 2030, the lower cost components of the measure that occur in earlier years are omitted, resulting in a higher cost estimate for 2030 alone. 46 table 10: estimated Cost per metriC ton oF measures Considered in the 2017 sCoping plan development and averaged From 2021 through 2030 Important: As individual measures are designed and implemented they will be subject to further evaluation and refinement and public review, which may result in different findings than presented below. The ranges are estimates that represent current assumptions of how programs may be implemented and may vary greatly depending on the design, implementation, and performance of the policies and measures. Measures in bold text are included in the Scoping Plan. Measure Cost/metric ton in 2030* Cost/metric ton 2021-2030** 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) a $175 $100 to $200 Mobile Sources CFT and Freight b <$50 <$50 Liquid Biofuels (18 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS) c $150 $100 to $200 Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy d $25 $25 2x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR f -$350 -$300 to -$200 10 percent incremental RPS and additional 10 GW behind-the-meter solar PV a $350 $250 to $450 Liquid Biofuels (25 percent Carbon Intensity Reduction Target for LCFS and a Low-Emission Diesel Standard) b $900 $550 to $975 20 percent Refinery d $100 $50 to $100 30 percent Refinery d $300 $175 to $325 25 percent Industry d $200 $150 to $275 25 percent Oil and Gas d $125 $100 to $175 5 percent Increased Utilization of renewable natural gas - core and non-core e $1500 $1350 to $3000 Mobile Source Strategy (CFT) with Increased ZEVs in South Coast & additional reductions in VMT and energy demand & early retirement of LDVs with more efficient LDVs b $100 <$50 2.5x additional achievable energy efficiency in the 2015 IEPR, electrification of buildings (heat pumps & res. electric stoves) and early retirement of HVAC f $75 -$120 to -$70 * Where enhancements have been made to a measure or policy, the cost per metric ton are incremental to the original measure. For example, the cost per metric ton for the 25 percent LCFS are incremental to the cost per metric ton for the 18 percent LCFS. ** The lower values use a cost discount rate of 10 percent and cumulative emissions for the period 2021 to 2030. The higher values discount both costs and emissions using a discount rate of 10 percent. a Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. b Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. c Liquid biofuel values are calculated as the average unsubsidized cost of biofuels supplied above that of an equivalent volume of fossil fuels. These values do not reflect impacts from other biofuel policies, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard or production tax credits, that are partially supported by fuel purchasers/taxpayers outside of California. Therefore, these values do not represent LCFS program costs or potential LCFS credit prices. d See Appendix D e Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. f Cost estimate is based on PATHWAYS sensitivity analysis as described in the main text. The cost per metric ton does not represent the results of the CPUC’s or CEC’s standard cost-effectiveness evaluation tests 47 Health Analyses Climate mitigation will result in both environmental and health benefits. This section presents information about the potential health benefits of the Scoping Plan. The impacts are primarily from reduced particulate matter pollution, reduced toxics pollution (both diesel combustion particles and other toxic pollutants), and the health benefits of increased physical activity that will result from more active modes of transportation such as walking and biking in lieu of driving. CARB is using the AB 197 air quality estimates in Table 5 as a proxy to understand the potential health impacts from the Scoping Plan. There is uncertainty in the air quality estimates and that is carried through to the health impacts evaluation presented here. In the future, CARB will be working to explore how to better integrate health analysis and health considerations in the design and implementation of climate programs. Because the health endpoints of each of these benefits is different (e.g., fewer incidences of premature mortality, lower cancer risk, and fewer incidences of heart disease), the methodologies for estimating the benefits differ. Further, the methodologies are statistical estimates of adverse health outcomes aggregated to the statewide level. Therefore, this information should only be used to understand the relative health benefits of the various strategies and should not be taken as an absolute estimate of the health outcomes of the Scoping Plan statewide, or within a specific community. The latter is a function of the unique exposure to air pollutants within each community and each individual’s choice of more active transport modes that increase physical activity. The estimates of health benefits in this section do not include any potential avoided adverse health impacts associated with a reduction in global climate change. While we recognize that mitigating climate change will, for example, prevent atmospheric temperature rise, thereby preventing increases in ozone in California, which will result in fewer breathing problems, the connection is difficult to estimate or model. Since it takes collective global action to mitigate climate change, the following analyses do not attempt to quantify the improved health outcomes from reducing or stopping the rise in global temperatures. The estimated statewide health benefits of the Scoping Plan are dominated by reductions in particulate matter from mobile sources and wood burning and a switch to more active transport modes. In particular, the focus on the impacts of exposure to particulate matter from mobile sources is expected because this is a major cause of air pollution statewide. For this reason, the actions concerning mobile sources in the Scoping Plan were specifically developed with the goal of achieving health-based air quality standards by reducing criteria and toxics emissions as well as GHG emissions simultaneously. In addition, actions that support walkable communities not only result in reduced VMT and related GHG emissions, but promote active transport and increased physical activity that is strongly related to improved health. Table 11 provides a summary of the total estimated health benefits from the relevant metrics for the Scoping Plan. The sections below summarize the methodologies used to estimate these benefits. More detail on how these estimates were calculated can be found in Appendix G. The air pollutant values used in estimating the health impacts are from Table 5 and all caveats in the estimation of the air quality impacts must be considered when reviewing the health impacts discussed below as the air pollutant values are likely overestimates based on assigned relationships to GHGs that may not be real. Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Particulate Matter Air Pollution CARB relied on an U.S. EPA-approved methodology to estimate the health impacts of reducing air pollution by actions in the Scoping Plan. This methodology relies on an incidents-per-ton factor to quantify the health benefits of directly emitted (diesel particles and wood smoke) and secondary PM2.5 formed from oxides of nitrogen from reductions due to regulatory controls. It is similar in concept to the methodology developed by the U.S. EPA for comparable estimations101, but uses California air basin specific relationships between emissions and air quality. The basis of the methodology is an approximately linear relationship between changes in PM2.5 emissions and estimated changes in health outcomes. In this methodology, the number of premature deaths is estimated by multiplying emissions by the incidents-per-ton scaling factor. The factors are derived from studies that correlate the number of incidents (premature deaths, hospitalizations, emergency room visits) associated with exposure to PM2.5. 101 Fann, N., Fulcher, C.M, & Hubbell, B.J. (2009) The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. (2009)Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2(3), 169–176 48 Potential Health Impacts of Reductions in Toxic Air Pollution A number of factors complicate any attempt to evaluate the health benefits of reducing exposure to toxic air pollution. First, there are hundreds of individual chemicals of concern with widely varying health effects and potencies. Therefore, a single metric is of limited value in capturing the range of potential toxics benefits. Furthermore, unlike the criteria pollutants whose impacts are generally measured on regional scales, toxics pose concern for both near-source impacts and larger-scale photochemical transformations and transport. Finally, the accepted scientific understanding for cancer risk is that there is usually no safe threshold for exposures to carcinogens. Therefore, cancer risks are usually expressed as “chances per million” of contracting cancer over a (70-year) lifetime exposure (in Table 11 lifetime exposure is provided in the far right column). In light of these complexities, CARB relied on the most recent National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) conducted by the U.S. EPA.102 The NATA 2011 models the potential risks from breathing emissions of approximately 180 toxic air pollutants across the country. Modeled cancer risk results are available by census tract. The NATA data cover industrial facilities, mobile sources (on-road and off-road), small area- wide sources, and more. CARB multiplied the NATA “cancer risk-per-million” values by census tract by the census tract’s population, in order to estimate a population-weighted metric that could be aggregated to the statewide level. This statistic should not be construed as actual real-world cancers (due to the many uncertainties in estimating the real-world levels of risk). Next, CARB applied the percent reductions in emissions due to Scoping Plan actions, in order to obtain an estimate of the “avoided incidence” of statistical lifetime cancers attributable to implementation of the Scoping Plan. Again, the “avoided incidence” is a construct designed to provide a useful statistical metric for comparative purposes among scenarios. It should not be construed to be a real-world parameter. Potential Health Impacts of Active Transportation High levels of active transportation have been linked to improved health and reduced premature mortality by increasing daily physical activity, representing a major direct co-benefit of using active transportation as a strategy to reduce GHG emissions. The benefits of physical activity can be very large. Individuals who are active for approximately 12 minutes a day have a 20 percent lower risk of dying early than those who are active for just 5 minutes a day and those who are active an hour a day, have close to a 40 percent lower risk of premature death.103 The Scoping Plan includes reductions in VMT, which can be achieved in a number of ways, including increased active transportation. To estimate the potential health benefits of active transport, CARB staff reviewed work done by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) concerning the potential health benefits associated with the Caltrans Strategic Management Plan. In this Management Plan, Caltrans set a target for increasing the adoption of active transportation, aiming for a doubling of walking and a tripling of bicycle trips by 2020 compared to 2010. While this plan itself is not part of the Scoping Plan, it helps provide a sense of the magnitude of health benefits associated with increased active transportation. CDPH performed a risk assessment to compare the number of premature deaths due to physical inactivity and traffic injuries in the baseline year of 2010 to the year 2020, assuming that Caltrans’ walking and bicycling mode share targets were met.104 CPDH’s methodology has been documented in a publicly available technical manual105 and the model has appeared in many peer-reviewed research articles.106 It has been in development 102 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011), National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 2011, https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-assessment-results 103 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008) Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, Washington, DC104 Maizlish, N. (2016a) Increasing Walking, Cycling, and Transit: Improving Californians’ Health, Saving costs, and Reducing Greenhouse Gases. Office of Health Equity, California Department of Public Health. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Maizlish-2016-Increasing-Walking-Cycling- Transit-Technical-Report-rev8-17-ADA.pdf105 Maizlish, N. (2016b) Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model (ITHIM): A Guide to Operation, Calibration and Integration with Travel Demand Models. California Spreadsheet Version December 12, 2016.106 Gotschi, T., Tainio, M., Maizlish, N., Schwanen, T., Goodman, A., & Woodcock, J. (2015). Contrasts in active transport behaviour across four countries: how do they translate into public health benefits? Preventative Medicine, 74, 42-48. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.02.009 Maizlish, N., Woodcock, J., Co, S., Ostro, B., Fanai, A., & Fairley, D. (2013). Health cobenefits and transportation-related reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay area. American journal of public health, 103(4), 703-709. doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.300939 Whitfield, G. P., Meehan, L. A., Maizlish, N., & Wendel, A. M. (2016). The Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modeling 49 since 2009, and a California-specific version was released with a recent update in November 2016.107 CDPH estimated that 2,100 premature deaths annually would be avoided if Californians met the Management Plan’s 2020 targets were met by Californians compared to 2010 travel patterns. A recent paper by Dr. Maizlish et al108 quantified the health co-benefits of the preferred Sustainable Communities Strategies scenarios (compared to the 2010 baseline travel pattern) for the major Metropolitan Planning Organizations using the same methodology and found that 940 deaths annually would be avoided. For both analyses, there were significant reductions in cause-specific premature mortality due to increased physical activity, which was slightly counteracted by a much smaller increase in fatal traffic injuries due to the increased walking and bicycling. When taken together, the health benefit of increasing active transportation greatly outweighed the increased mortality from road traffic collisions. The Scoping Plan goals related to active transportation are more aggressive than those in both the Maizlish et al. 2017 publication and the analysis by CDPH for the Management Plan. Therefore, CARB staff used the CDPH estimate of approximately 2,100 fewer premature deaths from the Management Plan as a lower bound of what could be realized through implementation of the VMT reductions and active transport goals called for in the Scoping Plan Scenario. table 11: summary oF r anges oF estimated health impaC ts For the sCoping plan sCenario in 2030 Fewer Premature Deaths Fewer Hospitalizations (all) Fewer ER visits Fewer cancers * Diesel PM ~60-91 ~9-14 ~25-38 Secondary PM ~76-120 ~11-17 ~33-50 Toxics ~21-61 Wood smoke ~1000 ~ 148 ~ 418 Active Transport**>2100 Total ~3300 ~180 ~500 ~21-61 * This metric should not be construed as actual real-world cancer cases. It is intended to be a comparative metric, based on the NATA estimates of lifetime cancer risk (chances-per-million over a 70 year life-time exposure) by census tract multiplied by the tract population. ** Reduction in premature death assumes meeting the CSMP 2020 mode shift target. Note: The numbers in the table represent individual avoided incidences. Tool in Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Implementation Steps and Lessons Learned. Journal of transport & health, 3. doi:10.1016/j. jth.2016.06.009 Woodcock, J. (2015). Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM). Retrieved from http://www.cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/research/modelling/ithim/ Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Tonne, C., Armstrong, B. G., Ashiru, O., Banister, D., & Roberts, I. (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet, 374(9705), 1930-1943. doi:10.1016/s0140- 6736(09)61714-1 Woodcock, J., Givoni, M., & Morgan, A. S. (2013). Health impact modelling of active travel visions for England and Wales using an Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM). PLoS One, 8(1), e51462. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051462 Woodcock, J., Tainio, M., Cheshire, J., O’Brien, O., & Goodman, A. (2014). Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 348, g425. doi:10.1136/bmj.g425107 Woodcock, J. Maizlish, N. (2016). ITHIM: Integrated Transport & Health Impact Modelling, California Version, November 11, 2016. Original citation: Woodcock J, Givoni M, Morgan AS. Health Impact Modelling of Active Travel Visions for England and Wales Using an Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM). PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51462.108 Maizlish N, Linesch N,& Woodcock J.(2017) Health and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of ambitious expansion of cycling, walking, and transit in California. Journal of Transport and Health. ; doi: 10.1016/j.jth.2017.04.011 50 Future Health Activities As Table 11 shows, the Scoping Plan measures would have significant potential positive health outcomes. The integrated nature of the strategies to reduce emissions of GHGs and criteria and toxics emissions could provide multiple benefits. Actions to reduce black carbon from wood smoke are reducing the same particles that lead to premature mortality. Reductions in fossil combustion will not only reduce GHG emissions, but also toxics emissions. Finally, reducing VMT with strategies that provide opportunities for people to switch to active transport modes can have very large health benefits resulting from increased physical activity. In recognition of the potential for significant positive health benefits of the Scoping Plan, CARB is initiating a process to better understand how to integrate health analysis broadly into the design and implementation of our climate change programs with the goal of maximizing the health benefits. Although health impact assessments have been used to inform CARB’s policymaking, these analyses have not been consistently integrated into the general up-front design of CARB programs. To begin the effort to increase health benefits from climate change mitigation policies, CARB will convene a public meeting in Spring 2018 to solicit input on how best to incorporate health analyses into our policy development. CARB staff will seek appropriate tools for these analyses and will assemble a team of academic advisors to provide input on the latest developments in methods and data sources. Economic Analyses The following section outlines the economic impact of the Scoping Plan relative to the business-as-usual Reference Scenario. Additional detail on the economic analysis, including modeling details and the estimated economic impact of alternative scenarios is presented in Appendix E. The Scoping Plan outlines a path to achieve the SB 32 target that requires less reliance on fossil fuels and increased investment in low carbon fuels and clean energy technologies. Through this shift, California can lead the world in developing the technologies needed to reduce the global risks of climate change. This builds on California’s current successes of reducing GHG emissions while also developing a cleaner, resilient economy that uses less energy and generates less pollution. Innovation in low-carbon technologies will continue to open growth opportunities for investors and businesses in California. As modeled, the analysis in this Scoping Plan suggests that the costs of transitioning to this lower carbon economy are small, even without counting the potential opportunities for new industries and innovation in California. Under the Scoping Plan, the California economy, employment, and personal income will continue to grow as California businesses and consumers make clean energy investments and improve efficiency and productivity to reduce energy costs. In 2030, the California economy is projected to grow to $3.4 trillion, an average growth rate of 2.2 percent per year from 2021 to 2030. It is not anticipated that implementation of the Scoping Plan will change the growth of annual State Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Further, this growth in GDP will occur under the entire projected range of Cap-and-Trade Program allowance prices. Based on this analysis, in 2030 the California economy will take only three months longer to grow to the GDP estimated in the absence of the Scoping Plan–referred to as the Reference Scenario. The impact of the Scoping Plan on job growth is also negligible, with employment less than one half of one percent smaller in 2030 compared to the Reference Scenario. Additionally, reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels under the Scoping Plan will lead to avoided social damages from climate change on the order of $1.9 to $11.2 billion, as estimated using the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4, as well as additional potential savings from reductions in air pollution and petroleum dependence. These impacts are not accounted for in this economic analysis. The estimated impact to California households is also modest in 2030. In 2030, the average annual household impact of the Scoping Plan ranges from $115 to $280, depending on the price of reductions under the Cap-and-Trade Program.109 Estimated personal income in California is also relatively unchanged by the implementation of the Scoping Plan. 109 Household projections are obtained from the California Department of Finance and were access on March 16, 2017 at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/. 51 Overview of Economic Modeling Two models are used to estimate the economic impact of the Scoping Plan and California’s continued clean energy transition: (1) the California PATHWAYS model, and (2) the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight Plus model. The California PATHWAYS model estimates the direct costs and GHG emissions reductions of implementing the prescriptive (or non-Cap-and-Trade) measures in the Scoping Plan relative to the BAU scenario.110 Direct costs are the sum of the incremental changes in capital expenditures and fuel expenditures, including fuel savings for reduced energy use from efficiency measures. In most cases, reducing GHG emissions requires the use of more expensive equipment that can be operated using less fuel. In the Scoping Plan, the prescriptive measures modeled in PATHWAYS account for a portion of the GHG reductions required to meet the 2030 target. The remaining reductions are delivered through the Cap-and-Trade Program. The direct costs associated with the Cap-and-Trade Program are calculated outside of PATHWAYS based on an assumed range of Cap-and-Trade allowance prices from 2021 through 2030. To estimate the future costs of the Scoping Plan, this economic analysis necessarily creates a hypothetical future California that is essentially identical to today, adjusted for currently existing climate policy as well as projected economic and population growth through 2030. The analysis cannot predict the types of innovation that will create efficiencies nor can it fully account for the significant economic benefits associated with reducing emissions. Rather, the economic modeling is conducted by estimating incremental capital and clean fuel costs of measures and assigning those costs to certain sectors within this hypothetical future. The macroeconomic impacts of the Scoping Plan on the California economy are modeled using the REMI model with output from California PATHWAYS and estimated Cap-and-Trade Program costs as inputs. Additional methodological detail is presented in Appendix E.111 Estimated Cost of Prescriptive Measures As described above, the Scoping Plan combines new measures addressing legislative mandates and the extension of existing measures, including a comprehensive cap on overall GHG emissions from the State’s largest sources of pollution. The PATHWAYS model calculates costs and GHG emissions reductions associated with the prescriptive measures in the Scoping Plan. Changes in energy use and capital investment are calculated in PATHWAYS and represent the estimated cost of achieving an estimated 50 to 70 percent of the cumulative GHG reductions required to reach the SB 32 target between 2021 and 2030. The Cap-and- Trade Program delivers any remaining reductions, as shown in Figure 8. Table 12 outlines the cost of prescriptive measures by sector in 2030, compared to the Reference Scenario, as calculated in PATHWAYS. Estimated capital costs of equipment are levelized over the life of the equipment using a 10 percent discount rate and fuel costs are calculated on an annual basis.112 The costs in Table 12 are disaggregated into capital costs and fuel costs, which includes the varying costs of gasoline, diesel, biofuels, natural gas, electricity and other fuels.113 Table 12 assumes that all prescriptive measures deliver anticipated GHG reductions, and does not include any uncertainty in GHG reductions or cost.114 The impact of uncertainty in GHG reductions is explored in more detail in Appendices E, which include additional detail on measure, cost, and Reference Scenario uncertainty. The prescriptive measures result in incremental capital investments of $6.7 billion per year in 2030, but these annual capital costs are nearly offset by annual fuel savings of $6.6 billion in 2030. The incremental net cost of prescriptive measures in the Scoping Plan is estimated at $100 million in 2030, which represents 0.03 percent of the projected California economy in 2030. The residential and transportation sectors are anticipated to see net savings in 2030 as fuel savings for these areas vastly outweigh annual capital investment. Several sectors will see a net cost increase from implementation of the prescriptive measures. The industrial sector sees higher fuel costs relative to the Reference Scenario. In the agriculture sector, capital expenditures are due to investments in more efficient lighting and the mitigation of agricultural methane and nitrogen oxides. Agricultural fuel costs increase due to higher electricity and liquid biofuel costs. 110 The PATHWAYS modeling is described in Chapter 2, and additional detail is presented in Appendix D. 111 Additional modeling details are available at the REMI PI+ webpage: http://www.remi.com/products/pi.112 PATHWAYS costs are calculated in real $2012. For this analysis, all costs are reported in $2015. The PATHWAYS costs are inflated using Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data available at: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable. cfm?ReqID=9#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1&903=4.113 Additional information on the fuels included in PATHWAYS is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/1142016/ e3pathways.pdf.114 More information on the inputs to the California PATHWAYS model is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_ scenario_description2016-12-01.pdf. 52 table 12: Change in pathways seCtor Costs in 2030 relative to the reFerenCe sCenario (billion $2015)115 End Use Sector116 Levelized Capital Cost Fuel Cost Total Annual Cost Residential $0.1 -$1.2 -$1.1 Commercial $1.8 -$1.8 $0.1 Transportation $3.5 -$3.8 -$0.3 Industrial $0.8 $0.3 $0.5 Oil and Gas Extraction $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 Petroleum Refining $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Agriculture $0.3 $0.2 $0.5 TCU (Transportation Communications and Utilities) $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 Total $6.7 -$6.6 $0.1 Note: Table values may not add due to rounding. Estimated Cost of the Cap-and-Trade Program The direct cost of achieving GHG reductions through the Cap-and-Trade Program is estimated outside of PATHWAYS. The Cap-and-Trade Program sets an economy-wide GHG emissions cap and gives firms the flexibility to choose the lowest-cost approach to reduce emissions. As with the prescriptive measures, the direct costs of any single specific GHG reduction activity under the Cap-and-Trade Program is subject to a large degree of uncertainty. However, as Cap-and-Trade allows covered entities to pursue the reduction options that emerge as the most efficient, overall abatement costs can be bounded by the allowance price. Covered entities should pursue reduction actions with costs less than or equal to the allowance price. An upper bound on the compliance costs under the Cap-and-Trade Program can therefore be estimated by multiplying the range of anticipated allowance prices by the anticipated GHG reductions needed (in conjunction with the reductions achieved through the prescriptive measures) to achieve the SB 32 target. A large number of factors influence the allowance price, including the ease of substituting lower carbon production methods, consumer price response, the pace of technological progress, and impacts to the price of fuel. Other policy factors that also affect the allowance price include the use of auction proceeds from the sale of State-owned allowances and linkage with other jurisdictions. Flexibility allows the Cap-and-Trade allowance price to adjust to changes in supply and demand while a firm cap ensures GHG reductions are achieved. This analysis includes a range of allowance prices bounded at the low end by the Cap-and-Trade auction floor price (C+T Floor Price) which represents the minimum sales price for allowances sold at auction and the Allowance Price Containment Reserve Price (C+T Reserve Price), which represents the price at which an additional pool of allowances will be made available to ensure entities can comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program and is the highest anticipated price under the Program. Table 13 outlines the projected allowance prices used in this analysis.117 115 PATHWAYS costs reported in $2012 are inflated to $2015 using the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data available at: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1&903=4.116 Information on the end use sectors are available in the California PATHWAYS documentation available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.117 The Cap-and-Trade allowance price range is based on the Cap-and-Trade Regulation approved by the Office of Administrative 53 table 13: estimated r ange oF Cap-and-trade allowanCe priCe 2021–2030* ($2015)2021 2025 2030 C+T Floor Price $16.2 $19.7 $25.2 C+T Reserve Price $72.9 $76.4 $81.9 * Based on current regulation in effect October 1, 2017 Uncertainty in the GHG reduction potential of prescriptive measures in the Scoping Plan can affect the cost of achieving the 2030 target. The aggregate emissions cap of the Cap-and-Trade Program ensures that the 2030 target will be met–irrespective of the GHG emissions realized through prescriptive measures. If GHG reductions anticipated under prescriptive measures do not materialize, the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for a larger share of emissions reductions. Under that scenario, the demand for Cap-and-Trade allowances may rise, resulting in an increase in allowance price. While the Cap-and-Trade allowance price may rise, it is highly unlikely that it will rise above the C+T Reserve price, given the program design. If prescriptive measures deliver anticipated GHG reductions, demand for allowances will be low, depressing the price of allowances. However, the C+T Floor Price represents the lowest price at which allowances can be sold at auction. Table 14 presents the estimated direct cost estimates for GHG reductions achieved through the Cap-and- Trade Program in 2030. These costs represent the lower and upper bounds of the cost of reducing GHG emissions to achieve the SB 32 target under the Scoping Plan. The estimated direct costs range from $1.6 to $5.1 billion dollars (in $2015), depending on the allowance price in 2030. This range highlights the allowance price uncertainty that is a trade-off to the GHG reduction certainty provided by the Cap-and-Trade Program. The estimated cost of GHG reductions is calculated by multiplying the allowance price by the GHG emissions reductions required to achieve the SB 32 target. Sensitivity Analysis In addition to uncertainty in the Cap-and-Trade allowance price and uncertainty in the GHG reductions achieved through the prescriptive measures, there is uncertainty in the GHG emissions that will occur under the Reference Scenario, as presented in Figure 6. There is also uncertainty in costs embedded within the Reference Scenario including the price of oil, other energy costs, and technology costs. The PATHWAYS incremental cost results are also sensitive to the fossil fuel price assumptions. Altering the fuel price trajectory in the Reference Scenario directly impacts the incremental cost of achieving GHG reductions in the Scoping Plan, as the costs of the Scoping Plan are relative to the Reference Scenario.118 The PATHWAYS scenarios use fossil fuel price projections from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2015 reference case.119 To estimate the impact of changes in future fuel prices on the estimated incremental cost of the Scoping Plan two sensitivities were conducted. In the low fuel price sensitivity, the AEO low oil and natural gas price case is used to project the future cost of fuels in the Reference Scenario. The cost of the Scoping Plan, relative to the Reference Scenario, increases under these conditions, since fuel savings are less valuable when fuel prices are low. A second sensitivity shows that high future oil and natural gas prices (as projected in the AEO high oil price case) reduce the net cost of the Scoping Plan, relative to the Reference Scenario. This is because avoided fuel savings are more valuable when fuel prices are high. Table 14 outlines the costs and savings from the Scoping Plan (both prescriptive measures and cap-and-trade) under the high and low fuel price sensitivities. The price of oil and natural gas affects the value of fuel savings (as presented in Table 12), which are estimated to be significant using AEO reference oil and natural gas prices. Under the low fuel price sensitivity, Law on September 18, 2017. Documentation is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2016/capandtrade16/capandtrade16.htm 118 In addition to the fuel cost sensitivities presented in this section, Appendix E includes an uncertainty analysis of the Scoping Plan Scenario and alternatives. This analysis addresses uncertainty in the Reference Scenario emissions, GHG reductions from each measure, as well as capital and fuel costs.119 The high and low fuel price sensitivity ranges are derived from differences between the AEO 2016 High Oil Price or Low Oil Price forecast and the AEO 2016 reference case, and are applied as ratios to the base case fuel price assumptions (which are based on the AEO 2015 report). The AEO 2015 report is available at: http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf and the AEO 2016 report is available for download at: http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2016).pdf. 54 the net incremental cost of prescriptive measures is $2.9 billion in 2030. Under the high fuel price sensitivity, the prescriptive measures result in net savings of $4.9 billion in 2030. Table 14 also shows that these price uncertainties are captured within the analyzed range of allowance prices. As described above, changes in fuel prices may affect the price of Cap-and-Trade allowances, but the price is highly unlikely to go outside the range of prices bounded by the C+T Floor Price and C+T Reserve Price. The final column in Table 14 presents the estimated direct cost of the Scoping Plan, including both the prescriptive measures and a range of estimated costs to achieve GHG reductions under the Cap-and-Trade Program for varying projections of future fuel prices. The total cost, reflecting fuel and allowance price uncertainty, ranges from an annual savings to California of $3.3 billion to an annual cost of $8.0 billion in 2030. The net climate benefits, as estimated by the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4, outweigh these direct costs.120 table 14: estimates oF direCt Cost and Climate beneFits in 2030 relative to the reFerenCe sCenario and inCluding Fuel priCe sensitivity (billion $2015) Scenario Prescriptive Measures C+T Floor Price C+T Reserve Price 2030 Total Cost Scoping Plan $0.1 $1.6 $5.1 $1.7 to $5.2 Low Fuel Price Sensitivity $2.9 $1.6 $5.1 $4.5 to $8.0 High Fuel Price Sensitivity -$4.9 $1.6 $5.1 -$3.3 to -$0.2 Fuel price sensitivity is directly modeled in PATHWAYS, resulting in a range of impacts from prescriptive measures. The range of costs labeled “2030 Total Cost” includes the cost of prescriptive measures estimated in PATHWAYS and the impact of the Cap and-Trade Program calculated at the C+T Floor Price (the lower bounds) and the C+T Reserve Price (the upper bounds).The social cost of GHGs estimated range in 2030 is $1.9 to $11.2 billion. Macroeconomic Impacts The macroeconomic impacts of the Scoping Plan are estimated using the REMI model. Annual capital and fuel costs (for example, the costs in Table 12) are estimated using PATHWAYS and input into the REMI model to estimate the impact of the Scoping Plan on the California economy each year relative to GDP, which is often used as a proxy for economic growth, as well as employment, personal income, and changes in output by sector and consumer spending. Table 15 presents key macroeconomic impacts of implementing the Scoping Plan, based on the range of anticipated allowance prices. In 2030, under the Scoping Plan, growth across the indicators is about one-half of one percent less than the Reference Scenario. The results in Table 15 include not only the estimated direct cost of the Cap-and-Trade Program, but also distribution of allowance value from the auction of Cap-and-Trade allowances to California and consumers. See Appendix E for more detail on the modeling of the return of allowance value under the Cap-and-Trade Program in REMI. The Cap-and-Trade Program is modeled in REMI as an increase in production cost to sectors based on estimated future GHG emissions and anticipated free allowance allocation. If a sector is expected to receive free allocation of allowances, the value of those free allowances is not modeled as a cost in REMI. The analysis does include the estimated benefit to sectors due to the proceeds from the auction of cap-and-trade allowances and assumes that each year $2 billion of proceeds from the auction of State-owned cap-and- trade allowances are distributed to the economic sectors currently receiving GGRF appropriations. These funds work to achieve further GHG reductions in California, lower the cost to businesses of reducing GHG emissions and protect disadvantaged communities. Any auction proceeds remaining after the distribution of $2 billion through GGRF sectors are distributed evenly to consumers in California as a dividend. The estimated costs in Table 15 include the cost of the GHG reductions to sectors, as well as the benefit to those sectors when allowance proceeds are returned through the GGRF and as a dividend to consumers, as detailed in Appendix E. 120 Climate benefits are estimated using the Social Cost of Carbon in 2030 across the range of discount rates from 2.5 to 5 percent. All values are reported in $2015. Additional information on the Social Cost of Carbon is available from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of- the-social-cost-of. 55 table 15: maCroeConomiC indiCators in 2030 under base Fuel priCe assumptions Reference Scenario (2030) Scoping Plan (2030) Percentage Change Relative to Reference Scenario California GDP (Billion $2015) $3,439 $3,430 to $3,420 -0.3 percent to -0.6 percent Employment (Thousand Jobs) 23,522 23,478 to 23,441 -0.2 percent to -0.3 percent Personal Income (Billion $2015) $3,010 $3,006 to $3,008 -0.1 percent to -0.1 percent Table 15 was estimated using the REMI model. The range of costs for the Scoping Plan represents the impact of achieving the SB 32 target through prescriptive measures and the Cap-and-Trade Program at the C+T Floor Price (the lower bounds) and the C+T Reserve Price (the upper bounds). It is important to put the results of Table 15 into context of the growing $3.4 trillion California economy in 2030. As noted earlier, the economic analysis does not include avoided social damages and other potential savings from reductions in air pollution and petroleum dependency. Determining employment changes as a result of policies is challenging to model, due to a range of uncertainties and global trends that will influence the California economy, regardless of implementation of the Scoping Plan. The global economy is seeing a shift toward automation and mechanization, which may lead to slowing of employment across some industries globally, irrespective of California’s energy and low carbon investments. In California, employment is projected to reach 23.5 million jobs in 2030. In this analysis, implementing the Scoping Plan would slow the growth of employment by less than one-half of one percent in 2030. Estimated personal income in California is relatively unchanged under the Scoping Plan relative to the Reference Scenario. Considering the uncertainty in the modeling, modest changes in the growth of personal income are not different from zero, which suggests that meeting the SB 32 target will not change the growth of personal income relative to the Reference Scenario. When analyzing the estimated macroeconomic impacts, it is important to remember that a major substitution of electricity and capital away from fossil fuels is anticipated to have a very small effect on California GDP, employment, and personal income–less than one percent relative to the Reference Scenario in 2030. The economic impacts indicate that shifting money and investment away from fossil fuels and to clean energy is likely to have a negligible effect on the California economy. Additionally, it is certain that innovation will continue as new technologies are developed and implemented. While this analysis projects the costs and GHG reductions of current technologies over time, it does not capture the impact of new technologies that may shift the economy and California in unanticipated ways or benefits related to changes in air pollution and improvements to human health, avoided environmental damages, and positive impacts to natural and working lands. Thus, the results of this analysis very likely underestimate the benefits of shifting to a clean energy economy. Consumer spending also shifts in response to implementation of the Scoping Plan relative to the Reference Scenario. As presented in Table 15, there is a negligible impact to consumer income, but small changes in income can alter the distribution of consumer spending among categories. In 2030, consumer spending is lower under the Scoping Plan than in the Reference Scenario across all analyzed allowance prices. Consumers spend less on fuels, electricity, natural gas, and capital as a result of measures in the Scoping Plan that reduce demand, increase efficiency, and drive technological innovations. The estimated impact to California households is also modest in 2030. The estimated cost to California households in 2030 ranges from $115 to $280, depending on the price of reductions under the Cap-and-Trade Program.121 The household impact is estimated using the per-household change in personal income as modeled in REMI and utilizing household estimates from the California Department of Finance. The household impact does not account for benefits from reduced climate impacts, health savings from reduced air pollution impacts, or lower petroleum dependence costs that might impact households. Additional details are presented in Appendix E. As modeled, the household impact of the Scoping Plan comprises approximately one percent of average household expenditures in 2030. To ensure that vulnerable populations and low-income households are not 121 Household projections are obtained from the California Department of Finance and are available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/. 56 disproportionately affected by California’s climate policy, CARB is taking steps to better quantify localized economic impacts and ensure that low-income households see tangible benefits from the Scoping Plan. Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) are currently working on a retrospective analysis that will estimate the impacts across California communities of the implementation of AB 32, which will help identify areas of focus as 2030 measures are developed. The Cap-and-Trade Program will also continue to provide benefit to disadvantaged communities through the disbursement of GGRF funds. The investments made in implementing the Scoping Plan will have long-term benefits and present significant opportunities for California investors and businesses, as upfront capital investments will result in long-term fuel and energy efficiency savings, the benefits of which will continue into the future. The California economy will continue to grow under the Scoping Plan, but it will grow more resilient, more sustainable, and will be well positioned to reap the long-term benefits of lower carbon investments. Economic Modeling of Health Impacts Health benefits associated with reductions in diesel particulate matter (DPM) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are monetized for inclusion in the macroeconomic modeling. The health benefits are estimated by quantifying the harmful future health effects that will be avoided by reducing human exposure to DPM and NOX, as detailed in Appendix G, and monetized by estimating a health effect’s economic value to society. As previously noted the health impacts are based on air quality benefits estimated in Table 6, which have important limitations and likely overestimate the impacts of the Scoping Plan. Additional detail on the economic modeling of health impacts, including the monetization methodology and modeling results for all Scoping Plan scenarios, is presented in Appendix E. Including the monetized health impacts in the REMI modeling has no discernible impact on the overall results. The impact of including the monetized health impacts is indiscernible relative to the impact of the Scoping Plan. Estimating the Economic Impact on Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) Implementing the Scoping Plan is estimated to have a small impact on the Statewide California economy through 2030. However, shifting from fossil fuels can disproportionately affect specific geographic regions whose local economies rely on fossil fuel intensive industries. These regions can also include vulnerable populations and disadvantaged communities who may be disproportionately impacted by poor air quality and climate. The regional impacts of the Scoping Plan, including the impact to disadvantaged communities, are estimated using the REMI California County model, which represents the 58 counties and 160 sectors of the California economy. Utilizing the same inputs used for modeling the statewide impact of the Scoping Plan relative to the Reference Scenario, the California County model estimates how measures will affect employment, value added, and other economic indicators at the county level across the state. The county-level REMI output is also used to estimate impacts on disadvantaged communities affected by the Scoping Plan by allocating county impacts proportional to their share of economic indicators unique to each census tract.122 These indicators include industry output, industry consumption by fuel category, personal consumption, and population. The overall impact on employment across regions is not significant and there is no discernible difference in the impact to employment in disadvantaged communities. There is also no discernible impact to wages in disadvantaged communities across regions in California. Additional details on the regional modeling, including the results for the Scoping Plan and alternatives, is presented in Appendix E. In addition to the regional modeling conducted in this analysis, there are currently three research contracts underway at CARB to quantify the impact of California’s climate policy on regions and disadvantaged communities throughout California. As mentioned above, researchers from UCLA are estimating the improvements in health outcomes associated with AB 32, with a focus on disadvantaged communities. This research will be informed by input from technical advisory committees including a group focused on environmental justice. 122 Census tracts are small geographic areas within greater metropolitan areas that usually have a population between 2,500 and 8,000 persons. More information on the composition of census tracts available here: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ gtc/gtc_ct.html. Disadvantaged census tracts are identified using CalEnviroScreen 2.0. Additional information is available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-version-20. 57 There are also two studies currently underway to quantify the impact of GGRF funds. A UCLA contract focuses on quantifying jobs supported by GGRF funds in California, while a University of California, Berkeley contract is constructing methodologies to assess the co-benefits of GGRF projects across California. These research efforts will provide a regional analysis of the impact of and benefits to specific communities and sectors to ensure that all Californians see economic benefits, in addition to clean air benefits, from the implementing the Scoping Plan. Public Health Many measures to reduce GHG emissions also have significant health co-benefits that can address climate change and improve the health and well-being of all populations across the State. Climate change is already affecting the health of communities.123 Climate-related health impacts can include increased heat illness and death, increases in air pollution-related exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, injury and loss of life due to severe storms and flooding, increased vector-borne and water-borne diseases, and stress and mental trauma due to extreme weather-related catastrophes.124 The urgency of action to address the impacts already being felt from a changing climate and the threats in coming decades provides a unique opportunity for California’s leadership in climate action to reduce GHG emissions and create healthy, equitable, and resilient communities where all people thrive. This section discusses the link between climate change and public health. It does not analyze the specific measures included in the strategy but provides context for assessing the potential measures and scenarios. Achieving Health Equity through Climate Action Many populations in California face health inequities, or unfair and unjust health differences between population groups that are systemic and avoidable.125 Differences in environmental and socioeconomic determinants of health result in these health inequities. Those facing the greatest health inequities include low-income individuals and households, the very young and the very old, communities of color, and those who have been marginalized or discriminated against based on gender or race/ethnicity.126 It is these very same populations, along with those suffering existing health conditions and certain populations of workers (e.g., outdoor workers), that climate change will most disproportionately impact.127 The inequitable distribution of social, political, and economic power results in health inequities, while perpetuating systems (e.g., economic, transportation, land use, etc.) that drive GHG emissions. As a result, communities face inequitable living conditions. For example, low-income communities of color tend to live in more polluted areas and face climate change impacts that can compound and exacerbate existing sensitivities and vulnerabilities.128,129 Fair and healthy climate action requires that the inequities creating and intensifying community vulnerabilities be addressed. Living conditions and the forces that shape them, such as income, education, housing, transportation, environmental quality, and access to services, significantly drive the capacity for climate resilience. Thus, strategies such as alleviating poverty, increasing access to opportunity, improving living conditions, and reducing health and social inequities will result in more climate-resilient communities. In fact, there are already many “no-regret” climate mitigation and adaptation measures available (discussed below) that can reduce health burdens, increase community resilience, and address social inequities.130 Focusing efforts to achieve health equity can thus lead to significant progress in addressing human-caused climate change. 123 USGCRP. 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J. L. Gamble, C. B. Beard, J. E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R. J. Eisen, N. Fann, M. D. Hawkins, S. C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D. M. Mills, S. Saha, M. C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, D.C., 312 pp.124 Ibid.125 Whitehead, M. 1992. “The concepts and principles of equity and health.” International Journal of Health Services 22(3), 429–445.126 California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2015. The Portrait of Promise: The California Statewide Plan to Promote Health and Mental Health Equity. A Report to the Legislature and the People of California by the Office of Health Equity. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, Office of Health Equity.127 Shonkoff, S., R. Morello-Frosch, M. Pastor, and J. Sadd. 2011. “The climate gap: Environmental health and equity implications of climate change and mitigation policies in California–a review of the literature.” Climatic Change 109 (Suppl 1):S485–S503.128 Ibid.129 Rudolph, L. and S. Gould. 2015. “Climate change and health inequities: A framework for action.” Annals of Global Health 81:3, 432–444.130 Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, et al. 2015. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet: 386, 1861-1914 58 Potential Health Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Measures Socioeconomic Factors: Income, Poverty, and WealthEconomic factors, such as income, poverty, and wealth, are collectively one of the largest determinants of health. As such, climate mitigation measures that yield economic benefits can improve population health significantly, especially if the economic benefits are directed to those most vulnerable and disadvantaged (including those living in poverty) who often face the most health challenges. From the poorest to richest ends of the income spectrum, higher income is associated with greater longevity in the United States.131,132,133 The gap in life expectancy between the richest 1 percent and poorest 1 percent of Americans was almost 15 years for men in 2014, and about 10 years for women.134 Early death among those living in poverty is not a result of those with higher incomes having better access to quality health care.135 Only about 10-20 percent of a person’s health status is accounted for by health care (and 20-30 percent attributed to genetics), while the remainder is attributed to the social determinants of health. These include environmental quality, social and economic circumstances, and the social, media, policy, economic, retail, and built environments– all of which in turn shape stress levels and behaviors, including smoking, diet, and exercise.136 ,137,138 ,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146 In fact, where people live, work, learn, and play is often a stronger predictor of life expectancy than their genetic and biological makeup.147 The World Health Organization’s Commission on the Social Determinants of Health concluded that the poor health of poor people, and the social gradient in health, are caused by the unequal distribution of power, income, goods, and services resulting from poor social policies and programs, unfair economic arrangements, and bad politics.148 Thus, improving the conditions of daily life and tackling the inequitable distribution of power, money, and resources can remedy inequitable health outcomes.149 Simply put, the more evenly distributed the wealth, the healthier a society is.150 The wealth-health gradient has significant implications for this Scoping Plan. State climate legislation and policies require prioritizing GHG reduction strategies that serve vulnerable populations and improve well- being for disadvantaged communities. As such, strategies that improve the financial security of communities facing disadvantages while reducing GHG emissions are win-win strategies. These include providing funds or services for GHG reduction programs (e.g., weatherization, energy efficiency, renewable energy, ZEVs, transit, housing, and others) to low-income individuals and households to help them reduce costs. Among the poorest 25 percent of people, per capita government expenditures are strongly associated with longer 131 Chetty, R., M. Stepner, S. Abraham, et al. 2016. “The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014.” JAMA Published online April 10, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4226.132 Marmot, M., S. Friel, R. Bell, et al. 2008. “Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health.” The Lancet 372, 9650: 1661–1669.133 Woolf, S. H., and P. Braveman. 2011. “Where health disparities begin: The role of social and economic determinants–and why current policies may make matters worse.” Health Affairs (Millwood) 30(10), 1852–1859.134 Chetty R, Stepner M, Abraham S, et al. 2016. The Association between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001- 2014. JAMA. Published online April 10, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4226135 Ibid.136 DHHS, Public Health Service. 1980. Ten leading causes of death in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Bureau of State Services.137 McGinnis, J., and W. Foege. 1993. “Actual causes of death in the United States.” JAMA 270(18), 2207–2212.138 Lantz, P. et al. 1998. “Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: Results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults.” JAMA 279(21), 1703–1708.139 McGinnis, J. et al. 2002. “The case for more active policy attention to health promotion.” Health Affairs 21(2), 78–93.140 Mokdad, A. et al. 2004. “Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000.” JAMA 291(10), 1238–1245.141 Danaei, G. et al. 2009. “The preventable causes of death in the United States: Comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors.” PLoS Medicine 6(4), e1000058.142 World Health Organization (WHO). 2009. Global health risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. Geneva: WHO.143 Booske, B. et al. 2010. Different perspectives for assigning weights to determinants of health. County Health Rankings Working Paper. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.144 Stringhini, S. et al. 2010. “Association of socioeconomic position with health behaviors and mortality.” JAMA 303(12), 1159–1166.145 Thoits, P. 2010. “Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51 Suppl, S41–53.146 McGovern, L., G. Miller and P. Highes-Cromwick. 2014. “Health policy brief: The relative contribution of multiple determinants to health outcomes.” Health Affairs147 Iton, A. 2006. Tackling the root causes of health disparities through community capacity building. In: Hofrichter R, ed. Tackling Health Inequities Through Public Health Practice: A Handbook for Action. Washington, D.C., and Lansing, MI: National Association of County and City Health Officials and Ingham County Health Department; 116–136.148 Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, et al. 2008. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The Lancet , Volume 372 , Issue 9650, 1661 – 1669149 Ibid.150 Smith, R. 1996. “The big idea.” British Medical Journal 312:April 20th, Editor’s choice. 59 life spans.151 Successful strategies California has already implemented to assure the poor do not pay higher costs for societal GHG reductions include low-income energy discount programs, in combination with direct climate credits, and policies and programs that help Californians reduce electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption.152 More such strategies could be pursued. To tackle the inequitable distribution of power that leads to disparate health outcomes, agencies can first assure their hearing and decision-making processes provide opportunities for civic engagement so people facing health inequities can themselves participate in decision-making about solutions. Whether it is absolute poverty or relative deprivation that leads to poor health, investments and policies that both lift up the poor and reduce wealth disparities will address the multiple problems of climate change mitigation, adaptation, and health inequities. Employment Employment status impacts human health in many ways. Poor health outcomes of unemployment include premature death, self-rated ill-health (a strong predictor of poor health outcomes), and mental illness.153 ,154,155,156 Economic strain related to unemployment can impact mental health and trigger stress that is linked to other health conditions.157,158 Populations of color are overrepresented in the unemployment and under-employment ranks, which likely contributes to racial health inequities. In 2014, 14.7 percent of African-Americans, 12.1 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives, and 9.8 percent of Latinos were unemployed, compared to 7.9 percent of Whites.159 In addition to providing income, the work experience has health consequences. There is a work status–health gradient similar to the wealth–health gradient. Workers with lower occupational status have a higher risk of death,160 increased blood pressure,161 and more heart attacks.162,163 Higher status workers often have a greater sense of autonomy, control over their work, and predictability, compared to lower status workers, whose lack of control and predictability translates to stress that shortens their lives.164 Nonstandard working arrangements such as part-time, seasonal, shift, contract, or informal sector work have been linked to greater psychological distress and poorer physical health.165,166 Women are heavily overrepresented in nonstandard work, as are people of color and people with low levels of education.167,168 The implementation of California’s climate change goals provides great opportunity to not only improve the habitability of the planet, but also to increase economic vitality, employ historically disadvantaged people 151 Chetty R, Stepner M, Abraham S, et al. 2016. The Association between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001- 2014. JAMA. Published online April 10, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4226152 Gattaciecca, J., C. Callahan, and J. R. DeShazo. 2016. Protecting the most vulnerable: A financial analysis of Cap-and-Trade’s impact on households in disadvantaged communities across California. UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs: Los Angeles, CA. http://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/content/protecting-most-vulnerable. Accessed April 22, 2016.153 Krueger, P., and S. Burgard. 2011. Income, occupations and work. In: Rogers R, Crimmins E, eds. International Handbook of Adult Mortality. New York: Springer: 263–288.154 Rogers, R., R. Hummer, and C. Nam. 2000. Living and Dying in the USA. Behavioral, health, and social differentials of adult mortality. New York, NY: Academic.155 Ross, C. and J. Mirowsky. 1995. “Does employment affect health?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36(3):230–243.156 Burgard, S., and K. Lin. 2013. “Bad jobs, bad health? How work and working conditions contribute to health disparities.” Am Behav Sci 57(8).157 Price, R., D. Friedland, J. Choi, and R. Caplan. 1998. Job-loss and work transitions in a time of global economic change.158 Price, R., J. Choi, and A. Vinokur. 2002. “Links in the chain of adversity following job loss: How financial strain and loss of personal control lead to depression, impaired functioning, and poor health.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(4), 302.159 U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ summary_file/2014/data/. Last updated August 31, 2015. Accessed April 20, 2016.160 Rogers R, Hummer R, and Nam C. 2000. Living and Dying in the USA. Behavioral, health, and social differentials of adult mortality. New York, NY: Academic161 Colhoun, H., H. Hemingway, and N. Poulter. 1998. “Socio-economic status and blood pressure: An overview analysis.” Journal of Human Hypertension 12(2).162 Möller, J., T. Theorell, U. De Faire, A. Ahlbom, and J. Hallqvist. 2005. “Work related stressful life events and the risk of myocardial infarction. Case-control and case-crossover analyses within the Stockholm heart epidemiology programme (SHEEP).” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59(1), 23–30.163 Burgard S, Lin K. 2013. Bad jobs, bad health? How work and working conditions contribute to health disparities. Am Behav Sci: 57(8).164 Marmot, M., G. Rose, M. Shipley, and P. Hamilton. 1978. “Employment grade and coronary heart disease in British civil servants.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32(4), 244–249.165 Dooley, D., and J. Prause. 2004. Settling down: Psychological depression and underemployment. The social costs of underemployment, 134-157. In: Dooley, D. and J. Prause. The Social Costs of Underemployment: Inadequate Employment as Disguised Unemployment. 166 Virtanen, M., M. Kivimäki, M. Joensuu, P. Virtanen, M. Elovainio, and J. Vahtera. 2005. “Temporary employment and health: A review.” International Journal of Epidemiology 34(3): 610–622.167 Nollen, S. 1996. “Negative aspects of temporary employment.” Journal of Labor Research 17(4): 567–582.168 Burgard S, Lin K. 2013. Bad jobs, bad health? How work and working conditions contribute to health disparities. Am Behav Sci: 57(8) 60 in secure jobs, and improve the health of the population. Measures in the Scoping Plan that aim to reduce GHGs can simultaneously improve health and social equity by prioritizing or requiring that: (1) infrastructure projects using public funds pay living wages, provide quality benefits to all employees, and minimize nonstandard work; (2) locals are hired as much as is feasible; (3) preference is given for women-owned and minority-owned businesses; (4) employers receiving public funds assess and reduce work stress and lack of workplace control; (5) projects benefiting from State climate investments prioritize hiring from historically hard-to-employ groups, such as youth (especially youth of color), formerly incarcerated people, and people with physical or mental illness; and (6) training is provided to these same groups to work in jobs in sectors that will support a sustainable economy. Communications Supporting Climate Change Behaviors and Policies California’s leadership on GHG reductions is exceptional. However, climate mitigation goals are often treated independently by sector, and the public does not see a unified message that changes must take place on every level in every sector to preserve human health and well-being. Climate strategy could be supported by public communications campaigns that link sectors and present a message of the need for bold action, along with the benefits that action can yield. Mass media communications and social marketing campaigns can help shift social and cultural norms toward sustainable and healthy practices. Messaging about the co-benefits of climate change policies in improving health and well-being can lead to increased community and decision-maker support among vulnerable groups for policies and measures outlined in the Scoping Plan. Community Engagement Leads to Robust, Lasting, and Effective Climate Policies For California’s climate change policies to be supported by the public and be implemented with enthusiasm, they must be developed through ample, genuine opportunities for community members to discuss and provide input. Californians’ contributions to the policy arena strengthen the end products and assist in their implementation and enforcement. Efforts to mitigate climate change through policy, environmental, and systems change present considerable opportunities to promote sustainable, healthy, resilient, and equitable communities. The measures in the Scoping Plan, and the way they are implemented, can help create living conditions that facilitate physical activity; encourage public transit use; provide access to affordable, fresh, and nutritious foods; protect the natural systems on which human health depends; spur economic development; provide safe, affordable, and energy-efficient housing; enable access to jobs; and increase social cohesion and civic engagement. These climate change mitigation measures can improve overall population health, as well as material conditions, access to opportunity, and health and well-being in communities facing health inequities. Approaching the policy solutions outlined in the Scoping Plan with a health and equity lens can ultimately help lead to a California in which all current and future generations of Californians can benefit and thrive. Environmental Analysis CARB, as the lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Analysis (Draft EA) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CARB’s regulatory program (CARB’s program has been certified as complying with CEQA by the Secretary of Natural Resources; see California Code of Regulation, title 17, sections 60006-60008; California Code of Regulation, title 14, section 15251, subdivision (d)). The resource areas from the CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist were used as a framework for a programmatic environmental analysis of the reasonably foreseeable compliance responses resulting from implementation of the measures proposed in the Scoping Plan to achieve the 2030 target. Following circulation of the Draft EA for an 80-day public review and comment period (January 20, 2017 through April 10, 2017), CARB prepared the Final Environmental Analysis Prepared for the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (Final EA), which includes minor revisions to the Draft EA, and the Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Analysis prepared for the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (RTC). The Final EA is included as Appendix F to the 2017 Scoping Plan. The Final EA and RTC were posted on CARB’s Scoping Plan webpage before the Board hearing in December 2017. 61 The Final EA provides a programmatic level of analysis of the adverse environmental impacts that are reasonably foreseeable as resulting from implementation of the proposed Scoping Plan measures; feasible mitigation measures; a cumulative impacts analysis and an alternatives analysis. Collectively, the Final EA concluded that implementation of these actions could result in the following short-term and long-term beneficial and adverse environmental impacts: • Beneficial long-term impacts to air quality, energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. • Less than significant impacts to energy demand, resources related to land use planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and recreational services. • Potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, resources related to land use planning, noise, recreational services, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. The potentially significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are disclosed for both short-term construction- related activities and long-term operational activities, which explains why some resource areas are identified above as having both less-than-significant impacts and potentially significant impacts. For a summary of impacts, please refer to the table in Attachment B to the Final EA. 62 Climate change mitigation policies must be considered in the context of the sector’s contribution to the State’s total GHGs, while also considering any co-benefits for criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant reductions. The transportation, electricity (in-state and imported), and industrial sectors are the largest contributors to the GHG inventory and present the largest opportunities for GHG reductions. However, to ensure decarbonization across the entire economy and to meet our 2030 GHG target, policies must be considered for all sectors. Policies that support energy efficiency, alternative fuels, and renewable power also can provide co-benefits for both criteria and toxic air pollutants. The specific policies identified in this Scoping Plan are subject to additional analytical and public processes to refine the requirements and methods of implementation. For example, a change in the LCFS Carbon Intensity (CI) target would only take effect after a subsequent rulemaking for that regulation, which would include its own public process and environmental, economic, and public health analyses. As described in Chapter 2, many policies for reducing emissions toward the 2030 target are already known. This Scoping Plan identifies these and additional policies or program enhancements needed to achieve the remaining GHG reductions in a complementary, flexible, and cost-effective manner to meet the 2030 target. These policies should continue to encourage reductions beyond 2030 to keep us on track to stabilize the climate. Policies that ensure economy-wide investment decisions that incorporate consideration of GHG emissions are particularly important. As we pursue GHG reduction targets, we must acknowledge the integrated nature of our built and natural environments, and cross-sector impacts of policy choices. The State’s Green Buildings Strategy is one such example of this type of integrated approach. Buildings have tremendous cross-sector interactions that influence our health and well-being and affect land use and transportation patterns, energy use, water use, communities, and the indoor and outdoor environment. Green building regulations and programs offer complementary opportunities to address the direct and indirect effects of buildings on the environment by incorporating strategies to minimize overall energy use, water use, waste generation, and transportation impacts. The Governor’s Green Buildings Executive Order B-18-12 for State buildings and the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code169 are key state initiatives supporting emissions reductions associated with buildings. Local governments are taking action by adopting “beyond code” green building standards. Additional efforts to maintain and operate existing buildings as third-party certified green buildings provides a significant opportunity to reduce GHG emissions associated with buildings. These foundational regulations and programs for reducing building-related emissions are described in more detail in Appendix H. Looking forward, there is a need to establish a path toward transitioning to zero net carbon buildings170, which will be the next generation of buildings that can contribute significantly to achieving long- term climate goals. A discussion of how the green buildings strategy can support GHG reductions to help meet the 2030 target is provided in Appendix I. Recent research activities have provided results to better quantify GHG emissions reductions of green buildings, and additional research activities need to continue to expand their focus to support technical feasibility evaluations and implementation. Research needs related to green buildings are included in Appendix I. Further, each of the policies directed at the built environment must be considered in the broader context of the high-level goals for other sectors, including the natural and working lands sector. For example, policies that support natural and working lands can reduce emissions and sequester carbon, while also providing ecosystem benefits such as better water quality, increased water yield, soil health, reduced erosion, and 169 The authority to update and implement the CALGreen Code is the responsibility of several State agencies identified in California Building Standards Law.170 A zero carbon building generates zero or near zero GHG emissions over the course of a year from all GHG emission sources associated, directly and indirectly, with the use and occupancy of the building (initial definition included in the May 2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan). Chapter 4 K ey S ector S 63 habitat connectivity. These policies and co-benefits will be considered as part of the integrated strategy outlined above. Table 16 provides examples of the cross-sector interactions between and among the main sectors analyzed for the Scoping Plan that are discussed in this chapter (Energy, Transportation, Industry, Water, Waste Management, and Natural and Working Lands, including agricultural lands). This chapter recognizes these interactions and relates these broad strategic options to the specific additional programs recommended in Chapter 2 of this document. Accordingly, Chapter 4 provides an overview of each sector’s contributions to the State’s GHG emissions, a description of both ongoing and proposed programs and policies to meet the 2030 target, and additional climate policy or actions that could be considered in the future. The wide array of complementary and supporting measures being contemplated or undertaken across State government are detailed here. The broad view of State action described in this chapter thus provides context for the narrower set of measures discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of this Scoping Plan. It is these measures in Chapter 2 that CARB staff has identified as specific actions to meet the 2030 target in SB 32. The following phrases have specific meanings in this discussion of the policy landscape: “Ongoing and Proposed Measures” refers to programs and policies that are either ongoing existing efforts, or efforts required by statute, or which are otherwise underway or about to begin. These measures include, but are not limited to, those identified as necessary specific actions to meet the 2030 GHG target, and which are set apart and described in greater detail in Chapter 2. “Sector Measures” listed also include cross-cutting measures that affect many entities in the sector; some of these are also identified in Chapter 2. “Potential Additional Actions” are not being proposed as part of the specific strategy to achieve the 2030 target in this Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan includes this broader, comprehensive, review of these measures because it aims to spur thinking and exploration of innovative new technologies and polices that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. Some of these items may not ever be formally proposed, but they are included here because CARB, other agencies, and stakeholders believe their potential should be explored with stakeholders in coming years. 64 table 16: Cross-seC tor relationships Sector Example Interactions with Other Sectors Energy • Hydroelectric power, cooling, cleaning, waste water treatment plant (WWTP) bioenergy • Vehicle-to-grid power; electricity supply to vehicle charging infrastructure • Biomass feedstock for bioenergy, land for utility-scale renewable energy (solar, wind) • Agricultural waste and manure feedstocks for bioenergy/biofuels • Organic waste for bioenergy Transportation • Electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, transit/rail; more compact development patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) also demand less energy per capita • More compact development patterns that reduce VMT also demand less water per capita and reduce conversion of natural and working lands • Reducing VMT also reduces energy demands necessary for producing and distributing fuels and vehicles and construction and maintenance of roads • Biomass feedstock for biofuels • Agricultural waste and manure feedstocks for biofuels • Organic waste for biofuels • Greenfield suburban development on natural and working lands leads to increased VMT Industry • Potential to electrify fossil natural gas equipment, substitution of fossil-based energy with renewable energy • Greenfield urban development impacts Water • Energy consumption for water pumping, treatment, heating; resource for cooling, cleaning; WWTP bioenergy • Use of compost to help with water retention / conservation / drought mitigation • Land conservation results in healthier watersheds by reducing polluted runoff, allowing groundwater recharge, and maintaining properly functioning ecosystems Waste Management • Composting, anaerobic digestion, and wastewater treatment plant capacity to help process organic waste diverted from landfills • Compost for carbon sequestration, erosion control in fire-ravaged lands, water conservation, and healthy soils • Replacing virgin materials with recycled materials associated with goods production; enhanced producer responsibility reduces energy impacts of consumption • Efficient packaging materials reduces energy consumption and transportation fuel use Agriculture • Crop production, manure management; WWTP biosolids for soil amendments • Agricultural waste and manure feedstocks for bioenergy • Compost production in support of Healthy Soils Initiative Natural and Working Lands • Healthy forestlands provide wood and other forest products • Restoring coastal and sub-tidal areas improves habitat for commercial and other fisheries • Sustainable management can provide biomass for electricity • Sustainable management can provide biomass for biofuels • Resilient natural and working lands provide habitat for species and functions to store water, recharge groundwater, naturally purify water, and moderate flooding. Forests are also a source of compost and other soil amendments. • Conservation and land protections help reduce VMT and increase stable carbon pools in soils and above-ground biomass 65 Low Carbon Energy The energy sector in California is composed of electricity and natural gas infrastructure, which brings electricity and natural gas to homes, businesses, and industry. This vast system is critical to California’s economy and public well-being, and pivotal to reducing its GHG emissions. Historically, power plants generated electricity largely by combusting fossil fuels. In the 1970s and early 1980s, a significant portion of California’s power supply came from coal and petroleum resources. To reduce air pollution and promote fuel diversity, the State has shifted away from these resources to natural gas, renewable energy, and energy efficiency programs, resulting in significant GHG emissions reductions. Emissions from the electricity sector are currently approximately 20 percent below 1990 levels and are well on their way to achieving deeper emissions cuts by 2030. Since 2008, renewable generation has almost doubled, coal generation has been reduced by more than half, and GHG emissions have been reduced by a quarter. Carbon dioxide is the primary GHG associated with electricity and natural gas systems. The electricity sector, which is composed of in-State generation and imported power to serve California load, has made great strides to help California achieve its climate change objectives. Renewable energy has shown tremendous growth, with capacity from solar, wind, geothermal, small hydropower, and biomass power plants growing from 6,600 megawatts (MW) in 2010 to 27,500 MW as of June 2017.171 Renewable energy adoption in California has been promoted through the RPS and several funding mechanisms, such as the California Solar Initiative (CSI) programs, Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), Net-Energy Metering (NEM), and federal tax credits. These mandates and incentives have spurred both utility-scale and small-scale customer-developed renewable energy projects. SB 350 increased the RPS requirement from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 requires publicly-owned utilities under the jurisdiction of the California Energy Commission (CEC) and all load-serving entities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to file integrated resource plans (IRPs) with the CEC and CPUC, respectively. Through their IRPs, filing entities will demonstrate how they will plan to meet the electricity sector’s share of the State’s 2030 GHG reduction target while ensuring reliability in a cost-effective manner. The CEC and CPUC have developed the guidelines that publicly-owned utilities and load-serving entities will follow to prepare and submit IRPs, and CARB is working collaboratively with CEC and CPUC to set the sector and utility and load-serving entity planning targets. The Scoping Plan provides information to help establish the range of GHG reductions required for the electricity sector, and those numbers will be translated into planning target ranges in the IRP process. The IRP processes as currently proposed by CEC and CPUC staff will grant publicly-owned utilities flexibility to determine the optimal way to reduce GHG emissions, and load serving entities some flexibility to achieve the electricity sector’s share of the 2030 goal. The CPUC has developed a Reference System Plan to help guide investment, resource acquisition, and programmatic decisions to reach the State’s policy goals, in addition to informing the development of individual load serving entities’ IRPs. Energy efficiency is another key component to reducing energy sector GHG emissions, and is another consideration in each agency’s IRP process. Utilities have been offering energy efficiency programs, such as incentives, to California customers for decades, and CEC has continually updated building and appliance standards. In the context of IRPs, utility-ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs will likely continue to play an important role in reducing GHG emissions in the electricity sector. SB 350 requires CEC and CPUC to establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. These targets can be achieved through appliance and building energy efficiency standards; utility incentive, rebate, and technical assistance programs; third-party delivered energy efficiency programs; and other programs. Achieving greater efficiency savings in existing buildings, as directed by Governor Brown in his 2015 inaugural speech, will be essential to meet the goal of doubling energy efficiency savings. In September 2015, CEC adopted the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Draft Plan, which is designed to provide foundational support and strategies to enable scaling of energy efficiency in the built environment. Pursuant to SB 350, CEC published an updated Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan prior to January 2017. More than $10 billion in private capital investment will be needed 171 California Energy Commission. August, 2017. Tracking Progress. Renewable Energy – Overview. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_progress/documents/renewable.pdf 66 to double statewide efficiency savings in California.172 Energy efficiency programs are one part of the broader green buildings strategy, which incorporates additional measures to minimize water use, waste generation, and transportation impacts. The green buildings strategy is described in further detail in Appendix I. Heating fuels used for activities such as space and water heating in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors represent a significant source of GHG emissions. Transitioning to cleaner heating fuels is part of the solution of achieving greater efficiency savings in existing buildings and has significant GHG emissions reductions potential. Examples of this transition can include use of renewable gas and solar thermal, as well as electrification of end uses in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. However, achieving significant GHG emissions reductions can only be achieved by decarbonizing the electricity sector – switching from natural gas end uses to electricity generated by burning natural gas would not be effective. Electrification can complement renewables and energy storage if implemented in an integrated, optimized manner. Other hurdles that will have to be overcome include electric equipment performance across all California climate regions, seasonal variations of renewable generation, cost-effectiveness, and consumer acceptance of different heating fuel options. Fossil-fuel-based natural gas is a significant fuel source for both in-State electricity generation and electricity imported into California. It is also used in transportation applications and in residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sector end uses. Greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of fossil natural gas decreased from 134.71 MMTCO2e in 2000 to 126.98 MMTCO2e in 2015, while natural gas pipeline fugitive emissions were estimated to be 4.0 MMTCO2e in 2015 and have been nearly unchanged since 2000.173 Greenhouse gas-reduction strategies should focus on efficiency, reducing leakage from wells and pipelines, implementing the SLCP strategy, and studying the potential for renewable gas fuel switching (e.g., renewable hydrogen blended with methane or biomethane). Moving forward, reducing use of fossil natural gas wherever possible will be critical to achieving the State’s long-term climate goals. For end uses that must continue to rely on natural gas, renewable natural gas could play an important role. Renewable natural gas volume has been increasing from approximately 1.5 million diesel gallon equivalent (dge) in 2011 to more than 68.5 million dge in 2015, and continued substitution of renewable gas for fossil natural gas would help California reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. In addition, renewable gas can be sourced by in-vessel waste digestion (e.g., anaerobic digestion of food and other organics) and recovering methane from landfills, livestock operations, and wastewater treatment facilities through the use of existing technologies, thereby also reducing methane emissions. The capture and productive use of renewable methane from these and other sources is consistent with requirements of SB 1383. Collectively, renewable energy and energy efficiency measures can result in significant public health and climate benefits by displacing air pollution and GHG emissions from fossil-fuel based energy sources, as well as by reducing the health and environmental risks associated with the drilling, extraction, transportation, and storage of fossil fuels, especially for communities living near fossil-fuel based energy operations. As the energy sector continues to evolve and decarbonize, both the behavior of individual facilities and the design of the grid itself will change, with important distributional effects. Some power plants may operate more flexibly to balance renewables, emerging technologies (examples include storage, smart inverters, renewably-fueled fuel cells, and others) will become more prevalent, and aging facilities may retire and be replaced. In turn, this may shift patterns of criteria pollutant emissions at these facilities. Because many existing power plants are in, or near, disadvantaged communities, it is of particular importance to ensure that this transition to a cleaner grid does not result in unintended negative impacts to these communities. Appendix H highlights the more significant existing policies, programs, measures, regulations, and initiatives that provide a framework for helping achieve GHG emissions reductions in this sector. 172 California Energy Commission. 2016. Existing Building Energy Efficiency Action Plan. page 61. Available at: http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-EBP-01/TN214801_20161214T155117_Existing_Building_Energy_ Efficency_Plan_Update_Deceber_2016_Thi.pdf173 CARB. 2017. CARB’s Emission Inventory Activities. www.arb.ca.gov/ei/ei.htm 67 Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Electricity Goals • Achieve sector-wide, publicly-owned utility, and load-serving entity specific GHG reduction planning targets set by the State through Integrated Resource Planning. • Reduce fossil fuel use. • Reduce energy demand. Natural Gas Goals • Ensure safety of the natural gas system. • Decrease fugitive methane emissions.• Reduce dependence on fossil natural gas. Cross-Sector Interactions The energy sector interacts with nearly all sectors of the economy. Siting of power plants (including solar and wind facilities) and transmission and distribution lines have impacts on land use in California–be it conversion of agricultural or natural and working lands, impacts to sensitive species and habitats, or implications to disadvantaged, vulnerable, and environmental justice communities. Additionally, more compact development patterns reduce per capita energy demands, while less-compact sprawl increases them. Further, efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector include electrification, such as PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs. Some industrial sources also use electricity as a primary or auxiliary source of power for manufacturing. In the future, industrial facilities may electrify their systems instead of relying on natural gas. These activities will increase demand in this sector. In addition, water is used in various applications in the energy sector, ranging in intensity from cooling of turbines and other equipment at power plants to cleaning solar photovoltaic panels. Given California’s recent historic drought, water use for the electricity sector is an important consideration for operation, maintenance, and construction activities. Continued planning and coordination with federal, State, and local agencies, governments, Tribes, and stakeholders will be crucial to minimizing environmental and health impacts from the energy sector, deploying new technologies, and identifying feedstocks. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Electricity • Per SB 350, with respect to Integrated Resource Plans, establish GHG planning targets for the electricity sector, publicly-owned utilities, and load-serving entities. • Per SB 350, ensure meaningful GHG emissions reductions by publicly-owned utilities and load-serving entities through Integrated Resource Planning.• Per AB 197, prioritize direct reductions at large stationary sources, including power-generating facilities. • Per SB 350, increase the RPS to 50 percent of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. • Per Governor Brown’s Clean Energy Jobs Plan, AB 327 (Perea, Chapter 611, Statutes of 2013), and AB 693 (Eggman, Chapter 582, Statutes of 2015), increase development of distributed renewable generation, including for low income households. • Continue to increase use of distributed renewable generation at State facilities where space allows. • Increase retail customers’ use of renewable energy through optional utility 100 percent renewable energy tariffs. • Continue GHG reductions through participation in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) Energy Imbalance Market. 68 • Per SB 350, efforts to evaluate, develop, and deploy regionalization of the grid and integration of renewables via regionalization of the CAISO should continue while maintaining the accounting accuracy and rigor of California’s GHG policies. • Per SB 350, establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. • Per SB 350, implement the recommendations of the Barriers Study for increasing access to renewable energy generation for low-income customers, energy efficiency and weatherization investments for low-income customers, and contracting opportunities for local small business in disadvantaged communities.174 And, track progress towards these actions over time to ensure disadvantaged communities are getting equal access and benefits relative to other parts of the State.• Continue implementation of the Regulations Establishing and Implementing a Greenhouse Gases Emission Performance Standard for Local Publicly Owned Electric Utilities as required by SB 1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006), which effectively prohibits electric utilities from making new long-term investments in high-GHG emitting resources such as coal power. • Per AB 802 (Williams, Chapter 590, Statutes of 2015), adopt the forthcoming CEC regulations governing building energy use data access, benchmarking, and public disclosure. • Per AB 2868 (Gatto, Chapter 681, Statutes of 2016), encourage development of additional energy storage capacity on the transmission and distribution system. • Per AB 758 (Skinner, Chapter 470, Statutes of 2009),175 implement recommendations under State jurisdiction included in the AB 758 Action Plan developed by CEC. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Natural Gas • Implement the CARB Regulation for Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities to reduce fugitive methane emissions from storage and distribution infrastructure. • Per SB 1371 (Leno, Chapter 525, Statutes of 2014), adopt improvements in investor- owned utility (IOU) natural gas systems to address methane leaks.• Implement the SLCP Strategy to reduce natural gas leaks from oil and gas wells, pipelines, valves, and pumps to improve safety, avoid energy losses, and reduce methane emissions associated with natural gas use. • Per SB 1383, CEC will develop recommendations for the development and use of renewable gas as part of its 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). • Per SB 1383, adopt regulations to reduce methane emissions from livestock manure and dairy manure management operations by up to 40 percent below the dairy sector’s and livestock sector’s 2013 levels by 2030, including establishing energy infrastructure development and procurement policies needed to encourage dairy biomethane projects. The regulations will take effect on or after January 1, 2024. • Per SB 1383, reduce methane emissions at landfills by reducing landfill disposal of organic waste 75 percent below 2014 levels by 2025, including establishing energy infrastructure development and procurement policies needed to encourage in-vessel digestion projects and increase the production and use of renewable gas. • Per SB 887 (Pavley, Chapter 673, Statutes of 2016), initiate continuous monitoring at natural gas storage facilities and (by January 1, 2018) mechanical integrity testing regimes at gas storage wells, develop regulations for leak reporting, and require risk assessments of potential leaks for proposed new underground gas storage facilities. • Per Public Utilities (PU) Code 454.56, CPUC, in consultation with CEC, (1) identifies all potentially achievable cost-effective natural gas efficiency savings and establishes gas efficiency targets for the gas corporation to achieve, and (2) requires gas corporations to first meet unmet resource needs through available natural gas efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost-effective, reliable, and feasible (PU Codes 890– 174 CEC. 2016. Low-Income Barriers Study, Part A: Overcoming Barriers to Energy Efficiency and Renewables for Low-Income Customers and Small Business Contracting Opportunities in Disadvantaged Communities. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/ PublicDocuments/16-OIR-02/TN214830_20161215T184655_SB_350_LowIncome_Barriers_Study_Part_A__Commission_Final_ Report.pdf175 AB 758 requires CEC, in collaboration with CPUC, to develop a comprehensive program to achieve greater energy efficiency in the State’s existing buildings. 69 900 provide public goods charge funding authorization for these programs). • Per SB 185 (De Leon, Chapter 605, Statutes of 2015), implement the requirement for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) to sell their holdings in coal-producing companies by June 1, 2017, and explore extending divestiture requirements for additional fossil-fuel assets. Sector Measures • Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. Potential Additional Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. It is anticipated that there will be workshops and other stakeholder forums in the years following finalization of the Scoping Plan to explore these potential actions. • Further deploy fuel cells that use renewable fuels or those that generate electricity that is less carbon intensive than the grid. • Increase use of renewable energy through long-term agreements between customers and utilities (such as Sacramento Municipal Utility District Solar Shares). • Develop rules needed for the development of electricity storage technologies. • Adopt a zero net energy (ZNE) standard for residential buildings by 2018/2019, and for commercial buildings by 2030.• Through a public process, evaluate and set targets for the electrification of space and water heating in residential and commercial buildings and cleaner heating fuels that will result in GHG reductions, and identify actions that can be taken to spur market transformation in the 2021-2030 period. • Expand the State Low-Income Weatherization Program (LIWP) to continue to improve energy efficiency and weatherize existing residential buildings, particularly for low-income individuals and households. • Decrease usage of fossil natural gas through a combination of energy efficiency programs, fuel switching, and the development and use of renewable gas in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. • Accelerate the deployment of heat pumps and the replacement of diesel generators. • Consider enhanced energy efficiency (high efficiency air conditioners, light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, efficiency improvements in industrial process cooling and refrigeration, efficient street lighting).• Promote programs to support third-party delivered energy efficiency projects.• Per AB 33 (Quirk, Chapter 680, Statutes of 2016), consider large-scale electricity storage.• Support more compact development patterns to promote reduced per capita energy demand (see the Transportation sector for specific policy recommendations). Industry California’s robust economy, with the largest manufacturing sector in the United States, is supported by a variety of sub-industrial sectors, some of which include cement plants, refineries, food processors, paper products, wineries, steel plants, and industrial gas, entertainment, technology and software, aerospace, and defense companies. Together, industrial sources account for approximately 21 percent of the State’s GHG emissions–almost equal to the amount of GHG emissions from the energy sector. Emissions in this sector are mainly due to fuel combustion and, in some industries, process-related emissions. Changes in this sector strongly correlate with changes in the overall economy. For example, housing and construction growth usually increases demand for cement. Moving toward a cleaner economy and ensuring we meet the statewide targets requires us to address GHG emissions in this sector, which has the potential to provide local co-benefits in criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant reductions in immediate surrounding locations, especially in vulnerable communities. At the same time, we must ensure there is a smooth path to a cleaner future to support a resilient and robust economy with a strong job force, including training opportunities for workers in disadvantaged communities, while continuing to support economic growth in existing and new industries. 70 Greenhouse gas emissions in the Industrial sector have remained relatively flat for the last few years while the State’s economy has continued to grow, meaning the GHG emissions to produce each dollar of gross standard product is decreasing. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 10 percent of the gross state product.176 In 2016, California industry exported $163.6 billion in merchandise.177 Policies to address GHG emissions reductions must continue to balance the State’s economic well-being with making progress toward achievement of the statewide limits. As this sector is dominated by combustion-related emissions, policies and measures to supply cleaner fuels and more efficient technology are the key to reducing GHG emissions. Some sectors, such as cement and glass, also have significant process emissions, and it may be more challenging to address those process emissions, as they are related to chemical reactions and processes to meet safety, product-specific, or regulatory standards for the final products. Another important aspect for this sector is its role as the State transitions to a cleaner future. Infrastructure, including existing facilities and new facilities, can support the production of new technology to bolster the State’s efforts to address GHGs. For example, existing refineries have an opportunity to move away from fossil fuel production and switch to the production of biofuels and clean technology. As the State works to double energy efficiency in existing buildings, there will be an increased demand for efficient lighting fixtures, building insulation, low-e178 coatings for existing windows, or new windows–goods which could be produced in California. The predominant paths to reducing GHG emissions for the Industrial sector are: fuel switching, energy efficiency improvements, and process modifications. Carbon capture and sequestration also offers a potential new, long-term path for reducing GHGs for large stationary sources. Relocation of production to outside the State would also reduce emissions, but this is disadvantageous for a couple of reasons and efforts are needed to avoid this outcome. First, AB 32 requires the State’s climate policies to minimize emissions leakage, and relocation would shift GHG emissions outside of the State without the benefit of reducing pollutants that contribute to overall global warming impacts. Second, it could also reduce the availability of associated jobs and could impact a local tax base that supports local services such as public transportation, emergency response, and social services, as well as funding sources critical to protecting the natural environment and keeping it available for current and future generations. Even while we continue to seek further GHG reductions in the sector, it is important to recognize the State has a long history of addressing health-based air pollutants in this sector. Many of the actions for addressing criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants in the industrial sector are driven by California’s local air district stationary source requirements to ensure progress toward achieving State and national ambient air quality standards. Some of those actions, such as use of Best Available Control Technology, have resulted in co-benefits in the form of GHG reductions. The State must continue to strengthen its existing criteria and toxic air pollutant programs and relationships with local air districts to ensure all Californians have healthy, clean air. This is especially true in disadvantaged communities. AB 32 directed CARB to take several actions to address GHG emissions, such as early action measures, GHG reporting requirements for the largest GHG sources, and other measures. In response, the State adopted multiple measures and regulations, including regulations for high global warming potential (high-GWP) gases used in refrigeration systems and the semiconductor industry.179 These regulations apply to specific GHGs and types of equipment that can be found across the economy. For example, high-GWP gases are found in refrigeration systems in large food processing plants and chemical and petrochemical facilities, among others.180 The State has also adopted the first in the world economy-wide cap-and-trade program that applies to all large industrial GHG emitters, imported electricity, and fuel and natural gas suppliers. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the Cap-and-Trade Program is a key element of California’s GHG reduction strategy. The 176 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/011416/californias-economy-9-industries-driving-gdp-growth.asp177 U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. 2017. California Exports, Jobs, & Foreign Investment. www.trade.gov/mas/ian/statereports/states/ca.pdf178 Low-e coatings reduce the emissivity, or heat transfer, from a window to improve its insulating properties.179 CARB. Refrigerant Management Program. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/rmp/rmp.htm180 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has also enacted regulations to reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions by prohibiting high-GWP refrigerants in new retail food refrigeration equipment and in chillers used for large air-conditioning applications. On the international level, the European Union F-gas regulations went into effect January 1, 2015. Those regulations prohibit high-GWP HFCs in new equipment and require a gradual phasedown in the production and import of HFCs. A similar HFC phasedown that would take place globally was the subject of international negotiations during the Montreal Protocol meeting in Rwanda in October, 2016. Those negotiations resulted in an agreement that will phase down the use of HFCs and put the world on track to avoid nearly 0.5°C of warming by 2100. 71 Cap-and-Trade Program establishes a declining limit on major sources of GHG emissions, and it creates a powerful economic incentive for major investment in cleaner, more efficient technologies. The Cap-and- Trade Program applies to emissions that cover about 85 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. CARB creates allowances equal to the total amount of permissible emissions (i.e., the “cap”) over a given compliance period. One allowance equals one metric ton of GHG emissions. Fewer allowances are created each year, thus the annual cap declines and statewide emissions are reduced over time. An increasing annual auction reserve (or floor) price for allowances and the reduction in annual allowance budgets creates a steady and sustained pressure for covered entities to reduce their GHGs. All covered entities in the Cap-and-Trade Program are still subject to the air quality permit limits for criteria and toxic air pollutants. The Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to achieve the most cost-effective statewide GHG emissions reductions; there are no individual or facility-specific GHG emissions reductions requirements. Each entity covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program has a compliance obligation that is set by its GHG emissions over a compliance period, and entities are required to meet that compliance obligation by acquiring and surrendering allowances in an amount equal to their compliance obligation. Companies can also meet a limited portion of their compliance obligation by acquiring and surrendering offset credits, which are compliance instruments that are based on rigorously verified emissions reductions that occur from projects outside the scope of the Cap-and-Trade Program. Like allowances, each offset credit is equal to one metric ton of GHG emissions. The program began in January 2013 and achieved a near 100 percent compliance rate for the first compliance period (2013–2014). Reported and verified emissions covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program have been below the cap throughout the first years of the Program.181 Allowances are issued by CARB and distributed by free allocation and by sale at auctions. CARB also provides for free allocation to some entities covered by the Program to address potential trade exposure due to the cost of compliance with the Program and address concerns of relocation of production out-of-state and resulting emissions leakage. Offset credits are issued by CARB to qualifying offset projects. Secondary markets exist where allowances and offset credits may be sold and traded among Cap-and-Trade Program participants. Facilities must submit allowances and offsets to match their annual GHG emissions. Facilities that emit more GHG emissions must surrender more allowances or offset credits, and facilities that can cut their emissions need to surrender fewer compliance instruments. Entities have flexibility to choose the lowest-cost approach to achieving program compliance; they may purchase allowances at auction, trade allowances and offset credits with others, take steps to reduce emissions at their own facilities, or utilize a combination of these approaches. Proceeds from the sale of State-owned allowances at auction are placed into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. It is important to note that while the Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to reduce GHGs for the industrial sector, there are recommendations from the EJAC (or Committee) for the State to pursue more facility- specific GHG reduction measures to achieve potential local air quality co-benefits, and AB 197 directs CARB to prioritize direct reductions at large stationary sources. The Committee has expressed a strong preference to forgo the existing Cap-and-Trade Program and rely on prescriptive facility level regulations. We agree with the EJAC that more can and should be done to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. These pollutants pose air quality and related health issues to the communities adjacent to the sources of industrial emissions. Further, many of these communities are already disadvantaged and burdened by a variety of other environmental stresses. As described in Chapter 3, however, there is not always a direct correlation between emissions of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants. Also, relationships between these pollutants are complex within and across industrial sectors. The solution, therefore, is not to do away with or change the regulation of GHGs through the Cap-and-Trade Program to address these legitimate concerns; instead, consistent with the direction in AB 197 and AB 617, State and local agencies must evaluate and implement additional measures that directly regulate and reduce emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants through other programs. 181 CARB. 2016. Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/ghg-rep.htm 72 Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Goals • Increase energy efficiency. • Reduce fossil fuel use. • Promote and support industry that provides products and clean technology needed to achieve the State’s climate goals. • Create market signals for low carbon intensity products. • Maximize air quality co-benefits. • Support a resilient low carbon economy and strong job force.• Make California the epicenter for research, development, and deployment of technology needed to achieve a near-zero carbon future. • Increase in-State recycling manufacturing. Cross-Sector Interactions There are clear, direct relationships between the industrial sector and other sectors that go beyond the economic support that a strong economy provides. For instance, this sector could increase its use of renewable fuels such as biomethane, which would be sourced from landfills or dairies. Additionally, some industries could shift from raw materials to recycled materials to reduce waste and reduce GHG emissions associated with processing of raw materials. Further, addressing energy efficiency could reduce onsite heating, water, and fuel demand. Moreover, supporting mass-transit or ride share programs for employees would reduce VMT. Finally, upgrading existing facilities or repurposing existing infrastructure instead of constructing new facilities or infrastructure would support land conservation and smart growth goals. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. Ongoing and Proposed Measures • At the October 2016 annual Montreal Protocol Meeting of Parties in Kigali, Rwanda, an international amendment to globally phase down HFC production was agreed upon by more than 150 countries. Depending on the level of future HFC emissions reductions expected for California from the Kigali Agreement, California may also: (1) consider placing restrictions on the sale or distribution of refrigerants with a GWP > 2,500, and (2) consider prohibiting refrigerants with a GWP >= 150 in new stationary refrigeration equipment and refrigerants with a GWP >= 750 for new stationary air-conditioning equipment. At the time the SLCP Strategy was finalized, U.S. EPA was expected to continue implementing certain HFC reductions under its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). Recent litigation may result in CARB implementing similar measures as state law instead. • Develop a regulatory monitoring, reporting, verification, and implementation methodology for the implementation of carbon capture and sequestration projects.• Implement the CARB Regulation for Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities to reduce fugitive methane emissions from storage and distribution infrastructure. Sector Measures • Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. • Continue and strategically expand research and development efforts to identify, evaluate, and help deploy innovative strategies that reduce GHG emissions in the industrial sector. • Promote procurement policies that prioritize low carbon production to delivery options, including at the State and local government levels. • Identify and remove barriers to existing grant funding for onsite clean technology or efficiency upgrades. 73 Potential Additional Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. It is anticipated that there will be workshops and other stakeholder forums in the years following finalization of the Scoping Plan to explore these potential actions. • Further deploy fuel cells that use renewable fuels or those that generate electricity that is less carbon intensive than the grid. • Decrease usage of fossil natural gas through a combination of efficiency, fuel switching, and the development and use of renewable gas. • Partner with California’s local air districts to effectively use BARCT to achieve air quality and GHG reduction co-benefits at large industrial sources. • Evaluate the potential for and promote electrification for industrial stationary sources whose main emissions are onsite natural gas combustion. • Identify new funding for grants and tariff opportunities for onsite clean technology, efficiency upgrades, diesel generator replacement, or recycling manufacturing technology. • Develop an incentive program to install low-GWP refrigeration systems in retail food stores.• Evaluate and design additional mechanisms to further minimize emissions leakage in the Cap-and-Trade Program (e.g., border carbon adjustment). Transportation Sustainability California’s population is projected to grow to 50 million people by 2050. How and where the State grows will have important implications for all sectors of the economy, especially the transportation sector. Supporting this growth while continuing to protect the environment, developing livable and vibrant communities, and growing the economy is dependent on transitioning the State’s transportation system to one powered by ZEVs (including PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs) and low carbon fuels. It must also offer other attractive and convenient low carbon transportation choices, including safe walking and bicycling, as well as quality public transportation. Investments should consider California’s diverse communities and provide accessible and clean travel options to all while drastically reducing reliance on light-duty combustion vehicles. The transportation system in California moves people between home, work, school, shopping, recreation, and other destinations, and connects ports, industry, residential communities, commercial centers, educational facilities, and natural wonders.182 California’s vast transportation system includes roads and highways totaling more than 175,000 miles and valued at approximately $1.2 trillion, 500 transit agencies, 245 public-use airports, 12 major ports, and the nation’s first high-speed rail system, now under construction.183 Transportation infrastructure also includes sidewalks, bicycle paths, parking, transit stations and shelters, street trees and landscaping, signage, lighting, and other elements that affect the convenience, safety, and accessibility of transportation choices. Increasingly, technologies such as real-time, web- and mobile-enabled trip planning and ride-sourcing services are changing how people travel. In the near future, automated and connected vehicles, and unmanned aerial systems (e.g., drones) are expected to be part of our transportation landscape and to transform the way that people and freight are transported. Responsibility for the transportation system is spread across State, regional, and local levels. Through effective policy design, the State has an opportunity to guide technology transformation and influence investment decisions with a view to mitigate climate and environmental impacts while promoting economic opportunities and community health and safety. The network of transportation technology and infrastructure, in turn, shapes and is shaped by development and land use patterns that can either support or detract from a more sustainable, low carbon, multi-modal transportation future. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, therefore, must actively address not only infrastructure and technology, but also coordinated strategies to achieve development, conservation, and land use patterns that align with the State’s GHG and other policy goals. Transportation also enables the movement of freight such as food, building materials, and other consumable products, as well as waste and recyclables. The California freight system includes myriad equipment and 182 Caltrans. California Transportation Plan 2040, February 2016.183 Ibid. 74 facilities,184 and is the most extensive, complex, and interconnected system in the country, with approximately 1.5 billion tons of freight valued at $2.8 trillion shipped in 2015 to, through, and within California.185 Freight- dependent industries accounted for over $740 billion of California’s GDP and over 5 million California jobs in 2014.186, 187 Transportation has a profound and varied impact on individuals and communities, including benefits such as economic growth, greater accessibility, and transport-related physical activity, and adverse consequences such as GHG emissions, smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, traffic congestion, and sedentary behaviors. The sector is the largest emitter of GHG emissions in California. Air pollution from tailpipe emissions contributes to respiratory ailments, cardiovascular disease, and early death, with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, those with existing health conditions (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD), low-income communities, and communities of color.188, 189, 190, 191, 192 Importantly, transportation costs are also a major portion of most Californian’s household budgets.193 Additionally, dependence on cars has a direct impact on levels of physical activity, which is closely linked to multiple adverse health outcomes. Fortunately, many measures that reduce transportation sector GHG emissions simultaneously present opportunities to bolster the economy, enhance public health, revitalize disadvantaged communities, strengthen resilience to disasters and changing climate, and improve Californians’ ability to conveniently access daily destinations and nature. These opportunities are particularly important for those who are not able to, or cannot afford to, drive. In addition, a growing market demand for walkable, bikeable, and transit- accessible communities presents a significant opportunity to shift California’s transportation systems toward a lower-carbon future while realizing significant public health benefits through increased levels of physical activity (e.g., walking and bicycling). In fact, transport-related physical activity could result in reducing risks from chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, certain cancers, and more, to such an extent that it would rank among the top public health accomplishments in modern history, and help to reduce the billions of dollars California spends each year to treat chronic diseases. Just as California was the first to mitigate the contribution of cars and trucks to urban smog, it is leading the way toward a clean, low carbon, healthy, interconnected, and equitable transportation system. Continuing to advance the significant progress already underway in the areas of vehicle and fuel technology is critical to the transportation sector strategy and to reducing GHG emissions in the transportation sector. The rapid technological and behavioral changes underway with automated and connected vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, and ride-sourcing services are redefining the transportation sector, and should be part of the solution for a lower carbon transportation sector. It is critical to support and accelerate progress on transitioning to a zero carbon transportation system, while ensuring VMT reductions are still achieved. The growing severity of climate impacts, persistent public health impacts and costs from air pollution,194 and rapid technology progress that supports the expectation that cost parity between some ZEVs and comparable internal combustion vehicles will be attained in a few years, underscores the need for further 184 The freight system includes trucks, ocean-going vessels, locomotives, aircraft, transport refrigeration units, commercial harborcraft and cargo handling, industrial and ground service equipment used to move freight at seaports, airports, border crossings, railyards, warehouses, and distribution centers.185 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration. Freight Analysis Framework, V 4.1, 2016.186 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. Available at: www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm, accessed March 11, 2016.187 State of California Employment Development Department. Labor Market Information by California Geographic Areas. Available at: www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/geography/lmi-by-geography.html, accessed March 21, 2016.188 CARB. May 2016. Mobile Source Strategy. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf189 Hoek, G., Krishnan, R. M., Beelen, R., Peters, A., Ostro, B., Brunekreef, B., and Kaufman, J. D. 2013. Long-term air pollution exposure and cardio-respiratory mortality: a review. Environmental Health, 12(1), 1.190 Friedman, M. S., K. E. Powell, L. Hutwagner, L. M. Graham, and W. G. Teague. 2001. “Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma.” JAMA 285(7), 897–905.191 Bell, M. L., and K. Ebisu. 2012. “Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120(12), 1699.192 Morello-Frosch, R., M. Zuk, M. Jerrett, B. Shamasunder, and A. D. Kyle. 2011. “Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: implications for policy.” Health Affairs 30(5), 879–887.193 H + T® Index website. htaindex.cnt.org/194 For example, a recent report by the American Lung Association estimates the costs of climate and air pollution from passenger vehicles in California to be $15 billion annually. Holmes-Gen, B. and W. Barrett. 2016. Clean Air Future – Health and Climate Benefits of Zero Emission Vehicles. American Lung Association in California, October. 75 action on ZEVs. Therefore, CARB is signaling the need for additional policy and technical support on strategies to move toward a goal of achieving 100 percent ZEV sales in the light-duty vehicle sector. Austria, Germany, India, Netherlands, and Norway are all taking steps to, or have indicated a desire to, move to 100 percent ZEV sales in the 2020–2030 time frame. In addition, policies that maximize the integration of electrified rail and transit to improve reliability and travel times, increase active transportation such as walking and bicycling, encourage use of streets for multiple modes of transportation, improve freight efficiency and infrastructure development, and shift demand to low carbon modes will need to play a greater role as California strives to achieve its 2030 and 2050 climate targets.195 The State’s rail modernization program has identified critical elements of the rail network where improvements, either in timing of service or infrastructure, provide benefits across the entire statewide network, furthering the attractiveness of rail for a range of trip distances.196 The State also uses the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) to provide grants from GGRF to fund transformative improvements modernizing California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, as well as bus and ferry transit systems, to reduce emissions of GHGs by reducing congestion and VMT throughout California. As the backbone of an electrified mass-transportation network for the State, the high-speed rail system catalyzes and relies on focused, compact, and walkable development well-served by local transit to funnel riders onto the system and provide alternative options to airplanes and automobiles for interregional travel. Concentrated development, such as that incentivized by the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant program, can improve ridership and revenue for the system while providing vibrant communities for all. At the same time, more needs to be done to fully exploit synergies with emerging mobility solutions like ride-sourcing and more effective infrastructure planning to anticipate and guide the necessary changes in travel behavior, especially among millennials. Uniquely, high-speed rail affects air-miles traveled, diverting, at minimum, 30 percent of the intrastate air travel market in 2040.197 While most of the GHG reductions from the transportation sector in this Scoping Plan will come from technologies and low carbon fuels, a reduction in the growth of VMT is also needed. VMT reductions are necessary to achieve the 2030 target and must be part of any strategy evaluated in this Plan. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward this goal, but alone will not provide all of the VMT growth reductions that will be needed. There is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals. At the time of this writing, adoption of the first round of SCSs by MPOs is complete, and the second round of SCS planning is underway. Three MPO regions are in the very early stages of developing their third SCSs. To date, CARB staff reviewed the final determinations of 16 MPOs, and concluded that all 16 of those SCSs would achieve their targets, if implemented, with many of the MPOs indicating that they expect to exceed their targets. CARB staff recognizes the very strong performance in this first round of SCSs as a major success. Currently adopted sustainable communities strategies achieve, in aggregate, a 17 percent reduction in statewide per capita GHG emissions relative to 2005 by 2035. Since 2014, CARB has been working with MPOs and other stakeholders to update regional SB 375 targets. At the same time, CARB has also conducted analysis for development of the Mobile Source Strategy and Scoping Plan that identifies the need for statewide per capita greenhouse gas emissions reductions on the order of 25 percent by 2035, to meet our climate goals. Many MPOs have identified challenges to incorporating additional strategies and reducing emissions further in their plans, principally tied to the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources. MPOs have submitted target update recommendations to CARB that in aggregate maintains a 17 percent reduction statewide, which includes commitments of 18 percent reduction by 2035 from each of the four largest MPOs in the State. CARB is currently reviewing each MPOs target update recommendations alongside new State policies. State agencies have been working on new State-level VMT-related Policies and Measures (see Table 17) as part of this Scoping Plan intended to provide the State, MPOs, and local agencies with additional funding resources and tools to successfully meet the State’s climate goals. CARB’s preliminary review indicates that new State- level policies and measures will help support updated SB 375 targets that achieve up to 20 percent of the 195 Morello-Frosch, R., M. Zuk, M. Jerrett, B. Shamasunder, and A. D. Kyle. 2011. “Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: Implications for policy.” Health Affairs 30(5), 879–887.196 California State Transportation Agency. 2016. 2018 California State Rail Plan factsheet and TIRCP fact sheet.197 California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2016. 2016 Business Plan. Ridership and Revenue Forecast. 76 needed statewide reduction, as well as help bridge the remaining VMT growth reduction gap. Discussions among a broad suite of stakeholders from transportation, the building community, financial institutions, housing advocates, environmental organizations, and community groups are needed to begin the process to pursue and develop the needed set of strategies to ensure that we can achieve necessary VMT reductions, and that the associated benefits are shared by all Californians. Appendix C further details potential actions for discussion that can be taken by State government, regional planning agencies, and local governments, to achieve a broad, statewide vision for more sustainable land use and close the VMT gap.198 At the State level, a number of important policies are being developed. Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013), which called for an update to the metric of transportation impact in CEQA. That update to the CEQA Guidelines is currently underway. Employing VMT as the metric of transportation impact statewide will help to ensure GHG reductions planned under SB 375 will be achieved through on-the-ground development, and will also play an important role in creating the additional GHG reductions needed beyond SB 375 across the State. Implementation of this change will rely, in part, on local land use decisions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the project level, and in long-term plans (including general plans, climate action plans, specific plans, and transportation plans) and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375. The State can provide guidance and tools to assist local governments in achieving those objectives. Appendix H highlights the more significant existing policies, programs, measures, regulations, and initiatives that provide a framework for helping achieve GHG emissions reductions in this sector. Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Vibrant Communities and Landscapes / VMT Reduction Goals • Implement and support the use of VMT as the metric for determining transportation impacts under CEQA, in place of level of service (LOS). • Promote all feasible policies to reduce VMT, including: • Land use and community design that reduce VMT, • Transit oriented development,• Complete street design policies that prioritize transit, biking, and walking, and• Increasing low carbon mobility choices, including improved access to viable and affordable public transportation and active transportation opportunities. • Complete the construction of high-speed rail integrated with enhanced rail and transit systems throughout the State. • Promote transportation fuel system infrastructure for electric, fuel-cell, and other emerging clean technologies that is accessible to the public where possible, and especially in underserved communities, including environmental justice communities. • Increase the number, safety, connectivity, and attractiveness of biking and walking facilities to increase use. • Promote potential efficiency gains from automated transportation systems and identify policy priorities to maximize sustainable outcomes from automated and connected vehicles (preferably ZEVs), including VMT reduction, coordination with transit, and shared mobility, and minimize any increase in VMT, fossil fuel use, and emissions from using automated transportation systems.• Promote shared-use mobility, such as bike sharing, car sharing and ride-sourcing services to bridge the “first mile, last mile” gap between commuters’ transit stops and their destinations. • Continue research and development on transportation system infrastructure, including: • Integrate frameworks for lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions with life- cycle costs for pavement and large infrastructure projects, and • Health benefits and costs savings from shifting from driving to walking, bicycling, and transit use. • Quadruple the proportion of trips taken by foot by 2030 (from a baseline 198 CARB. Potential State - Level Strategies to Advance Sustainable, Equitable Communities and Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) -- for Discussion. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/091316/Potential%20VMT%20Measures%20For%20 Discussion_9.13.16.pdf 77 of the 2010–2012 California Household Travel Survey). • Strive for a nine-fold increase in the proportion of trips taken by bicycle by 2030 (from a baseline of the 2010–2012 California Household Travel Survey). • Strive, in passenger rail hubs, for a transit mode share of between 10 percent and 50 percent, and for a walk and bike mode share of between 10 percent and 15 percent. Vehicle Technology Goals • Through a strong set of complementary policies–including reliable incentives, significant infrastructure investment, broad education and outreach, and potential regulation–aim to reach 100 percent ZEV sales in the light-duty sector (PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs) by 2050. • Make significant progress in ZEV penetrations in non-light-duty sectors. • Deploy low-emission and electrified rail vehicles. Clean Fuels Goals • Electrify the transportation sector using both electricity and hydrogen. • Promote research development and deployment of low carbon fuels such as renewable gas, including renewable hydrogen. • Rapidly reduce carbon intensity of existing liquid and gaseous transportation fuels. Sustainable Freight Goals • Increase freight system efficiency of freight operations at specific facilities and along freight corridors such that more cargo can be moved with fewer emissions.• Accelerate use of clean vehicle and equipment technologies and fuels of freight through targeted introduction of zero emission or near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) technologies, and continued development of renewable fuels. • Encourage State and federal incentive programs to continue supporting zero and near-zero pilot and demonstration projects in the freight sector. • Accelerate use of clean vehicle, equipment, and fuels in freight sector through targeted introduction of ZE/NZE technologies, and continued development of renewable fuels. This includes developing policy options that encourage ZE/NZE vehicles on primary freight corridors (e.g., Interstate-710); examples of such policy options include a separated ZE/ NZE freight lane, employing market mechanisms such as favorable road pricing for ZE/NZE vehicles, and developing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure along those corridors. Cross-Sector Interactions The transportation sector has considerable influence on other sectors and industries in the State. California’s transportation sector is still primarily powered by petroleum, and to reduce statewide emissions, California must reduce demand for driving; continue to reduce its gasoline and diesel fuel consumption; diversify its transportation fuel sources by increasing the adoption of low- and zero-carbon fuels; increase the ease and integration of the rail and transit networks to shift travel mode; and deploy ZE/NZE vehicles. As California’s population continues to increase, land use patterns will directly impact GHG emissions from the transportation sector, as well as those associated with the conversion and development of previously undeveloped land. Specifically, where and how the State population grows will have implications on distances traveled and tailpipe emissions; as well as on secondary emissions from the transportation sector, including emissions from vehicle manufacturing and distribution, fuel refining and distribution, demand for new infrastructure (including roads, transit, and active transportation infrastructure), demand for maintenance and upkeep of existing infrastructure. Conversion of natural and working lands further affects emissions, with the attendant impacts to food security, watershed health, and ecosystems. Less dense development also demands higher energy and water use. With the exception of VMT reductions, none of these secondary emissions are currently accounted for in the GHG models used in this Scoping Plan, but are nonetheless important considerations. Additionally, compact, lower-VMT future development patterns are essential to achieving public health, equity, economic, and conservation goals, which are also not modeled but are important co-benefits of the overall transportation sector strategy. For example, high-speed rail station locations were identified in downtown areas to reinforce existing city centers. 78 Achieving LCFS targets and shifting from petroleum dependence toward greater reliance on low carbon fuels also has the potential to affect land use in multiple ways. For example, increased demand for conventional biofuels could require greater use of land and water for purpose-grown crops, which includes interactions with the agricultural and natural and working lands sectors. On the other hand, continuing growth in fuels from urban organic waste, as well as waste biomass such as composting residues, by-processing residues and agricultural waste and excess forest biomass acts to alleviate the pressure on croplands to meet the need for food, feed, and fuel. Likewise, captured methane from in-vessel digestion, landfills or dairy farms for use in vehicles requires close interaction with the waste and farming sectors. Also, as more electric vehicles and charging stations are deployed, drivers’ charging behavior will affect the extent to which additional electric generation capacity and ancillary services are needed to maintain a reliable grid and accommodate a portfolio of 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030. Charging control and optimization technologies will determine how well integrated the electric and transportation sectors can become, including, for instance, the widespread use of electric vehicles as storage for excess renewable generation, vehicle to grid, smart charging, and/or smart grid. The GHG emissions intensity of electricity affects the GHG savings of fuel switching from petroleum-based fuels to electricity; the cleaner the electric grid, the greater the benefits of switching to electricity as a fuel. Similar to electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles have zero-tailpipe emissions and can mitigate GHGs and criteria pollutants. Greenhouse gas emissions could be further reduced with the use of renewable hydrogen, which can be produced using renewable electricity or renewable natural gas. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for the transportation sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Vibrant Communities and Landscapes / VMT Reduction Goals • Mobile Source Strategy – 15 percent reduction in total light-duty VMT from the BAU in 2050 (with measures to achieve this goal not specified; potential measures identified in Appendix C).• Work with regions to update SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies targets for 2035 to better align with the 2030 GHG target and take advantage of State rail investments.• Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward the goal of reducing total light-duty VMT by 15 percent from expected levels in 2050, but alone will not provide all of the VMT reductions that will be needed. The gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals needs to be addressed through additional VMT reduction measures such as those mentioned in Appendix C. • Implement and support the adoption and use of VMT as the CEQA metric of transportation impact, such that it promotes GHG reduction, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. • Continue to develop and explore pathways to implement State-level VMT reduction strategies, such as those outlined in the document “Potential State-Level Strategies to Advance Sustainable, Equitable Communities and Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) – for Discussion”199 – included in Appendix C – through a transparent and inclusive interagency policy development process to evaluate and identify implementation pathways for additional policies to reduce VMT and promote sustainable communities, with a focus on: • Accelerating equitable and affordable transit-oriented and infill development through new and enhanced financing and policy incentives and mechanisms, • Promoting stronger boundaries to suburban growth through enhanced support for sprawl containment mechanisms such as urban growth boundaries and transfer of development rights programs, • Identifying performance criteria for transportation and other infrastructure investments 199 Refers to the document discussed at the September 2016 Public Workshop on the Transportation Sector to Inform Development of the 2030 Target Scoping Plan Update, also available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/091316/ Potential%20VMT%20Measures%20For%20Discussion_9.13.16.pdf 79 to ensure alignment with GHG reduction goals and other State policy priorities and expand access to transit, shared mobility, and active transportation choices, • Promoting efficient development patterns that maximize protection of natural and working lands, • Developing pricing mechanisms such as road user/VMT-based pricing, congestion pricing, and parking pricing strategies, • Reducing congestion and related GHG emissions through commute trip reduction strategies, and • Programs to maximize the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, including bicycling, walking, transit use, and shared mobility options. • Finalize analysis of the results of the pilot road usage charge program, implemented pursuant to SB 1077 (DeSaulnier, Chapter 835, Statues of 2014), and evaluate deployment of a statewide program.• Continue promoting active transportation pursuant to SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) – The Active Transportation Program and beyond.• Continue to build high-speed rail and broader statewide rail modernization pursuant to the funding program in SB 862 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014) and other sources. • Encourage use of streets for multiple modes of transportation (including public transit and active transportation, such as walking and bicycling), and for all users, including the elderly, young, and less able bodied, pursuant to AB 1358 (Leno, Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008) – Complete Streets policies. • Support and assist local and regional governments, through technical assistance, and grant and other local assistance programs, to develop and implement plans that are consistent with the goals and concepts in The Second Investment Plan for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2018-2019200 and its subsequent updates, and Appendix C: Vibrant Communities and Landscapes, including the following:• California Climate Investment programs such as Transformative Climate Communities Program, ensuring promotion of GHG reductions from neighborhood-level community plans in disadvantaged communities. • AB 2087 (Levine, Chapter 455, Statutes of 2016) – Help local and State agencies apply core investment principles when planning conservation or mitigation projects. • High speed rail station area plans. • Implementation of updated General Plan Guidelines. • Per SB 350, implement the recommendations identified in the Barriers Study to accessing ZE/NZE transportation options for low-income customers and recommendations on how to increase access.201 And, track progress towards these actions over time to ensure disadvantaged communities are getting equal access and benefits relative to other parts of the State. • Take into account the current and future impacts of climate change when planning, designing, building, operating, maintaining, and investing in State infrastructure, as required under Executive Order B-30-15. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Vehicle Technology • Implement the Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario of CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, which includes:• An expansion of the Advanced Clean Cars program, which further increases the stringency of GHG emissions for all light-duty vehicles, and 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030, • Phase 1 and 2 GHG regulations for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and • Innovative Clean Transit. • Periodically assess and promote cleaner fleet standards. • Deploy ZEVs across all vehicle classes, including rail vehicles, along with the necessary charging infrastructure. • Encourage State and federal incentive programs to continue supporting zero and near-zero pilot and demonstration projects.• Collaborate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate more 200 CARB. January 2016. Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds Second Investment Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-17 through 2018-19. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/16-17-updated-final-second-investment-planii.pdf201 CARB. 2017. Low-Income Barriers Study, Part B: Overcoming Barriers to Clean Transportation Access for Low Income Residents. www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/transoptions/draft_sb350_clean_transportation_access_guidance_document.pdf 80 stringent locomotives requirements,202 work with California seaports, ocean carriers, and other stakeholders to develop the criteria to incentivize introduction of Super- Low Emission Efficient Ships, and investigate potential energy efficiency improvements for transport refrigeration units and insulated truck and trailer cargo vans. • Promote research, development, and deployment of new technology to reduce GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxics. • Implement a process for intra-state agency and regional and local transportation coordination on automated vehicles to ensure shared policy goals in achieving safe, energy efficient, and low carbon autonomous vehicle deployment that also contribute to VMT reductions. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Clean Fuels • Continue LCFS activities, with increasing stringency of at least 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity (CI). • Continue to develop and commercialize clean transportation fuels through renewable energy integration goals, tax incentives, research investments, support for project demonstration, public outreach, setting procurement standards, including updating State and local procurement contracts.• Per SB 1383 and the SLCP Strategy, adopt regulations to reduce and recover methane from landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and manure at dairies; use the methane as a source of renewable gas to fuel vehicles and generate electricity; and establish infrastructure development and procurement policies to deliver renewable gas to the market. • Accelerate deployment of alternative fueling infrastructure pursuant to the following: • SB 350 – CPUC to accelerate widespread transportation electrification. • Executive Order B-16-2012 and 2016 ZEV Action Plan – call for infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs by 2020. • CEC’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP). • CPUC’s NRG settlement.• CALGreen Code provisions mandate installation of PEV charging infrastructure in new residential and commercial buildings.203 • IOU electric vehicle charging infrastructure pilot programs. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – Sustainable Freight • Implement the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan:• 25 percent improvement of freight system efficiency by 2030. • Deployment of over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation, and maximize near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. Ongoing and Proposed Measures – California and Transportation Plan • Update every five years and implement California Transportation Plan. Sector Measures • Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program Potential Additional Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. • Develop a set of complementary policies to make light-duty ZEVs clear market winners, with a goal of reaching 100 percent light-duty ZEV sales. This could include the following: • Reliable purchase/trade-in incentives for at least 10 years. • Dealer incentives for ZEV sales. • Policies to ensure operating cost savings for ZEVs relative to internal 202 www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/docs/final_locomotive_petition_and_cover_letter_4_13_17.pdf203 Such as raceway and panel capacity to support future installation of electrical vehicle charging stations. 81 combustion engines, including low cost electricity. • Additional investments in charging and ZEV refueling infrastructure. • A broad and effective marketing and outreach campaign. • Collaborations with cities to develop complementary incentive and use policies for ZEVs. • Targeted policies to support ZEV sales and use in low income and disadvantaged communities. • Develop a Low-Emission Diesel Standard to diversify the fuel pool by incentivizing increased production of low-emission diesel fuels. This standard is anticipated to both displace consumption of conventional diesel with increased use of low- emission diesel fuels, and to reduce emissions from conventional fuels. • Continue to develop and explore pathways to implement State-level VMT reduction strategies, such as those outlined in Appendix C through a transparent and inclusive interagency policy development process to evaluate and identify implementation pathways for additional policies to reduce VMT and promote sustainable communities, with a focus on the following: • Accelerating equitable and affordable transit-oriented and infill development through new and enhanced financing and policy incentives and mechanisms. • Promote infrastructure necessary for residential development in existing communities, and ensure any urban growth boundaries are paired with significant infill promotion strategies and removal of infill development barriers. • Identifying performance criteria for transportation and other infrastructure investments, to ensure alignment with GHG reduction goals and other State policy priorities, and improve proximity, expanded access to transit, shared mobility, and active transportation choices. • Promoting efficient development patterns that maximize protection of natural and working lands.• Developing pricing mechanisms such as road user/VMT-based pricing, congestion pricing, and parking pricing strategies.• Reducing congestion and related GHG emissions through programs to maximize the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, including bicycling, walking, transit use, and shared mobility options for commute trips. • Continue to promote research and standards for new and existing technologies to reduce GHGs, including but not limited to: • Low rolling resistance tires in the replacement tire market, subject to certification standards that identify tires as low rolling resistance tires or verify emissions reductions and potential fuel savings. • Impacts on VMT of car sharing, ride-sourcing, and other emerging mobility options. • Driving behaviors that reduce GHG emissions, such as ecodriving training and real-time feedback mechanisms. Natural and Working Lands Including Agricultural Lands In his 2015 State of the State address, Governor Brown established 2030 targets for GHG emissions reductions and called for policies and actions to reduce GHG emissions from natural and working lands, including forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, and soils. The passage of SB 1386 (Wolk, Chapter 535, Statutes of 2015-16) codified this policy and emphasized the important role natural and working lands play in the State’s climate strategy. This Scoping Plan focuses renewed attention on California’s natural and working lands and the contribution they make to meet the State’s goals for carbon sequestration, GHG reduction, and climate change adaptation. California’s natural and working lands encompass a range of land types and uses, including farms, ranches, forests, grasslands, deserts, wetlands, riparian areas, coastal areas and the ocean-- as well as the green spaces in urban and built environments. These resources can be both a source and sink for GHG emissions. Policy in this sector must balance GHG emissions reductions and carbon sequestration with other co- benefits, such as clean air, wildlife and pollinator habitat, strong economies, food, fiber and renewable energy production, and water supply.204 Recent trends indicate that significant pools of carbon from these landscapes risk reversal: over the period 2001–2010 disturbance caused an estimated 150 MMT C loss, with the majority– approximately 120 MMT C– 204 www.sierranevada.ca.gov/our-region/ca-primary-watershed 82 lost through wildland fire.205 At the same time, energy use, methane, and N2O emissions from the agricultural sector accounts for eight percent of the emissions in the statewide GHG inventory. California’s climate objective for natural and working lands is to maintain them as a carbon sink (i.e., net zero or negative GHG emissions) and, where appropriate, minimize the net GHG and black carbon emissions associated with management, biomass utilization, and wildfire events. In order to achieve this objective, this Plan directs the continued development of the broad and growing understanding of carbon dynamics on California’s landscapes, statewide emission trends, and their responses to different land management scenarios. Further, in order to build a programmatic framework for achieving this long-term objective to maintain California’s natural and working lands as a carbon sink, this Plan directs the State to quantify the carbon impacts of both publicly funded (e.g., bonds, special taxes, general fund) climate intervention activities on California’s natural and working lands made through existing programs as well as potential regulatory actions on land management. This Plan proposes an intervention based reduction goal of at least 15-20 million metric tons by 2030 as a reasonable beginning point for further discussion and development based on the State’s current preliminary understanding of what might be feasible. This Plan recognizes that achieving an initial statewide goal of sequestering and avoiding emissions in this sector by at least 15-20 million metric tons by 2030 through existing pathways and new incentives would provide a crucial complement to the measures described in this Scoping Plan and will inform the development of longer-term natural and working lands goals. Achieving this ambitious climate goal will require collaboration and support from State and local agencies, which must improve their capacity to participate and benefit from State climate programs, and set the path for natural and working lands to help the State meet its long-range climate goals. Looking to the Future This section outlines how the State will achieve California’s climate objectives to: (1) maintain them as a resilient carbon sink (i.e., net zero or negative GHG emissions), and (2) minimize the net GHG and black carbon emissions associated with management, biomass disposal, and wildfire events to 2030 and beyond. Implementation will include policy and program pathways, with activities related to land protection; enhanced carbon sequestration; and innovative biomass utilization. The framework for this section is to: • Protect land from conversion to more intensified uses by increasing conservation opportunities and pursuing local planning processes in urban and infrastructure development patterns that avoid greenfield development. • Enhance the resilience of and potential for carbon sequestration on lands through management and restoration, and reduce GHG and black carbon emissions from wildfire and management activities. This enhancement includes expansion and management of green space in urban areas. • Innovate biomass utilization such that harvested wood and excess agricultural and forest biomass can be used to advance statewide objectives for renewable energy and fuels, wood product manufacturing, agricultural markets, and soil health, resulting in avoided GHG emissions relative to traditional utilization pathways. Associated activities should increase the resilience of rural communities and economies. To accomplish these objectives, the State, led by California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and CARB will complete a Natural and Working Lands (NWL) Climate Change Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan) in 2018 to evaluate a range of implementation scenarios for natural and working lands and identify long-term (2050 or 2100) sequestration goals that can be incorporated into future climate policy. The Implementation Plan will: • Include a projection of statewide emissions under business-as-usual land use and management conditions and alternative scenarios, as well as a listing and quantitative assessment of conservation and management activities the state may pursue to achieve the NWL climate objectives and the statewide goals of at least 15-20 MMTCO2e emissions sequestering and avoidance from the NWL sector by 2030; • Identify state departments, boards, conservancies, and CNRA and CDFA programs responsible for meeting the 15-20 MMTCO2e goal by 2030; and • Identify methodologies to be used by State programs to account for the 205 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/sectors/forest/forest.htm 83 GHG impacts of prior state funded land use and management interventions, and to be used to estimate the GHG impacts of future interventions. While growing trees and other vegetation, as well as soil carbon sequestration, reduce some of the carbon losses measured, climate change itself further stresses many of these systems and affects the ability of California’s landscapes to maintain its carbon sink. The State will continue to rely on best available science to support actions and incentives to slow and reverse these trends, in concert with other production and ecological objectives of land use. The Forest Climate Action Team, Healthy Soils Initiative, State Coastal Conservancy’s Climate Ready Program, various California Climate Investment programs, and CARB’s compliance offset program already undertake portions of this work. As we move towards and maximize the ability of our land base to serve as a carbon sink, it will also be important to strengthen these individual activities through the coordination and aggregation of ecoregional plans that inform these interventions. These and future additional efforts can not only protect California’s natural carbon stocks, they can also improve quality of life in urban and rural communities alike and increase the climate resilience of agricultural, forestry, and recreational industries and the rural communities they support; the State’s water supply; biodiversity; and the safety and environmental health of all who call California home. Research and Policy Needs Research is ongoing across agencies to advance the state of the science on NWL carbon dynamics, including a number of projects within the Fourth Climate Change Assessment, and a compendium of climate research being managed by the CNRA that will be completed in 2018. Additionally, California needs a well-defined reference case, or “business as usual” scenario to set a comprehensive and strategic path forward for California’s lands and ocean environments to contribute to the State’s climate goals. Finally, efforts must increase to gather, interpret, and unify best available science on the GHG and carbon sequestration impacts of land use and management practices applied across forests, cultivated agricultural lands, rangelands and grasslands, wetlands, coastal and ocean systems, desert ecosystems, and urban and other settled lands. The Implementation Plan, as summarized above, will utilize the Protect-Enhance-Innovate framework and employ projections for carbon sequestration and GHG emissions from California’s land base under reference case and increased management scenarios. The quantitative outputs of these projections, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents will drive acreage needs for implementation using CO2e/acre results from multiple modeling efforts. The Implementation Plan will also identify GHG emissions quantification within and across programs and agencies and describe implementation monitoring and emissions inventories. Natural and Working Lands Inventory In order to understand how carbon is released and sequestered by natural and working landscapes, CARB has worked extensively with other State agencies, academic researchers and the public to develop a Natural and Working Lands inventory that will guide this process. As with other sectors, the CARB Natural and Working Lands inventory represents a snapshot of emissions in recent years, using a combination of reported and measured data. A time lag exists between the last year of available data and the completion of the inventory to allow time for reporting and processing the data. For emission sources that are hard to individually measure, the CARB inventory estimates emissions based on “surrogates,” such as the typical amount of travel on unpaved roads to estimate particulate matter emissions at the county level. The most recent inventory can also be “forecast” to project prevailing conditions in a future year based on rules and programs currently in place – known as a “business as usual projection” - along with scenarios to explore the benefits of further strategies to reduce emissions. Forecasts of business-as-usual and policy scenarios guide planning efforts. As discussed below, ongoing research into forecasting emissions from Natural and Working Lands includes a project at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by CNRA. CARB is monitoring this and other research activities and will incorporate results into a proposed inventory and forecasting methodology for Natural and Working Lands. CARB will solicit public feedback and review on the resulting product prior to completing the first full Natural and Working Lands Inventory by the end of 2018, as called for in SB 859. The Natural and Working Lands Inventory is spatially-resolved, so it can be segmented by county, watershed, or other regional planning areas. This spatial resolution allows local governments and regional organizations to use the inventory, along with more granular location-specific information, to track progress from projects in their jurisdictions. 84 CARB plans to update the forest component of the Natural and Working Lands inventory to include 2012 GHG emissions estimates, followed by emissions estimates for soil carbon, urban forestry, and croplands by mid-2018. Work currently in progress applies airborne and space-based technologies to monitor forest health and quantify emissions associated with land-based carbon. California and federal agencies are working with researchers and funding studies to enhance our understanding of the roles of forests and other lands in climate change using rapidly advancing remote sensing technology.206, 207 CALAND Carbon Emissions Model CNRA is managing the development of a CALAND model through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which will include a projection of business-as-usual emissions as well as a listing and quantitative assessment of conservation and management activities the State may pursue to achieve at least 15-20 MMT sequestration and GHG avoided emissions from the NWL sector by 2030. CNRA, along with CARB and CDFA, will establish a formal public engagement process to gather external scientific expertise to inform development and finalization of the CALAND model for use in the Implementation Plan. Development of the Implementation Plan itself will also include a formal public process. Cross-Sector Interactions Strategies that reduce GHG emissions or increase sequestration in the natural and working lands sector often overlap and result in synergies with other sectors, most notably at intersections with land use, biomass and waste utilization, energy and water. It will be important for the sector to make critical linkages to other sectors, including energy, transportation fuels, and waste, and develop plans to integrate the natural and working lands sector into existing models, such as PATHWAYS and REMI. Landowner, local, and regional decisions affect land use development patterns and natural and working land conversion rates; conversely, conservation activities can support infill-oriented regional development and related transportation needs. As discussed earlier in the Transportation Sustainability section, under SB 375, Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs) aim to link transportation, housing, and climate policy to reduce per capita GHG emissions while providing a range of other important benefits for Californians. Some SCSs include policies, objectives or implementation measures relating to conservation and land protections, and to urban greening.208 Protecting natural and working lands that are under threat of conversion can promote infill development, reduce VMT, limit infrastructure expansion, and curb associated GHG emissions. An integrated vision for community development, land conservation and management, and transportation is a key component of meeting our transportation and natural and working lands goals.209 Agricultural and commercial forestry operations produce biomass as both an objective (i.e., food and fiber production) and a waste by-product. How this material is utilized can either increase or decrease emissions associated with management and restoration activities, turn waste into usable products, displace fossil fuels used in energy and transportation, and increase carbon stored in durable wood products in the built environment. Finding productive ways to use this material offers new opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, promote carbon sequestration, and generate economic resources for forest, agricultural, and waste sectors and communities. California is investigating ways to transform how organic waste from the agricultural and municipal sectors is managed to meet SLCP emissions reductions targets required by SB 1383,210 and to protect public health. Cross-sector synergies and complete waste inter-cycles, discussed further in the Waste Management section, result from conscientious treatment of these resources, including opportunities to improve soil health, increase renewable energy generation, and enhance market support for non-commercial products and waste. Productive utilization of dead and dying trees is a significant focus of the Governor’s Tree Mortality Task Force, and efforts to resolve the current shortfall in utilization capacity is addressed in that State of Emergency Declaration as well as in SB 859. Natural and working lands stewardship is essential to securing the State’s water supply along the entire 206 Asner, G. et al. (2015) Progressive forest canopy water loss during the 2012–2015 California drought. PNAS 113.2: E249-E255207 Battles, J. et al. (in progress) Innovations in measuring and managing forest carbon stocks in California. Project 2C: 4th California Climate Change Assessment. Natural Resources Agency. resources.ca.gov/climate/fourth/208 Livingston, Adam. Sustainable Communities Strategies and Conservation. January 2016. Available at: www.nature.org/ ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/california/sustainable-communities-strategies-and-conservation.pdf209 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/meetings.htm210 SB1383 (Lara, Chapter 396, Statutes of 2016) requires a 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 2030. 85 supply chain, from protection and management of the forested headwaters to preserving the ability of mountain meadows to retain and filter water ensuring flows and habitat in the Delta and its tributaries, end use efficiencies in agricultural and urban uses, and groundwater infiltration and utilization statewide. For example, more efficient water and energy use in farming operations could support GHG emissions reductions goals in the energy sectors. And improving forest health in the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, and other headwaters protects water quality and availability, in alignment with the California Water Action Plan. Potential Actions to Enhance Carbon Sequestration and Reduce Greenhouse Gases in NWL While agricultural and forest lands comprise the greatest acreage of NWL statewide, representing significant opportunity for achieving the State’s NWL climate goals, actions on all NWL remain critical. The land management strategies and targets included in these sections are illustrative of the types of actions that will be necessary to maintain all of California’s NWL and urban green space as a net sink of carbon, and are being used to aid in development of scenario modeling. The Implementation Plan will use this scenario modeling to scope the scale of action needed to ensure resilient future landscapes and identify key areas for advancement. Agriculture’s Role in Emissions Reductions and Carbon Sequestration In 2030 and 2050, the agricultural sector must remain vibrant and strong. California’s agricultural production is critical to global food security. It is also vulnerable to climate change. A study211 by the University of California concluded that the drought in 2015 cost the state economy $2.7 billion and 21,000 full time jobs. These losses are expected to ripple through rural communities for another several years. This illustrates the importance of strengthening agriculture while protecting resources and mitigating climate change. As the State works to meet emissions reductions goals, the agricultural sector can reduce emissions from production, sequester carbon and build soil carbon stocks, and play a role in cross-sectoral efforts to maximize the benefits of natural and working lands. Climate-smart agriculture is an integrated approach to achieving GHG reductions while also ensuring food security and promoting agricultural adaptation in the face of climate change. Conserving agricultural land, sequestering carbon in agricultural soils, employing a variety of techniques to manage manure on dairies, and increasing the efficiency of on-farm water and energy use are examples of practices that can achieve climate and food production goals across diverse agricultural systems. Climate-smart agriculture can support the Protect, Enhance, and Innovate goals. Approximately 60 percent of agricultural emissions are methane emissions from the dairy and livestock sectors. Emissions come from the animals themselves, through enteric fermentation, as well as from manure management–especially at dairies. SB 1383 and the resultant SLCP Strategy identify a mix of voluntary, incentive-based, and potential regulatory actions to achieve significant emissions reductions from these sources. A variety of techniques can attain the best results for each specific farming operation; effectively implementing a broad mix of strategies will reduce the GHG emissions from the agricultural sector significantly. CARB and CDFA and other agencies are working together to solicit input from industry, environmental, and community groups to encourage early and meaningful action to reduce emissions from the livestock sector. Over the last several years, farms have begun to optimize fertilizer applications to protect water quality, maintain high yields, and reduce emissions of N2O, a greenhouse gas. Farmers are required through the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program to manage nitrogen fertilizers to protect water quality through the use of nitrogen management plans. Nitrogen management plans are a tool designed to prevent over-applications of nitrogen through an approach that accounts for the nitrogen inputs from water, soil amendments and other sources, and also accounts for nitrogen removed from the field. CDFA’s Fertilizer Research and Education Program, in coordination with university researchers and others, has developed fertilization guidelines to optimize the rate, timing and placement of fertilizers for crops that represent more than half of the irrigated agriculture in California. Similarly, innovations in water management and the expansion of high efficiency irrigation methods also are contributing to N2O reductions. 211 Howitt, Richard E., Duncan MacEwan, Josué Medellín-Azuara, Jay R. Lund, Daniel A. Sumner. 2015. Economic Analysis of the 2015 Drought for California. Davis, CA: Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California – Davis. 86 California’s farms and ranches have the ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere through management practices that build and retain soil organic matter. Adequate soil organic matter ensures the continued soil capacity to function as a vital living ecosystem with multiple benefits, producing food for plants, animals, and humans. The Healthy Soils Initiative, announced by Governor Brown in 2015, offers an opportunity to incentivize the management of farmland for increased carbon sequestration in soil, also augmenting co- benefits including improved plant health and yields, increased water infiltration and retention, reduced sediment erosion and dust, improved water and air quality, and improved biological diversity and wildlife habitat. SB 859, signed into law in 2016, establishes the Healthy Soils Program at CDFA to provide incentives to farmers. It enables financial support for on-farm demonstration projects that “result in greenhouse gas benefits across all farming types with the intent to establish or promote healthy soils”. It defines healthy soils as “soils that enhance their continuing capacity to function as a biological system, increase soil organic matter, improve soil structure and water-and nutrient-holding capacity, and result in net long-term greenhouse gas benefits.” As noted in the Cross-Sector Interactions section, State and local efforts to manage land for carbon sequestration must work in conjunction with existing plans, incentives, and programs protecting California’s water supply, agricultural lands, and wildlife habitat. This Scoping Plan fits within a wide range of ongoing planning efforts throughout the State to advance economic and environmental priorities associated with natural and working lands. The Role of Forests in Emissions Reductions and Carbon Sequestration Decades of fire exclusion, coupled with an extended drought and the impacts of climate change, have increased the size and intensity of wildfires and bark beetle infestations; exposed millions of urban and rural residents to unhealthy smoke-laden air from wildfires; and threatened progress toward meeting the state’s long-term climate goals. Managing forests in California to be healthy, resilient net sinks of carbon is a vital part of California’s climate change policy. More than 100 million trees are dead, and recent wildfires have been among the most destructive and expensive in state history. As many as 15 million acres of California forests are estimated to be unhealthy and in need of some form of restoration, including more than 9 million acres managed by federal land management agencies and 6 million acres of State and privately managed forests. California’s urban forests also face multiple challenges, including drought and invasive exotic insects. Urban forests require maintenance to preserve the multiple values they provide and merit expansion to sequester carbon and secure other benefits to urban dwellers and the State. The California Forest Carbon Plan (FCP), being developed by the Forest Climate Action Team (FCAT), seeks to establish California’s forests as a more resilient and reliable long-term carbon sink, rather than a GHG and black carbon emission source, and confer additional ecosystem benefits through a range of management strategies.212 The FCP emphasizes working collaboratively at the watershed or landscape scale to restore resilience to all forestlands in the state. The current draft of the FCP places carbon sequestration and reducing black carbon and GHG emissions as one set of management objectives in the broader context of forest health and a range of other important forest co-benefits. California will manage for carbon alongside wildlife habitat, watershed protection, recreational access, traditional tribal uses, public health and safety, forest products, and local and regional economic development. 212 http://www.fire.ca.gov/fcat/ 87 Federally managed lands play an important role in the achievement of the California climate goals established in AB 32 and subsequent related legislation and plans. Over half of the forestland in California is managed by the federal government, primarily by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, and these lands comprise the largest potential forest carbon sink under one ownership in the state. Several regulatory, policy, and financial challenges have hindered the ability of the Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies (Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service) to increase the pace and scale of restoration needed, such as the current budget structure to fund wildland fire suppression and the procedural requirements of a number of federal environmental and planning statutes. The State of California must continue to work closely and in parallel to the federal government’s efforts to resolve these obstacles and achieve forest health and resilience on the lands that federal agencies manage. Protection of Land and Land Use California will continue to pursue development and new infrastructure construction patterns that avoid greenfield development, limit conflicts with neighboring land uses, and increase conservation opportunities for NWL to reduce conversion to intensified uses. Success will depend on working through local and regional land use planning and permitting, as well as developing incentives for participation by local governments and individual landowners. Enhance Carbon Sequestration and Resilience through Management and Restoration California will increase efforts to manage and restore land to secure and increase carbon storage and minimize GHG and black carbon emissions in a sustainable manner so that the carbon bank is resilient and provides other benefits such as water quality, habitat and recreation. One tool to demonstrate the potential for greater management and restoration on NWL is the CALAND model. As detailed in the Discussion Draft213 and discussed above, it considers a variety of management and restoration activities employed across the State. Version 1 of the CALAND model considered two potential scenarios, a “low” and a “high” rate of implementation to 2030, with resulting carbon sequestration outcomes to 2050. The acreages given in the “low” scenario all represent feasible implementation on public and private lands beyond current rates for the listed activity, given availability of additional funding and other supporting resources. The “high” scenario represents a more ambitious approach, requiring new programs and policies, including collaboration with federal partners, to support implementation. The activities presented in the Discussion Draft and Version 2 of CALAND are not inclusive of all activities under this strategy. Modeling will continue beyond finalization of the Scoping Plan. Agencies and modelers will continue to identify and analyze land management and restoration activities to advance the State’s climate goals and improvements in modeling projections or other quantification protocols. Management and restoration activities under consideration to help reduce GHG emissions beyond those identified in initial modeling include, but are not limited to the following: • Forest fuel reduction treatments, reforestation, other restoration activities, prescribed fire and managed ignition.• Restoration of mountain meadows, managed wetlands in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, coastal wetlands and desert habitat. • Increasing the extent of eelgrass beds. • Creation and management of parks and other greenspace in urban areas, including expansion of the existing urban tree canopy. • Implementation of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) management practices suitable for California agriculture including those practices identified in the Healthy Soils Incentive Program. • Compost application to irrigated cropland. Additional potential tools to encourage these activities include working with the federal government to fund more management on federal lands, mitigating for land conversion (as modeled by the High Speed Rail Authority), and revisiting the Forest Practices Act to enhance carbon sequestration benefits associated with timber production activities. 213 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030target_sp_dd120216.pdf 88 Innovate NWL Waste Utilization Pathways Excess materials generated by commercial agricultural and forestry operations, biomass and wood harvested through forest health and restoration treatments, and material that is generated in response to Tree Mortality Emergency activities, should be used in a manner that minimizes GHG and black carbon emissions and promotes public and environmental health. The Legislature and Governor Brown set an ambitious goal of 75 percent recycling, composting or source reduction of solid waste in landfills by 2020. The State and stakeholders must develop targeted policies or incentives to support durable markets for all of this diverted material. Market opportunities include production of renewable electricity and biofuels, durable wood products, compost and other soil amendments, animal feed and bedding, and other uses. Research, development, and implementation activities in energy, wood products, waste, and soil amendment fields should be spatially-scaled to better link waste generation with infrastructure development. The goals of this sector, with the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2, are described in Looking to the Future. The development of the Implementation Plan will spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. Waste Management The Waste Management sector covers all aspects of solid waste214 and materials management including reduction/reuse; recycling, and remanufacturing of recovered material; composting and in-vessel (anaerobic and aerobic) digestion; biomass management (chip and grind, composting, biomass conversion); municipal solid waste transformation; and landfilling. This sector also includes market development programs, such as the State’s recycled-content product procurement program and a range of grant and loan programs. Data from CalRecycle’s report, 2014 Disposal Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California, shows that materials, such as organics, that decompose in landfills and generate methane comprise a significant portion of the waste stream. Methane is a potent SLCP with a global warming potential 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide on a 100-year time horizon and more than 70 times greater than that of carbon dioxide on a 20-year time horizon.215 Within CARB’s greenhouse gas inventory, emissions from the waste management sector consist of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from landfills and from commercial-scale composting, with methane being the primary contributor to the sector’s emissions. The sector emitted 8.85 MMTCO2e in 2014, comprising approximately 2 percent of the State’s GHG emissions. Emissions from recycling and waste have grown by 19 percent since 2000. The majority of those emissions are attributed to landfills, despite the majority of landfills having gas collection systems in place.216 Landfill emissions account for 94 percent of the emissions in this sector, while compost production facilities make up a small fraction of emissions.217 The annual amount of solid waste deposited in California landfills grew from 37 million tons in 2000 to its peak of 46 million tons in 2005, followed by a declining trend until 2009 when landfilled solid waste stabilized to relatively constant levels. Landfill emissions are driven by the total waste-in- place, rather than year-to-year fluctuation in annual deposition of solid waste, as the rate and volume of gas produced during decomposition depends on the characteristics of the waste and a number of environmental factors. As a result, waste disposed in a given year contributes to emissions that year and in subsequent years. In addition to direct emissions, the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste materials decreases upstream GHG emissions associated with the extraction and processing of virgin materials and their use in production and transport of products. Although many of these upstream GHG emissions happen outside of California, California’s waste policies can reduce both local and global GHG emissions and create jobs within the State. 214 In general, the term solid waste refers to garbage, refuse, sludges, and other discarded solid materials resulting from residential activities, and industrial and commercial operations. This term generally does not include solids or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or other common water pollutants.215 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials. Fourth Assessment Report. www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html 216 CARB. 2013. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2013 – by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Draft Plan (based upon IPCC Fourth Assessment Report’s Global Warming Potentials). 217 CARB. 2016. 2016 Edition California GHG Emission Inventory. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000–2014. Version June 17, 2016. 89 While landfills are an effective and relatively safe way to manage some waste, disposal-centric activities result in squandering valuable resources and generate landfill gases as well as other risks. A large fraction of the organics in the waste stream can be diverted from landfills to composting or digestion facilities to produce beneficial products. Moreover, food waste is the largest component of organics disposed in landfills; a portion of this is edible and should be captured at its source and, for example, provided to food banks to feed people in need. A State waste management sector “loading order” should focus more attention on reducing how much waste we generate and recovering and recycling whatever resources we can, using landfills as a last resort. Landmark initiatives like the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) demonstrate California’s efforts to build communities that consume less, recycle more, and take resource conservation to higher and higher levels. Statewide, Californians achieved a 49 percent recycling rate in 2014, and recycling programs support an estimated 75,000 to 115,000 green jobs in California. If California were to achieve a 75 percent statewide solid waste recycling rate by 2020–a goal set out by the Legislature in AB 341 (Chesboro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011)–by recycling and remanufacturing at in-state facilities, the State could potentially generate an additional 100,000 green jobs.218 In addition to employment contributions, diversion of organic waste from landfills can generate positive environmental impacts. Compost from organic matter provides soil amendments to revitalize farmland, reduces irrigation and landscaping water demands, contributes to erosion control in fire-ravaged landscapes, and potentially increase long-term carbon storage in rangelands. Production and use of bioenergy in the form of biofuels and renewable natural gas has the potential to reduce dependency on fossil fuels for the transportation sector. For the energy sector, however, renewable natural gas faces safety, feasibility, and cost issues. The State has a robust waste management system in place, with established programs that reduce air emissions through activities such as gas collection systems from landfills219 and stringent recycling mandates. AB 939 required cities and counties to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by 50 percent in 2000, and municipalities have nearly universally met this mandate. Californians dispose about 30 million tons of solid waste in landfills each year. To further reduce landfilled solid waste, the Legislature adopted AB 341 to achieve more significant waste reductions by setting a goal that 75 percent of solid waste generated be reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and by mandating commercial recycling. AB 1826 (Chesboro, Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) added requirements regarding mandatory commercial organics recycling. Although solid waste management has evolved over the last 27 years and diversion rates (which include more than recycling) have increased more than six-fold since 1989, if no further changes in policy are made, the State’s growing population and economy will lead to higher amounts of overall disposal along with associated increases in GHG emissions. The pathway to reducing disposal and associated GHG emissions will require significant expansion of the composting, anaerobic digestion, and recycling manufacturing infrastructure in the State. To help reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and meet California’s waste reduction goals, California’s waste management sector strives to achieve in-state processing and management of waste generated in California. To carry out this vision, we must work with residents and producers to reduce the volume of waste generated overall and capitalize on technology and social changes that might enable waste reduction. Packaging comprises approximately 8 million tons of waste landfilled in California annually, or about one quarter of the State’s total disposal stream. To reduce the climate change footprint of packaging, the State is promoting the inclusion of source reduction principles in packaging and product design; fostering recycling and recyclability as a front end design parameter for packaging and products that cannot be reduced; and encouraging recycling markets and market development for recycled- content products and packaging. CalRecycle is developing a packaging policy model containing components necessary for a mandatory comprehensive, statewide packaging program in California; this would need to be legislatively enacted to achieve a packaging reduction goal, such as 50 percent by 2030. CalRecycle is also continuing to work with stakeholder organizations and industry to explore complementary voluntary activities that have the potential to significantly decrease packaging disposal in California. In addition, large-scale shifts in materials management will be necessary, including steps to maximize recycling and diversion from landfills 218 CalRecycle. 2013. AB 341’s 75 Percent Goal and Potential New Recycling Jobs in California by 2020. July. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/1463/20131463.pdf219 CARB approved a regulation to reduce methane from municipal solid waste landfills as a discrete early action measure under AB 32. The regulation became effective June 17, 2010. Additional information is available at: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/ landfills09/landfillfinalfro.pdf 90 and build the necessary infrastructure to support a sustainable, low carbon waste management system within California. Working together, State and local agencies will identify ways to increase the use of waste diversion alternatives and expand potential markets, obtain funds and incentives for building the infrastructure and strengthening markets, and evaluate the need for additional research to achieve California’s GHG reduction and waste management goals. Additional legislation codified since the First Scoping Plan Update outlines new opportunities and requirements to reduce GHG emissions from the waste sector, with a focus on reducing organic waste sent to landfills. SB 605 (Lara, Chapter 523, Statutes of 2014) requires that CARB develop a strategy to reduce SLCPs and SB 1383 requires the strategy to be implemented by January 1, 2018. CARB’s recently adopted SLCP Reduction Strategy includes organic waste diversion targets for 2020 and 2025 consistent with SB 1383 to reduce methane emissions from landfills. It requires CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations to achieve statewide disposal targets to reduce landfilling of organic waste by: (1) 50 percent from the 2014 level by 2020, and (2) 75 percent from the 2014 level by 2025. Under SB 1383, of the edible food destined for the organic waste stream, not less than 20 percent is to be recovered to feed people in need by 2025. The regulations are to take effect on or after January 1, 2022, and CalRecycle, in consultation with CARB, must analyze the progress that the waste management sector, State government, and local government have made in achieving the 2020 and 2025 goals by July 1, 2020. It is estimated that the combined effect of the food waste prevention and rescue programs and organics diversion from landfills will reduce 4 MMTCO2e of methane in 2030 (using a 20-year GWP), but one year of waste diversion in 2030 is expected to result in a reduction of 14 MMTCO2e of emissions over the lifetime of waste decomposition. Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Goals • Take full ownership of the waste generated in California. • View waste as a resource and convert waste from all sectors to beneficial uses. • Develop a sustainable, low carbon waste management system that processes collected waste within California and generates jobs, especially in disadvantaged communities. • Maximize recycling and diversion from landfills. • Reduce direct emissions from composting and digestion operations through improved technologies. • Build the infrastructure needed to support a sustainable, low carbon waste management system within California. • Increase organics markets which complement and support other sectors.220 • Capture edible food before it enters the waste stream and provide to people in need.• Increase production of renewable transportation fuels from anaerobic digestion of waste.• Recognize the co-benefits of compost application. Cross-Sector Interactions The waste management sector interacts with all of the other sectors of the State’s economy. Reducing waste, including food waste, is key to reducing the State’s overall carbon footprint. Additionally, replacing virgin materials with recycled materials reduces the energy and GHGs associated with the goods we produce and consume. California leads the United States in agricultural production in terms of value and crop diversity. Soil carbon is the main source of energy for important soil microbes and is key for making nutrients available to plants. Waste-derived compost and other organic soil amendments support the State’s Healthy Soils Initiative being implemented by CDFA. In addition, the use of compost to increase soil organic matter in the agricultural sector provides other benefits, including reduced GHG emissions, conserved water, reduced synthetic (petroleum-based) fertilizer and herbicide use, and sequestered carbon. 220 Examples may include renewable energy (biogas to renewable transportation fuels or electricity); soils (application of organics to agricultural soils for building soil organic matter and conserving water; application of organics to mulch for erosion control; application of organics to rangelands for increased carbon sequestration); and forests (support use of forest residues for erosion control; stabilization of fire-ravaged lands). 91 Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. In addition, to move forward with the goals of the waste management sector and achieve the 2030 target, certain actions are recommended to help set the groundwork. These actions affect several broad areas and are necessary for reducing the challenges facing this sector, and they are listed below as supporting actions. Ongoing and Proposed Measures • Continue implementation of the Landfill Methane Control Measure. • Continue implementation of the Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation and the Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling requirements. • As required by SB 1383: • By 2018, CARB will implement the SLCP Strategy. • CalRecycle will develop regulations to require 50 percent organic waste diversion from landfills from 2014 levels by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025, including programs to achieve an edible food waste recovery goal of 20 percent below 2016 levels by 2025. The regulations shall take effect on or after January 1, 2022. By July 1, 2020, analyze the progress that the waste sector, State government, and local governments have made in achieving these goals. • CEC will develop recommendations for the development and use of renewable gas as part of the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Based on these recommendations, adopt policies and incentives to significantly increase sustainable production and use of renewable gas. Potential Additional or Supporting Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. • Establishing a sustainable State funding source (such as an increased landfill tip fee and new generator charge) for development of waste management infrastructure, programs, and incentives. • Working with residents and producers to reduce the volume of waste generated overall and capitalize on technology and social changes that might enable waste reduction. • Increasing organics diversion from landfills, building on established mandates (AB 341’s 75 percent by 2020 solid waste diversion goal, AB 1594,221 AB 1826,222 AB 876223) and new short-lived climate pollutant targets for 2025 (SB 605, SB 1383) to be accomplished via prevention (including food rescue), recycling, composting/digestion, and biomass options. • Addressing challenges and issues associated with significant expansion and construction of organics and recycling infrastructure in California that is needed to achieve recycling and diversion goals. Challenges and issues include permitting, grid/pipeline connection, funding, local siting, markets, and research.• Developing programmatic Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and model permit and guidance documents to assist in environmental review and CEQA for new facilities. • Providing incentives for expanded and new facilities to handle organics and recyclables to meet 2020 and 2030 goals. • Providing incentives to develop and expand food rescue programs to reduce the amount of edible food being sent to landfills. • Further quantifying co-benefits of compost products and addressing regulatory barriers that do not provide for consideration of co-benefits. • Supporting existing and new clean technologies and markets for excess woody biomass from urban areas, forests, and agriculture. • Supporting the development of transportation fuel production at digestion facilities to generate renewable transportation fuels. 221 Assembly Bill 1594, Waste Management (Williams, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2014).222 Assembly Bill 1826, Solid Waste: Organic Waste (Chesbro, Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014).223 Assembly Bill 876, Compostable Organics (McCarty, Chapter 593, Statutes of 2015). 92 • Resolving issues of pipeline injection and grid connection to make renewable energy projects competitive. • Supporting the use of available capacity at wastewater treatment plants that have digesters to process food waste. • Working with local entities to provide a supportive framework to advance community-wide efforts that are consistent with, or exceed, statewide goals. • Supporting research and development and pathways to market for dairy and codigestion digesters, including pipeline injection and interconnection. • Supporting research on digestate characterization and end products. Water Water is essential to all life, and is vital to our overall health and well-being. A reliable, clean, and abundant supply of water is also a critical component of California’s economy and has particularly important connections to energy, food, and the environment. California’s water system includes a complex infrastructure that has been developed to support the capture, use, conveyance, storage, conservation, and treatment of water and wastewater. This elaborate network of storage and delivery systems enables the State to prosper and support populations, amidst wide variability in annual precipitation rates and concentration of rain north of Sacramento, through storing and moving water when and where it is needed. Local water agencies play an important role in delivering water to communities, farms, and businesses. Some purchase water from the major State and federal projects, treat the water as needed, and deliver it to their customers; others act as wholesale agencies that buy or import water and sell it to retail water suppliers. Some agencies operate their own local water supply systems, including reservoirs and canals that store and move water as needed. Many agencies rely on groundwater exclusively, and operate local wells and distribution systems. In recent decades, local agencies have developed more diversified sources of water supplies. Many agencies use a combination of imported surface water and local groundwater, and also produce or purchase recycled water for end uses such as landscape irrigation.224 The State’s developed surface and groundwater resources support a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities. California’s rapidly growing population–estimated to reach 44 million by 2030225 – is putting mounting pressure on the water supply system. In the future, the ability to meet most new demand for water will come from a combination of increased conservation and water use efficiency, improved coordination of management of surface and groundwater, recycled water, new technologies in drinking water treatment, groundwater remediation, and brackish and seawater desalination.226 One of the State’s largest uses of energy is attributed to several aspects of the water life cycle, including end uses such as heating and cooling, and water treatment and conveyance. Ten percent of the State’s energy use is associated with water-related end uses, while water and wastewater systems account for 2 percent of the State’s energy use.227 Therefore, as water demand grows, energy demand may increase concurrently. Population growth drives demand for both water and energy resources, so both grow at about the same rates and in many of the same geographic areas.228 This dynamic is further exacerbated by the precipitation-population mismatch between Northern and Southern California. Since the greatest energy consumption related to water is from delivery to end uses, the potential for energy savings also resides with water end users, where water conservation and efficiency play an important role. The principal source of GHG emissions from the water sector comes from the fossil fuel-based energy consumed for water end uses (e.g., heating, cooling, pressurizing, and industrial processes), and the fossil fuel-based energy used to “produce” water (e.g., pump, convey, treat). Therefore, emissions reductions strategies are primarily associated with reducing the energy intensity of the water sector. Energy intensity is a measure of the amount of energy required to take a unit of water from its origin (such as a river or aquifer) 224 California Department of Water Resources. Regional Energy Intensity of Water Supplies. www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/RegionalEnergyIntensity.cfm225 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/ 226 California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and California Environmental Protection Agency. California Water Action Plan.227 California Department of Water Resources. Water-Energy Nexus: Statewide. Web page accessed November 2016 at: www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/WaterEnergyStatewide.cfm.228 Ibid 93 and extract and convey it to its end use.229 Within California, the energy intensity of water varies greatly depending on the geography, water source, and end use. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) subdivides the State into 10 regions corresponding to the State’s major drainage basins. An interactive map on the DWR website allows users to see a summary of the energy intensity of regional water supplies, ignoring end-use factors.230 As the energy sector is decarbonized through measures such as increased renewable energy and improved efficiency, energy intensities will also be reduced. It is also important to note that end user actions to reduce water consumption or replace fresh water with recycled water do not automatically translate into GHG reductions. The integrated nature of the water supply system means that a reduction by one end user can be offset by an increase in consumption by another user. Likewise, use of recycled water has the potential to reduce GHGs if it replaces, and not merely serves as an alternative to, an existing, higher-carbon water supply. The State is currently implementing several targeted, agricultural, urban, and industrial-based water conservation, recycling, and water use efficiency programs as part of an integrated water management effort that will help achieve GHG reductions through reduced energy demand within the water sector. Appendix H highlights the more significant existing policies, programs, measures, regulations, and initiatives that provide a framework for helping achieve GHG emissions reductions in this sector. While it is important for every sector to contribute to the State’s climate goals, ensuring universal access to clean water as outlined in AB 685 (Eng, Chapter 524, Statutes of 2012), also known as the “human right to water” bill, should take precedence over achieving GHG emissions reductions from water sector activities where a potential conflict exists. AB 685 states that it is the policy of the State that “every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” As described in this section, water supplies vary in energy intensity and resulting GHGs, depending on the source of the water, treatment requirements, and location of the end user. Looking to the Future This section outlines the high-level objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in this sector. Goals • Develop and support more reliable water supplies for people, agriculture, and the environment, provided by a more resilient, diversified, sustainably managed water resources system with a focus on actions that provide direct GHG reductions. • Make conservation a California way of life by using and reusing water more efficiently through greater water conservation, drought tolerant landscaping, stormwater capture, water recycling, and reuse to help meet future water demands and adapt to climate change. • Develop and support programs and projects that increase water sector energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions through reduced water and energy use.• Increase the use of renewable energy to pump, convey, treat, and utilize water.• Reduce the carbon footprint of water systems and water uses for both surface and groundwater supplies through integrated strategies that reduce GHG emissions while meeting the needs of a growing population, improving public safety, fostering environmental stewardship, aiding in adaptation to climate change, and supporting a stable economy. Cross-Sector Interactions Water, energy, food, and ecosystems are inextricably linked, and meeting future climate challenges will require an integrated approach to managing the resources in these sectors. Water is used in various applications in the energy sector, ranging in intensity from cooling of turbines and other equipment at power plants to cleaning solar photovoltaic panels. In 2003, CEC adopted a water conservation policy for power plants to limit the use of freshwater for power plant cooling, and has since encouraged project 229 A broader definition of energy intensity could consider the “downstream” energy (i.e., wastewater treatment) as well as the upstream components. More robust data are needed, and the State is working to better quantify these upstream and downstream emissions.230 California Department of Water Resources. Regional Energy Intensity of Water Supplies. www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/RegionalEnergyIntensity.cfm 94 owners proposing to build new power plants in California to reduce water consumption with water-efficiency technologies such as dry cooling and to conserve fresh water by using recycled water. Likewise, energy is used in multiple ways and at multiple steps in water delivery and treatment systems, including energy for heating and chilling water; treating and delivering drinking water; conveying water; extracting groundwater; desalination; pressurizing water for irrigation; and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. Although GHG reduction strategies for the water sector have the closest ties to energy, the water sector also interacts with the natural and working lands, agricultural, waste management, and transportation sectors. Water flows from mountains to downstream regions through natural and working lands, which provide habitat for many species and function to store water, recharge groundwater, naturally purify water, and moderate flooding. Protection of key lands from conversion results in healthier watersheds by reducing polluted runoff and maintaining a properly functioning ecosystem. California is the United States’ leading agricultural production state in terms of value and crop diversity. Approximately nine million acres of farmland in California are irrigated.231 In addition, water use is associated with livestock watering, feedlots, dairy operations, and other on-farm needs. Altogether, agriculture uses about 40 percent of the State’s managed water supply.232 In the end, agricultural products produced in California are consumed by humans throughout the world as food, fiber, and fuel. Wastewater treatment plants provide a complementary opportunity for the waste management sector to help process organic waste diversion from landfills. Treatment plants with spare capacity can potentially accommodate organic waste for anaerobic co-digestion of materials such as food waste and fats, oil, and grease from residential, commercial, or industrial facilities to create useful by- products such as electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, and soil amendments.233 The water sector is also essential to our community health and long-term well-being, and measures must ensure that we continue to have access to clean and reliable sources of drinking water. Climate change threatens to impact our water supplies, for example, with long-term droughts leading to wells and other sources of water running dry. This can have devastating consequences, especially on communities already vulnerable and sensitive to changes in their water supply and natural hydrological systems, including rural communities who have limited options for water supplies. Water conservation and management strategies that are energy efficient can also ensure a continued supply of water for our health and well-being. Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gases The measures below include some required and new potential measures to help achieve the State’s 2030 target and to support the high-level objectives for this sector. Some measures may be designed to directly address GHG reductions, while others may result in GHG reductions as a co-benefit. In addition, several recommended actions are identified to help the water sector move forward with the identified goals and measures to achieve the 2030 target; these are listed as supporting actions. Ongoing and Proposed Measures • As directed by Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-37-16, DWR and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) will develop and implement new water use targets to generate more statewide water conservation than existing targets (the existing State law requires a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 [SBx7-7, Steinberg, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009]). The new water use targets will be based on strengthened standards for indoor use, outdoor irrigation, commercial, industrial, and institutional water use. • SWRCB will develop long-term water conservation regulation, and permanently prohibit practices that waste potable water. • DWR and SWRCB will develop and implement actions to minimize water system leaks, and to set performance standards for water loss, as required by SB 555 (Wolk, Chapter 679, Statutes of 2015). • DWR and CDFA will update existing requirements for agricultural water management plans to increase water system efficiency. 231 Hanson, Blaine. No date. Irrigation of Agricultural Crops in California. PowerPoint. Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis. www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf232 Applied water use is the official terminology used by DWR. “Applied water refers to the total amount of water that is diverted from any source to meet the demands of water users without adjusting for water that is used up, returned to the developed supply, or considered irrecoverable.”233 An example of a resource recovering project that can help achieve methane reductions includes fuel cells that are integrated into wastewater treatment plants for both onsite heat and power generation and the production of renewable hydrogen. 95 • CEC will certify innovative technologies for water conservation and water loss detection and control. • CEC will continue to update the State’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Sections 1601–1608) for appliances offered for sale in California to establish standards that reduce energy consumption for devices that use electricity, gas, and/or water. • California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) will oversee development of a voluntary registry for GHG emissions resulting from the water-energy nexus, as required by SB 1425 (Pavley, Chapter 596, Statutes of 2016). • The State Water Project has entered long-term contracts to procure renewable electricity from 140 MW solar installations in California. • As described in its Climate Action Plan, DWR will continue to increase the use of renewable energy to operate the State Water Project. Overall, these actions will contribute to the broader energy efficiency goals discussed in the Low Carbon Energy section of this chapter. Potential Additional or Supporting Actions The actions below have the potential to reduce GHGs and complement the measures and policies identified in Chapter 2. These are included to spur thinking and exploration of innovation that may help the State achieve its long-term climate goals. • Where technically feasible and cost-effective, local water and wastewater utilities should adopt a long-term goal to reduce GHGs by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (consistent with DWR’s Climate Action Plan), and thereafter move toward low carbon or net-zero carbon water management systems. • Local water and wastewater utilities should develop distributed renewable energy where feasible, using the expanded Local Government Renewable Energy Bill Credit (RES-BCT) tariff and new Net Energy Metering (which allow for installation without system size limit).• In support of the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, encourage resource recovering wastewater treatment projects to help achieve the goal of reducing fugitive methane by 40 percent by 2030, to include: • Determining opportunities to support co-digestion of food-related waste streams at wastewater treatment plants. • Incentivizing methane capture systems at wastewater treatment plants to produce renewable electricity, transportation fuel, or pipeline biomethane. • Support compact development and land use patterns, and associated conservation and management strategies for natural and working lands that reduce per capita water consumption through more water-efficient built environments. 96 Meeting, and exceeding, our mandated GHG reduction goals in 2020 and through 2030 requires building on California’s decade of success in implementing effective climate policies. State agencies are increasingly coordinating planning activities to align with overarching climate, clean air, social equity, and broader economic objectives. However, to definitely tip the scales in favor of rapidly declining emissions, we also need to reach beyond State policy-making and engage all Californians. Further progress can be made by supporting innovative actions at the local level–among governments, small businesses, schools, and individual households. Ultimately, success depends on a mix of regulatory program development, incentives, institutional support, and education and outreach to ensure that clean energy and other climate strategies are clear, winning alternatives in the marketplace–to drive business development and consumer adoption. Ongoing Engagement with Environmental Justice Communities CARB continues seek ways to improve implementation of AB 32 and the unique set of impacts facing environmental justice communities. However, CARB’s environmental justice efforts reach far beyond climate change. In 2001, the Board approved CARB’s “Policies and Actions for Environmental Action,”234 which expresses a broad commitment to environmental justice and makes it integral to all of CARB’s programs, consistent with State directives at the time. Though over the years CARB has taken on a wide array of activities aimed at reducing environmental burdens on environmental justice communities, it has not knitted its various efforts together in a coherent narrative or maximized the impact of these activities by leveraging them off of each other. This year, CARB appointed its first executive-level environmental justice liaison. Under her leadership, CARB will lay a roadmap for better serving California’s environmental justice communities in the design and implementation of its programs, and identifying new actions CARB can take to advance environmental justice and social equity in all of its functions. The extensive legislative framework addressing climate change, air quality, and environmental justice that has emerged since the passage of AB 32 has prompted CARB to step up its environmental justice efforts and articulate a vision that reflects the current context. CARB will initiate a public process, seeking advice and input from environmental justice advocates and other key stakeholders to inform the development of a new strategic plan for further institutionalizing environmental justice and social equity. CARB understands that in addition to our programs to address climate change and reduce emissions of GHGs, more needs to be done to reduce exposure to toxic air and criteria pollutants and improve the quality of life in communities surrounding our largest emissions sources. To this end, and consistent with AB 617, AB 197, AB 1071, SB 535 and AB 1550, we will actively engage EJ advocates, communities, and relevant air districts in the development of programs that improve air quality and quantify the burdens placed on air quality in local communities. Measuring and monitoring air quality conditions over time and ongoing community engagement are integral to the success of CARB’s efforts. This engagement will include substantive discussions with EJ stakeholders, gathering their input and providing adequate time for review before matters are taken to the Board for decision. 234 www.arb.ca.gov/ch/programs/ej/ejpolicies.pdf Chapter 5 a ch I ev I ng S ucce SS 97 CARB’s approach to environmental justice will be grounded in five primary pillars: transparency, integration, monitoring, research, and enforcement. • Transparency: CARB must improve communication and engagement with environmental justice stakeholders and deepen partnerships with local communities impacted by air pollution. CARB will continue to prioritize transparency in its decision-making processes and provide better access to the air quality, toxics, and GHG data CARB collects and stewards. • Integration: Besides integrating environmental justice throughout all of CARB’s programs, those programs must complement each other. To that end, CARB will endeavor to break down programmatic silos so that it is able to leverage its work and achieve more effective and timely results. Focused resources in individual communities can accelerate reduction in emissions, proliferation of clean vehicles and creation of jobs in the clean energy economy, while concurrently improving public health. • Monitoring: Communities should be engaged in CARB’s monitoring work. They can play a critical role in collecting their own data and adding to the coverage of other air monitoring efforts (e.g., CARB, local air districts). CARB has already invested in research on low- cost monitors that are accessible by communities, and it will continue to evaluate how community monitoring can make CARB more nimble in identifying and addressing “hotspots.” Mobile monitoring projects similarly will allow CARB to better serve and protect residents of disadvantaged communities. CARB will continue to build partnerships with local communities and help build local capacity through funding and technical assistance. • Research: CARB’s research agenda is core to achieving its mission. To ensure that the research done by CARB responds to environmental justice concerns and has the greatest potential to improve air quality and public health in disadvantaged communities, CARB will engage communities groups early in the development of its research agenda and the projects that flow out from that agenda. • Enforcement: Disadvantaged communities are often impacted by many sources of pollution. In order to improve air quality and protect public health, CARB will prioritize compliance with legal requirements, including enforcement actions if necessary, in environmental justice communities to ensure emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants in these communities are as low as possible. Our inclusive approaches to further environmental justice in California’s local communities may include an array of direct regulation, funding, and community capacity-building. CARB will continue to actively implement the provisions of AB 617, AB 197, AB 1071, SB 535, AB 1550, and other laws to better ensure that environmental justice communities see additional benefits from our clean air and climate policies. Our inclusive approaches to further environmental justice in California’s local communities may include an array of direct regulation, funding, and community capacity-building. Enabling Local Action Local governments are essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. Local governments can implement GHG emissions reduction strategies to address local conditions and issues and can effectively engage citizens at the local level. Local governments also have broad jurisdiction, and sometimes unique authorities, through their community-scale planning and permitting processes, discretionary actions, local codes and ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Further, local jurisdictions can develop new and innovative approaches to reduce GHG emissions that can then be adopted elsewhere. For example, local governments can develop land use plans with more efficient development patterns that bring people and destinations closer together in more mixed-use, compact communities that facilitate walking, biking, and use of transit. Local governments can also incentivize locally generated renewable energy and infrastructure for alternative fuels and electric vehicles, implement water efficiency measures, and develop waste-to-energy and waste-to-fuel projects. These local actions complement statewide measures and are critical to supporting the State’s efforts to reduce emissions. Local efforts can deliver substantial additional GHG and criteria emissions reductions beyond what State policy can alone, and these efforts will sometimes be more cost-effective and provide more cobenefits than relying exclusively on top-down statewide regulations to achieve the State’s climate stabilization goals. To ensure local and regional engagement, it is also recommended local jurisdictions make readily available information regarding ongoing and proposed actions to reduce GHGs within their region. 98 Many cities and counties are already setting GHG reduction targets, developing local plans, and making progress toward reducing emissions. The Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative recently released a report, The State of Local Climate Action: California 2016,235 which highlights local government efforts, including: • In California, 60 percent of cities and over 70 percent of counties have completed a GHG inventory, and 42 percent of local governments have completed a climate, energy, or sustainability plan that directly addresses GHG emissions. Many other community-scale local plans, such as general plans, have emissions reduction measures incorporated as well (see Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR] Survey questions 23 and 24).236 • Over one hundred California local governments have developed emissions reduction targets that, if achieved, would result in annual reductions that total 45 MMTCO2e by 2020 and 83 MMTCO2e by 2050.237 Local air quality management and air pollution control districts also play a key role in reducing regional and local sources of GHG emissions by actively integrating climate protection into air quality programs. Air districts also support local climate protection programs by providing technical assistance and data, quantification tools, and even funding.238 Local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) also support the State’s climate action goals via sustainable communities strategies (SCSs), required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008). Under SB 375, MPOs must prepare SCSs as part of their regional transportation plan to meet regional GHG reduction targets set by CARB for passenger vehicles in 2020 and 2035. The SCSs contain land use, housing, and transportation strategies that allow regions to meet their GHG emissions reductions targets. State agencies support these local government actions in several ways: • CoolCalifornia.org is an informational website that provides resources that assist local governments, small businesses, schools, and households to reduce GHG emissions. The local government webpage includes carbon calculators, a climate planning resource guide, a Funding Wizard that outlines grant and loan programs, and success stories. It also features ClearPath California, a no-cost GHG inventory, climate action plan development, and tracking tool developed through the Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative in coordination with CARB and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). • Chapter 8 of OPR’s General Plan Guidelines239 provides guidance for climate action plans and 235 Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative. 2016. State of Local Climate Action: California 2016. californiaseec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/State-of-Local-Climate-Action-California-2016_Screen.pdf236 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2016. 2016 Annual Planning Survey Results. November. www.opr.ca.gov/docs/2016_APS_final.pdf237 These reductions include reductions from both state and local measures.238 Examples include: (1) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016 Clean Air Plan and Regional Climate Protection Strategy. Available at: www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/plans-under-development; (2) California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Available at: www.caleemod.com/; (3) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Grants and Incentives. Available at: valleyair.org/grants/; (4) BAAQMD. Grant Funding. Available at: www.baaqmd.gov/grant-funding; (5) South Coast Air Quality Management District. Funding. Available at: www.aqmd.gov/ grants-bids/funding; (6) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Incentive Programs. Available at: www.airquality.org/Residents/Incentive-Programs.239 http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/ To engage communities in efforts to reduce GHG emissions, CARB has partnered with Energy Upgrade California on the CoolCalifornia Challenge. It is a competition among California cities to reduce their carbon footprints and build more vibrant and sustainable communities. Three challenges have been completed. Most recently, the 2015–2016 Challenge included 22 cities and engaged nearly 3,200 households, each of which took actions to reduce energy use and carbon GHG emissions. In total, the participants reported savings of 5,638 MTCO2 from completed actions, equivalent to emissions from more than 1,000 cars or from electricity used by more than 2,500 California homes in a year. 99 other plans linked to general plans, which address the community scale approach outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. • OPR hosts the Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program, which is developing resources and case studies that outline the co-benefits of implementing emissions reduction strategies and addressing the impacts of climate change. • CARB is developing a centralized database and interactive map that will display the current statewide status of local government climate action planning. Users can view and compare the details of emission inventories, planned GHG reduction targets and strategies, and other climate action details specific to each local government. This information will help jurisdictions around California identify what climate action strategies are working in other, similar jurisdictions across the State, and will facilitate collaboration among local governments pursuing GHG reduction strategies and goals. This database and map will be featured on the CoolCalifornia.org website and are anticipated to be available in 2017. • Additional information on local government activities is available on Cal-Adapt (www.cal-adapt.org) and OPR (www.opr.ca.gov) Further, a significant portion of the $3.4 billion in cap-and-trade expenditures has either directly or indirectly supported local government efforts to reduce emissions, including, for example, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program and approximately $142 million for project implementation and planning grants awarded under the Transformative Climate Communities program. Climate Action through Local Planning and Permitting Local government efforts to reduce emissions within their jurisdiction are critical to achieving the State’s long-term GHG goals, and can also provide important co-benefits, such as improved air quality, local economic benefits, more sustainable communities, and an improved quality of life. To support local governments in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the following guidance is provided. This guidance should be used in coordination with OPR’s General Plan Guidelines guidance in Chapter 8, Climate Change.240 While this guidance is provided out of the recognition that local policy makers are critical in reducing the carbon footprint of cities and counties, the decision to follow this guidance is voluntary and should not be interpreted as a directive or mandate to local governments. Recommended Local Plan-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Goals CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than six metric tons CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050.241 The statewide per capita targets account for all emissions sectors in the State, statewide population forecasts, and the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 statewide target under SB 32 and the longer term State emissions reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.242 The statewide per capita targets are also consistent with Executive Order S-3-05, B-30-15, and the Under 2 MOU that California originated with Baden-Württemberg and has now been signed or endorsed by 188 jurisdictions representing 39 countries and six continents.243,244 Central to the Under 2 MOU is that all signatories agree to reduce their GHG emissions to two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050. This limit represents California’s and these other governments’ recognition of their “fair share” to reduce GHG emissions to the scientifically based levels to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius. This limit is also consistent with the Paris Agreement, which sets out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to below 2°C.245 CARB recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt robust and quantitative locally-appropriate 240 http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/ . 241 These goals are appropriate for the plan level (city, county, subregional, or regional level, as appropriate), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State. 242 This number represents the 2030 and 2050 targets divided by total population projections from California Department of Finance.243 http://under2mou.org/ California signed the Under 2 MOU on May 19, 2015. See under2mou.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ California-appendix-English.pdf and under2mou.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/California-Signature-Page.pdf.244 The Under 2 MOU signatories include jurisdictions ranging from cities to countries to multiple-country partnerships. Therefore, like the goals set forth above for local and regional climate planning, the Under 2 MOU is scalable to various types of jurisdictions.245 UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement. unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php 100 goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and the State’s sustainable development objectives and develop plans to achieve the local goals. The statewide per capita goals were developed by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to the State’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32. Numerous local governments in California have already adopted GHG emissions reduction goals for year 2020 consistent with AB 32. CARB advises that local governments also develop community-wide GHG emissions reduction goals necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals. Emissions inventories and reduction goals should be expressed in mass emissions, per capita emissions, and service population emissions. To do this, local governments can start by developing a community-wide GHG emissions target consistent with the accepted protocols as outlined in OPR’s General Plan Guidelines Chapter 8: Climate Change. They can then calculate GHG emissions thresholds by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to their community-wide GHG emissions target. Since the statewide per capita targets are based on the statewide GHG emissions inventory that includes all emissions sectors in the State, it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to derive evidence-based local per capita246 goals based on local emissions sectors and population projections that are consistent with the framework used to develop the statewide per capita targets. The resulting GHG emissions trajectory should show a downward trend consistent with the statewide objectives. The recommendation for a community-wide goal expands upon the reduction of 15 percent from “current” (2005-2008) levels by 2020 as recommended in the 2008 Scoping Plan.247 In developing local plans, local governments should refer to “The U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,”248 (community protocol) which provides detailed guidance on completing a GHG emissions inventory at the community scale in the United States – including emissions from businesses, residents, and transportation. Quantification tools such as ClearPath California, which was developed with California agencies, also support the analysis of community-scale GHG emissions. Per the community protocol, these plans should disclose all emissions within the defined geographical boundary, even those over which the local government has no regulatory authority to control, and then focus the strategies on those emissions that the jurisdiction controls. For emissions from transportation, the community protocol recommends including emissions from trips that extend beyond the community’s boundaries. Local plans should also include the carbon sequestration values associated with natural and working lands, and the importance of jurisdictional lands for water, habitat, agricultural, and recreational resources. Strategies developed to achieve the local goals should prioritize mandatory measures that support the Governor’s “Five Pillars” and other key state climate action goals.249 Examples of plan-level GHG reduction actions that could be implemented by local governments are listed in Appendix B. Additional information and tools on how to develop GHG emissions inventories and reduction plans tied to general plans can be found in OPR’s General Plan Guidelines and at CoolCalifornia.org. These local government recommendations are based on the recognition that California must accommodate population and economic growth in a far more sustainable manner than in the past. While state-level investments, policies, and actions play an important role in shaping growth and development patterns, regional and local governments and agencies are uniquely positioned to influence the future of the built environment and its associated GHG emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies in Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and other local plans can also lead to important co-benefits, such as improved air quality, local economic benefits such as green jobs, more mobility choices, improved public health and quality of life, protection of locally, statewide, and globally important natural resources, and more equitable sharing of these benefits across communities. Contributions from policies and programs, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, are helping to achieve the near-term 2020 target, but longer-term targets cannot be achieved without land use decisions that allow more efficient use and management of land and infrastructure. Local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how and where land is developed to accommodate population growth, economic growth, and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. Land use decisions affect GHG emissions associated with transportation, water use, wastewater treatment, waste generation and treatment, energy consumption, and conversion of natural and working lands. Local land use decisions play a particularly 246 Or some other metric that the local jurisdiction deems appropriate (e.g., mass emissions, per service population)247 2008 Scoping Plan, page 27, www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm248 http://icleiusa.org/publications/us-community-protocol/249 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/pillars/pillars.htm 101 critical role in reducing GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the project level, and in long-term plans, including general plans, local and regional climate action plans, specific plans, transportation plans, and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375. While the State can do more to accelerate and incentivize these local decisions, local actions that reduce VMT are also necessary to meet transportation sector-specific goals and achieve the 2030 target under SB 32. Through developing the Scoping Plan, CARB staff is more convinced than ever that, in addition to achieving GHG reductions from cleaner fuels and vehicles, California must also reduce VMT. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward needed reductions, but alone will not provide the VMT growth reductions needed; there is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals. In its evaluation of the role of the transportation system in meeting the statewide emissions targets, CARB determined that VMT reductions of 7 percent below projected VMT levels in 2030 (which includes currently adopted SB 375 SCSs) are necessary. In 2050, reductions of 15 percent below projected VMT levels are needed. A 7 percent VMT reduction translates to a reduction, on average, of 1.5 miles/person/day from projected levels in 2030. It is recommended that local governments consider policies to reduce VMT to help achieve these reductions, including: land use and community design that reduces VMT; transit oriented development; street design policies that prioritize transit, biking, and walking; and increasing low carbon mobility choices, including improved access to viable and affordable public transportation and active transportation opportunities. It is important that VMT reducing strategies are implemented early because more time is necessary to achieve the full climate, health, social, equity, and economic benefits from these strategies. Once adopted, the plans and policies designed to achieve a locally-set GHG goal can serve as a performance metric for later projects. Sufficiently detailed and adequately supported GHG reduction plans (including CAPs) also provide local governments with a valuable tool for streamlining project-level environmental review. Under CEQA, individual projects that comply with the strategies and actions within an adequate local CAP can streamline the project-specific GHG analysis.250 The California Supreme Court recently called out this provision in CEQA as allowing tiering from a geographically specific GHG reduction plan.251 The Court also recognized that GHG determinations in CEQA should be consistent with the statewide Scoping Plan goals, and that CEQA documents taking a goal-consistency approach may soon need to consider a project’s effects on meeting the State’s longer term post-2020 goals.252 The recommendation above that local governments develop local goals tied to the statewide per capita goals of six metric tons CO2e by 2030 and no more than two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050 provides guidance on CARB’s view on what would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and the State’s long-term goals. Production based inventories and emissions reduction programs are appropriate for local communities wanting to mitigate their emissions pursuant to CEQA Section 15183.5(b). Consumption based inventories are complementary to production based inventories and are appropriate as a background setting, disclosure, and as an outreach tool to show how personal decisions may change a person’s or household’s contribution to climate change. For additional information, see the OPR General Plan Guidelines.253 Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Actions and Thresholds Beyond plan-level goals and actions, local governments can also support climate action when considering discretionary approvals and entitlements of individual projects through CEQA. Absent conformity with an adequate geographically-specific GHG reduction plan as described in the preceding section above, CARB recommends that projects incorporate design features and GHG reduction measures, to the degree feasible, to minimize GHG emissions. Achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development. There are recent examples of land use development projects in California that have demonstrated that it is feasible to design projects that achieve zero net additional GHG emissions. Several projects have received certification from the Governor under AB 900, the Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership Act (Buchanan, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2011), demonstrating an ability to design economically viable projects that create jobs while contributing no net additional GHG emissions. 254 Another example is the Newhall 250 CEQA Guidelines, § 15183.5, sub. (b).251 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 229–230.252 Id. at pp. 223–224. 253 http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/.254 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Jobs. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/california-jobs.html 102 Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan,255 in which the applicant, Newhall Land and Farming Company, proposed a commitment to achieve net zero GHG emissions for a very large-scale residential and commercial specific planned development in Santa Clarita Valley. Achieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA. Lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with this Scoping Plan, the State’s long-term GHG goals, and climate change science.256 To the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize on-site design features that reduce emissions, especially from VMT, and direct investments in GHG reductions within the project’s region that contribute potential air quality, health, and economic co-benefits locally. For example, on-site design features to be considered at the planning stage include land use and community design options that reduce VMT, promote transit oriented development, promote street design policies that prioritize transit, biking, and walking, and increase low carbon mobility choices, including improved access to viable and affordable public transportation, and active transportation opportunities. Regionally, additional GHG reductions can be achieved through direct investment in local building retrofit programs that can pay for cool roofs, solar panels, solar water heaters, smart meters, energy efficient lighting, energy efficient appliances, energy efficient windows, insulation, and water conservation measures for homes within the geographic area of the project. These investments generate real demand side benefits and local jobs, while creating the market signals for energy efficient products, some of which are produced in California. Other examples of local direct investments include financing installation of regional electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, paying for electrification of public school buses, and investing in local urban forests. Local direct investments in actions to reduce GHG emissions should be supported by quantification methodologies that show the reductions are real, verifiable, quantifiable, permanent, and enforceable. Where further project design or regional investments are infeasible or not proven to be effective, it may be appropriate and feasible to mitigate project emissions through purchasing and retiring carbon credits. CAPCOA has developed the GHG Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx) for CEQA mitigation, which could provide credits to achieve additional reductions. It may also be appropriate to utilize credits issued by a recognized and reputable voluntary carbon registry. Appendix B includes examples of on-site project design features, mitigation measures, and direct regional investments that may be feasible to minimize GHG emissions from land use development projects. California’s future climate strategy will require increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities, and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Accommodating population and economic growth through travel- and energy-efficient land use provides GHG-efficient growth, reducing GHGs from both transportation and building energy use.257 GHGs can be further reduced at the project level through implementing energy-efficient construction and travel demand management approaches.258 Further, the State’s understanding of transportation impacts continues to evolve. The CEQA Guidelines are being updated to focus the analysis of transportation impacts on VMT. OPR’s Technical Advisory includes methods of analysis of transportation impacts, approaches to setting significance thresholds, and includes examples of VMT mitigation under CEQA.259 255 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=NewhallRanchFinal256 CARB provided some guidance on development project thresholds in a paper issued in October 2008, which included a concept utilizing a bright-line mass numeric threshold based on capturing approximately 90 percent of emissions in that sector and a concept of minimum performance based standards. Some districts built upon that work to develop thresholds. For example, Santa Barbara County adopted a bright-line numeric threshold of 1,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial stationary-source projects, and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for stationary source projects and a 1,100 MTCO2e/yr threshold for construction activities and land development projects in their operational phase. CARB is not endorsing any one of these approaches, but noting them for informational purposes.257 Robert Cervero, Jim Murakami; Effects of Built Environment on Vehicle Miles Traveled: Evidence from 370 US Urbanized Areas. Environment and Planning A, Vol 42, Issue 2, pp. 400-418, February-01-2010; Ewing, R., & Rong, F. (2008). The impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use. Housing Policy Debagte, 19 (1), 1-30.).258 CAPCOA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August, 2010.259 http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/ 103 Implementing the Scoping Plan This Scoping Plan outlines the regulations, programs, and other mechanisms needed to reduce GHG emissions in California. CARB and other State agencies will work closely with State and local agencies, stakeholders, Tribes, and the public to develop regulatory measures and other programs to implement the Scoping Plan. CARB and other State agencies will develop regulations in accordance with established rulemaking guidelines. Per Executive Order B-30-15, as these regulatory measures and other programs are developed, building programs for climate resiliency must also be a consideration. Additionally, agencies will further collaborate and work to provide the institutional support needed to overcome barriers that may currently hinder certain efforts to reduce GHG emissions and to support the goals, actions, and measures identified for key sectors in Chapter 4. Table 17 provides a high-level summary of the Climate Change Policies and Measures discussed in the Scoping Plan, including, but not limited to, those identified specifically to achieve the 2030 target. table 17: Climate Change poliCies and measures Recommended Action Lead Agency Implement SB 350 by 2030: • Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. • Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. • Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the above measures and other actions as modeled in IRPs to meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the IRP process. Load-serving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets through a combination of measures as described in IRPs. CPUC, CEC, CARB Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels): • At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025. • At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030. • Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Cars regulations. • Medium- and heavy-duty GHG Phase 2. • Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard. • Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. • Further reduce VMT through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the document “Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion.” CARB, CalSTA, SGC, CalTrans CEC, OPR, Local agencies Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 targets).CARB By 2019, adjust performance measures used to select and design transportation facilities. • Harmonize project performance with emissions reductions, and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes (e.g. via guideline documents, funding programs, project selection, etc.). CalSTA and SGC, OPR, CARB, GoBiz, IBank, DOF, CTC, Caltrans By 2019, develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation (e.g. low-emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user, parking pricing, transit discounts). CalSTA, Caltrans, CTC, OPR/SGC, CARB 104 Recommended Action Lead Agency Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan: • Improve freight system efficiency. • Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. CalSTA, CalEPA, CNRA, CARB, CalTrans, CEC, GoBiz Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a CI reduction of 18 percent.CARB Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy by 2030: • 40 percent reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 levels. • 50 percent reduction in black carbon emissions below 2013 levels. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, Local air districts By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, Local air districts Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program with declining annual caps.CARB By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink: • Protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. • Increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity • Utilize wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments • Establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan CNRA and departments within, CDFA, CalEPA, CARB Establish a carbon accounting framework for natural and working lands as described in SB 859 by 2018 CARB Implement Forest Carbon Plan CNRA, CAL FIRE, CalEPA and departments within Identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors.State Agencies & Local Agencies A Comprehensive Approach to Support Climate Action Ultimately, successfully tipping the scales in the fight against climate change relies on our ability to incentivize clean technologies in the marketplace and to make other climate strategies clearly understood and easily accessible. We must support and guide our businesses as they continue to innovate and make clean technologies ever more attractive to ever more savvy consumers. Until the point that clean technologies become the best and lowest cost option–which is clearly on the horizon for many technologies, including renewable energy and electric cars–we must continue to support emerging markets through incentives and outreach efforts. More than just coordinating among agencies and providing institutional support as described above, we will succeed if we tackle climate change from all angles–through regulatory and policy development, targeted incentives, and education and outreach. Regulations and Programmatic Development Our decade of climate leadership has demonstrated that developing mitigation strategies through a public process, where all stakeholders have a voice, leads to effective actions that address climate change and yield a series of additional economic and environmental co-benefits to the State. As we implement this Scoping Plan, State agencies will continue to develop and implement new and existing programs, as described herein. During any rulemaking process, there are many opportunities for both informal interaction with technical staff in meetings and workshops, and formal interaction at Board meetings, Commission business meetings, monthly public meetings, and others. Each State agency will consider all information and stakeholder input during the rulemaking process. Based on this information, the agency may modify proposed measures to reflect the status of technological development, the cost of the measure, the cost-effectiveness of the measures, and other factors before presenting them for consideration and adoption. Further, to achieve cost-effective GHG reductions, California State agencies must consider the environmental impact of small businesses and provide mechanisms to assist businesses as GHG reduction measures are 105 implemented. CARB provides resources and tips for small businesses to prevent pollution, minimize waste, and save energy and water on CoolCalifornia.org. California’s small businesses and their employees represent a valuable economic resource in the State and “greening” existing businesses is not only achievable, but sets an example for new businesses which will prove significant as California transitions to a low carbon state. State agencies conduct environmental and environmental justice assessments of our regulatory actions. Many of the requirements in AB 32 overlap with traditional agency evaluations. In adopting regulations to implement the measures recommended in the Scoping Plan, or including in the regulations the use of market- based compliance mechanisms to comply with the regulations, agencies will ensure that the measures have undergone the aforementioned screenings and meet the requirements established in California Health and Safety Code Section 38562(b)(1-9) and Section 38570(b)(1-3). Incentive Programs Financial incentives and direct funding are critical components of the State’s climate framework. In particular, incentives and funding are necessary to support GHG emissions reductions strategies for priority sectors, sources, and technologies. Although California has a number of existing incentive programs, available funding is limited. It is critical to target public investments efficiently and in ways that encourage integrated, system wide solutions to produce deep and lasting public benefits. Significant investments of private capital, supported by targeted, priority investments of public funding, are necessary to scale deployment and to maximize benefits. Public investments, including through decisions related to State pension fund portfolios, can help incentivize early action to accelerate market transition to cleaner technologies and cleaner practices, which can also be supported by regulatory measures. Many existing State funding programs work in tandem to reduce emissions from GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants, and are helping to foster the transition to a clean energy economy and protect and manage land for carbon sequestration. State law, including Senate Bill 535 (De León, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012) and Assembly Bill 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016) also requires focused investment in low income and disadvantaged communities. The State will need to continue to coordinate and utilize funding sources, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (cap-and-trade auction proceeds), the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (AB 118), Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) Program, Carl Moyer Program, Air Quality Improvement Program, and Proposition 39 to expand clean energy investments in California and further reduce GHG and criteria emissions. Additionally, programs including the Bioenergy Feed-In Tariff, created by Senate Bill 1122 (Rubio, Chapter 612, Statutes of 2012), Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cap-and-Trade, Self-Generation Incentive Program, Federal Renewable Fuel Standard, utility incentives pursuant to Assembly Bill 1900 (Gatto, Chapter 602, Statutes of 2012), and others provide important market signals and potential revenue streams to support projects to reduce GHG emissions. These programs represent just a portion of the opportunities that exist at the federal, State, and local levels to incentivize GHG emissions reductions. The availability of dedicated and long-lasting funding sources is critical to help meet the State’s climate objectives and help provide certainty and additional partnership opportunities at the national, State, Tribal, regional, and local levels for further investing in projects that have the potential to expand investments in California’s clean economy and further reductions in GHG emissions. Public Education and Outreach Efforts California State agencies are committed to meaningful opportunities for public input and effective engagement with stakeholders and the public through the development of the Scoping Plan, and as measures are implemented through workshops, other meetings, and through the formal rulemaking process. Additionally, the State has broad public education and outreach campaigns to support markets for key technologies, like ZEVs and energy efficiency, as well as resources to support local and voluntary actions, such as CoolCalifornia.org. In developing this Scoping Plan, there has been extensive outreach with environmental justice organizations and disadvantaged communities. The EJAC launched a community engagement process starting in July 2016, conducting 19 community meetings throughout the State and collecting hundreds of individual comments. To enhance the engagement opportunity, CARB coordinated with local government agencies and sister State agencies to hold collaborative discussions with local residents about specific climate issues that impact their 106 lives. This effort was well received and attended by local community residents and initiated a new community engagement endeavor for CARB. Recognizing the value of the input received and the opportunity to present California’s climate strategy to communities across the State, CARB intends to continue this community involvement to generate awareness about California’s climate strategy and be responsive to specific community needs as climate programs are implemented. Conclusion This Scoping Plan continues more than a half-century of California’s nation-leading efforts to clean our air, our water and improve the environment. But, climate change poses a challenge of unprecedented proportions that will, in one way or another, impact all Californians whether they are city dwellers in Los Angeles, San Diego or San Francisco, farmers in Salinas or the Central Valley, or the millions of Californians who live in the Sierra or in the desert areas. This is the State’s climate action plan, and in a very real sense it belongs to all those Californians who are feeling, and will continue to feel, the impacts of climate change. Californians want to see continued effective action that addresses climate change and benefits California – this Plan responds to both of these goals. The Plan was developed by the coordinated consensus of State agencies, but it is really California’s Plan, because over the coming decades the approaches in this document will be carried out by all of us. In this Scoping Plan, every sector in our thriving economy plays a crucial role. Tribes, cities, and local governments are already rising to the challenge, and will play increasingly important roles with everything from low-carbon and cleaner transit, to more walkable streets and the development of vibrant urban communities. We will see a remarkable transformation of how we move throughout the state, away from cars that burn fossil fuels to cleaner, electric cars that will, in some cases, even drive themselves. Freight will be moved around the state by trucks that are vastly cleaner than those on the road now, with our ports moving towards zero- and near-zero emissions technologies. The heavily traveled Los Angeles-San Francisco corridor will be serviced by comfortable, clean and affordable high speed rail. In addition to reducing GHGs, these efforts will slash pollution now created from using gasoline and diesel fuel statewide, with the greatest benefits going to the disadvantaged communities of our state which are so often located adjacent to ports, railyards, freight distribution centers and freeways. And, thanks to the continued investment of proceeds from the Cap-and-Trade Program in these same communities, we can continue to work on bringing the benefits of clean technology – whether electric cars or solar roofs – to those in our state who need them the most. Climate change presents us with unprecedented challenges – challenges that cannot be met with traditional ways of thinking or conventional solutions. As Governor Brown has recognized, meeting these challenges will require “courage, creativity and boldness.” The last ten years proved to ourselves, and the world, that Californians recognize the danger of climate change. It has also demonstrated that developing mitigation strategies through a public process where all stakeholders have a voice leads to effective actions that address climate change while yielding a series of co-benefits to the state. This Scoping Plan builds on those early steps and moves into a new chapter that will deliver a thriving economy and a clean environment to our children and grandchildren. It is a commitment to the future, but it begins today by moving forward with the policies in this Plan. eduCation and environment initiative The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the California Department of Education, and the California Natural Resources Agency have developed an environmental curriculum that is being taught in more than half of California’s school districts. The Education and Environment Initiative (EEI) provides California’s teachers with tools to educate students about the natural environment and how everyday choices can improve our planet and save money. 107 a bbrev I at I on S AB Assembly Bill AC air conditioning AEO Annual Energy Outlook AHSC Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities ARFVTP Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program BARCT best available retrofit control technology BAU business-as-usual BC British Columbia BEV Battery-electric vehicle CARB California Air Resources Board CAISO California Independent System Operator CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen California Green Building Standards CalPERS California Public Employees’ Retirement System CalSTA California State Transportation Agency CalSTRS California State Teachers’ Retirement System CAP Climate Action Plan CARE California Alternate Rates for Energy Program CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDPH California Department of Public Health CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFT Clean Fuels and Technology CH4 Methane CI carbon intensity CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CSI California Solar Initiative dge diesel gallon equivalent DWR California Department of Water Resources EA Environmental Analysis EEI Education and Environment Initiative EIR Environmental Impact Report EJAC Environmental Justice Advisory Committee 108 EO Executive Order EPIC Electric Program Investment Charge Program F-gases fluorinated gases FCEV Fuel-cell electric vehicle FERA Family Electric Rate Assistance GCF Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force GDP gross domestic product GGRF Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund GHG greenhouse gas GoBiz Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development GWP global warming potential HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HFC Hydrofluorocarbon HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning ICAP International Carbon Action Partnership IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report IOU investor-owned utility IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRP integrated resource plan IWG Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program LDV light-duty vehicle LED light-emitting diode LIWP Low-Income Weatherization Program LOS level of service MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MOU memorandum of understanding MPO metropolitan planning organization MRR Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions MTCO2 metric tons of carbon dioxide MW Megawatt N2O nitrous oxide NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEM Net-Energy Metering NF3 nitrogen trifluoride NOX nitrogen oxide NZE near-zero emission OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 109 PEV plug-in electric vehicle PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle PFC Perfluorocarbon PM particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter PMR Partnership for Market Readiness REMI Regional Economic Models, Inc. RES-BCT Renewable Energy Bill Credit RNG renewable natural gas RPS renewable portfolio standard RTP regional transportation plan SB Senate bill SCS Sustainable Communities Strategies SC-CO2 social cost of carbon SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SGC Strategic Growth Council SGIP Self-Generation Incentive Program SLCP Short-lived climate pollutant SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TBD to be determined TCU Transportation Communications and Utilities TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program UCLA University of California, Los Angeles UHI urban heat island UIC International Union of Railways UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VMT vehicle miles traveled WWTP waste water treatment plant ZE zero emission ZEV zero emission vehicles ES20 REDUCE “SUPER POLLUTANTS” 40% reduction in methane and HFCs CLEAN ENERGY At least 50% renewable electricity CLEAN TRANSIT 100% of new buses are zero-emission Double energy efficiency in existing buildings CLEAN CARS Over 4 million affordable electric cars on the road High density, transit-oriented housing Walkable & bikable communities On-road oil demand reduced by half CLEAN FUELS 18% carbon intensity reduction California’s 2030 Vision NATURAL & WORKING LANDS RESTORATION 15-20 million metric tons of reductions SUSTAINABLE FREIGHT Transitioning to zero emissions everywhere feasible, and near-zero emissions with renewable fuels everywhere else CAP-AND-TRADE Firm limit on 80% of emissions RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Kathleen Killips, Melvin Lim, Tiyani Demetri Bryant McAlveen, Ivan Nino, Phynist Pearl, Rebecca Wagner, Gena Wilson, Lynette Wilson, Caleb Owens, AO a minor, and GO a minor. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Kathleen Killips: Personal injury claim for medical malpractice in the amount of $750,000. Melvin Lim: Property claim for damaged personal property in the amount of $304.81 Tiyani Demetri Bryant McAlveen: Personal injury claim for damages arising out of train accident in an amount to exceed $25,000. Ivan Nino: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $7,599.09 Phynist Pearl: Personal injury claim for damages arising out of train accident in an amount to exceed $25,000. Rebecca Wagner: Property claim for damaged personal property in the amount of $1,300. Gena Wilson: Personal injury claim for injuries sustained from a tree falling in undisclosed amount. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Scott Selby 925.335.1400 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Lynette Wilson: Personal injury claim for injuries sustained from a tree falling in undisclosed amount. Caleb Owens: Personal injury claim for injuries sustained from a tree falling in undisclosed amount. Alivia Owens, a minor: Personal injury claim for injuries sustained from a tree falling in undisclosed amount. Greyson Owens, a minor: Personal injury claim for injuries sustained from a tree falling in undisclosed amount. RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the medical staff appointments and reappointments, additional privileges, advancement, and voluntary resignations as recommend by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, at their May 18, 2020 meeting, and by the Health Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission has requested that evidence of Board of Supervisors approval for each Medical Staff member will be placed in his or her Credentials File. The above recommendations for appointment/reappointment were reviewed by the Credentials Committee and approved by the Medical Executive Committee. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Contra Costa Regional Medical and Contra Costa Health Centers' medical staff would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with The Joint Commission. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Japreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, James Ham C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Medical Staff Appointments and Reappointments – May, 2020 ATTACHMENTS Appointments, Re-Appointments May 2020 Proctoring Guidelines Core Priviledges Emergency Medicine Core Priviledges Dentistry Core Privileges OB/Gyn Core Privileges Page | 1 MEC Recommendations – May 18, 2020 Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affiliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy A. New Medical Staff Members Eadula, Sekhar, MD DFAM Chen, Douglas, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Feddersen, Michael, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Holoyda, Bryan, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Mendoza, Erik, MD DFAM Shen, Haniel, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Stanziale, Jennifer, MD Hospital Medicine Wagner, Ariel, MD OB/GYN B. 1st year Residents Carrillo, Mayra, MD Cuervo, Isabel, MD Devries, Jennifer, MD Escamilla, Daniel, MD Gonzalez, Elvira, MD Guerrero, Nery, MD Gutierrez, Gabriel, MD Kane, Myriam, MD Milne -Price, Shauna, MD Muralles, Sara, MD Perez, Megan, MD Ray, Kayra, MD Sullivan, Eleanor, MD C. Lifelong Family Medicine Residents Bhat, Sudarshan, MD Chin, Justin, MD Gonzalez, Basilia, MD Mendoza, Angela, MD Nguyen-Espino, MD Park, Olivia, MD Page | 2 MEC Recommendations – May 18, 2020 Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affiliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy D. Advance to Non-Provisional Kombs, Kory, MD E. Biennial Reappointments Alingog, Karen, MD DFAM A Aragam, Gowri, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Ayala, Gladys, MD Internal Medicine A Bhandari, Vijay, MD Hospital Medicine A Chaudhary, Neha, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Coleman, R. Mason, MD Diagnostic Imaging C Gutierrez, Matthew, MD Hospital Medicine A Halabi, Cathra, MD Internal Medicine A Hummos , Ali, MD Psychiatry/Psychology A Kaji, Troy, MD DFAM A Katzman, Kenneth, MD DFAM A Kerbawy, Sofia, MD Pediatrics A Kompaniez, Kari, MD Hospital Medicine A Longstroth, David, MD Hospital Medicine A Magargal, Spencer, MD Ped iatrics P Manuntag, Wilfredo, MD DFAM A Newman, Allison, MD OB/GYN A Niemeyer, Patricia, MD Diagnostic Imaging A O’Donnell, Nana, PHD Psychiatry/Psychology A Parvin, Nilofar, DDS Dental A Radhakrishna, Rohan, MD DFAM A Risto w, Bryan, MD Internal Medicine A Romito, Leah, MD DFAM A Slauson, Dana, MD DFAM A Sun, Hank, MD Anesthesia P Sun, Xingbo, DPM Surgery-Podiatry A Takekuma, Hiromi, DO Internal Medicine C Walker, William, MD DFAM Admin Wrone, Elizabeth, MD Internal Medicine C Zaka, Jamal, MD Internal Medicine C Page | 3 MEC Recommendations – May 18, 2020 Definitions: A=Active C=Courtesy Aff=Affiliate P/A= Provisional Active P/C= Provisional Courtesy F. Teleradialogist (VRAD) Reappointments Lawton, Christopher, MD Diagnostic Imaging Paul, Marc, MD Diagnostic Imaging G. Voluntary Resignations Berletti, Charles, MD OB/GYN Carey, David, MD DFAM Marquez -Floyd, Estelita, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Radosevich, Jeana, MD DFAM Rainer, Annelies, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Rayikanti, Ruth, MD Psychiatry/Psychology Reinking, Jason, MD Emergency Medicine Torres -Collazo, Victor, MD Psychiatry/Psychology H. Attachments Final Proctoring Guidelines -Core Privileging Final Emergency Medicine Core Privileges Final Dentistry Core Privileges Final OB/Gyn Core Privileges 1 GUIDELINES INITIAL FPPE / PROCTORING This proctoring guideline applies to practitioners who are granted Core Privileges. For practitioners who have been granted privileges using “laundry list” privilege forms, the FPPE/proctoring guidelines approved by MEC on March 20, 2017 will be used until all forms are transitioned to Core Privileging. In order to assure high quality care and meet the requirements of TJC, State law and CCRMC/Health Centers bylaws, all practitioners applying for new privileges (applicants) are evaluated through a Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE). At CCRMC /Health Centers, the main source of information for initial FPPE will consist of retrospective chart review (“retrospective proctoring”) and direct observation (“concurrent proctoring”). Other additional information (such as discussion with other practitioners involved in the care of specific patients , i nterviews with the physician involved in the patient’s care, sentinel event data, any applicable peer review data, and review of data from other institutions with applicant/member’s permission) may also be used. All practitioners who are granted new privileges must complete FPPE/proctoring. FPPE/proctoring cannot be waived. FPPE/proctoring should be completed as soon as possible, ideally within the first 3 - 4 months after privilege(s) are granted . Refer to the “Failure to Complete Proctoring” section below for further details regarding the expected FPPE/proctoring completion time frame. Although it is expected that the Department/Division C hairs (or designees) work closely with the applicant to accomplish FPPE/proctoring , it is ultimately the responsibility of the applicant to assure that FPPE /proctoring is completed in a timely manner. Obtaining a Proctor: It is best to clarify with the Department/Division Chair in advance what kind of proctoring will be necessary and who can serve as a proctor. Usually, the easiest way to find a proctor for a procedure is to contact the person on call for your department or another 2 department that performs the procedure. Any practitioner with unrestricted privileges in the area that is being proctored and who has already completed FPPE/proctoring himself/herself can serve as a proctor. More than one person should be involved in proctoring whenever possible. Department Specific FPPE/Proctoring Requirements: Department specific FPPE/proctoring requirements are outlined on the Core Privileging Forms. Ending FPPE/Proctoring : After the minimum required amount of FPPE/proctoring for a privilege has been completed, the Department/ Division Chair may remove the FPPE/proctoring requirement. Any Department Chair/ Division Chair who can grant the privilege can remove the FPPE/proctoring requirement. The Credentials Committee and the applicant must be notified when FPPE/proctoring is no longer required. At the Department/Division Chair’s discretion, the time frame to complete FPPE/proctoring may be extended and/or additional FPPE/proctoring documentation may be requested . If the Department/Division Chair develops significant concerns about the practitioner during proctoring, this should be reported to the Credentials Committee. If there is a conflict about whether to continue or remove the FPPE/proctoring requirement, the applicant may make an appeal to the Credentials Committee , and the Credentials Committee will make a recommendation to the MEC for a final decision. Special Circumstances : 1. At the Department/Division Chair’s discretion, previous residents and staff practitioners who have already performed procedures at CCRMC/Health Centers (with consultation or supervision) may fulfill proctoring requirements by having those procedures proctored/reviewed retrospectively. 2. If no one on staff is qualified to proctor a procedure, the Department/ Division Chair will determine an appropriate way to proctor, e.g. appoint an external proctor, etc. This must be approved by the Credentials Committee. 3. FPPE /proctoring requirements for applicants who are no/low volume practitioners (e.g. consultants, such as neonatologists, etc.) will be fulfilled by the following: o Having at least one case at CCRMC /Health Centers proctored/reviewed. (Occasionally, this may be not be possible. For example, some of the neonatologists on staff never get called to help stabilize a newborn); AND 3 o C linical activity documentation and a proctoring summary from their primary hospital; AND o One peer reference from a practitioner who works with the applicant, can assess his/her clinical competence , and is, or has the credentials to be, a CCRMC Medical S taff member. Note on No/Low Volume: A no /low volume provider is a practitioner who is Courtesy staff, takes care of patients at CCRMC rarely, and is an Active/Provisional staff member/practitioner at another hospital (if the practitioner is still Provisional at another hospital, he/she must work at least 16 hours a week and be on the path of becoming an Active staff member at that hospital). Please, let the Credentialing/Proctoring C oordinator in the Medical Staff Office know if you are a low/no volume provider, so the appropriate pathway for FPPE/proctoring (Special Circumstances # 3) can be initiated. Proctoring Forms: The proctor will complete and sign the appropriate form and send it to the Credentialing Coordinator. The Credentialing Coordinator will obtain the Department/Division Chair’s signature and file the report in the applicant’s file. Failure to Complete Proctoring : 1. For new applicants, FPPE/proctoring must be completed as soon as possible, ideally within the first 3 - 4 months on staff, not to exceed 6 months. If FPPE/ proctoring has not been completed by 6 months into their provisional period , it may lead to restriction/loss of privileges and Medical Staff membership. The timeframe of 6 months may be extended by the Credentialing Committee/MEC for good cause. The request for extension must be submitted in writing to the Credentialing Committee by the Department/Division Chair/designee who is responsible for FPPE/proctoring . Extensions may under no circumstances exceed 24 months from the date clinical privileges were first granted, which is the maximum time to remain in provisional status. Of note: if a provider requests outpatient, inpatient and/or non-core privileges, but is unable to complete all within the allotted time frame , the potential loss of privileges only applies to the requests where FPPE/proctoring has not been completed. 4 2. For a current practitioner requesting new unrestricted privileges, FPPE/proctoring should be completed within 3 - 4 months of the privilege(s) being granted . If FPPE/proctoring has not been completed by 6 months after being granted, it will be deemed a voluntary withdrawal of the practitioner’s request for those unrestricted privileges. This timeframe may be extended by the Credentialing Committee/MEC for good cause , not to exceed 24 months from the date the new privilege was granted. The request for extension must be submitted in writing to the Credentialing Committee by the Department/Division Chair who is responsible for FPPE/proctoring . Advancement to Non-Provisional: 1. A new practitioner may be advanced to non-provisional status after 6 months on staff if all FPPE/proctoring requirements ha ve been successfully completed. 2. If FPPE/proctoring has not been completed by the end of the provisional period (maximum 24 months from the provisional membership start date ), it will be deemed that the practitioner has voluntarily withdrawn his/her request for unrestricted privileges and staff membership. Reminder Notices: The Credentialing Coordinator will send reminder notices of the status of FPPE/proctoring every 3 months from the date new privilege(s) were granted to the applicant and their respective Department/Division Chair until FPPE/proctoring is completed (up to 24 months). Approved by Credentialing Committee __________ Approved by MEC ______________ ____________________________________________ Guenter Hofstadler, M.D, MPH Credentials Committee Chair ____________________________________________ Kristin Moeller, MD Medical Staff President CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 1 | 6 EMERGENCY MEDICINE CLINICAL PRIVILEGES Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _____/______/_____ to _______/_______/______ (for MSO staff use only) All new applicants must meet the following requirements as approved by the governing body. Effective: _______/_______/_______. Initial Privileges (Initial Appointment) Renewal of Privileges (Reappointment) Applicant: Please check the “Requested” box for each privilege requested. Applicants have the burden of producing information and documentation deemed adequate by the hospital for a proper evaluation of current competence, current clinical activity, and other qualifications, and for resolving any doubts related to qualifications for requested privileges. Department Chair: Check the appropriate box for recommendation on the last page of this form. If not recommended, provide the condition or explanation on the last page of this form. Other Requirements  This document is focused on defining qualifications related to competency to exercise clinical privileges. The applicant must also adhere to any additional organizational, regulatory, or accreditation requirements that the organization is obligated to meet.  Note that privileges granted may only be exercised at the site(s) designated by CCRMC and/or setting(s) that have sufficient space, equipment, staffing, and other resources required to support the privilege. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 2 | 8 QUALIFICATIONS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICINE Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for privileges in EMERGENCY MEDICINE, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Documentation of successful completion of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)–accredited residency in Emergency Medicine or Family Medicine. AND 2. Documentation of current Board certification or Board eligibility leading to certification (with achievement of certification within the required time frame set forth by the respective Boards) in Emergency Medicine or Family Medicine by the American Board of Emergency Medicine or Family Medicine, respectively, or the American Osteopathic Board of Emergency Medicine or Family Medicine, respectively. AND 3. Current documented competency and an adequate volume of experience (minimum 500 patients) with acceptable results, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, or successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited residency or clinical fellowship within the past 24 months. Please provide a clinical activity/procedure log. Any complications/poor outcomes should be delineated and accompanied by an explanation. *If Family Medicine trained, documentation of active ATLS, ACLS, PALS certification is needed. Renewal of privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in Emergency Medicine , the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Maintenance of Certification or Osteopathic Continuous Certification is required. AND 2. Current documented competence and an adequate volume of experience (500 patients) with acceptable results, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, based on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation and outcomes. *If Family Medicine trained, documentation of active ATLS, ACLS, PALS certification is needed. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 3 | 8 Core privileges: Emergency Medicine –Children and Adult Patients Requested : Assess, evaluate, diagnose, and initially treat patients of all ages who present in the ED with any symptom, illness, injury, or condition. Provide immediate recognition, evaluation, care, stabilization, and disposition in response to acute illness and injury. Privileges include the performance of history and physical examinations, the ordering and interpretation of diagnostic studies, including laboratory, diagnostic imaging, and electrocardiographic examinations, and the administration of medications normally considered part of the practice of emergency medicine. P rivileges do not include admitting privileges, long-term care of patients on an inpatient basis, or the performance of scheduled elective procedures. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedures list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills, as determined by the department chair. CORE PROCEDURE/TREATMENT LIST This is not intended to be an all-encompassing list of treatments. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that most practitioners in this specialty perform at this organization and inherent activities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques, as determined by the department chair. To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Emergency Medicine  Anoscopy  Arterial catheter insertion  Arthrocentesis  Assessment of physical abuse  Biohazard decontamination  Bladder catheterization (Foley catheter, suprapubic)  Capnometry  Cardiac pacing (cutaneous, transvenous)  Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), including neonatal resuscitataion  Central venous access Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 4 | 8  Compartment pressure measurement  Control of epistaxis  Cricothyrotomy  Cystourethrogram  Delivery of newborn  Dental Reduction  Drainage of peritonsillar abscess  Escharotomy/burn management  Evaluation/initial management of testicular distortion  Excision of thrombosed hemorrhoids  Foreign body removal  Fracture/dislocation immobilization techniques  Fracture/dislocation reduction techniques  Gastric lavage  Gastrostomy tube replacement  History and Physical  Incision/drainage  Intracardiac injection  Intubation  Laryngoscopy  Lateral canthotomy  Local Anesthesia  Lumbar puncture  Mechanical ventilation  Nasogastric tube  Noninvasive ventilatory management  Ocular pH determination  Ocular tonometry  Paracentesis  Percutaneous transtracheal ventilation  Pericardiocentesis  Perichondral hematoma incision and drainage  Peripheral venous cutdown  Peritoneal lavage  Placement of intraosseous line  Regional Neve Block  Removal of rust ring  Sexual assault examination Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 5 | 8  Slit lamp examination  Spine immobilization  Spine immobilization techniques  Thoracentesis/ thoracotomy/thoracostomy tube insertion  Tonometry  Tooth stabilization  Tracheostomy  Trephination nails  Trephination skull  Violent patient management/restraint  Wound closure techniques  Wound management Non-Core Privileges (see specific criteria) Non-core privileges are requested individually in addition to requesting the core. Each individual requesting non-core privileges must meet the specific threshold criteria as applicable to the applicant or re - applicant.  Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Initial Request for Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS): 1. Documentation of successful completion of an ACGME–accredited residency training in a program that included formal hands on ultrasound instruction and experience OR Documentation demonstrating satisfactory completion of twenty (20) hours of Point of Care Ultrasound CME with at least six (6) hours of hands on ultrasound scanning and has completed five (5) proctored limited cardia ultrasound cases (as part of CME) AND Cardiac: Provide documentation of having performed 20 cases of limited cardiac ultrasound (includes all five views) within the last 24 months AND/OR Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 6 | 8 Invasive Procedures: Provide documentation of having performed 5 cases of procedural/ invasive ultrasound (can be any combination of procedures) within the last 24 months. AND/OR Non-Invasive Procedures: Provide documentation of having performed 5 cases of each type of non-invasive ultrasound for which privileges are requested within the last 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Any complications/ poor outcomes should be delineated and accompanied by an explanation. Practitioner agrees to limit the use of ultrasound to exams performed at the bedside for the purposes of a rapid evaluation to help establish a diagnosis in situations which applicant has privileges to practice. Renewal of Privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in Point of Care Ultrasound, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Cardiac: Perform 20 cases of limited cardiac ultrasound (tailored to answer clinical question) within the past 24 months and provide documentation upon request. AND/OR 2. Invasive P rocedures: Perform 10 cases total of procedural/ invasive ultrasound (can be any combination of procedures) within the past 24 months and provide documentation upon request. AND/OR 3. Non-Invasive P rocedures: Perform 20 cases total of non-invasive ultrasound within the past 24 months and provide documentation upon request. Administration of Sedation and Analgesia:  Conscious Sedation (e.g. versed, morphine, fentanyl) – DOES NOT INCLUDE USE OF KETAMINE OR PROPOFOL  Ketamine (test required every 2 years)  Propofol (test required every 2 years) Criteria for Initial Request: 1. Successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited post graduate training program which included training in administration of sedation and analgesia, including the necessary airway management skills , or department-approved extra training and experience. AND 2. Documented current competence and evidence of the pe rformance of at least 5 cases (can be any combination) within the past 24 months, or completion of training within the past 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Criteria for Renewal of Privileges: Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 7 | 8 1. Documented current competence and evidence of the performance of at least 5 cases (can be any combination) within the past 24 months. Evaluation and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Abuse: Requested Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for the Evaluation and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Abuse non-core privilege, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited residency in emergency medicine, family medicine or pediatrics, which included this training or documented completion of a recognized relevant course or training under the supervision of a qualified provider AND 2. Documented current competence and evidence of evaluation and treatment of at least 2 sexual abuse cases in the past 24 months (please provide a clinical activity/procedure log) or documented completion of relevant training/in-service in the past 24 months. Renewal of Privilege: To be eligible to renew the Evaluation and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Abuse non-core privilege, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Documented current competence and evidence of attendance at evaluation and treatment of at least 2 sexual abuse cases in the past 24 months or documented completion of relevant training/in-service in the past 24 months. FOCUSED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EVALUATION (FPPE) for initial applicants 1. Retrospective or concurrent proctoring (chart review or direct observation) of at least three (3) charts from 3 different ED shifts (totaling a minimum of 9 charts). FPPE/Proctoring has to be representative of the provider’s scope of practice. 2. Concurrent proctoring (direct observation) of at least three (3) procedures (procedures must be representative of the practitioner’s scope of practice). 3. FPPE/Proctoring is also required for at least one (1) procedure /case of each of the requested non-core privileges. 4. FPPE should be concluded as soon as pos sible (i.e. within the first 3-4 months after starting work at CCRMC). 5. Completed FPPE forms have to be submitted to the Credentialing Office. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 8 | 8 6. It is the applicant’s ultimate responsibility to make sure that FP P E and submission of all required paperwork to the Credentialing Office takes place in a timely manner. Failure to do so may result in loss or limitation of privileges. 7. For low volume providers: please see separate FPPE/proctoring guidelines. 8. For more detailed information, please see separate FPPE/proctoring guidelines. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRACTITIONER I have requested only those privileges for which by education, training, current experience, and documented performance I am qualified to perform and for which I wish to exercise at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and I understand that: a. In exercising any clinical privileges granted, I will adhere by hospital and medical staff policies and rules applicable generally and any applicable to the particular situation. b. Any restriction on the clinical privileges granted to me is waived in an emergency situation, and in such situation my actions are governed by the applicable section of the medical staff bylaws or related documents. Signed ________________________________________Date _____________________ DEPARTMENT / DIVISION CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATION I have reviewed the requested clinical privileges and supporting documentation for the above - named applicant and: Recommend All Requested Privileges Recommend Privileges with the Following Conditions/M odifications: Do Not Recommend the Following Requested Privileges: Privilege Condition/M odification/Explanation Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 9 | 8 Notes: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ [Department Chair] Signature : ______________________________ Date: _______________ FOR MEDICAL STAFF SERVICES DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Credentials Committee Approval Date _____________________ Temporary Privileges Date _____________________ Medical Executive Committee Approval Date _____________________ Board of Supervisors Approval Date _____________________ CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 1 | 5 GENERAL DENTISTRY CLINICAL PRIVILEGES Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _____/______/_____ to _______/_______/______ (for MSO staff use only) All new applicants must meet the following requirements as approved by the governing body. Effective: _______/_______/_______. Initial Privileges (Initial Appointment) Renewal of Privileges (Reappointment) Applicant: Please check the “Requested” box for each privilege requested. Applicants have the burden of producing information and documentation deemed adequate by the hospital for a proper evaluation of current competence, current clinical activity, and other qualifications, and for resolving any doubts related to qualifications for requested privileges. Department Chair: Check the appropriate box for recommendation on the last page of this form. If not recommended, provide the condition or explanation on the last page of this form. Other Requirements  This document is focused on defining qualifications related to competency to exercise clinical privileges. The applicant must also adhere to any additional organizational, regulatory, or accreditation requirements that the organization is obligated to meet.  Note that privileges granted may only be exercised at the site(s) designated by CCRMC and/or setting(s) that have sufficient space, equipment, staffing, and other resources required to support the privilege. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 2 | 5 QUALIFICATIONS FOR GENERAL DENTISTRY Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for privileges in General Dentistry, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Documentation of successful graduation from an accredited U.S. dental school OR equivalent foreign dental school. AND 2. Documentation of provision of care for at least 500 patients, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, during the past 24 months, or successful completion of an accredited U.S. dental school (or equivalent foreign dental school) within the past 24 months. Please provide a clinical activity log, if available. Renewal of Privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in General Dentistry, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Current documented competency and an adequate volume of experience (500 patients) with acceptable results, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, based on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation and outcomes. Core P rivileges: General Dentistry Requested : Co-admit, consult, evaluate total oral health needs, diagnose, and provide general dental diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic oral healthcare to patients of all ages, to correct or treat various routine conditions of the oral cavity and dentition. Assess, stabilize, and determine disposition of patients with emergent conditions, emergency and consultative call services. If admission is necessary, co- admission is to be done in conjunction with a staff oral & maxillofacial surgeon or staff physician of an appropriate specialty. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedures list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills, as determined by the department chair. CORE TREATMENT/ PROCEDURE LIST This is not intended to be an all-encompassing list of treatments. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that most practitioners in this specialty perform at this organization and inherent activities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques, as determined by the Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 3 | 5 department chair. To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competence, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date . General Dentistry  Assessment of, consultation for, and preparation of patients for general dental care  Difficult pedodontics and management of extremely fearful patients  Frenectomy/frenotomy  Minor Oral Surgery procedures including alveoplasty, intra-oral incision and drainage  Minor orthodontics such as space maintenance  Minor periodontal surgery such as minor bone re-contouring, gingivectomy  Operative dentistry  Pedodontics  Performance of history and dental exam  Removable and fixed prosthodontics  Simple and surgical extractions including soft tissue impaction, partial bony impaction, and root resections  Simple endodontics  Splinting (fixed) Non-Core Privileges: General Dentistry with Operating Room Privileges Requested : Co-admit, evaluate, diagnose, consult, and provide treatment to dental patients in the inpatient/outpatient setting under general anesthesia. Dental treatments and procedures done in an operating room setting. Qualifications : same as above Procedure/Treatment List: same as above Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 4 | 5 FOCUSED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EVALUATION (FPPE) for initial applicants 1. Chart review (“retrospective proctoring”) of at least 3 charts from 3 different clinic days (totaling a minimum of 9 charts). FPPE/proctoring has to be representative of the provider’s scope of practice. 2. Concurrent proctoring (direct observation) of at least three (3) procedures, reflective of the practitioner’s scope of practice. FPPE/proctoring has to be representative of the provider’s scope of practice. 3. FPPE should be concluded as soon as possible (i.e. within the first 3-4 months after starting work at CCRMC). 4. Completed FPPE forms have to be submitted to the Credentialing Office . 5. It is the applicant’s ultimate responsibility to make sure that FPPE and submission of all required paperwork to the Credentialing Office takes place in a timely manner. Failure to do so may result in loss or limitation of privileges. 6. For low volume providers: please see separate FPPE/proctoring guidelines. 7. For more detailed information, please see separate FPPE/proctoring guidelines. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRACTITIONER I have requested only those privileges for which by education, training, current experience, and documented performance I am qualified to perform and for which I wish to exercise at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and I understand that: a. In exercising any clinical privileges granted, I will adhere by hospital and medical staff policies and rules applicable generally and any applicable to the particular situation. b. Any restriction on the clinical privileges granted to me is waived in an emergency situation, and in such situation my actions are governed by the applicable section of the medical staff bylaws or related documents. Signed ________________________________________Date _____________________ Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 5 | 5 DEPARTMENT / DIVISION CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATION I have reviewed the requested clinical privileges and supporting documentation for the above -named applicant and: Recommend All Requested Privileges Recommend Privileges with the Following Conditions/M odifications: Do Not Recommend the Following Requested Privileges: Privilege Condition/M odification/Explanation Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ [Department Chair] Signature : ______________________________ Date: _______________ FOR MEDICAL STAFF SERVICES DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Credentials Committee Approval Date _____________________ Temporary Privileges Date _____________________ Medical Executive Committee Approval Date _____________________ Board of Supervisors Approval Date _____________________ CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 1 | 20 OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY CLINICAL PRIVILEGES Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _____/______/_____ to _______/_______/______ (for MSO staff use only) All new applicants must meet the following requirements as approved by the governing body. Effective: _______/_______/_______. Initial Privileges (Initial Appointment) Renewal of Privileges (Reappointment) Applicant: Please check the “Requested” box for each privilege requested. Applicants have the burden of producing information and documentation deemed adequate by the hospital for a proper evaluation of current competence, current clinical activity, and other qualifications, and for resolving any doubts related to qualifications for requested privileges. Department Chair: Check the appropriate box for recommendation on the last page of this form. If not recommended, provide the condition or explanation on the last page of this form. Other Requirements  This document is focused on defining qualifications related to competency to exercise clinical privileges. The applicant must also adhere to any additional organizational, regulatory, or accreditation requirements that the organization is obligated to meet.  Note that privileges granted may only be exercised at the site(s) designated by CCRMC and/or setting(s) that have sufficient space, equipment, staffing, and other resources required to support the privilege. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 2 | 20 QUALIFICATIONS FOR OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for privileges in obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), the applicant must meet the following criteria: EITHER Pathway A: 1. Successful completion of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)–accredited residency in OB/GYN AND 2. Documentation of current Board Certification or Board Eligibility in OB/GYN (with achievement of certification within the required time frame set forth by the respective Boards) by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG), or the American Osteopathic Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AOBOG). OR Pathway B: 1. Successful completion of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)–accredited residency in Family Medicine AND 2. OB fellowship, or Department approved experience equivalent to OB fellowship AND 3. Documentation of Board Certification or Board Eligibility in Family Medicine (with achievement of certification within the required time frame set forth by the respective Boards) by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), or American Osteopathic Board of Family Physicians (AOBFP ) AND (The following are required for both pathways; this applies to OB/GYN trained as well as Fa mily Medicine trained providers .) 1. Documented Recent Experience (Within the past 24 months):  For Inpatient obstetrics privileges: a t least 60 deliveries including at least 10 C- sections. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 3 | 20  For Ambulatory Obstetrics at least 300 perinatal visits.  For Surgical/Inpatient GYN privileges the performance of at least 30 gynecological surgical procedures including at least 6 major abdominal cases.  For Ambulatory GYN at least 300 GYN clinic visits , reflective of the scope of privileges requested. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. OR 2. Successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited residency or clinic al fellowship within the past 24 months. Renewal of Privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in OB/GYN, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Maintenance of Certification or Osteopathic Ongoing Certification is required. 2. Documented Recent Experience (Within the past 24 months):  For Inpatient Obstetrics privileges, at least 60 deliveries including at least 10 C- sections.  For Ambulatory Obstetrics at least 300 visits .  For Surgical/Inpatient GYN privileges the performance of at least 30 gynecological surgical procedures including at least 6 major abdominal cases.  For Ambulatory GYN at least 300 GYN clinic visits, reflective of the scope of privileges requested. Core P rivileges: Obstetrics Requested : Ambulatory Obstetrics Evaluate, diagnose, treat, and provide consultation to adolescent a nd adult female patients who are pregnant, including major medical diseases that are complicating factors in pregnancy, and general primary care for women who are pregnant, may become pregnant, or postpartum. Requested : Inpatient Obstetrics Evaluate, diagnose, admit, treat, and provide consultation to adolescent and adult female patients who are pregnant, intending to become pregnant, or post pregnancy, including major Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 4 | 20 medical diseases that are complicating factors in pregnancy. Assess, stabilize, determine the disposition , and participate in the care of patients with emergent conditions and provide consultative call services at any location in the hospital. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedur es list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills , as determined by the department chair. CORE PROCEDURES/TREATMENT LIST OBSTETRICS This is not intended to be an all-encompassing procedures list. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that the majority of practitioners in this specialty perform at this organization and inherent activities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques, as determined by the department chair. To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Obstetrics (General)  Advanced Prenatal Care (Patients with more severe pregnancy complications and chronic medical problems such as: CHTN on meds, GDM/DM II on insulin or with HbA1c > 6.5, 3 or more SABs < 13 weeks, pregnancy loss > 13 weeks including IUFD and cervical insufficiency, h/o preterm birth < 37 weeks, Di/di tw ins, +RPR, HBsAg+, BMI > 60, H/o PreE in 2 pregnancies or prior to 37 weeks, hypothyroidism, shortened cervix < 2.5 cm, IUGR, Persistent placenta previa, anemia Hb < 8, significant fibroids/uterine anomalies, or more complicated conditions with MFM consultation (see MFM section)  Ambulatory postpartum care including treatment of breastfeeding complications and postpartum depression.  Amniotomy, placement of internal fetal (FSE), insertion of intrauterine pressure catheter, amnioinfusion  Cervical Cerclage  Cesarean hysterectomy and incidental bladder repair during cesarean section  Cesarean section and cesarean section with tubal sterilization  Contraception prescription and management  External version of fetal malpresentation  First trimester surgical abortions and uterine evacuation for abnormal pregnancy  Immediate care of the newborn including resuscitation and initial admission orders  Induction and augmentation of labor  Interpretation of fetal heart rate monitoring Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 5 | 20  Intrapartum pudendal and para -cervical blocks  Management of complicated pregnancies, inclusive of such conditions as preeclampsia with severe features, third-trimester bleeding, intrauterine growth restriction, premature labor/PPROM, fetal demise and placental abnormalities .  Management of early pregnancy complications including medication management of spontaneous abortion, and identification and medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy  Manual removal of placenta and postpartum uterine curettage  Medication abortion  Obstetric ultrasound including fetal position, number, placental location, biometry and cervical length  Operative vaginal delivery, including the use of obstetric vacuum extractor and/or forceps  Performance of history and physical exam  Performance of multifetal deliveries  Placement and removal of IUD  Placement and removal of progestin implant (company certification of training required)  Planned breech vaginal birth of a singleton pregnancy  Postpartum tubal sterilization including incidental umbilical hernia repair without mesh  Repair of cervical lacerations  Repair of first and second-degree perineal and vaginal lacerations  Repair of third and fourth-degree perineal lacerations  Routine management of antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum inpatients including common pregnancy complications  Second trimester abortion and uterine evacuation for abnormal pregnancy  Standard Prenatal Care (low risk patients and those with: BMI <60, CHTN with BP < 150/100 no meds, GDM on diet or orals HbA1c < 6.5, AMA, H/o PreE > 37wks, Hx of 1- 3 cesarean sections, substance use including buprenorphine, cholestasis of pregnancy, size/dates discrepancies with EFW > 10%, anemia Hb >8) Provide care of patients with advanced prenatal conditions with consultation from an advanced prenatal provider.  Treatment of medical and surgical complications in pregnancy  Treatment of medical and surgical conditions incidental to pregnancy  Vaginal birth including vaginal birth after cesarean section Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 6 | 20 Core Privileges: Gynecology Requested : Ambulatory Gynecology Evaluate, diagnose, treat, and provide consultation necessary to treat female patients of all ages presenting with disorders of the female reproductive system, genitourinary system and breasts. P rovide incidental general primary care for women. Requested : Inpatient and Surgical Gynecology Evaluate, diagnose, admit, treat, provide consultation and pre-, intra-, and postoperative care necessary to treat female patients of all ages presenting with injuries and disorders of the female reproductive system, the genitourinary system, and non-surgical disorders of the breasts. Assess, stabilize, determine the disposition , and participate in the care of patients with emergent conditions and provide consultative call services at any location in the hospital. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedures list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills , as determined by the department chair. CORE PROCEDURES/TREATMENT LIST GYNECOLOGY This is not intended to be an all-encompassing procedures list. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that the majority of practitioners in this specialty perform at this organization and inherent ac tivities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques, as determined by the department chair. To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Gynecology (General)  Abdominal hysterectomy and myomectomy  Aspiration of breast masses  Care of gynecologic conditions including abnormal uterine bleeding, infertility, contraception, endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain, ovarian cysts, urinary incontinence, and pelvic infections  Cervical cone Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 7 | 20  Colpocleisis  Colposcopy and cervical biopsy  Cystoscopy as part of a gynecological procedure  Diagnostic laparoscopy, laparoscopic salpingectomy, and salpingostomy  Diagnostic and therapeutic dilation and curettage  Diagnostic hysteroscopy  Endometrial ablation  Gynecologic procedures including endometrial biopsy, placement of Ward catheter, marsupialization of a Bartholin’s gland cyst, hymenectomy and removal or drainage of other vulvar and vaginal cysts.  Incidental appendectomy  Incidental bladder repair  Incidental umbilical hernia repair  Incision and drainage of pelvic abscesses  Laparoscopic hysterectomy, myomectomy and laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy  Laparoscopy and laparotomy for a dnexal surgery, including ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, and ablation or excision of endometriosis  LEEP  Limited gynecologic ultrasound and saline sonohystogram,  Limited gynecologic ultrasound, saline sonohystogram,  Ope ration for treatment of urinary stress incontinence with vaginal approach, retropubic urethral suspension, and sling procedure  Operative hysteroscopy including excision of polyps, leiomyomas, and metroplasty  Performance of history and physical exam  Place catheter for hysterosalpingogram  Placement and removal of IUD  Placement and removal of progestin implant (company certification of training required)  Treatment with chemotherapy of ectopic pregnancy and gestational trophoblastic disease  Tuboplasty and othe r infertility surgery (not microsurgical)  Uterosacral vaginal vault fixation, paravaginal repair  Uterovaginal, vesicovaginal, rectovaginal, and other fistula repair  Vaginal hysterectomy  Vulvar biopsy  Vulvectomy, simple Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 8 | 20 Core Privileges: Gynecologic Oncology Requested : Evaluate, diagnose, admit, treat, and provide consultation and surgical and therapeutic treatment to female patients with gynecologic cancer and complications, including carcinomas of the cervix, ovary and fallopian tubes, uterus, vulva, and vagina and the performance of procedures on the bowel, urethra, and bladder. Assess, stabilize, determine the disposition , and participate in the care of patients with emergent conditions regarding emergency and consultative call services at any location in the hospital. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedures list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills , as determined by the department chair. QUALIFICATIONS FOR GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for privileges in gynecologic oncology, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Documentation of successful completion of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)–accredited residency in OB/GYN, plus an ABOG– or AOA–approved fellowship in gynecologic oncology. AND 2. Required current experience: At least 30 gynecologic oncology procedures, reflective of the scope of privileges requested within the past 24 months, or successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited residency or clinical fellowship within the past 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Renewal of Privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in gynecologic oncology, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Current documented competence and an a dequate volume of experience (30 gynecologic oncology procedures) with acceptable results, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, based on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation and outcomes. CORE PROCEDURES/TREATMENT LIST – GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY This is not intended to be an all-encompassing procedures list. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that the majority of practitioners in this specialty perform at this Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 9 | 20 organization and inherent activities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques, as determined by the department chair. To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Gynecologic Oncology  Complicated adnexal surgery as for endometriosis or after pelvic infection  Evaluation procedures (cystoscopies, laparoscopies, colposcopies and loop excisions, sigmoidoscopies, breast mass fine -needle aspirations, and needle biopsies)  Hysterectomy (vaginal, abdominal, radical, laparoscopic assisted)  Incision and drainage of abdominal or perineal abscesses  Insertion of intracavity radiation application  Lymph node dissections (inguinal, femoral, pelvic, para -aortic)  Management of operative and postoperative complications  Microsurgery  Myocutaneous flaps, skin grafting  Omentectomies  Pelvic exenteration (anterior, posterior, total)  Performance of history and physical exam  Reconstruction procedures, including development of neovagina (split-thickness skin grafts, pedicle grafts, and myocutaneous grafts) and development of a new pelvic floor (omental pedicle grafts and transposition of muscle grafts)  Salpingo-oophorectomies  Surgery of the gastrointestinal tract and upper abdomen, including placements of feeding jejunostomy/gastrostomy, resections and reanastomosis of small bowel, bypass procedures of small bowel, mucous fistula formations of small bowel, ileostomies, repair of fistulas, resection and reanastomosis of large bowel (including low-anterior resection and reanastomosis), bypass procedures of the large bowel, mucous fistula formations of large bowel, colostomies, splenectomies, and liver biopsies  Surgery of the urinary tract: cystectomy (partial, total), repairs of vesicovaginal fistulas (primary, secondary), cystotomy, ureteroneocystostomies with and without bladder flaps or psoas fixation, end-to-end ureteral reanastomoses, transuretero-ureterostomies, small- bowel interpositions, cutaneous ureterostomies, repairs of intraoper ative injuries to the ureter, and conduits developed from the ileum and colon  Treatment of malignant disease with chemotherapy  Treatment of malignant disease with chemotherapy, including gestational trophoblastic disease Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 10 | 20  Vaginectomy (simple, radical)  Vulvectomy (skinning, simple, partial, radical) Core Privileges: Maternal –F etal Medicine QUALIFICATIONS FOR MATERNAL – MATERNAL-FETAL MEDICINE Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for privileges in maternal-fetal medicine, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Successful completion of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)–accredited residency in OB/GYN, plus an ABOG– or AOA–approved fellowship in maternal and fetal medic ine or equivalent experience. AND 2. Provision of care to at least 50 patients, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, or successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited residency or clinic al fellowship within the past 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Renewal of Privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in maternal–fetal medicine, the applicant must meet the following criteria: Current documented competence and an adequate volume of experience (50 patients) with acceptable results, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, for the past 24 months based on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation and outcomes . Maternal Fetal Medicine Requested : Ambulatory Maternal Fetal Medicine Evaluate, diagnose, treat, and provide consultation to adolescent and adult female patients with medical and surgical complications of pregnancy, such as maternal cardiac, pulmonary, and metabolic complications, connective tissue disorders , and fetal malformations, conditions, or disease in the outpatient clinic setting Requested : Inpatient Maternal Fetal Medicine Consultation P rovide consultation to inpatient adolescent and adult female patients with medical and surgical complications of pregnancy, such as maternal cardiac, pulmonary, and metabolic Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 11 | 20 complications, connective tissue disorders, and fetal malformations, conditions, or disease. Assess, stabilize, de termine the disposition , and participate in the care of patients with emergent conditions and needing consultative call services at any location in the hospital. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedures list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills, as determined by the department chair. CORE PROCEDURES/TREATMENT LIST – MATERNAL –FETAL MEDICINE This is not intended to be an all-encompassing procedures list. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that the majority of practitioners in this specialty perform at this organization and inherent activities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques, as determined by the department chair. To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Maternal Fetal Medicine  Abdominal Cerclage  Amnioreduction  Cephalocentesis  Cesarean hysterectomy  Chorionic villi sampling  Complicated cesarean delivery including large fibroids, abnormal placental implantation, multiple prior surgeries, and uterine anomalies  Delivery of pregnancies with mono, mono twins or multiple gestation with triplets or higher order  Genetic amniocentesis  Interoperative support to obstetrician as requested, including operative first assist  Intrauterine fetal therapy (thoracentesis, paracentesis, administration of medications, placement of thoracic shunt, and placement of urinary catheter)  In-utero fetal transfusion  MFM Prenatal care (pregnant patients with the highest risk pregnancy and chronic medical conditions. Examples include chronic kidney disease, chronic pulmonary disease, cirrhosis, coagulation disorders, H/o PE or DVT. History of PE or DVT, Congenital heart disease, coronary artery disease, CHF or cardiomyopathy, Lupus/Sjogren’s, CAD, APL syndrome, RA, multiple sclerosis, seizure disorder, sickle cell disease, thalassemia, mono/mono and mono/di twins, Triplets or higher multiples, DM type 1, isoimmunization, HIV, Hyperthyroidism, Placenta accrete, ITP with plt< Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 12 | 20 100K, documented fetal structural anomalies, IUGR with EFW < 3% at < 37 weeks)  Percutaneous umbilical blood sampling  Performance of history and physical exam  Planned breech delivery (spontaneous, assisted, application of forceps)  Standard and advanced prenatal care  Ultrasound examination, including first-, second-, and third-trimester targeted anatomic fetal evaluation and cardiac evaluation, including color Doppler, Doppler velocimetry (fetal umbilical artery, fetal middle cerebral artery, and maternal uterine artery), cervical and placental evaluation, and 3-D and 4-D ultrasound Core P rivileges: Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Requested : Evaluate, diagnose, admit, treat, provide consultation and pre-, intra-, and postoperative care necessary to correct or treat female patients of all ages presenting with injuries and disorders of the genitourinary system. Includes diagnosis and management of genitourinary and rectovaginal fistulae, urethral diverticula, injuries to the genitourinary tract, congenital anomalies, infectious and noninfectious irritative conditions of the lower urinary tract and pelvic floor, and the management of genitourinary complications of spinal cord injuries. Assess, stabilize, determine the disposition , and participate in the care of patients with emergent conditions regarding emergency and consultative call services at any location in the hospital. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedures list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills. QUALIFICATIONS FOR FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY (UROGYNECOLOGY) Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for privileges in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Successful completion of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)–accredited residency in OB/GYN, plus an ABOG-approved fellowship in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery/urogynecology, or AOA –approved fellowship in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery or approved equivalent experience. AND Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 13 | 20 2. Documentation of at least 40 female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgical procedures, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, or successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited residency or clinic al fellowship within the past 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Renewal of Privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Current documented competence and an adequate volume of experience (at least 40 female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgical procedures with acceptable results, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, based on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation and outcomes . CORE PROCEDURES/TREATMENT LIST – FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY This is not intended to be an all-encompassing procedures list. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that the majority of practitioners in this specialty perform at this organization and inherent activities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques, as determined by the department chair. To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery  Abdominal (closure or repair of enterocele, transabdominal sacrocolpopexy, paravaginal repair)  Anal incontinence procedures - Augmentation cystoplasty, supravesical diversion, sacral nerve stimulator implantation, and bladder denervation - Bowel resection - Colostomy  Continence procedures for genuine stress incontinence  Continence procedures for overflow incontinence due to anatomic obstruction following continence surgery - Continent vesicotomy or supravesical diversion - Cutting of one or more suspending sutures - Dynamic (stimulated muscle transposition) Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 14 | 20 - Long-needle procedures (e.g., Pereyra, Raz, Stamey, Gittes, Muzsnai) - Muscle transposition  Other surgical procedures for treating urinary incontinence  Pelvic floor dysfunction and genital prolapse procedures  Performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests for urinary incontinence and lower urinary tract dysfunction, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse  Performance of history and physical exam - Periurethral bulk injections (e.g., polytef, collagen, fat) - Placement of an artificial urinary sphincter - Retropubic urethrolysis with or without repeat bladder neck suspension - Retropubic urethropex (e.g., Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz, Burch, and paravaginal defect repair) - Retrorectal repair - Revision, removal, or release of a suburethral sling - Sling procedures (e.g., fascia lata, rectus fascia, heterologous materials, vaginal wall) - Sphincteroplasty - Urethral closure and suprapubic cystotomy - Vaginal (transvaginal hysterectomy with or without colporrhaphy, anterior and posterior colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy, paravaginal repair, Manchester operation, enterocele repair, vagina vault suspension, colpocleisis, retrorectal levator plasty and postanal repair) - Vaginal urethropexy (e.g., bladder neck placation, vaginal paravaginal defect repair) Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 15 | 20 Core P rivileges: Reproductive Endocrinology Requested : Evaluate, diagnose, admit, treat, and provide inpatient or outpatient consultation to adolescent and adult patients with problems of fertility. Assess, stabilize, determine the disposition , and participate in the care of patients with emergent conditions and provide consultative call services at any location in the hospital. The core privileges in this specialty include the procedures on the attached procedures list and such other procedures that are extensions of the same techniques and skills, as determined by the department chair. QUALIFICATIONS FOR REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY Initial Applicants: To be eligible to apply for privileges in reproductive endocrinology, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Successful completion of an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) – or American Osteopathic Association (AOA)–accredited residency in OB/GYN, plus an ABOG– or AOA–approved fellowship in reproductive endocrinology. AND 2. Documented experience of at least 50 reproductive endocrinology procedures, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, or successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited residency or clinic al fellowship within the past 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Renewal of Privileges: To be eligible to renew privileges in reproductive endocrinology, the applicant must meet the following criteria: 1. Current documented competence and an adequate volume of experience (at least 50 reproductive endocrinology procedures) with acceptable results, reflective of the scope of privileges requested, within the past 24 months, based on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation and outcomes. CORE PROCEDURES/TREATMENT LIST This is not intended to be an all-encompassing procedures list. It defines the types of activities/procedures/privileges that the majority of practitioners in this specialty perform at this organization and inherent activities/procedures/privileges requiring similar skill sets and techniques. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 16 | 20 To the Applicant: If you wish to exclude any procedures, due to lack of current competency, please strike through the procedures that you do not wish to request and then initial and date. Reproductive Endocrinology  Clinic consultation for conditions including primary and secondary infertility, PCOs, endometriosis, congenital endocrine disorders, reproductive endocrine pathology and genetic abnormalities impacting fertility.  Diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, including hysterosalpingography, sonohysterography, tubal canalization, and endoscopy (laparoscopy and hysteroscopy)  Fertility restoration, including laparoscopy and laparotomy techniques used to reverse sterilization  Infertility surgery, including all techniques used for reconstruction of uterine anomalies, myomectomies, resection of uterine synechiae, cervical cerclage, tuboplasty, resection of pelvic adhesions, ovarian cystectomies, staging and treating endometriosis, including pre - and postoperative medical adjunctive therapy  Intrauterine insemination  Performance of history and physical exam  Surgical treatment of ambiguous genitalia, including construction of unambiguous, functional female external genitalia and vagina (e.g., vaginoplasty, clitoral reduction, exteriorization of the vagina, feminizing genitoplasty, and techniques for prophylactic gonadectomy)  Surgical treatment of developmental disorders, including all techniques used for neovaginal construction (dilation and surgical methods), correction of imperforate hymen, removal of vaginal and uterine septae, and correction of müllerian abnormalities Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 17 | 20 Special Non-Core Privileges (See Specific Criteria) Non-core privileges are requested individually in addition to requesting the core. Each individual requesting non-core privileges must meet the specific threshold criteria as applicable to the applicant. Non-Core Privileges: Use of Laser Use of Laser Criteria for Initial Request: 1. Successful completion of an approved residency in a specialty or subspecialty that included training in laser principles or completion of an approved 8-10 hour continuing medical education course that included training in laser principles. An applicant for this privilege should spend time after the basic training course in a clinical setting with an experienced operator, acting as a preceptor, who has been granted laser privileges. Practitioner agrees to limit practice to only the specific la ser types for which he or she has provided documentation of training and experience. The applicant must supply a certificate documenting that he or she attended a wavelength and specialty-specific laser course and also present documentation as to the conte nt of that course. AND 2. Documented current competence and evidence of the performance of at least 10 procedures within the past 24 months, or completion of training within the past 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Criteria for Renewal of Privileges: 1. Documented current competence and evidence of the performance of at least 10 procedures within the past 24 months, based on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation and outcomes. Non-Core Privileges: Administration of Sedation and Analgesia Administration of Sedation and Analgesia:  Conscious Sedation (e.g. versed, morphine, fentanyl) – DOES NOT INCLUDE USE OF KETAMINE OR PROPOFOL  Ketamine (test required every 2 years)  Propofol (test required every 2 years) Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 18 | 20 Criteria for Initial Request: 1. Successful completion of an ACGME– or AOA–accredited post graduate training program which included training in administration of sedation and analgesia, including the necessary airway management skills , or department-approved extra training and experience . AND 2. Documented current competence and evidence of the performance of at least 5 cases (can be any combination) within the past 24 months, or completion of training within the past 24 months. Please provide clinical activity/procedure log. Criteria for Renewal of Privileges: 1. Documented current competence and evidence of the performance of at least 5 cases (can be any combination) within the past 24 months. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 19 | 20 FOCUSED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EVALUATION (FPPE) for initial applicants Inpatient (OB/GYN): 1. Retrospective or concurrent proctoring (chart review or direct observation) of at least 9 hospitalized patients in the care of whom the applicant significantly participated. FPPE/proctoring has to be representative of the provider’s scope of practice. 2. Concurrent proctoring (direct observation) of at least 3 different procedures that are representative of procedures regularly preformed in the department. FPPE/proctoring has to be representative of the provider’s scope of practice. Outpatient (OB/GYN) 3. Chart review (“retrospective proctoring”) of at least 3 charts from 3 different clinic days (totaling a minimum of 9 charts). FPPE/proctoring has to be representative of the provider’s scope of practice. 4. Concurrent proctoring (direct observation) of at least 3 different procedures that are representative of procedures regularly performed in the department. FPPE/proctoring has to be representative of the provider’s scope of practice. 5. Providers who do inpatient and outpatient work need to be proctored in both . 6. FPPE/Proctoring is also required for at least one (1) procedure/case of each of the requested “non-core” privileges. 7. FPPE should be concluded as soon as possible (i.e. within the first 3-4 months after starting work at CCRMC). 8. Completed FPPE forms have to be submitted to the Credentialing Office. 9. It is the applicant’s ultimate responsibility to make sure that FPPE and submission of all required paperwork to the Credentialing Office takes place in a timely manner. Failure to do so may result in loss or limitation of privileges. 10. For low volume providers (gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, reproduct ive endocrinology): please see separate FPPE/proctoring guidelines. 11. For more detailed information, please see separate FPPE/proctoring guidelines. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRACTITIONER I have requested only those privileges for which by education, training, current experience, and documented performance I am qualified to perform and for which I wish to exercise at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and I understand that: a. In exercising any clinical privileges granted, I will adhere by hospital and medical staff policies and rules applicable generally and any applicable to the particular situation. b. Any restriction on the clinical privileges granted to me is waived in an emergency situation, and in such situation my actions are governed by the applicable section of the medical staff bylaws or related documents. Name: ____________________________________________________________ Effective from _______/_______/_______ to _______/_______/_______ (for MSO staff use only) 20 | 20 Signed ________________________________________Date _____________________ DEPARTMENT / DIVISION CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATION I have reviewed the requested clinical privileges and supporting documentation for the above - named applicant and: Recommend All Requested Privileges Recommend Privileges with the Following Conditions/M odifications: Do Not Recommend the Following Requested Privileges: Privilege Condition/M odification/Explanation Notes: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ [Department Chair] Signature : ______________________________ Date: _______________ FOR MEDICAL STAFF SERVICES DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Credentials Committee Approval Date _____________________ Temporary Privileges Date _____________________ Medical Executive Committee Approval Date _____________________ Board of Supervisors Approval Date _____________________ RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25591 to reassign one (1) Clerk Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) position number 13394 and the incumbent from Workforce Services (Dept. 0504) to Administrative Bureau's Personnel Unit (Dept 0501) in the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). FISCAL IMPACT: This position is funded by 44% Federal revenue, 51% State revenue, and 5% County cost. This Board Action will shift $104,232 of personnel costs from Department 0504 to 0501. BACKGROUND: EHSD has a staff of just under two thousand employees. With such a large number of employees, EHSD has a designated personnel division with seven Human Resource Analyst, one of which supports Leave Management. The Leave Management Analyst requires clerical support in the performance of this task. The Clerk Experienced Level is a critical component of the leaves team in that this position supports the Analyst in notifying APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Bao Tran (925) 608-5027 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Bao Tran C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Reassign One Clerk-Experienced Level Position and Incumbent from Workforce Services to Administrative Services BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) employees of Family Medical Leave designations, California Family Rights Act, Pregnancy Leave, Bonding leaves as well as eligibility and denials. The clerk will prepare and monitor sending and returning FMLA documents that determine employee leave status. The clerk will also maintain the tracking log of all employees currently on leave in all six (6) of the bureaus within EHSD including Children and Family Services, Aging and Adult, Administration, Workforce Services, Workforce Development Board, and the Community Services Bureau. The Clerk Experienced Level will provide crucial support in the data entry of ECOtime, EHSD’s new system used to track leaves, and will manage the leaves team electronic mailbox. The Leaves Management Human Resource Analyst II, is dependent on the support, knowledge, and organization of the Experienced Level Clerk to ensure leave documents are processed in a timely manner to maintain notification, tracking and inform both employees and supervisors of the status of all staff currently on leave. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Currently, the department does not have a support clerk assigned to leave administration, leading to a substantial backlog. If this action in not approved the department will continue to struggle to meet federal and state guidelines in response time to employees. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25591 AIR 41523 Reassign Class and Incumbent MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25591 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25607 to increase the hours of one (1) Licensed Vocational Nurse (VT7G) position number #9186 at salary plan and grade level TAX-1287 ($4,555 - $5,817) and one Registered Nurse (VWXG) position #15457 at salary plan and grade level L32-1880 ($9,902 - $12,357) and incumbents from part-time (32/40) to full-time (40/40) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: This action has an annual increased cost of approximately $67,397 which already includes $16,617 in pension costs. This cost is fully offset by overtime hours already worked by the incumbents. (Enterprise Fund I) BACKGROUND: Due to the added clinic services at the Concord Health Center, there has been an increased volume of work which includes direct patient care nursing duties that consist of immunizations, request for medication refill, assist in mammography scheduling, wound dressing changes and other various clinical duties. Both incumbents have been working full time hours over the past six months and there is a need for these incumbents to continue to meet the demands for all Concord Health Centers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jo-Anne Linares, 925-957-5240 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase Hours of One Licensed Vocational Nurse and One Registered Nurse Positions in the Health Services Department CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these position hours are not increased, the Health Services Department will have insufficient nursing staff to maintain clinical responsibilities within the ambulatory clinics, and patient care services will be compromised. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300-25607 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25607 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25607 DATE 05/20/20 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No.0540 Org No.6386 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the hours of Licensed Vocational Nurse (VT7G) position #9186 and Registered Nurse (VWXG) position #15457 from 32/40 to 40/40 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: _________ Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $67,397.00 Net County Cost 0 Total this FY $5,616.00 N.C.C. this FY $0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT: 100% Enterprise Fund I Department must initiate necess ary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Jo-Anne Linares ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT _____________Sarah Kennard for ______ _____5/21/20___ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 5/21/2020 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project positio n(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ACKNOWLEDGE Resolution No. 2008/299 adopted May 6, 2008, authorizing the Human Resources Department to implement the Tactical Employment Team Program (TETP), and AUTHORIZE the Human Resources Department to activate the program to mitigate possible layoff impacts due to financial impacts of COVID-19. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no specific fiscal impact related to this action as it is an administrative action to reduce the potential impact of position reductions. BACKGROUND: Attached for reference is a copy of Resolution No. 2008/299, adopted May 6, 2008, which authorized implementation of the Tactical Employment Team Program. The Tactical Employment Team was reimplemented several times since then and is still technically operational. The objective of this program is to mitigate the negative impact that anticipated layoffs will have on the County workforce. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Communication of employees' transitional options may be delayed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: All County Departments (via CAO) C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Activate the Tactical Employment Team Program (TETP) ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2008-299 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute an Amendment to Agreement #19-0218-1 with the California Department of Food and Agriculture effective July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 to increase the payment limit amount by $25,151 to a new payment limit of $813,569, for reimbursement to the county who will provide pest detection trapping services and add Peach Fruit Fly delimitation trapping. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment will increase the Agriculture department's reimbursement by $25,151 for expenses incurred for a new contract limit of $813,569. There is no county match of funds. BACKGROUND: In responses to the detection of four (4) Peach fruit flies in the city of Brentwood and Oakley from July 31 to August 14, 2019; and one (1) Peach fruit fly in Concord on August 5, The county shall provide additional services for placing and servicing delimitation traps following the protocols detailed in the Insect Trapping Guide. Exotic insect pests are considered hazardous to agriculture and the economy of California. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 925-608-6600 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Matt Slattengren Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Agreement #19-0218-1 Exotic Pest Detection Trapping CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action would result in loss of revenue to the department and possible threat to our local agriculture and residents of Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #28–501–29 with Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District, a government agency, to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which includes a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021 FISCAL IMPACT: Agency will pay County the voluntary contributions it receives from participating seniors, after it has paid its authorized expenses. The Agency funds these services and no County match is required. BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing an average of 50 congregate meals per day, five days per week for senior citizens at the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District. On July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #28–501–28 with the Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2019 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #28–501-29 with Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) through June 30, 2020, which included a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2020. Approval of Novation Contract #28–501–29 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows the Agency to continue providing services through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s senior citizens who depend on County’s Senior Nutrition Program will not receive meals at Contractor’s facility. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #28-556-25 with the City of Martinez, a government agency, to provide congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which includes a three-month automatic extension through September 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Agency will pay County the voluntary contributions it receives from participating seniors, after it has paid its authorized expenses. No County funds are required. BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing an average of 25 congregate meals per day, five days per week for senior citizens at the Martinez Senior Citizens Center. On July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #28-556-24 with the City of Martinez, for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, which included a three-month automatic APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #28–556–25 with the City of Martinez BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) extension through September 30, 2020, for the provision of congregate meal services for County’s Senior Nutrition Program. Approval of Novation Contract #28–556–25 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows Agency to continue providing services through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, senior citizens who depend on County’s Senior Nutrition Program will not receive meals at Contractor’s facility. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute the Cooperative Implementation Agreement, including County indemnification, with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Caltrans to reimburse the County in an amount not to exceed $3,945,000 for the County's design and construction of three large full trash capture devices in unincorporated San Pablo (Tara Hills) for the period of June 2, 2020 to May 1, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: The Project is being funded by Caltrans, per the Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA). Some minimal set-up costs will be paid for by the Stormwater Utility Assessments as part of Contra Costa County’s (County) Trash Reduction Measures. BACKGROUND: The County is a permittee under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP). One of the current MRP requirements is to reduce trash discharging from the County municipal separate storm sewer system APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Michele Mancuso, (925) 313-2236 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Allison Knapp, Deputy Chief Engineer, Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Michele Mancuso, County Watershed Program, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Cooperative Implementation Agreement with Caltrans, San Pablo area. Project No. 7517-6W7079 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (MS4) by 100% by 2022. As part of this effort, the County is looking for opportunities to install full trash capture systems to prevent trash from flowing from MS4s to creeks and the Bay. Caltrans is also required to reduce trash from its highways, which travel through communities and have stormwater drainage systems that tie into MS4s. Caltrans is looking for opportunities to partner with municipalities to implement trash control measures. Unincorporated County has an opportunity to collaborate with Caltrans under a CIA. Under a CIA, Caltrans would provide the funds to pay for the design and installation of large full trash capture systems in the County storm drain system in Tara Hills, unincorporated San Pablo. The County would coordinate the planning, design, and installation and would maintain these systems within the County road right of way. Both Caltrans and the County would receive credits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for the reduction of trash and possibly from the removal of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and mercury, bound to sediment, from the MS4. The County is obligated to indemnify Caltrans for third party claims arising out of the County's acts or omissions in performing the agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action isn’t approved, the County will not be able to install large full trash capture devices in Tara Hills. ATTACHMENTS Contra Costa County CIA 2020-03-30 rev 2020-04-03 Caltrans and CC County CIA Summary and Cost REV 3 (5/13/20) Tara Hills FTC Locations CCC and Caltrans 051320 [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 1 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 COOPERATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON [Month, Day, Year], is between the State of California acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as CALTRANS and the [local government name – Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors] , a body politic and a municipal corporation ? (chartered City - County) of the State of California, referred to herein as AGENCY. CALTRANS and AGENCY are together referred to as PARTIES. RECITALS 1. CALTRANS and AGENCY, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to the State Highway System (SHS) as a watershed stakeholder within AGENCY’s jurisdiction. 2. As per Attachment IV of the Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit Order 2012-0011-DWQ (NPDES Permit), Section I.A, CALTRANS and AGENCY are to collaboratively implement the NPDES Permit requirements as they have been identified as stakeholders in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or contain Significant Trash Generating Areas (STGA) for [facility name/location – Tara Hill Full Trash Capture Project ,in Unincorporated San Pablo] (hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”). CALTRANS has agreed to contribute an amount not to exceed [amount in English] Dollars [$X,XXX,XXX] to AGENCY for AGENCY to construct the PROJECT, within the regional area under the jurisdiction of AGENCY to comply with the TMDL or to treat STGAs. The NPDES Permit (including Attachment IV) is located at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/caltrans.shtm 3. AGENCY has agreed to implement the PROJECT subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement including all documents attached hereto that are incorporated herein and hereby made a part of this Agreement (collectively referred to as the “AGREEMENT”). 4. AGENCY will be responsible for all management, maintenance and operations, including costs of the constructed PROJECT. 5. CALTRANS will be credited with one (1) Compliance Unit (CU) for each Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($88,000) paid to AGENCY. A compliance unit is defined as one (1) acre of CALTRANS’s Right-of-Way (ROW) from which the runoff is retained, treated, and/or otherwise controlled prior to discharge to the relevant reach. The financial equivalent as submitted by CALTRANS is One Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Dollars ($176,000) per CU. The State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) is encouraging collaborative efforts and Cooperative Implementation Agreements, and uses a 50% discount for CU in dollars contributed to the Cooperative Implementation. This sets the CU equivalent at Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($88,000). 6. For NPDES permit compliance, CALTRANS will claim a percentage of PROJECT pollutant waste load reductions granted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for PROJECT equal to the percentage of total PROJECT cost contributed by CALTRANS or the waste load allocation assigned to CALTRANS for the PROJECT [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 2 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 watershed, whichever is less. CALTRANS intends to use the project waste load reductions to demonstrate equivalent load reductions required to meet its TMDL waste load allocations. 7. Cooperative Implementation has the following advantages: Cooperative Implementation (i) allows for retrofit projects off the ROW, at locations that may otherwise have space, access, or safety limitations within the ROW; (ii) provides for the involvement of local watershed partners who have an interest and expertise in the best way to protect, manage, and enhance water quality in the watershed; (iii) allows for implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other creative solutions not typically available to CALTRANS; (iv) allows for larger watershed-scale projects; and (v) leverages resources from other entities. 8. All services performed by AGENCY pursuant to this AGREEMENT are intended to be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and AGENCY laws, ordinances, and regulations, and with CALTRANS published manuals, policies, and procedures. In case of conflict between Federal, State and AGENCY laws, ordinances, or regulations, the order of precedence applicability of these laws shall be Federal, State and then AGENCY laws and regulations, respectively. 9. CALTRANS share of PROJECT funding is as follows: FUND TITLE FUND SOURCE DOLLAR AMOUNT SHA State of California $[X,XXX,XXX] [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 3 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 SECTION I All sections of this AGREEMENT including the recitals are enforceable. 1. AGENCY has agreed to implement PROJECT in accordance with Attachment II-SCOPE SUMMARY. The SCOPE SUMMARY that is attached to and made a part of this AGREEMENT defines in detail the PROJECT’s scope of work, description, schedule, location and budget. 2. AGENCY will be responsible for all management, maintenance and operations, including costs of the constructed PROJECT. 3. AGENCY will develop and construct the PROJECT in accordance with the applicable laws, policies, practices, procedures and standards. This applies to all procurements, including land acquisitions, licenses and permits. 4. AGENCY shall prepare initial engineering and geotechnical assessments, and detailed design as well as acquire environmental reviews and ROW needed for the PROJECT. This work is the AGENCY equivalent to CALTRANS process of Project Initiation Document (PID), Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA & ED) and Plans, Specification and Estimate (PS&E). AGENCY will pay for coordinate, prepare, obtain, implement, renew, and amend all any permits needed to complete the PROJECT. AGENCY will prepare CEQA environmental documentation to meet CEQA requirements. 5. AGENCY will advertise, open bids, award, and approve the construction contract in accordance with the California Public Contract Code and the California Labor Code and will be responsible for the administration, acceptance, and final documentation of the construction contract. 6. AGENCY shall be reimbursed for actual costs not exceeding the amount provided in the AGREEMENT herein. 7. CALTRANS shall have the right to inspect the work to be performed hereunder at any time during its progress and to make final inspection upon completion thereof. Failure of CALTRANS to object within 30 days after final inspection shall indicate satisfactory performance of the AGREEMENT by AGENCY. 8. The total amount reimbursable to AGENCY pursuant to this AGREEMENT by CALTRANS shall not exceed $[X,XXX,XXX] (“Contract Sum”). Costs incurred by AGENCY for PROJECT work under this AGREEMENT in excess of the Contract Sum will be borne by AGENCY. It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT fund limit is an estimate and that CALTRANS will only reimburse the cost of services actually rendered as authorized by the CALTRANS Contract Manager or designee at or below the fund limitation amount set forth in this AGREEMENT and in accordance with the Budget included in Attachment II. 9. All administrative draft and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created or utilized for PROJECT will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law, and where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code section 6254.5(e) shall govern the disclosure of such documents in the event said documents are shared between the Parties. Parties will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone without prior written consent of [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 4 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 the party authorized to release said documents except: (i) to employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete the work described within this AGREEMENT; or (ii) where release is required or authorized by law. 10. HM-1 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that requires removal and disposal pursuant to Federal or State law, whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. HM-2 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to Federal or State law, only if disturbed by PROJECT. 11. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT costs, is responsible for any HM-1 found within existing CALTRANS ROW. CALTRANS will undertake HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule and will pay all costs associated with HM-1 management activities. 12. CALTRANS has no responsibility for management activities or costs associated with HM-1 found outside the CALTRANS existing ROW. AGENCY, independent of PROJECT costs, is responsible for any HM-1 found within PROJECT limits outside existing CALTRANS ROW, and will pay, or cause to be paid, all costs associated with HM-1 management activities. AGENCY will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule. 13. If HM-2 is found within the limits of PROJECT, the AGENCY responsible for advertisement, award, and administration (AAA) of the PROJECT construction contract will be responsible for HM-2 management activities. Any management activity cost associated with HM-2 is a PROJECT construction cost. 14. This AGREEMENT may only be amended or modified by mutual written agreement of the parties. [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 5 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 SECTION II- GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. TERMINATION A. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by the PARTIES upon mutual written agreement. In the event of a termination CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY all allowable, authorized, and non-cancelable obligations and costs incurred by AGENCY prior to the termination. B. CALTRANS reserves the right to terminate this AGREEMENT before the AGENCY awards the construction contract or begins to do project work. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY reasonable, allowable, authorized and non-cancelled costs up to the date of termination that are attributable to the PROJECT. C. This AGREEMENT will terminate upon completion of PROJECT when all parties have met all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in this AGREEMENT and have signed a closure statement, which is a document signed by the parties that verifies the completion of PROJECT, except that all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, pending legal challenge, hazardous material, operation, maintenance and ownership provisions will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. D. AGENCY has sixty (60) days after the effective date of AGREEMENT termination, or such other time agreed upon in writing by PARTIES, to submit invoices to CALTRANS to make final allowable payments for Project costs in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. Failure to submit invoices within this period may result in a waiver by AGENCY of its right to reimbursement of expended costs. 2. BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSE All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this AGREEMENT are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, and the State Budget Act authority. It is mutually agreed that if the State Legislature does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this AGREEMENT shall be amended if possible to reflect any reduction in funds, but nothing herein obligates the PARTIES to provide additional funding or proceed if sufficient funding is unavailable. 3. ALLOWABLE COST, PAYMENTS AND INVOICING A. The method of payment for this AGREEMENT will be based on actual allowable costs. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for expended actual allowable direct costs and indirect costs, including, but not limited to labor costs, employee benefits, travel (overhead is reimbursable only if the Agency has an approved indirect costs allocation plan) and contracted consultant services costs incurred by AGENCY in performance of the PROJECT work, not to exceed the cost of the Contract Sum. B. Reimbursement of AGENCY expenditures will be authorized only for those allowable costs actually incurred by AGENCY in the performance of the PROJECT WORK. AGENCY must not only have incurred the expenditures on or after the Effective Date of [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 6 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 this AGREEMENT and before the Termination Date, but must have also paid for those costs to claim any reimbursement. C. PARTIES will agree upon CALTRANS’ annual reimbursement of the PROJECT costs, throughout its duration. Total reimbursement will not exceed the amount stated in Recital 2. The encumbered funds are to be expended and invoiced by AGENCY by May 1 of the third Fiscal Year from the fiscal year they were encumbered. Any funds encumbered, but not expended by the end of the third Fiscal Year, will not be reimbursed to AGENCY by CALTRANS. D. Travel, per diem, and third-party contract reimbursements are a PROJECT costs only after those hired by AGENCY to participate in PROJECT incur and pay those costs. Payments for travel and per diem will not exceed the rates paid rank and file state employees under current California Department of Human Resources rules current at the effective date of this AGREEMENT. E. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for all allowable PROJECT costs no more frequently and no later than monthly in arrears and as promptly as CALTRANS fiscal procedures permit upon receipt of itemized signed invoices. Invoices shall reference this AGREEMENT Number and shall be signed and submitted electronically to the Contract Manager at the following address: tom.rutsch@dot.ca.gov; cc: kriti.uppal@dot.ca.gov If electronic submittal is not possible, mail invoice to: California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis – Fiscal Analysis Unit, MS 27 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5680 F. Invoices shall include the following information: 1) Invoice Cover Sheet The invoice cover sheet summarizes the previous, current and total amounts billed for the AGREEMENT. Details included on the cover sheet are: a. “INVOICE” near top of page b. Invoice Date c. Contract Number (D43CIAxx000x) d. Invoice Number (minimum format: City Initials-3-digit Invoice Number (XXX-001) e. Billing period (performance period), specified with beginning and ending dates (towards top of page). All work performed must be during the billing period. Invoice billing periods must not overlap. f. Brief description of the work performed g. Summary of total dollar amount billed to date i. Previous month invoice balance ii. Amount billed this month iii. Total amount billed including current invoice amount [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 7 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 h. Total amount due i. Summary of charges i. AGENCY (municipality) labor costs ii. Sub-Vendor labor costs (consultant) iii. Sub-vendor direct costs (materials, equipment, miscellaneous itemized costs) iv. Other direct costs j. Discounts (if applicable) k. Remittance information including name and address (MUST match Payee Data Record Declaration of Business Location [Form FA-204] submitted at contract execution or on file) l. AGENCY Contract Manager’s name, address and phone number m. AGENCY Contract Manager’s signature and signature block n. CALTRANS Contract Manager’s name and address o. CALTRANS Contract Manager’s signature block. 2) Invoice and Supports All invoice charges must match the rates on the contract cost proposal and personnel request. (Changes in billing rates must be approved BEFORE billing.) The CALTRANS’ Contract Manager must be provided invoices or other documentation with sufficient detail to verify the charges are allowable under the AGREEMENT with sufficient support to allow them to verify charges. Supporting documentation, such as receipts, is required for all costs included on the invoice that are not for hourly or sub- contract labor. AGENCY labor charges need to show person’s name, hours worked, billing rate and brief description of work performed. Supporting documents (timesheet or payroll report) need to be provided. These documents need to include: a. Name (first and last) b. Hours charged c. Brief description -- identify the work is for the project funded by the Cooperative Implementation Agreement d. Month, day and year of the charges (must be within the billing period) e. Worker and supervisor’s signatures (Exceptions can be made for electronic timesheets.) All overtime must be approved in advance by the CALTRANS Contract Manager. Direct costs (such as material costs, vehicle rental) are reimbursable. These costs need to be verified, therefore, a copy of the receipt, paid purchase order or other documentation that shows the items and cost needs to be attached to the invoice. AGENCY personnel travel costs may be reimbursed according to the Consultant and Contractor travel guidelines located on the CALTRANS’ website at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/travel/ch12/1consultant.htm. The Travel Expense Claim (TEC) form is available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/travel/ch5/1tec.htm. [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 8 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 Subcontractor costs are reimbursed after providing a copy of the paid invoice. This invoice needs to show that the AGENCY contract manager reviewed and approved the payment. CALTRANS requires its vendors to submit proof of costs incurred, such as timesheet or payroll records, travel reimbursement form (that includes the reason and dates for travel) with receipts, receipts for materials, lab services or other items) and CALTRANS assumes the AGENCY has similar requirements that are documented. 3) Progress Reports Each invoice needs to be accompanied by a Progress Report for the billing period. This report includes: a. Work performed during the billing period (can be in a bullet format) b. Contract progress estimate -- percentage of work completed (not dollar based) c. Work anticipated during the next billing cycle (can be in a bullet format) d. Total amount spent during the billing period (AGENCY personnel, AGENCY direct costs, subcontractor costs and total) e. Total amount spent to date (AGENCY, subcontractor, total) f. Percentage of Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA) funds used to date. [Total (AGENCY and subcontractor)/CIA not to exceed amount)] 4. COST PRINCIPLES A. If PARTIES fund any part of PROJECT with state or federal funds, each PARTY will comply, and will ensure that any sub-recipient, contractor or subcontract hired to participate in PROJECT will comply with the federal cost principles and administrative requirements of 2 CFR, Part 200. These principles and requirements apply to all funding types included in this AGREEMENT. B. Any Project costs for which AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, and/or Title 48, Chapter 1, Part 31, are subject to repayment by AGENCY to CALTRANS. Should AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due CALTRANS within thirty (30) days of discovery or demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the parties hereto, CALTRANS is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due AGENCY from CALTRANS. C. PARTIES will maintain and make available to each other all PROJECT related documents, including financial data, during the term of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES will retain all PROJECT-related records for three (3) years after the final payment voucher. [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 9 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 5. INDEMNIFICATION Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon AGENCY under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that AGENCY, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. 6. RETENTION OF RECORDS/AUDITS A. AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate incurred PROJECT costs. The accounting system of AGENCY, its contractors, all subcontractors, and sub-recipients shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), shall enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and shall provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. All books, documents, papers, accounting records and other supporting papers and evidence of performance under this AGREEMENT of AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients connected with PROJECT performance under this AGREEMENT shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of final payment to AGENCY and shall be held open to inspection, copying, and audit by representatives of CALTRANS, the California State Auditor, and auditors representing the federal government during business hours with appropriate notice. Copies thereof will be furnished by AGENCY, its contractors, its subcontractors and sub-recipients upon receipt of any request made by CALTRANS or its agents. In conducting an audit of the costs under this AGREEMENT, CALTRANS will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of AGENCY pursuant to the provisions of State and AGENCY law. In the absence of such an audit, any acceptable audit work performed by AGENCY’s external and internal auditors may be relied upon and used by CALTRANS when planning and conducting additional audits. B. AGENCY, its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors will permit access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, employment application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair Employment Practices and Housing Commission, or any other AGENCY of the State of California designated by CALTRANS, for the purpose of any investigation to ascertain compliance with this AGREEMENT. C. This AGREEMENT shall be subject to a pre-award audit prior to execution of the AGREEMENT to ensure AGENCY has an adequate financial management system in place to accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable and allocable costs. D. CALTRANS, the state auditor, and the Federal Government, (if the PROJECT utilizes federal funds), will have access to all PROJECT-related records held by AGENCY or by any party hired by AGENCY to participate in PROJECT. [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 10 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 E. The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation. F. Upon completion of the final audit, AGENCY has thirty (30) calendar days to refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of the audit. 7. DISPUTES A. PARTIES will first attempt to resolve AGREEMENT disputes at the PROJECT team level. If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS Chief Environmental Engineer and the executive officer of AGENCY will attempt to negotiate a resolution. B. If PARTIES do not reach a resolution, AGENCY’ legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTIES agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. C. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTIES from full and timely performance of PROJECT in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. However, if either PARTY stops fulfilling PROJECT, the other PARTY may seek equitable relief to ensure that PROJECT continue. D. Except for equitable relief, no PARTY may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or 45 calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first. E. PARTIES will file any civil complaints in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this AGREEMENT resides or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. The prevailing PARTY will be entitled to an award of all costs, fees, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees as a result of litigating a dispute under this AGREEMENT or to enforce the provisions of this article including equitable relief. F. Additional Dispute Remedies. PARTIES maintain the ability to unanimously pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution. 8. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES It is expressly understood that this AGREEMENT is an agreement executed by and between two independent governmental entities and is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship whatsoever other than that of an independent party. 9. NOTIFICATION OF PARTIES A. AGENCY: [Project Manager name, title, email address and phone number – Michele Mancuso, Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist Michele.Mancuso@pw.cccounty.us, 925-313-2236 Contra Costa County Public Works, Watershed Program Formatted: Not Highlight [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 11 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 255 Glacier Drive A. Martinez, CA 94553]. B. CALTRANS: Tom Rutsch, Stormwater Coordinator; tom.rutsch@dot.ca.gov; 916-653- 7396 C. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and received by the parties at their respective addresses: [AGENCY – Contra Costa County Public Works, Watershed Program] [AGENCY Contact for Notices – Michele Mancuso] [AGENCY address-255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553] California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis - MS 27 Attention: Tom Rutsch, Stormwater Coordinator 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5680 Formatted: Indent: Left: 2.13", First line: 0" [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 12 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 SECTION III ATTACHMENTS The following attachments are incorporated into and are made a part of this AGREEMENT by this reference and attachment. I. AGENCY Resolution, Certification of Approval, order, motion, ordinance or other similar document from the local governing body authorizing execution of the AGREEMENT. II. Scope of Work, Description, Schedule, Location and Budget. SECTION IV- SIGNATURES Signatories may execute this AGREEMENT through individual signature pages provided that each signature is an original. This AGREEMENT is not fully executed until all original signatures are attached. PARTIES are empowered by California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) sections 114 and 130 to enter into this AGREEMENT and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the respective agencies and covenant to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this AGREEMENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA [AGENCY – Contra Costa County] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Signature: Signature: Print Name: TOM RUTSCH Print Name: [NAME – Tim Jensen] Title: Stormwater Coordinator Title: [Title- Supervising Civil Engineer Deputy County Counsel] Date: Date: Signature: Signature: Print Name: SHAILA CHOWDHURY Print Name: [NAME – Brian M. Balbas] Title: Assistant Chief, Division of Environmental Analysis Title: [Title – Chief Engineer]Public Works Director Date: Date: Signature: : Print Name: PHIL STOLARSKI Title: Chief, Division of Environmental Analysis [AGENCY INPUT] [AGENCY name – Contra Costa County] [CALTRANS INPUT] CIA No. 43CIACC0001 Page 13 of 13 CALTRANS CIA AGREEMENT March 2020 Date: Caltrans and Unincorporated Contra Costa County Cooperative Implementation Agreement Installation of Trash Capture Devices in unincorporated San Pablo Project Summary and Cost Estimate (Cost Rev. 5/13/20) 1 C:\Users\cwindham\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\5O62PJX8\Caltrans and CC County CIA Sum. and Cost REV 3 051220.docx Project Summary County Project Managers Michele Mancuso Contra Costa Watershed Program Gus Amirzehni Contra Costa Flood Control Location Unincorporated San Pablo (Tara Hills), adjacent to I-80 2 watersheds west of I-80: E. Flannery and Shamrock Goal Installation of large full trash capture systems to collect trash from the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharging from Caltrans I-80 right of way and unincorporated County to Garrity Creek. Credits for Trash Reduction This project will provide trash reduction credit to both Caltrans and unincorporated Contra Costa County and may provide some credit in the reduction of PCBs and mercury. Phasing/Timing Phase 1: Planning and Design Phase 2: Construction Project Description This project proposes to plan, design and construct large full trash capture devices (FTCD) in two watersheds. It is estimated that these FTCDs will capture stormwater from approximately 39 acres of Caltrans right of way; and approximately 78 acres of moderate or high trash in the E. Flannery and Shamrock watersheds. Caltrans and Unincorporated Contra Costa County Cooperative Implementation Agreement Installation of Trash Capture Devices in unincorporated San Pablo Project Summary and Cost Estimate (Cost Rev. 5/13/20) 2 C:\Users\cwindham\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\5O62PJX8\Caltrans and CC County CIA Sum. and Cost REV 3 051220.docx Cost Estimate (Rev 5/13/2020) Project Phases Watersheds E. Flannery Shamrock Phase 1 Planning and Design $ 928,000 $ 449,000 Phase 1 Total* $ 1,377,000 Proposed to be invoiced by May 1, 2022 Phase 2 Construction $ 1,737,000 $ 829,000 Phase 2 Total* $ 2,566,000 Proposed to be invoiced by May 1, 2023 Phase 1 & 2 Total $ 3,943,000 * Includes Contingency ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!! !!!!! ! !! !!!! ! !! ! !!!! !! !!!!! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !! !! !! ! !!!! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! East Flanne ry Sha mrock Limerick Fis he r North Ta ra Hills West Flannery Sull ivan Ardmore Sargent Cres twood South Tara Hills Kav anagh Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Unincorporated San Pablo (Tara Hills)Large Full Trash Capture Device Locations ³ 0 0.1 5 0.3 0.45 0.60.075 Mile s !Drainage Inlets Garrity C reek Drianage Pipes & Culverts Drainage Ditches Potential HDS (CDS) Installation Sites Watersheds of Interest Other Watersheds Trash Rate 2009 Category LowMediumHighVery Hig h Document Path: P:\GIS US ERS - Development\Hallford2\2020\CalTrans_TaraHills\Tar a Hills FTC CD S Unit Location_NEW3b.mxdMap Update: 5/12/2020 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to submit funding application #28-920 to the California Board of State and Community Corrections – Proposition 64 Public Health and Safety Grant Program, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for implementation and expansion of Substance Use Disorders (SUD) treatment for youth to address the impact of marijuana legalization by improving safety and improving public health through education, policy, and treatment for the period from October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: No County match is required. BACKGROUND: In November of 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). AUMA legalized the recreational use of marijuana in California for individuals 21 years of age and older. Proposition 64, in pertinent part provides that a portion of the tax revenue from the cultivation and retail sale of cannabis of cannabis products will be appropriated for making grants available to local governments to assist with law enforcement, fire protection, or other local programs APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Fatima Matal Sol, 925-348-3279 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of Application #28-920 with the California Board of State and Community Corrections BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) addressing public health and safety associated with the implementation of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Because Contra Costa did not ban cultivation, including personal cultivation or retail sale of marijuana or marijuana products, our county is well positioned to apply for this grant. If awarded, this grant would allow for the expansion of existing limited substance use disorders primary prevention, Behavioral Health intervention and treatment for youth ages 12 up to 18 years of age in the southeast region of the City of Antioch which has experienced significant growth over the last 30 years. The County’s Juvenile Justice Consolidated Plan (JJCP) 2021-2022 identified the disparities in services for youth residing in East County, which includes Antioch, and advocates for an increase in services stating that drug abuse intervention is the second highest priority area amongst at-risk and justice-involved youth. The Department's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services Division in partnership with the Public Health Division’s Tobacco Project will submit this proposal which combines expertise in the implementation of public health approaches to mobilize the community and engage young people to lead policy changes toward enforcement of regulation and limit underage availability and access of marijuana through education and social media. This proposal will support departmental goals of addressing health inequities in the county. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment Agreement #29-812-3 with the City of Concord, to amend Grant Agreement #29-812-1, as amended by Amendment Agreement #29-812-2, to increase the amount payable to the County by $25,000, from $26,000 to a new amount of $51,000, with no change in the term of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020 FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment agreement will allow the County to receive an additional amount not to exceed $25,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 from the City of Concord. No additional County funds required. BACKGROUND: The Coordinated Outreach, Referral and Engagement (CORE) Program provides homeless outreach services to residents in Concord and Pleasant Hill. CORE Program services locate and engage homeless clients throughout Contra Costa County. CORE teams serve as an entry point into the County’s coordinated entry system for unsheltered persons and work to locate, engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals and families. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6701 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #29-812-3 with the City of Concord BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 24, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Agreement #29-812-1, as amended by Amendment Agreement #29-812-2, to receive funds from the City of Concord for the provision of the CORE Program, for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020. This Agreement included agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor for claims arising out of County’s performance under this Contract. Approval of Agreement #29-812-3 will allow County to receive additional funds for homeless outreach services through June 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not receive funding and without such funding, the CORE program may have to operate at a reduced capacity. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to apply for and accept funding in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the State's California Arts Council, to provide sub-grants to arts organizations serving vulnerable populations during COVID-19 for the period June 30, 2020 through December 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This action would increase the budget for the Arts Commission of Contra Costa County by up to $20,000 in State revenue, received through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding. No County match is required and up to 20% of funds awarded can be used for program administration costs. The remaining 80% of funds would be paid out through sub-grants. BACKGROUND: On May 8, 2020, the California Arts Council (CAC) determined it will distribute $710,400 in federal CARES Act funding to the 54 State-Local Partner grantees, on an opt-in basis. As a CAC State-Local Partner, this Board Order would give the Arts Commission of Contra Costa County (AC5) the opportunity to opt into this grant opportunity. The program this grant will fund APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julia Taylor, 925.335.1043 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Apply for and Accept California Arts Council CARES Act Grant Funding BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) is for re-granting funds to arts organizations serving socially vulnerable populations within their communities. Grant funding will need to be distributed to community arts organizations by December 31, 2020. Executing this program will require the support and participation of AC5 Commission Members. AC5 will vote on opting into this grant funding at their next public meeting, as well. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: As a State-Local Partner, AC5 will not be able to support the CAC in distributing CARES Act funding to local arts organizations most in need. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with C & J Painting, effective April 30, 2020, to extend the term from April 30, 2020 to April 30, 2021, with no change to the payment limit of $3,000,000, to provide on-call painting services for Facilities Services, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: C & J Painting is one of two contractors currently under contract for on-call painting services. Both contracts are due to expire April 30, 2020. On-call painting contracts are on an as-needed basis, utilized when the demand for painting services exceeds staffing levels. The Public Works Department is requesting authorization to extend both contracts, one additional year to assure there are painting services available while conducting a formal solicitation for new on-call painting services contracts. The process for formal solicitation to fully executed contract(s), is currently approximately 6 to 8 months. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, (925) 313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 2 to the Contract with C & J Painting to extend On-Call Painting Services CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, painting services with C & J Painting will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aspiranet to extend from June 30, 2020 to December 31, 2020 with no change in the payment limit of $1,830,561, to provide critical emergency shelter receiving center services for children taken into protective custody or transitioning through foster placement. FISCAL IMPACT: No change in payment limit. The funds allocated for this contract are 70% State 2011 Realignment and 30% County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Receiving Centers serve as the hub of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) emergency shelter system. They provide temporary care to children who have been taken into protective custody and children and youth who are transitioning into resource family (foster) placements. The Receiving Centers offer a APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. Pacheco, 925-608-4963 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Laura Malone C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Aspiranet Contract Amendment to Extend Term BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) homelike setting and are designed to promote stability in placement, focus on the needs of the individual child, minimize move, and support permanence at the early stages of EHSD intervention. Approval of Contract Extension Agreement will allow the Contractor to provide emergency shelter placement services to youth through December 31, 2020, while renewal Contract terms are being renegotiated. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Emergency shelter will not be available to temporarily care for children taken into protective custody. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and 5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families", by providing a homelike environment for children entering the Child Welfare System. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with The Ratcliff Architects, effective June 2, 2020, to increase the payment limit by $750,000 to a new payment limit of $1,500,000 and to extend the term from July 10, 2021 to July 10, 2022, to provide as-needed architectural services for various Facilities projects. FISCAL IMPACT: Projects will be assigned to the as-needed architect when there is an approved project and funding. (100% Various Funds) BACKGROUND: On July 10, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved an as-needed Consulting Services Agreement with Ratcliff, in the amount of $750,000 which will be terminating on July 10, 2021. The contract payment limit of $750,000 has nearly been reached. Amendment No. 1 is necessary to provide architectural services and the additional costs associated with the completion of ongoing and new projects. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria 925-957-2480 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve and Authorize Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Services Agreement with The Ratcliff Architects (Ratcliff) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Ratcliff is familiar with these active projects, and the design and construction of typical building type and especially health care facilities. Therefore, it is recommended that the contract amendment be awarded at this time. Ratcliff will continue to provide architectural services, such as programming, design and construction administration. The type, size and location of projects vary. Typical projects may include new construction, building renovations/modernizations, remodeling of an entire building or specific areas within a building, tenant improvements, exterior building restorations, MEP upgrades, structural improvements, code-related improvements and deferred maintenance projects. Projects may also include fire district buildings projects. Extending this as-needed agreement will save the county money when compared to the time and expense in conducting a consultant selection process on a project-by project basis, and allow the design phase to commence sooner and provide for a shorter project completion schedule. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Amendment No. 1 is not approved, projects currently in process will be delayed, which will ultimately result in higher project costs. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with A Step Forward Child Abuse Treatment and Training Programs, a Marriage, Family and Child Counseling Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 to provide mental health services to non Medi-Cal eligible clients for the period of August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This will increase expenditures by $200,000 funded 30% through County General Fund and 70% through State 2011 Realignment revenues. BACKGROUND: A Step Forward Child Abuse Treatment and Training Programs, a Marriage, Family and Child Counseling Corporation (Contractor) provides mental health services for non Medi-Cal eligible clients of Employment APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 8-4961 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with A Step Forward Child Abuse Treatment and Training Program, a Marriage, Family and Child Counseling Corporation for Mental Health Service BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and Human Services Department (EHSD). Contractor will also provide services determined appropriate and authorized by EHSD's Children and Family Services Bureau (CFS), for Medi-Cal eligible client services that are not covered by Medi-Cal (i.e. report writing). Contract includes compliance with certification requirements, maintaining compliance with Contractor’s County Mental Health Services contract, compliance with reporting requirements, coordination with other County services, and maintaining quality of services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, EHSD’s ability to provide mental health services to many non MediCal clients will be hindered. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The services provided under this contract support four of the five Contra Costa County community outcomes: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families” by mental health services to non Medi-Cal clients. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-341-70(9) with Bay Area Doctors, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,250,000, to provide Medi-Cal specialty mental health services for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is by funded 50% Federal Medi-Cal and 50% State Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On January 14, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution #97/17, authorizing the Health Services Director to contract with the State Department of Mental Health, (now known as the Department of Health Care Services) to assume responsibility for Medi-Cal specialty mental health services. Responsibility for outpatient specialty mental health services involves contracts with individual, group and organizational providers to deliver these services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Laura Bright C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-341-70(9) with Bay Area Doctors, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On June 26, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-341-70(7), as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #74-341-70(8) with Bay Area Doctors, Inc., for the provision of Medi-Cal specialty mental health services for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020. Approval of Contract #74-341-70(9) will allow the Contractor to continue providing mental health services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, services provided to Contra Costa Mental Health Plan Medi-Cal beneficiaries could be negatively impacted, including access to services, choice of providers, cultural competency, language capacity, geographical locations of service providers, and waiting lists. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aspiranet to increase the payment limit by $90,900 to a new payment limit of $1,397,020, to add fifteen (15) Early Head Start Partnership slots and additional health and safety reporting requirements pertaining to Head Start Program Enhancement Services for the term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment will increase budgeted expenditures by $90,900 to a new payment limit of $1,397,020, funded 65% Federal revenues from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start and funded 35% State revenues from the California Department of Social Services via Employment and Human Services Department/Workforce Services Bureau. County match is not required. CFDA Number: 93.600 BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Head Start and Early Head Start Program services to program eligible County residents. The Department, in turn, contracts with a number of community-based organizations APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB, (925) 681-6346 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Christina Reich, Haydee Ilan C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:2019-20 Aspiranet Childcare Services Contract BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to provide a wider distribution of services. On December 10, 2019 (C. 85) the Board approved a contract for the provision of 134 program slot / Head Start and Early Head Start services to program eligible children and families in Contra Costa County. This amendment is to add $90,900 to the contract for the provision of fifteen (15) additional Early Head Start slots. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to provide increased services through this agency. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County's community outcomes - Outcome 1: "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School," Outcome 3: "Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient, " and, Outcome 4: "Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing." These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income pregnant women and families throughout Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-969-17 with Gupta Etwaru, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $1,445,000, to provide ophthalmology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers for the period from June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On June 13, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-969-16 with Gupta Etwaru, M.D, to provide ophthalmology services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #26-969-17 will allow Contractor to continue to provide ophthalmology services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through May 31, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-969-17 with Gupta Etwaru, M.D. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-967-20 with Thomas McDonald, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $1,445,000, to provide ophthalmology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers for the period from June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On June 13, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-967-19 with Thomas McDonald, M.D, to provide ophthalmology services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #26-967-20 will allow Contractor to continue to provide ophthalmology services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through May 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring ophthalmology services will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: A Floyd C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-967-20 with Thomas McDonald, M.D. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with First Place For Youth in an amount not to exceed $634,392 to provide transitional housing assistance for emancipated youth for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: The funds allocated for this contract are 100% State Transitional Housing Program Plus and is included in the Department's Fiscal Year 2020-21 recommended budget. BACKGROUND: First Place For Youth provides Transitional Housing Program (THP) - Plus support services to emancipated foster youth up to age 24 who have been referred by the Independent Living Skills Program staff. AB427 enabled the State to announce the availability of THP-Plus funds to counties interested in providing transitional housing services to emancipating foster youth. Contra Costa County elected to participate in the program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Housing and support services for youth transitioning from foster care to independent living will be hindered. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with First Place For Youth for Transitional Housing Assistance for Emancipated Youth CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; (3) Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. This is accomplished through providing safe housing and support to assist youth while transitioning from foster care to independent living. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Phamatech, Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $316,260 for Child Welfare Mandated Drug Testing services for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in expenditures of up to $316,260 and will be funded 30% by County General Funds and 70% by State 2011 Child Welfare Services Outcome Improvement Project-Realignment funds. BACKGROUND: This contract was first awarded January 23, 2019 through a competitive bid process, Request For Proposals 1164. Random drug tests are court-ordered services and are ordered as part of the client service plan. Laboratory results are submitted for inclusion in the Child Welfare Family Maintenance and Reunification cases. Services include insuring the availability of specimen collection sites, screening test specimens, providing "on-demand" sample testing when requested by the County's Employment and Human Services Department, and providing monthly statistics to the Department for clients referred for drug testing. The contract for FY 19-20 was approved by the board on May 7, 2019 (c.81). This board order is to approve the first renewal of the contract for FY 20-21. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Phamatech, Incorporated for Mandatory Child Welfare Drug Testing Services CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without this service, the Employment and Human Services Department would be unable to comply with court-ordered drug testing. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74–190–21 with Mental Health Management I, Inc. (dba Canyon Manor), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $247,069, to provide mental health subacute care and treatment services for adults, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funds. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population in that it provides long-term care for adults with serious mental illness who require skilled nursing inpatient psychiatric care. On July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74–190–20 with Mental Health Management I, Inc. (dba Canyon Manor), to provide mental health sub-acute care and treatment services for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. Approval of Contract #74–190–21 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide services through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74–190–21 with Mental Health Management I, Inc. (dba Canyon Manor) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County residents will not receive any mental health subacute care and treatment services provided by this Contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE and RATIFY the execution of the following contracts by the County Administrator, or designee, in an aggregate amount of $700,000 plus certain variable costs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency declaration: 1. Temporary Entry and Use License Agreement with 2600 CR, LLC dba Sunset Development Company, including modified indemnification language, for use of 2600 Camino Ramon in San Ramon as a County COVID-19 testing site for the period April 30, 2020 through September 30, 2020 at no cost to the County. (Vendor Contract Form) 2. Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Brentwood, including mutual indemnification language, for use of the Brentwood Senior Center as a State COVID-19 testing site for the period May 23, 2020 through August 20, 2020 at no cost to the County. (County Contract Form) 3. License Agreement with Orton Entertainment LLC, including indemnification of Orton Entertainment LLC by the County, in the amount of $400,000 plus certain cleaning fees for use of the Craneway Pavilion located in Richmond as an alternate care site for the period June 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020 with an option to renew each thirty (30) day period upon mutual agreement. (Vendor Contract Form) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy M. Ewell, (925) 335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:RATIFY CONTRACTS EXECUTED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY DECLARATION RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 4. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to enter into a contract with Ernst and Young, LLP in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for COVID-19 cost recovery consulting services for the period June 2, 2020 through May 30, 2022. (Vendor Contract Form) FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $700,000 plus certain variable costs including utilities, cleaning fees, taxes etc. 100% General Fund. The County anticipates reimbursement from the Federal CARES Act funding and/or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at the end of the pandemic. FEMA reimbursement generally results in a 75% Federal cost share of eligible local costs. The FEMA reimbursement process will cross into at least fiscal year 2020/21 resulting in immediate and potenially long-term impacts to the County general fund as vendor payments are made to the entities listed in this board order. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County, along with Health Officers from the Bay Area, have announced Public Health Orders that require residents to stay home to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus, also known as COVID-19. This initial order was in effect until April 7, 2020, but was extended on March 31, 2020 to last through May 3, 2020. The March 31, 2020 order also expanded and clarified certain activities to deemed non-essential to include use of shared recreational facilities and most construction activities. In addition, on April 17, 2020, the Health Officer issued a "Cover Your Face" order, which went into effect on April 22, 2020. The new order requires face coverings when working in or visiting an essential business, riding on public transportation and visiting a healthcare facility. These critical interventions have been designed to reduce harm from the spread of the coronavirus in our community. All Bay Area Health Officers observed quickly mounting cases and serious illnesses across the region. Because the virus spreads so easily, without dramatic intervention like these orders, it would result in so many people needing medical attention in a hospital setting that County hospitals will be overwhelmed. The County may not have enough beds or equipment to adequately care for the most seriously ill. And health care workers and other first responders, countywide, are also at risk. If those healthcare workers and first responders get sick there are fewer people to provide health care and first response services during the pandemic. The County has activated the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and several Department Operations Centers (DOC) to assist in the response to the pandemic. Those operations centers are the hub for procurement and distribution of services and equipment necessary to respond to the emergency. In support of this, the County Administrator, in his capacity of Administrator of Emergency Services (County Code Section 42-2.602) issued an emergency blanket purchase order in the amount of $20 million on Friday, March 20, 2020 for the procurement of services and supplies necessary to facilitate the COVID-19 response within the County. The Board of Supervisors subsequently ratified the County Administrator's action on March 31, 2020. Similarly, the County Administrator has entered into several agreements, including service contracts, license agreements and leases to support the activities responding to COVID-19. The first set of such contracts was ratified by the Board on April 14, 2020 (Agenda Item No. C.22). The second set was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 28, 2020. The third set was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 12, 2020 (Agenda Item No. C.60). Federal Disaster Relief Actions On Friday, March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a nationwide emergency in response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic pursuant to Sec. 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the “Stafford Act”). That action provides access to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance program, which allows for a 75% Federal cost share on certain emergency protective measures taken at the direction or guidance of public health officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualifying expenditures are those that are not supported by the authorities of another federal agency (i.e. reimbursement for response activities funded by another Federal agency grant program). Examples of reimbursable activities include the activation of Emergency Operations Centers, National Guard costs, law enforcement and other measures necessary to protect public health and safety. The Governor's Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) is facilitating the collection of FEMA Requests for Public Assistance (RPA) from agencies (public and private) impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. CalOES has advised that RPA documents, which do not include a specific dollar amount of public assistance being requested, be filed no later than April 17, 2020. Filing of this document allows agencies, including the County, to be on record stating that costs have been incurred as part of the response effort and allows for a request to FEMA that a portion of those costs be reimbursed in the future. In addition, CalOES has requested that impacted agencies adopt required Project Assurances for Federal Assistance and a resolution designating agents that can act on behalf of the impact agency. On March 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors took action to adopt Resolution No. 2020/112 authorizing the County Administrator to submit the RPA documents discussed above to CalOES to ensure the opportunity for Federal cost reimbursement. The County subsequently filed its RPA with FEMA, which was approved on April 17, 2020. The County has been informed that the next step in the cost recovery process is to attend a virtual Applicant Briefing, which will provide more detailed information regarding steps to file claims with FEMA in concert with CalOES. State Disaster Request and Presidential Authorization Following the President's action, Governor Newsom requested that the Federal government declare a major disaster in California due to COVID-19. The President approved the State's request on Sunday, March 22, 2020, which activated additional Federal resources directed to assist California, including deployment of mobile hospital units and a U.S. Navy hospital ship among other things. Contra Costa County was a recipient of mobile field hospital equipment and took delivery of those resources at the Craneway Pavilion in Richmond, which will serve as a 250-bed alternate care site supporting the capacity of the County's hospital and clinic system. A renewal of the license agreement for the Craneway Pavilion for May 2020 was approved by the Board on April 28, 2020 and a renewal for the period June 1 through September 30, 2020 is part of this board order. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contracts executed by the County Administrator in response to the COVID-19 emergency will not be ratified by the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Language Line Services, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $50,000 to a new limit of $1,050,000 for interpretation and translation services for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract amendment will increase Department expenditures by an additional $50,000 to be funded with 5% County, 51% State and 44% Federal revenue. BACKGROUND: Language Line Services, Inc. provides telephone interpretation, on-site interpretation, and document translation services to the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) and to the clients served by EHSD. Services are provided to the County adult population, children, families, and employment and training program related clients throughout the County. State and Federal regulations require the County to provide public information materials regarding client services to potential, present and past recipients in APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with Language Line Services, Inc. for Interpretation and Translation Services BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) any non-English language that is prevalent within the County. The contract for 2019-2020 was approved by the board on7/30/19 (c.44). This board order is to authorize a contract amendment to add $50,000 to the contract for additional services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: EHSD would be unable to meet requirements for the administration of State and Federal programs. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contracts with the following agencies for County's placement of participants in the Sheriff's Custody Work Release Program for the term July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022: City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Clayton, City of Concord, Town of Danville, East Bay Regional Park District, City of Hercules, Town of Moraga, City of Pittsburg, City of San Pablo and Contra Costa County Public Works Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of housing inmates in custody is reduced. Historically, some program fees were collected from individual, based on their ability to pay. Program fees are currently suspended due to a moratorium placed on certain fees by the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: Since the early 1980s, work alternative or work-for-credit programs have been utilized in county jails to provide work experience, inmate rehabilitation, and community restitution for the societal costs of criminal activity. Specifically, Penal Code section 4024.2 provides APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Work Release Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for a work release program, which our County has operated since 1983. Inmates accepted into the program provide public service labor at no cost to the County while relieving housing costs associated with incarceration. Assigned inmates report to work sites, perform tasks that might not otherwise be funded, and satisfy court judgments. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The consequence of a negative action on this request would reduce the number of approved work sites by approximately 75 percent. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to continue the process of reimbursement to those employers participating in the Contra Costa Works (CCWORKS) Subsidized Employment Program whereby the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) will enter into worksite contractual/financial agreements with employers to allow for reimbursement of not less than $14.00 per hour but not to exceed $20 per hour for those CalWORKs clients worksited with employers during the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: CalWORKs participant wage reimbursements are funded with $857,533 CalWORKs Single Allocation, 92% Federal and 8% State revenue. (CFDA #93.558) BACKGROUND: Based upon the success of the subsidized employment programs operated in response to Senate Bill 72 which extended the State reimbursement to counties for subsidized employment programs as authorized by Assembly Bill (AB) 98 (now Assembly Bill 74), EHSD developed and implemented the subsidized employment program known as CCWORKS. Following the guidelines and funding options of AB 98 and building upon the success of previous APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contra Costa Works (CCWORKS) Subsidized Employment Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Subsidized Employment and Training (SET) programs operated under the American Recovery and Reimbursement Act (ARRA), the CCWORKS program has been designed very similarly to other programs operated in the Bay Area. CalWORKs participants will be screened into the program and placed with local employers (for-profit, non- profit, and public agencies) who will have the responsibility for (under contractual/financial worksite agreements) the payroll, associated taxes, and workers compensation for the CCWORKS program participant approved and worksited within their organization. The employers will hire the eligible CalWORKs CCWORKS participants upfront and will train the participants to appropriate skills for the position in which they are placed. CCWORKS participants will receive a wage comparable to those workers performing the same or like duties at the worksite. The worksite agreement will be signed with the employer for each participant that is placed at the employer's worksite. Under the CCWORKS program, EHSD will reimburse no less than $14.00 per hour and not to exceed $20 per hour (due to the anticipated increase in minimum wage) for a minimum of 20 hours per week to a maximum of 40 hours per week (no overtime will be subsidized). The individual contracts with each employer will state the reimbursement process and those reimbursements will be paid on the contractual timeline of six months. Monthly reimbursement invoices will be submitted by participating employers for each client employed through the CCWORKS program. The invoices will be reviewed by EHSD CCWORKS staff and submitted to the EHSD Fiscal Unit for payment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval, the CCWORKS program participants will have fewer employment opportunities and will continue reliance on public benefits. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to continue the process of reimbursement to those employers participating in the Expanded Contra Costa Works (CCWORKS) Subsidized Employment Program whereby the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) will enter into worksite contractual/financial agreements with employers to allow for reimbursement of not less than $14.00 per hour but not to exceed $20 per hour for those CalWORKs clients worksited with employers during the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Expanded CalWORKs participant wage reimbursements are funded with $960,666 CalWORKs Single Allocation, 92% Federal and 8% State revenue. (CFDA #93.558) BACKGROUND: Based upon the success of the subsidized employment programs operated in response to Senate Bill 72 which extended the State reimbursement to counties for subsidized employment programs as authorized by Assembly Bill (AB) 98 (now Assembly Bill 74), EHSD developed and implemented APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contra Costa Works (CCWORKS) Expanded Subsidized Employment Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the subsidized employment program known as CCWORKS. Following the guidelines and funding options of AB 98 and building upon the success of previous Subsidized Employment and Training (SET) programs operated under the American Recovery and Reimbursement Act (ARRA), the Expanded CCWORKS program has been designed very similarly to other programs operated in the Bay Area. CalWORKs participants will be screened into the program and placed with local employers (for-profit, non- profit, and public agencies) who will have the responsibility for (under contractual/financial worksite agreements) the payroll, associated taxes, and workers compensation for each Expanded CCWORKS program participant approved and worksited within their organization. The employers will hire the eligible CalWORKs Expanded CCWORKS participants upfront and will train the participants to appropriate skills for the position in which they are placed and Expanded CCWORKS participants will receive a wage comparable to those workers performing the same or like duties at the worksite. Expanded Subsidized Employment Program targets Welfare to Work clients who are limited English proficient, challenged by domestic violence, have criminal arrest histories, disabled veterans, pregnant and parenting youth and those completing the family stabilization Component The worksite agreement will be signed with the employer for each participant that is placed at the employer's worksite. Under the Expanded CCWORKS program, EHSD will reimburse no less than $14.00 per hour and not to exceed $20 per hour (due to the anticipated increase in minimum wage) for a minimum of 20 hours per week to a maximum of 40 hours per week (no overtime will be subsidized). The individual contracts with each employer will state the reimbursement process and those reimbursements will be paid on the contractual timeline of six months. Monthly reimbursement services will be submitted by participating employers for each client employed through the Expended CCWORKS program. The invoices will be reviewed by EHSD CCWORKS staff and submitted to the EHSD Fiscal Unit for payment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without funding, the Expanded CCWORKS Program participants will have fewer employment opportunities and will continue reliance on public benefits. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. APPROVE a Substantial Amendment to the County’s FY 2019/20 CDBG/ESG Annual Action Plan to add $2,728,826 in Community Development Block Grant-Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funds and $1,390,138 in Emergency Solutions Grant-Coronavirus (ESG-CV) funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020; and 2. APPROVE staff recommendations for the allocation of CDBG-CV funds in the following categories:$727,687 in Food Security; $727,687 in Rental Assistance; $727,687 in Microenterprise Loan/Grant Assistance; and $545,765 in Program Administration; and 3. APPROVE staff recommendation for the allocation of $1,390,138 in ESG-CV funds to support the Project Roomkey initiative in Contra Costa County; and 4. AUTHORIZE the DCD Director, or designee, to execute the program certifications and applications (SF-424's) for transmittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and 5. AUTHORIZE the DCD Director, or designee, to execute CDBG-CV and ESG-CV program/project agreements with the service providers identified in this Substantial Amendment to the FY 2019/20 CDBG/ESG Annual Action Plan approved and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gabriel Lemus, 925-674-7882 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Substantial Amendment to the County’s FY 2019/20 CDBG/ESG Action Plan – Allocation of CARES Act funding FISCAL IMPACT: There is no General Fund impact. All funds are provided to Contra Costa County on a formula basis through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE CDBG - 14.218 ESG Program - 14.231 BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was passed by Congress and signed by the President on March 27, 2020, in response to the harmful effects of the novel coronavirus known as COVID-19. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has allocated $2 billion in CDBG funding and $1 billion in ESG funding under the CARES Act to eligible grantees. Contra Costa County, as a CDBG and ESG grantee, has been awarded the following CARES Act grants: 1) $2,728,826 in Community Development Block Grant-Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funds; and 2) $1,390,138 in Emergency Solutions Grant-Coronavirus (ESG-CV) funds. Grantees may use these funds for a range of activities but the funds must prevent, prepare for, and/or respond to the coronavirus and its impacts. Due to the nature and focus of these supplemental funds, HUD is encouraging grantees for quick access to these funds to address the immediate crisis resulting from this historical health pandemic. HUD is requiring all CDBG/ESG grantees to amend their FY 2019/20 CDBG/ESG Action Plan in order to access and distribute these funds to the community. As permitted in the CARES Act, HUD is allowing the following waivers to the typical CDBG and ESG regulations due to the urgency of utilizing these funds. - The County is not required to update the Needs Analysis sections of its 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan and its FY 2019/20 Action Plan. - The 30-day public comment period has been reduced to a minimum of 5 days. - The typical 15 percent Public Service cap for the CDBG Program is removed. - The typical 60 percent Emergency Shelter Services cap for the ESG Program is removed. - The typical 100 percent match requirement for the ESG Program is removed. Grantees will be required to document that the activities funded through CDBG-CV and ESG-CV are in response to COVID-19. Staff recommends funding the following activities with the CDBG-CV and ESG-CV funds: CDBG-CV - Food Security/Food Assistance programs: As the economic toll of COVID-19 spreads across the community, hunger is a growing concern. Local food security programs have experienced an increase in the number of people needing food. Staff acknowledges the need to ensure residents have access to food to reduce hunger, and is recommending Loaves and Fishes, the Food Bank of Contra Costa, and Meals on Wheels Diablo Region to meet this need in our community. Each of these agencies has experience and has responded to the pandemic by increasing services since the Shelter in Place order took place.($727,687) - Emergency Rental Assistance: In support of the County’s Ordinance 2020-14, adopted on April 21, 2020, regarding residential evictions during the COVID-19 local emergency, staff acknowledges the need to provide financial assistance to eligible households so they can remain in their homes and avoid homelessness. Staff is recommending Shelter, Inc. to meet this critical need and to provide this assistance to support eligible households in the County. Shelter, Inc. has successfully administered such a program and has recently created a dedicated hotline for residents to call. ($727,687) - Microenterprise Loan/Grant Assistance: With the COVID-19 situation rapidly changing, virus containment and mitigation have become priority in every community across the County, forcing small businesses to temporarily shut down. Unfortunately, some businesses have had to permanently shut down as business has dwindled. To mitigate this economic impact, Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center (Renaissance) is providing relief to County businesses that have been greatly affected by the COVID-19 economic downturn. Renaissance will provide a loan/grant of no more than $10,000 to eligible microenterprises in the County that have been negatively impacted by COVID-19. ($727,687) - General Program Administration: County staff will take on additional responsibility in managing these new programs to ensure that federal requirements are met and funds are being utilized in the manner necessary to address impacts of COVID-19. The Administration line item funds the additional work. ($545,765) ESG-CV - Project Roomkey: Congregate shelters for the homeless, where many people shelter together in one space, present a risk for quick spread of the virus. The State of California, with the support from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds, launched the “Project Roomkey” initiative in early April to assist communities move homeless individuals and families from existing congregate emergency shelters to hotel and motel rooms as temporary shelters. The Health, Housing, and Homelessness Division (H3) of Contra Costa County’s Health Services Department is the lead agency in managing and coordinating this effort in the County. H3 has been working with the County pursuant to the County’s Health Officer recommendation that all emergency shelter clients be moved out of congregate shelter facilities and into safe individual quarters at hotels and motels. Staff is recommending all the ESG-CV funds ($1,390,138) be allocated to H3 to support the County’s “Project Roomkey” initiative. Hotel placement is a large expense and not all individuals are covered by the limited FEMA funds to address the pandemic. Specifically, FEMA allows for partial reimbursement of funds to place high risk or COVID-19 positive individuals in temporary shelter for isolation. Due to the County Health Officer guidance, H3 is seeking additional accommodation for all other individuals at shelters who are healthy and do not otherwise qualify for the FEMA-funded placement at hotels during the course of the pandemic. The ESG-CV funds would be used by H3 to support ensuring all persons in shelters are not further displaced into literal homelessness and that the County can continue to manage the spread of the virus by placing those individuals into safe temporary shelter at hotels. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Substantial Amendment to the FY 2019/20 CDBG/ESG Action Plan is not approved, it would delay or jeopardize the County receiving CDBG-CV and ESG-CV to specifically address some of the negative impacts from COVID-19 experienced by many residents and households throughout the County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; (3) Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; (4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. ATTACHMENTS CDBG-CV Activity Table ESG-CV Activity Table Community Development Block Grant-Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) Activity Data Spreadsheet Date: June 2, 2020 Project ID Sponsor (name and address)Activity Name- Location Activity Description Eligibility (Regulatory or HCDA Citation) National Objective Citation CDBG-CV Funds Request CDBG-CV Funds Recommended 1 Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano Collaborative Food Distribution Program -CV Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano provide food to low-income persons in the Urban County during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Food Bank has experienced an increase of over 50 percent since "Shelter In Place" orders took place as a result of COVID-19 24 CFR 570.201(e) 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)(i)(B) $242,562 $242,562 2 Loaves & Fishes of Contra Costa Nourishing Lives Program- CV : Martinez and Oakley Loaves & Fishes of Contra Costa will provide free lunches and groceries weekdays to homeless and low-income Urban County residents at the Loaves & Fishes Martinez and Oakley Dining Room. These funds would support the additional increase in meals provided in the Oakley location, Monday thru Friday, while the Martinez Dining Room will begin serving weekend meals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Meals are provided via "take-out" as oppose to the tradtional congregate setting. Loaves and Fishes has experience a 60 percent increase of meals provided since "Shelter In Place" orders took place as a result of COVID-19 24 CFR 570.201(e) 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)(ii) $242,562 $242,562 3 Meals on Wheels Diablo Region Meals on Wheels (MOW)- CV Meals On Wheels will provide food security by delivering nutritious meals to frail, homebound seniors living in Contra Costa County, thereby allowing them to safely avoid the negative health impacts of COVID-19. Meals On Wheels has experineces an increase in requests for service of approximately 50 percent since "Shelter In Place" orders took place as a result of COVID-19. 24 CFR 570.201(e) 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)(i)(A) $242,562 $242,562 4 Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center Microenterprise Grant/Loan Assistance Program-CV In order to mitigate the negative economic impact of COVID-19 on County businesses, Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center will provide Microenterprise Loan/Grant Assistance. Eligible microenterprises will receive no more than $10,000 in loans/grants. 24 CFR 570.201(o)(1)(i) 24CFR 570.208(a)(2)(iii) $727,687 $727,687 5 Shelter, Inc. Rental Assistance/Homeless Prevention; Rapid Rehousing Program-CV Shelter Inc. provides remergency renatal assistance/homeless prevention-rapid rehousing services to Urban County residents to quickly regain or maintain stable, permanent housing or maintain their housing. 24 CFR 570.201(e) 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2)(i)(A) $727,687 $727,687 6 CCC Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 CDBG-CV Administration Program administration of CDBG-CV funds for the Urban County. 24 CFR 570 206(a) N/A $545,765 $545,765 $2,728,826 $2,728,826 Jurisdiction/Grantee Name: Contra Costa County CDBG-CV Formula Grant Amount: $2,728,826 Total Emergency Solutions Grant-Coronavirus (ESG-CV) Activity Data Spreadsheet Date: June 2, 2020 Project ID Sponsor (name and address)Activity Name- Location Activity Description Eligibility (Regulatory or HCDA Citation) ESG-CV Funds Request ESG-CV Funds Recommended 1 CCC Health Services Health, Housing & Homeless Services (H3)Project Roomkey Initiative Support Placement of homeless populations who are currently in congregate shelters into hotels/motels in order to provide emergency shelter and supportive services in non-congregate settings to limit or prevent the spread of COVID-19 24 CFR 576.102 $1,390,138 $1,390,138 $1,390,138 $1,390,138 Jurisdiction/Grantee Name: Contra Costa County ESG-CV Formula Grant Amount: $1,390,138 Total RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the Certification Statement for the California Children’s Services Program and the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program as required by the State of California. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: The State of California requires an annual statement certifying that the County’s California Children’s Services Program (CCS) and the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program (CHDP) will comply with all applicable provisions, federal and state regulations and laws, including the Health and Safety Code and any applicable rules or regulations promulgated by the California Department of Health Care Services. The CCS certification statement must be signed by the CCS Program Administrator, Health Officer, and Chair of the local governing board. The CHDP certification statement must be signed by the CHDP Director, Health Officer, CHDP Deputy Director/Program Manager and Chair of the local governing board. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Kayla Torres, Marcy Wilhelm C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Annual California Children’s Services Program Certification CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the certifications are not signed and returned to the State, the County will not be in compliance with program requirements. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Cert Statement MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Certification Statement RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on April 23, 2020, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: The National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) requires that evidence of Board of Supervisors approval must be contained within each CCHP provider’s credentials file. Approval of this list of providers as recommended by the CCHP Medical Director will enable the Contra Costa Health Plan to comply with this requirement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan’s Providers would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with the NCQA. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharon Mackey, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Heather Wong C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve New and Recredentialing Providers in Contra Costa Health Plan’s Community Provider Network ATTACHMENTS CCHP Credential-Recredential List Apr. 23, 2020 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director April 23 , 2020 CREDENTIALING PROVIDER S APRIL 2020 Name Specialty Cashman, Gwendolyn NP Mid -Level Pulmonary Diseas e Chase, Peter, DDS Dentist Dulan, Nilka, CNM Midwife Everett, Nancy, M D OB/GYN Kalsow, Katherine, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Kaur, Amirt, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Lambert, Michaela, CNM, NP Midwife Lynch, Bahama, BA, RBT Qualified Autism Professional Magallon, Jessica, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Neal, Molly, NP Mid -Level Family Planning Ochalek, Daniel, MD Surgery – General Reyes, Candy, RBT Qualified Autism Paraprofessional Sanandaji, Niloofar, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Sanchez, Daniel, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Sandhu, Surmeet, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Schmidt, Hayley, AMFT Mental Health Services Singh, Amarpreet, MD Psychiatry Snyder, Peggy, PhD Mental Health Services Stefans, Alexandria, NP Mid -Level Infectious Disease/ HIV/AIDS Tomsky, Jana, MD Urgent Care CREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDER APRIL 2020 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location One Access Medical Transportation Non -Emergency Transportation Newark RECREDENTIALING PROVIDER S APRIL 2020 Name Specialty Agarwal, Anita, MD Ophthalmology A naya, Laura, PA Mid -Level Family Planning Bush, Jacob, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Christian, Angela, NP Mid-Level Allergy & Immunology Contreras, David, MD Surgery – Orthopaedic Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director April 23, 2020 Page 2 of 2 RECREDENTIALING PROVIDER S APRIL 2020 Name Specialty Cortez, Sandy , RD Dietitian Dubois, Robert, LAc Acupuncture Ennix, Jr., Coyness, MD Surgery – Thoracic Greenberg, Alissa, BCBA -D Qualified Autism Provider Hill, Toby, HAD Hearing Aid Dispensing Johnson, Sara, MD OB/GYN Lynch, Bonney, LAc Acupuncture Makinde, Akinwunmi, DPT Physical Therap y Martinez, Daryl, MD Pulmonary Disease Mesa, Juan, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Michlitsch, Michael, MD Surgery – Orthopaedic Mooney, Robert, MD Urgent Care Nguyen, Minh, MD Pulmonary Disease Pritchard, Elaine, MFT Mental Health Services Rizo, Michelle, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Schuman, Emily, M.Ed., BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Stanley, Guadalupe, PA Primary Care Family Medicine Takekuma, Hiromi, DO Pulmonary Disease Torres, Joseph, PA Mid -Level Orthopaedic Surgery Assistant Waters, Tiffany, PA Mid -Level Orthopaedic Surgery Assistant RECREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDER S APRIL 2020 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location Acclaim Mobility, LLC Non -Emergency Transportation Pitt sburg Health Essentials Resource & Services, Inc. dba: Essentials Home Health Home Health Hayward Sy camore Healthcare Associates dba: Legacy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center Skilled Nursing Facility Martinez Sequoia Surgical Center, LP dba: Sequoia Surgical Pavilion Ambulatory Surgery Center Walnut Creek Bopl-April 23, 2020 RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept Annual Report on Council on Homelessness Advisory Board itemizing the advisory body’s activities and accomplishments for 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2011/497, which requires that each advisory board, commission, or committee (body) to report annually to the Board on its activities, accomplishments, membership attendance, required training/certification, and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Marcy.Wilhelm, Jaime Jenett C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:2019 Annual Report on Council on Homelessness Advisory Board ATTACHMENTS Council on Homelessness 2019 Annual Report Advisory Body Name: Advisory Body Meeting Time/Location: Chair (during the reporting period): Staff Person (during the reporting period): Reporting Period: I. Activities (estimated response length: 1/2 page) Describe the activities for the past year including areas of study, work, special events, collaborations, etc. ADVISORY BODY ANNUAL REPORT II. Accomplishments (estimated response length: 1/2 page) Describe the accomplishments for the past year, particularly in reference to your work plan and objectives. III.Attendance/Representation (estimated response length: 1/4 page) Describe your membership in terms of seat vacancies, diversity, level of participation, and frequency of achieving a quorum at meetings. Describe the advisory body's workplan, including specific objectives to be achieved in the upcoming year. V. Proposed Work Plan/Objectives for Next Year IV. Training/Certification (estimated response length: 1/4 page) Describe any training that was provided or conducted, and any certifications received, either as a requirement or done on an elective basis by members. NOTE: Please forward copies of any training certifications to the Clerk of the Board. (estimated response length: 1/2 page) RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that the term of office of the Member 7 Alternate seat on the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees (Retirement Board) will expire on June 30, 2020 and that the County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937, Government Code Section 31523 prescribes that an election be held at the earliest possible date to fill the vacancy. 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/149 calling and noticing election of Retirement Board Member 7 Alternate (safety members of the Association ), as recommended by the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association Board. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The term of office of the Member 7 Alternate seat on the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Board of Trustees (Retirement Board) will expire on June 30, 2020. The safety members of the retirement system would elect a safety member from the fire suppression group to fill this office for the three-year term ending June 30, 2023, as provided in the attached Resolution, since the seventh member APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 06/02/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: cao, Deputy CEO Retirement, County Clerk - Elections C. 37 To: From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:June 2, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Election of Retirement Board Member Numbers 2, 7 Alternate, 8, and 8 Alternate BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) seat is currently held by a safety member from the sheriff’s group. Government Code Section 31520.1 (a) provides in part: "The seventh member shall be a safety member of the association elected by the safety members.The eighth member shall be a retired member elected by the retired members of the association in a manner to be determined by the board of supervisors. The alternate member shall be that candidate, if any, for the seventh member from the group under Section 31470.2 or 31470.4, or any other eligible safety member in a county if there is no eligible candidate from the groups under Sections 31470.2 and 31470.4, which is not represented by a board member who received the highest number of votes of all candidates in that group, and shall be referred to as the alternate seventh member. If there is no eligible candidate there may not be an alternate seventh member." Government Code section 31520.1 also provides in part: "(b)...The alternate seventh member provided for by this section shall vote as a member of the board only if the second, third, seventh, or eighth member is absent from a board meeting for any cause, or if there is a vacancy with respect to the second, third, seventh, or eighth member, the alternate seventh member shall fill the vacancy until a successor qualifies. The alternate seventh member shall sit on the board in place of the seventh member if a member of the same service is before the board for determination of his or her retirement. (c) The alternate seventh member shall be entitled to both of the following: (1) The alternate seventh member shall have the same rights, privileges, responsibilities, and access to closed sessions as the second, third, seventh, and eighth member. (2) The alternate seventh member may hold positions on committees of the board independent of the second, third, seventh, or eighth member and may participate in the deliberations of the board or any of its committees to which the alternate seventh member has been appointed whether or not the second, third, seventh, or eighth member is present." Nominations for the elected seats shall be on forms provided by the County Clerk starting on Monday, June 8, 2020 and filed in that office not later than 5 p.m. on July 3, 2020. Election Day is fixed as Tuesday, September 29, 2020. Any Ballot reaching the County Clerk’s Office after 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 29, 2020 shall be voided and not counted. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Inaction by the Board would result in a delay of election 7 Alternate member of the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association Board. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020/149 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/149 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 06/02/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/149 IN THE MATTER OF ELECTION OF RETIREMENT BOARD ALTERNATE SEVENTH MEMBER WHEREAS, the office of the alternate seventh member of the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association Retirement Board will be vacant on July 1, 2020. The County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937, Government Code Section 31523 prescribes that an election be held at the earliest possible date to fill the vacancy; and WHEREAS, the safety members of the retirement system would elect a safety member from the fire suppression group to fill this office for the three-year term ending June 30, 2023, since the seventh member seat is currently held by a safety member from the sheriff’s group (Government Code Sections 31523(a) and 31470.2.); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Nominations shall be on forms provided by the County Clerk starting on June 8, 2020 and filed in that office not later than 5 p.m. on July 3, 2020. The Clerk shall have ballots printed with the nominees’ names and with blank spaces for write-in candidates. The Clerk shall have a ballot mailed no later than August 31, 2020 to each member of the appropriate group of the Retirement Association as of July 1, 2020 with a ballot envelope in which to enclose the ballot when voted, imprinted “Retirement Board Ballot” or similar words, together with a “return postage guaranteed” envelope addressed to the County Clerk for mailing the ballot envelope to that office, and with instructions that the ballot shall be marked and returned to the County Clerk before 5 p.m. on election day. (See No. 2 below.) 1. Election Day is hereby fixed as September 29, 2020. Any Ballot reaching the County Clerk’s Office after 5 p.m. on September 29, 2020 shall be voided and not counted. 2. Notice of election and nomination procedure shall be given by the Clerk by publishing a copy of this resolution at least once in the Contra Costa Times, West Contra Costa Times, San Ramon Valley Times, and the Ledger Post Dispatch at least ten days before the last day for receiving nominations. (See No 1 above.) 3. On September 30, 2020, the County Clerk shall cause all valid ballots to be publicly opened, counted, and tallied by an Election Board, which shall forthwith certify the return to this Board; and this Board shall declare the winners elected, or arrange for a run-off election in case of a tie. 4. If the County Clerk receives no valid nominations for any position, he shall so inform this Board which shall call a new election therefore; and if the Clerk receives only one nomination for any position, he shall so notify this Board which shall direct the Clerk to cast a unanimous ballot in favor of the nominated member as prescribed in Government Code section 31523(c). 5. Contact: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 2, 2020 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: cao, Deputy CEO Retirement, County Clerk - Elections